HEY, non-Christian liberals – give it a rest.
Do you STILL not get it? We KNEW Trump’s history when we hired him. We KNEW he was an ungodly wreck most of his life…that was never a secret! He made billions off the vices of billions – sex, gambling, and alcohol – YES, everyone knew that!
We hired him anyway. Do you STILL not understand why?
We aren’t the least bit disturbed that someone just gave Stormy a ton of money to change her story. You people have been throwing good money after bad, “…doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result…” for almost two years now.
We don’t care about his former sex life.
Did you not see that despite all the faux outrage over that taped conversation with the Bush kid, Trump was elected anyway? Did you NOT notice that while the liberal elite went around the country, destroying the careers of their randy compatriots in vain effort to set a national standard that would oust Trump…much of America gave a collective yawn?
That was because of the utter hypocrisy of the media, political elite and Hollywood – the Madonna’s, Miley’s, and more who make their billions off everything from sexual innuendo, scripted wardrobe malfunctions, prostituting themselves on the casting couch, prancing around half-dressed or nude on the big screen – and for the last couple decades – even portraying their nudity and sexual violence on our home screens. These are the very same fools who are now telling us that we need to let men into women’s bathrooms, shower rooms, school locker rooms, and even girl’s bedrooms if the high school is on an overnight trip.
Now they are feigning piety and wanting us to play along with them.
While we are glad they took down thugs like Weinstein and that anchor from the Hamptons – can’t remember his name – they also caught up several others who simply behaved immature. It was an ill-conceived scheme to somehow draw rage toward Trump, but pretty much only netted other liberal Hollywood, media and political elites.
One has to wonder why there were more liberals caught in that net than conservatives…
At any rate – now you are feigning shock over the potty mouth and the love life of a billionaire casino playboy and wanting us to be shocked as well.
Yeah… you people.
You know so little about your Christian neighbor, that you seriously think this kind of garbage is supposed to send us careening into the streets, smashing windows and demanding impeachment. You think that because we have taken issue with many sexually addicted politicians over the years, including Clinton when he was having sex with varied women on and under White House tables, we would naturally jump on this as well.
But in the situation with Clinton, you told us it didn’t matter – that it was between him and his wife. NOW you want us to care about what Trump did years before he was even president?
Like we said – everyone already knows what he did most of his life. We hired him anyway.
But here is the most important thing you aren’t understanding about Christians. Many of us believe Trump had a ‘come to Jesus’ moment – and is not the same man he was ten years ago.
We don’t deny that Trump has sinned. We absolutely know he has.
This is what you don’t get…you are trying to tell us something we already know.
We already know that “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” That means you, me, our moms, our grandmas, our great aunts that drive 25 mph to church every Sunday, Obama, Trump, Clinton, Ben Carson, Billy Graham – all of us.
Nevertheless, we don’t accept or rationalize sin. We don’t ignore, dismiss, or defend rape. All crime needs to be reported to law enforcement and be dealt with judicially. But we will continue to work with the person if that is what the person sincerely wants us to do – to restore them and help them grow, even if from a prison cell.
We deal with it – because sin has affected all of us. We do what we can, as fallible human beings, to help each other grow away from it. Christians – those who are serious about being disciples of Christ – work to restore fallen brothers and sisters. We listen to each other’s confessions, comfort each other, pray with each other, pick each other up, encourage each other to grow and learn – and all the while doing this, we remember where we ourselves came from. “There but for the Grace of God go I.”
Trump is growing
What many of us know – because we share Christian news reports with each other and gab about it over the kitchen table and such – is that Trump has many strong Christians around him, mentoring him. We know there is frequent prayer in the oval office, weekly Bible studies at the White House, prayer with his cabinet before meetings, and millions of Christians around the country are holding him up to God on a daily basis. We know Vice President Pence and Secretary Ben Carson, among others, are gentlemen of God, who speak with wisdom and grace.
Knowing all this, we know there are good people talking to him prayerfully about sin – including his impulsive reactions.
Some say that Trump’s behavior is a terrible reflection on Jesus Christ. That is true in the eyes of those unfamiliar with the myriad stumbling blocks that can mar a Christian’s growth. It would be nice if President Trump could hurry his walk along a little faster.
