Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Happy and Healthy New Year! You Vote For Hillary and Sing " If I Had A Hammer." A Weasel Did Skunk Up The FBI!

This from a very dear female friend and fellow memo reader: "I really think when Trump is accused of sexism by Hillary, he should break out laughing (or just smile into the camera a la Reagan) and say: 

Can you believe that a Clinton is accusing me of being a sexist by saying I call women uncomplimentary names?  A Clinton!  Notice they are not accusing me of raping women, groping women, having sex in my office with an intern, etc.  Or of paying women less than men, as Hillary does.  In fact, it is widely reported that I was the first person in the Country to hire women in top construction jobs and they hold top positions in my company and even my campaign manager is a woman!  Do they think YOU are too stupid to compare the alleged name calling to what they have done? J---"

And when she accuses Trump of not paying taxes he should ask her to explain where the $6 billion missing from The State Department while she was Sec of  State went? To their foundation?
Obamacare continues to collapse but that always was in the back of Obama's mind because his ultimate goal was government single pay .  The more government controls citizens, who once enjoyed Constitutional freedom, the more they become serfs of a dictatorship.  This is right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook which is Obama's philosophical bible and Hillary's as well.

If this is the direction you want our Republic to go in just vote for Hillary and speed the process. While you are at it, enter the voting booth by placing handcuffs around your wrists. (See 1 below.)

I have published a few articles lately about the subtle intent of globalists among-st us and where they want to take our Republic.  Those who like America as it once was have rallied around Trump and are in a battle with the mass media who are desirous of electing Hillary because  her presidency would be an extension of Obama and his philosophy, ie.  distrust of the Constitutional form of governance.

Hillary tells you she is for the little person but her history suggests otherwise. She is a control freak, very distrustful and, in many ways,  a psychotic female version of Nixon .  Her entire background of youthful relationships, like that of Obama's, was with radicals who had contempt for America and the freedoms we enjoy because free people are less controllable.

Trump may not be the answer to all our problems, as if anyone one person ever could be, but if you want to drive more nails into our nation's coffin elect Hillary and while you are doing it sing that 1962 song by Peter, Paul and Mary entitled: "If I Had A Hammer."
My courageous friend and fellow memo reader, Allen West, writes about the tale of two cities. (See 2 below.)
Shimon Peres died after suffering a stroke some weeks ago. (See 3 below.)
Comey does not want to be called a weasel.

If you act like a weasel it is hard not to be thought of as a weasel. Comey was manipulated either by others above or manipulated himself.  Either way, he deserves to be called on the carpet for taking an agency that was respected and deemed functionally independent of political persuasion and pressure and no longer can be thought of in that manner.

Lamentably, Comey's behaviour and directives skunked up the FBI  and what he allowed to happen smells to high heaven.

No wonder people are distrustful and fed up with government.

Obama's legacy, from my perspective, will be shaped by these conclusions:

a)  He weakened and turned our military into a social experiment.

b) He increased tension and distrust between the police and parts of our society.

c) he accomplished the collapse in the administration of our healthcare which had previously been based on choice.

d) He spent with abandon and thereby, weakened our ability to accomplish other necessary goals.

e)  He defied the separation of powers and operated independent of The Constitution.

f)  He lied consistently causing distrust and viewed everything through a political prism.

g) He increased tensions between haves and have nots by constantly engaging in class warfare.

h) He made appointments that corrupted some of the most important independent agencies like The IRS, Justice Department etc.,

i) He traveled the world apologizing for America, equating us with Colonialism.

j) He could not bring himself to recognize the threat of radial Islamism.  (See 4, 4a and 4b below.)
Ari Fleisher made an interesting observation today regarding Hillary.

'He said, in view of what has transpired, Hillary Clinton would have been asked to resign and now is seeking a promotion.'

It is as if a female president of Chrysler blew it and then sought the presidency of GM.

Finally, to all my Jewish friends, The Happiest, The Healthiest and The Best Ever of New Years!!! Let it be a year of peace.

Chairman: ‘Obamacare is falling apart,’ another 131,000 lose coverage

In the latest blow to Obamacare, 131,000 in Tennessee are losing their Obamacare due to a shocking decision by BlueCross BlueShield to pull out of Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville.
Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, who has for years charted the ills of Obamacare, said the move “is more evidence that Obamacare is falling apart. Short term, we need to give families the opportunity to use their Obamacare subsidies to buy a policy for 2017 outside of the exchange.”
In a statement, the Tennessee Republican said, “Longer term, regardless of who the new president is, we need to replace Obamacare with insurance choices that allow Tennesseans to select low-cost insurance that fits their budget and their health care needs.”
BlueCross is the state’s largest insurer and their decision is both the latest by a big insurer to give up on the money-losing presidential initiative and a signal of more withdrawals by insurers to come.

