Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

I don’t recall

Question: What does a liar do when confronted with a question she doesn’t want to answer truthfully under oath but at the same time wants to avoid being charged with perjury?

Answer: She dodges the question by testifying “I don’t recall.”

I can’t count the number of times I have questioned lying witnesses under oath by deposition or written interrogatories and encountered this common dodge. The liar knows that her recollection at any given moment cannot be challenged. You can’t get inside someone’s head. So she doesn’t answer “yes” or “no” or respond truthfully to the question. She just answers “I don’t recall.”

Questioning this type of lying witness is like pulling teeth.

That’s how liars get away with lying. And one of the biggest liars I know is Hillary Rodham Clinton. The lady perjures herself every time she opens her mouth and when she’s not committing outright perjury she’s declaring “I don’t know,” which we all know is just another lie.

Recently a judge ordered Hillary Clinton to answer 25 written interrogatories under oath about her private IT server in a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch. It was the first time Clinton was forced to answer questions under oath about her private email system.

Clinton and her legal team objected to all or part of 18 of the 25 questions put to her. She also filed eight separate general objections to the process under which the questions were being asked. When she did respond, she used some variation of "I don’t recall" at least 21 times; 25 questions; 21 answers: “I don’t recall.”

She maintained that it was her "expectation" that all her work related emails on the server were turned over by her lawyers to the State Department when she finished her four year tenure. That we know now contradicts testimony by FBI Director James Comey who told the House oversight committee that "thousands" of work-related emails were not returned.

Question: Did you order emails on your private server to be deleted and permanently erased in 2013 after your tenure as Secretary of State? 

Answer: “I don’t recall.”

Question: Did you in 2011 receive a memo from senior State Department officials warning of increased attempts to hack into your private server? 

Answer: “I don’t recall.”

Question: When did you decide to use her private email account to conduct government business and whom did you consult with in making that decision? 

Answer: “I don’t recall.”

Question: Were you warned that using a private email account conflicted with federal record-keeping rules? Answer: “I don’t recall.”

Question: Was that topic ever discussed with you? 

Answer: “I don’t recall.”

"Mrs. Clinton's refusal to answer many of the questions in a clear and straightforward manner reflects disdain for the rule of law," observes Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said that Clinton has answered these same questions in multiple settings for over a year, and her answers "are entirely consistent with what she has said many times before.”

“I don’t recall.” “I don’t recall.” “I don’t recall.”

“Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization that has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s, and this frivolous lawsuit is just its latest failed attempt to hurt her campaign for the presidency," insists Fallon.

Yes, Hillary Clinton knows how to successfully dodge answering simple questions under oath and how to thwart all legitimate attempts by anyone to get at the truth. She simply utilizes the last resort of a liar:

“I don’t recall.”

Saturday, October 15, 2016

FBI and DOJ rank and file to Hillary: We know you’re a felon

Morale and esprit de corps among the rank and file gumshoes at the FBI and DOJ are at abysmally low levels these days ever since FBI director James Comey recommended that Hillary Clinton not be charged with multiple felonies arising from her thoroughly documented mishandling of classified communications while she was Secretary of State. That’s because they collected the mountain of damning evidence against her and know to a moral certainty that she’s a felon.

Career FBI agents and DOJ attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged, according to a senior FBI official insider source close to the yearlong investigation. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case. Comey’s politically motivated decision left them all dismayed and disgusted.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” says the source whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews. “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked… We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

“It is well known that the FBI agents on the ground, the human beings who did the investigative work, had built an extremely strong case against Hillary Clinton and were furious when the case did not move forward,” explains FOX NEWS judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. “They believe the decision not to prosecute came from The White House.”

James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server,” declared another group of veteran FBI agents.

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” says Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit. Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello agreed saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

So it appears that Comey lied to us when he said that a recommendation to charge would not be followed by DOJ prosecutors; no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case, he insisted. “I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”  

The FBI investigation was hampered from the beginning, because there was no grand jury, and no search warrants or subpoenas issued, explains Judge Napolitano. “The FBI could not seize anything related to the investigation, only request things. As an example, in order to get the laptop, they had to agree to grant immunity.”

Remember that long before Comey’s decision and announcement, Bill Clinton met in secret with Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, there were signs the investigation would go nowhere. One was the fact that the FBI forced its agents and analysts involved in the case to sign non-disclosure agreements. “This is unheard of, because of the stifling nature it has on the investigative process,” the source explains.

Another oddity is the five immunity agreements granted to Clinton’s State Department aides and IT experts. Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff, along with two other State Department staffers, John Bentel and Heather Samuelson, were afforded immunity agreements, as was Bryan Pagliano, Clinton's former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an employee at Platte River networks, the firm hired to manage her server after she left the State Department.

Combetta is the guy who “bleached” in order to completely to destroy Clinton’s records, despite an order from Congress to preserve them, and Samuelson also destroyed Clinton’s emails. 
Pagliano established the system that illegally transferred classified and top secret information to Clinton’s private server. Mills disclosed classified information to the Clinton’s family foundation in the process, breaking federal laws.

None of these characters should have been granted immunity if no charges were being brought.  “[Immunity] is issued because you know someone possesses evidence you need to charge the target, and you almost always know what it is they possess,” the source explains. “That's why you give immunity.”

“Mills and Samuelson receiving immunity with the agreement their laptops would be destroyed by the FBI afterwards is, in itself, illegal,” the source adds. “We know those laptops contained classified information. That's also illegal, and they got a pass.”

Mills’ dual role as Clinton’s attorney and a witness in her own right should never have been tolerated either. “Mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of Clinton as her lawyer. That's absurd. Someone who is supposedly cooperating against the target of an investigation [being] permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any semblance of ethical responsibility,” says the source. “Every agent and attorney I have spoken to is embarrassed and has lost total respect for James Comey and Loretta Lynch,”

 “Loretta Lynch simply wants to stay on as Attorney General under Clinton, so there is no way she would indict,” the source said. “James Comey thought his position [excoriating Clinton even as he let her off the hook] gave himself cover to remain on as director regardless of who wins.”

On top of all the above, WikiLeaks released internal Clinton communication records this week that show the Department of Justice kept Clinton’s campaign and her staff informed from the beginning about the progress of its investigation. So this was a compromised and fraudulent FBI investigation right from the get go. The political fix was in. This is just another blatant example of how the United States government is corrupt and rotten to the core at the highest levels.

The little people however, including the FBI and DOJ rank and file, the ones who painstakingly gathered the evidence, know beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Hillary Clinton is a felon. She should have been charged for her crimes. She should be in jail. Instead, she’ll likely be elected President of the United States.

It makes me ashamed to be an American.  

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Dirty Duterte: The butcher of Manila

Think about this: If it were not for The United States of America and the deaths of thousands of brave American soldiers who sacrificed their lives for them during WWII, every inhabitant of the Philippine Islands today, including President Rodrigo Duterte, would be speaking Japanese. 

Duterte took office last June and immediately became the butcher of Manila. He employs hit squads of his poorest countrymen to roam the nation murdering people without warning; without the benefit due process, without trials, and without mercy. 

He pays them bounties. He brags openly about his so-called anti-crime war, comparing the bloody campaign to Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust. He unabashedly declares that he would be "happy to slaughter" three million drug addicts.

"Just speaking personally for myself, I find these comments deeply troubling," said U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter regarding America’s long term “ironclad” Philippine alliance. "Like all alliances, it depends on the continuation of a sense of shared interests… So far in U.S.-Philippine history we have had that. We look forward to continuing that. But that's something that we continue to discuss with the Philippine government." 

Not anymore. President Obama recently canceled a meeting with Dirty Duterte after Duterte publicly called him a "son of a bitch." That’s the thanks we get for defending his hellhole nation and the freedoms of the Philippine people for many decades. President Obama had the nerve recently to criticize Dirty Duterte about his deadly anti-human rights drug campaign. "You can go to hell," Duterte responded.

The man plans to continue his murderous crackdown, which has left more than 3,000 suspected drug dealers and pushers dead in just three months. And he’s going to sever the longstanding alliance with the U.S. while bolstering relations with China and Russia.

Too bad for his people if Dirty Duterte gets what he deserves. 

Sunday, October 2, 2016

She blew it off

Hillary Clinton was absolutely required to take certain mandatory government intelligence training courses dealing precisely with how to handle classified material while she was Secretary of State. Now we have learned that she didn’t take any of that important mandatory training. 

