Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Is Treason Against the US or a Lack of Conscience Scarier?

See the source image

Nellie Ohr testified last October that,

“I would probably have been less comfortable doing opposition research that would have gone against Hillary Clinton.”  “Because I favored Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.”  

See the source image

Remember, Nellie Ohr’s husband was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (#4 at the DOJ) at the time she worked for Fusion GPS and created “operation research” against Donald Trump and his 2016 Presidential campaign.  She and her DOJ hubby met with the Russian Dossier creator Christopher Steele (former UK MI6 operative) on July 30,2016, 3 months and a few days prior to the 2016 Election.  Nellie worked directly for Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS.  Her “research”, along with the Russian Dossier was passed to her DOJ husband who in turn gave it to the FBI.  It is assumed that the same information was passed to the Clinton campaign and per Lisa Page’s text to Peter Strzok on August 2, 2016, to Obama.  Her text read, “POTUS wants to know everything we are doing”.  

See the source image

The Russian Dossier has now been identified as the primary source of “evidence” to a FISA court to justify the wiretapping of the Trump Campaign through taps on Carter Page.  This lie, became the linchpin of the entire Russian Hoax against President Trump before and after his election. 

Before the election, this effort was a seditious effort to obstruct and interfere with a presidential election and after, Treason to conspire with a foreign government (Russia and perhaps Ukraine)  to overthrow the US Government by removing a duly elected president.

Other Conspirators

See the source image

Intelligence Services Complicity:  The head of the Obama CIA, John Brennan legitimized the dossier by including it in a security briefing to President Obama which ultimately ended up being briefed to Donald Trump.  It is unclear the role James Clapper played in the dossier conspiracy but his support for Brennan suggests at least conspiratorial support to defame Trump. 

DOH/FBI Complicity:  Then the DOJ, presumably under the nose of eyes of Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, and the FBI under James Comey, kicked things into a higher gear.  The DOJ/FBI had been performing a covert counter-intelligence investigation of Trump and his campaign.  The dossier and its submission as evidence to the FISA court and the granting of wiretapping of Carter Page and the Trump Campaign allowed the leaders of the Trump insurrection to generate leaks to key media lackeys and to cast aspersion against the legitimacy of the fledging Trump Presidency.

OK, let’s get real. 

See the source image

Since the CIA, DIA, NSA,  the National Security Advisor, the DOJ, and the FBI were involved in the conspiracy, with all of the covert tools to monitor every single move, phone call, text message, and email that Trump and his team would make or even think of making, did not know that the Trump team had NOT conspired to collude with the Russians, I’ll sell you the London Bridge!  This was a straightforward case of falsifying evidence against a candidate and then the President of the United States in order to overthrow a Constitutionally elected President of the United States with the help of foreign powers.

******************

Did Anyone involved Ask If These Seditious and Treasonous Acts Were Legal, Much Less Moral?

It is more likely that this conspiracy to defame Trump, elect Clinton, then impeach Trump, was know all the way to President Obama.  It is also 99.9% probable that Carter Page was only one of many of the Trump campaign supporter.  Remember that Obama’s UN Ambassador requested over 200 Trump people to be unmasked on surveillance recordings, texts or emails.  Why would a UN Ambassador need to do this?  Since the DOJ and the FBI had most of its top Washington DC management, all the way to the director levels, involved with the dossier and the counter-intelligence investigation of Trump, the Obama AG, Loretta Lynch had to be in the loop.  

******************

Did anyone in the Obama Administration or the Clinton Campaign even stop to think that these activities against a Presidential Candidate was ethical? Moral? much less LEGAL?  

******************

The scariest part of this horrible, despicable dark plot to subvert our nation is that there was no moral compass to guide any of these involved from presumably the President himself (Obama), his administration, members of the Democrat Congressional Caucus, the intelligence and Justice departments and willing accomplices in the media.  The next question is that since we cannot rely on our leaders, who swore an allegiance to the US Constitution to uphold their oath, how can we stop this from happening again? 

******************

One thing for sure, we better figure this out and prevent it from happening again! 

 

See the source image

 

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

Hat Tips

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/28/nellie-ohr-favored-hillary-clinton/

Progressive-Left Silent Replacement of the Electoral College-Be Informed Now!

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

See the source image

This Compact is simply a method to change Presidential elections of the President and the Vice President from the current Electoral College method to electing these offices based on the POPULAR VOTE.  Simply stated, ” When a state joins the NPV Compact, it promises that it will give all of its electoral votes to the party that wins the national popular vote, rather than the party that wins the state popular vote. “  In 2000 Al Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote compared to the Electoral College winner George W. Bush who received 47.9% of the popular vote.  In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 48.2% of the popular vote as compared to 46.1% of the popular vote received by the Electoral College winner Donald J. Trump. 