A Tale of Two Cities, and Two Paths for America

By Allen West

I find it rather interesting, no hypocritical, that when it comes to what can only be described as a domestic Islamic terrorist/jihadist attack we are admonished to not rush to judgement or be impetuous. We are directed to never make any general statements and comparisons of Islam to terrorist activity, or be castigated as an Islamophobe. We are chastised as inciting Islamic jihadist recruitment if we refer to the enemy as they refer to themselves -- after all the best method to combat terrorism is with compassion, unity, and love. Our Republic’s system of justice is based upon the premise of “innocent until proven guilty.”

However, when it comes to our brave men and women of the thin blue line, our law enforcement officers, there is a different approach. In cases involving these souls whom we trust to keep us safe and secure every day, we have developed a different standard. Rushing to judgement is not just allowed, but it is encouraged. Remember the police in Cambridge Massachusetts were said to have “acted stupidly.” And such has brought us, over the past seven and a half years, to where we are today. But, let’s examine the tale of two cities, and the respective paths going forward for America.

Recently there have been two police involved shootings of black males, one in Tulsa, Oklahoma and the other in Charlotte, North Carolina. The former involved a white female officer and the latter a black officer. What is quite telling is the media and public responses in these cases.

In Tulsa, there was an investigation conducted based upon evidence, and the officer there has been charged with first degree manslaughter. Oddly enough, there were no riots and instances of mob violence. Interestingly enough, the rule of law and due process were allowed to happen. But, in Charlotte, there was again a false narrative created, which was proliferated by the media, resulting in the creation of the mob. Now, understand, I have no issue with Americans exercising their first amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. But, in Charlotte, when the black police chief is telling the media and the public “these are the facts,” why is he not considered a legitimate entity?

We have come to find out that the individual shot in Charlotte was indeed armed. He was a seven year convicted felon who was not supposed to have a firearm. What is it about the incident in Charlotte that precluded the rule of law and process to be followed?

We can even go back to the two shooting incidents in Charleston, South Carolina and also examine this tale. The police officer who shot an unarmed black male several times in the back and was found to have planted a firearm. That officer sits in jail and, once charged. was held without bond. The white youth who shot the church-goers in Emanuel AME Church was tracked and apprehended by police. He will certainly get the death sentence, just as the white officer. But notice that in both of those instances there were no protests, no violence. As a matter of fact, we were all in awe at the human chain that formed in Charleston over the bridge -- seemingly a metaphor of the song, “Bridge over Troubled Waters.” In those two cases, the American system of justice occurred yet we did not hear much about that from the media.

Instead, we have another example with Ferguson, Missouri, where again, a media-driven false narrative was promulgated that inspired mob violence -- to the detriment of the community. No one wanted to believe the facts or the truth, even when validated by a very politicized U.S. Department of Justice who, needless to say, was entering the fray with a certain bias under the direction of Eric Holder. There was no “hands up don’t shoot” display. Funny, that motto continues to be a rallying cry, one born from a lie. And, we can include Baltimore and Milwaukee as cases where it was mob rule and violence that dominated the scene, not the respect for our system of justice, which should be afforded to everyone.

There is a certain tale being played out in the inner cities and urban centers across America. It is one not firmly rooted in fact but oft time in political and ideological agenda. In cases such as Ferguson and Charlotte, we find that many of the protestors that have been arrested are not from the local community. They have been bussed in for the very specific purpose of incitement. And, why in only certain places? Why not in Charleston, South Carolina, where the people specifically asked for that not to be the response? Why not in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where the victim was clearly unarmed?

Perhaps because these are two very red states and the need for mob activity will not meet the desired political result. Charlotte is in North Carolina, a key battleground state in the coming presidential election. Perhaps the calculation is to effect a groundswell in order to inspire electoral patronage and support. Why don’t we see the type of mass protests and street reaction in a place like Chicago which has suffered the types of shootings and deaths in the black community that rivals the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan? Without a doubt, that narrative and optic would not bode well for the city of the current president and future president, one under the mayoral direction of Obama’s first chief of staff.

We can choose two paths going forward America. Either respect and regard for the rule of law, law enforcement, and our system of justice or we can enable and allow a politicized and ideological agenda driven mob rule. I don’t exactly recall the latter being so prevalent until the last four years or so. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the evidence overwhelmingly says I am not.