Everyone has their own walk, with – or without – God
We hope to see President Trump begin to reflect the Fruits of the Spirit more often as months pass. Everyone is different and no one walks perfectly with the Spirit 100% of the time – in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. [Some versions translate a couple words differently, with ‘meekness and temperance.’] But growth is evident over time in every true disciple of Jesus Christ.
Every single president and presidential candidate over the last few years – including President Obama and both Clintons – said they were Christians. Most people took that at face value. Some say, “well, it was easier to believe previous presidents were Christian, because they were much nicer than Trump. They not only played the role of elegant, articulate leaders – remaining quiet at all the right times – but were better reflections of the way a Christian ‘should be.”
However, as many Americans see it – Obama may have been out there saying all the seemingly right things, but was dishonest and manipulative behind closed doors. There is increasing evidence that he ignored Russian activity in America, advocated for the destruction of Israel, and gave money and relief to our enemies – even allowing five dangerous men to leave Gitmo under the faux excuse of rescuing a deserter.
He may have even purposely supported ISIS by not going after them as he should have. It took less than a year for Trump to route ISIS. Obama could have done that a lot easier and a lot earlier when ISIS was smaller. Yet…he didn’t.
Further, as many Evangelicals see it, Obama may have been a smooth speaker, but was extremely unchristlike in the depth of his terrifying support for the murder of helpless infants as well as destruction of the very building blocks of our society. From common sense laws, community relationships and historical facts, to the core understanding of our souls – our heritage, our God…even causing our small children to question their gender (of all things) and to hate the ‘race’ they were born into. We were no longer allowed to hold firm the very nucleus of who we personally were.
Some of us call that ‘evil.’
Trump is working to repair things Obama destroyed.
We stand with Trump now because he stands for policies that are the exact opposite of Obama’s.
We do NOT believe the spin from NBC, CNN and others that Trump is racist, sexist, or whatever. On the contrary – from what we see, he is foul-mouthed, thin-skinned and quick tempered with those who criticize him – but warm and kind to the varied and diverse groups he meets with when out speaking to people.
Importantly, while the ‘left’ appears to want to apply laws – (meaning, those statutes and rules that have been voted on and added to the code by our democratically elected Congress and State legislators) – discriminately and at times even ignore them completely, President Trump is focused on applying all law justly.
We also understand the real reasons for the laws he wants passed – even if the media feigns not to understand. After all, he has been GETTING his ideas from us. He has been listening to us about the laws we need to have passed and why we want them passed, he understands our needs, and appreciates as people.
The media’s attempts to twist and demonize what he is doing is ridiculous and just turns us off from them all the more. Someday, maybe the east coast news media will take time to speak directly to us, in a non-condescending manner, and discover what we know. They are more than welcome to learn from us as well.
President Trump is definitely struggling with old habits that aren’t easy to turn around after 70 years and he doesn’t have the smooth appearance people want him to have. But being a Christian isn’t about showing up at a church well-scrubbed. It is about something happening deep in the heart. President Trump is doing genuine things to protect our freedom of worship, unborn life, family, community, American jobs, Economy – Life, Liberty, Property – the heroes in our military, law enforcement, and Israel.
We happen to like that.
So yeah – we are willing to be patient as he grows in Christ and intend to continue keeping our eyes on what is important. We have no intention of allowing the left to destroy our nation again – so we will NOT help you – or allow you – to take away the first really good president we’ve had in decades.
And after the Trump term is over, we will find another to take his place.
Stormy, who said a few weeks ago that she had no relationship with Trump and assured everyone that saying this had nothing to do with money – can take the money from whomever offered her more than Trump’s lawyer did – and talk away. It won’t change a thing.
Hopefully, she – and all those of you on the left who struggle with accepting today’s reality – will connect with a real Christian at some point and have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment as well.
God be with you all, in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ.
FEBRUARY FISA MEMO REBUTTALS –
Full House Intelligence Committee GOP rebuttal to Democrat ‘FISA Memo’ rebuttal
THIS is the link to the GOP’s rebuttal – – to the Democrat’s rebuttal – – TO the original GOP FISA memo released in early February concerning what happened in 2016 in FISA court …(5 pages, PDF)
House Intelligence Committee Report On FISA Abuses
Originally compiled on January 18, 2018
Released to the Public on February 2, 2018
TO READ the entire PDF of the memo – use this link – 370598711-House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses
Full doc: Clinton-DNC secret agreement dated August 26, 2015 (PDF)
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.
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:
“…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
by Christopher Trotchie”—From the Daily Emerald, January 5, 2017 at 1:54 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
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
In fact, behind these “grassroots” groups is a formidable $25 billion in foundation investment
“That’s the real power behind the scenes: Out-of-state donor puppeteers who pull the activists’ strings,”
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
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
• 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?
- 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],
- 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.
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”
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
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.
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
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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
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 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’
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.
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?
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
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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…
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]
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.”
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.
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:
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 …
We established this org to promote ‘the election of officials who perform their responsibilities with honesty and integrity.’
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:
- 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.
“Since the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller  and McDonald v. City of Chicago  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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.'”
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…
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 said, “this 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|
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 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.
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:)
- Defender of Abused Children about to be fired by DC Superiors for refusing to shut up about rampant sexual abuse –
- SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN – Endemic on Many of our U.S. Indian Reservations –
- ACF Regional Director Blowing the Whistle on Child Abuse –
- ACF Director Tom Sullivan Suspended –
Our citizenry is our greatest Resource. The primary objective and ulterior design of our Federal Government is to secure the rights and safety of our citizenry under its jurisdiction. The Republican Party Platform of 1856 (Convention, 1856) states “that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it by positive legislation…”
Whereas; The United States government has given tribal governments the right to decide their own membership criteria; and the United States government has given tribal governments exclusive jurisdiction over any child deemed a member by tribal government, affording tribal governments the right to involve themselves in and interfere with private family matters anywhere in the country; and has given tribal governments the right to take children against family wishes;
And Whereas; many Indian Reservations are struggling with epidemic gang activity, child abuse, sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, corruption and violence.
And Whereas; tribal members living on a reservation, although U.S. Citizens, are not afforded the protection of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Press have been abridged and freedom of Religion infringed upon;
And Whereas; The Bureau of Indian Affairs holds land in “Trust” for tribal members; allows tribal governments management of the land, and tribal governments can arbitrarily remove land and property from a member at any time; and Tribal members have been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law;
And Whereas; many Tribal governments have no system of checks and balances; and many tribal governments have been found to commit election fraud in relation to tribal government offices; and most tribal governments, claiming tribal sovereignty, refuse oversight or audit; and spurious executive officers have been set over tribal members, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been enacted and enforced; and tribal members have no recourse against tribal leadership and its control;
And Whereas; the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been shown to have mishandled millions of dollars in tribal funds, and tribal governments receive more money per head, as much of the federal funds tribal governments receive are based on the tribal membership numbers or the U.S. census;
And Whereas; Financial benefits for most Reservations were supposed to end after twenty-five years according to the vast majority of treaties, and the continued gifting of funds from the federal government to tribal governments has continued despite not being a treaty right;
And Whereas; the effects of decades of victimization and stewardship by two governments has affected people emotionally and spiritually, bringing some to believe they are incapable of managing their own family affairs;
And Whereas: Equal Protection and Freedom of Association are constitutional rights, and more power given to tribal leaders means less freedom and constitutional rights for tribal members;
And Whereas; 75% of tribal members do not live in Indian Country – and many have deliberately taken their children and left in order to protect their families from rampant crime and corruption of the reservation system;
And Whereas; Congress, has plenary authority over tribal governments and reservation systems, and through statutes, treaties, and the general course of dealing with Indian tribes, has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and their resources, although does not have financial responsibility;
And Whereas; campaign contributions to federal candidates from Tribal Governments, Tribal Gaming, and their associates and agents has reached millions of dollars each campaign cycle;
And Whereas; Abuses are rampant on many reservations because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows extensive abuse to occur unchecked and without repercussion;
‘Dakotans for Honesty in Politics’ asserts that all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the Federal Government and Congress is responsible for this crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity.
Be It Resolved: ‘Dakotans for Honesty in Politics’ requests Congress, before the country and before the world, acknowledge the value of our entire citizenry and move to protect every citizen with the full force of law. We ask for a stop to current federal Indian policy which denies millions of people their full constitutional rights. We advocate equal protection under the law.
Be It Resolved: ‘Dakotans for Honesty in Politics’ insists the Federal government honor treaties which state federal funds were to end over a century ago, and cease putting a price on the heads of our children and families by giving federal funds tied to tribal membership rolls and U.S. census to tribal leaders. By tying federal funds to a head count on tribal rolls, federal government officials have encouraged tribal governments to view our children as dollar signs and chattel. The financial motivation for tribal governments to seek and claim children who have tribal heritage but whose families have no political connection to Indian Country will be recognized and abolished.
Be It Resolved: ‘Dakotans for Honesty in Politics’ insist on complete constitutional and civil rights for persons of Native American heritage living inside and outside of reservation boundaries, including the right of all parents and relatives of any ancestry to arbitrarily refuse jurisdiction of a tribal government over their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews.
‘Dakotans for Honesty in Politics’ support the protection of all citizens living on or near Indian reservations from discrimination by United States, State and Tribal laws and policies.
- We support the original intention of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement (ANCS), an act dissolving the reservation system and establishing Tribal assets as corporations and declaring all Alaskan tribal members to be stockholders of those assets as well as US and State citizens, entitled to all the protections therein.
- We support a study of how the ANCS fared over the years, and what positive and negative effects it had on the tribal population, including those who left the communities to live their lives elsewhere.
- We support a study to be done on groups of people of Native American heritage who have never been part of a federally recognized tribe and compare their physical, emotional, and financial health to those who are members of federally recognized tribes to ascertain the practical benefit of current federal Indian policy.
- We support the possibility of using the Alaskan Act as a template, with improvements, for federal Indian Policy across the nation. This would allow tribal members independence, self-sufficiency, and the full protective cover of the United States Constitution.
To further protect children in the Dakotas and across America, we ask Congress to:
- Guarantee protection for children of Native American heritage equal to that of any other child in the United States.
- Guarantee fit parents, no matter their heritage, have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage.
- Recognize the “Existing Indian Family Doctrine” as a viable analysis for consideration and application in child custody proceedings. (See In re Santos Y, In Bridget R., and In re Alexandria Y.)
- Guarantee United States citizens, no matter their heritage, have a right to fair trials.
- When summoned to a tribal court, parents and legal guardians will be informed of their legal rights, including USC 25 Chapter 21 1911 (b) “…In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe, absent objection by either parent…”
- Under the principles of comity: All Tribes and States shall accord full faith and credit to a child custody order issued by the Tribe or State of initial jurisdiction consistent within the UCCJA – which enforces a child custody determination by a court of another State – unless the order has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under Article 2 of the UCCJA.
- Include well defined protections for Adoptive Parents.
- Mandate that a “Qualified expert witness” be someone who has professional knowledge of the child and family and is able to advocate for the well-being of the child, first and foremost.
- Mandate only parents and/or legal custodians have the right to enroll a child into an Indian Tribe. Because it is claimed tribal membership is a political rather than racial designation, we are asking that parents, as U.S. citizens, be given the sole, constitutional right to choose political affiliation for their families and not have it forced upon them.
- Remove the words “or are eligible for membership in” 1901 (3)
- Remove the words “eligible for membership in” from 1903 (4) (b), the definition of an ‘Indian child’ and replace with the words “an enrolled member of”
Contrast with today –
On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Reagan delivered an address to a meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida. It referred to communism as “the focus of evil in the modern world,” and quickly became known as his “Evil Empire Speech.” The speech was delivered at a time when Congress was debating a resolution in support of a “nuclear freeze,” a doctrine supported by the Soviet Union that would have prevented the deployment of U.S. cruise and Pershing II Missiles in Europe. On March 7, President Reagan had met in the White House with a group of conservative leaders and pro-defense elected officials on the subject of the nuclear freeze. The President advised that his Administration was stalwart in opposition to the nuclear freeze, but meeting participants nonetheless urged him to use his presidential “bully pulpit” more often on the topic. Following the meeting, according to a contemporaneous report by the President’s National Security Advisor Judge William Clark, the President added paragraphs to a speech he was scheduled to deliver the next day to the National Association of Evangelicals. Those additional paragraphs turned it from a routine, if worthy, speech to one that electrified dissidents behind the Iron Curtain and appalled Reagan’s domestic opposition, including much of the press. The speech was destined to go down in history as one of Reagan’s most influential addresses.
