Category: Michael Bargo

Russians, Identity Theft, and Campaign Interference


The grand jury indictment announced by the Justice Department on February 12, 2018 alleged that 13 Russian nationals acted to interfere with the U.S. political process.  The program had the code name “Laktha” and began in 2013.  The headquarters, named “Internet Research Agency LLC,” was located in St. Petersburg, Russia.  Two other companies were also created in order to organize the efforts: “Concord” and “Concord Catering.”

In order to conceal the Russian origin of the acts – those 13 defendants indicted for interference with the 2016 election – the Russians had to disguise the identity of the persons behind the activities and carefully conceal the origin of the money used.

In order to purchase Facebook ads, a source of money was needed.  Payments were also necessary to purchase campaign rally signs, print leaflets, and so on.  The Russians did not want to use their real names, since the U.S. intel community would immediately know that Russian operatives were behind activities to disrupt the American political process.

How the Russians hid their involvement for four years is an interesting story.  What they did was pay for everything done in the U.S. through a “straw man” payment scheme.  But what is interesting is that the straw men the Russians used knew nothing about their own involvement.  The amount of money involved was substantial: often $1.25 million a month.  These funds, originating in Russian government grants, were used to fund campaign interference operations in the U.S.

The Russians moved the money into the U.S. banking system by using unwitting Americans to establish bank accounts and PayPal accounts.  Through these accounts, the Russians funded their campaign disruption activities.

Since the program needed established, legal American identities, the Russians purchased personal information on the internet of real Americans who already had bank accounts.  The Russians obtained the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and birthdays of Americans.  Enough to open bank accounts.

But while most people understand identity theft as a method used to break into somebody’s personal bank accounts and credit accounts in order steal that person’s assets, or establish a new credit card and run up debt for the unknowing victim, the Russians employed a far more clever identity theft scheme: using the personal information of real Americans, they opened up new bank accounts using people’s valid information.  Then they put money into those accounts.  The next step was that they then opened new PayPal accounts, using as a bank reference the bank accounts.  The PayPal accounts were used to pay for all their subversive activities.  The money from the Russian government grants was moved into these bank accounts through Internet Research, LLC; Concord; and Concord Catering, who were legitimate companies.

This scheme solved two critically important problems: 1) it enabled the Russian nationals to hide behind the valid accounts of Americans, and 2) it enabled them to readily use a PayPal account, legitimately set up using a valid bank account, to pay for their U.S. subversive activities.  These activities involved everything from travel expenses to purchases of signage to set up anti-Hillary rallies and so on.  All the expenses associated with traveling to, living in, and setting up campaign rallies were paid for this way.

Since these PayPal accounts were set up using legitimate bank accounts (PayPal requires an established, legitimate bank account such as checking or savings to serve as the source of funds), no one suspected anything.  The persons whose identities were stolen were never alerted and never became suspicious, since the Russians never stole from them or set up credit card accounts.  When PayPal checked on the credit and personal information of these phony Russian bank accounts, all they found was an ordinary American John Doe, who already had other bank accounts using the same name, Social, home address, and credit history.

The clever part of this is that only eight people’s names and IDs were used, and this scheme lasted, for each person, only five days.  No red flags came up, since no money was stolen from a person’s existing credit card account or bank account.  The cleverness is that the identities were used to establish new accounts, and the Russians always put money into these accounts.  They made American citizens into straw financiers of their U.S. operations.  It was all smoothly done and lasted for nearly four years.  The indictment published February 12 actually gives the initials of the real U.S. persons whose identity information was used and the dates the scheme went on.

There may well be similar operations going on right now through PayPal to fund Russian activities in the U.S.  And given the tens of millions of American identities floating around on the internet, there may be new accounts started, used, and closed within days.  The Mueller indictment covered only the operations done under the three companies.  The true number will probably never be known.  But for now, the Mueller investigators had enough to indict 13 Russian operatives.  It’s a fascinating study in how to funnel money into U.S. bank accounts using the information of real Americans.

In the past, the CIA and other U.S. intel agencies would use shell companies or straw purchasers.  But compared to the Laktha project, these were relatively unsophisticated.

It was easy for the Russians to find complete identity information on Americans: forty million Target Store accounts were hacked in 2013 alone.

And 22.1 million federal employees had their personal information hacked in July 2015.  The database was managed by the federal Office of Personnel Management, and the hack was considered a serious breach of the OPM’s I.T. firewalls.  The information hacked was personal identity information from retired federal personnel as well as those currently employed.

Any one of these cyber-security breaks, which involved over 60 million people, could have easily provided the Russian operatives all the information they needed to cover up the Russian involvement while engaging in activities designed to disrupt the 2014 and 2016 American elections.  In fact, the Mueller indictment lists only eight people who were exploited in 2015 and 2016 whose identity information was used by the Russians to set up PayPal accounts.

These activities, generically called disinformation campaigns by the intel community, are as old as humanity.  There is nothing new about one nation trying to manipulate the political campaigns of other foreign nations.  The CIA does it all the time.  But the internet and the presence of virtually all personal financial information on the web make such information available to anyone around the world who knows how to tap into and exploit it.

The grand jury indictment announced by the Justice Department on February 12, 2018 alleged that 13 Russian nationals acted to interfere with the U.S. political process.  The program had the code name “Laktha” and began in 2013.  The headquarters, named “Internet Research Agency LLC,” was located in St. Petersburg, Russia.  Two other companies were also created in order to organize the efforts: “Concord” and “Concord Catering.”

In order to conceal the Russian origin of the acts – those 13 defendants indicted for interference with the 2016 election – the Russians had to disguise the identity of the persons behind the activities and carefully conceal the origin of the money used.

In order to purchase Facebook ads, a source of money was needed.  Payments were also necessary to purchase campaign rally signs, print leaflets, and so on.  The Russians did not want to use their real names, since the U.S. intel community would immediately know that Russian operatives were behind activities to disrupt the American political process.

How the Russians hid their involvement for four years is an interesting story.  What they did was pay for everything done in the U.S. through a “straw man” payment scheme.  But what is interesting is that the straw men the Russians used knew nothing about their own involvement.  The amount of money involved was substantial: often $1.25 million a month.  These funds, originating in Russian government grants, were used to fund campaign interference operations in the U.S.

The Russians moved the money into the U.S. banking system by using unwitting Americans to establish bank accounts and PayPal accounts.  Through these accounts, the Russians funded their campaign disruption activities.

Since the program needed established, legal American identities, the Russians purchased personal information on the internet of real Americans who already had bank accounts.  The Russians obtained the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and birthdays of Americans.  Enough to open bank accounts.

But while most people understand identity theft as a method used to break into somebody’s personal bank accounts and credit accounts in order steal that person’s assets, or establish a new credit card and run up debt for the unknowing victim, the Russians employed a far more clever identity theft scheme: using the personal information of real Americans, they opened up new bank accounts using people’s valid information.  Then they put money into those accounts.  The next step was that they then opened new PayPal accounts, using as a bank reference the bank accounts.  The PayPal accounts were used to pay for all their subversive activities.  The money from the Russian government grants was moved into these bank accounts through Internet Research, LLC; Concord; and Concord Catering, who were legitimate companies.

This scheme solved two critically important problems: 1) it enabled the Russian nationals to hide behind the valid accounts of Americans, and 2) it enabled them to readily use a PayPal account, legitimately set up using a valid bank account, to pay for their U.S. subversive activities.  These activities involved everything from travel expenses to purchases of signage to set up anti-Hillary rallies and so on.  All the expenses associated with traveling to, living in, and setting up campaign rallies were paid for this way.

Since these PayPal accounts were set up using legitimate bank accounts (PayPal requires an established, legitimate bank account such as checking or savings to serve as the source of funds), no one suspected anything.  The persons whose identities were stolen were never alerted and never became suspicious, since the Russians never stole from them or set up credit card accounts.  When PayPal checked on the credit and personal information of these phony Russian bank accounts, all they found was an ordinary American John Doe, who already had other bank accounts using the same name, Social, home address, and credit history.

The clever part of this is that only eight people’s names and IDs were used, and this scheme lasted, for each person, only five days.  No red flags came up, since no money was stolen from a person’s existing credit card account or bank account.  The cleverness is that the identities were used to establish new accounts, and the Russians always put money into these accounts.  They made American citizens into straw financiers of their U.S. operations.  It was all smoothly done and lasted for nearly four years.  The indictment published February 12 actually gives the initials of the real U.S. persons whose identity information was used and the dates the scheme went on.

There may well be similar operations going on right now through PayPal to fund Russian activities in the U.S.  And given the tens of millions of American identities floating around on the internet, there may be new accounts started, used, and closed within days.  The Mueller indictment covered only the operations done under the three companies.  The true number will probably never be known.  But for now, the Mueller investigators had enough to indict 13 Russian operatives.  It’s a fascinating study in how to funnel money into U.S. bank accounts using the information of real Americans.

In the past, the CIA and other U.S. intel agencies would use shell companies or straw purchasers.  But compared to the Laktha project, these were relatively unsophisticated.

It was easy for the Russians to find complete identity information on Americans: forty million Target Store accounts were hacked in 2013 alone.

And 22.1 million federal employees had their personal information hacked in July 2015.  The database was managed by the federal Office of Personnel Management, and the hack was considered a serious breach of the OPM’s I.T. firewalls.  The information hacked was personal identity information from retired federal personnel as well as those currently employed.

Any one of these cyber-security breaks, which involved over 60 million people, could have easily provided the Russian operatives all the information they needed to cover up the Russian involvement while engaging in activities designed to disrupt the 2014 and 2016 American elections.  In fact, the Mueller indictment lists only eight people who were exploited in 2015 and 2016 whose identity information was used by the Russians to set up PayPal accounts.

These activities, generically called disinformation campaigns by the intel community, are as old as humanity.  There is nothing new about one nation trying to manipulate the political campaigns of other foreign nations.  The CIA does it all the time.  But the internet and the presence of virtually all personal financial information on the web make such information available to anyone around the world who knows how to tap into and exploit it.



Source link

What Trump and Martin Luther King, Jr. Have in Common


As the story unfolds of how Hillary Clinton, former FBI director Comey, and the intel community in Washington trashed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump with what is being seen as a fraudulent dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign, and presented to the FISA court to gain permission to spy on the Trump team by unmasking NSA information, few know that this is just the most recent chapter in the long story of how the Democratic Party has used the FBI, DOJ, and intel community to attack and discredit political opponents.

In the 1960s, the most powerful new political movement in the United States was the Civil Rights movement.  This movement was led by Rev. Dr. Luther King, Jr., an Atlanta-based preacher who saw the inhumane treatment of black Americans and became a political activist.  His activation of black voters, helped by the 1965 Civil Rights Act, threatened the political power of the Democratic Party. 