This is a time for choosing what tale will be told of not just our inner cities, but of the path that America took.
3) World Mourns Death of Shimon Peres

Israel’s gearing up for a massive state funeral after the death of its last remaining founding father, Shimon Peres. The 93-year-old Peres passed away in Tel Aviv’s Tel HaShomer Hospital after suffering a massive stroke two weeks ago.

Peres will lie in state in the Knesset on Thursday until the Friday morning funeral on Mt. Herzl.
He served in nearly every significant position of Israeli politics, including president, multiple stints as prime minister, headed numerous cabinet ministries, and was the Labor Party’s long-time chairman. He also served as an MK from 1959-2007. Peres is best known for being the architect of the Israel’s defense industry, nuclear program, and the 1993 Oslo accords — for which he shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.
4)James Comey’s Clinton Immunity
More questions about the FBI’s special handling of the email case.

FBI Director James Comey appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, where he’ll get another chance to explain his agency’s double standard regarding Hillary Clinton. His probe of the former Secretary of State’s private email server is looking more like a kid-glove exercise with each new revelation.

House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz on Friday disclosed that the FBI granted immunity to Mrs. Clinton’s top aides as part of its probe into whether Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified information. According to Mr. Chaffetz, this “limited” immunity was extended to former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and senior adviser Heather Samuelson, in order to get them to surrender their laptops, which they’d used to sort through Mrs. Clinton’s work-versus-personal emails.

Why the courtesy? “If the FBI wanted any other Americans’ laptops, they would just go get them—they wouldn’t get an immunity deal,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told Politico. He’s right. The FBI merely had to seek a subpoena or search warrant. By offering immunity, the FBI exempted the laptops and their emails as potential evidence in a criminal case.

Beth Wilkinson, who represents Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson, says the immunity deals were designed to protect her clients against any related “classification” disputes. This is an admission that both women knew their unsecure laptops had been holding sensitive information for more than a year. Meanwhile, Mr. Comey also allowed Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to serve as lawyers for Mrs. Clinton at her FBI interview—despite having been interviewed as witnesses and offered immunity.

The FBI also offered immunity to John Bentel, who directed the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management; to Bryan Pagliano, Mrs. Clinton’s IT guru; and to an employee of Platte River Networks (PRN), which housed the Clinton server. Usually, the FBI only “proffers” immunity deals in return for genuine information. In this case the FBI seemed not to make any such demands. The deals also did not include—as they often do—requirements that the recipients cooperate with other investigating bodies, such as Congress.
Meantime, the FBI waited until late Friday to dump another 189 pages of documents from its investigation, including notes from interviews with Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson, Mr. Pagliano, Clinton confidante Huma Abedin, and Platte River Network employees. They raise even more questions.

Was the FBI concerned that Ms. Mills in the fall of 2013 (after Congress began investigating the Benghazi attacks) called Mr. Pagliano to ask about software that could be used for “wiping computer data”? Or that a Platte River Networks employee, after getting instructions from Ms. Mills to begin deleting Clinton emails more than 60 days old, entitled the resulting work ticket the “Hillary coverup operation”? Or that a PRN employee was instructed by the company’s lawyer “not to answer any [FBI] questions related to conversations with” David Kendall, Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer?

The FBI documents also disclose that Mr. Pagliano admitted to having, at the beginning of Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, several conversations with unnamed State Department official(s) who expressed concern that her private server posed “a federal records retention issue,” and that it was likely transmitting classified information. When Mr. Pagliano relayed these concerns to Ms. Mills, she ignored them.

We’d also love to hear what the FBI made of the news that Mrs. Clinton maintained a Gmail account. The Democratic presidential nominee has never disclosed this detail. Speaking of revealing, President Obama has publicly said he found out about Mrs. Clinton’s server through “news reports.” Yet the FBI notes reveal that he emailed Mrs. Clinton on her private server under a pseudonym. Ms. Abedin told the FBI that the White House was notified when Mrs. Clinton changed her email address so the President’s secure server wouldn’t exclude her emails. Was Mr. Obama fibbing too?

These columns have long opposed the appointment of special prosecutors, but that depends on the ability of established legal officers to do their jobs without political favor. Mr. Comey’s handling of the Clinton case understandably makes Americans wonder if their government can be trusted to perform this duty. On the evidence of the FBI’s special treat for Mrs. Clinton and her aides, they are right to wonder.

4a)The Secrets of Cheryl Mills
If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity?
 ByWilliam McGurn

Why did Cheryl Mills require criminal immunity?

This is the irksome question hanging over the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server in the wake of news that Ms. Mills was granted immunity for her laptop’s contents.

Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State.