Why not? Well, because she just blew it off; that’s why. Knowing how to handle classified material was never important to her.

Clinton chose to use an unsecured and unauthorized private server installed at her home instead of the State Department system to send and receive all of her personal and official email correspondence – including classified, secret and top secret correspondence. She set it up that way calculatingly and deliberately so that she could eventually hide her tracks by destroying correspondence that would otherwise be archived on a State Department server.  

And destroying correspondence is exactly what she did – as least 33,000 documents that she didn’t want her superiors and the American people to see.

It’s hard to believe, particularly as it was her first year in office as Secretary of State,” said Retired Col. Jim Waurishuk, who oversaw security protocols as deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command and served on the White House National Security Council staff. “The standard process is you will get all your security indoctrination done immediately upon taking office… I don’t care if you’re a GS-1 or a private or a four-star general or President of the United States. You’re going to go through your security indoctrination, particularly in the position of Secretary of State.”

Waurishuk says that people who refuse SCI  training, including Clinton, should have their security clearances revoked. “Technically, if you don’t do (the SCI training) for people at my level, they can pull your clearanceThere’s a level of responsibility, trustworthiness and your integrity that comes into play here.”

Clinton admitted during her interview with the FBI that “she "could not recall … any training or guidance provided by State."  So the United States Secretary of State was entirely clueless about how to handle classified information during her entire time in office. She never should have acquired any security clearance. As the FBI discovered, Clinton "could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined," and she repeatedly told the FBI that she relied on others — not her own knowledge — to know how to properly handle classified material.

Why was that?

She just blew it off.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Birther baloney

Donald Trump took some painful unnecessary lumps Monday night during the debate with Hillary Clinton when he seemed to struggle for credible answers on the so-called “birther” issue. The Democrats and Clinton campaign have been trying to label Trump an evil racist because he had the temerity to question whether Barack Obama was born in the United States and thus qualified to be president. But did Trump start that controversy? No! Did Clinton start it? No! Well, who started it then?

As a matter of fact, Barack Obama started it himself 25 years ago in 1991 when the publisher for one of his books circulated a promotional booklet containing a short biographical sketch declaring unambiguously that he was born in Kenya. So anyone doing in-depth research into the whereabouts of Obama’s birth could have found it and, more importantly, Obama never took steps to correct it if it was inaccurate. On top of that, he stonewalled the release of his Hawaii birth certificate until Trump successfully forced his hand.

Now, few people today, including me and Donald Trump, question the apparent fact that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii USA. That’s because President Obama produced the proof of the matter. Was simply questioning his birth place racist? No. Trump and others questioned Ted Cruz’s qualifications too as he was admittedly born in Canada. That certainly wasn’t racist. Cruz is a white man. There was a legitimate constitutional issue as to whether both men were qualified to be president.

Why, if it was a mistake, didn’t Barack Obama disavow the biographical sketch declaring that he was born in Kenya? Surely he was aware of it. Surely he signed off on it. Doing nothing about it then was a tacit admission that he was born in Kenya. Why did it take 21 long years for the publisher to discover that it was a mistake? Because he was running for President, that’s why, and he would not be qualified if he were born in Kenya.

Why do the Kenyan Parliamentary minutes of November 5, 2008 state of Barak Obama:
“Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country (Kenya). Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates should show the same excitement, pomp and colour.”
Why did First Lady, Michelle Obama say candidly some years ago in a recorded speech that Kenya is her husband’s home country?
“When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test for the very point of showing folks in Kenya that there is nothing to be embarrassed about in getting tested.”
Did Barack Obama want to have it both ways? Did he lie about being born in Kenya so that he could sell more books? Who knows? But surely there was enough information out there to create a legitimate suspicion about exactly where he was born and merely investigating the facts about it was not racism.

Trying to tar Donald Trump as a “birther” and therefore a racist is just birther baloney. 

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The thief and the grave robber

Do you remember when a certain First Lady of the United States moved out of the White House with her husband after his time as President expired in January 2001, and was caught red handed taking with her as much as $190,000 worth of White House china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other expensive items which didn’t belong to her?

Faced with the negative consequences of her dishonesty, she sent back $28,000 worth of the items, and agreed to pay an additional sum of $86,000 – a total of $114,000 – to make her pilfering problem go away.