Reverend clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you:
I can’t tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome. I’m delighted to be here today.
Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for your spiritual and humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn’t discharge right now one personal debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many ways. And believe me, for us they’ve made all the difference.
The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, “Yes, I am. I’ve felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer.”
But I couldn’t help but say to that questioner after he’d asked the question that — or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him.
I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.”
From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception.
Now, I don’t know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story — [laughter] — which I’ll share with you.
An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven’s gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn’t believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.
And he couldn’t help but ask, he said, “But wait, how — there’s something wrong — how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?” And St. Peter said, “You have to understand how things are up here. We’ve got thousands and thousands of clergy. You’re the first politician who ever made it.”
But I don’t want to contribute to a stereotype.
So, I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.
The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said, “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.”
Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.”
And it was George Washington who said that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America’s greatness and genius — and he said, “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Well, I’m pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty — this last, best hope of man.
I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities — the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.
Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.
An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved, I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?
Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.
For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active” — and that has replaced the word “promiscuous” — are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.
Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation’s leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we’re being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I’ve watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.
Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives?
Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We’re going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.
But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.
The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. “In God We Trust” is engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court Justices and Congressmen.
Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. Already this session, there’s growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.
Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students’ own time. The First Amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.
Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress considers these bills quickly. And with your help, I think it’s possible we could also get the constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.
More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of 50 States statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will some day pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and, indeed, I’m sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life — infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.
I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of Federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that “discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by Federal law.” It also lists a 24-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant’s life.
In addition, recent legislation introduced in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.
Now, I’m sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you’ve done better than you know, perhaps. There’s a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America’s goodness and greatness.
One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.
I think the items that we’ve discussed here today must be a key part of the Nation’s political agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer and abortion issues — and that’s enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your Biblical keynote, I say today, “Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.
“Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I’ve talked about is based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country’s accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.
There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.
I know that you’ve been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for ourselves but for millions of others around the world.
And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas — that’s their name for religion — or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930’s. We see it too often today.This doesn’t mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.
The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.
I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets’ global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.
A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.
A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the Cold War, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people’s minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, “I love my little girls more than anything — — “And I said to myself, “Oh, no, don’t. You can’t — don’t say that.”
But I had underestimated him. He went on: “I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.”
There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.
Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness — pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable “Screwtape Letters,” wrote: “The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”
Well, because these “quiet men” do not “raise their voices”; because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace; because, like other dictators before them, they’re always making “their final territorial demand,” some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I’ve always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride — the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration’s efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world’s nuclear arsenals and one day, with God’s help, their total elimination.
While America’s military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.
Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism’s attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, “Ye shall be as gods.”
The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, “but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism’s faith in Man.”
I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary.”
Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, “We have it within our power to begin the world over again.” We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.
God bless you, and thank you very much.
June 15, 2015
On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing “Addressing the Need for Victim Services in Indian Country.” We agree ALL assault victims in the U.S need help, however we disagree the solution is more funding to tribes.
The adage—the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results applies. Crime and corruption thrive with funding and lack of accountability.
1) One rape or child sexual abuse reported every other day on some reservations.
2) Violence accounts for 75% of the deaths of Indian children between 12 and 20.
3) Many leaders/social workers contribute to the abuse
Senator Heitkamp says she is “horrified”—though she’s been told numerous times over years and admits she saw the same stats in the 90s as AG. Her solution: additional funding to tribal governments.
The Senate Committee and BIA have long been aware of well-documented and rampant sexual abuse and youth suicide on reservations. Yet, Senator Heitkamp claims we must figure out why NA children are disproportionately placed in foster care.
