Nov 092017
 

Judge Moore – please don’t drop out. Please.

They did the same thing to Herman Cain, and all his accusers disappeared just as soon as he dropped out.

The GOP establishment leaders also tried to tell President Trump to drop out just before the election. We are SO glad he didn’t.

To others – the GOP leaders do not want Judge Moore in the Senate and supported his primary opponent.  Failing that, they simply realized this was a good time to try this – while all the other accusations are swirling around concerning so many other people.  They think this is their best chance to get rid of him – so they jumped at it.

Please hang in there Judge Moore – we are praying for you.

Nov 052017
 

Full doc: Clinton-DNC secret agreement dated August 26, 2015 (PDF)

– http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo%20(002).pdf

Clinton-DNC secret agreement dated August 26, 2015

From Glen Greenwald : “DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying lawyer language claiming that it is “focused exclusively on preparations for the General,” but, as Fischer noted, that passage “is contradicted by the rest of the agreement.” This would be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official (“A will pay Politician B to vote YES on Bill X”), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that “nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe,” and then have journalists cite that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face explicitly says the opposite.” (https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/ 11-5-2017)

Note references to control over communications concerning ” a certain primary candidate,” for example, as well as the letter gives control over funds and decisions beginning in Sept 2015 – although no primaries took place until 2016.

 

 

Nov 032017
 

Calm down. Take a deep breath.  #ItsOkayToBeWhite  #ItsOkayToBeBlack

It’s okay to be any shade of skin tone.  It’s just skin, after all.  Nothing more.

It doesn’t dictate who you are as a person.

 

Far Left Protestors will NOT stop us.

 Comments Off on Far Left Protestors will NOT stop us.
Aug 202017
 

by Lisa Morris

I am an evangelical Christian and constitutional conservative who will continue to speak the truth, no matter what.

I will not attend rallies – which lately appear to be setting people up as sitting ducks.
But I WILL continue to speak, write, and vote my conscience – using information based on Biblical, historical, and documented truth – no matter what anyone says, and no matter what anyone calls me.

Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the intelligent, wise, and good men who founded our nation and wrote our Constitution. It was an amazing, unparalleled achievement.

To those who are confused by current inane rhetoric, many of our founding fathers did NOT believe slavery should be legal and openly spoke, wrote, and campaigned against it.

Less than 100 years after the founding of our nation, through the tireless work of many, slavery was finally made illegal in the United States.

But legal slavery remains today in many other nations – and ILLEGAL slavery and human trafficking are growing in the United States.

THAT is where rage needs to be focused – if one honestly cares about what slavery does to people. Save those who are enduring forced servitude in America and around the world TODAY.

God save and BLESS America. Make America Great Again.

Silence About Conditions at Pine Ridge Reservation

 Comments Off on Silence About Conditions at Pine Ridge Reservation
Jun 122017
 

by Thomas F. Sullivan

For generations, the residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation have lived with unemployment and poverty rates that have never been seen in the majority community even during the Great Depression.

According to an MSNBC Report on Pine Ridge on May 29, 2014, “Roughly four out of five residents are unemployed and well over half live in deep poverty…… Life expectancy is just 48 years old for men and 52 for women….. About 70 percent of the students will drop out of school before they graduate.”

That last statistic is especially troubling and is inconsistent with the claim frequently stated by tribal leaders that “Our children are sacred”.

According to that same MSNBC Report, “In a startling new draft report, issued in April 2014 by the Bureau of Indian Education which oversees 183 schools on 64 reservations in 23 states, focuses attention on BIE’s inability to deliver a quality education to its students. BIE schools are chronically failing. BIE operates ‘one of the lowest-performing set of schools in the country.’ During the 2012 – 2013 school year, only one out of four BIE-funded schools met state-defined proficiency standards and one out of three were under restructuring due to chronic academic failure…. BIE students performed lower on national assessment tests than students in all but one other major urban school district.”

Given these conditions which have persisted for generations as well as the almost total absence of any economic activity on the reservation, it is not surprising that there is a high level of dysfunction as well. This dysfunction is exemplified by the following health and social welfare measures:

* The infant mortality rate at Pine Ridge is one of the highest in the nation at 3 times the national average;
* The incidence of diabetes is 8 times the national average;
* Eight out of every ten people at Pine Ridge are alcoholics. Given this fact it is highly likely that most newborns on this reservation are born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), a severe developmental delay. Care of children with FASD requires an extended time commitment, great patience and resilience, none of which is in abundant supply in most reservation homes:
* Drug use and abuse, both prescription and illegal, is rampant;
* The teenage suicide rate is 150 percent of the national average. In the first 8 months of 2015. There were 19 completions by youth between the ages of 9 and 24 and more than 100 attempts by children from the same age group. Within the last week, a 12-year-old girl hanged herself on a tree behind the Sue Anne Big Crow Youth Center. Shortly before a 14-year-old boy recently completed, he was being counseled by one of his teachers. She told him that Lakota tradition teaches that a spirit set free by suicide is doomed to wander the earth in lonely darkness. “You don’t want that, do you?” His response was chilling, “Anything is better than here”.
* The level of domestic violence is at epidemic levels. In CY 2014 the Tribal Department of Public Safety prosecuted 470 cases of domestic violence. During the same period one of the Tribe’s domestic shelters reported they had responded to more than 1,300 cases of domestic violence:
* In CY 2016 there were 17 homicides on Pine Ridge, a rate 4 times the current homicide rate in the city of Chicago:
* For the last several years, the Pine Ridge reservation child protection staff has been investigating, relying on rigorous standards, every case of reported child sexual abuse and confirming, on average, 2 ½ cases per week for every week during each of those years. Considering that most estimates are that 10 percent or less of such abuse is ever reported, the seriousness of this level of child sexual abuse cannot be overstated.
* Research data are clear, children who are sexually abused are 2½ times more likely to attempt and/or complete suicide than children who have not been sexually abused.

On May 1, 2015, in the New York Times Ron Cornelius, the Great Plains Director of the Indian Health Service is quoted as saying, that “the recent suicides were an incredibly sad situation that IHS was committed to working with the tribe to address this heartbreaking problem.” It is not clear to me from the public record available to me just what the IHS has done to fulfill this commitment. At that time I was the ACF Regional Administrator in Denver and heard from friends on and around Pine Ridge, “There are a lot of ‘suits’ traveling to Pine Ridge. They are not meeting with anyone from the Reservation. They spend all of their time in a conference room talking with each other. They seem to make it a point to avoid any tribal members.”

However, former Pine Ridge Tribal Judge Saunie Wilson, in a power point presentation to a west coast conference on youth suicides in early 2017, described the 20 professionals sent to Pine Ridge by IHS to “solve” the reservation suicide epidemic in the following terms, “They had, No background checks, No licenses to work in South Dakota and No knowledge of reservation culture, mores or society.” Unfortunately, this is the same inept approach IHS used when there was a comparable burst of youth suicides on Montana’s Fort Peck Reservation several years earlier. I was invited by the Tribal Chair to sit in on the IHS meetings with Tribal staff as an impartial observer for the Tribe. As a result, I could observe what IHS was doing in response to the youth suicide burst on that Reservation. They were clearly not effective then. How could they believe they would be effective several years later?

On April 5, 2017, at a meeting of the Pine Ridge Tribal Law and Order Committee, the following statement was made by Richard Little Whiteman, a Council member and Chair of this Committee, “I haven’t seen this level of violence since the 1970s”. The Committee also heard reports that the number of law enforcement officers, once numbering more than 100 sworn officers, now was little more than 20, had the impossible task of policing a geographic area comparable in size to the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined 7 days a week, 24 hours every day.

What is especially puzzling is the deafening silence from both the media, those who by their titles and their government positions have direct responsibility to correct such problems and those who claim they are advocates working on behalf of the welfare of women and children.

For example, if either the city of Cambridge, MA or Berkeley, CA, each with a total population of approximately 100,000, had the same level of youth suicide completions as Pine Ridge, the following would be occurring:

1. There would be youth suicide completions just about daily in each of these communities.
2. There would not be enough curb space to park all of the media trucks providing a direct link to the community for their viewers. After all the media had ignored multiple detailed, factual reports about the dysfunction in these communities and predictions about what would follow from that dysfunction. Recognizing their prior error in not covering all of the dysfunction, media outlets were competing to provide the most offensive coverage. They characterized their coverage as “presenting the facts.”
3. Members of Congress would be convening hearings in these communities in an attempt to elicit some hints as to the cause of such dysfunction even though they had never mentioned these communities until the funerals began to be held when the dysfunction in these communities could no longer be ignored. Based on past experience the best that the local congressional delegation will be able to do is to appoint a study committee charged with reporting back on the cause of all the suicides within three years. No action would have to be taken to assist these communities until the study report was produced.
4. Advocates would be elbowing their way to get in front of any operating TV camera to push their unique solutions to such dysfunction even though they had not only known about the extreme dysfunction in these communities but they had also been silent about it until the funerals began.
5. State, county, and local officials would point at each other, claiming they had little or no responsibility to correct these problems. It was the responsibility of that “other guy” (whoever that unidentified person was) until federal funds were made available. Then the competition would be cut-throat. Each would cite their “expertise” on matters of this kind even though each had just established an extensive written record claiming they knew nothing about such matters in their efforts to avoid any responsibility (political punishment for refusing to deal with the dysfunction in their communities until the funerals began) for what was happening in these communities.
6. Federal officials whose organizations had been widely praised for formally adopting mission statements claiming they were responsible for the well-being of every citizen in their service area would initially deny any responsibility for such dysfunction, pointing at state, county or local officials as the parties responsible for addressing and correcting such behavior. When and if Congress appropriates funds to address and correct these problems, these same federal officials will distribute those funds without first establishing performance measures to determine the effectiveness of how these funds are spent. If the past is any guide, it will be several years before performance measures will be put in place.

If this is the response to the massive dysfunction and resulting epidemic of youthful suicides in communities like Cambridge or Berkeley, can anything better be expected at Pine Ridge?

Pine Ridge is a small, Isolated, rural community with little political power. They have been ignored and will continue to be ignored.

The sexual abuse of American Indian children should have resulted in a high-level commitment to stop the abuse once it had been uncovered years ago.

During the last two Administrations, I brought the twin epidemics of child sexual abuse and child/youthful suicides in Indian Country to the attention of the political leadership of the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Health and Human Services with multiple, detailed, factual, written presentations. These presentations detailed the pervasive extent of the abuse, the long-term impact on the abused individuals, their families and the community at large and the substantial public cost of such abuse. They had no effect. It was as if they had never been read.

Until one is prepared to focus on and widely and continuously publicize the hypocrisy of those who know the facts and who deny or ignore them, thereby allying themselves with those who abuse children, nothing will be done to correct this barbaric situation. Until those who have chosen silence in the face of widespread child sexual abuse are publicly identified and shamed in all major media outlets for their alliance with sexual predators, attempting to stop the barbarism is a fool’s errand.

Thomas F. Sullivan is a former Regional Administrator for the Administration of Children and Families under the federal HHS.  He was forced out of his job in May, 2016, after defying his DC superiors by repeatedly reporting on child abuse on several reservations. 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From Elizabeth Morris, Chair of CAICW:

Watch this 20-minute video for more information concerning the ramifications of Native American heritage on Constitutional protections:

Standing Rock Chair Archambault Gives Surprising Answers in Interview:

 Comments Off on Standing Rock Chair Archambault Gives Surprising Answers in Interview:
Jan 062017
 

“…Then I saw it just turn to where it’s ugly, where people are fabricating lies and doing whatever they can, and they’re driven by the wrong thing.”  

“I don’t want that pipeline to go through. I just don’t …want any kids to get abused, I don’t want any elders to get abused, I don’t want any rapes to happen. They don’t want any authority down there. What do you do then? Do I have to close it down with force?”

Q&A: David Archambault II, chairman of Standing Rock Reservation

With the protest at Standing Rock entering its eighth month of resistance, a lot can be said about the resolve of the water protectors and their mission. They have gained international media attention, defied corporate interests and are now weathering a harsh winter. With the support of outsiders and each other, and as long as Dakota Access Pipeline construction lights shine down from the surrounding hills, water protectors believe they have a reason to be there. In this interview, I sat down with David Archambault II, the chairman of Standing Rock Indian Reservation, to discuss what his role is and how people in Eugene can support their cause.

Standing Rock Indian Reservation—

Christopher Trotchie: What is the best way for people in Eugene to help?

Dave Archambault II: I get that question asked all the time, “What can I do?” and I don’t think there is one answer. Whenever they come and they ask, there is so much that can be done. … What we try to do is just put the information on what the tribe is doing because there’s so many different interest groups, and we have a website called Standwithstandingrock.net. And if it’s something like divest from banks that are funding this, or if it’s writing a letter to Congress, or writing a letter to the administration, or writing requests or asks to the company or whoever, we have some templates on there. When it comes to donations ⎼ the tribe didn’t ask for funds ⎼ but people want to give to the tribe, and we’re thankful for that. So we have a tab on the website where you can donate on there, or if you want to give to whoever, there’s 5,500 different GoFundMe accounts. You could fund whatever you want. What I tell people is, it’s up to you whatever you want to do; follow your heart. And that usually takes you in that direction that you need to go.

T: What do you think the general condition of the camp is right now?

DA: Well I haven’t gone down there lately, because when the first storm came, I asked everybody to leave. And the second I made that statement somebody else from Standing Rock made the statement “don’t leave.” And then there’s been a lot of criticism on me saying that I sold out, and that I have a house in Florida, and that I have another house in Bismarck, and that I received money. And none of that’s true, but it’s just how everybody has turned on me. So it makes me curious about [what people’s intention are]. What are they here for? When we had the decision made by the Corps of Engineers not to give an easement, and to do an [Environmental Impact Statement] and to consider rerouting ⎼ those were the three things that we’ve been asking for the last two years. … So the purpose of the camp was fulfilled, and we got what we wanted. I understand that it’s not over. This new administration can flip it, so what we’re doing now is trying to do everything we can to make sure that that decision stays, but even then it’s not guaranteed. Right now it’s dangerous ⎼ tomorrow we’re going to get 15 inches of snow, 55 mile an hour wind. It’s not safe at the camp. And from what people are telling me, there’s a lot of empty tents all over and a lot of trash, and if we don’t clean up, when the flood waters rise all that stuff is going to be in the river. So we’re going to, at some time, get down there and clean up.

T: What is the biggest misconception about you currently?

DA:  Just the perception that I’m not here for the fight is false and it’s wrong, and that’s kind of disturbing to hear all the fabricated lies about me when people don’t know me. People really don’t know who I am. And when somebody says something, and it’s believed and it’s passed on, it’s sad because we we’re the ones who started this whole thing. This tribe is the one who stepped up and filed the suit when we knew that we didn’t have a chance. We knew that the federal laws that are in place are stacked against us. They’re in favor of projects like [the pipeline], but we had to do it.

T: What is the impact of the protest on the tribe as a whole?

DA: On Standing Rock, we have eight districts. We have 12 communities. We have highways. We have our schools. We have ambulance services. And now because people choose to stay at the camp, we have to make sure that they’re out of harm’s way. So when the storms happen, we’re going to have a shelter here in Cannon Ball, and people are going to come. And they’re going to expect food, and they’re going to expect heat, and they’re going to expect blankets. So we provide that because it’s an emergency shelter. And then when the danger is gone, they stay there. They don’t leave. And the community says, “We want our gymnasium back.” … There’s really nothing going on. There’s no drilling going on. But they want to be there, and I think it’s because there was a good feeling when it first started. When we came together, tribal nations came together, and we prayed together, and we shared our songs, we shared our ceremonies. And it was a good strong feeling, but nobody wants to let that go. Nobody wants to move on. Those things that we learned from that lesson are things that we can take home to our communities and apply. We come from communities that are dysfunctional. We fight our own family, we fight each other’s families in the community, but what happened here was we were able to live without violence and without drugs or alcohol, without weapons. And we were able to do it with prayer and coming together. That lesson right there is something that we need to take back to our communities, but we don’t want to now. There are people down there that don’t want to leave. They think it is the greatest thing. But when you ask me ‘what’s the status,’ the things that I hear if I go down there, I don’t hear the good things anymore. I hear ‘this person did this,’ ‘they took this,’ and now I’m getting accused of doing that. So what we’re doing is bringing that dysfunction into something that was beautiful, and we’re letting the lessons slip through our hands. And we’re not learning. We’re hanging on to something that’s not there anymore. And so, I know that there’s a chance that this pipeline has to go through, but it’s not the end. It’s not the end of everything. We have to take the things that we learned, and accept it as a win. We have to take the processes, the policies, the regulations, the rules that are going to change because of what happened here, and take it as a win. Whether that pipeline goes through or not, I think we won.

T: How do you feel about the example that Standing Rock has set for other land struggles in the United States?

DA:This isn’t the first pipeline that anyone’s stood up to. This isn’t the first infrastructure project anyone’s stood up to, and I don’t think it is going to be the last. But it is something that we have to be mindful about though: if we’re going to take on the oil industry, it’s not going to be at the pipelines. We have to change our behavior, and we have to demand alternatives, and we have to start doing things different, and we have to stop depending on the government. This country is so dependent on oil. The whole nation is dependent on oil. If we want to fight these things, it’s not going to be where it’s being transported. It’s going to be at the source, and it’s going to be with the government.

T: Who is responsible for the camps?

DA:There’s never been anybody that was responsible. It was forever evolving from day one. The way it started was there were kids who said, ‘We don’t want this pipeline to go here.’ We don’t want oil in our water. So they ran from Wakpala to Mobridge over the Missouri River. They did it with prayer. Then the second thing that happened was a group of people got together in April and said we need to set up a spirit camp. So the first spirit camp was set up with prayer and then there was a ceremony, and in the ceremony individuals were identified to help with this. So when we had our first meeting, [there were] 200 people from Pine Ridge and 300 from Cheyenne River coming the next day. Where are they going to go? Where the spirit camp was set up was already bursting at the seams. … I brought the different groups together and I said, “We need to coordinate. We need to know what each other are doing.” Then they said I was colonizing them, and that I was trying to control them, trying to dictate to them because I was IRA government. It seemed like every time the Standing Rock Sioux tribe tried to help, we got bit. So you ask me who is running the camp down there? It’s whoever the people want to listen to and there is always someone who doesn’t want to listen. That is the disfunction. The good thing about the tribal government is [even] if the people don’t want to listen to me, it’s a role that everyone accepts. Down there, if someone does not accept it, [the leadership] will change. That is how it has been going. It’s been forever evolving from the first time we set up until today. Even now if I go down there, they’re not going to want to have anything to do with me because I asked them to leave.

T: Do you genuinely want people to leave the camps?     

DA: Yeah. There is no purpose for it. What’s the purpose?

T: There seems to be some concerns for safety in the camps; how should these concerns be addressed?

DA: I don’t want that pipeline to go through. I just don’t want anyone to get hurt, I don’t want anyone to die, I don’t want any kids to get abused, I don’t want any elders to get abused, I don’t want any rapes to happen. They don’t want any authority down there. What do you do then? Do I have to close it down with force?

T: I don’t know… Do you?

DA: No, I’m not going to do that.

T: Why not?

DA: I don’t want that. I don’t want Wounded Knee. I don’t want to fight my own people.

I tell you what, when I say stuff and when I do stuff, it feels like no one is behind me. And I feel like I’m the only one that thinks like this. I feel like I’m the only one that really understands, and it makes me question whether or not I’m Indian.

Am I Indian enough? How come I don’t want to be there? And how come I don’t want to put people’s lives on the line? How come I don’t want to think it’s okay for them to die? I must not be Indian. I must not be Indian enough.

What I saw happen was something that was beautiful. Then I saw it just turn to where it’s ugly, where people are fabricating lies and doing whatever they can, and they’re driven by the wrong thing. What purpose does it have to have this camp down there? There are donations coming, so the purpose is the very same purpose for this pipeline; it’s money. The things that we learn from this camp — the things that were good, that people are doing whatever they can to hold onto — are slipping through their hands at this moment. And I feel like no matter what I say or what I do now, because it flipped and it turned, I have to be really careful; because they will say that I’m trying to facilitate this pipeline. That’s the last thing that I want and I’ve always said that. … We were offered money; I don’t want money. We were offered that land; I don’t want that land. I don’t want anything. I just don’t want that pipeline. It’s symbolic if I can stay with that course. We are so close, but there is a chance that it could go through. If it goes through, I’ll be the worst chairman ever, and if doesn’t go through, I’m the worst chairman ever. So there is no win for me. I don’t want a win; I don’t want anything from this. What I see is something that is so symbolic it could change… We have a chance to change the outcome for once: the outcome of who we are as people. There is a real opportunity here, and that is what I want. That is what I’m hoping for, is that we take these lessons that we are learning and change the outcome of who we are and what we are about and the future of our people.

From http://www.dailyemerald.com/2017/01/05/2468239/

Our Note: Chairman Archambault: We understand the difficulty, angst, rejection, self-doubt and pain that can come with positions of higher office. Most leaders understand these feelings. Unfortunately, leaders are often required to make necessary decisions to lead people to the most beneficial and healthy outcome for the community. That is what the leader is there for. Leaders need to be men of strength and courage, who set aside the taunts of others and plow forward with wisdom and justice.  SO – – If you KNOW it has gotten ugly, and you KNOW children, elders and the community in general are being hurt by the protesters – SEND THEM HOME.

Where Free-Market Economists Go Wrong

 Comments Off on Where Free-Market Economists Go Wrong
Dec 052016
 

By Sheldon Richman

Depressing as it is, politics usually trumps economics. There’s nothing new in that, but free-market advocates ought to learn some lessons and adjust their strategy accordingly.

The politicians who run the government—and think they run the country—are afraid to appear as though they are doing nothing. We saw this when the recession hit. They were particularly worried about seeming to put party above the public good.

As the Wall Street Journal put it back then

The speed with which Washington hashed out the [stimulus] plan was driven mostly by the drumbeat of bad economic news. Behind the scenes, it was greased by other powerful motivations. Congressional Democrats needed to demonstrate they were capable of results after a year of gridlock. Republican lawmakers, up for re-election, wanted to show sensitivity to voters’ economic woes. And the White House didn’t want ‘recession’ added to its legacy.

Political interest was universally aligned against good economic sense. The politicians could get away with this because most of the public is economically illiterate. The “seen” overshadows the “unseen.” Such is how we get economic policy. It’s happening now.

As free-market economists point out, government cannot affirmatively stimulate what we misleadingly call “the economy.” (It’s not a machine; it’s people using their property to engage in transactions.) All government can do is move money around. To make some people able to spend more it must make other people spend less. Politicians imply that they know who ought to have more and who ought to have less, but beside the obvious injustice of the matter, they simply can’t know.

Economists Fall Short

I said the government can’t affirmatively stimulate the economy, but it can encourage productive activity. How? By not discouraging it. Here is where some free-market economists fall short in shaping the public debate. Too much of what they say is along these lines: “The economy is fundamentally healthy. Recessions are a necessary correction of errors. So just let the economy work through its current problems. The government need do nothing.”

That message should make advocates of individual liberty squirm because it implies that the market today is essentially as free as it needs to be. For example, a few years ago the news media proclaimed that gasoline prices were at historic highs. In fact, when adjusted for inflation they were not. But the economists pointing this out sounded a little too defensive, as though they were the defending the free market’s honor against its critics. What should we say if next week gasoline does hit a historic high and the anti-market folks blame the free market? I know what I’d say: What free market? (With all the subsidies and regulations on the books, can there possibly be a free market?)

The same defensiveness can be seen whenever a left-statist charges that the gap between rich and nonrich has widened or income mobility has ceased. Whatever the truth of these charges, libertarians shouldn’t react as though the free market’s honor is being assaulted. The critics may think it’s the free market they’re attacking. But—I say again— we have no free market.

Similarly, if economic activity slows down, it can’t be the free market’s fault.

What we have—and have had for a long time—is corporatism, an interventionist system shot through with government-granted privileges mostly for the well-connected–who tend to be rich businesspeople. This system is maintained in a variety of ways: through taxes, subsidies, cartelizing regulations, intellectual “property” protections, trade restrictions, government-bank collusion, the military-industrial complex, land close-offs, zoning, building codes, restrictions on workers, and more. As a result, people can get rich at the expense of the government’s victims. Even some who have prospered apparently by market means have actually done so through government intervention, such as transportation subsidies and eminent domain. Wealth can be transferred in many ways besides welfare and Medicaid, some of them quite subtle. Most transfers are upward.

Overlooked Facts

Free-market economists know this, but they often seem to forget it, such as when they indiscriminately defend firms (such as oil and pharmaceutical companies) in today’s corporatist economy. These economists convey the message that since in a free market people get rich and companies get big only by serving consumers, anyone who is rich today and any company that is big today must have gotten that way by serving consumers. The flaw in the argument should be obvious.

Given the corporatist nature of the economy, it is a mistake—as well as strategically foolish—to say the government should do nothing when a recession might be coming on or when recovery is disappointingly sluggish. There’s much it should do—or rather undo. Freedom’s advocates must spell this out in detail, revealing how existing government privilege harms the mass of people who have no political connections. In contrast, when an economist who proclaims his support for the free market says the current economy will fix itself, he brands himself a defender of the statist quo and turns his back on the State’s victims.

The freedom philosophy is a radical idea that looks ahead, rather than to some mythical golden era or Panglossian present. Every time we pass up an opportunity to make this point, we alienate potential allies who are concerned about those who are having a tough time of things. Yes, living standards have improved for decades and being poor in the United States is not what it used to be—thank goodness. That only shows that even a marketplace hampered by government privilege can produce astounding wealth. But to be satisfied with that is to be willing to trade freedom and justice for a mess of pottage.

F.A. Hayek never spoke more wisely than when he wrote, in “The Intellectuals and Socialism”:

What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. . . . Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost. [Emphasis added.]

Hayek wrote that over 60 years ago. We haven’t progressed as much as we like to think.

(A version of this article first appeared on February 1, 2008.)

Sheldon Richman


Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families and thousands of articles.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Org Digs up Proof that Buffet is Funding Anti-Pipeline Protests?

 Comments Off on Org Digs up Proof that Buffet is Funding Anti-Pipeline Protests?
Nov 232016
 

Big Green campaigns kill jobs and enrich Buffett 

Billionaire bankrolls anti-pipeline agenda and gets richer through secretive foundations

(THIS ARTICLE IS QUOTED FROM: http://www.cfactcampus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SandPiper_Resource_Sources.pdf)

“Opponents of the Sandpiper Pipeline Project across Minnesota have portrayed themselves as simply
being a home-spun coalition of family, student, hiker, and Native American grassroots activists.
It’s a nice fable. But it’s false.

In truth, according to new research conducted by CFACT policy analysts Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen, the anti-Sandpiper campaign is being funded and coordinated by a number of shadowy out-of-state
foundations and financiers – including the Tides Foundation and billionaire railroad tycoon Warren
Buffett. 1

Arnold and Driessen note that while some small local and state groups – such as Friends of the
Headwaters and Occupy Minnesota – are involved in this debate, these organizations have little money
or clout.

The true leader of the campaign against Sandpiper is in fact Honor the Earth, a Native American group
that wants “No more mines. No more pipelines.”4 It’s not incorporated and files no income tax reports of
its own.3 Instead, Honor the Earth is a “project” of the Tides Foundation 2, which also serves as its fiscal sponsor.

99% of Honor the Earth’s money – nearly $1.5 million – was funneled to it by out-of-state donors. 5
Honor the Earth is also sponsored by the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), another Native
group. However, Minnesota corporate records show no incorporation entry for the anti-pipeline IEN.
And only $120,000 of the IEN’s $2.2 million in tax-exempt foundation money came from inside
Minnesota. 6

In fact, behind these “grassroots” groups is a formidable $25 billion in foundation investment
portfolios.7

“That’s the real power behind the scenes: Out-of-state donor puppeteers who pull the activists’ strings,”
said Driessen.

The Tides Foundation is one of the biggest environmentalist donors. It is a massive, secretive San
Francisco operation created to hide the names of donors who want to block development.8
Our researchers also uncovered that Tides has given over $700,000 to Honor the Earth to oppose
development, particularly pipelines – first Keystone XL and now Enbridge’s Sandpiper pipeline, both of
which are potential competitors for oil-by-rail companies.9

Tides also gave over $670,000 to the Indigenous Environmental Network to oppose pipelines. 10

Amazingly, the Tides Foundation’s biggest donor is multi-billionaire Warren Buffett and his family.
Mr. Buffett is one of President Obama’s most important friends, advisors, and major campaign
contributors. At Buffett’s urging, and because of constant pressure from environmental and climate
activists, Obama vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline and is blocking other pipelines.

Warren Buffett’s interest in blocking pipelines like Sandpiper is likely financially motivated.
Most oil that isn’t shipped by pipeline is shipped by rail cars – like the BNSF Railway and Union Tank Car
Company, both of which are owned by Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

So it appears Minnesota’s anti-pipeline activists are, perhaps unknowingly, helping Warren Buffett
maintain his railroad’s oil transport operations, using their activism to help strangle competition from
Sandpiper and other pipelines.

“No wonder $30.5 million in Buffett money went to the Tides Foundation – which funds dozens of antipipeline
activist groups. His $30.5 million investment is generating billions in oil-by-rail revenues,”11
commented Arnold.

In an ironic twist, the Greens, by stopping the pipeline construction, may in fact be placing the
environment more at risk. This is because railroad tanker cars all too frequently have accidents, like the
horrible spill in Lac Magantic, Quebec, which caused huge fires that destroyed much of the town and
killed 54 people.12

These allegedly grassroots groups are actually part of a tightly orchestrated, generously funded antipipeline
campaign to help the vested interests of the oil-transporting BNSF Railway, its parent company
Berkshire Hathaway, and CEO billionaire Warren Buffett. It’s the Attack of Buffett’s Puppets.

“It may be a game for them, but they’re playing with lives, livelihoods, and living standards,”
commented Driessen. “They’re getting rich on the backs of poor and middle class families whose energy
costs are skyrocketing and whose families and communities are put at risk when companies are forced
to ship oil by less safe tanker trucks and rail tanker cars, instead of by modern pipelines,” he added.

Journalists, citizens, and political leaders who care about honesty and transparency need to ask:

• Why did “No more pipelines” Honor the Earth get over $700,000 from a San Francisco money-funnel
for Warren Buffet’s oil-by-rail fortune?
• Why are the anti-pipeline groups so secretive about their money and ties? What else are they
hiding?
• Why aren’t Minnesota’s news media, legislature, governor, and attorney general digging into this?
• Why aren’t they investigating the dangers of truck and rail oil transport, compared to pipelines?

Protesters who are ranting about Sandpiper, Keystone, and other pipelines must be asked:

• Didn’t anyone tell you you’re actually campaigning on behalf of the interests of Warren Buffett and
the Tides Foundation?
• Do you know who is really bankrolling and calling the shots in this anti-Sandpiper campaign?
• Are you happy to be working for pennies for oil-by-rail billionaires, helping them get even richer?
• Did you know you might be endangering American lives along these oil-by-rail lines through cities?

SOURCES:

  • Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen; Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money
    machine. Washington, DC: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (2014).
  • William Walter Kay, “The American Environmental Movement – The American Counter-Movement
    Perspective,” April 2015, http://ecofascism.com/review38.html
  • Cory Morningstar, “Keystone XL: The art of NGO discourse – Buffet acquires the Non-Profit Industrial
    Complex,” [Part IV of The Keystone XL: Art of NGO Discourse series. See also Part l, Part ll, Part lll],
    http://theartofannihilation.com/keystone-xl-the-art-of-ngo-discourse-part-1v-buffett-acquires-the-nonprofit-industrial-complex/
  • and http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/keystone-xl-the-art-of-ngodiscourse-3/

Original research by Ron Arnold, Paul Driessen and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

1 Warren Buffett funds Tides and its foundation and center and other entities through his family’s Novo
Foundation, of which he is the sole donor.
2 http://www.tides.org/impact/stories/show/story/single/title/honor-the-earth/.
3 Page 5 of a 12-page document titled “Tides Fiscal Sponsorship Services” explains the relationship
between Honor the Earth and Tides. http://www.tides.org/fileadmin/user/pdf/Tides-Fiscal-SponsorshipServices.pdf
4 http://www.honorearth.org/ 5 The proprietary database Foundation Search shows the following, which includes only the top 4 donors
(full list of 17 foundations and amounts available on request):

Search Criteria: Recipient name matches “HONOR THE EARTH”

buffet-and-pipelines

Grant Total: $1,423,568 # Grants: 55 # Foundations : 17
TIDES FOUNDATION SAN FRANCISCO California 24 $716,068
THE POSS FAMILY
FOUNDATION BROOKLINE Massachusetts 4 $230,000
THE FRANCES FUND INC NORTHAMPTON Massachusetts 4 $122,000
SURDNA FOUNDATION
INC NEW YORK New York 2 $100,000

Two grants totaling $20,000 came from Minnesota donors.

6 The proprietary database Foundation Search shows the following, which includes only the top 5 donors
(full list of 23 foundations and amounts available on request):

Search Criteria: Recipient name matches “Indigenous Environmental Network “
Grant Total: $2,183,750 # Grants: 65 # Foundations : 23

TIDES FOUNDATION SAN FRANCISCO California 24 $670,388
TRUE NORTH FOUNDATION GRASS VALLEY California 2 $363,000
JESSIE SMITH NOYES FOUNDATION INC NEW YORK New York 8 $250,000
ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION PRINCETON New Jersey 2 $182,950
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION ST. PAUL Minnesota 3 $150,000

Three grants totaling $120,000 came from Minnesota donors.

7 ANTI-PIPELINE DONOR TOTAL ASSETS LIST.

BEN & JERRY’S FOUNDATION $4,926,500;
BRAINERD FOUNDATION $24,811,595;
CHRISTOPHER REYNOLDS FOUNDATION INC $23,825,791;
COMMON STREAM INC $27,254,779;
COMPTON FOUNDATION INC $63,939,751;
DOLPHIN FOUNDATION INC $296,136;
DRT FUND $1,353,499;
EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE INC $11,017,260;
FORD FOUNDATION $12,259,961,589;
HILL SNOWDON FOUNDATION $33,074,672;
JESSIE SMITH NOYES FOUNDATION INC $51,117,046;
KAPOR CENTER FOR SOCIAL IMPACT (MITCHELL KAPOR FOUNDATION) $39,930,915;
LANNAN FOUNDATION $223,074,452;
MARISLA FOUNDATION $49,580,734;
MAX & ANNA LEVINSON FOUNDATION $15,768,418;
NATHAN CUMMINGS FOUNDATION $444,987,710;
NEEDMOR FUND $26,800,943;
NORMAN FOUNDATION $26,290,573;
PANTA RHEA FOUNDATION INC $2,667,971;
PUBLIC WELFARE FOUNDATION INC $488,153,146;
ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION $10,173,403,442;
SCHERMAN FOUNDATION INC $121,038,255;
SILVER TIE FUND INC $1,518,649;
SURDNA FOUNDATION INC $929,596,379:
SWIFT FOUNDATION $58,156,067;
THE FRANCES FUND INC $18,166,203;
THE POSS FAMILY FOUNDATION $14,284,395;
THE SUSAN A. & DONALD P. BABSON CHARITABLE FOUNDATION $5,363,697;
TIDES FOUNDATION $150,545,700;
TITCOMB FOUNDATION $2,204,558.
TRUE NORTH FOUNDATION $2,981,527.
TURNER FOUNDATION INC $12,200,379.

Total $25,268,361,816

PROOF DOCUMENTS: IRS FORM 990 REPORTS ASSET PAGE GATHERED IN SEPARATE FILE.

8 Tides Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tides_%28organization%29

9 The proprietary database Foundation Search shows the following for Honor the Earth:

Search Criteria: Foundation name matches “TIDES”
Grant Total: $716,068 # Grants: 24 # Foundations : 1
TIDES FOUNDATION SAN FRANCISCO California 24 $716,068

10 The proprietary database Foundation Search shows the following for Indigenous Environmental
Network:

Search Criteria: Foundation name matches “TIDES”
Grant Total: $670,388 # Grants: 24 # Foundations : 1
TIDES FOUNDATION SAN FRANCISCO California 24 $670,388

11 The proprietary database Foundation Search shows the following for Tides:

Search Criteria: Foundation name matches “NOVO FOUNDATION”
Grant Total: $30,551,973 # Grants: 39 # Foundations : 1
NOVO FOUNDATION NEW YORK New York 39 $30,551,973

12 Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

Donald Trump’s Contract With The American Voter

 Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Contract With The American Voter
Nov 112016
 

By DONALD TRUMP

October, 22, 2016

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

  1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
  2. End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
  3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
  4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
  5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
  6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
  7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
  8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
  9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
  10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/CONTRACT_FOR_THE_VOTER.pdf

Sick, liberal policies were being pushed down our throats. It’s as simple as that.

 Comments Off on Sick, liberal policies were being pushed down our throats. It’s as simple as that.
Nov 102016
 

Today, I am angry. Thugs rioting in the streets over Trump’s election? Seriously? I mean – what do these foolish protesters think WE went through for the last eight years?

Remember when Conservatives rioted in the streets after Obama was elected?  No?

Don’t assume we didn’t feel like it.  I had a friend contemplate suicide after Obama was elected the second time. But my friend got counseling rather than commit suicide – and we made our way through the years without throwing stones through the White House windows.

Do these big crybabies believe THEY are the only people in the nation who should ever have a say?  Do they honestly believe things are always supposed to go their way?  Apparently. Look at what the Universities have been coddling for the last couple years.

Most Conservatives are TREMENDOUSLY  relieved by this election.  We are people – U.S. citizens – who did everything by the book for this election.  No stuffing ballots, rigging polls, or sending non-citizens to vote as the Democrats do.

In fact – knowing that they probably did all that and more – it is all the more amazing Trump pulled this off.

I am so sick and tired of the extreme left liberals in this nation.  So ANGRY at the lot of them – see them ALL as corrupt, yucky, worst of the worst people.  People who demand the right to murder full term babies – babies who, if given a few moments, could be born alive and free of their horrific mothers.  There is NO  – absolutely NO – medical condition that demands a baby be dead prior to delivery – and in fact, the mother would be rid of a full-term baby FASTER if the child is allowed to live, because holding it back in order to kill it takes time.

There is just skin and mBaby in wombuscle between a full-term child and the outside world.  LET THE CHILD LIVE.

There is no MEDICAL reason for murdering the baby. The ONLY incentive or benefit is for the sale of body parts. THAT IS A FACT.  And it is fact which will be soon more widely understood, now that those who make money off of harvesting children are no longer in control. WATCH: April, 2016 – Congressman says probe DID show Planned Parenthood ran ‘Amazon.com of baby body parts’

 

Aug. 19, 2016 – Aborted baby’s heart was beating as we harvested his brains: worker in new Planned Parenthood video

This has become such a sick, sick society and I am so sick of extreme left liberals expecting us to just sit back and accept every idiotic, sick thing they suddenly decide they HAVE to have.

You WANT to understand Trump voters?  Understand that.

Abortion and the Supreme Court were the two primary reasons many I know voted for Trump. But there are many, many reasons beyond those.

Plain and simple: Obama pushed his agenda too far. What did he and other liberals think would happen when just nine months ago – they demanded that we women put up with men in our bathrooms?  You don’t think that was a factor in us wanting to scream and rampage?  It wasn’t an issue that was talked about in the debates – there was WAY too much that needed to be talked about – but it was NEVER an issue far from our minds.  That was the first thing many thought of when Hillary said she was going to continue HIS policies.

June 6, 2016 – School stops enforcing Obama’s trans bathroom policy after parents pulled kids out

Poll: Two-thirds of Americans oppose government forcing transgender bathrooms

How could they possibly be SO dumb as to think they could push something like this – DURING THE ELECTION EVEN – and believe that we would just SIT AND TAKE IT?

July 2016 – Leaked Emails Show DNC Pushed Narrative Against NC’s Transgender Bathroom Law

LOOK – they didn’t even leave it with full-fledged trans – they said ANY man – whether he was dressed as a woman or not – whether he felt like a man yesterday but felt like a woman today – they said it is FLUID and we just have to accept whatever this poor person wanted to do – because we can’t hurt his feelings.  He can be dressed as a man, with no apparent reason for not using the men’s room – but if he wants to use the women’s room, that’s his right –  and ONE sick liberal official said our girls just have to accept seeing genitals in locker rooms!  And high schools have to allow boys to sleep with the girls on high school trips!  And it went on and on – getting sicker and sicker.

Under the Obama administration’s federal guidance:

– School districts must allow biological males and females to spend the night together in the same hotel room on field trips;

– Colleges must let men who say they are transgender be roommates with one or more women; and

– School officials cannot even tell those young women or their parents in advance that their new roommate is a man, without risking a federal lawsuit.

Tucked away in the letter is a section requiring schools to provide transgender students proper “housing.”

“A school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity,” it states, “and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations or to disclose personal information when not required of other students.”

Are you KIDDING me?

Many women do NOT feel safe with a man in the room – yet their feelings do not matter. Talk about misogyny – it is Obama, Clinton and their supporters who discount the feelings of women as being “overly dramatic” and “homophobic.” January,, 2016 – Female Office Worker Encounters Man Urinating in Ladies’ Room Exposed

Further – we feel our children are being preyed upon by the left with their agenda: June 2016 – Washington State to Teach Kindergartners about Transgenderism

ACLU DIRECTOR WHO RESIGNED BECAUSE OF BATHROOM BILL EXPOSES DANGERS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Don’t even try to tell us it hasn’t hurt women or girls. Many men have been arrested for committing crimes against women and girls in rest rooms over the last nine months – and a LOT of it isn’t getting reported in most papers. bathrooms-6

May 4, 2016 – Young Girl in Women’s Changing Room at Target sees man taking pictures over the wall with his cell phone….

“The man was in a female dressing room at the Target and was seen by the victim, over the wall with his cell phone, taking photos of the victim.” “…the girl ran and told Target staff who told police.”

Sept 30, 2016 – Target’s Transgender Bathroom Policy Leads to 10 Crimes Targeting Girls Undressing, Says AFA

Hillary Clinton fully supported the murder of full-term children, as well as forcing women to accept men in their bathrooms (Something she wouldn’t have to deal with, as it is doubtful she uses public bathrooms) – yet Clinton wanted us to believe she was the strongest supporter of women, children and families.

Give us a break.

Frankly – the liberals can take their sick agendas and shove it.  How DARE they say they are offended by TRUMP – when they keep coming up with this sick crap. And then Clinton has the foulest entertainers on her stage – and talks about how much she loves them – while at the same time pretending to be offended by Trump.  Meanwhile.. her husband flies the Lolita express.