According to original FBI documents revealed at the 1975 Senate Church Committee hearing, Dr. King was seen as a threat, and the FBI took an active role in discrediting him.  FBI agents worked with the Democrat A.G., Robert Kennedy, Jr., in a plot strikingly similar to the FISA court-allowed unmasking of Trump presidential campaign associates.  A.G. Kennedy signed an improper and illegal order allowing Dr. King’s hotel rooms to be “bugged” and his phone calls to be wiretapped. 

In order to cast some aura of legitimacy, the FBI’s COINTEL (counterintelligence) project said Dr. King had some “communist” connections.  Remarkably, the Democrats pulled the communist card out of their pocket and used it against Donald Trump, accusing him of “colluding” with Russians.  The investigation of the Trump campaign is being conducted by Robert Mueller, and most of the staff he chose has donated to Democrats.  This astonishing similarity is not a coincidence.  Other aspects of the attacks on Dr. King are similar to the way Donald Trump was, and still is, attacked.

So both Kennedys were involved in this startling and disturbing tactic.  Since A.G. Kennedy could not provide any evidence that Dr. King was a communist, he could not obtain a warrant to wiretap Dr. King.  He bypassed that legal requirement and simply ordered the FBI to wiretap Dr. King’s home and the Atlanta, Ga. Southern Christian Leadership Conference offices.  This was done in October 1963, the month before JFK was assassinated, so JFK knew of this and approved it

This phony label justified the FBI’s continued investigation of the SCLC and Dr. King.  J. Edgar Hoover himself stated that the goal of the activities against black “nationalist” groups should be to “prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify” the movement.  In 1964, Hoover sent a letter to FBI COINTELPRO offices instructing agents to “expose, disrupt, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist” groups such as the SCLC (the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. King’s organization).

In January of 1964, under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, the FBI discussed its goal of “discrediting Dr. King and the appointing of a new leader … and the FBI Director said ‘I am glad to see that light, has finally, though dismally delayed, come to the Domestic Intelligence Division.  I struggled for months to get over the fact that the Communists were taking over the racial movement, but our experts here couldn’t or wouldn’t see it.'”  At that time, the FBI was also pursuing “the discrediting of Dr. King and the appointing of a new leader[.]”  FBI officials felt that if they refused to participate in the “COINTEL Programs of harassment, neutralization, spying and intimidation against Dr. Martin Luther King,” they would lose their jobs. 

This is startlingly similar to the false Russian collusion allegations made against Donald Trump and the idea that a small number of high up FBI officials had to work to discredit Pres. Trump, as is now being revealed by investigators.

A memo written by FBI director Hoover revealed at the 1975 Senate Hearings conducted by Senator Church reported that Director Hoover himself said in a memo written January 8, 1964: “We have got to remove King from his pedestal.”  Adding, “I want to make it clear at once that I don’t propose that the FBI in any way become involved openly as the sponsor of a Negro leader to overshadow Martin Luther King.  If this thing can be set up properly without the Bureau in any way becoming directly involved, I think it would be not only a great help to the FBI, but would be a fine thing for the country at large.”  Then Director Hoover added, “I’m glad to see the light has finally come.  I have struggled for months to get over the fact that the communists were taking over the racial movements but our experts here couldn’t or wouldn’t see it.”

This scheme, of portraying the “racial movement” in America as being “taken over” by communists, is exactly, to the word, what Hillary and the FBI and NSA gave as their rationale for investigating Trump’s campaign: that he was “colluding with Russia” to overthrow the election and control American government.

Memos written by FBI officials said the same thing about Trump during the campaign.  On March 16, 2016, Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, stated in a text: “I can’t believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president.”  And added “[G‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ ‑t], Trump is a loathsome human.”  FBI official Strzok replied, “Yet he may win.”  In a later text of August 15, 2016, Strzok told Page: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office” – an apparent reference to deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe – “that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk.  It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40[.]”

The fraudulent Russian dossier intended to discredit Trump was paid for by the Clinton campaign.  It was used to obtain a FISA warrant to use the NSA’s information to spy on Trump’s campaign, just as Robert Kennedy signed an illegal warrant to allow wiretapping of Dr. King.

The smear campaign against Dr. King was a prelude to the tactics used to discredit Trump.  While everyone knows about the assassination of Dr. King, another young black leader, Fred Hampton of Chicago, was assassinated with the assistance of an FBI operative William O’Neal and the Chicago police.

Civil rights lawyer Jeffrey Haas, representing Hampton’s family, sued Cook County and the federal government for its involvement in the obstruction of justice and withholding of evidence and won a settlement $1.85 million.

The National Archives has thousands of records relating to the DOJ’s treatment of blacks.

Fred Hampton was 21 years old, a brilliant political leader and active in black issues.  He established aid centers to help single mothers and brokered peace among violent black gangs in Chicago.  He was effective, but too effective.  His fatal flaw was that he was not part of Chicago’s Democrat Machine.

As the story unfolds of how Hillary Clinton, former FBI director Comey, and the intel community in Washington trashed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump with what is being seen as a fraudulent dossier, paid for by the Hillary campaign, and presented to the FISA court to gain permission to spy on the Trump team by unmasking NSA information, few know that this is just the most recent chapter in the long story of how the Democratic Party has used the FBI, DOJ, and intel community to attack and discredit political opponents.

In the 1960s, the most powerful new political movement in the United States was the Civil Rights movement.  This movement was led by Rev. Dr. Luther King, Jr., an Atlanta-based preacher who saw the inhumane treatment of black Americans and became a political activist.  His activation of black voters, helped by the 1965 Civil Rights Act, threatened the political power of the Democratic Party. 

According to original FBI documents revealed at the 1975 Senate Church Committee hearing, Dr. King was seen as a threat, and the FBI took an active role in discrediting him.  FBI agents worked with the Democrat A.G., Robert Kennedy, Jr., in a plot strikingly similar to the FISA court-allowed unmasking of Trump presidential campaign associates.  A.G. Kennedy signed an improper and illegal order allowing Dr. King’s hotel rooms to be “bugged” and his phone calls to be wiretapped. 

In order to cast some aura of legitimacy, the FBI’s COINTEL (counterintelligence) project said Dr. King had some “communist” connections.  Remarkably, the Democrats pulled the communist card out of their pocket and used it against Donald Trump, accusing him of “colluding” with Russians.  The investigation of the Trump campaign is being conducted by Robert Mueller, and most of the staff he chose has donated to Democrats.  This astonishing similarity is not a coincidence.  Other aspects of the attacks on Dr. King are similar to the way Donald Trump was, and still is, attacked.

So both Kennedys were involved in this startling and disturbing tactic.  Since A.G. Kennedy could not provide any evidence that Dr. King was a communist, he could not obtain a warrant to wiretap Dr. King.  He bypassed that legal requirement and simply ordered the FBI to wiretap Dr. King’s home and the Atlanta, Ga. Southern Christian Leadership Conference offices.  This was done in October 1963, the month before JFK was assassinated, so JFK knew of this and approved it

This phony label justified the FBI’s continued investigation of the SCLC and Dr. King.  J. Edgar Hoover himself stated that the goal of the activities against black “nationalist” groups should be to “prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify” the movement.  In 1964, Hoover sent a letter to FBI COINTELPRO offices instructing agents to “expose, disrupt, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist” groups such as the SCLC (the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. King’s organization).

In January of 1964, under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, the FBI discussed its goal of “discrediting Dr. King and the appointing of a new leader … and the FBI Director said ‘I am glad to see that light, has finally, though dismally delayed, come to the Domestic Intelligence Division.  I struggled for months to get over the fact that the Communists were taking over the racial movement, but our experts here couldn’t or wouldn’t see it.'”  At that time, the FBI was also pursuing “the discrediting of Dr. King and the appointing of a new leader[.]”  FBI officials felt that if they refused to participate in the “COINTEL Programs of harassment, neutralization, spying and intimidation against Dr. Martin Luther King,” they would lose their jobs. 

This is startlingly similar to the false Russian collusion allegations made against Donald Trump and the idea that a small number of high up FBI officials had to work to discredit Pres. Trump, as is now being revealed by investigators.

A memo written by FBI director Hoover revealed at the 1975 Senate Hearings conducted by Senator Church reported that Director Hoover himself said in a memo written January 8, 1964: “We have got to remove King from his pedestal.”  Adding, “I want to make it clear at once that I don’t propose that the FBI in any way become involved openly as the sponsor of a Negro leader to overshadow Martin Luther King.  If this thing can be set up properly without the Bureau in any way becoming directly involved, I think it would be not only a great help to the FBI, but would be a fine thing for the country at large.”  Then Director Hoover added, “I’m glad to see the light has finally come.  I have struggled for months to get over the fact that the communists were taking over the racial movements but our experts here couldn’t or wouldn’t see it.”

This scheme, of portraying the “racial movement” in America as being “taken over” by communists, is exactly, to the word, what Hillary and the FBI and NSA gave as their rationale for investigating Trump’s campaign: that he was “colluding with Russia” to overthrow the election and control American government.

Memos written by FBI officials said the same thing about Trump during the campaign.  On March 16, 2016, Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, stated in a text: “I can’t believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president.”  And added “[G‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ ‑t], Trump is a loathsome human.”  FBI official Strzok replied, “Yet he may win.”  In a later text of August 15, 2016, Strzok told Page: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office” – an apparent reference to deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe – “that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk.  It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40[.]”

The fraudulent Russian dossier intended to discredit Trump was paid for by the Clinton campaign.  It was used to obtain a FISA warrant to use the NSA’s information to spy on Trump’s campaign, just as Robert Kennedy signed an illegal warrant to allow wiretapping of Dr. King.

The smear campaign against Dr. King was a prelude to the tactics used to discredit Trump.  While everyone knows about the assassination of Dr. King, another young black leader, Fred Hampton of Chicago, was assassinated with the assistance of an FBI operative William O’Neal and the Chicago police.

Civil rights lawyer Jeffrey Haas, representing Hampton’s family, sued Cook County and the federal government for its involvement in the obstruction of justice and withholding of evidence and won a settlement $1.85 million.

The National Archives has thousands of records relating to the DOJ’s treatment of blacks.

Fred Hampton was 21 years old, a brilliant political leader and active in black issues.  He established aid centers to help single mothers and brokered peace among violent black gangs in Chicago.  He was effective, but too effective.  His fatal flaw was that he was not part of Chicago’s Democrat Machine.



Source link

Oakland's Libby Schaaf Shows How Democrats Control Minorities


The Democratic Party of the U.S. has always had an attitude of using and exploiting minority rights.  Democrats feel that it is their party’s right to control the minority populations of the U.S.  And Oakland’s Mayor Libby Schaaf is following DNC marching orders by acting to defy federal law to achieve the same end: control of a growing minority of Americans whom the Democratic Party seeks to use to stay in political power.

Defiance of federal law is nothing new for the Democratic Party of the U.S.  Democrats have been practicing it for 200 years.  In the early 19th century, the Democrats were the party of slavery: their Southern states were the stronghold of the practice of slavery, and they did everything possible to hang onto their “right” to own other humans beings and exploit their labor.