Who was that First Lady? Why Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course. Yes, Hillary Clinton is a thief. The current Democrat Party nominee for President of the United States of America is a common thief.

Hold on; it gets worse; a lot worse. Now she’s brazenly pilfering money from her poorest supporters by reportedly purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation to her official campaign website The Wells Fargo Bank fraud department is presently inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charges.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds her; this is an example of the most disgusting dishonesty and thievery I’ve ever seen. The overcharges are occurring so often that Wells Fargo alone receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards.

Hillary overcharges small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. It takes care not to overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud. You see, no one ever said that Crooked Hillary wasn’t a smart thief.

OK, we know that Hillary Clinton enjoys stealing money from innocent people while they are alive; now we find out that, if elected President, she’s intent on bilking them even worse after they’re dead. She fancies herself a modern day grave robber. She’s going to confiscate up to nearly two thirds of the wealth that an individual has accumulated and paid taxes on over an entire lifetime.

But at least the loot won’t be going directly into her pockets. Clinton wants to impose a 65% death tax on the largest estates and make it much harder for wealthy households to pass appreciated assets on to their heirs without paying huge amounts taxes. So lots of kids will be forced to sell the family farm or other business when their father dies. It’s all part of her greedy and grandiose plan to increase taxes by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

That’s Hillary Clinton – the thief and the grave robber. 

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The great American Skittles flap

Immigration has been a central issue in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from the beginning. He has maintained repeatedly that America should be exceedingly careful about admitting refugees from places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Islamic countries until they can be properly vetted so that we know who they are and why they want to come here.  

Trump wants to keep out radical jihadist Islamic terrorists – bad apples, if you will -- who want to immigrate to America in order to kill Americans. Hillary Clinton and her Democrat Party, in contrast, want to admit hundreds of thousands of such refugees, 600,000 of them, I’m told, even though there is presently no way they can be properly vetted. She’s willing to take the risk that perhaps a small percentage of them – the bad apples -- might be terrorists.

Trump’s logic is simple and straightforward enough; if 99% of such 600,000 refugees are good, innocent and well intentioned people while only 1%  are bad radical jihadist Islamic terrorists, that would mean that as many as 6,000 radical jihadist Islamic terrorists would be admitted and set loose upon the American homeland to commit their jihadist mayhem and kill Americans.

Donald Trump Jr. wanted to explain that logic in simple every day terms so he took to his Twitter account to make an analogy with a bowl of candy – skittles. He pictured a big bowl of skittles and tweeted:
“If I had a big bowl of skittles and I told you that just three would kill you, would you take a handful?
That’s our Syrian refugee problem.”
It’s a pretty good analogy, isn’t it? It makes the risks quite easy to understand, don’t you think? Perhaps that’s why Hillary and the leftists were so outraged by it. “Trump Jr. draws outrage after likening Syrian refugees to poisoned Skittles,” the headline declares.   
If Trump Jr. had pictured a bushel of apples instead of a bowl of skittles to demonstrate the risk of eating a bad apple, the leftist mob would be howling just as much about his comparing the poor Syrian refugees to bad apples.

“Oh and human beings fleeing oppression and terror aren’t skittles,” tweeted ultra-leftist celebrity, John Legend. “Man the rancid apple does not fall far from the tree.” You see, it’s OK for him to draw an analogy to the Trump family as bad apples – not people -- isn’t it?

“Disgusting,” tweeted Nick Merrill, a press secretary for Hillary Clinton.

“Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don't feel it's an appropriate analogy,” said Denise Young, VP of Corporate Affairs for Wrigley Americas, which owns Skittles. 

Well, yeah, skittles are candy and refugees are people, but what does that have to do with anything? It’s an analogy, stupid. Surely it’s nothing to be outraged about. Surely it makes no difference if it’s about poisoned candy or bad apples, which is an analogy used by people all the time to make a point about taking risks with people. You know, there are bad apples out there.  

Really, does anyone in his or her right mind believe that Trump Jr. meant to imply that Syrian refugees aren’t people? Has it come to the lowest point of the political abyss where anything the Trump campaign says is a legitimate trigger for outrage?

I guess so. And the great American skittles flap is the proof.