WE are sick of it all.  Trump made his millions off of encouraging vice. We KNOW that.  But that’s the point – we KNEW who he was, but he was telling us our world would be different now.  She was LYING about who she was – and telling us things would not only stay the same, but get worse.

Couple all this with the left’s constant bashing of the Christian Faith, the threat of terrorism, Clinton Cronyism, criminal corruption, Wikileaks, Benghazi, and more. There were so many reasons to vote against Clinton, they probably can’t be all counted.

YOU REALLY want to pretend this was all about Clinton being a woman??  Please.

Very simply – it was about PROTECTING our children and ourselves from the woman who claimed to champion children and women.  We wanted TRUE concern for children – not Clinton’s faux show of concern – a claim she tried to make fly in the last few months of her campaign.

Safety and Children – Period.  Those two words – Safety and Children – include more than just abortion and bathrooms. It includes all issues of immigration, obamacare, foreign policy, terrorism, law and economy.

Fools.

PRAISE GOD for the results of this election.

 

And YES – many of us want to see her in prison. We have made that clear. Don’t you dare use the fact that Trump ran against her in the election as an excuse for her to get away with her crimes.

Don’t even go there. We are already mad as heck at the establishment.

 

Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan cut Trump’s taxes.

 Comments Off on Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan cut Trump’s taxes.
Nov 072016
 

It was Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan that allowed Donald Trump to claim his Altantic City losses and not pay taxes. Honesty would have Bill Clinton stepping up three months ago and owning the law.

From a DNC staffer’s email –

“The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.”

READ: – Courtesy of Wikileaks…

Date: 2016-05-20 14:19
Subject: RE: WaPo: Trump’s income tax returns once became public. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.

I know very little about this, but from a quick sweep it looks like passive-loss relief was a core component of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan:

AP: Siegel says ripple effects will likely reach other investment markets as well. “The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.” …

Chicago Sun-Times: Last year, Bentsen’s Senate Finance Committee approved a change in the passive-loss system designed to provide partial tax-relief to property owners – and new buyers – who are “active participants” in real estate trades or businesses. Basically, the plan allowed such owners to escape the clutches of passive-loss treatment, and to write off losses from their real estate against net income derived from real estate. Guess what ended up in Bill Clinton’s tax package? You got it: The very passive-loss relief plan that sailed through Bentsen’s committee.

The Associated Press March 1, 1993, Monday, PM cycle Clinton Plan Has Something For Wall Street
BYLINE: By CHET CURRIER, AP Business Writer
SECTION: Business News
LENGTH: 594 words
DATELINE: NEW YORK

Though President Clinton’s economic ideas have drawn a lot of fire from Wall Street, his plan could well be a boon to the business of banks, brokers and other financial-services industries. In the eyes of some of his critics on the Street, Clinton has presented himself as a Robin Hood intent on redistributing wealth according to a system of “fairness” that is open to dispute. At the same time, however, observers say there is a very real prospect that his proposals could lead to greater demand for a wide variety of Wall Street’s merchandise, from municipal bonds to individual retirement accounts. “Everyone’s got a bellyache about Clinton’s proposal,” observed Ethan Siegel, a Washington analyst at Prudential Securities.

“While the market mulls over the proposal and its likely impact on the economy, I’d point out that there are pluses in the package that cannot be ignored.

“The overall message remains that there is going to be less Washington money for high-income retirees – in both pension and health care benefits. As more and more people find it necessary to provide for their own retirements, this will be a plus for the mutual funds, the financial planners and the banks.”

Analysts like Siegel raise these visions at a time when expectations for financial businesses are already on the rise. As of late last week, Standard & Poor’s index of financial stocks sported a 23.31 percent gain over the past 12 months. That stood in sharp contrast to an advance of just 3.08 percent for S&P’s index of industrial stocks, and a 6.88 percent rise overall for S&P’s 500-stock composite index. The financial group’s performance reflects the fact that financial firms of many types have been recovering from the early-1990s credit crunch, and reviving their profitability, with help from falling interest rates. As many analysts see it, these businesses also stand to benefit from demographic forces as the nation’s population ages in the years ahead, dramatically increasing the size of the over-40 set. This is the group that has always provided many of Wall Street’s best customers.

Richard Hoffman, chief investment strategist at Cowen & Co., cites as a primary market theme of the ’90s “anything that 40-year-olds and above buy and use.” Wall Street is already well into a prolonged marketing blitz seeking to woo this horde of potential clients as it faces the need to prepare in earnest for its retirement years.

Clinton’s proposals already have touched off a boom in the tax-exempt municipal bond business, based on the likelihood of higher tax brackets for upper-income individuals and couples. By the same reasoning, people’s appetites would stand to be whetted as well for annuities, life insurance, and retirement savings vehicles like IRAs, Keogh plans and employer-sponsored 401(k) plans – all of which offer some degree of shelter from taxes. Siegel says ripple effects will likely reach other investment markets as well.

“The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.”

Many Wall Streeters object to Clinton’s expressed faith in government, rather than private industry and market forces, as a driving force behind change and progress. From another angle, however, says Rao Chalasani at Kemper Securities in Chicago, “the president called for turning to investment, away from consumption.”

Chicago Sun-Times February 26, 1993, 
FRIDAY , FINAL Clinton Economic Plan Gives Real Estate a Break
BYLINE: Kenneth R. Harney
SECTION: HOMELIFE; THE NATION’S HOUSING; Pg. 6;
N LENGTH: 711 words

Real estate owners, investors and brokers could emerge from the 1993 federal legislative sweepstakes with something they haven’t seen since 1981: A tax bill that giveth rather than taketh away. Compared with other key sectors of the economy that were asked to share the pain of deficit-reduction, real estate came out as a net winner in the Clinton administration’s economic recovery program unveiled last week. Not a big winner, to be sure; but not a loser by any stretch.

First, the Clinton administration posted a last-minute hands-off sign on two of the fattest, and most politically sensitive, potential sources of new tax revenue: deductions for home mortgage interest and local property-tax payments. Plans for limiting both were on the table until late in the budget-crafting process, according to administration sources. One official said key staff members favored at least modest cuts in the deductions for philosophical as well as revenue-raising reasons.

Second, the fingerprints of pro-real estate legislators like former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), now secretary of the Treasury, are clear in the Clinton package. While chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Bentsen supported efforts to encourage pension funds to put more of their money into housing and real estate. The Clinton plan includes precisely such a plank. Bentsen also supported efforts to roll back features of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that severely penalized new investment in commercial real estate. Those provisions hampered resales of office buildings, apartment complexes and other property financed by failed S & Ls, which were glutting the market in his home state.

Among the biggest impediments to real estate investment: the controversial “passive loss” system created by the 1986 reform act. That law defined all forms of rental real estate as “passive” activities, no matter how much time and effort owners spend on managing or operating their real estate. Under the law, losses generated by passive activities cannot be deducted against ordinary income from other, active sources. Instead they can only be written off against income generated by other passive activities. If there is no passive income available to a taxpayer, the 1986 reform law required the losses to be “carried forward” – put on ice until the property is sold or the taxpayer generates net passive income to offset the frozen passive losses.

Last year, Bentsen’s Senate Finance Committee approved a change in the passive-loss system designed to provide partial tax-relief to property owners – and new buyers – who are “active participants” in real estate trades or businesses. Basically, the plan allowed such owners to escape the clutches of passive-loss treatment, and to write off losses from their real estate against net income derived from real estate.

Guess what ended up in Bill Clinton’s tax package? You got it: The very passive-loss relief plan that sailed through Bentsen’s committee. But that’s just part of the new tax plan’s lean toward real estate. Consider these other features: Permanent reauthorization of the two most important sources of financing for affordable housing. These are the low-income tax credit for subsidizing rental units, and the mortgage revenue bond program that provides cut-rate mortgage money for more than 100,000 modest-income first-time home buyers per year.

Both programs have expired periodically when Congress failed to approve annual or biannual tax bill reauthorizations. A rollback of the 1992 federal tax bill’s proposed depreciation standards for commercial real estate. The Clinton plan calls for a 36-year depreciation schedule for non-residential property. While that’s up from the 31.5-year schedule included in the current tax code, it’s four years below the 40-year standard contained in the 1992 tax legislation, which was vetoed by President Bush.

Commercial real estate lobbyists would have preferred no change at all, but even last year they accepted the 40-year standard as a necessary revenue-raiser in exchange for passive-loss relief. The Clinton package turns out to be kinder and gentler to real estate, in other words, even when it passes the hat looking for more tax dollars.

 

From: Graham, Caroline
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:07 PM
To: Miller, Lindsey; Dillon, Lauren; Bauer, Nick; Roberts, Kelly; Sarge, Matthew Cc: Brinster, Jeremy; Dieter, Austin
Subject: RE: WaPo: Trump’s income tax returns once became public. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.

Brinster – do we have any boomerang here?

These are the specifics on 78/79. As long as Brinster doesn’t see a flag, then I’d like to round all of this up in a doc, but tighten up the frame a bit and make sure we’re driving the “Trump’s always in it for himself” narrative. That should help downplay his call for higher taxes on the wealthy (non-real estate) folks.

Trump Paid No Taxes Due to Losses on Rental Properties. A Division of Gaming Enforcement report from October 1981 stated: “The Division notes that in 1978 and 1979 Trump incurred no federal income tax liability. In 1979, the lack of such liability is primarily attributable to losses incurred by Trump in the operation of rental properties located at Third Avenue, Fifth Avenue, East 56th Street, East 57th Street, East 6lst Street and East 62nd Street, New York City, New York. The expenses for the operation of the aforesaid rental properties were actual cash disbursements as reflected in Trump’s cash disbursements journal. The foregoing losses were also traced to interest due on amounts owed to Fred C. Trump and Chase Manhattan Bank during 1978 and 1979. Additionally, Trump incurred losses during 1978 and 1979 in the operations of the Park Briar Associates, Regency-Lexington Partners and 220 Prospect Street Company, partnerships in which Trump has an interest.” [Division of Gaming Enforcement Report to the Casino Control Commission, 10/16/81]

Does Podesta partake in “spirit cooking” and molestation of children?

 Comments Off on Does Podesta partake in “spirit cooking” and molestation of children?
Nov 042016
 

These issues leave us speechless, not knowing if there is truth behind the conjecture. So until more information is available, we will simply show some of the emails that are being talked about.

Well…maybe we aren’t quite speechless.

We do know this: The woman inviting Tony Podesta and his brother John to what appears to be a very sick dinner – called “spirit cooking” – has a very disturbing history. One would think her displays of “performance art should have been a red flag for mental illness a long time ago.  There is no denying Marina Abramovic, who goes by the twitter handle that includes the numbers 666 in succession, dabbles in the spirit-cooking-imageoccult.

Here is an image. We are assuming it is part of her “art” – illustrating the significance of “spirit cooking.”

According to DC writer, Cassandra Fairbanks, “Abramovic is known for her often-gory art that confronts pain and ritual. Her first performance involved repeatedly, stabbing herself in her hands. The next performance featured her throwing her nails, toenails, and hair into a flaming five-point star — which she eventually jumped inside of, causing her to lose consciousness.

“During the next, she ingested a medication to treat people who are catatonic, which caused violent muscle spasms.

“Perhaps most famously, in 1974, Abramovic placed 72 objects on a table, including a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel — and a gun and a single bullet. Alongside the items was a sign informing the audience that the items could be used on her in any way that they chose.

“For six hours, she remained at the mercy of the audience, allowing them to do as they pleased. During that time, she was stripped, cut, and one audience member even held the gun to her head.

“What I learned was that … if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you. … I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation,” she later said of the performance.”

(http://wearechange.org/spirit-cooking-disturbing-podesta-email-yet-warning-graphic-content/ )

Seriously? She drew in sick people to watch her gore shows, then invited them to do nasty stuff to her, then feigns surprise? And even tries to make this a statement about people in general? This woman has needed either psychiatric help (or an exorcist) for a long time – but none of her “friends” – including Podesta or, as we are now hearing, Hillary, or Huma, cared enough about her to get her help.  They were enjoying her “art” too much.

Here is the email with the Podesta invitation to the Spirit Dinner. We will leave it to you to google just what a “Spirit Dinner” is.

Podesta invitation to dinner

In this Reddit posting three years ago, the ‘artist’ explains that her work is ‘art’ when done in a studio, but ‘occult’ when done at home…

reddit-occult-confession

Second subject of the day

Various other emails have people talking about pizza and hotdogs. Many readers wonder why these two items seem to be a favorite food among Podesta’s friends.  One email even states that Obama had paid tens of thousands of dollars to order in pizza and hotdogs from Chicago, and wondered if they could go through the same channels…

obama-chicago-pizza-and-hotdogs-65000

We have a right to be upset about this email. $65,000 in taxpayer money to fly in pizza and hotdogs from Chicago?  There is a new Wal-mart in DC, just a few blocks north of the White House.  There is also a deli – “Roland’s Deli” – down the road on Pennsylvania Ave.  We are sure that if pizza and hotdogs couldn’t be found at either of these fine places, there had to be somewhere in DC where they could.

So why fly these things in from Chicago, let alone at taxpayer expense. Other emails mention not caring what kind of pizza is obtained – just so that it doesn’t have “hair” in it this time.

Some people aren’t so sure it is children’s food that is being discussed. Some are worried it is something horrific. We know that Bill Clinton has had issues with sexual addiction for decades.  We know Anthony Weiner has a problem with sexual addition.  We know Huma and Hillary have been aware of their husband’s problem for a long time, but neither have seemed to have addressed it in any significant way.  Could it be that this behavior isn’t as abhorrent in their circle as it is to so many other Americans?

This email below invites Podesta to a pool party, and promises three children will be there for entertainment. Do they mean that they are funny, fun kids… or that they have a singing routine?  It may be as simple as that – but lots of people no longer trust the Clintons or their co-horts.  Trust simply does not exist, and people are ready to believe the worst.

…yet, if someone is willing to play with the occult, the possibility of worse does in fact exist.

Podesta email pool-party-with-children

 

Finally – (at least in this post) – some might remember a Laura Silsby, who attempted to take children from Haiti and was arrested for child trafficking, along with members of an Idaho church.

