For today’s respite, I have chosen “Waiting in Silence” one of my favorite Advent pieces. A pensive mood is created, appropriate for this day, the third Sunday in Advent.
For today’s respite, I have chosen “Waiting in Silence” one of my favorite Advent pieces. A pensive mood is created, appropriate for this day, the third Sunday in Advent.
This is my choice for my Flashback Saturday. First posted in April in 2017, it seems a fitting tribute to the best of MSNBC. The environmentalists are ready to spring into action: Enjoy!
MSNBC Is Worried That Birds (Yes, Birds) Won’t Be Able To Fly Over Trump’s Border Wall
Melvin began the segments discussing Rep. Raul Graijalva (D-AZ) and the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit against the federal government over the border enforcement project. In California, the state legislature is considering punishing construction firms that participate in building the wall.
Apparently I have a very different take on the House Hearing on the Clinton Foundation matter than many others. I give kudos to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch for the old college try. But anyone who follows him as he makes his rounds on Fox with his latest FOIA request pretty much knows his gig and what he has. Phillip Hackney was the Democrat’s choice to testify in a meaningless meandering until Meadows was kind enough to encourage a drill into Trump – don’t hold back. I include video of the hearing.
Then, it was all downhill for me as the Financial duo who has the stuff on the foundation began their testimony and headed into a major beating. As I followed twitter I was amazed. Hmm someone took that blue pill. But what a relief when I discover that the Washington Examiner doesn’t think things went so swell either:
I’ll let you wander over to the Examiner to read the claims these two fellows have against the Clintons and the Foundation. if you can get through the ads- worth it – but a taste of it follows.
A congressional hearing on the Clinton Foundation turned into a fiasco on Thursday after Republicans clashed with their own witnesses — two private investigators who refused to turn over documents that they claimed showed evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation.
Two financial analysts who say they have uncovered evidence of pay-to-play and financial crimes at the Clinton Foundation, were invited to testify on their findings by the House Oversight Committee’s Republican Chairman Mark Meadows.
But tensions erupted between Meadows and the two witnesses after Moynihan and Doyle refused to turn over 6,000 pages of documents that they say back up their claims — documents that the pair has already given to the FBI and the IRS.
But Meadows questioned that explanation, saying he spoke to the IRS before the
hearing and was told the witnesses’ work with the committee would have no impact on the status of the IRS investigation. “I don’t find how [refusing to turn over information] provides a good foundation for truth and transparency,” said Meadows.
Republican Rep. Jody Hice also criticized the witnesses. “I feel like you’re using us for your own benefit,” said Hice, adding that there was a “little game going on here.”
Moynihan argued that he and Doyle were invited to the hearing and would have happily not attended. “Let me be very clear. You invited us. If you don’t want us, disinvite us,” he said.
Moynihan added that there was no benefit to sharing the documents with the committee because congress doesn’t have law enforcement capabilities. “That’s why we presented to government agencies, which you’re not,” said Moynihan. Meadows promised to subpoena the documents from his witnesses.
“Don’t get cute with me,” he told Moynihan. “I thought you said you were all about the rule of law, all about the truth.”
This was just a small taste of the nasty banter, and most of the GOP on the committee were more than happy to join in the pummeling. I might add this was the last Meadows hearing he will ever have no doubt, and heck, might as well go out with a splash showing how impartial you are. Maybe getting turned down for the next Chief of Staff position might have left a bitter taste. More at Washington Examiner here
I have included the entire hearing. If you want to hear Fitton, enjoy. So now we hear again that good old Session’s team player U.S. Attorney John Huber who was supposedly keeping his eye on things, turned down the financial analysts evidence twice. But we sort of figured this was how it was going.
Fitton takes up the beginning. About 1:30 into it, the dynamic duo with the supposed reveal start a ten minute recitation of their acumen on this matter. Pass it if you like. If you want a bit of the fellow Hackney, back it up a bit.
So get out a cold one, some popcorn, ease back in that old recliner, and what the heck, do the whole darn video.
The House Oversight Government Operations Subcommittee holds a hearing on oversight of nonprofit organizations and restrictions to their political activities, with a focus on the New York-based Clinton Foundation.
An objective View
by Mustang (Our man on the beat)
I should perhaps begin by saying that I never once thought that the United Kingdom joining the European Union was a good idea. Over the space of forty years of British membership in the EU, the people of Great Britain, increasingly fed up with the onerous taxes placed upon them by the EU Parliament, came to a similar conclusion.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron, in a political move he calculated would fail, agreed to place the question of continuing EU membership before the British people. The result of that referendum reflected the overwhelming desire of the Brits to reclaim their national identity, and like the child he is, Cameron resigned.
Teresa May was elected to replace Cameron. To be fair, the task in finalizing Brexit has been an onerous task. Ms. May has not only had to contend with the animosity of the EU member states (which at times, has been damned insulting to the United Kingdom), she’s also had to fight the Labor Party as well. I should also note that the Leader of the British Labor Party is a devout Marxist who champions the notion of a new world order on the global socialist model. For May, it has been an uphill battle from her very first day in office. With that said, Teresa May is no Maggie Thatcher.
EU membership is supposed to provide distinct advantages to member states, such as “free trade,” but the cost of membership has far outweighed its benefits. EU Membership requires that nations give up their national identity and their autonomy. According to the EU membership application process, states must comply with all standards and rules, and every decision made by the home legislature is subject to the approval or veto of all other member states. Currently, there are 35 chapters of rules, regulations, and policies with which each member state must adhere, and these (individually and collectively) are quite substantial.
These EU regulations detail the conditions and obligations of member states in such areas as energy, environment, immigration, cross-border movement, transportation, communications, and banking/finance. Each member state must also “pay their fair share” of membership. Let’s just call it what it is: a tax. To the weight of the tax (which is always passed along to the citizens) we must add the impact of EU regulations, which have the effect of stifling British commerce in a very substantial way. So, the British people want out —and I don’t blame them one bit.
A short word about Britain’s fair share of the EU tax burden. In 2008, the British people were forced to pony up to the tune of £2.7 billion (about $2 billion). In 2013, the UK’s “fair share” was £11.3 billion. The EU, as with every government, has never seen a tax that it didn’t like. To put this tax burden into perspective, the UK’s annual gross domestic product is $2.95 trillion; the US GDP is $19.49 trillion.
So, while we generally think of the UK as a highly productive society, that productivity is but a small percentage of our own. What this means is that the average citizen in the UK scrapes to get by. While their per capita GDP is $44,000/annually (ours is about $60,00), their tax burden substantially reduces British purchasing power. British citizens pay a 20% tax at the basic rate, 40% for incomes over £34,500, and 45% for incomes exceeding £150,000. Add to this the Value Added Tax of 20%. It may seem that the average British citizen earns a good income, the picture changes significantly after taxes.
Think of it this way: when average Americans decide to purchase a newer car, they are likely to visit a new car dealership. There are such things in the United Kingdom, but most people “upgrade” to a new used car. It’s all they can afford.
At this point, we should wonder what the kerfuffle is all about. Teresa May has not done a very good job negotiating the Brexit agreement with the European Union. The agreement that she’s settled on places her country at a substantial economic disadvantage.
I don’t have all the details, of course, but I know that under May’s proposal, the UK will continue as an “associate member” of the EU, which means that the UK will still be taxed, and the EU will continue to control (to some extent) the UK’s trading relationships with other countries. It is also my understanding that given the agreement that May has worked out, the UK would be prohibited from negotiating a free trade agreement with other countries … the US, for example. If this is true, even in spite of Brexit, the UK is not the master of its own destiny.
Conservatives in the British Parliament do not support such a deal with the EU. Yesterday, there was a question about national confidence in the leadership of Teresa May; last night, the Parliament voted to decide whether to retain Teresa May as Prime Minister. They voted to keep her in the job. What this means, to me, is that even conservative members of Parliament aren’t convinced that Brexit is the right choice for Great Britain.
How sad is that? It leads me to conclude that politics in the UK remains as fractious as it always was. Political division is the history of the British political system —and this may go a long way in helping to explain our own politics. After all, Great Britain is our mother country. Our apples, or so it seems, have not fallen far from the tree.
(Rejects Global Fascism re: Immigration Policy)
The United Nations Global Compact for Migration met at a conference in Marrakech, Morocco to adopt the agreement that intends to establish global migration as a human right. That’s not all: it also aimed to make any criticism of migration a criminal violation through a so-called hate crimes legislation. In selling this bill of goods, the United Nations claims the following:
“Today, there are over 250 million migrants around the world living outside their country of birth. This figure is expected to grow for a number of reasons, including population growth, increasing connectivity, trade, rising inequality, demographic imbalances, and climate change. Migration provides immense opportunity and benefits—for the migrants, host communities, and communities of origin. However, when poorly regulated it can create significant challenges. These challenges include overwhelming social infrastructures with the unexpected arrival of large numbers of people and the deaths of migrants undertaking dangerous journeys.”
I think the UN is right about the challenges, but remains undeterred as it relates to the struggling receiving communities. There are all sorts of counter-arguments to this foolishness, including the fact that if people are allowed to pick up and move away from their third or fourth-world cesspool country, then there will never be an impetus within that country to change direction that might benefit all of its citizens. Suppose British colonists in North America, fed up with tyranny, simply moved away to Mexico —would there ever have been an American Revolution? How would this have impacted our country today? Since we’re talking about Mexico, this is precisely why we Americans have so many illegal immigrants from that cesspool.
In any case, Italy isn’t having any of this. In direct opposition to the global fascists in the United Nations (why are they headquartered in New York, again?), the Italian legislation has just passed a law that pushes back against the compact. Here’s what they’ve done:
1.Italy will only grant asylum to legitimate refugees of war, or victims of political persecution. If individuals who have been granted asylum break the law, which is to say convicted of crimes involving threats of violence to public officials, physical assault, female genital mutilation, or theft, they will be deported
2.Italy has approved tough new immigration and security laws that will make it easier to deport criminal migrants, including the stripping them of Italian citizenship. The vote in the lower house was 396 to 99. The new law was promulgated on 3 December 2018.
3.Key provisions of the new law are the Elimination of Humanitarian Protection, which was a provision that sought to undermine the process of asylum; Extends periods of detention for Migrants to 180 days;
Increases funding for deportation of migrants; makes it easier to revoke the status of migrants when they become criminals or trouble-makers; restricts migrants to those identified as “safe countries of origin,” which means countries that have well-established democratic political systems;
decreases the use of shelters to only unaccompanied minors, and only until their situation can be resolved; authorizes revocation of citizenship for any terrorist activity or involvement; increases security measures to guarantee public safety.
Naturally the Italian press is going bonkers over the new law, and I imagine the UN weenies are wetting their pants, but given the events of France over the past week or ten days, Italy isn’t the only rebel to UN foolishness.
Presently, there are 12 European Union members who have similar restrictions to migration. Bottom line? It makes sense to the survival of national and community identity. Italy isn’t being “mean.”
It is the main European gateway for migrants arriving by sea. In 2017, there were 119,369 sea-borne migrants; the year before that, 181,436. Apparently, Italy has decided that enough is enough.
Italy will not sign the compact, and no Italian officials will attend the conference in Marrakech. In renouncing the UN Compact, Italy is joined by Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United States.
To me, this is good news —but the United Nations is still traveling at the speed of light in the wrong direction. Perhaps President Trump should simply suspend any further payments to the UN until it begins acting like an organization composed of mature adults, rather than liberal “the world isn’t fair” teenagers.
Did I take the Red Pill or the Blue Pill? Frankly by now I cannot remember. All I know is that somehow I slid down the rabbit hole and like Alice I know not where I am.
This after a weekend of bizarre interviews with Trump opponents claiming they had their very fingers on his jugular.
Bernstein claims that Trump the rat is cornered? Impeachment soon. Going to Prison. On and on.
Comey: “Former FBI Director James Comey asks American voters to end Donald Trump’s presidency with a “landslide” victory for his opponent in 2020.”
The Truth? They are the ones trapped. They know it. They are fighting for their very existence because given enough time, Trump can become the vicious dog who corners his prey.
See, two can play this game.
Comey has much to fear. Comey may fear for his brother as well.
Recall the Clinton Foundation whistleblower?
Why the raid? Because the FBI is sweating bullets to learn what the whistleblower turned over to congress. They knew he had whistleblower status and should not have been touched. They knew he had an attorney that they should have contacted, not him. But they did it anyway. Thats what cornered dogs do.
But more importantly
That’s because in one the documents being presented to the subcommittee will be comments from the Clinton Foundation’s longtime chief financial officer, Andrew Kessel.
According to The Hill’s John Solomon, Kessel is quoted as saying he was “unable to stop former President Clinton from ‘commingling’ personal business and charitable activities inside the foundation and that he ‘knows where all the bodies are buried.’”
Additionally, Peter Comey, James’ brother, serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper, according to the report.
DLA Piper is number five on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list. DLA also performed an independent audit of The Clinton Foundation in November.
DLA Piper also does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes. That’s right. In fact, when the Clinton Foundation scandal broke, it was DLA Piper that performed the 2015 audit on the Foundation, which was supposed to be an independent audit for the appearance of propriety.
Clinton Foundation tax forms reveal millions in unreported donations.
An examination of the charity’s tax forms by reporters earlier this year prompted Clinton Foundation officials to undertake an “exhaustive review” of past returns, which uncovered “several additional errors,” according to foundation president Donna Shalala.
In 2010, 2011 and 2012, for example, the Clinton Foundation did not list any government grants.
Back to Comey
A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.
These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
In the report, Comey is noted as receiving $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin, who is a Clinton Foundation donor, and became a donor in the same year Comey received those funds.
Haven’t had enough yet?
Additionally, Mr. Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings in 2013. HSBC has also partnered with The Clinton Foundation, where records indicate that the bank projected $1 billion in financing through the Clinton Foundation for “retrofitting” 1,500 to 2,000 housing units to conserve energy.
Remember, Peter Comey, James’ brother, serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper, according to the report.
Just remember earlier B-ville post:
and finally, most importantly. The Clinton Foundation is simply a shell game,
For Hillary, charity begins at home. Little reported with the Friday dump of her tax returns is the fact that $14 million of her “charity” went to her own foundation. So a tax break for herself. Actually, our little contribution to her corruption machine. It took me to go to the Indian Express to find this gem.
The Clintons donated nearly 11 percent of their income to charity in 2014, according to her tax return. This year, the Clintons boosted personal donations to their global family charity, the Clinton Foundation, to between $5 million and $10 million.
Now the laugh line:
April 27, 2015
What I find amazing is the media’s refusal to cover the fact that the Clinton Foundation gives out only about 15 percent of its “donations” for grants. We keep hearing about all of the “good works” that they do, but compared to its revenue, it is nothing but a money beast that enriches and corrupts others. So here we go:
Last month, the website The Federalist looked at the Clinton Foundation’s IRS filings for the period between 2008 and 2012. According to its analysis, only 15 percent of the $500 million raised during that span when towards grants for other organizations.
Nearly $110 million was paid out in the form of salaries and benefits while $25 million went towards travel expenses. Almost 60 percent of the organization’s disclosed revenue — or $290 million — was listed under the category of “other expenses.”
The Clinton Foundation has joined Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on a list of naughty nonprofits maintained by Charity Navigator, a prominent charity monitor.
Charity Navigator created a watch list last year to include any charity that does not “meet our criteria.” Organizations are placed on the list when Charity Navigator becomes “aware of conduct that may affect a donor’s decision to support that charity.” (Think Haiti as their one charitable cause that enriched Hillary’s brother.)
The Comey Fiasco
How to win leftist friends without really trying
I’ve been trying to figure out James Comey, 7th Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to my understanding, Mr. Comey was, for most of his adult life, a registered Republican. That changed in 2016 when he stated that politically, he is unaffiliated.
So, what happened in 2016? In the news …
*Bernie Sanders was utterly destroyed by Hillary Clinton, after which she handily won the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
*Hillary Clinton seized the Democratic National Convention, and then drove that organization toward bankruptcy from such shenanigans as paying for a fake Dossier on Donald J. Trump, which from all accounts, cost the DNC millions of dollars.
*Black Lives Matter made it in to the political mainstream, which clearly must stand out as one of Barack Obama’s principal achievements.
*Elizabeth Warren challenged anyone to prove that she’s not a Native American. If she is, then she must be one of the richest Indians on the continent. Her Middlesex County wigwam cost multi-millions of wampum. Later testing revealed that she’s actually 1/1,024th part Native American. In making her claim, no one is quite sure which part she’s talking about.
*Bill Clinton met surreptitiously with Loretta Lynch, who was then serving as Attorney General of the United States. As Attorney General, Lynch was Comey’s boss.
*Not long afterward, James Comey announced that he would not seek an indictment of Hillary Clinton over the now infamous email controversy.
*Four weeks before the 2016 general election, Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton for any wrong doing.
*Two weeks before the election, Comey stated that he would re-open the Clinton investigation. Democrats claimed that Comey sabotaged Clinton’s chance of winning the election.
*Donald J. Trump surprised everyone by winning the general election and Hillary Clinton started hating Trump even more than she did before then —which, when you think about it, is an awful lot of hate for one person.
Of course, we can only guess about what was really going on. Comey, a long-time Republican, suddenly unaffiliated, refused to ask for an indictment of Clinton in the face of overwhelming evidence that she willfully and intentionally violated federal law respecting the safeguarding of classified information. This was after Bill’s meeting with Loretta. Then, Comey did a 180 and “re-opened” the investigation.
Here’s my guess: Barack Obama did not want Clinton to succeed him. Why? Because George Soros didn’t want Clinton to succeed Obama. A republican in the White House for four years gives Georgie four years to look around for another Manchurian candidate.
What has Soros to do with Comey? As my friend at Bunkerville keep’s reminding me, if you ever want to find the truth, follow the money. I would like to know if Comey has an off-shore bank account and whether a very large sum of money was ever deposited there … oh, say, between two and four weeks before the general election.
Getting back to the Clinton email snafu, I heard today that a federal judge has ruled that Mrs. Clinton must answer questions under oath during a further inquiry into the events of the email escapade. I presume that Judge Royce C. Lamberth will schedule a judicial hearing in the not-too-distance future. If true, then 2019 should turn out to be a very happy new year for conservatives. Removing this case from the halls of Congress to a federal courtroom seems like the right thing to do.
If there are any competing theories out there? I’d love to hear them. I love conspiracy theories. There are so many possibilities about how this affair will turn out, and so little time.
(For those interested in Comey’s testimony on Friday the link is below)