When Western states began to say they were “free” states, and that a slave who traveled to their state was a free person, Democrats made comments similar to those of Mayor Schaaf and stated they had the “right” to own other human beings and they would fight the encroachment of federal and state laws to infringe on that right.  It’s a shameful chapter in America’s history, and the parallels between those official actions of Democrats in the South and their members of Congress are being copied and reflected in the actions of Mayor Schaaf, the governor of California, the California state Legislature, and the Democrat members of Congress.

This outburst of federal law defiance erupted in February 24, 2018, when Mayor Schaaf proudly proclaimed in an official mayoral office press release posted on Twitter: “I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to an operation in the Bay Area[.]… I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them.”  Notice she didn’t say to protect citizens.  She referenced a website that would provide residents information about their “legal rights” when they face detention.  She further noted that a California law, AB 450, signed by the California governor October 5, 2017, “prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas.”  The bill prescribes penalties for infractions: failure to provide the immigration notice the business owner received to the state would be a $2,000 fine, and later instances could be fined up to $10,000. 

The California law does give the state an out: it states, “Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law.”  In other words, the CA bill is sneaky; it bans employers from cooperating with ICE unless such cooperation is required by federal law.  So in an important sense, while it is being advertised as a defense of illegal employment, it does not specifically state that California will fine business owners who comply with federal laws.  And if the federal law says the business owner must provide information, then the business owner must. 

So it’s an exercise of double-talk.  It seeks to give the impression that California is protecting illegal alien workers while the language of the law does not clearly violate federal law.  So much for the California state law.  But Mayor Schaaf is not out of the woods: she cannot order citizens to disobey federal laws. 

The attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, has announced that he is suing the state of California for its self-proclaimed official sanctuary state status.  This is the first time the federal government has responded to any sanctuary state declarations, even though Chicago was the first city to declare itself a sanctuary in 1985 when its Mayor Harold Washington declared that the city will provide “all residents” the services and opportunities of the city of Chicago regardless of citizenship status. 

In reality most of this sanctuary grandstanding is of little more than public image value, but when illegal aliens are allowed to vote or given special legal status, or allowed to break federal and state laws that apply to everyone, it becomes a legal matter.  And A.G. Sessions has taken this action to demonstrate that the federal government has decided it is time to step in and clarify the obligations Mayor Schaaf and the state of California have to uphold federal law.

A few months ago, the city of Chicago sued Sessions when he stated that he would retaliate against the city for being a sanctuary.  He said then that the retaliation would take the form of withholding federal law enforcement funds. Chicago argues that it has a right to those funds and that it would hurt law enforcement in the city – although the city failed to clarify how its refusal to enforce immigration law doesn’t hurt citizens of the city.

While the anti-free state movement of the 1820s and afterward was the first big event in Democratic Party defiance of federal authority, the second occurred in the 1950s, when Democrat governor of Arkansas  Orval Faubus sent members of the Arkansas National Guard to a Little Rock, Arkansas school to prevent black students from entering the school.  Once again, this was an example of how a Democratic Party official insisted on controlling a minority.  Governor Faubus insisted that he had the power to segregate black students and prevent them from attending schools that were then white. 

The showdown ended when President Eisenhower ordered troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce the right of the black students to enter the public school.  All of these actions, from 1820 to the Civil War to the desegregation battles in the 1950s and ’60s to the uproar just a few weeks ago, have one thing in common: Democrats insist that they can defy federal laws to control members of minority groups. 

What is different is the strategy behind the actions.  While in the 19th century the actions of the Democratic Party were to deprive minorities of fundamental constitutional rights, today, the exact opposite is going on: Democrats insist that illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Hispanic, have constitutional rights and that the federal government cannot exercise its lawful authority to control immigration. 

These two practices seem to be completely different: after the Civil War, Democrats did not want blacks to vote, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act had to go to great lengths to prevent Southern states from having “tests and devices” such as memory tests, reading tests and other outrageous requirements for blacks, while usually letting whites off the hook from have to qualify to vote. 

Today, the new minority of interest to the DNC, Hispanics, are encouraged by Democrats to vote.  Many states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and other forms of identification to enable them to vote.  Chicago just established a controversial “CityKey” program that allows illegals to vote.  And so the literacy tests restricting the black vote have been replaced by leniency in illegal alien voter registration.   

Image via Jeremy Dalmas.

The Democratic Party of the U.S. has always had an attitude of using and exploiting minority rights.  Democrats feel that it is their party’s right to control the minority populations of the U.S.  And Oakland’s Mayor Libby Schaaf is following DNC marching orders by acting to defy federal law to achieve the same end: control of a growing minority of Americans whom the Democratic Party seeks to use to stay in political power.

Defiance of federal law is nothing new for the Democratic Party of the U.S.  Democrats have been practicing it for 200 years.  In the early 19th century, the Democrats were the party of slavery: their Southern states were the stronghold of the practice of slavery, and they did everything possible to hang onto their “right” to own other humans beings and exploit their labor.

When Western states began to say they were “free” states, and that a slave who traveled to their state was a free person, Democrats made comments similar to those of Mayor Schaaf and stated they had the “right” to own other human beings and they would fight the encroachment of federal and state laws to infringe on that right.  It’s a shameful chapter in America’s history, and the parallels between those official actions of Democrats in the South and their members of Congress are being copied and reflected in the actions of Mayor Schaaf, the governor of California, the California state Legislature, and the Democrat members of Congress.

This outburst of federal law defiance erupted in February 24, 2018, when Mayor Schaaf proudly proclaimed in an official mayoral office press release posted on Twitter: “I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to an operation in the Bay Area[.]… I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them.”  Notice she didn’t say to protect citizens.  She referenced a website that would provide residents information about their “legal rights” when they face detention.  She further noted that a California law, AB 450, signed by the California governor October 5, 2017, “prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas.”  The bill prescribes penalties for infractions: failure to provide the immigration notice the business owner received to the state would be a $2,000 fine, and later instances could be fined up to $10,000. 

The California law does give the state an out: it states, “Except as required by federal law, the bill would prohibit an employer from reverifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified federal law.”  In other words, the CA bill is sneaky; it bans employers from cooperating with ICE unless such cooperation is required by federal law.  So in an important sense, while it is being advertised as a defense of illegal employment, it does not specifically state that California will fine business owners who comply with federal laws.  And if the federal law says the business owner must provide information, then the business owner must. 

So it’s an exercise of double-talk.  It seeks to give the impression that California is protecting illegal alien workers while the language of the law does not clearly violate federal law.  So much for the California state law.  But Mayor Schaaf is not out of the woods: she cannot order citizens to disobey federal laws. 

The attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, has announced that he is suing the state of California for its self-proclaimed official sanctuary state status.  This is the first time the federal government has responded to any sanctuary state declarations, even though Chicago was the first city to declare itself a sanctuary in 1985 when its Mayor Harold Washington declared that the city will provide “all residents” the services and opportunities of the city of Chicago regardless of citizenship status. 

In reality most of this sanctuary grandstanding is of little more than public image value, but when illegal aliens are allowed to vote or given special legal status, or allowed to break federal and state laws that apply to everyone, it becomes a legal matter.  And A.G. Sessions has taken this action to demonstrate that the federal government has decided it is time to step in and clarify the obligations Mayor Schaaf and the state of California have to uphold federal law.

A few months ago, the city of Chicago sued Sessions when he stated that he would retaliate against the city for being a sanctuary.  He said then that the retaliation would take the form of withholding federal law enforcement funds. Chicago argues that it has a right to those funds and that it would hurt law enforcement in the city – although the city failed to clarify how its refusal to enforce immigration law doesn’t hurt citizens of the city.

While the anti-free state movement of the 1820s and afterward was the first big event in Democratic Party defiance of federal authority, the second occurred in the 1950s, when Democrat governor of Arkansas  Orval Faubus sent members of the Arkansas National Guard to a Little Rock, Arkansas school to prevent black students from entering the school.  Once again, this was an example of how a Democratic Party official insisted on controlling a minority.  Governor Faubus insisted that he had the power to segregate black students and prevent them from attending schools that were then white. 

The showdown ended when President Eisenhower ordered troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce the right of the black students to enter the public school.  All of these actions, from 1820 to the Civil War to the desegregation battles in the 1950s and ’60s to the uproar just a few weeks ago, have one thing in common: Democrats insist that they can defy federal laws to control members of minority groups. 

What is different is the strategy behind the actions.  While in the 19th century the actions of the Democratic Party were to deprive minorities of fundamental constitutional rights, today, the exact opposite is going on: Democrats insist that illegal aliens, the majority of whom are Hispanic, have constitutional rights and that the federal government cannot exercise its lawful authority to control immigration. 

These two practices seem to be completely different: after the Civil War, Democrats did not want blacks to vote, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act had to go to great lengths to prevent Southern states from having “tests and devices” such as memory tests, reading tests and other outrageous requirements for blacks, while usually letting whites off the hook from have to qualify to vote. 

Today, the new minority of interest to the DNC, Hispanics, are encouraged by Democrats to vote.  Many states allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and other forms of identification to enable them to vote.  Chicago just established a controversial “CityKey” program that allows illegals to vote.  And so the literacy tests restricting the black vote have been replaced by leniency in illegal alien voter registration.   

Image via Jeremy Dalmas.



Source link

Should Voters Be Required to Understand English?


After the Civil War, four million people of African-American descent became free residents of the U.S. Since they were born in the U.S., they were citizens and were allowed to vote in local, state, and federal elections.

But those who had owned slaves did not want former slaves to rise up against them and become members of Congress and officials in statehouses. And since slaves had been systematically denied the opportunity to read and write, they were given improper, unconstitutional tests at the polling place. For example, they may have been required to recite, word for word, the Gettysburg Address. And oftentimes white voters did not have to pass the tests that were given to blacks.

This practice persisted, unchallenged, for one hundred years, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished what the Act called “tests and devices” for denying people the right to vote, since these tests and devices were almost always based on racial distinctions. Southern states simply did not want blacks to vote.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act authorized Congress to establish rules for enforcing the Act. Specifically, a set of rules and guidelines were established that allowed the federal government to step in and find those states and counties in the U.S. that had established “tests and devices” such as literacy tests and other gimmicks. At the time, all of these procedural roadblocks were based on race.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was renewed several times. By 2013, however, studies by the Census Bureau and other agencies had determined that black voters had achieved equality in the polling place to whites: equal proportions of both were now registered as voters. So the purpose of the Voting Rights Act — to end racial discrimination through the gimmicks of “tests and devices” — had been achieved, and in 2013 it was discontinued. A Supreme Court ruling determined that the Act was no long needed.

But now times have changed, and those cities which call themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigration are engaged in a new vote fraud scheme: to enable “noncitizens” to vote. It’s a combination of two things: cheating immigration rules and cheating citizenship rules in order to establish new methods of vote fraud. This strategy is the polar opposite of the post-Civil War strategy: the methods of vote suppression have now become methods of vote enabling. Persons who are not citizens are now being allowed and fraudulently authorized to go to polling places and vote, violating all Federal election laws. Here’s how it came about.