Rampant reservation crime thrives with ‘tribal sovereignty.’ Many CAICW members abandoned rez life because of crime and corruption. According to the U.S. census 75% of tribal members do NOT live in Indian Country. Despite claims of tribal leaders, many reject their version of what’s culturally relevant and necessary.
Despite the mass exodus from the rez, Federal government continues to back tribal leaders who claim to speak for everyone, and supports tribal sovereignty at all costs —particularly the cost of our children.
Insist politicians put children first. Tribal “leaders” do NOT speak or know what is best for everyone of heritage. Handing additional funding and control to corrupt tribal leaders IS NOT the best way to help victims.
June 7, 2014
Concerning the upcoming event featuring President Obama and Senator Heitkamp at the Standing Rock Reservation on Friday, June 13th:
North Dakotans are a gracious and forgiving people and will politely welcome the president to our wonderful state.
However, before he gives his speech concerning the wonderful “Nation to Nation” relationship he has with tribal leaders and announces what further moneys and authorities he will bestow upon them – he needs to learn facts from those whom his edicts directly affect.
- According to the last two U.S. censuses, 75% of tribal members DO NOT live in Indian Country – and many have deliberately taken their children and left in order to protect their families from the rampant crime and corruption.
- The abuses at Spirit Lake here in North Dakota are well known, but it is also known that Spirit Lake is just a microcosm of what’s happening on reservations across the country.
- These abuses are rampant on many reservations because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows extensive abuse to occur unchecked and without repercussion.
- Many, many times more children leave the reservation system in the company of their parents, who have mass exited – than do children who have been taken into foster care or found a home in adoption. But tribal leaders can’t admit parents are consciously taking their kids out of Indian Country in attempt to get them away from the reservation system and corrupt leaders. It makes a better sound bite to blame it on evil social services
President Obama, please listen to those who do not have a vested financial interest in increasing tribal government power, and learn about the physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse of tribal members by other tribal members and even many tribal leaders.
STOP supporting corrupt tribal leaders and corrupt systems and pretending all is okay in Indian Country.
Every time power to tribal leaders is increased, tribal members – U.S. citizens – are robbed of civil freedoms under the constitution of the United States.
More power given to tribal leaders means less freedom, safety and constitutional rights for tribal members.
By Lisa Morris
“…The Tribal Elder who observed two little boys engaging in anal sex in her yard did call police immediately. No one in law enforcement took her statement. She tried to tell her story at the February 27, 2013 hearing but she was shushed by the US Attorney, the BIA leadership and all of those on the platform. The US Attorney did say publicly that he would speak to her privately after the Hearing concluded. He did not. Nor did anyone from his office take her statement.” – Tom Sullivan, March 29, 2013
This is just one of 100+ events reported over a year by Tom Sullivan, Regional Administrator for Administration of Children and Families, to his Superiors in DC. Their response? Transfer his duties to another department:
“I want to be clear with you that the Children’s Bureau is leading this effort for ACF and will manage work with both the Tribal leadership and the Tribal social services staff moving forward”…”It is my expectation that you will refer all future inquiries to the Department concerning Spirit Lake to the Children’s Bureau and respect the Bureau’s role in leading and coordinating the Department’s efforts to achieve the goal of protecting Spirit Lake’s children.” – Marrianne Mcmullen, ACF, Nov. 1, 2013
Ms. Mcmullen wasn’t alone. George Sheldon, former ACF Assistant Secretary, wrote Sullivan April, 15, 2013, to say the ACF doesn’t want to hear his reports. Mr. Sheldon also stated the ACF stands firmly behind the BIA, FBI & US Attorney at Spirit Lake, despite numerous reports from Spirit Lake residents and ACF’s own Sullivan that horrific child abuse has been ignored by those federal agencies.
YET – The horrific child abuse Mr. Sullivan reported to the ACF in 2012 and 2013 was supported by a recent CNN segment (Oct, 1013) entitled “Sexual Abuse Rampant on Indian Reservation” as well as a Front-line documentary “Kind-Hearted Woman” in Spring of 2013.
Worse – had ACF Assistant Secretary Sheldon listened to Mr. Sullivan – toddler Lauryn Whiteshield, murdered at Spirit Lake 6 months ago in June, might be alive today.
