search
top

The Clinton Foundation Is Over – It proves what we’ve said all along…

While everyone’s been gearing up for President Trump’s inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: No media coverage. Nothing! For all intents and purposes, it’s closing its doors. In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it’s firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency. It proves what we’ve said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with “charity,” either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States. And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. While serving as the nation’s top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least seven foreign governments — a clear breach of Clinton’s pledge on taking office that there would be total separation between her duties and the foundation. Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 95 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs. All the way back in May, we outlined how the Clinton Foundation had taken in $100 million from a collection of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, along with millions from private businesses, who expected — and received — special access to the State Department’s top official, Hillary. In his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” author Peter Schweizer showed how during Hillary’s years in government “the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers.” He called the sums going to the Clintons “staggering.” Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in August obtained emails (that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton’s top State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given “special expedited access to the secretary of state” for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed the Clintons’ affairs. As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo — another very clear conflict of interest. As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, “These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors.” The seedy saga doesn’t end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into... read more

Complaint Dismissed in Indiana – Prosecution Withdraws

A big congrats to Dale in Indiana for taking a principled stand against the predators and getting a prosecutor to withdraw their false charges. Dale was accused of violating the code in Indiana. Dale defended against the accusation by challenging the prosecutor’s foundation claim, that since Dale was physically in Indiana, the rules created by men and women called “government” apply to him. This is the basis of their claims of jurisdiction, the court’s and police, and an essential element of the alleged code violation. Because no matter how much you believe otherwise, it’s not possible to prove a rule was violated unless you prove it applies in the first place. Dale filed a discovery/Brady request with the motion to dismiss. The prosecution offered to drop the charges if Dale complied with their rules. Dale didn’t accept, he wanted the motion and discovery request addressed. The judge decided to give the prosecution thirty days to respond to the motion and provide the evidence requested. Again, this included evidence the constitution applied to Dale because he is physically in Indiana and the witness with personal knowledge of that evidence. Instead of providing the evidence the prosecution said they needed thirty days to provide, they moved to dismiss. The motion as you can see, was granted. Why would it take thirty days to provide the evidence proving the constitution applied? Why couldn’t she give Dale the name of her witness with personal knowledge of evidence proving the code applied? She didn’t have it, it doesn’t exist and she had to know that before she told the judge she needed thirty days to comply. Why didn’t she object to having to provide such discovery saying her claim the constitution applied doesn’t require evidence, didn’t need to be proven and is irrefutable so she wasn’t required to provide any such evidence? Why not argue, as the critics do, that whether the constitution applied is a theoretical issue of law requiring no evidence? The prosecutor should have objected to anything that was not relevant discovery material. If asking for evidence the constitution and code apply and the witness with personal knowledge of such are not legitimate items of discovery, then the judge would have ruled that when giving the prosecution thirty days to respond. The judge was obviously aware of the discovery request, asking the prosecutor twice if they had read it, even suggesting to read it thoroughly. Could it have been “too much trouble”? Sure, but why is it too much trouble to prove the rules apply? Too much trouble to show your witness has personal knowledge the constitution applies because Dale is physically in Indiana? I keep seeing critics say that proving the rules apply is really easy, but with us it suddenly becomes “too much trouble”? If it was so much trouble, then the prosecution could have moved to dismiss in court when the judge required them to provide the evidence requested. Instead, they lied to the judge claiming they needed thirty days. Yes, when the judge actually held the prosecutor... read more

Does the Government work for us or we work for the Government? WAKE UP!

Does the Government work for us or we work for the Government? What if the Constitution no longer applied? What the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the Government? What if Congress’s enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as a justification to extend Congress’s authority over every realm of human life? What if the President, meant to be an equal to Congress had, instead become a democratically-elected term-limited monarch? What if the President assumed that everything he did was legal, just because he’s the President? What if he could interrupt your regularly-scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him?What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and your texts without a search warrant? What if he could kill you without warning?What if the Supreme Court justices no longer looked to the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of the law but rather simply, to what justices who preceded them thought about it? What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution had been so distorted over the past two hundred years, as to be unrecognizable by the Founders? What if the Fifty States were no longer sovereign entities, equals to each other and parents of the Federal Government they voluntarily constituted? What if the states were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully nationalized government? What if the Constitution was amended stealthily, not by Constitutional amendments, duly ratified by the States but by the constant and persistent expansion of the Federal Government’s role in our lives? What if the Federal Government decided if its own powers were proper and Constitutional? What if the Constitution were no longer the supreme law of the land? What if you needed a license from the Government to speak, to assemble or to protest against the Government? What if the Government didn’t like what you’d planned to say, so it didn’t give you the license? What if the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the Government? What if Posse Commitatus, the Federal Law that prohibits our military from occupying our streets were no longer in effect? What if the Government considered the military an adequate dispenser of domestic law enforcement? What if cops looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police? What if you were not secure in your person, in your papers, in your property? What if federal agents could write their own search warrants, in defiance of the Constitution? What if the government could decide when you were and were not entitled to a jury trial? What if the government decided to take your property whenever it wanted? What the if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted? What if the government could force you to testify against yourself, simply by labeling you a “Domestic Terrorist”? What if the government could torture you until you said what the Government wanted to hear? What if people running... read more

Maybe it’s time to protest the protesters!