See the source imagePrior to 2000, the last election where the Electoral College winner received less of the popular vote than the losing candidate was in 1888.  

Why Doesn’t the NPVIC Require a Constitutional Amendment?

In the original Constitution in Article II, Section 1, the founders set up an indirect vote mechanism for selecting the President and Vice President, by creating State Electors, based on the number of Senators and Representatives currently representing the State in Congress.  BUT,  The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the State legislatures. 

  • So, a given State could create electors based on the popular vote within the State’s election and electors designated to each candidate based on their share of the vote.  (Today, only South Dakota and Maine use this method.)  
  • Or, a given State could create electors based on the popular vote within the State’s election, but create a winner-take-all scenario where the winner of the State’s popular vote would have all of the State’s Electors designated to the winner.  (Today, 48 States plus the District of Colombia use this method.) 
  • Or, a given State’s electors could be designated to the candidate who RECEIVES THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.  This is the current proposed method of the NPVIC but it would require that States representing at least a majority of the current number of Electoral College electors, 270, have signed onto this compact.  While this method slides around the Electoral College Elector designation by State, it does NOT violate Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, nor the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution! 

The US Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, as amended,  does not mandate a specific methodology as to how Electors in the Electoral College are created and directed and have left this up to State Legislatures.  Remember, the founders created a Republic where the central or federal government had limited, defined powers, and the States were to retain the balance of powers.  The Electoral College mechanism was seen as a way to have proportional, Presidential,  electoral power based on their respective representation/population.  They viewed the selection of a President based on a national popular vote as disfavoring smaller rural States.    

How Close are We to A National Popular Vote For President?

The current compact is aimed at ensuring that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected President, and it would be triggered only when it would guarantee that outcome.  In other words, IF, there were States representing at least 270 electoral votes in the 2016 election who had signed onto this compact, then Hillary Clinton may have been our current President.

Today, 11 States and the District of Columbia have signed onto the NPVIC, representing 172 electoral votes.  This represents 63.4% of the number of electoral votes needed (270) TO GIVE THIS COMPACT LEGAL FORCE!  The States that have signed onto this compact include:  (Note, these are primarily Left Leaning States)

1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007
2 New Jersey 14 January 13, 2008
3 Illinois 20 April 7, 2008
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008
5 Washington 12 April 28, 2009
6 Massachusetts 11 August 4, 2010
7 District of Columbia 3 December 7, 2010
8 Vermont 3 April 22, 2011
9 California 55 August 8, 2011
10 Rhode Island 4 July 12, 2013
11 New York 29 April 15, 2014
12 Connecticut 7 May 24, 2018
Total 172 (63.7% of the 270 EVs needed

The following States have active or pending legislation to adopt the compact:

State Votes
Idaho 4
Maine 4
New Hampshire 4
 New Mexico 5
 Oregon 7
 Colorado 9
 South Carolina 9
 Minnesota 10
 Arizona 11
 Indiana 11
 Georgia 16
Total Potential Votes 90

You read this correctly.  IF all of these states adopt the Compact, then there would be 262 of the 270 Electoral  Votes required to trigger a popular vote outcome.  If other States join totaling 8 more votes, then the next election would be up for grab if a Presidential candidate who won the popular vote failed to receive 270 Electoral Votes!  In this example, if these States had voted to join the Compact prior to the 2016 Presidential election, then Hillary Rodham Clinton would be your President today!

Keep an eye on this movement in your State! 

The allure of the popular vote sounds good but remember that the two coasts contain a huge population of left-wing progressives who vote in lock-step.  You would think that something as drastic as this shift in selecting the Electoral College electors should be subject to a Constitutional amendment,  But, no.  It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change back if the NPVIC receives sufficient State signatories!  When was the last Constitutional Amendment that your remember being passed?

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

Hat Tips

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/02/colorado-senate-passes-bill-nixing-electoral-college-in-favor-of-popular-vote/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/national-popular-vote.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/386588-dont-believe-the-myths-about-a-national-popular-vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Electors

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/80/electoral-college

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii

Can the WE and the FBI Survive The Comey/Clinton Chronicles?

Image result for comey clinton

Yesterday, October 28th, James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent a letter to a select group of 16 Congressional Committee leaders, eight Republicans and eight Democrats, announcing that:

“Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.”

He went on to say that:

“At the same time, however, given that we do not know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter, and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.”

The “unrelated case” was the investigation of Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s top aide and confidant, Huma Abedin.  Weiner adds his own level of sleaze to the Clinton scandal portfolio as he is being investigated for “sexting” with a 15-year-old minor female.  Ostensibly, the Weiner investigation led to emails sent by or forwarded from Clinton/Abedin and others.  These emails uncovered communications not yet discovered in the previous FBI Clinton Email probe.  This latter point is a legal violation of a Congressional subpoena, past FOIA requests, and the prior FBI investigation itself.