The situation for many children in Indian Country is at crisis and it’s time Congress quit pretending. Read some of Mr. Sheldon’s letters, Tom Sullivan’s reports, and other documents here – http://caicw.org/2013/12/04/letters-from-george-sheldon-ignore-tom/
We need your help. We need immediate hearings concerning the allegations Mr. Sullivan has made of negligence by the FBI, BIA, ACF and US attorney Tim Purdon in dealing with children at Spirit Lake.
We’ve also been told it’s well known among agencies that Spirit Lake is a microcosm of what’s happening across Indian Country. They know what is happening at Spirit Lake is widespread in Indian Country, but are playing political games anyway.
Our Senators need to know their constituents not only support them in confronting the problem, but expect them to. Please contact them and let them know lives of children are far more important than politics.
NOTE: We’re told the Senate will not under any circumstances entertain releasing people from tribal jurisdiction. We’ve been told current Senate leaders unequivocally support tribal sovereignty. Noting this is not an attempt to be partisan. This is simply reality in Congress. A Senator’s office explained they were unable to find even one Democrat to support constitutional rights over the demands of tribal leaders when voting for VAWA last spring – and Democrats control every committee in the Senate.
However, many well-meaning Senators have heard only the lobbyists for tribal sovereignty. They’ve never heard the stories of average tribal members and others who’ve been hurt by Indian law. They’ve never heard the other side of the story.
If Senators were to request hearings concerning Mr. Sullivan’s allegations – it would give the other side of the story a chance to be told and educate those who have never heard it. It would also show the Senate’s concern for constitutional and civil rights.
Our strongest hope, though, is that comprehensive hearings will save lives. We have no choice but to insist on oversight hearings based on the documentation we have linked to above.
We are asking 1) for hearings on Tom Sullivan’s allegations, and 2) that all federal agencies to be instructed to uphold law pertaining to child protection, immediately. Further, we want our Senators to:
- Repeal the Indian Child Welfare Act – which is hurting children and families across the country. ICWA protects tribal governments and sovereignty – NOT children.
- Change the VAWA to give victims of all heritages the right to be heard in country courts if they choose. Some women have reason for not wanting to tell their stories in tribal court. The current VAWA forces victims to choose between tribal court or keeping silent. U.S. citizens of every heritage have constitutional rights that are not always recognized in Indian Country.
Thank you so much for your willingness to consider this and help. Our children have been viewed as collateral damage in DC’s ongoing political games for far too long.
Elizabeth (Lisa) Morris is Chairwoman of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and author of “Dying in Indian Country”- a true story. Website: http://DyingInIndianCountry.com
November 11, 2013
This March 8, 1983, address by President Ronald Reagan at the meeting of the ‘National Association of Evangelicals’ in Orlando, Florida – – also known as his “Evil Empire” speech – – was somewhat of a ‘stealth’ speech. Listen to it. Although he used a smooth transition, the last part the speech is clearly something he added to what had been written by his speech writers.
His remarks concerning Russia were originally written for a speech he had given a few months earlier to the British Parliament, but his advisers cut them out. They thought they were too inflammatory and wouldn’t allow the paragraphs to be said oversees.
On March 7, 1983 President Reagan met with a group of conservative leaders to talk about a nuclear freeze. Having been urged by them to speak more on the issue, President Reagan added the paragraphs cut from the UK speech to the end of the one he would be giving the next day in front of the NAE. Some say that his “handlers” weren’t aware he had changed his speech.
Those additional paragraphs turned a normal speech into one that shook the earth – giving tremendous courage to rebels behind the Iron Curtain and appalling U.S. Democrats, the press, and even some of his own supporters. Despite the angst of nay-sayers, history proves it was one of his most influential addresses ever.
Evil Empire Speech. (1983). Retrieved from National Center: http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html
Reagan, R. (1983, March 8). Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. Retrieved from Reagan Foundation.org: http://www.reaganfoundation.org/pdf/Remarks_Annual_Convention_National_Association_Evangelicals_030883.pdf
Warner, F. (2003). The Morning Call. Retrieved from Frank Warner: http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2003/12/story_of_reagan.html