After losing the 2016 presidential election, Democrats were more determined than ever to regain the electoral strength rooted in their big metropolitan areas. They made their big metropolitan areas into sanctuaries for one reason: all the big cities have been controlled by the Democratic National Machine, and all have been losing population since 1950. In order to restore the numbers of voters they needed to win state and national elections, they needed more people.

Whether those people are legal voters or not doesn’t matter. Chicago, long famous as the vote fraud capital of the United States, has developed new ways for noncitizens to vote. While in the past they practiced such methods as having dead people vote from cemeteries multiple times and having people use taverns and vacant lots as addresses, their new method of stuffing the ballot box in their favor is to enable noncitizen to vote. In fact, Barack Obama started his political career by teaching ACORN seminars to communities on how to register people to vote.

In the past fifteen years, sanctuary states have engaged in a strategy of allowing noncitizen suffrage by inventing/allowing new forms of voter identification. They invented new IDs, and since they run the polling places, told the polling places to accept the new forms of IDs. The first major one was the “matricula consular” card, use of which rapidly spread throughout the U.S. in 2002. In fact, Cook County, where Chicago is located, officially stated that it would accept the matricula consular as a valid form of ID — and “valid” in Democrat Machine terms means “vote enabling.”

Matricula consular cards are issued by foreign embassies located in the big cities to persons from their countries for use while they are in the U.S. These are not citizenship validation cards; they have nothing to do with U.S. citizenship. But since Cook County vouched for them and declared them valid, they can be used for voting in elections.

Recently Chicago went a step further and issued a new ID called the “CityKey.” It was applauded as a way for residents to expand their access to the city. But behind closed doors the city circulated a letter to city aldermen stating that the ID can be used to vote. Since the CityKey has no foundation in INS Naturalization procedures, it is completely fraudulent and illegal. This is not the first “test and device” Illinois has invented to enable illegal immigrant noncitizen to vote. A few years ago, Illinois created the temporary driver’s license program, designed to enable illegal immigrants to vote. This was also done in over 30 other states. And since the Democratic-run sanctuary states are the most populous states, this scheme has the scope to enable them to win national elections.

The federal agency U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requires that someone who wants to become a naturalized citizen “must be over 18 yrs of age, have resided in the U.S. as a permanent green card resident for at least five years,” and be able to “read, write and speak English.”

One may then reasonably ask why polling places are now required to have voting instructions and ballots in many foreign languages. If it’s a necessary requirement of naturalized citizenship to be able to read, write, and speak English, then why are Democratic-run sanctuary states bypassing this requirement and printing voter registration forms and ballots in foreign languages? After all, naturalized citizens must be able to speak, read, and write English, and no foreign-born person can vote unless he takes the time to apply for naturalization.

So in order to combat and delegitimize these fake IDs that Chicago and other big cities are using to promote noncitizen voting, the nation may have to restore the literacy test to the polling place. Since all naturalized citizens must be able to speak, read and write English, it follows that any foreign-born person who can vote in national elections must be able to speak English.

The Democratic Party, which once used a plethora of “tests and devices” in order to prevent blacks from voting, is now using a new set of “tests and devices” including IDs and foreign language ballots and voter registration forms to enable noncitizen suffrage. This is illegal and unconstitutional. I am writing a federal lawsuit to sue Chicago for these noncitizen suffrage enabling actions.

After the Civil War, four million people of African-American descent became free residents of the U.S. Since they were born in the U.S., they were citizens and were allowed to vote in local, state, and federal elections.

But those who had owned slaves did not want former slaves to rise up against them and become members of Congress and officials in statehouses. And since slaves had been systematically denied the opportunity to read and write, they were given improper, unconstitutional tests at the polling place. For example, they may have been required to recite, word for word, the Gettysburg Address. And oftentimes white voters did not have to pass the tests that were given to blacks.

This practice persisted, unchallenged, for one hundred years, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished what the Act called “tests and devices” for denying people the right to vote, since these tests and devices were almost always based on racial distinctions. Southern states simply did not want blacks to vote.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act authorized Congress to establish rules for enforcing the Act. Specifically, a set of rules and guidelines were established that allowed the federal government to step in and find those states and counties in the U.S. that had established “tests and devices” such as literacy tests and other gimmicks. At the time, all of these procedural roadblocks were based on race.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was renewed several times. By 2013, however, studies by the Census Bureau and other agencies had determined that black voters had achieved equality in the polling place to whites: equal proportions of both were now registered as voters. So the purpose of the Voting Rights Act — to end racial discrimination through the gimmicks of “tests and devices” — had been achieved, and in 2013 it was discontinued. A Supreme Court ruling determined that the Act was no long needed.

But now times have changed, and those cities which call themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigration are engaged in a new vote fraud scheme: to enable “noncitizens” to vote. It’s a combination of two things: cheating immigration rules and cheating citizenship rules in order to establish new methods of vote fraud. This strategy is the polar opposite of the post-Civil War strategy: the methods of vote suppression have now become methods of vote enabling. Persons who are not citizens are now being allowed and fraudulently authorized to go to polling places and vote, violating all Federal election laws. Here’s how it came about.

After losing the 2016 presidential election, Democrats were more determined than ever to regain the electoral strength rooted in their big metropolitan areas. They made their big metropolitan areas into sanctuaries for one reason: all the big cities have been controlled by the Democratic National Machine, and all have been losing population since 1950. In order to restore the numbers of voters they needed to win state and national elections, they needed more people.

Whether those people are legal voters or not doesn’t matter. Chicago, long famous as the vote fraud capital of the United States, has developed new ways for noncitizens to vote. While in the past they practiced such methods as having dead people vote from cemeteries multiple times and having people use taverns and vacant lots as addresses, their new method of stuffing the ballot box in their favor is to enable noncitizen to vote. In fact, Barack Obama started his political career by teaching ACORN seminars to communities on how to register people to vote.

In the past fifteen years, sanctuary states have engaged in a strategy of allowing noncitizen suffrage by inventing/allowing new forms of voter identification. They invented new IDs, and since they run the polling places, told the polling places to accept the new forms of IDs. The first major one was the “matricula consular” card, use of which rapidly spread throughout the U.S. in 2002. In fact, Cook County, where Chicago is located, officially stated that it would accept the matricula consular as a valid form of ID — and “valid” in Democrat Machine terms means “vote enabling.”

Matricula consular cards are issued by foreign embassies located in the big cities to persons from their countries for use while they are in the U.S. These are not citizenship validation cards; they have nothing to do with U.S. citizenship. But since Cook County vouched for them and declared them valid, they can be used for voting in elections.

Recently Chicago went a step further and issued a new ID called the “CityKey.” It was applauded as a way for residents to expand their access to the city. But behind closed doors the city circulated a letter to city aldermen stating that the ID can be used to vote. Since the CityKey has no foundation in INS Naturalization procedures, it is completely fraudulent and illegal. This is not the first “test and device” Illinois has invented to enable illegal immigrant noncitizen to vote. A few years ago, Illinois created the temporary driver’s license program, designed to enable illegal immigrants to vote. This was also done in over 30 other states. And since the Democratic-run sanctuary states are the most populous states, this scheme has the scope to enable them to win national elections.

The federal agency U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requires that someone who wants to become a naturalized citizen “must be over 18 yrs of age, have resided in the U.S. as a permanent green card resident for at least five years,” and be able to “read, write and speak English.”

One may then reasonably ask why polling places are now required to have voting instructions and ballots in many foreign languages. If it’s a necessary requirement of naturalized citizenship to be able to read, write, and speak English, then why are Democratic-run sanctuary states bypassing this requirement and printing voter registration forms and ballots in foreign languages? After all, naturalized citizens must be able to speak, read, and write English, and no foreign-born person can vote unless he takes the time to apply for naturalization.

So in order to combat and delegitimize these fake IDs that Chicago and other big cities are using to promote noncitizen voting, the nation may have to restore the literacy test to the polling place. Since all naturalized citizens must be able to speak, read and write English, it follows that any foreign-born person who can vote in national elections must be able to speak English.

The Democratic Party, which once used a plethora of “tests and devices” in order to prevent blacks from voting, is now using a new set of “tests and devices” including IDs and foreign language ballots and voter registration forms to enable noncitizen suffrage. This is illegal and unconstitutional. I am writing a federal lawsuit to sue Chicago for these noncitizen suffrage enabling actions.



Source link

The Politics of San Francisco's Homelessness Problem


About a year ago, in January 2017, Leilani Farha visited the city of San Francisco and was appalled at the extent of the substandard housing conditions suffered by San Francisco’s homeless population.  Leilani works for the United Nations as a special rapporteur on adequate housing.  She travels around the world to investigate housing conditions and called the housing conditions of San Francisco’s homeless “unacceptable.”  She concluded that California “is allowing, by international human rights standards,” conditions are that “deplorable.” 

This is particularly disturbing when one considers that California is the most populous and the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country in the world.  San Francisco has made some effort to deal with homelessness.  The city spent $275 million on homelessness in the fiscal year that ended in June 2017 and is expanding that to $305 million for the year that ends in June 2018.

But that is not enough, since there is a long waiting list for nighttime shelters.  Visitors to San Francisco are appalled to see persons on sidewalks committing drug crimes such as injecting themselves with needles.  And the city has areas now fouled by the smell of human waste. 

One has to wonder what San Francisco, which has some of the wealthiest citizens in the nation, is doing with all their money.  After all, the major tenet of liberalism, which San Francisco declares is its guiding public policy, is to help the disadvantaged and poor. 

In order to understand the lack of financial commitment to helping the homeless, it may be helpful to review the salaries of San Francisco County “public servants.”  Their jobs, and their professed mission, is to devote themselves to helping the needy.  There is no shortage of money, but there appears to be a shortage of commitment to allocating public taxes to helping the homeless. 

The money goes to those who are dedicated to helping the homeless.  There are many examples of salary extravagance.  For example, according to the website TransparentCalifornia. com, Madonna P. Valencia, the manager of the Dept. of Public Health, had a salary of $275,395.65 in 2016.  In addition to that, she received benefits of $65,154.15 in that year for a total compensation package of $340,549.80.  Another manager of public health, Theresa A. Dentoni, received $276,109.42 in 2016 and benefits of $64,073.87 for a total of $340,183.73.  And this in a city that cannot afford to make portable toilets available to residents.

The assistant medical examiner, Harminder S. Niarula, another person in public health, had a total salary in 2016 of $336,000.  Stephen C. Wu, a senior physician specialist, earned $336,000 in 2016.  Another supervising physician specialist, Catherine T. James, collected $333,000.  And nursing supervisor Patricia Carr got $333,000.

The list of those in public health working for the County of San Francisco goes on and on.  It appears that $300,000 is a benchmark for the top officials.  There are about 300 persons in San Francisco County’s government who received a salary in the $300,000 to $400,000 area.  Then there are over 2,300 people working for the County of San Francisco who earn between $200K and $300K a year.

The point is, these people, numbering less than 2,300, took in about $575,000,000 in 2016 just in salary and benefits.  If you add those who made from $300K to $400K in 2016, that’s an additional $100 million.  So in 2016, San Francisco County spent about $675,000,000 on just 2,600 salaried employees.  That’s over a half-billion dollars taken by less than 3,000 people while in 2017 at least 12,000 persons lived on the streets, and San Francisco couldn’t afford to provide portable toilets to them or overnight sleeping facilities.

This kind of economic argument is made all the time by Democrats, who say the top CEOs can afford to pay their employees more.  The voters of San Francisco have the right to ask why, if the top officials of San Francisco make this amount of money, some can’t be set aside for the homeless of San Francisco, especially since San Francisco likes to boast that it is the most liberal and accommodating city to those in need. 

Perhaps someone should sue the City of San Francisco, using the argument that the primary function of government is public safety and health.  For once, a federal Judge might make a ruling to force pay cuts for these people and devote more of the county’s resources to paying for facilities to meet the health needs of the homeless. 

So far, the liberal rhetoric of San Francisco has succeeded only in making public employees wealthy, not safeguarding the public health and safety of the residents.  Amid the wealth and luxury of San Francisco, there is a growing population of poor and destitute residents.  This argues more for the idea that liberalism is just good old-fashioned government greed: once in power, government employees make themselves wealthy at the expense of everyone else and create the traditional exploitive society where the few live by impoverishing the many. 

The facts are clear: in the most liberal and progressive and Democrat-controlled city in the country, one can find the largest homeless population living in the unhealthiest conditions of any city.

About a year ago, in January 2017, Leilani Farha visited the city of San Francisco and was appalled at the extent of the substandard housing conditions suffered by San Francisco’s homeless population.  Leilani works for the United Nations as a special rapporteur on adequate housing.  She travels around the world to investigate housing conditions and called the housing conditions of San Francisco’s homeless “unacceptable.”  She concluded that California “is allowing, by international human rights standards,” conditions are that “deplorable.” 

This is particularly disturbing when one considers that California is the most populous and the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country in the world.  San Francisco has made some effort to deal with homelessness.  The city spent $275 million on homelessness in the fiscal year that ended in June 2017 and is expanding that to $305 million for the year that ends in June 2018.

But that is not enough, since there is a long waiting list for nighttime shelters.  Visitors to San Francisco are appalled to see persons on sidewalks committing drug crimes such as injecting themselves with needles.  And the city has areas now fouled by the smell of human waste. 

One has to wonder what San Francisco, which has some of the wealthiest citizens in the nation, is doing with all their money.  After all, the major tenet of liberalism, which San Francisco declares is its guiding public policy, is to help the disadvantaged and poor. 

In order to understand the lack of financial commitment to helping the homeless, it may be helpful to review the salaries of San Francisco County “public servants.”  Their jobs, and their professed mission, is to devote themselves to helping the needy.  There is no shortage of money, but there appears to be a shortage of commitment to allocating public taxes to helping the homeless. 

The money goes to those who are dedicated to helping the homeless.  There are many examples of salary extravagance.  For example, according to the website TransparentCalifornia. com, Madonna P. Valencia, the manager of the Dept. of Public Health, had a salary of $275,395.65 in 2016.  In addition to that, she received benefits of $65,154.15 in that year for a total compensation package of $340,549.80.  Another manager of public health, Theresa A. Dentoni, received $276,109.42 in 2016 and benefits of $64,073.87 for a total of $340,183.73.  And this in a city that cannot afford to make portable toilets available to residents.

The assistant medical examiner, Harminder S. Niarula, another person in public health, had a total salary in 2016 of $336,000.  Stephen C. Wu, a senior physician specialist, earned $336,000 in 2016.  Another supervising physician specialist, Catherine T. James, collected $333,000.  And nursing supervisor Patricia Carr got $333,000.

The list of those in public health working for the County of San Francisco goes on and on.  It appears that $300,000 is a benchmark for the top officials.  There are about 300 persons in San Francisco County’s government who received a salary in the $300,000 to $400,000 area.  Then there are over 2,300 people working for the County of San Francisco who earn between $200K and $300K a year.

The point is, these people, numbering less than 2,300, took in about $575,000,000 in 2016 just in salary and benefits.  If you add those who made from $300K to $400K in 2016, that’s an additional $100 million.  So in 2016, San Francisco County spent about $675,000,000 on just 2,600 salaried employees.  That’s over a half-billion dollars taken by less than 3,000 people while in 2017 at least 12,000 persons lived on the streets, and San Francisco couldn’t afford to provide portable toilets to them or overnight sleeping facilities.

This kind of economic argument is made all the time by Democrats, who say the top CEOs can afford to pay their employees more.  The voters of San Francisco have the right to ask why, if the top officials of San Francisco make this amount of money, some can’t be set aside for the homeless of San Francisco, especially since San Francisco likes to boast that it is the most liberal and accommodating city to those in need. 

Perhaps someone should sue the City of San Francisco, using the argument that the primary function of government is public safety and health.  For once, a federal Judge might make a ruling to force pay cuts for these people and devote more of the county’s resources to paying for facilities to meet the health needs of the homeless. 

So far, the liberal rhetoric of San Francisco has succeeded only in making public employees wealthy, not safeguarding the public health and safety of the residents.  Amid the wealth and luxury of San Francisco, there is a growing population of poor and destitute residents.  This argues more for the idea that liberalism is just good old-fashioned government greed: once in power, government employees make themselves wealthy at the expense of everyone else and create the traditional exploitive society where the few live by impoverishing the many. 

The facts are clear: in the most liberal and progressive and Democrat-controlled city in the country, one can find the largest homeless population living in the unhealthiest conditions of any city.



Source link

Pot Politics: How Democrats Politicize the Recreational Marijuana Issue to Win Midterm Elections


One of the reasons the Democrats lost the November 2016 election was low voter turnout.  As the 2018 midterms approach, Democrats have politicized the recreational marijuana issue as a means of increasing voter turnout, knowing that many in their voter base want the recreational use of marijuana to be legalized.  They put the recreational marijuana issue to a vote in the 2016 California election. 

The recreational marijuana use law in California went into effect on January 1, 2018 – just by coincidence, a midterm election year.  And just as the Democrats had hoped, Jeff Sessions, the attorney general of the United States, announced that he has reversed the Obama-era Holder-Lynch policy, called the Cole Memorandum, which generally stated that the federal government will not enforce parts of the Controlled Substances Act.  Sessions has asked U.S. attorneys to begin prosecution of recreational marijuana use.

Democrat hopes that Jeff Sessions would take the bait were realized.  They can use the public attention over the Sessions war on the legalization of marijuana in California as an issue to exploit in the fall to 1) bring out voters of all ages and 2) simultaneously portray Jeff Sessions and the Republican Party as the bad guys who are all against recreational marijuana use and should be voted out of office.

That this was a planned strategy can be seen by the media hype being given to anti-Sessions politicians in marijuana-friendly states.  For example, Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington, has come out against the Sessions announcement, promising to fight Sessions.  This portrays the governor as someone with admirable qualities – ready to “resist,” in the language of the DNC, the efforts of stodgy, stiff, fun-hating conservatives to outlaw their access to marijuana.  And if the resistance to the Sessions mandate spills over and attaches to President Trump, all the better.  All of these Democrat politicians are merely actors in the politics of pot charade.

That this is part of a multi-year plan can be easily seen when Obama’s actions are reviewed.  President Obama’s memo to the U.S. attorneys was not a formal executive order, but a guideline not to enforce the federal ban on marijuana sales in all states.  (The president does not have any legal authority to pick and choose which federal laws will, and will not, be enforced, but he can prioritize.)

If the Democrats truly wanted to help pot-smokers they could have easily, in 2009 or 2010, when they controlled the entire Congress and had president Obama on their side, removed recreational marijuana from the list of controlled substances.  But they didn’t.  And why they didn’t should be a lesson in the politics of pot for those who support recreational marijuana use.

Barack Obama stated in his book Dreams from My Father that he tried marijuana in his younger years.  So pro-pot voters thought that in Obama, they had a true believer: someone who would be their representative in the White House, who would not fight the legalization of marijuana’s recreational use. 

But Obama turned out to be a closet opponent of the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana – he followed his party’s carefully designed strategy of not federally legalizing marijuana nationwide.  This left the state-by-state battles open, to be used by the DNC to mobilize pot-friendly voters in upcoming elections.  And Democrats think that if voters will turn out for state elections, they will not ignore the federal offices on the ballot.

Democrats have framed recreational marijuana legalization as a state issue – that when states vote to legalize recreational use, that legalization is sufficient.  But it’s not.  All states must obey federal controlled substances laws.  Democrats want to portray Sessions and Trump as the bad guys who are taking rights away from people who live in states that have pseudo-legalized recreational marijuana use.  In reality, states have no authority to defy federal laws, and Democrats know it.

For many election cycles, political observers have pointed out that Democrats always put the legalization of pot on the ballot in order to boost voter turnout.  But what is different is that now the spotlight is on Sessions and the federal law that bans recreational marijuana use.

In the past twenty years, of the two political parties, only Democrats had the congressional power needed to decriminalize pot at the federal level.  One can argue that they are solely responsible for the fact that it is still a federal crime to possess marijuana.  But they have cleverly blamed the federal criminalization of marijuana use on Sessions and Trump.  It’s part of their perpetual strategy to increase President Trump’s negatives.

Marijuana-supporters should remember this: there would be no battle over the legalization of pot if Democrats didn’t enable one.  So the Democratic Party puts its own political power over the legalization of recreational marijuana.  Knowledge of this scam should turn marijuana-smokers against Democrats.

Pro-legalization voters are pawns in the national DNC strategy to increase voter turnout.  Their real strategy is to manipulate their voters with promises; the DNC chooses politics over pot.  The last thing they want to do is permanently legalize recreational marijuana use, at the federal level, in all fifty states. 

One of the reasons the Democrats lost the November 2016 election was low voter turnout.  As the 2018 midterms approach, Democrats have politicized the recreational marijuana issue as a means of increasing voter turnout, knowing that many in their voter base want the recreational use of marijuana to be legalized.  They put the recreational marijuana issue to a vote in the 2016 California election. 

The recreational marijuana use law in California went into effect on January 1, 2018 – just by coincidence, a midterm election year.  And just as the Democrats had hoped, Jeff Sessions, the attorney general of the United States, announced that he has reversed the Obama-era Holder-Lynch policy, called the Cole Memorandum, which generally stated that the federal government will not enforce parts of the Controlled Substances Act.  Sessions has asked U.S. attorneys to begin prosecution of recreational marijuana use.

Democrat hopes that Jeff Sessions would take the bait were realized.  They can use the public attention over the Sessions war on the legalization of marijuana in California as an issue to exploit in the fall to 1) bring out voters of all ages and 2) simultaneously portray Jeff Sessions and the Republican Party as the bad guys who are all against recreational marijuana use and should be voted out of office.

That this was a planned strategy can be seen by the media hype being given to anti-Sessions politicians in marijuana-friendly states.  For example, Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington, has come out against the Sessions announcement, promising to fight Sessions.  This portrays the governor as someone with admirable qualities – ready to “resist,” in the language of the DNC, the efforts of stodgy, stiff, fun-hating conservatives to outlaw their access to marijuana.  And if the resistance to the Sessions mandate spills over and attaches to President Trump, all the better.  All of these Democrat politicians are merely actors in the politics of pot charade.

That this is part of a multi-year plan can be easily seen when Obama’s actions are reviewed.  President Obama’s memo to the U.S. attorneys was not a formal executive order, but a guideline not to enforce the federal ban on marijuana sales in all states.  (The president does not have any legal authority to pick and choose which federal laws will, and will not, be enforced, but he can prioritize.)

If the Democrats truly wanted to help pot-smokers they could have easily, in 2009 or 2010, when they controlled the entire Congress and had president Obama on their side, removed recreational marijuana from the list of controlled substances.  But they didn’t.  And why they didn’t should be a lesson in the politics of pot for those who support recreational marijuana use.

Barack Obama stated in his book Dreams from My Father that he tried marijuana in his younger years.  So pro-pot voters thought that in Obama, they had a true believer: someone who would be their representative in the White House, who would not fight the legalization of marijuana’s recreational use. 

But Obama turned out to be a closet opponent of the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana – he followed his party’s carefully designed strategy of not federally legalizing marijuana nationwide.  This left the state-by-state battles open, to be used by the DNC to mobilize pot-friendly voters in upcoming elections.  And Democrats think that if voters will turn out for state elections, they will not ignore the federal offices on the ballot.

Democrats have framed recreational marijuana legalization as a state issue – that when states vote to legalize recreational use, that legalization is sufficient.  But it’s not.  All states must obey federal controlled substances laws.  Democrats want to portray Sessions and Trump as the bad guys who are taking rights away from people who live in states that have pseudo-legalized recreational marijuana use.  In reality, states have no authority to defy federal laws, and Democrats know it.

For many election cycles, political observers have pointed out that Democrats always put the legalization of pot on the ballot in order to boost voter turnout.  But what is different is that now the spotlight is on Sessions and the federal law that bans recreational marijuana use.

In the past twenty years, of the two political parties, only Democrats had the congressional power needed to decriminalize pot at the federal level.  One can argue that they are solely responsible for the fact that it is still a federal crime to possess marijuana.  But they have cleverly blamed the federal criminalization of marijuana use on Sessions and Trump.  It’s part of their perpetual strategy to increase President Trump’s negatives.

Marijuana-supporters should remember this: there would be no battle over the legalization of pot if Democrats didn’t enable one.  So the Democratic Party puts its own political power over the legalization of recreational marijuana.  Knowledge of this scam should turn marijuana-smokers against Democrats.

Pro-legalization voters are pawns in the national DNC strategy to increase voter turnout.  Their real strategy is to manipulate their voters with promises; the DNC chooses politics over pot.  The last thing they want to do is permanently legalize recreational marijuana use, at the federal level, in all fifty states. 



Source link

How Democrats Permanently Stole Your Vote


Every election cycle we hear about how every vote must count, how every voter must have equal access to the ballot box, and how no one can be denied the opportunity to express their voice to how the government is run. This concern has been seized upon as the primary interest of the Democratic Party who have made it their personal crusade to ensure fairness in every election, by the careful, fair supervision of the voting process in every voting precinct.

But while this is the public rhetoric, the private reality is much different. The fact is, while Democrats are preaching fairness and equity among voters, in Congress they have seized control through a scheme that has taken over the legislative branch of the Federal government, and done so in a manner that permanently denies all of us the full value of our vote.

How this has been done has, until now, never been explained. At first glance this observation seems to be another unfounded conspiracy, but no observation on how government has managed to steal the value of our vote can be more solidly founded on the principles of our republican form of government and the realities of the national budget.

In order to understand how this vote theft has been perpetrated it’s necessary to briefly review the nature of the American form of national government. From the Declaration of Independence, Notes on the Debate which formed the Constitution, and the final Constitution these principles are certain: that the U.S. government derives its power and authority to govern from the will and consent of the people. And that to consult with the people, Congress, as written in the Constitution, is up for reelection every two years. The President of the U.S. every four years.

Here’s the big question: does this mean that all policy issues are up for reelection every two years? The constitution does give guidance on this issue. It lists 18 policy issues that Congress will provide for. These include the Army and Navy. The only limit on time regarding the national budget is mentioned for the Army: no appropriations for the Army can be for more than a term of two years. This places an absolute two-year limit on appropriations.

The other essential fact of budgeting is that all bills of appropriations shall originate in the House of Representatives, then voted on by the Senate and signed or vetoed by the president. This clearly states that all appropriations require an act of legislation specific to that appropriation, and by implication that the appropriation cannot last for more than two years.

It’s this two-year time limit that has been seized upon by Democrats as a loophole and violated. In addition, they have seized upon the idea, clearly violative of the Constitution, that all acts of appropriation must be passed by the House.

Does this mean Congress can pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and force all subsequent voters to pay for it? Or does it mean Social Security should be voted on by the voters and their representatives in Congress every year? After all, there is nothing in the one-year limit of appropriations that would prevent Social Security from continuing for many decades.

But the difficulty, what makes this issue more dangerous to the country’s republican form of government, is that two developments regarding this trend clearly violate the Constitution. One is that by mandating Congress fund Social Security forever, Congress clearly usurps the authority of the people to provide their will and consent to the program. Keep in mind the people still have the opportunity to reappropriate money through Congress every year.

The issue then is whether or not these so-called “mandatory” spending programs violate the U.S. Constitution, and they clearly do. Here’s why: the Congressional Research Service reviewed the mandatory spending programs and published their report in 1996 called “Mandatory Spending Since 1962.” The very first sentence of the report states: “Mandatory spending is composed of budget outlays controlled by laws other than appropriation acts.”

In 1985 Congress passed the “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act” and defined “spending authority” as “authority provided in laws other than appropriation acts… and includes contract authority, authority to borrow, and entitlement authority if budget authority to make the required payments has not been provided in advance by appropriation acts.’ The reader can decide how this payment without appropriation acts comports with the requirement that an act of appropriations can only originate in the House of Representatives, as cited in the constitution.

The link then, between the will and consent of the people and how your money is spent by Congress, has been completely broken. The facts prove the point: in fiscal year 1985, 58% of the money spent was not provided for in the annual appropriations process. You and I had absolutely no say in how 58% of tax money was spent in 1985 and the loss of our will and consent as to how Congress spends our money on policies of our choice, as we express them in the ballot box, has dramatically increased.

While permanent appropriations, backdoor spending and spending authority are three of the basic constitutionally corrupt schemes developed to force us to spend money without our consent, deficit spending and debt cannot be overlooked, for these simple reasons: debt creates tax appropriation burdens for future taxpayers. That means taxpayers in the future have no say as to how their taxes are spent. Deficit spending also spends money exceeding revenues: it spends money the taxpayers didn’t pay. So future taxpayers are required to pay for the money spent by past voter groups.

Since every two years a new, unique set of voters is supposed to be allowed to express its will and consent; debt and interest payments force future taxpayers to support the will and consent of past voters. I call every two-year group of voters a voter cohort. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that every vote must count, that all votes have equal weight in an election. But the Court has never addressed the issue of votes cast by different voter cohorts over time. Only votes cast on the same day.

The loss of the value of our vote is complete. Due to the spending of Democrats and Obama in 2010 we lost the entire value of our vote: more was spent on mandatory spending (over which we have no opportunity to consent) interest payments on the debt, and deficits. In 2016, just last November, we had access to only 9% of the value of our vote. When the “pre-spent” amounts equal 100%, that means we have no say at all over how policies in the budget express our will and consent. We are there.

So while cleverly scamming people into believing they worry that “every vote counts” Democrats have forced us to pay for their entitlement programs, the programs that keep them in power. They have permanently taken over Congress. It doesn’t matter if non-citizens vote, or what identity groups prefer. The die has been cast. 

Every election cycle we hear about how every vote must count, how every voter must have equal access to the ballot box, and how no one can be denied the opportunity to express their voice to how the government is run. This concern has been seized upon as the primary interest of the Democratic Party who have made it their personal crusade to ensure fairness in every election, by the careful, fair supervision of the voting process in every voting precinct.

But while this is the public rhetoric, the private reality is much different. The fact is, while Democrats are preaching fairness and equity among voters, in Congress they have seized control through a scheme that has taken over the legislative branch of the Federal government, and done so in a manner that permanently denies all of us the full value of our vote.

How this has been done has, until now, never been explained. At first glance this observation seems to be another unfounded conspiracy, but no observation on how government has managed to steal the value of our vote can be more solidly founded on the principles of our republican form of government and the realities of the national budget.

In order to understand how this vote theft has been perpetrated it’s necessary to briefly review the nature of the American form of national government. From the Declaration of Independence, Notes on the Debate which formed the Constitution, and the final Constitution these principles are certain: that the U.S. government derives its power and authority to govern from the will and consent of the people. And that to consult with the people, Congress, as written in the Constitution, is up for reelection every two years. The President of the U.S. every four years.

Here’s the big question: does this mean that all policy issues are up for reelection every two years? The constitution does give guidance on this issue. It lists 18 policy issues that Congress will provide for. These include the Army and Navy. The only limit on time regarding the national budget is mentioned for the Army: no appropriations for the Army can be for more than a term of two years. This places an absolute two-year limit on appropriations.

The other essential fact of budgeting is that all bills of appropriations shall originate in the House of Representatives, then voted on by the Senate and signed or vetoed by the president. This clearly states that all appropriations require an act of legislation specific to that appropriation, and by implication that the appropriation cannot last for more than two years.

It’s this two-year time limit that has been seized upon by Democrats as a loophole and violated. In addition, they have seized upon the idea, clearly violative of the Constitution, that all acts of appropriation must be passed by the House.

Does this mean Congress can pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and force all subsequent voters to pay for it? Or does it mean Social Security should be voted on by the voters and their representatives in Congress every year? After all, there is nothing in the one-year limit of appropriations that would prevent Social Security from continuing for many decades.

But the difficulty, what makes this issue more dangerous to the country’s republican form of government, is that two developments regarding this trend clearly violate the Constitution. One is that by mandating Congress fund Social Security forever, Congress clearly usurps the authority of the people to provide their will and consent to the program. Keep in mind the people still have the opportunity to reappropriate money through Congress every year.

The issue then is whether or not these so-called “mandatory” spending programs violate the U.S. Constitution, and they clearly do. Here’s why: the Congressional Research Service reviewed the mandatory spending programs and published their report in 1996 called “Mandatory Spending Since 1962.” The very first sentence of the report states: “Mandatory spending is composed of budget outlays controlled by laws other than appropriation acts.”

In 1985 Congress passed the “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act” and defined “spending authority” as “authority provided in laws other than appropriation acts… and includes contract authority, authority to borrow, and entitlement authority if budget authority to make the required payments has not been provided in advance by appropriation acts.’ The reader can decide how this payment without appropriation acts comports with the requirement that an act of appropriations can only originate in the House of Representatives, as cited in the constitution.

The link then, between the will and consent of the people and how your money is spent by Congress, has been completely broken. The facts prove the point: in fiscal year 1985, 58% of the money spent was not provided for in the annual appropriations process. You and I had absolutely no say in how 58% of tax money was spent in 1985 and the loss of our will and consent as to how Congress spends our money on policies of our choice, as we express them in the ballot box, has dramatically increased.

While permanent appropriations, backdoor spending and spending authority are three of the basic constitutionally corrupt schemes developed to force us to spend money without our consent, deficit spending and debt cannot be overlooked, for these simple reasons: debt creates tax appropriation burdens for future taxpayers. That means taxpayers in the future have no say as to how their taxes are spent. Deficit spending also spends money exceeding revenues: it spends money the taxpayers didn’t pay. So future taxpayers are required to pay for the money spent by past voter groups.

Since every two years a new, unique set of voters is supposed to be allowed to express its will and consent; debt and interest payments force future taxpayers to support the will and consent of past voters. I call every two-year group of voters a voter cohort. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that every vote must count, that all votes have equal weight in an election. But the Court has never addressed the issue of votes cast by different voter cohorts over time. Only votes cast on the same day.

The loss of the value of our vote is complete. Due to the spending of Democrats and Obama in 2010 we lost the entire value of our vote: more was spent on mandatory spending (over which we have no opportunity to consent) interest payments on the debt, and deficits. In 2016, just last November, we had access to only 9% of the value of our vote. When the “pre-spent” amounts equal 100%, that means we have no say at all over how policies in the budget express our will and consent. We are there.

So while cleverly scamming people into believing they worry that “every vote counts” Democrats have forced us to pay for their entitlement programs, the programs that keep them in power. They have permanently taken over Congress. It doesn’t matter if non-citizens vote, or what identity groups prefer. The die has been cast. 



Source link

Replay: Identical Tactics used Against Dr. Martin Luther King and Donald Trump


As President Trump won the 2016 Republican nomination and then the national election, Democrats accused him of colluding with the Russian government to steal the election.

While some voters may see this as a startling revelation proving that Trump is anti-American and seeks to undermine the nation, all it reveals is that Democrats are just dragging out their old playbook. Remarkably, these exact same tactics and accusations were used fifty years ago against the iconic leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 1975 Senator Frank Church chaired a committee in the senate to investigate the potential abuse of the FBI and the intelligence community by the White House and Justice Department ten years before. What they discovered is that the FBI, under Director J. Edgar Hoover, used the FBI to organize a smear campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The details are startling and reveal that the exact same accusations were used against Dr. King as against Donald Trump. For example, the smear campaign against Dr. King officially began when the FBI initiated a COINTELPRO (counter intelligence program) against Dr. King. In order to provide some justification, the FBI labeled Dr. King a communist. Today President Trump is accused of colluding with the Russians. So far not a single word of evidence has been found to prove these allegations against Trump. Just as the FBI could never prove that Dr. King colluded with communists back in the 1960s.

The truth didn’t matter then and it doesn’t matter now. While today two committee hearings have been started to investigate President Trump, what the Democrat-led FBI did in the 60s was to investigate Dr. King personally. The communist label was accepted as a trigger to enable the FBI to investigate Dr. King. President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert to be the Attorney General of the United States, a post Jeff Sessions holds today. So both Kennedys were involved in this startling and disturbing tactic: since AG Kennedy could not provide any evidence that Dr. King was a communist, he could not obtain a warrant to wiretap Dr. King. He bypassed that legal requirement and simply ordered the FBI to wiretap Dr. King’s home and the Atlanta, GA Southern Christian Leadership Conference offices. This was done in October, 1963, the month before JFK was assassinated, so JFK knew of this and approved it

On December 23, 1963, a month after JFK’s assassination, FBI headquarters held a nine-hour-long conference. In a memorandum, FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan stated the conference was: “a complete analysis of the avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.” He recommended: “the FBI select a new ‘national Negro leader’ as Dr. King’s successor”and named one. Sullivan stated this action “can and will be done.”  When confronted with this memorandum at the Church Committee Hearing Sullivan responded: “I’m very proud of this memorandum, one of the best memoranda I ever wrote.”

The SCLC was labeled a “black hate group.” This phony label justified the FBI’s continued investigation of SCLC and Dr. King. J. Edgar Hoover himself stated that the goal of the activities against black hate groups should be to “prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify” the movement. In 1964 Hoover sent a letter to FBI COINTELPRO offices instructing agents to “expose, disrupt, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist” groups such as the SCLC. Today Donald Trump and his cabinet members are accused of spreading hate speech.

As Dr. King traveled to make speeches, FBI microphones were planted in his hotel rooms to record intimate conversations between King and women. Tapes were mailed to King “with a warning which Dr. King and his associates interpreted as an invitation to suicide.”  

Remember Senator Chuck Schumer publicly “warned” Trump the Intel community has “six ways from Sunday” to discredit Donald Trump and this threat was followed by weeks of Intel community leaks.

The similarities don’t end there. Just as someone at the IRS leaked Donald Trump’s income tax return to Rachel Maddow, the IRS was used in the 1960s to harass Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The IRS investigated the tax returns of both Dr. King and the SCLC and found that all the tax returns will properly completed. And the phony news story of the “Russian dossier” with its perverse sexual content has a precedent: the Warren Commission obtained a sexually explicit photograph in a dossier in an attempt to discredit one of their critics.

The FBI also contacted potential donors, using fraudulent letters with forged Dr. King signatures, “advising the donors that the IRS was checking SCLC tax records.” The purpose of this activity was to “cause concern and eliminate future contributions” by donors to the SCLC.

For example, documents show that in October 1966 the FBI wanted a third party to contact the Ford Foundation’s Director McGeorge Bundy and inform him of the “subversive backgrounds of King’s principal advisers.” (p. 135). However, Mr. Bundy rebuffed these rumors and the FBI’s effort to interfere with the Ford Foundations grant to the SCLC was thwarted.

Other potential donors were sent letters suggesting that Dr. King’s alleged liaisons with women would put them in a bad light. Bill Moyers, now a PBS “liberal journalist” (media-speak for Democratic operative) was LBJ’s personal assistant and approved distribution of an FBI memorandum summarizing tapes of Dr. King with women to Federal executive agencies and newspapers. He was rewarded with a lifetime career in Public Broadcasting, a position he still uses to criticize Republicans, Donald Trump and others who may become threats to Democrats.

Donald Trump was accused of having improper relations with women by the New York Times. All the women refuted the quotes that were attributed to them. FBI Director James Comey made improper comments about how no prosecutor would pursue a case against Hillary. That’s not his job, and never has been the job of an FBI director. That decision is under the authority AG Loretta Lynch but she turned around and played her role on the tag team and said if the FBI director said there’s no case, well I guess there’s no case.

The history of the Democratic Party reveals focused efforts to use the FBI, the Intel community, the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN among others, to portray their opposition as a ‘communist sympathizer” or “Russian colluder,” as in the case of Donald Trump. The tactics are remarkably similar and prove a conscious, directed and malicious effort to simply smear the person who opposes them in elections with personal attacks, wiretapping, etc. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Trump were both targeted with the identical smear tactics.

As President Trump won the 2016 Republican nomination and then the national election, Democrats accused him of colluding with the Russian government to steal the election.

While some voters may see this as a startling revelation proving that Trump is anti-American and seeks to undermine the nation, all it reveals is that Democrats are just dragging out their old playbook. Remarkably, these exact same tactics and accusations were used fifty years ago against the iconic leader of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 1975 Senator Frank Church chaired a committee in the senate to investigate the potential abuse of the FBI and the intelligence community by the White House and Justice Department ten years before. What they discovered is that the FBI, under Director J. Edgar Hoover, used the FBI to organize a smear campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The details are startling and reveal that the exact same accusations were used against Dr. King as against Donald Trump. For example, the smear campaign against Dr. King officially began when the FBI initiated a COINTELPRO (counter intelligence program) against Dr. King. In order to provide some justification, the FBI labeled Dr. King a communist. Today President Trump is accused of colluding with the Russians. So far not a single word of evidence has been found to prove these allegations against Trump. Just as the FBI could never prove that Dr. King colluded with communists back in the 1960s.

The truth didn’t matter then and it doesn’t matter now. While today two committee hearings have been started to investigate President Trump, what the Democrat-led FBI did in the 60s was to investigate Dr. King personally. The communist label was accepted as a trigger to enable the FBI to investigate Dr. King. President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert to be the Attorney General of the United States, a post Jeff Sessions holds today. So both Kennedys were involved in this startling and disturbing tactic: since AG Kennedy could not provide any evidence that Dr. King was a communist, he could not obtain a warrant to wiretap Dr. King. He bypassed that legal requirement and simply ordered the FBI to wiretap Dr. King’s home and the Atlanta, GA Southern Christian Leadership Conference offices. This was done in October, 1963, the month before JFK was assassinated, so JFK knew of this and approved it

On December 23, 1963, a month after JFK’s assassination, FBI headquarters held a nine-hour-long conference. In a memorandum, FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan stated the conference was: “a complete analysis of the avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.” He recommended: “the FBI select a new ‘national Negro leader’ as Dr. King’s successor”and named one. Sullivan stated this action “can and will be done.”  When confronted with this memorandum at the Church Committee Hearing Sullivan responded: “I’m very proud of this memorandum, one of the best memoranda I ever wrote.”

The SCLC was labeled a “black hate group.” This phony label justified the FBI’s continued investigation of SCLC and Dr. King. J. Edgar Hoover himself stated that the goal of the activities against black hate groups should be to “prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify” the movement. In 1964 Hoover sent a letter to FBI COINTELPRO offices instructing agents to “expose, disrupt, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist” groups such as the SCLC. Today Donald Trump and his cabinet members are accused of spreading hate speech.

As Dr. King traveled to make speeches, FBI microphones were planted in his hotel rooms to record intimate conversations between King and women. Tapes were mailed to King “with a warning which Dr. King and his associates interpreted as an invitation to suicide.”  

Remember Senator Chuck Schumer publicly “warned” Trump the Intel community has “six ways from Sunday” to discredit Donald Trump and this threat was followed by weeks of Intel community leaks.

The similarities don’t end there. Just as someone at the IRS leaked Donald Trump’s income tax return to Rachel Maddow, the IRS was used in the 1960s to harass Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The IRS investigated the tax returns of both Dr. King and the SCLC and found that all the tax returns will properly completed. And the phony news story of the “Russian dossier” with its perverse sexual content has a precedent: the Warren Commission obtained a sexually explicit photograph in a dossier in an attempt to discredit one of their critics.

The FBI also contacted potential donors, using fraudulent letters with forged Dr. King signatures, “advising the donors that the IRS was checking SCLC tax records.” The purpose of this activity was to “cause concern and eliminate future contributions” by donors to the SCLC.

For example, documents show that in October 1966 the FBI wanted a third party to contact the Ford Foundation’s Director McGeorge Bundy and inform him of the “subversive backgrounds of King’s principal advisers.” (p. 135). However, Mr. Bundy rebuffed these rumors and the FBI’s effort to interfere with the Ford Foundations grant to the SCLC was thwarted.

Other potential donors were sent letters suggesting that Dr. King’s alleged liaisons with women would put them in a bad light. Bill Moyers, now a PBS “liberal journalist” (media-speak for Democratic operative) was LBJ’s personal assistant and approved distribution of an FBI memorandum summarizing tapes of Dr. King with women to Federal executive agencies and newspapers. He was rewarded with a lifetime career in Public Broadcasting, a position he still uses to criticize Republicans, Donald Trump and others who may become threats to Democrats.

Donald Trump was accused of having improper relations with women by the New York Times. All the women refuted the quotes that were attributed to them. FBI Director James Comey made improper comments about how no prosecutor would pursue a case against Hillary. That’s not his job, and never has been the job of an FBI director. That decision is under the authority AG Loretta Lynch but she turned around and played her role on the tag team and said if the FBI director said there’s no case, well I guess there’s no case.

The history of the Democratic Party reveals focused efforts to use the FBI, the Intel community, the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN among others, to portray their opposition as a ‘communist sympathizer” or “Russian colluder,” as in the case of Donald Trump. The tactics are remarkably similar and prove a conscious, directed and malicious effort to simply smear the person who opposes them in elections with personal attacks, wiretapping, etc. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Trump were both targeted with the identical smear tactics.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Debt, Entitlements, and the Consent of the Governed


Everyone is familiar with the traditional connections of money to government. These include granting contracts to persons who make substantial campaign donations, funding entitlements to voter identity groups, and many other abuses. 

But the Democratic Party and President Obama developed this connection between money and government farther than anyone else in US history.  In order to understand what they did, it’s necessary to review the nature and financial usefulness of our monetary system.  Briefly stated, the monetary system creates the value of paper money and its electronic equaivalient as a means of the federal government purchasing products and servicing debt through a government controlled central bank, the Federal Reserve, purchasing the debt issued by the Fedral Government. Unlike barter or gold backed currency, this monetary system introduces the element of time.

That the monetary system introduces time into financing can be easily understood by looking at the terms of a mortgage.  A mortgage allows a person to put a down payment, for example twenty percent, on a mortgage loan, then agree to make monthly payments for twenty years or so.  The advantage of the mortgage  payment plan to the homeowner is that the twenty year value of the homeowner’s income can be borrowed today to purchase a home, giving the homeowner the advantages of home ownership.

But this is not the whole story. This alone doesn’t explain the connection of national debt to the ballot box.  President Obama expanded, more than any other president, another, far deeper and more dangerous layer of connection between the monetary system and the control of national government.

Obama’s method was not to seize control of the ballot box but to seize control of the results of  the ballot box: the choice of what legislation is funded in the future.  Voters are supposed to be able to completely control the funding of policies of national government, but Obama, more than any president before him, took most of that control away by comitting taxpayers to repaying debt incurred to fund current spending.  Just as a consumer can personally choose how future income is used today through borrowing, Obama seized control of the will of tomorrow’s electorate by expanding his party’s practice of using time to control legislation.

This concept is so abstract it has largely escaped detection, yet here is the proof: no matter what voters do in the future they are forced to service the debt created by Obama’s party’s choices; and since those choices have already been made and the debt must be serviced in the future, future voters have no opportunity to give their consent.  This is not just an abstract theory it is the most real fact of financial and legislative life for Americans.  These programs exist, the debt exists, and the debt cannot be wiped away with a vote.  If it were, the US would lose its credit rating and ability to borrow.  So for now, this setup prevents the voters from reducing the debt.  The debt can only be eliminated by being paid down by the taxes of the people.

At first glance it may seem that the concept of debt service over time does not violate voters’ rights.  But Scotus has ruled that the value of a person’s vote cannot be diluted, diminished, or impaired.  The central issue of the analysis, then, is whether future voters have lost their right to consent to how their taxes are spent when they are forced to support debt incurred to pay for earlier programs.

The Constitution mandates that the legislation passed by Congress must be authorized by the consent of the governed expressed through the ballot box. To guarantee that power comes from the people, the Framers of the Constitution wanted House members to face voters every two years, and Senators every six years; with one-third of the Senate up for reelection every two years.  The reason Congress must defer to the “consent of the governed” every two years was explained by James Madison in Federalist No. 37:

“The genius of republican liberty, seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that, even during this short period, the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands….  A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of electors; and a frequent change of measures, from a frequent change of men.”

The opportunity to vote for a “frequent change of measures” is denied to voters through their commitment to repay the debt.  National debt denies future voters their right to influence legislation in two ways.  First, the taxes they pay are wasted to service interest costs for appropriations made years before.   Secondly, taxes that go to service debt aren’t available to finance the new policies voters may wish their legislators to enact.  Their votes are then diminished, diluted and impaired; and this practice, the Supreme Court has frequently ruled, violates the Constitution. 

The national debt indentures tomorrow’s voters to repay money borrowed to finance programs today; so the consent of the governed is also stolen in a similar proportion: if one-tenth of the budget is debt service, that one-tenth of the present legislative power of voters was usurped by a previous Congress. The nation’s republican form of government is nullified by degree as the portion of expenditures devoted to the debt increases.

The Framers were primarily concerned with the distribution of power over the three branches of government.  But the Democratic Party found a shrewd way to bypass both the consent of the governed and the checks and balances of the original three branches.  Since the will of the people can only be realized through legislative appropriations, past Congresses have usurped the realization of today’s voters’ will by pre-appropriating the funds needed to realize any new legislative policies.  Since Democrats are the party of entitlement spending, financing of public sector unions and the bureaucracy, they have intentionally developed and financed this strategy to keep themselves in power. The Framers never envisioned massive entitlements or debt not limited by a limiting quantity of gold.

It would take a revolution in legal thinking for the Supreme Court to apply this thinking and rule unconstitutional the funding of current expenditures by the national debt. But legal thinking does change over time, and the best way to encourage this idea is to discuss it.

Everyone is familiar with the traditional connections of money to government. These include granting contracts to persons who make substantial campaign donations, funding entitlements to voter identity groups, and many other abuses. 

But the Democratic Party and President Obama developed this connection between money and government farther than anyone else in US history.  In order to understand what they did, it’s necessary to review the nature and financial usefulness of our monetary system.  Briefly stated, the monetary system creates the value of paper money and its electronic equaivalient as a means of the federal government purchasing products and servicing debt through a government controlled central bank, the Federal Reserve, purchasing the debt issued by the Fedral Government. Unlike barter or gold backed currency, this monetary system introduces the element of time.

That the monetary system introduces time into financing can be easily understood by looking at the terms of a mortgage.  A mortgage allows a person to put a down payment, for example twenty percent, on a mortgage loan, then agree to make monthly payments for twenty years or so.  The advantage of the mortgage  payment plan to the homeowner is that the twenty year value of the homeowner’s income can be borrowed today to purchase a home, giving the homeowner the advantages of home ownership.

But this is not the whole story. This alone doesn’t explain the connection of national debt to the ballot box.  President Obama expanded, more than any other president, another, far deeper and more dangerous layer of connection between the monetary system and the control of national government.

Obama’s method was not to seize control of the ballot box but to seize control of the results of  the ballot box: the choice of what legislation is funded in the future.  Voters are supposed to be able to completely control the funding of policies of national government, but Obama, more than any president before him, took most of that control away by comitting taxpayers to repaying debt incurred to fund current spending.  Just as a consumer can personally choose how future income is used today through borrowing, Obama seized control of the will of tomorrow’s electorate by expanding his party’s practice of using time to control legislation.

This concept is so abstract it has largely escaped detection, yet here is the proof: no matter what voters do in the future they are forced to service the debt created by Obama’s party’s choices; and since those choices have already been made and the debt must be serviced in the future, future voters have no opportunity to give their consent.  This is not just an abstract theory it is the most real fact of financial and legislative life for Americans.  These programs exist, the debt exists, and the debt cannot be wiped away with a vote.  If it were, the US would lose its credit rating and ability to borrow.  So for now, this setup prevents the voters from reducing the debt.  The debt can only be eliminated by being paid down by the taxes of the people.

At first glance it may seem that the concept of debt service over time does not violate voters’ rights.  But Scotus has ruled that the value of a person’s vote cannot be diluted, diminished, or impaired.  The central issue of the analysis, then, is whether future voters have lost their right to consent to how their taxes are spent when they are forced to support debt incurred to pay for earlier programs.

The Constitution mandates that the legislation passed by Congress must be authorized by the consent of the governed expressed through the ballot box. To guarantee that power comes from the people, the Framers of the Constitution wanted House members to face voters every two years, and Senators every six years; with one-third of the Senate up for reelection every two years.  The reason Congress must defer to the “consent of the governed” every two years was explained by James Madison in Federalist No. 37:

“The genius of republican liberty, seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people; but, that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that, even during this short period, the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands….  A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of electors; and a frequent change of measures, from a frequent change of men.”

The opportunity to vote for a “frequent change of measures” is denied to voters through their commitment to repay the debt.  National debt denies future voters their right to influence legislation in two ways.  First, the taxes they pay are wasted to service interest costs for appropriations made years before.   Secondly, taxes that go to service debt aren’t available to finance the new policies voters may wish their legislators to enact.  Their votes are then diminished, diluted and impaired; and this practice, the Supreme Court has frequently ruled, violates the Constitution. 

The national debt indentures tomorrow’s voters to repay money borrowed to finance programs today; so the consent of the governed is also stolen in a similar proportion: if one-tenth of the budget is debt service, that one-tenth of the present legislative power of voters was usurped by a previous Congress. The nation’s republican form of government is nullified by degree as the portion of expenditures devoted to the debt increases.

The Framers were primarily concerned with the distribution of power over the three branches of government.  But the Democratic Party found a shrewd way to bypass both the consent of the governed and the checks and balances of the original three branches.  Since the will of the people can only be realized through legislative appropriations, past Congresses have usurped the realization of today’s voters’ will by pre-appropriating the funds needed to realize any new legislative policies.  Since Democrats are the party of entitlement spending, financing of public sector unions and the bureaucracy, they have intentionally developed and financed this strategy to keep themselves in power. The Framers never envisioned massive entitlements or debt not limited by a limiting quantity of gold.

It would take a revolution in legal thinking for the Supreme Court to apply this thinking and rule unconstitutional the funding of current expenditures by the national debt. But legal thinking does change over time, and the best way to encourage this idea is to discuss it.



Source link