Personally, I credit an open letter sent to Director Comey from a retired FBI special agent, Hugh Galyean, following Comey’s “non-indictment indictment” of Hillary Clinton in July of this year.  In Comey’s July address, he carefully laid out a criminal case against Hillary Clinton then surprisedly announced at the end of his address that he would not be recommending any legal action to be taken against Clinton by the DOJ.  Since then, a large number of former and current FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors have criticized Comey’s lack of referral in the Clinton investigation.  I believe Comey succumbed to weight of being known as the FBI Director who abandoned the agencies principle for political expediency.

Enough of what I think of Comey’s past and present action or inaction.  The following is the full text of the letter from SA Galyean.  Read it for yourself, then decide if a majority of your staff, and specifically the total of the Clinton Investigation team, held this opinion of you and your actions.  Could you remain silent and take no further action?  Or, would you step up and do the right thing?  Decide for yourself…

Open Letter to Comey from Retired Agent Galyean

Mr. James Comey, Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

J. Edgar Hoover Building

935 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W

Washington, D.C.  20535-0001

Sir,

I am writing regarding your public statement in July, 2016 informing the American people that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton was being closed without referring it to a Federal Grand Jury or the Attorney General of the U. S. for a decision whether or not to indict her. Strangely, you eloquently laid out enough of the evidence deduced from the investigation to strongly indicate there was abundant evidence uncovered during the investigation and interview of her to not only indict but to convict her in  Federal Court.­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­However, you personally  re-worded and soft-pedaled the actions she took as Secretary of State describing her actions as “extremely careless” in using a personal email and un-secured server for her communications while Secretary of State. You rewrote the statute, which is not your job.

As a retired Special Agent of the FBI, I have standing to write this letter. My thirty years in law enforcement, including 22 years as a Special Agent with the FBI have given me the knowledge, expertise and experience to question and confront you for your perplexing actions, which (as you well know) were outside the normal standard operating procedure of the FBI and Federal judicial procedures. Some of the finest people in the world proudly carry the credentials of FBI Agent and you have soiled them and not allowed them to speak. But I will not be silent.

Sorry, but NO SIR, MS Clinton was not merely careless or extremely careless. She was not even negligent or grossly negligent (as the statute requires). Hillary Clinton was knowingly purposeful in her decisions and actions to set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to control what information was available to the American public and Congress regarding her actions as Secretary of State. Furthermore, she took those government-owned communications into her personal possession after leaving her position and knowingly and willingly attempted to destroy them so her nefarious actions could never be known or used as evidence of her corrupt moral character against her.

Sir, what possessed you? Did you cave in to political pressure to unilaterally come to this decision? I fear that is the case, and Rule of Law be damned. I am embarrassed for and ashamed of you. You have set a precedent that can never be rectified… and certainly not justified. Shame on you, Sir. You ought to resign right now in disgrace for what you have done to tarnish the reputation of the finest Law Enforcement Agency in the world… for entirely political reasons.

Normally, an investigation will be assigned to an agent, or team of agents with one being the Case agent, or the lead investigator. When the investigation is complete, an investigative report will be presented to the U.S. Attorney for the Federal District involved.  It would be the U.S. Attorney who decides whether to decline prosecution for that investigation… NOT the FBI agent. But in the Clinton investigation, YOU (unilaterally) decided not to forward the investigation to the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General of the U.S., but instead personally made the decision not to prosecute her or even provide the information to a Federal Grand Jury.  You were wrong to take this upon yourself.

Sir, in order to indict a subject, only a preponderance of evidence, or 51% is needed for probable cause to exist. You did not think even that level of probability existed? Who do you think you are fooling? What judicial proceeding did you think you were following?

Throughout my years with the FBI, I (along with my fellow agents) took great pride in conducting each investigation in an unbiased manner regardless of the subject’s position or standing in the community.

All were treated equally under the law. But you, Sir, decided to allow this corrupt, evil and nasty human being to go free and unchallenged for her treasonous actions (yes, treasonous, in my opinion) which threatened the security of this nation. Furthermore, you stopped short of investigating the Clinton Foundation as a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization.  This is a RICO case if

there ever were one. Even an untrained person can tell from the communications which were recovered that Hillary Clinton spent more time working for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State than on State Business.  It may be argued that Hillary did not do any State business UNLESS the Clinton Foundation benefitted.  You decided to just let this uncomfortable truth alone without addressing it.

I will conclude with this:  Following my retirement from the FBI, I volunteered for a 12 month tour of duty in Afghanistan as a Law Enforcement Professional, embedded with U.S. forces as a subject matter expert in counter-terrorism investigations.  For most of that year I operated “outside the wire” patrolling with the troops, interviewing witnesses to IED incidents and gathering evidence on the bad guys.  The results of my work would then be reported through secure channels to the Commanding Officer.  All reports and communications were required to be transmitted via secure and encrypted devices.  Occasionally my remote location in the mountains of Afghanistan made transmission impossible and I would have to fly back to Bagram Air Base in order to securely report to the Commander of the battle space.   It would have been convenient if I could have just called the Commander on my personal cell phone or written him an email on my personal laptop.  But, had I done so I would have been reporting classified information via an unsecured device and it could have been compromised. These were, relative to Secretary of State communications, low-level classifications of Secret.  Had I ever sent even one in such a manner I would have been prosecuted and sent to Federal Prison for 20 years or so.  That is how serious this violation is considered.

Now, because of you, Hillary Clinton is allowed to continue her RICO activities and is running for President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world.  You have trampled on the Rule of Law and destroyed the trust of the American people in the FBI and in unbiased enforcement of the law.  How do you sleep at night? It is time for you to go and work for the Clinton Foundation.

Sincerely,

Hugh W. Galyean

(FBI Agent, Retired)

 

Your decision on November. 

Do you want 4 more years of the Clinton’s, Abedin, and Weiner lawlessness and stain on the highest office of the United States? 

It is time to

Drain the Swamp!

 

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

 

Hat Tips

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/28/comey-fbi-memo-agents-clinton-weiner-emails/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/a_retired_fbi_agent_addresses_james_comey_on_the_hillary_clinton_investigation.html

 

Fox News In the Tank for Hillary?

The Post-Ailes-Murdock Impact

Cooking the Books to Dampen Trump Enthusiasm

fox_news_channel_upside-downThis week’s Fox Presidential Poll was disturbing as it showed a significant gain by Hillary over Trump.  BUT, when you look at the 64 pages of the “internals” of the poll, you quickly see that the poll was deliberately manipulated! 

The preference or “how would you vote today” section showed that on 10/16, Hillary cornered 48.5% of the respondents while Trump was down to 40.0%!  One month ago, 9/16, the poll was virtually deadlocked with only a half a percent difference.  Hillary came in at 45.5% and Trump was on her pumps at 45.0% which is a virtual tie.

So, what happened?  Was it the 11-year-old recording of Trump trash talking or was it something else.  Why did 3,000 WikiLeaks emails have no impact on Hillary’s numbers?  The answer is that the poll was cooked! 

How?  Just poll a higher percentage of Democrats versus Republican registered and likely voters.  The chart below shows the sampling breakdowns for both 10/16 and 9/16 for both Democrat and Republicans.  Fox increased the percentage of Democrats from 40% on 9/16 to 44.5% on 10/16.  This is an increase of 4.5% more Democrats that were included in the poll.  But, it is worse!  Republican voters comprised 37.5% on 9/16 but were reduced to 35.5% on 10/16!  This is a decrease of 2.5% of Republican respondents. 

When you add the increase in Democrats with the decrease in Republicans between 9/16 and 10/16, you will find that the 10/16 poll sampled 6.5% more Democrats in the current poll!  In the 9/16 poll, the difference between Democrats and Republicans was on 2.5%.  In the current poll this difference was increased to 9.0%.

fox-poll-9-16

Why would Fox Do This?

First of all, have you heard ANY Fox anchor, analyst, reporter or janitor even hint that the internals of the polling were changed?  NOPE!

So, when Fox News has been leaning slightly more towards Trump the Hillary, why would they join with the left and cook the polls to show Trump declining in order to discourage Trump supporters?   Trace the attitudes at Fox to the departure of Roger Ailes and the take back by Globalist Rupert Murdock and his sons of Fox News that is owned by Murdock’s parent company News Corp. 

Murdock is an open border, “Free Trade” proponent, globalist who strongly disagrees with Trump’s policies regarding immigration, border security, trade, and many others.  Murdock, Fox, now is subtly, or not, moving Fox towards an Anti-Trump atmosphere.  Murdock is fighting Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others who openly support Trump.  The Murdock boys even have come out and said that the anti-Trump pin-up host Megyn Kelly is the future of Fox.

trump 1

So, you really need to begin to filter what you are hearing on Fox like you do with CNN and other MSM outlets.  The message may not be overtly anti-Trump, but the innuendo will lead to a pro-Hillary conclusion.  From now until the week before the election, do not get discouraged with polls that show Trump down. 

Keep pushing, campaigning and exposing the utter gutter corruption of the Clintons

or we will lose the White House, the Supreme Court,

and our Constitutional freedoms and rights.

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

2016 Election and Christianity/Catholicism vs Moral Relativism

(From our Sister Site, Christianity-In-Vogue)

Hillary Clinton Represents Progressive Globalist Leftist

Anti-Catholic / Anti-Christian Abolitionists

no-christianityGoal:  Corrupt or Eliminate Catholicism/Christianity

To Establish Moral Relativism as THE Religion

WikiLeaks confirmed that the Progressive Globalist Left have the elimination of Christianity or the complete transformation of Christianity where it accepts moral relativism as its core belief.  In 2011, email threads between Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, Campaign Chairman John Podesta and John Halpin from the Center for American Progress, spelled out the Progressive Globalist Left and the Clinton campaign goals to force Christianity and Catholics to accept gay marriage, birth control, abortion, euthanasia, and other policies considered to be an anathema to Christianity/Catholicism. 

The saddest part of this story is that 55% of Catholic voters support Hillary and only 34% support Trump.

  This Clinton Trio slammed conservative Catholic’s faith as; “amazing bastardization of the faith”.  As someone who was baptized Catholic then as a Baptist, I firmly believe that Christian/Catholic faith is based on the Holy Bible and that our beliefs have not been “bastardized” as they are inextricably tied to scripture.  Some have tried to bend scripture or ignore passages that are uncomfortable for them but they are the outliers, not those who ground their faith in the Bible.

Ken Auletta’s for the New Yorker mockingly wrote about Rupert Murdock, Owner of News Corp the parent of Fox News; “Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus”.   Ridicule of faith practices or scriptural references displays the overwhelming godless psyche of a non believer who worships at the altar of moral relativism.   

John Halpin wrote to Podesta and Palmieri, “Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.  It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy,”.  Halpin goes further than Auletta basically stating that scriptural teachings on “gender relations” that forbids same sex relationships is “severely backward”. 

The most idiotic statement, and one that exposes their collective ignorance, is the use of the term “Christian Democracy”.  This is code for moral relativism!  Christians and Catholics believe that the Scripture was given to man by God and that God never intended for us to engage in a democratic debate as to which part of scripture to follow!  The scripture is the scripture, it means what it says, and there is no room for moral relativism. 

God did not send down the 10 commandments and with a note saying pick any 7 of the 10 you like!

In 2015, Clinton herself stated that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”  She was referring to Christian and Catholic acceptance of abortion, gay marriage, birth control and other “legal” activities.  The dictate contained in the words “have to be changed” are scary and disturbing coming from a person who may become the President of the United States!  She and her staff consider religious tenants and beliefs to be BIASES rather than Scripturally Founded Faith Based Beliefs.  I wonder if she would say the same of Islam in public?  Probably not.

If you are a Christian or a Catholic (I do not like separating Catholics from Christians but that is another story) and you are thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton, please reconsider. 

  • Hillary is for abortion on demand at any point in gestation period. 

  • She is pro euthanasia as well. 

  • Hillary obviously believes that Christians and Catholics have to change their beliefs to conform to moral relativism. 

  • Hillary believes that the “Johnson Amendment”, forbidding the clergy from discussing political topics during church services, is perfectly fine and does not violate our first amendment rights but is absolutely does. 

Trump’s position on these topics is the polar opposite of Clintons and parallels our Scriptural Faith and Beliefs. Hillary will continue to erode the role God has in our nation and further condemn us to living in a godless society where morals are subject to anyone’s own desires,

EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD!

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

Hat Tips:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-campaign-aides-bash-catholics-evangelical-christians-palmieri http://www.christianpost.com/news/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-mock-evangelicals-and-conservative-catholics-podesta-email-palmieri-halpin-170718/

Mainstream Media and Corrupt Politicians Created WikiLeaks

Government Corruption, with Media Complicity, Created the NEED for WikiLeaks!

wikileaks-and-clinton

The MSM is clearly in the tank for Clinton and is clearly targeting Trump to hide the Clinton scandals and weaknesses. 

WikiLeaks obtains most of its information from hackers around the world then publishes it on the internet.  Normally I would not condone such activities BUT given the death of our 4th Estate (a free press), We the People need and deserve the truth.  We need to know the level of corruption in our government, and we need to know the duplicity of our governments.

While ends do not justify the means, when one side, the Globalists Elites, our globalist supportive politicians and the MSM, is totally corrupt and supportive of anti-American positions at the expense of We the People, I’ll take information from WikiLeaks!

We need to ask ourselves the question;

“Are WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden any more of a traitor to the truth, our security and our own well being than the duplicitous Global Elitists, our Global Elite Politicians, and their bought and paid for Main Stream Media?”

Without WikiLeaks we would not have many of the Clinton emails that she illegally destroyed in spite of those documents being under federal court and Congressional subpoena!  Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States.  That position is the standard bearer for freedom and opportunity around the world.  Corruption at that level endangers the entire world and certainly the moral position of the Presidency and the United States itself.  We do not need another President who asks a question like “It depends on what the definition of “is” is!”

We continue to learn more and more from WikiLeaks every day.  None of this information is being focused on or even reported by the MSM.  The Trump “P Tape” ran 24 hours a day for 72 strait hours by the MSM.  But Clinton mocking Americans, Bernie supporters, Catholics, Christians, Rednecks, and all other groups that do not support Hillary, are hidden by the MSM.  Sexual ACTIONS by Bill Clinton and other Democrats are glossed over as “Boys will be Boys” but the Trump “P tape” is touted as the end of our very civilization.  Hillary touts Katy Perry and other women voting in the nude but Trump crossed the line! 

WikiLeaks has even disclosed that the MSM and the Clinton/Obama regimes are one and the same.  The MSM makes sure Hillary and her surrogates get advance copies of interview and debate questions.  The DOJ conspired with the Clintons to make sure Hillary was not held accountable for her email server, obstruction of justice, and outright lying to Congress and the FBI.  The MSM buried these stories and got them off of the news cycles as soon as possible.

This election is about our very freedom.  While Trump may not be your ideal guest to invite to dinner, he is the ONLY thing standing between We the People and a complete destruction of the US Constitution and our very existence as a democracy!

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

 

 

Supreme Court Trumps Any Reason to Vote for Hillary!

Vote for Hillary

Here is Your Supreme Court!

clinton-supreme-court

 

Hillary’s New Justices:  Merrick Garland, Barak Obama, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. 

Hillary’s winning of the 2016 Presidential campaign will signal the end to the original intent of the US Constitution, personal freedoms, and our great nation as we have known it.  She will continue to take this country down the rabbit hole of Globalism, Centralization of Power and Socialism.

If Hillary is elected, she will add left leaning Merrick Garland first giving the left a 5-4 advantage.  Justices Kennedy (80), Ginsberg (83), and Breyer (78) will most likely retire within the next 2 years if Clinton is elected.  Depending on his health, Thomas (68) could retire within the next 4-8 years!  Hillary’s list of replacements include Barak Obama, Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch.  Loretta will most likely remain as Hillary’s Attorney General as I am sure she was promised in her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton!  At some point, Hillary will put her on the Court!  The offshoot is a hard progressive controlled Supreme Court (6-3) for the next 25 plus years.  If Thomas leaves the court within Clinton’s reign, the court will be 7-2!  The original intent of the US Constitution will be gone forever!

If you care about this country, the future of your children and your grandchildren, then all of the talk about Trump’s demeanor, his temperament, and his fitness for the Presidency of the United States is irrelevant if you value the US Constitution; personal freedoms; capitalism; freedom of speech, freedom of religion; freedom to bear arms; and the very existence of the United States as we have known it.

If you consider yourself a Conservative, but are a #NeverTrump person, you must suffer from a self-mutilation complex, or schizophrenia, or are just plan nuts if you vote for Hillary.

Trump’s published Supreme Court nominees would reset the conservative nature of this court and ensure that we stop our march towards self-annihilation!  A vote for Hillary is a vote to abolish the very nature of our nation and its foundation, the US Constitution!

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

Biggest Screw-Up-Presidential Debate 2016-Stop and Frisk Is Constitutional!

Image result for 2016 pres debate

Hillary Clinton (HRC) lied about “Stop and Frisk” (S&F) being unconstitutional and she was aided by Lester Holt, the moderator, who also stated the practice and its legal authority was unconstitutional.  Holt’s interjecting himself into the debate “reminding” Trump that S&F was unconstitutional.  This fed into the MSM calling for Holt to be a “Fact Checker” against Trump to make sure Trump did not lie! 

Really! HRC is the Most Infamous Liar In the History of American Politics, Ever!

If Anyone Needed FACT CHECKING, it would be Hillary Clinton!

Stop and Frisk, The Law:

Terry V Ohio:  In 1968, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures is NOT violated when a law enforcement STOPS a person exhibiting suspicious behavior in public and FRISKS him or her WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest the person.  If the Law Enforcement person has “REASONABLE SUSPICION” that the person of interest has, is or is about to commit a crime and the law enforcement officer has a reasonable belief that the person “MAY BE ARMED AND PRESENTLY DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC”.

Before we go on, lets look at a couple of legal terms used in this definition by the court. 

  • Reasonable Suspicion:  Is a legal standard of proof in US law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch'”.  It must be based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”, and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

  • Exclusionary Rule:  Is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.  Within the ruling of Terry V Ohio is that Stop and Frisk, since it DOES NOT violate the Fourth Amendment, does not trigger the “Exclusionary Rule” and it cannot be applied if the suspect is subsequently arrested as a result of the Stop and Frisk.  This is a key part of the ruling. 

    • The Court stated: “Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.”

So, Stop and Frisk is constrained in its application and cannot be used in conjunction against prohibited practices such as racial profiling.  Also, the application of Stop and Frisk is only to determine whether the suspect represents a threat, via a weapon, to the officer or the public.  It is specifically targeted to removing guns from the hands of persons who may be, has, is or is about to commit a crime.

The left hates Stop and Frisk which is curious since they are anti-gun!  I guess it is OK for criminals to have guns just not law-abiding citizens! 

So, how did the constitutionality of Stop and Frisk get tagged in the Presidential Debates erroneously as unconstitutional?

In 2013, judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, now retired United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the New York Police Department’s APPLICATION of Stop and frisk, violated the Fourth Amendment protections in that the department applied racial profiling in its application of the procedure.  The judge found that; “that the Police Department not only had violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, but had also violated the 14th Amendment by resorting to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as the number of police stops soared in minority communities over the last decade.”

BUT!!!

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stepped in and found and ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct and compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.”  by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.”  The Court of Appeals also found and criticized Judge Scheindlin had manipulated the court proceedings in the underlying lawsuit to fit her desired outcome which was to curtail New York City’s application of Stop and Frisk.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling set aside Scheindlin’s ruling as well as replaced her with judge John Koeltl who was told to put off all proceedings and basically await for further action from the court.  The court has yet to rule on the merits of the “Floyd” case that is the basis of Scheindlin’s actions. 

SO, THE STOP AND FRISK PROCEDURE AS SET FORTH IN TERRY V OHIO, REMAINS CONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD!

Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt were both wrong last night when they both stated that Stop and Frisk was Unconstitutional.  Today, many of the MSM are continuing to parrot this inaccurate description of Stop and Frisk.  Once again, the left is applying the Alinsky tactic of repeating a lie until it is accepted as the truth.

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Hat Tips

 

 

Syria-What Will Be the Outcome?

Who Will Be the Winners?

Who Will Be the Losers?

syria-2011-2015

In merely 4 1/2 years, the status and toll of this conflict varies by source but the Syrian Centre for Policy Research (SCPR) estimates that 11.5%, of the Syrian population has been killed or wounded.  They estimate that 470,000 men, women and children have been killed since 2011 while the United Nation estimates this number to be 250,000, but the UN stopped estimating casualties 18 months ago.  11 million of the 18 million Syrians have lost their homes.   The number of wounded has been estimated at 1,900,000.  Destruction to Syria itself is estimated to be over quarter of a Trillion dollars. Regardless of the actual numbers, this conflict has been catastrophic to Syria and its people.   

Who Are the Good Guys?

Or, are there any good guys in this conflict?  Go back to 2011 when the “Arab Spring” sprung and was blessed by the Obama regime.  Inside of Syria, “pro-democracy” dissident groups began fighting back against the Assad Syrian Government and this soon erupted into a nation-wide conflict as Assad cracked down on the dissidents.  To this day I doubt anyone truly knows who or what the dissidents are.  

To understand the Syrian conflict, you need to understand that Assad and the government are Alawite Shia Muslims and the dissidents are primarily Sunni MuslimsFurther, Assad has been tightly aligned with Iran with both being supported by Russia!  So, you have the Assad Syrian Government, Iran (via Hezbollah), and Russia on one side, with the primarily Sunni dissidents on the other.

But, with Obama’s and Clinton’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, a vacuum was created that was filled by the newly formed Sunni Islamic State (ISIS).  ISIS and Iran both want to dominate and control the rich resources of Syria and Iraq.  So, ISIS secured large regions of Syria from the Assad Government and set up the capital of their “Caliphate” in Raqqa, Syria!  So, now you have ISIS and the dissidents fighting against Assad, Iran, and Russia!  But, ISIS and the dissidents are not aligned and ISIS forces or kills dissidents who do not swear allegiance to their caliphate.  To make it even more complicated, the Kurds occupy much of northern Syria and Southern Turkey and they don’t like anyone particularly!  The map below shows how Syria has been carved up by each group.

 

mapThe bottom line is that there may not be any “good guys” in this conflict, just a bunch of guys fighting for their own self interests!

Where Does the US Fit In?

Depends!  From Obama’s perspective, the US has two goals.  First goal, don’t cross the Iranians.  Two, act like you are fighting ISIS.  The first goal became evident when Obama penciled in his Red Line regarding Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  Obama/Clinton were told in no uncertain terms that the Iranian nuclear talks were over if Obama intervened in Syria against Assad.  So, Obama/Clinton took out their Red Line Eraser and we bowed again to the Ayatollahs in Iran.  The second goal included arming the dissidents to a low-level so the dissidents could fight ISIS on the ground.  Of course the dissidents took shots at Assad’s army as they were actually the primary dissident target and both the dissidents were Sunni.  Some believe that the CIA annex in Benghazi was a front for moving arms from Libya to the Syrian dissidents.  Obama/Clinton mixed using the dissidents and air strikes against ISIS to show the American public that he was fighting against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.

From the Neo-Con perspective, the US needs to intervene on behalf of the dissidents as all freedom fighters who want democracy are good and deserve our help to whatever degree possible, including armed intervention!  You heard Senators McCain and Graham on talk shows the past 4.5 years demanding that we back the dissidents.  McCain even met with some of them in Syria.  The Neo-Cons would have the US engage directly in the Syrian conflict with the dual goals of removing Assad from power and killing off ISIS.  Whoa!  Assad is backed by Iran and Russia and to a lesser degree, China.  What the Neo-Cons are advocating are at least a 4 power war over Syria!  The Assad regimes have ruled Syria since 1971, why now?

From a US Self-Interest perspective today, the horse is out of the barn; the train left the station; and any other cliché you want to use to describe a situation in Syria that is only a Lose-Lose for the US.  Obama’s and Clinton’s lack of action early on removed all US options in this country, if we ever had any, other than all out war with Russia, Iran and Syria.  The fact is that since Obama/Clinton abandoned Iraq with his rapid pullout, Iraq will most likely align with Iran.  The majority in both countries are Shia and Iran has coveted Iraq in order to create a three state power consisting of Syria, Iraq and Iran.  They will then look towards Lebanon, Jordon and Israel for additional conquests. 

In Syria, we have put up with an Assad regime in power, aligned with Russia and Iran, for over 45 years.  It makes no sense from a national self-interest to engage the Assad regime in Syria.  We do have a national self-interest in annihilating ISIS and that interest is shared by Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq. 

Trump Is Right in Syria:

You may not like Donald Trump but he is dead right on Syria.  We have a national self-interest in removing ISIS from Iraq and Syria but no self interest in removing Assad from power.  The shame of it all is that we lost countless lives, many of our soldiers were gravely wounded in the war in Iraq, and we spent trillions of dollars for naught.  Iraq also suffered casualties ranging upwards of 250,000 including both military and civilians.  To walk away is a shame on both the Bush and Obama/Clinton administrations.  Bush should not have left the status of forces agreement up to Obama/Clinton and Obama/Clinton should not have walked away from Iraq without a solid SFA with Iraq.  But, we did and we need to cut our loses and get out after taking our ISIS.

Lesson? 

History repeats itself if we do not learn from our mistakes.  We failed politically, not militarily, in Vietnam and in Iraq.  We may have to add Afghanistan if we keep up our current politically correct engagement.  We need to learn to lead from strength, engage when our national-interests are jeopardized, and walk away when it is not our fight.  There will always be bad guys and we will always have to stand strong against them.  But, to pick fights when we are not threatened or do not have the will to win politically, like Iraq and Vietnam, it will always end in failure. 

If you get a chance, read or peruse Sun Tzu’s the Art of War, written 500 years BC.  It is still a good “rule book” for fighting a war today.   (http://suntzusaid.com/)

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

Hat Tips:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-u-tensions-spill-over-u-n-meeting-011240631.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/11/report-on-syria-conflict-finds-115-of-population-killed-or-injured

http://suntzusaid.com/

The Obama 2008 “Birther Issue”, Hillary’s Demise

McClatchy and Others Confirm Hillary Started “Obama Birther” Movement

clinton-blumenthal-obama-birther

Hillary’s Sidney Blumenthal, Not Trump, Instigated Birther Rumors

Hillary’s poor judgement was totally on display when her campaign staff resurrected the 2008 Obama Birther issue in an attempt to cast Trump as a racist!  Obviously, Trump’s recent uptick in popularity with Black voters following his outreach to this voting block was the impetus for this desperate ploy.  The attempt to smear Trump with African-American voters would have worked IF SHE HAD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING THE OBAMA BIRTHER CONTRIVERSY IN 2008 WITH THE AID OF HER CLOSEST CONFIDANT SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL!

Breitbart reported that David Goldstein of McClatchy stated in a tweet this week that Sid Blumenthal and one other Clinton aid had pushed the false birther narrative in 2008 to McClatchy’s former Washington Bureau Chief James Asher.

Bad Judgement or Stupidity?

  • Did Hillary not think news outlets would not rebut this new Birther narrative with actual accounts of her 2008 attempts to say that Obama was born in Kenya?

  • Did Hillary not think that there were archives, print and video, indicting her involvement in the Obama Birther scam?

  • Did Hillary not think that Donald Trump wouldn’t fight back?

  • Hillary’s poor judgement does not bode well for her in the upcoming debates.

One has to be careful when the press and pundits label you as the “smartest women in the world”.  You may start to believe it!  Trump once again proved this label to be false and exposed Hillary’s penchant for deceit and deception.

RD Pierini

@RDPierini

Hat Tips:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/16/former-mcclatchy-editor-assigned-reporter-go-kenya-clinton-operative-urged-birther-investigation/