The Church members were freed after a short time. They were along for the ride, having believed everything Silsby told them, and knew nothing about what was really going on. Silsby did not have the paperwork she needed, despite having been told repeatedly that she needed it. The attorney representing Silsby, as it turns out, had been involved in child trafficking in the past.  Did she ingratiate herself to the church as a cover?

Something wasn’t right.  Maybe there is a lot more to this kind of thing than any of us naive bystanders will ever really know.  At any rate – here is a list of Hillary’s involvement with Ms. Silsby –

 

concerning-laura-sibley-2016

As we know…Hillary Clinton doesn’t normally help people out of the goodness of her heart. She requires a payment.  So why the interest in this ‘Church woman’ from Idaho?

Clearly we don’t have answers to any of the many questions.  There are so many scandals involving the Clinton’s, if there were anything to be concerned about in these emails, they could only be added to the pile.

We pray the FBI does its job this time, investigates thoroughly, and brings clear answers to America – as well as indictments if necessary.

 

 

DAPL: Is the Dakota Access Pipeline a threat to water quality and cultural resources?

 Comments Off on DAPL: Is the Dakota Access Pipeline a threat to water quality and cultural resources?
Oct 312016
 

If the reasons given for sustained protest don’t hold water, why are people flocking to Cannon Ball?

Fear of oil spills and cultural destruction is justified. On June 23rd of this year, 700 barrels of crude oil spilled from a pipeline near Ventura, California, threatening the Pacific Ocean. In July – an estimated 66,000 gallons of heavy oil, along with natural gas used to dilute it, spilled within 1,000 feet of the North Saskatchewan River in Canada, threatening the drinking water of several communities. And just this last Sunday, Oct 23, an oil spill in Oklahoma closed Seaway Pipeline for days. With this in mind, Standing Rock officials have a right to be concerned.

Unfortunately, America’s need for fossil fuels will not disappear overnight. Each of us uses fossil fuels in one form or another every day. Even on the Standing Rock reservation, families are filling their fuel tanks in preparation for winter. If there were suddenly no oil, many would suffer.

North Dakota’s oil industry also provides a living – feeding families – for untold men and women. Once obtained, that oil must get to the refineries one way or another. It will either be by truck, train, or by pipeline.  All three run risks of spillage – but pipelines run least risk, especially when laws are obeyed. Did Dakota Access Pipeline obtain permits legally?

All indications are they did. The ND Public Service Commission approved a siting permit in January, 2016 after doing a thorough survey. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), after their own survey, issued the final Environmental Assessment on July 25th. All told, the surveys covered the entire length of pipeline in North and South Dakota, and much of Iowa and Illinois.  Yet, on July 27th, 2016, ‘Earthjustice’ and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Government sued the Corps.

After reviewing all the records, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg noted that “The plotted course almost exclusively tracked privately held lands” and “tracks both the Northern Border Gas Pipeline, which was placed into service in 1982, and an existing overhead utility line. In fact, where it crosses Lake Oahe, DAPL is 100% adjacent to, and within 22 to 300 feet from, the existing pipeline.  Dakota Access chose this route because these locations had already “been disturbed…making it less likely…to harm intact cultural or tribal features.” Additionally, not only had Dakota Access identified historic properties through the help of federal, state, and tribal entities, it even gerrymandered the pipeline to stay a safe distance away. (STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE v. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. )

Judge Boasberg also noted, “…only 3% of the work needed to build the pipeline would ever require federal approval of any kind and only 1% of the pipeline was set to affect U.S. waterways….” and for several months, attempts to work with Standing Rock were either rebuffed or ignored. It wasn’t until Spring, 2016 that at least seven meetings were held between the Corp and Standing Rock officials.

At the request of tribal officials at these meetings, “the Corps committed to double-walled piping” which involved a pipe carrying oil inside another pipe with liquid between and valves that initiate a shutdown in the event of a leak. Getting the Corps to commit to double-walled piping was wise of Standing Rock officials, which should have already been part of DAPL’s plan.

In March, 2016, Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault acknowledged that the Corps had made strides and indicated meetings were productive. “Yet, at the end of April, Chairman Archambault formally objected to a determination to proceed, stating, “To date, none of our request for consultation or Class III Cultural Surveys has been honored.”

After reviewing all the documentation, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion on September 9, 2016, concluding “the Court scrutinized the permitting process here with particular care. Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here.”

Minutes later, despite documentation the Corps acting in good faith and court rulings, the Department of Justice, Department of Interior, and Department of the Army refused further construction on Corps land adjacent to Lake Oahe.

The current administration chose to ignore the law, and the tribal government and its supporters have chosen to obscure facts, escalate the tension, and destroy private property.

According to witnesses, the reports spread concerning private security forces with dogs attacking protesters were not true.  Protesters broke into a fenced off area, and one took a fence post and hit a dog on the side of the head with it. The blood on the dog’s mouth was its own, and was treated at a local veterinary hospital.

On October 9th, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled – again on the basis of documented good faith of Dakota Access, North Dakota officials and the Corps – to finish the pipeline up to Lake Oahe until the Obama Administration allows the final easement to proceed.

On Oct. 20, Congressman Kevin Cramer, Chairman Archambault, U.S. Corps of Engineers Commander Col. John Henderson, SRS Tribal Historic Preservation Officer John Eagle, other specialists walked the property to see and discuss the resources together. Two rock formations of concern to the tribe were partially covered with dirt and even though archaeologists disagreed on whether they were significant, the company agreed to secure those areas. Chairman Archambault believes there are burial sites in the area, but no one knows for certain and there are protocols if unknown artifacts are found.

Disagreement aside, the group respectfully listened to each other. Congressman Cramer later stated the site examination was “an invaluable relationship-building experience that helped us better understand North Dakota’s cultural landscape.  I believe those of us on all sides of the Dakota Access Pipeline issue benefited from walking together and sharing our expertise, experiences and expectations…And, I am certain…the Corps of Engineers will feel confident it has the adequate affirmation to issue the final easement…”

But if the two identified formations, significant or not, are out of the line of danger, and there is agreement to use double-walled piping – what is the continued purpose of the protests?  We don’t really know.

Witnesses state that out-siders coming from other areas of the country are “very belligerent and threatening of local farmers and ranchers in the area.” One farmer asked police to accompany the school bus to pick up and drop off their children to and from school. Law enforcement officers are stretched to the max, and officers from other cities have volunteered to come help. According to the Morton Country Sheriff’s Public Information Officer, the protests cost $500,000 a day for the state and Morton county combined. Morton County has spent $3 million and the State has spent $7 million since the end of September. Further, 126 were arrested on Saturday. Of the 246 people arrested at the initial date of this writing – 223 were not from ND. Only 9% of those arrested are from ND.

Morton Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier stated local residents are  “Afraid to go places,” but “have to get their fall work done.” Cars going 65 mph on Hwy 1806 need to suddenly come to a stop when people decide to block the road. Even if people are on the sides of the road are frightening, as locals are uncertain whether someone will step out. People from out-of-state have walked around the area in what feels to locals is a threatening manner. Local ranchers feel intimidated. Teachers on their way to work have felt threatened by apparent road-rage of strangers.

On October 15, one horse and four cattle were found shot to death. On Oct 18, the North Dakota Congressional delegation came together and issued a bi-partisan press release denouncing the unlawful butchering of livestock near the protester camp. “U.S. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, John Hoeven, and Congressman Kevin Cramer today called for federal resources to support the efforts of Morton County law enforcement to keep tribes, ranchers, workers, and their property safe.”

UPDATE Nov 14, 2016: Standing Rock ranchers struggle to keep buffalo alive amid N.D. pipeline protests – Washington Times reports several Standing Rock members want the protesters to leave. 

Protesters then moved to private property east of Hwy 1806 and established a “no surrender line.” When Sheriff Laney asked them to move back to the main site, they refused. When told law enforcement must enforce the law, a man threatened, “there are young men willing to cause issues” and “This is what you are going to bring on by your actions.” dapl-burning-tires-pipeline-protest-oct-2016

On October 27, the police went in to remove the protesters, who were burning mounds of tires, sending noxious fumes into the air.  Before the protesters could be moved, they also set on fire several pieces of heavy machinery and one woman shot at police. The police did not return fire, but did what they had to do to move hundreds of unwilling protesters and arsonists. 141 people were arrested.

Apparently, the local ranchers and police aren’t the only ones who would like the protesters to stop.  Many members of Standing Rock feel the same way.  Some, in fact, just want the protesters to go away.  

So What is REALLY Going on?

Why – if all have agreed that no cultural resources appear in danger, double-piping is assured, and the pipeline is following an already “used” route through the area – are protests not only continuing, but are growing? With so many issues of corruption today, we have to ask if other things are going on.

The fact is, Standing Rock and other Reservations have been in the oil business for a long time. There is substantial evidence that income from oil and gas drilling is not new to the Standing Rock Reservation.

And contrary to the en-flamed rhetoric of Jesse Jackson, who claimed DAPL is “the ripest case of environmental racism” he has seen in a long time, and that the pipeline isn’t running through Bismarck, ND, because their “residents don’t want their water threatened” – pipelines already DO run through Bismarck, as well as most of the major cities in South Dakota. It has nothing to do with heritage. Not only do pipelines already cross major population hubs, but oil and gas pipelines cross the Missouri River numerous times as well.

Further, according to reporter Rob Port, “the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation have profited enormously from the oil boom in North Dakota.”  – to the tune of millions of dollars.

Port is right. In 2014, the Fort Berthold Reservation, about 120 miles north of the DAPL protest site, started building a “transload facility, the first part of the Three Affiliated Tribes’ Thunder Butte Petroleum Services Inc. refinery projects, which will transport Bakken crude to market,” according to their former Chairman, Tex Hall. In fact, the refinery is named Thunder Butte,”for one of the most sacred buttes on the Fort Berthold Reservation.”

Oil produced on Fort Berthold accounts for 20 percent of oil production in the Bakken, Hall said. The Mandaree area leads the way as the highest producing zone.

“There are 640 wellheads on the reservation.” and “wellhead numbers are projected to peak at about 3,000. About 150,000 barrels are produced on the reservation per day. That number is expected to reach 175,000 barrels per day,” according to Hall.  These fracking wells will use water from Lake Sakakawea (part of the Missouri river) for refinery, extraction and byproduct, and feed downstream to Lake Oahe.

Yet – neither the Standing Rock tribal government nor the “water protectors” protesting the DAPL have said a word against Fort Berthold’s oil industry. Even more interesting, Fort Berthold has recently signed on as supporters of NoDAPL as well.

With the disingenuous yet emotionally effective propaganda concerning this particular pipeline growing worldwide, it is getting increasingly difficult for some to speak against it, even when faced with real facts.

So who is pushing the propaganda?

It is hard to say. In 2011 it was estimated George Soros has given at least $3.5 million to the Tides Center, which currently supports the Standing Rock protests. Further, a 2014 Toronto Sun article written by Ezra Levant revealed the Tides Foundation had paid $55,000 to Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam to oppose the development of oil sands in Canada.

Both Soros and Warren Buffet appear to have invested heavily in derailing the Keystone pipeline, which would have by-passed their holdings in getting oil from Canada south to the refinery. Soros has invested in a Brazilian oil field, while Buffet owns the railroad that would transport ND Balkan oil to the refineries. Some say they are also invested in companies that build rail cars and chemical companies that make products to mix with extracted crude. This is not the work of environmentalists.

UPDATE: Research Org Publishes Financial Connection Between Buffet and Pipeline Protests

According to Port, “It makes you wonder how much opposition to energy development, not to mention energy infrastructure…is authentic as opposed to manufactured noise…” We agree. This isn’t the first pipeline to be protested by supposed environmentalists.  It’s just the one to have gotten the most world-wide attention. Whether it has been Soros or Buffet behind the varied protests over the last few years – or whether some other powerful opponent – questions of big money behind fighting oil pipelines abound. Investors Business Daily had suggested in 2015 that Russia was involved with fighting the Sandpiper pipeline.

Sadly, there has been a lot of information about what is going on at Standing Rock that has not been reported outside of North Dakota.  After watching major media spend months hiding and spinning government corruption, then watching major media spin the pipeline into a one-sided story, many are left feeling we truly only have a voice if ‘powers that be’ allow it – and they only allow it if it benefits their agenda.

There ARE many good people at the protest who came with genuine intention to do good for Standing Rock and the environment.  They simply haven’t been told all the true facts.  Then there are some at the camp with no agenda at all – being at Standing Rock is simply an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, spend time with friends, and be part of something big.  Still others are there with an unknown agenda.

Big money aside, Bruce Ellison, an AIM attorney who has been implicated in the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and who repeatedly pled the 5th when questioned before a grand jury, is also there assisting the protesters. You can read more about AIM and company here.

Those who choose to donate to the Standing Rock camp need to be aware who all they are donating to.

Our hope is that all the people concerned about the well-being of children at Standing Rock would be as concerned about the following:

Tribal governments and their supporters have been documenting rampant sexual and physical abuse of children on many reservations.  The documentation is solid and has been so for at least two decades. Despite many hearings, reports and billions of dollars, the situation appears to be only getting worse. There are various practical reasons this could be occurring – but heritage and history are not among them.  You can read the documentation of the abuse here – and make your own decision as to whether an additional pipeline over the Missouri River is more of a threat to children than the high levels of abuse tribal entities have self-reported. Read the documentation – and make your own decision about what you, as a concerned and caring community member, can do about it.

Congressman Cramer stated in a constituent letter concerning the Dakota Access pipeline, “I pray for the safety of all those involved and a peaceful resolution.” We agree and pray with you, Congressman Cramer.

 

 

Additional information about where pipeline funding might be coming from: 


 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/16/money-talks-from-ferguson-to-unrest-overseas-new-reports-reveal-soros-influence.html

ArchiveGrid : Grant and Proposal Files, 1970-1986. – WorldCat

These institutions’ programs concerned Native American students and … church body officials; American Indian Movement officials; and directors and other staff … was founded in 1970 through activities of the Lutheran Church and Indian People … Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (joined in 1978), and Latvian …

Indian Movement does not speak for the American Indians. … government and from a variety of religious organizations, Catholic and Protestant. … and by the churches has been used to radicalize the Indians, to stage confrontations like … Contrary to the representations of AIM in soliciting these funds, they have not been …

 

TRUMP: Do NOT quit – Do NOT abandon us to the Power Brokers

 Comments Off on TRUMP: Do NOT quit – Do NOT abandon us to the Power Brokers
Oct 082016
 
http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? The GOP wants Trump to drop out of the race????

Hillary has a mountain load of obvious corruption going on and has proved without a doubt she has been totally inept as an office holder – but no one calls for her to quit the race. Nope. But dig up a decade old tape of Trump with a potty mouth – and the GOP ‘leadership’ (if you can call it that) has a meltdown?

The only thing that many of us lower rung, average, middle-America people can guess from the reaction of the GOP elite is that they are doing everything they can to maintain their gravy train, even if it means putting horrifically corrupt Clinton into office.

You want us to believe this is about the degrading of Women? Or as Mitt Romney put it, “…vile degradations” demeaning “our wives and daughters” and corrupting “America’s face to the world”? As IF that isn’t what Bill and Hillary Clinton have already done?

QUESTION: Imagine, readers, if you will, that your boss is inviting women into his office for sex several times a month. Seriously try to imagine it.
– Imagine further that some of these women are your co-workers.

Would you feel disgusted, appalled, angry? Or would you smile, go about your job – and tell yourself it’s none of your business and doesn’t affect the workplace at all?

How many men have been rightfully sued for sexual harassment in the workplace? There is a general understanding of power issues involved. But even if we choose to perceive the behavior of your boss as consensual…

…Do you still feel at ease when there is a possibility of the Boss’ wife showing up unannounced, and you will have to decide whether you should distract her from going in? …She is a powerful woman. Standing in her way would not be comfortable or easy – and might even feel dangerous to your job. Maybe…maybe you should be on her side because you know how angry she might be at the entire office for helping him…

…Or …or…maybe she already knows… and will she be angry at you for NOT helping him in maintaining the secret… After all – you have seen how she has reacted to women in the past who have made it public that he has molested or raped them – you know how angry she can be. She has viciously and publicly destroyed them.

– – Would you KNOW how you should act? Would you truly be entirely comfortable with what was going on in your workplace?

It is unbelievable that so many people give the Clintons a pass on their behavior.

This is NOT defending the bad behavior of Trump. But we’ve all known who he is for years. We went into this election KNOWING he is a cad. Yet now the power brokers are jumping on a years old tape as an excuse to demand he quit the race? Why are these people pretending his behavior is a sudden surprise??

– And WHY are these people SERIOUSLY pretending the Clinton’s are better??

Not only has Bill Clinton done much worse than Trump in relation to women – right in the Oval Office, no less – but Hillary Clinton deliberately destroyed the reputation of every women he raped who dared to come forward and say what he did. People should read the book by the Secret Service Agent who manned the Oval Office door during the Clinton years to begin with – and then if one needs more – read the many well-documented publications, Congressional hearings and court records concerning the Clintons over the last 30 years.

Unbelievable that the GOP elite is all in for the Clintons – despite everything the Clintons have done – from women to crime and corruption – not to mention their willingness to continue supporting the current insane LGBT agenda, murder unborn children for profit, and appoint three leftist Justice’s to the Supreme Court. It is beyond understanding how the GOP elite could embrace all that.

We are done with the power brokers from both parties. The Jeb Bush’s and Mitt Romney’s can take a flying leap, right along with their friends, the Clintons. We never want to see any of them in office again. We want genuine change!

Trump – as blemished as you have been – you are our only real hope of making DC different. DO NOT GIVE IN TO THE GOP ELITE.

(Not to mention… we do believe you have made some changes in your heart, which is much more than the Clintons have done. Their hearts remain just as they have always been.)

PEOPLE: Read the words of the Secret Service agent stationed at the door of President Clinton’s Oval Office, who was appalled by the behavior he witnessed from the first family and alarmed by the constant security issues resulting from the behavior. It wasn’t just about a president’s private, personal life; it was happening in the workplace, compromising issues of security, obvious to many, and forcing several staff to even participate… forcing them to choose between personal integrity and obedient cover up…

“Crisis of Character” by Gary J. Byrne, New York: Hachette Book Group, 2016.

https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience/dp/1455568872

Gary Bauer’s Take on the 2016 VP Debate

 Comments Off on Gary Bauer’s Take on the 2016 VP Debate
Oct 052016
 

From Gary L. Bauer’s ‘End of Day’ Report, October 5, 2016

Pence Prevails

Gov. Mike Pence won last night’s vice presidential debate hands down!

Instant polls confirmed that voters at home thought Pence won. A focus group revealed that independent voters really connected with Gov. Pence. His strong performance undoubtedly reassured many that the Trump/Pence ticket is ready to lead and ready to make America great again.

While Governor Pence was calm and collected, Senator Tim Kaine turned into “Mr. Buttinsky,” interrupting more than 70 times in 90 minutes. One focus group observer, a likely Clinton supporter, said that Kaine “came across as a jerk.”

What got less attention is how often the moderator, Elaine Quijano of CBS News, interrupted Pence. Like Lester Holt, Quijano asked Pence eight pointed questions and only one of Tim Kaine. And when Pence started making strong points about Hillary’s email server or the Clinton Foundation, Quijano jumped in and talked over him.

Nonetheless, Pence still prevailed.

If you want an idea of just how badly Tim Kaine did last night, consider this analysis from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:

“I thought [Pence] was very effective at being a conservative. What I really think he accomplished tonight is he made himself probably the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2020. He hit all the bases on the conservative side. He was pro-life. He was rather eloquent on it at the end. . . On the other hand, I thought at times, and I like the guy, Kaine was a . . . little desperate there.”

Of course, the only thing Matthews gets wrong here is that when Pence runs in 2020, it will be as vice president for the second Trump term!

Defending The Sanctity Of Life

Abortion came up last night, and, predictably, Tim Kaine did what Democrats have done for decades. Stuck in the 1970s, Kaine portrayed abortion as a women’s issue and accused Republicans of being anti-women extremists because of their pro-life position.

Mike Pence turned the tables on Kaine, pointing out that Hillary Clinton and the modern Democrat Party are the real extremists in the abortion debate. Pence raised Hillary’s support for the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortions, which the American people overwhelmingly reject.

Here was a very telling moment: When Kaine was asked to describe a time when he agonized over the role of his faith in public life, he brought up capital punishment. For Tim Kaine, the agonizing thing was allowing convicted murderers to receive the death penalty, not forcing innocent children to be destroyed by abortion.

As a practicing Catholic, Kaine did not agonize over being the “right-hand person” of a pro-abortion extremist who wants taxpayers to pay for abortions through all nine months of pregnancy!

It is telling that big media is largely silent about that exchange last night. Mike Pence exposed the Clinton/Kaine ticket as pro-abortion extremists, and their media allies know how vulnerable they are.

Most Disgusting Attack Of The Night

Kaine repeatedly said last night that because Donald Trump had a tax loss in 1995, he was against our veterans and against our national security. This is coming from a man whose party is stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. They deny we are at war with radical Islam. His party has advocated defense cuts for decades.

Polling shows that military voters and veterans are overwhelmingly for Trump/Pence. There is a reason for that.

By the way, over the course of his lifetime, Donald Trump has paid millions of dollars in taxes to all levels of government. And that does not include the thousands of jobs he created and the salaries he paid his employees who in turn paid taxes on that income.

Clueless Kaine

One of Tim Kaine’s big themes last night was that Donald Trump would appease Vladimir Putin. Hillary Clinton spent four years as secretary of state appeasing Putin. The president she served has continued appeasing Putin.

What Donald Trump and Mike Pence have said about Putin is that he gets up every morning and does whatever he can to advance the interests of his country. That is what leaders should do.

We have a president who gets up every morning and seemingly looks for ways to apologize for America or intentionally takes America down a notch. Obama and Clinton created a leadership vacuum in the world, which allowed ISIS to emerge and which Putin is now filling.

By the way, Tim Kaine’s comments on terrorism should be disqualifying. At one point, Kaine suggested that climate change was just as serious a threat as terrorism. Then he actually suggested that we are safer today, saying, “The terrorist threat has decreased.”

Really? I can think a lot of people in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando and New York City who would disagree. In fact, the majority of the country disagrees with Tim Kaine.

The Worst Lie

Kaine stated over and over again that Hillary Clinton ended the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian nuclear program has not been ended. Obama made far too many concessions to effectively end it.

Iran continues developing ballistic missiles, the delivery vehicles for . . . nuclear weapons.

Kaine claimed several times that even Israel believes Iran’s nuclear program has ended. That is not the view of the Israeli government, which recently compared the Obama/Clinton/Ayatollah nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Coincidence? I Doubt It

Kaine and Pence had a spirited exchange over the criminal justice system and policing. Kaine offered obligatory praise for the police, but immediately started spouting talking points about racism that sounded like he was reading from the Black Lives Matter script.

Pence told the audience that his uncle had been a police officer in Chicago and that the demonizing of the police must stop. He reminded Americans watching the debate that leading police unions have endorsed the Trump/Pence ticket.

In Indianapolis last night, someone drove past the police headquarters and fired more than a dozen shots into the building. So on the night that the governor of Indiana made an impassioned defense of the police, someone attacked the police headquarters.

It is time for Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine to demand that their supporters and sympathizers stop engaging in violence — violence against Trump supporters and violence against the courageous men and women in law enforcement.

* * * * *

FOLLOW GARY ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER. VISIT END OF DAY ARCHIVES TO SHARE REPORTS ON FACEBOOK.

SIGN UP FOR GARY BAUER’S “END OF DAY REPORT”.

EMAIL GARY BAUER

If you would like to support our work, please click on the following link: Support CWF or you may mail contributions to the following address:

Campaign for Working Families
2800 Shirlington Road
Suite 930
Arlington, VA 22206

Phone: 703-671-8800
Fax: 703-671-8899

Gary L. Bauer served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration for eight years, as Under Secretary of Education and Chief Domestic Policy Advisor. After leaving the Reagan White House, Bauer became President of the Family Research Council and a Senior Vice President of Focus on the Family.

Bauer took his pro-family, pro-life message across the country during the 2000 Republican presidential primaries and debates.
Today, Bauer serves as Chairman of Campaign for Working Families PAC, dedicated to electing conservative candidates to Congress, and as President of American Values, an educational non-profit organization. He writes a weekly column at Human Events and co-hosts a weekend talk show on Sirius/XM Radio.

In 1973, Bauer received his law degree from Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C. He is married to the former Carol Hoke, and lives in Virginia. Gary and Carol have three grown children.

Advocating for honesty – while supporting a flawed candidate…

 Comments Off on Advocating for honesty – while supporting a flawed candidate…
Oct 012016
 

We established this org to promote ‘the election of officials who perform their responsibilities with honesty and integrity.’

Ugh.

Well, despite obvious and deeply ingrained corruption within many levels and agencies of our federal government – our goal and hope remains. Just as we said from the beginning (because this level of political dishonesty did not happen over night) – we will continue to push for and promote honesty amongst our politicians.

This does not mean we can only vote for those with impeccable character. That would be impossible – for at this point in time there is none.

But the chances of our nation nominating a person of impeccable character in 2016 were never good.

Good character is so sorely lacking within our society as a whole, and hatred of “Christian” standards is too high.  Members of our society openly celebrate vulgarity and self-indulgence, parading it in the streets and glorifying it in movies, books and games. In this environment, when candidates have even mentioned Biblical standards, they have been vilified.

Godly candidates did not win the nomination for presidency. Period.

Good, honest people did run for office of the presidency.  They were not nominated.

That all said, we, as an organization continue to insist our state and federal governments embody honesty and integrity. We will not stop pushing and praying for honest elected officials.

At this point in time – only one of our presidential candidates has a long history of corruption while in office – and this is where the line must be drawn.  Only ONE of our presidential candidates has manipulated the DOJ, FBI and other entities to cover her corruption. Only ONE has used her position of political power to financially benefit herself.

We stand against this person and will do everything in our limited power to keep her out of office.

The following questions were written by a man named YJ Draiman. We believe these unanswered questions (and many others) need to be asked at the next debate:

Mrs. Clinton:

  • When you left the White House after your husband’s last term as president, why did you steal 200,000.00 worth of furniture, china, and artwork that you were forced to return?
  • Mrs. Clinton, when you were Secretary of State, why did you Solicit contributions from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation after you promised President Obama you would not?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why do you and your husband claim to contribute millions of dollars to charity for a tax write off when it goes to your family foundation that gives out less than 15% of the funds you collect and you use the balance to support yourself tax free?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why are you unable to account for 6 billion dollars of State department funds that seem to have disappeared while you were Secretary of State?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why did you say you were broke when you left the White House, but you purchased a 2 million home, built an addition for the secret service, and charge the tax payers of the Untied States rent in an amount equal to the entire mortgage?
  • Mrs. Clinton, how is it that your daughter, Chelsea, can afford to buy a 10.5 million apartment in New York City shortly after you left the White House?
  • Speaking of Chelsea, how is it that her first paying job, in her late 20’s, was for more than the President of the United States’ salary? Was there a quid pro quo of any sort involved?
  • We would also like to know about METRO CARE HOME SERVICES. Their address is the same as Chelsea’s apartment. What’s the deal with that?
  • Mrs. Clinton why did you lie to the American people about the terrorist attack in Benghazi but managed to tell the truth to your daughter the same night it happened?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of questions that must be answered.

http://www.dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

– https://www.facebook.com/DakotansforHonestyinPolitics/

Who Writes Angry Missives at 3 AM?- – WE do…

 Comments Off on Who Writes Angry Missives at 3 AM?- – WE do…
Oct 012016
 
http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

I used to react like Trump. Well, not quite as sharply as Trump responds… although …maybe I did and just didn’t think I did. Some people from back then thought of me as angry. I did get pretty catty sometimes.

This was back twenty years ago when lots of people read the letters to the editor. That was my first, main way of getting a political message out – before Facebook and Twitter.

‘Letters to the editor’ played best in small counties, where you were sure to get printed. Only trouble was that they were ‘weeklies’ – and a back and forth took a LOOONG time. Readers needed to have patience. ‘Word wars’ back then could take three or four weeks to play out in the weekly paper, as opposed to today, when Twitter or Facebook ‘word wars’ play out in just a couple hours.

That said … I understand how embarrassing it is when someone tries to shame you publicly – in my case, in front of the entire county. I understand Trump’s agonizing urge to strike back. I couldn’t ‘not’ respond. The attacks STUNG. They would keep me awake at night, with all my arguments running over and over through my head. Sometimes, unable to sleep, I would finally get out of bed and get my thoughts down on paper in the form of another letter to the editor. I never felt tired while writing – even if in the wee hours of the morning. I was energized by my thoughts and emotion. Further, writing is much easier in the quiet hours while the rest of the family is sleeping. – Once finished, I could finally feel tired and go to sleep.

One time someone said they saw me at a restaurant yelling at the restaurant owner – and that I got thrown out of the restaurant. How do you not respond to something as ridiculous as that? So I wrote angrily in the paper the next week “Tell me exactly what restaurant and the date it happened – because I want to go talk to that owner.”

The person responded the week after that – “well, it must have been someone else.” Sure. Because it never happened.

I was vindicated – but still upset because some people might have read the first week’s attack and never saw the third week’s back-track (sans apology, by the way.)

The paper’s editor liked our letters. Their entertaining drama sold papers.

But a friend told me to stop responding to attacks.

… ‘WHAT? And let people get away with saying things like that?? If I don’t say something – people will think it was true!!’

He gently replied, “Sometimes your angry responses say more about you than they say about the other guy.” He added a piece of advice my mother used to always say as well: “Ignore them.” That advice never made sense to me when she said it – and still didn’t make sense to me from him.

It took me years to learn to ‘not’ respond – and to be at peace with not responding.

But I finally now know: If I behave on a higher level and people learn to trust me for it, they won’t mistakenly believe I was thrown out of a restaurant for arguing with the owner. Conversely: if they see me blowing a gasket in my writing, they might believe I got thrown out of a restaurant. We have to act better than our attackers.

That said: I know I could get in trouble if I start responding to attacks on our political Facebook page, so I make decisions (again and again) to not even look at nasty comments. When opponents say things that are outright lies – they are deliberately baiting me – and I don’t need to play in to it. If someone wants to have a mature conversation or debate – that’s great. But I don’t need nonsense. They can spew it elsewhere.

I have also gotten good at simply ignoring the stuff they say about us elsewhere. Some of our supporters sometimes send me a link and say, “you should see what they are saying about you today.” Or “You need to go to this site and stick up for yourself.”

No – I don’t need to. I am extremely busy and don’t have any time to waste on garbage. The fact is, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference if I went to those sites and said anything. They aren’t saying these things because they are seeking truth. They are saying it to discredit and stop me. So they aren’t going to respond to polite correction with, “Oh! My bad! We see your point now. Sorry, won’t happen again.”
It is a waste of time to respond to blatant attacks and will only serve to aggravate and escalate the situation.

Therefore, I keep my eyes on my own work, not on them. It doesn’t matter what they do or say. The only thing that matters is that I steadfastly do the best work I can – with the utmost honesty and integrity.

ANYWAY. Trump felt shamed in front of the entire country the night of the first debate. I understand that. The advice I can give him is the same advice my mother gave.

“Ignore them.” Plain and simple.

Did Rep. Cramer vote to take food out of the mouths of children?

 Comments Off on Did Rep. Cramer vote to take food out of the mouths of children?
Sep 282016
 
http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

There is a ridiculous lie going around that Rep. Kevin Cramer doesn’t want elderly, children and disabled to get help buying food. Only an extremely naive and silly person would believe this.

Kevin wants able bodied men under age of 50 or so – who don’t have dependents – to have to be in training for a job, looking for work or doing community service in order to get food stamps.

(FACT is – even if a man HAD dependents, he should be doing these things. In fact – if he has dependents – all the more reason for him to be doing these things! Rep. Cramer’s proposal was the lightest of possible suggestions for improvement of the system.)

Nevertheless, that was what was proposed, but didn’t pass house – because too many in Congress are afraid to vote for things that make too much sense. TOO afraid of being tarred and feathered, as the left is trying to do to Congressman Kevin Cramer.
His opponents have twisted this and sold the lie that he was trying to take food out of the mouths of children and elderly. Thishttp://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/ kind of blatant deceit from the left has to be called out.

As to the quote he used: Congressman Cramer did use the 2 Thessalonians verse – ‘if you don’t work you don’t eat.’ There is nothingwrong with quoting wisdom – no matter where the wisdom comes from.

(And despite attacks on Christianity, there are still millions of people in the U.S. who appreciate Scripture – and not only KNOW Jesus Christ is our savior, but have experienced the reality of Jesus in our lives. Many of us are very tired of the constant attacks by people who have never experienced Jesus Christ and therefore, just because they haven’t, think no one else really has either.)

Did the 2nd Amendment Guarantee Gun Ownership?

 Comments Off on Did the 2nd Amendment Guarantee Gun Ownership?
Sep 282016
 
http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

“Since the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller [2008] and McDonald v. City of Chicago [2010] announced that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms and incorporated that right against the states, courts and scholars have struggled to determine the reach of those opinions” (Meltzer 2014).

Heller and McDonald held that citizens have a right to keep handguns in the home. Left in question was the rights of individuals to carry guns outside the home, and whether or not they could be concealed. Over the last few years since Heller and McDonald, dozens of challenges to gun regulations have been brought forward. “The issue is extraordinarily important to proponents and opponents of gun rights alike. For proponents, the only way to truly vindicate the right to self-defense is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on their person. According to opponents of gun rights, an individual right to carry would constitutionalize extreme behavior, allow for vigilantism, and undermine public safety” (Meltzer 2014).

TWO POINTS OF VIEW

“The debate has resulted in odd political alignments which in turn have caused the Second Amendment to be described recently as the most embarrassing provision of the Bill of Rights” (Vandercoy 1994). Embarrassing, because people who might be 100% behind freedom of speech, ready to defend it against government encroachment, along with defense of all other rights in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments – are reticent to defend the 2nd amendment with the same vigor, if at all.

Following Heller and McDonald, lower courts have been left to decide how far the right to gun ownership extends:

“Some have taken after Heller, conducting significant historical analysis to determine the extent of the Second Amendment right outside the home. Others have concentrated on tiers of scrutiny, weighing the benefits of the gun regulation at issue against its intrusion on the right to keep and bear arms. Others still have refused to extend the right outside the home absent further instruction from the Supreme Court” (Meltzer 2014).

According to Judge Wilkinson in United States v. Masciandaro, “[t]he whole matter [of the right to carry outside the home] strikes us as a vast terra incognita that courts should enter only upon necessity and only then by small degree.”  The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed, stating, “[i]f the Supreme Court . . . meant its [Heller] holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” (Meltzer 2014)

However, other courts, using the same historical examination of evidence that was used in Heller, have found that United States citizens do have a right to carry their guns outside of the home, while a third set of courts has ruled that while carrying a gun is legal, it must be ‘open carry.’ Concealment isn’t allowed” (Meltzer 2014).

ANTI-GUN

Both the Second and Tenth Circuit Courts, while agreeing the right to carry exists, have issued opinions denying the right to ‘concealed carry.’ They came to their conclusions following “extensive historical evidence regarding limitations on the right to carry” (Meltzer 2014).

Many scholars agree and continue to argue that the Second Amendment does not bar reasonable regulation of guns. A 1995 paper published in the Boston University Law Review laid the foundation for pro-regulation arguments.  “Viewing the Second Amendment as an absolute barrier to firearms regulation is like the assertion that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause absolutely prohibits any speech regulations,” argued Andrew Hertz in his 1995 paper, ‘Gun Crazy: Constitutional False Consciousness and Dereliction of Dialogic Responsibility,’ published in the Boston University Law Review.

Hertz painted the pro-gun lobby as the deceitful root of the public’s fear of regulation. “Out in the heartland, the “right to bear arms” resonates in the hearts and minds of a very vocal and active portion of the American public. Nurtured if not conditioned by the gun lobby’s barely-challenged drumbeat of propaganda, these people believe in the “right” — constitutionally or divinely ordained — to bear arms against brutal thugs and feds” (Herz 1995).

Erwin Chemerinsky also seemed to mock the constitutional argument concerning the bearing of arms against brutal feds.  He said;

“… [It] seems silly. With the possible exception of the Civil War, never in the 217- year history of the United States have people needed guns for this purpose. If ever there were a truly tyrannical government in the United States, it is highly questionable that individuals having their own guns would make much difference. Interestingly, Robert Bork put this best when he said: “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose. “The incredibly remote chance that guns might be helpful against a tyrannical government hardly seems a reason to accept the tremendous human costs of guns” (Chemerinsky 2004)

Herz’s paper, written years before the Supreme Court took on Heller, went so far as to deny a constitutional right to own guns exists. “Indeed, constitutional false consciousness has claimed fair-minded gun-lobby analysts like Osha Gray Davidson, and even ardent gun control activists like Handgun Control, Inc. presidents — both Pete Shields and Richard Aborn have spoken of the mythical “right to bear arms” (Herz 1995), and yet, according to Hertz, “courts have consistently found that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms only for those individuals who are part of the ‘well-regulated Militia’…there is no right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or shooting competitions, much less arsenal-building in preparation for resistance of potential domestic tyranny” (Herz 1995)

Hertz referred to the gun culture as “…a disease, just as surely as drug and alcohol abuse are societal diseases” (Herz 1995). He concludes the paper ‘Gun Crazy’ with a warning that continuing to entertain the gun lobby will result in the “sacrifice more than one hundred men, women, and children every day on the altar of exaggerated firearms freedoms” (Herz 1995).

Hertz was proven wrong in 2008 with the Supreme Court ruling in Heller, but his attack on the integrity of those who supported the constitutional right to own guns remains today. At the least, there remain many who want to work around the constitution to create the regulation they desire.

“One way that the Court could affirm a personal right to self-defense without constitutionalizing open carry would be to evaluate the right to self-defense through a wider frame… narrow reading of the antebellum case law should lead the Court to find that only open carry is constitutionally protected. But by widening its scope, and instead finding that the nineteenth-century case law stands only for the existence of an individual right and nothing more, the Court could then fashion that right as it saw fit—as requiring an alternative outlet, for example” (Meltzer 2014).

“A second way the Supreme Court might escape enshrining a right to open carry would be to simply insert ahistorical reasoning into a case otherwise reliant on history. The Court would have a particularly good model for such a maneuver: Heller itself. …Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban posed something of a problem for the majority in Heller, seeing as the framers of the Second Amendment undoubtedly had long guns in mind in 1791. To avoid this problem, the Heller Court determined that because handguns were the overwhelming choice of modern-day Americans for use in self-defense, they should receive protection under the Second Amendment… the Court had no trouble making these thoroughly modern accommodations” (Meltzer 2014).

PRO-GUN

Contrary to the assertions of Hertz, “Research conducted through the 1980s has led legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad individual right view of the Second Amendment” (Barnett and Kates 1996).

What the research has shown is that “…the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government” (Vandercoy 1994).     http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

The history of the Second Amendment reveals the critical reasons our forefathers knew the amendment to be necessary. “Eighteenth-century commentators frequently discussed the evils of standing armies.’ …In free states, the defense of the realm was considered best left to citizens who took up arms only when necessary and who returned to their communities and occupations when the danger passed. Standing armies were viewed as instruments of fear intended to preserve the prince’” (Vandercoy 1994).

“By the end of the Tudor period, the citizen army or militia concept had become a fixed component in English life. The period’s commentators attributed English military successes to the universal armament practice prevalent in England but absent on the continent…Historians suggested that English universal armament caused a moderation of monarchial rule and fostered individual liberties because the populace had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest King to reason: the check of physical force” (Vandercoy 1994).

Various abuses by King James brought the 1689 English Parliament to insist the current sovereigns, William and Mary, sign a Declaration of Rights restricting their powers. “The declaration set forth the positive right of Protestant subjects to have arms for their defense, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.  The Declaration did not create a new right. The English had been able to possess individual arms for centuries and at times were required to keep them. Nevertheless, the debates attending the Declaration make clear that Parliament thought the right should be recognized as a right of individuals” (Vandercoy 1994). The first draft stated: ‘[I]t is necessary for the Publick Safety, that the Subjects which are Protestants, should provide and keep Arms for their common Defence. And that the Arms which have been seized, and taken from them, be restored.’ …The final version read: “[T]hat the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”‘ The term “as allowed by law” was not a limitation on possession, but a limitation on use” (Vandercoy 1994).

“…The essence of republican thought was that a citizenry could rule itself without the paternal guiding hand of a monarch.” One of the leading republican theorists was James Harrington.” Harrington’s beliefs were simple and direct. He believed that ownership of land gave people independence’” (Vandercoy 1994)

“…Harrington also believed that the actual independence attained would be a function of the citizen’s ability to bear arms and use them to defend his rights” and “that an armed population is a popular government’s best protection against its enemies, both foreign and domestic”  (Vandercoy 1994, 1021).

http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

Rob Natelson

This background to the Second Amendment has been available for all to read, including those critics denying the purpose of the Second Amendment. Constitutional Attorney Rob Natelson states, “We can understand what it did and didn’t include by examining the history of the Founding. It has always bothered me that so many judges and constitutional writers merely speculate about what First and Second Amendment rights mean, rather than going to the historical records and finding out” (Natelson 2013).

At times, these critics appear to have purposefully distorted the history and facts. Professor Randy Barnett writes, “Gun Crazy portrays the near-unanimous scholarly literature as “pro-gun lobby” propaganda. One of Gun Crazy’s tactics is to reject twenty-five law review articles defending the individual right view as biased per se. These are articles by nonacademics whom Gun Crazy identifies as employees of the NRA and other pro-gun groups or whom Gun Crazy denigrates as “[g]unrights litigators and activists,” “leading gun-rights litigators and lobbyists,”” and “warhorses.”” At the same time, Gun Crazy derives its substantive arguments on the Second Amendment from the handful of articles on the other side which it cites without ever informing readers that their authors are officers or paid employees of anti-gun groups” (Barnett and Kates 1996).

In addition to an honest study of history, scholarly parsing of the text is necessary for a correct understanding of the amendment. Natelson states, “In recent years, people offering answers to that question have often focused on the militia part of the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. . .” But…The militia phrase is … a “preamble”—a non-binding explanation of intent. It is not the effective, or operative, part of the amendment. In other words, it is only a guide to interpretation, not the actual law. The actual law is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Natelson 2013).

He goes on,

“First, it refers to ‘THE right of the people to keep and bear arms.’ Like ‘the freedom of speech’ and ‘the freedom of the press’ in the First Amendment. The Founders were referring to a right already existing before the Constitution was ever adopted. In the Founders’ view, it was a natural right, given by God and not to be impaired by government. On the contrary, it was a right that government must guarantee” (Natelson 2013).

Natelson takes it to the furthest end of the spectrum from Herz, stating, “Today, political demagogues talk about imposing “common-sense” or “reasonable” restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. But the Constitution, properly understood, is clear that there are NO permissible restrictions on the right, however much the politicians may think they are “common sense” or “reasonable.” (Natelson 2013).

“…The Second Amendment cannot be limited to muskets and flintlocks any more than the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce can be limited to trade in sailing ships and horse-drawn wagons.  Even an old-fashioned constitutionalist like myself believes that Congress can use the Commerce Power to regulate railroads and air travel, although those forms of travel did not exist when the Constitution was ratified. Otherwise, the Commerce Power would mean nothing. For the same reason, the right to keep and bear arms must include the free use of modern technology appropriate for self-defense” (Natelson 2013).

 

CONCLUSION

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

According to David Vandercoy, our forefathers understood two things from English history: standing armies were beholden to the government and therefore, a threat to liberty. That said, the only true check on a tyrannical government is an armed populace. “… the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers. These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists…The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people’s right to a free state, just as it says” (Vandercoy 1994).

Rob Natelson agrees,

“The author of the first draft of the Second Amendment was James Madison. Madison’s favorite book of political theory was Aristotle’s Politics. Several times in that work Aristotle makes the point that all citizens should have weapons, and that only those with weapons should be citizens. Otherwise, he wrote, those that are disarmed are the slaves of those who are armed” (Natelson 2013).

Men have understood this all the way back in ancient times, In Nehemiah, 4:17-18, “Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built…” They each kept a weapon handy for defense.

Lastly, this concept has always been understood by tyrannical governments. One of the first thing Hitler did was disarm his populace.  Men who want control over other men – disarm them.

“The widespread ownership of firearms, therefore, helps to preserve freedom, usually without the need for armed violence. When politicians limit or harass gun ownership, the threat is far wider than the threat to guns alone. By reducing the number of citizens who are armed, gun control emboldens the authoritarian politicians to control everything else we do, thereby imperiling freedom generally” (Natelson 2013).

 

References 

Barnett, Randy E., and Don B. Kates. “UNDER FIRE: THE NEW CONSENSUS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.” Emory Law Journal (Georgetown Law Library) 45 (Fall 1996): 1139-1259.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Putting the Gun Control Debate in Social.” Fordham Law Review 73, no. 2 (2004): 477.

Herz, Andrew D. “Gun Crazy: Constitutional False Consciousness and Dereliction of Dialogic Responsibility,.” Boston University Law Review 75 (1995): 57.

Meltzer, Jonathan. “Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment.” The Yale Law Journal 1123, no. 5 (2014): 1118-1625.

Natelson, Rob, interview by The Tenth Amendment Center. The Founders and the 2nd Amendment (3 23, 2013).

Vandercoy, David E. “THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.” Valparaiso University Law Review 28 (1994): 1007.

‘Study authors retract: It turns out conservatives are NOT psychotic.’

 Comments Off on ‘Study authors retract: It turns out conservatives are NOT psychotic.’
Jul 312016
 

And every inference they had said the study made about conservatives – – was actually meant to be about liberals.

As it turns out, a 2012 study published in the American Journal of Political Science actually found the opposite of what was initially claimed. It was not conservatives, but liberals who proved to be “more uncooperative, manipulative, hostile, troublesome, and socially withdrawn.”

According to the National Review, Media Research Center, LifeSite news, CatholicNewsLive, RetractionWatch.com, and several other outlets, the three professors at Virginia Commonwealth University messed up the numbers and have now retracted (kind of) their findings from their report, “Correlation Not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies.

In 2012, the professors had analyzed a survey of 5,748 pairs of twins and their relatives to see if personality and political views began in early childhood.

Although they had titled the paper “Correlation Not Causation,” the mainstream media took off on all the negative points made concerning “those with conservative principles.”  And of course – those with liberal principles took off on the idea that conservatives are psychotic.

The study both “presumed and then ‘found’ that political and social conservatism comes from ‘psychoticism,’ ‘dogmatism,’ ‘intolerance of ambiguity,’ the ‘fear of threat or loss,’ and, ‘serves as a coping mechanism that allows people to manage these threats.'”  Now – the study’s authors admit they “accidentally reversed the results.”

According to LifeSiteNews – “Dan Gainor, Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture [said] ‘I’m sure built-in assumptions about what conservatives are really like had nothing to do with this awful analysis.’ and ‘Now, will every media outlet that ran this garbage social science run a story about it giving this correction the same level of attention? Of course not.'”

Sources: 

While most mainstream publications ignored the retraction, the Chicago Tribune admitted it happened, but focused on just one of the labels originally attributed to conservatives – “Psychoticism” – and explained that ‘no one actually said conservatives were psychotic,’ and therefore, liberals aren’t either.

The Tribune article ignores everything else wrongly attributed to conservatives – such as  “dogmatism,” “intolerance of ambiguity,” the “fear of threat or loss,” and that those with conservative principles “are more uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, and socially withdrawn,” as well as less conscientious, less agreeable, and more “manipulative.”

The authors of the study had been quoted four years ago saying, “We expect higher P (Psychoticism) scores to be related to more conservative political attitudes, particularly for militarism and social conservatism” but in the Tribune article, they say that was never the case.

Yup – the Tribune left all that baggage out of the article and downplayed the admission by the study authors that they expected conservatives to be all of the horrid things the study claimed them to be.

Now they claim that the study proves nothing…

 

Full Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton

 Comments Off on Full Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton
Jul 062016
 

FBI Director Comey stated, “…there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

“…seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program …any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position…should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. …None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, …housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff…”

Due to the amount and depth of investigation done by the FBI, we believe him when he saidthis investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently.” and Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.”  

HOWEVER – we also believe him when he truthfully said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

What is unclear is whether he was forced to give the recommendation he did, despite the evidence collected. 

_________________________________________________

(Highlights in the full statement text are by editor and are not part of original transcript)

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Washington, D.C.July 05, 2016
  • FBI National Press Office(202) 324-3691

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system, Accessed July 6, 2016, 9:45 am CST.

Hillary Clinton says she’ll put Bill ‘in charge’ of fixing economy

 Comments Off on Hillary Clinton says she’ll put Bill ‘in charge’ of fixing economy
May 232016
 

 

Hillary Clinton has been campaigning since 2008 as “the first woman president.”  She has inferred she can not only do just as good a job as any male candidate, but because she’s been both Senator and Secretary of State, she can do a better job than any other candidate.

On the one hand, she wants people to believe she is the woman to prove ‘women can do anything.’  “I am woman, hear me roar.”

On the other hand, she wants people to think her husband will be her co-president  – and told one group that Bill will handle the economy for her because “he is good at that kind of thing.”

So is she capable of running the country on her own, or isn’t she?

She expects all women to rally around her, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said any woman who doesn’t help her win can go to hell. …(or, in her more polite language, ‘there is a special place in hell’ for them.)

Yet on Sunday, May 15, she told a crowd in Kentucky “I will put my husband in charge of revitalizing the economy ’cause he knows what he’s doing.”

So…what is she saying – that she doesn’t know what she is doing?

This will be the first President in American history to hand over a major part of the job over to her spouse.  Will the First Husband end up managing all Affairs of State, while Hillary attends State dinners and funerals?  (Well… if that is all she needs to do, then she is qualified… because that is all she did as SOS).

…or…maybe she is playing the good wife’ – stepping aside and letting her husband take the lead as so many women her age have done through the years.

Either way…what kind of example is that for the daughters of feminists?

…Perhaps feminists will say to their daughters, “Don’t worry dear, this was just a baby step.  She is elderly and kind of stuck in old ruts. We’ll have a better candidate next time.”

Come on people. This candidate has just admitted she isn’t up for the job. There are term limits for a reason – and Bill Clinton has already had his turn as president.  I, for one, am not interested in electing Bill Clinton to a third term through the faux candidacy of his wife.

When we elect a woman president, it will be a woman who can hold her own and be a role model for our children.

And not only hold her own, but be a person of honesty, integrity, and humility. There are a lot of people to choose from with intelligence, skills and character.  We do not have to settle for Hillary Clinton.

 

Read Article: If she’s elected president, Hillary Clinton says she’ll appoint her husband, Bill, to oversee the economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/news/economy/hillary-bill-clinton-economic-job-growth/

 

Women Pushing Back

 Comments Off on Women Pushing Back
May 182016
 

Many women do not feel comfortable in ‘transgender’ bathrooms.

– Many women who have been raped do not feel safe in ‘transgender’ bathrooms.
– Many women who were sexually abused as children do not feel safe sending their daughters into “transgender” bathrooms.
– Many, many women feel offended and abused by politicians, media and corporations who claim they MUST accept and live with it.

We are offended by powerful entities determined to shove their personal priorities down everyone’s throats – no matter what the consequences.

Can anyone give good advice as to how a mother of several children – boys and girls – is supposed to handle her daughter’s needs at a shopping center? Is she to shepherd them all into the girls bathroom so she can keep an eye on her daughter instructing her boys to stay next to the door where she can keep an eye on them as well?

Yes – times have changed and we can no longer handle daily life in the same easy manner we felt we could in the 1960’s. But do these large corporations that are shoving their outlandish demands at us not stop and think for a moment as to how many – if not most – women genuinely feel about it?

No – several have announced they are boycotting North Carolina for having passed a law designed to protect the emotional and physical needs of women and children in the state.

  • Do modest women and mothers not matter at all anymore to Deutsche Bank, Apple, Starbucks, Kellogg’s, Yahoo!, PayPal, Bruce Springsteen or Ringo Starr?
  • Do hurting, victimized women and mothers not matter at all anymore to Deutsche Bank, Apple, Starbucks, Kellogg’s, Yahoo!, PayPal, Bruce Springsteen or Ringo Starr?
  • Do they understand that a woman’s restroom is place where women go to partially disrobe behind a flimsy door – and some previously victimized women already feel anxious and vulnerable in that position just as is?

No – for some reason, only the emotional and physical needs of trans-gendered men is of importance to these persons in leadership.
What I am guessing – (as I have never seen it fully explained) – is that the problem comes when a man dressed as a woman needs to use a man’s bathroom. From what I can gather, men are not very receptive to men in dresses and there is some perhaps understandable fear for a man to enter a man’s bathroom in a dress.

Apparently – many of our male media, politicians, entertainers, and corporate moguls understand that dynamics. Perhaps they have witnessed things in men’s bathrooms that women haven’t witnessed.

Perhaps that is why they are dismissing our sense of danger when they feel it is the trans-gendered man they are protecting from danger.
Be that as it may – they don’t understand the dynamics of a woman’s bathroom. They are totally ignoring, downplaying and dismissing the intrinsic views and discomfort of most women – not to mention the very real and poignant fears of many others. Some women will choose to do anything but use a public restroom anymore.

…Women – it seems you need to get over it, because apparently this man cannot. For some reason – his emotions are snow-flake, and yours are merely the product of feminine drama, childishness, immaturity, and hatefulness.

Talk about misogyny. Again – here is evidence that the ‘war on women’ comes primarily from the left.

Needless to say – I am no longer a fan of any of the above boycotting entities. The size and prominence of some of them in daily business makes them difficult to avoid, but not impossible. Fortunately, I do not own any Apple products and have never been a Starbuck’s regular. I can work on eliminating the rest of the boycotters from my life. I can switch my allegiances to corporations and entertainers that respect women.

It is not only insane but unconscionable that the potential for feeling offense by a very small number of people should put millions of others into this unarguable position of offense and extreme discomfort – if not danger.

What on earth is going on with our nation and world. Insanity reigns.

 

‘Women Pushing Back’ is a new Facebook community supporting Women offended by ‘transgender’ bathrooms, mothers standing up for the safety of their families, Grandmothers fighting for morality & sanity, and any other person fed up with what has been happening to our country over the last decade. If we want our communities to remain within the boundaries of sanity and reality, we must fight for it.

https://www.facebook.com/WomenPushingBack/

Our world has gone nuts

 Comments Off on Our world has gone nuts
May 142016
 

Our world appears to have gone crazy. Those wishing to remain within the boundaries of sanity and reality must fight for it, as well as for our children.

Many of us in America are at a loss to understand how our world has gotten so crazy so quickly.  What has been known for centuries to be right and good is now, suddenly, in the last twenty years been turned the opposite.  What all have known to be evil is now considered good – and what has been good is now said to be evil. Darkness takes the place of light, and light for darkness. Bitter is now ‘sweet’ – and sweet is exchanged for bitter.

sBrothers and Sisters – stand fast for what you know to be true. Stand strong for what you know to be good and right for your children and grandchildren. And when you have done all – continue to stand.

You are not the crazy one.

Unfortunately – it is not just our worldview and way of life that is under attack.  Christians around the world are being persecuted and even murdered – crucified, church’s blown up, heads cut off –  simply because they acknowledge Jesus is Lord and Messiah.

None of us know where the current persecution of Christians and Jews across the world is headed.  But most of us realize we are just at the beginning of whatever is coming.

In the 1930’s, a European government began pushing new laws and world view upon its people.  Many – in their hearts – recognized the evil.  Further, contrary to popular belief, many citizens did not agree or go along with it.  Many, unfortunately, died in their efforts to stop the evil.

Praise God – although that evil government went on to torture and murder millions – they did not prevail with their intention to take over Europe and then the world.  They did not go on to murder millions more.

They were stopped. And if we care at all for the world and our children – it is incumbent on us all to stand in the gap – stand strong – and stand up for what is right and good. …and having done all, to stand firm.

 

For more encouragement and information, visit “Women Pushing Back” on Facebook….

https://www.facebook.com/WomenPushingBack/

 

 

 

TOM SULLIVAN – FIRED for reporting Child Abuse

 Comments Off on TOM SULLIVAN – FIRED for reporting Child Abuse
May 062016
 

May 6, 2016

The BIA and ACF in Washington DC have finally accomplished their goal of firing Tom Sullivan for his persistent reporting of physical and sexual abuse of children on many reservations – most specifically Spirit Lake.

Our DC Bureaucrats are entirely unaccountable. When people get fired for actually doing their jobs, is it any wonder that so many federal employees are reluctant to stick their necks out against the status quo?

May 6, 2015 Termination letter: MU Tom Sullivan Termination Decision 5-6-16 

(Read some of the past documentation:)