Let’s talk about these protesting college kids. Good for you, great job exercising your First Amendment rights,” cowboy internet phenom, Chad Prather, begins. “Now, I’m gonna exercise mine… I remember when I was in college and thought I knew everything too.” Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Why Are We Sending $38 Billion to Rich and Powerful Israel?

Last week’s announcement of a record-breaking US aid package for Israel underscores how dangerously foolish and out-of-touch is our interventionist foreign policy. Over the next ten years, the US taxpayer will be forced to give Israel some $38 billion dollars in military aid. It is money we cannot afford going to a country that needs no assistance to maintain its status as the most powerful military in the Middle East. All US foreign aid is immoral and counterproductive. As I have often said, it is money taken from poor people in the US and sent to rich people overseas. That is because US assistance money goes to foreign governments to hand out as they see fit. Often that assistance is stolen outright or it goes to the politically connected in the recipient country. Just as bad is the fact that much of what we call “foreign aid” is actually welfare for the wealthy here at home. The aid package to Israel is a very good example. According to the agreement, this $38 billion will all go to US weapons manufacturers. So the real beneficiaries are not the American people, and not even Israeli citizens. The real beneficiaries are the US military-industrial complex. Perhaps the money won’t even leave Washington – it may simply go across town, from the Fed to the Beltway bomb-makers. While even US government aid to desperately poor countries should be opposed on moral and practical grounds, it is even harder to understand US aid to relatively rich countries. At a nominal per capita GDP of over $35,000, Israel is richer than Japan, Italy, and South Korea. Not long ago Business Insider published a report by the Institute for the Study of War showing that the Israel is the most powerful military force in the Middle East. We know they have hundreds of nuclear weapons, a sophisticated air force, drones, and even nuclear weapons-equipped submarines. So why is the US giving a rich and incredibly well-armed country a record amount of military aid? Part of it is that the US government believes it can coerce Israel to do Washington’s bidding in the Middle East. History shows that this is a foolish pipe dream. If anything, US aid subsidizes Israeli human rights abuses in Gaza and elsewhere. Another reason is a very powerful lobby in Washington, AIPAC, that pressures Members of Congress to focus on Israel’s interests instead of US interests. Members of Congress should look at our economy, with effectively zero interest rates, an anemic non-recovery from the 2008 crash, historically low participation in the work force, and inflation eroding the value of the dollar and conclude that this might not be the best time to start handing out billions of dollars in foreign aid. Unfortunately most Members of Congress find it impossible to say no to special interest groups like AIPAC. Here’s a better aid package for Israel: free trade, travel, friendly relations, and no entangling alliances. Israel should be free to pursue its national interests and we should be free to pursue ours. If... read more

The Illusion of Freedom

The seizure of political and economic power by corporations is unassailable. Who funds and manages our elections? Who writes our legislation and laws? Who determines our defense policies and vast military expenditures? Who is in charge of the Department of the Interior? The Department of Homeland Security? Our intelligence agencies? The Department of Agriculture? The Food and Drug Administration? The Department of Labor? The Federal Reserve? The mass media? Our systems of entertainment? Our prisons and schools? Who determines our trade and environmental policies? Who imposes austerity on the public while enabling the looting of the U.S. Treasury and the tax boycott by Wall Street? Who criminalizes dissent? A disenfranchised white working class vents its lust for fascism at Trump campaign rallies. Naive liberals, who think they can mount effective resistance within the embrace of the Democratic Party, rally around the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders, who knows that the military-industrial complex is sacrosanct. Both the working class and the liberals will be sold out. Our rights and opinions do not matter. We have surrendered to our own form of wehrwirtschaft. We do not count within the political process. This truth, emotionally difficult to accept, violates our conception of ourselves as a free, democratic people. It shatters our vision of ourselves as a nation embodying superior virtues and endowed with the responsibility to serve as a beacon of light to the world. It takes from us the “right” to impose our fictitious virtues on others by violence. It forces us into a new political radicalism. This truth reveals, incontrovertibly, that if real change is to be achieved, if our voices are to be heard, corporate systems of power have to be destroyed. This realization engenders an existential and political crisis. The inability to confront this crisis, to accept this truth, leaves us appealing to centers of power that will never respond and ensures we are crippled by self-delusion. The longer fantasy is substituted for reality, the faster we sleepwalk toward oblivion. There is no guarantee we will wake up. Magical thinking has gripped societies in the past. Those civilizations believed that fate, history, superior virtues or a divine force guaranteed their eternal triumph. As they collapsed, they constructed repressive dystopias. They imposed censorship and forced the unreal to be accepted as real. Those who did not conform were disappeared linguistically and then literally. The vast disconnect between the official narrative of reality and reality itself creates an Alice-in-Wonderland experience. Propaganda is so pervasive, and truth is so rarely heard, that people do not trust their own senses. We are currently being assaulted by political campaigning that resembles the constant crusading by fascists and communists in past totalitarian societies. This campaigning, devoid of substance and subservient to the mirage of a free society, is anti-politics. No vote we cast will alter the configurations of the corporate state. The wars will go on. Our national resources will continue to be diverted to militarism. The corporate fleecing of the country will get worse. Poor people of color will still be gunned down... read more