Here’s the problem. There are two ways a witness can get immunity: Either she invokes the Fifth Amendment on the grounds she might incriminate herself, or, worried something on the laptop might expose her to criminal liability, her lawyers reveal what this might be before prosecutors agree to an immunity deal.
As with so much else in this investigation, the way the laptop was handled was out of the ordinary. Normally, immunity is granted for testimony and interviews. The laptop was evidence. Standard practice would have been for the FBI to get a grand-jury subpoena to compel Ms. Mills to produce it.

Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney, puts it this way: “It’s like telling a bank robbery suspect, ‘If you turn over that bag, I’ll give you immunity as to the contents’—which means if the money you robbed is in there, I can’t use it against you.”

The Mills immunity, which we learned of on Friday, has unfortunately been overwhelmed by the first Trump-Clinton debate. But the week is still young. On Wednesday, Congress will have an opportunity to put the Mills questions to FBI director James Comey when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee.

Back in July, Mr. Comey must have thought he’d settled the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s emails with a grandstanding press conference in which he asserted “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against her based on what the FBI had found. In so doing, he effectively wrested the indictment decision (and any hope for political accountability) from the Justice Department. Plainly even his own agents weren’t buying, given that Mr. Comey later felt the need to issue an internal memo whining that he wasn’t being political.

Now we learn about the multiple immunity deals. Immunity in exchange for information that will help make the case against higher-ups is not unusual. Even so, the Mills deal carries a special stink.

To begin with, Ms. Mills was pretty high up herself. As Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, she was in the thick of operations. In 2012, while working at State, she traveled to New York to interview candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation.

More disturbing still, not only was Ms. Mills granted immunity for the content on her laptop, she was permitted to act as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney even though she herself was also a witness in the investigation.

This was allowed in part because she told the FBI she knew nothing of Mrs. Clinton’s private server until after she’d left the State Department. But this claim is suspect and contradicted by emails that have since emerged. These include one to Huma Abedin asking, “hrc email coming back—is server ok?”

The special treatment accorded Ms. Mills also reeks on a more fundamental level. As a rule, the Justice Department is aggressive about going after lawyers for any perceived conflict of interest. This would include, for example, a lawyer who wanted to represent different parties in a trial.

By giving Ms. Mills a pass to serve as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney in an investigation in which she was a material witness, Justice allowed her to shield her communications with Mrs. Clinton under attorney-client privilege. Indeed, Ms. Mills invoked that privilege during her own FBI interview.

Imagine Tom Hagen, the mob lawyer played by Robert Duvall in “The Godfather,” discussing with Don Corleone who was to get whacked—and then invoking the lawyer-client relationship to hush it up. Think of it this way and you begin to get the picture.

For those who think the fix was in from the start, Ms. Mills’s presence at Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview, along with nine other people (not including the two FBI agents) is further evidence of a circus. Judiciary Committee members might do well to ask Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills and so many others were allowed to sit in on that interview.

In short, far from resolving Mrs. Clinton’s email case, the handling of the investigation has provoked questions about integrity of both the FBI and Justice. The big question for Mr. Comey remains this:
You publicly said there was no case for criminal charges. So what did Cheryl Mills need immunity for?

4b)TRUST IS GONE by Dennis Prager
You're looking at the most political liar in American history.
I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country.

I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the �compassionate conservatism� of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance �compassionate� is a euphemism for ever-expanding government.
But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president.

So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America . The only question is whether
this can ever be undone.
This is equally true domestically and internationally.

Domestically, his policies have had a grave impact on the American economy. He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.
He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion � that is 6,500 billion � in five years (this after calling his predecessor �unpatriotic� for adding
nearly $5 trillion in eight years).

He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid � means-tested, let alone non-means-tested � than work full-time.
He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money � thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking about another reserve currency � and saddling the next generations with enormous debts.
With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act he has made it impossible for hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employer-sponsored
group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.
His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable.

His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi , Libya .. No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration
has leveled was on a video maker in California who had nothing to do with the assault. 
In this president�s White House the buck stops nowhere.
Among presidents in modern American history,he has also been a uniquely divisive force. It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress �the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party.

Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (�If I had a son, he�d look like Trayvon�) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police �acted stupidly�) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic, and, most of all, divisive.
He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world � something he should know as well as anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first half black elected the leader of a white-majority nation.
Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against �the rich� and �corporate profits.�
Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging.The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military
and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War II.
One wonders if there is a remaining ally nationthat trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country (Israel), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States.
Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America .Barack Obama has alienated our most
important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Both the anti�Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him.
 And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths.

Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse.
He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that �We are five days away from fundamentally
transforming the United States of America ..� That is the one promise he has kept.

What does it take for the American people to WAKE UP? Do we want four more years of this from Hillary?

No comments: