Category: Corruption in America

Open Letter From 14 MOH Recipients To Sen Blumental and his Hypocrisy On Gorsuch

Excellent letter!

Reclaim Our Republic

President Trump and Judge Neil Gorsuch 2

Feb 17, 2017  Washington Examiner

Dear Sen. Richard Blumenthal,

You recently called upon your Senate colleagues to subject Judge Neil Gorsuch’s record to “extreme vetting,” questioning both his qualification and biography. The Senate certainly has the right and obligation to closely review any nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Conversely, it is our right as Americans and veterans to scrutinize your hypocrisy in doing so.

We are veterans of the Vietnam War. We fought alongside our brothers in arms, many of whom died or were gravely injured there. We saw the treatment meted out on us and our fellow military personnel upon our return, yet we never questioned our commitment to our nation’s freedom. But perhaps more relevant to this discussion is that we know you were not there with us.

The fact you repeatedly and consistently claimed to have served in Vietnam is a gross case of stolen…

View original post 519 more words

VIDEO Wake Up America! – FBI Sweep US Media In Terror Trump To Jail Leaking Reporters – Dem Nat Security Scandal

Reclaim Our Republic

YOU ‘WILL BE CAUGHT!’
Trump warns leakers as war
with intel community escalates 

FBI Sweep Puts US Media In Terror As Trump Prepares To Jail Leaking Reporters

Feb 15, 2017 By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

An absorbing Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that a clear example of “if one gives someone enough freedom of action, they may destroy themselves by foolish actions” is now playing out in the United States after the US Department of Justice (DOJ), during the past 24 hours, unleashed 23 specialized teams of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents to the homes of many of America’s top journalists.

In preparation for the Trump Administration to begin jailing many of these reporters for their violation of 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code: Disclosure Of Classified Information that, in part…

View original post 3,472 more words

Has the Trumpian Revolution begun

trump_revolution

Editor: Vladimir Bajic | Tactical Investor

Before we get to the article at hand many might ask why we cover political and health issues when our main focus in the stock markets and the financial arena.  The short and simple answer is that all these fields are connected; we don’t have free market forces anymore. Everything is manipulated; from the food, you eat to data you are provided.

 If you are aware of this you can plan accordingly. Identifying the problem is over 80% of the solution and this is why most people don’t know what to do because they don’t really understand the problem. Now you know why we are the only financial website that covers such a wide array of topics that on the surface appear to be unrelated but are in fact, deeply interwoven.  Mass psychology is a very powerful tool and if employed correctly can help you spot the grotesque levels of manipulation the masses are subjected to. We strongly suggest that you view or read or view Plato’s allegory of the cave.  You might also find the following article to be of interest:

Inflation, according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary is defined as follows: a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services

We all pretty much have felt the effects of inflation in one form or another. However, economists and the central bankers chose to define inflation as an increase in the price of goods. This is an ingenious way to hide what they are doing as the real definition of inflation is an increase in the supply of money. If they can inflate the money supply and control the cost of some goods, to create the illusion that all is well. Then they have more or less won as the average person has come to associate inflation in terms of rising prices. Inflation the Silent Killer Tax that’s destroying Middle Class America

 

December 8, 2016

Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted with permission from WND

The wailing and keening over the choice of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA appears to be a lead indicator of a coming revolution far beyond Reagan’s.

“Trump Taps Climate Skeptic For Top Environmental Post,” said the Wall Street Journal. “Climate Change Denial,” bawled a disbelieving New York Times, which urged the Senate to put Pruitt in a “dust bin.”

Clearly, though his victory was narrow, Donald Trump remains contemptuous of political correctness and defiant of liberal ideology.

For environmentalism, as conservative scholar Robert Nisbet wrote in 1982, is more than the “most important social movement” of the 20th century. It is a militant and dogmatic faith that burns heretics.

“Environmentalism is well on its way to becoming the third great wave of redemptive struggle in Western history,” wrote Nisbet, “the first being Christianity, the second modern socialism.” In picking a “climate denier” to head EPA, Trump is rejecting revealed truth.

Yet, as with his choices of Steve Bannon as White House strategist and Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, he has shown himself to be an unapologetic apostate to liberal orthodoxy.

Indeed, with his presidency, we may be entering a post-liberal era.

In 1950, literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote, “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

The rise of the conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan revealed liberalism’s hour to be but a passing moment. Yet, today, something far beyond conservatism seems to be afoot.

As Hegel taught, in the dialectic of history the thesis calls into existence the antithesis. What we seem to be seeing is a rejection, and a counter-reformation against the views and values that came out of the social and political revolutions of the 1960s.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Consider the settled doctrine Trump disrespected with Pruitt.

We have long been instructed that climate change is real, that its cause is man-made, that it imperils the planet with rising seas, hurricanes and storms, that all nations have a duty to curb the release of carbon dioxide to save the world for future generations.

This is said to be “scientific truth,” and “climate deniers” are like people who believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Some hold the matter to be so grave that climate deniers should be censored for promoting socially destructive falsehoods.

Yet, the people remain skeptical.

Their worry is not that the rising waters of the Med will swamp the Riviera, but that tens of millions of Arabs, Muslims and Africans may be coming across to swamp Europe, and that millions of Mexicans may cross the Rio Grande to swamp the USA.

Call them climate deniers or climate skeptics, but they see the establishment as running the Big Con to effect a transfer of wealth and power away from the people – and to themselves.

Across the West, establishments have lost credibility.

The proliferation of minority parties, tearing off pieces of the traditional ruling parties, points to a growing distrust in ruling regimes and a return to identifying with the nation and tribe whence one came.

A concomitant of this is a growing disbelief in egalitarianism and in the equality of all races, creeds, nations, cultures and peoples.

The Supreme Court may say all religions are equal and all must be treated equally. But do Americans believe Christianity and Islam are equal? How could they, when Christians claim their faith has as its founder the Son of God and God himself?

After calling for a ban on Muslim immigration, Trump was elected president. After inviting a million refugees from Syria’s civil war into Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel admits having made a mistake and is now in favor of letting German cities and towns decide if women should be allowed to wear burqas.

A sea change in thought is taking place in the West.

Liberalism appears to be a dying faith. America’s elites may still preach their trinity of values: diversity, democracy, equality. But the majorities in America and Europe are demanding that the borders be secured and Third World immigrants kept out.

The next president disbelieves in free trade. He wants a border wall. He questions the wisdom of our Mideast wars and the need for NATO. He is contemptuous of democratist dogma that how other nations rule themselves is our business. He rejects transnationalism and globalism.

“There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship,” said Trump in Cincinnati, “We pledge allegiance to one flag, and that flag is the American flag. From now on, it’s going to be America first. … We’re going to put ourselves first.”

That’s not Adlai Stevenson or Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.

Nothing seems settled or certain. All is in flux. But change is coming. “Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind.”

Has the Trumpian Revolution begun

Judge Jeanine: Entry to US is not a right for non-citizens

Judge Jeanine discusses President Trumps Travel Ban getting halted by Federal Judge

 

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

constitution

JUDICIAL OVERREACH ON NATIONAL SECURITY

A federal district court judge in the state of Washington temporarily blocked the enforcement of President Trump’s “Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (Jan. 27, 2017). The executive order had suspended the admission refugees to the United States, including from Syria, and of non-U.S. resident travelers from seven majority Muslim countries considered prone to terrorism. U.S. District Judge James L. Robart, who acted last Friday in a case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota, specified that his decision is to be implemented nationwide. In issuing his temporary restraining order, the judge found that the states had standing to bring the case, that they were likely to succeed on its merits, and that a temporary restraining order was in “the public interest.” Not surprisingly, President Trump tweeted his displeasure with Judge Robart’s decision.

President Trump has every right to be upset on the merits of Judge Robart’s action, even if his use of the phrase “so-called” in describing the judge may have been a tad over the top. Instead, President Trump might have used the words “irresponsible” or “reckless” in characterizing a decision that is a clear violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers and is potentially detrimental to national security.

Despite the president’s objections, the Trump administration appears to be complying with Judge Robart’s decision to date.  However the Department of Justice appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately reverse what Judge Robart had done and restore President Trump’s entry suspension order. The appeals court declined to do so right away. It set forth a briefing schedule calling for the plaintiffs to file their papers by 3am ET on Monday and for the Department of Justice to reply by 6pm ET.

President Trump acted well within his constitutional and statutory authority to issue his executive order. “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.”

Congress reaffirmed the president’s power with respect to decisions excluding aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which was originally enacted in 1952, and has been amended several times, including in 1996. The following language has remained intact: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).

President Trump’s executive order, in the interest of protecting national security, directed changes to the policy and process of admitting non-citizens into the United States. It was intended to provide a period of review for relevant agencies to evaluate current procedures and to propose and implement new procedures. The purpose falls squarely within the president’s constitutional and statutory authority and responsibility, as stated in the executive order, “to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

In order to allow the opportunity for appropriate review and proposal of changes to procedures for the protection of national security, the executive order suspended for 90 days entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It suspended, for 120 days, the United States Refugee Admission Program, with the exception of Syria where the suspension is indefinite. After the refugee suspension ends, the Secretary of State will have the authority to prioritize applicants on the basis of religious-based persecution provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

While the affected countries are all Muslim majority countries, they represent only seven out of the 56 Muslim majority countries that belong to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Out of the ten countries with the largest Muslim population, only one country – Iran – is on the executive order’s list of seven. Non-Muslims as well as Muslims from the seven countries would be affected by the executive order. The countries themselves were selected on the basis of their being nurturing grounds for the export of terrorism, a perfectly rational basis to distinguish one country from another for the purposes of national security. No invidious discrimination is involved.

Nevertheless, without any legal analysis and lacking access to the kind of classified information on threats to national security that the president of the United States has at his disposal, Judge Robart took it upon himself to substitute his judgment for the president’s. The judge gave unwarranted deference to the speculative, vague interests asserted by the states of Washington and Minnesota, who claimed without any concrete evidence that the temporary suspension of entry of aliens from the seven countries “adversely affects” their own “States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.” This preposterous conclusory assertion overlooks the fact that the affected individuals temporarily barred from entering the country are not residents of these states and are not entitled to the states’ protection. Moreover, the states are overlooking their responsibility to protect the safety of their actual residents, which the executive order is designed to assist in doing. The federal executive branch is charged with the responsibility for protecting all of the American people from national security threats, including but not limited to the people of Washington and Minnesota.

Judge Robart goes even further afield in giving deference to the states’ unsupported claim that the executive order would inflict damage on their own operations, tax base and public education system. Under this theory, individual states would have the right to challenge any federal policy decision on the basis of virtually any claim of possible harm to their states’ more parochial interests. The result would be to upend the relationship between the federal and state governments under our constitutional system. In any case, by declaring that his order would have to be implemented nationally, Judge Robart improperly imputed to the other 48 states the claims of the two states before him that are actually within his jurisdiction to adjudicate. Indeed, a federal district court in Massachusetts reached a contrary conclusion on the very same day that Judge Robart issued his decision. In a far more thorough opinion, the federal district court in Massachusetts determined that President Trump’s executive order was a lawful exercise of the political branches’ plenary control over the admission of aliens into the United States. There is no basis for disregarding this opinion and making Judge Robart’s scantily reasoned decision the law of the land nationwide.

During oral argument, Judge Robart said to the Department of Justice attorney, “You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.” His observation, which he asserted without any proof on the record, is irrelevant. The countries were selected based on a list of “countries of concern” compiled previously by the Obama administration. They all have been proven unable to control both terrorism within their borders and the export of terrorism outside of their borders. President Trump had a rational basis for the selection of the countries subject to the temporary suspension. It is not within Judge Robart’s constitutional authority to substitute his judgment for the president’s on such matters of national security. He failed to meet the test he himself stated in his decision: “The role assigned to the court is not to create policy, and it is not to judge the wisdom of the policy created by the other two branches.”

As for those objecting to the prioritization of persecuted religious minorities for future refugee status, they may want to read the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which describes exactly what those religious minorities are facing in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and Africa today. Genocide is defined as any of a number of acts such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm or forcibly transferring children, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Persecuted Christians in that part of the world surely fall into that category.

Moreover, a “refugee” is defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” Does anyone seriously believe that Christians would be safe to return to countries such as Syria, Iraq or Libya today?

Judge Robart exceeded his judicial authority and has potentially put Americans at needless risk. If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not promptly reverse his reckless decision, the Department of Justice will need to take this case directly to the Supreme Court.

 

Michael Goodwin: Mr. Obama, it’s time to face reality, Mr. Trump is going to be president

In this Address Obama is an Embarressment to America, he never stops whineing and blaming..this is not strengh, he has just been a fool for 8 years, hurting hard working Americans and now he gos out wondering why we hate him and why Trump won. What a total fail for a so called Prez!

 

So this is how it ends — in a whimper wrapped in self-pity and recriminations. With President Obama on the defensive at his final press conference and Hillary Clinton’s last campaign event resembling a wake, the Democratic Party is limping off the stage and into the political winter.

It was supposed to sit atop the national power pyramid for decades, a new paradigm of liberals, progressives, the young, the old, the unions and blacks, Latinos, Muslims and Asians.

The torch would be passed from Obama to Clinton, a liberal Supreme Court would vastly expand executive power and the regulatory state would enforce climate-change orthodoxy on all industry and elitist dictates on every American. Globalism would be the new patriotism.

But a funny thing happened on the way to one-party dominance: The people who work for a living said no, hell no. Their revolt brings Donald Trump to the White House amid hopes of a revival of the economy and of the American spirit.

Thoroughly beaten, the Dems are at their lowest point in nearly a century. From the White House to Congress to statehouses, they are on the outside looking in.

Their punishment was well-deserved, as demonstrated by Obama and Clinton. Full of excuses and blaming everyone except themselves, their closing acts proved it is time for them to go.

They have nothing new to offer, with their vision of the future limited to larger doses of the same failing medicine and their intolerance for disagreement showing they would never learn from their mistakes. Their bad ideas had run their disastrous course.

Michael Goodwin: Mr. Obama, it’s time to face reality, Mr. Trump is going to be president

HUD Gives Poor More Rent Money to Live in “Higher Opportunity” Areas With “Lower Poverty”

To help “very low-income families” live in better neighborhoods, the Obama administration has issued a sweeping order requiring the government to pay more for their housing so they can move to areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty. The final rule was announced in the federal register this month by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency that annually spends tens of billions on rent for the poor.

A chunk of the money, an estimated $18 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office, goes to a program called Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), which is funded by HUD and administered by local public housing agencies. It allows recipients to choose housing in the private market and pays a set amount based on fair market rent for a metropolitan area. Under the new rule, which goes into effect in January, fair market rents will now be calculated by ZIP code so Uncle Sam will pay a lot more for people to live in nicer areas. Here’s an excerpt of the new regulation: “This final rule establishes a more effective means for HCV tenants to move into areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty by providing the tenants with a subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and, consequently, help reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration.”

HUD Secretary Julián Castro said in an announcement that the goal is to “offer these voucher-holding families more opportunities to move into higher opportunity neighborhoods with better housing, better schools and higher paying jobs.” The agency decided to spend more money to house the poor after a group of Ivy League social scientists published a study on the effects of moving families away from neighborhoods with deeply concentrated poverty to low-poverty environments. They found that children who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods before the age of 13 did better as adults, had significantly higher earnings and a greater likelihood of attending college. To keep with one of the agency’s key missions of “fostering opportunities for economic mobility,” American taxpayers will foot the bill for the higher rent in more upscale neighborhoods.

To justify the added expense HUD is playing the race card, asserting that the current method of doling out vouchers “has not proven effective in addressing the problem of concentrated poverty and economic and racial segregation in neighborhoods.” The agency fully expects that when the new system kicks in it will be “more effective in helping families move to areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty.” To some this may sound like social engineering and yet another Obama administration example of spreading the wealth around. For instance, the “better jobs” argument is a huge red herring, particularly in the area surrounding the capitol, which will be deeply impacted by the new rule. For example, the highest new fair market rent areas in the District of Columbia are in the northwest while the lowest are in the southeast. Commuting to downtown is actually easier from the southeast because of its proximity, metro rail coverage and bus routes. Also, the highest rent allowances in the area are in places like Fairfax—again, far less accessible to employment centers than anywhere in the District.

The new regulation will have a significant impact on the composition of targeted neighborhoods. As an example: In 2016, the fair market rent for the entire D.C. metropolitan area for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,623. Under the new rule, voucher amounts in the D.C. area will range up to $2,420 a month for a two-bedroom apartment in northwest D.C and parts of Fairfax and Arlington counties. Among the areas that will implement the new system are the nation’s largest cities, including Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia and San Antonio. HUD claims that its current system artificially inflates rents in some higher poverty neighborhoods rather than incentivize voucher holders to move to higher opportunity neighborhoods.

This is an agency that’s been embroiled in a multitude of serious scandals—under both Democrat and Republican administrations—over the years and Judicial Watch has reported on many of them, including the discovery that $200 million had been wasted at local public housing agencies run by people with “troubled backgrounds” in high-ranking positions. Agency leadership has also been rocky over the years. George W. Bush’s HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, was forced to resign in the midst of a federal investigation involving cronyism. Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary, Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about payments to a mistress. Ronald Reagan’s HUD secretary, Samuel Pierce, was involved in an influence-peddling scandal that saw 16 people, including some of his top aides at the agency, convicted.

HUD Gives Poor More Rent Money to Live in “Higher Opportunity” Areas With “Lower Poverty”

God Gave Us a Reprieve – The Rest is up to Us

WARNING: Much of the images shown are sickening,, many with children….horrifying, saddened to know monstors like this exist and stay free!

 

There is a consensus among Conservative Christians that the triumph of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton represents a God-given reprieve to America as a nation.

Many within the Conservative Christian community believe that it is through the triumph of Donald Trump that God has given our nation one last chance to get back on the proper moral and spiritual track. He has shown us His divine mercy, and though His mercy, He has given our nation one last chance to get back on the proper moral and spiritual track, lest we face His judgment for not only turning away from Him, but for mocking Him and His laws through the leaders we have previously elected and the laws we have chosen to accept.

To be clear, it is within this very specific Conservative Christian community, and not merely Conservatives or those who simply identify themselves as Christians who believe this represents an opportunity that must not be squandered. To nearly anyone else, the “surprising” results of this election make no sense.

Viewed through a Biblical context, however, it makes perfect sense. Yet, there have been some within this subset of Conservative Christians who have rallied against Donald Trump because, according to them, they could not vote for him “in good conscience.” It is in spite of these sanctimonious Conservative Christians that we now have the chance to right the moral and spiritual wrongs that have held this nation hostage for so long.

Under Clinton, we had no chance. Under Trump, we have been given the opportunity should we choose to accept it. Not only must we accept it, we must act now and more fervently than ever before.

As Steve Quayle has often asserted, there are no political solutions to spiritual problems, Nonetheless, God gives us opportunities to correct spiritual problems through His divine mercy. It is up to us whether we choose to engage in the spiritual battle before us, or sit on the sidelines and refuse to be accountable for our actions… or inaction.

The triumph of Donald Trump has given the Conservative Christians in America a more favorable field of battle. Perhaps it will give us enough time to recalibrate our moral and spiritual compass, and bring God back into our lives. It will give us a chance to fight back against the lawlessness that has incrementally overtaken us while we slumbered.

To those who are truly paying attention, the triumph of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton is more than a political victory. It is an overt display of God’s mercy upon his people.

Join Steve Quayle and pastor David Lankford on the Hagmann & Hagmann Report tonight from 8:00-11:00 PM ET as we discuss the job ahead for every Christian in America.

Click HERE to watch live or by archive.

The Hagmann & Hagmann Report is broadcast live nationally and internationally from 7:00-10:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.

Steve Quayle website – CLICK HERE