Understanding the Due Process Consequences of Entering a Plea

This bears repeating… and repeating… and repeating again…. I guess telling you that you NEVER enter a plea under ANY circumstances after you have opened your mouth and done so would be just a bit late and useless at this point, but it’s a fact nonetheless. By opening your mouth and entering a plea, you have royally screwed yourself by doing that one not-so-little thing. In the future, NEVER sign ANYTHING that is put in front of you in these cases, and NEVER enter a plea. However, that is NOT to be construed as being the same thing as REFUSING to enter a plea, because we NEVER do that either. So, let’s say you’ve been [falsely] accused of committing a “transportation” offense by some improperly informed, improperly educated, and improperly trained authoritarian statist funded robot that seized you at your liberty and held you in an unreasonable custodial arrest without a proper warrant of arrest or any articulable probable cause just so that s/he could issue you a “[un]uniform traffic citation” that you must now deal with. The citation tells you that you must appear on some future date and time before some particular magistrate presiding over some particular court named on the citation that allegedly has jurisdiction of the offense. Although, it should be clear to anyone that can read and comprehend constitutional language and principles that it is a direct violation of the separation of powers provision of Article 2 of the states Constitution and Penal Code Sec. 32.48 for a municipal or state police officer to issue an ‘order’ via a “transportation” citation that simulates a legal process such as a subpoena or summons. The basis for asserting that it’s a violation of the separation of powers and the law is that both municipal and state police officers are executive branch functionaries and agents, and the issuance of a summons or subpoena having the legal force of a full-fledged judicial order requiring an individual’s compliance is entirely a judicial branch power and function, which executive officers are constitutionally forbidden to exercise. When you eventually appear at the court named in the paperwork that accompanied the citation “on or before” the appointed date and time, as that phrase is typically printed on most of these citations, the magistrate is required by the Code of Criminal Procedure to perform the duties imposed upon him/her by Art. 15.17[5] of that code. And s/he is required to do so in simultaneous compliance with the provisions of Arts. 45.018(b), 16.01, 27.14(d), and 14.06(b) and (c) of that same code. It is imperative, however, that you make no oral response or written pleading to anything that happens in that court room without first reserving your right to special appearance by stating the phrase: “Pursuant to Rule 1.02, Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 120a, (check your local rules for code) Rules of Civil Procedure, I hereby reserve my right of special appearance for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of this court and these proceedings, and the court should be well aware... read more

How Does Nobody Go to Jail in Wells Fargo Fraud Case?

Wells Fargo has agreed to pay a $190 million settlement to the federal government after it admitted that thousands of employees opened fraudulent and unauthorized accounts for customers. So the big question is how does no one go to jail for this? Wells Fargo is paying this massive $190 million fine and has fired 5,300 employees. So what was taking place? In two words: massive fraud. 1.5 million checking accounts and over half a million credit cards of fake accounts were set up using real customers’ names in order for more than 5,000 employees to hit lofty sales goals. In addition to the fact that they were overcharged overdraft and maintenance fees, some customers also dealt with significant hits to their credit scores as a result of not staying current on accounts they didn’t even know they had. Since 2011, Wells Fargo says $2.6 million has been refunded to customers, who received an average of $25. Out of the $190 million fine, only $5 million will go to victims. The remaining $185 million will go to the federal government. Wells Fargo has also said that firings included managers, and that it was making investments “in enhanced team-member training and monitoring and controls.” So how is it that while employees lose their jobs, nobody goes to jail? I want you to look at this definition: identity theft is “the fraudulent acquisition and use of a person’s private identifying information, usually for financial gain.” So the question: is that what took place? Using a person or customer’s identifying information in order to set up an account they did not request or want in order to hit sales goals or financial gain? That is exactly what was happening here, and that is the exact definition of identity theft. Under federal law, let alone additional state laws, identity theft carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison as well as substantial fines. In Wells Fargo’s case no one is going to jail— and the fine is not substantial. The $190 million is just over 3% of the $5.6 billion in revenue that Wells Fargo pulled in for just the second quarter of this year. What you need to know is that when Wells Fargo agreed to pay this pittance of a fine, the government also agreed to something else. It gave the bank immunity for any uncovered crimes that may have taken place during this same time period. So in short: no one goes to jail; the bank pays a comparatively tiny fine; the government gets a big pile of cash; and the victims continue to be scammed by the banks. So what about this deal would actually stop Wells Fargo or any other bank from doing the exact same thing over and over again in the future? Just recently U.S. courts slapped British banks Barclays, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland with nearly $1 billion in fines related to forex improprieties. Goldman Sachs and BNP Paribas also got hit with combined fines approaching $250 million in related cases. Other huge... read more
Page 1 of 3012345678...2030...Last »
top