Friday, April 18, 2014

Hillary linked to illegal campaign scheme Hundreds of thousands of dollars funneled to aid 2008 presidential bid

Hillary linked to illegal campaign scheme

Hundreds of thousands of dollars funneled to aid 2008 presidential bid

(WASHINGTON TIMES) Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s promise that she had scrubbed illegal cash contributions from her 2008 presidential campaign, prosecutors revealed Monday that the mastermind of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s “shadow campaign” also funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House.
Jeffrey E. Thompson’s scheme included diverting more than $608,000 in illicit funds to a New York marketing executive, Troy White, who organized “street teams” to raise Mrs. Clinton’s visibility in urban areas during her Democratic primary battle against Barack ObamaMr. White pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the case.
Prosecutors said that from February to May 2008, Thompson used two firms to disburse $608,750 in “excessive and unreported contributions to pay for campaign services in coordination with and in support of a federal political candidate for president of the United States and the federal and the candidate’s authorized committee.” That candidate was Mrs. Clinton.


Hillary Clinton campaign got illicit funds from D.C. scandal figure

Terry McAuliffe, now Va. governor, was Clinton campaign chairman at time

Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s promise that she had scrubbed illegal cash contributions from her 2008 presidential campaign, prosecutors revealed Monday that the mastermind of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s “shadow campaign” also funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House.
Jeffrey E. Thompson’s scheme included diverting more than $608,000 in illicit funds to a New York marketing executive, Troy White, who organized “street teams” to raise Mrs. Clinton’s visibility in urban areas during her Democratic primary battle against Barack Obama. Mr. White pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the case.


Prosecutors said that from February to May 2008, Thompson used two firms to disburse $608,750 in “excessive and unreported contributions to pay for campaign services in coordination with and in support of a federal political candidate for president of the United States and the federal and the candidate’s authorized committee.” That candidate was Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Obama, too, received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Thompson and his employees, although those donations apparently were legal.
U.S. Attorney Ron Machen said there was no indication that Mrs. Clinton was aware of the specific activities to aid her campaign.
“There are varying degrees of knowledge among the different candidates,” Mr. Machen said.
An attorney for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in 2008, Lyn Utrecht, has said the campaign cooperated fully with prosecutors and never hired Mr. White to work on the presidential race. She said the campaign committee “turned down Mr. White’s services.”
But news reports last fall indicated that a top Clinton adviser, Minyon Moore, facilitated a meeting between Mr. White and Thompson. Ms. Utrecht did not return a request for comment Monday, nor did Mrs. Clinton’s top spokesman, Philippe Reines.


Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman at the time was Terry McAuliffe, now governor of Virginia. Mr. McAuliffe’s gubernatorial campaign said last year that it would not return a $2,500 donation that Thompson made in 2009.
The revelations are raising untimely, for Mrs. Clinton, reminders of fundraising improprieties just as her supporters are gearing up for a probable run for the presidency in 2016.
In 2007, when Mrs. Clinton was considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, she took the unprecedented step of returning $850,000 in contributions raised by Norman Hsu, a top campaign bundler who was wanted on criminal charges in a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. At the time, Clinton campaign officials said they would undertake “vigorous” extra vetting procedures to make sure her sources of campaign funds were legitimate.
In 2009, a federal judge sentenced Hsu to more than 24 years in prison for violating campaign finance laws and defrauding investors.
The Hsu scandal, in turn, brought unwelcome reminders for Mrs. Clinton of her husband’s fundraising controversies in the 1990s, including Little Rock businessman Charlie Trie. In that episode, about $640,000 was returned or refused after accusations that Trie funneled fraudulent donations.
There was also the case of businessman Johnny Chung, in which the Democratic National Committee returned more than $360,000 in donations raised during President Clinton’s 1996 re-election bid. Chung admitted that he accepted some of the money from Chinese military officials.
In the Thompson case, prosecutors said Mr. Gray knew about the illegal shadow campaign. But Mr. Gray’s defenders are now using the example of Mrs. Clinton to bolster their argument that the mayor had no knowledge of Thompson’s illicit fundraising.
“No one has suggested that Hillary Clinton knew of Thompson’s illegal activities,” said Chuck Thies, manager for the Vince Gray 2014 campaign. “Mayor Gray has not been afforded the same presumption of innocence.”
The Center for Public Integrity reported last year that Thompson and other donors who listed his accounting firm as their employer gave at least $514,350 to federal candidates and political action committees since the 2002 campaign cycle. The biggest beneficiary of those funds was Mrs. Clinton, whose campaigns took in $50,400. Her presidential campaign committee received $40,300 from employees at Thompson’s firm in November 2007, when she attended a fundraiser at the company’s headquarters in the District.
Other recipients included Mr. Obama ($14,500 in the 2008 cycle), Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry ($20,000 in the 2004 cycle), presidential candidate John McCain ($13,800 in the 2008 cycle) and Sen. Harry Reid ($9,600 in 2009).
Thompson personally made political contributions totaling at least $215,000 in that period.
Craig Holman, a campaign finance specialist at the watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington, said shadow campaigns are becoming common with the expansion of political action committees.
“Of all the super PACs involved in the 2012 federal elections, 58 percent supported a single candidate — established and run by friends, family or former campaign staff of that single candidate. This is a shadow campaign,” he said.
Mr. Holman said courts have imposed a high barrier in defining which shadow campaigns are legal and which are not.
“As long as there is no traceable agreement between the candidate and the political operative — just a wink and a nod — the courts are reluctant to find coordination between the two,” he said.
Mr. Holman said the public should raise concerns about shadow campaigns, especially those backing every major recent presidential campaign, including Mrs. Clinton‘s.
“Hopefully, public disgust will grow against the artificial line drawn in the sand by the courts as to ‘legal’ versus ‘illegal’ shadow campaigns,” he said.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

What the hell is this American plane owned by the Bank of Utah doing in IRAN?

YouTube screenshot/DAHBOO77  

What the hell is this American plane owned by the Bank of Utah doing in IRAN?

On Tuesday morning, a plane owned in trust by the Bank of Utah showed up in a very visible area of the Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
What was it doing there exactly? Nobody knows, reports The New York Times.
Under President Barack Obama, the United States has eased some of the long-standing punitive economic sanctions against Iran. Still, very little American — or European — economic activity is allowed inside the religious theocracy.
The Bank of Utah is certainly no Wells Fargo. The Ogden-based community bank has all of 13 branches including three in Ogden, two in Salt Lake City and one in Trementon (pop. 7,647). Its humble motto is: “Experience. Service.”
The bank’s senior officials say they are baffled.
“We have no idea why that plane was at that airport,” Brett King, a Bank of Utah executive in Salt Lake City, told the Times.
“As fiduciary, we must keep information confidential when it comes to the beneficiary,” he added.
King also called the Bank of Utah “very conservative” and promised to get to the bottom of the situation “if there is any hint of illegal activity.”
The bank executive explained that his employer is only a trustee for the unidentified investors (possibly foreign investors) who actually own the aircraft (N-Number N604EP). Interestingly, the Bank of Utah acts as a trustee for a slew of planes—1,169 of them to be exact, everything from Boeing 747s to small, piston-powered Cessnas. In fact, not many American banks act as a trustee for more American aircraft.
The Federal Aviation Administration offered no help whatsoever concerning the mysterious jet parked in broad daylight at the busiest airport in Iran (over 13 million passengers in 2010).
Similarly, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which enforces the vast array of sanctions against Iran, refused to comment. However, under federal law, the department is normally supposed to approve the presence of any American airplane on Iranian soil. Such approval would be especially important in this case because the plane is powered by engines manufactured by General Electric.
Meanwhile, Hamid Babaei, a spokesman for Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York, offered no information about the people on the plane or the plane’s owner.
“We don’t have any information in this regard,” Babaei told the paper of record. “I refer you to the owner.”
Mehrabad Airport officials would only describe the plane as “V.I.P.”


An amateur plane-spotting sleuth – that’s a hobby in the world – caught a glimpse of this particular plane departing from an airport in Zurich, Switzerland in January. That was during the annual World Economic Forum in the ritzy ski town of Davos. In October, someone else saw the plane in London when it was on the way to Ghana.
Former federal aviation officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Times that high-ranking American officials almost certainly approved the plane’s mysterious trip to Iran given that it sat readily identifiable on a gangway at a busy commercial airport.

Sarah Palin Attempting To Remove Obama From Office

Sarah Palin Attempting To Remove Obama From Office

Sarah Palin has been very vocal in the media recently about wanting to remove Obama from office. Things were only made worse after the horrible comments Obama made about the Constitution.
“We have a president who doesn’t understand or just chooses to disrespect our Constitution,” Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor, said of President Obama recently in an interview with Fox News.
Palin continued on to say that Obama has single-handedly shaped immigration laws, healthcare policies, and welfare programs—all without the support and approval from the American people. What we need, accordingly to Palin, is a “new energy.”
She is in support of electing officials who will focus on states’ rights, instead of the expanding power of the federal government. According to Palin, we need someone who will “promise to pay whatever price it is going to take to protect our Constitution.”
What do you think? Do you agree with Palin’s statements?
Will you help her get rid of Obama?
Comment below.

Hillary’s Numbers Plummet, Majority of Americans Still Want Answers on Benghazi

Hillary’s Numbers Plummet, Majority of Americans Still Want Answers on Benghazi

Hillary

It appears that America is already souring on the idea of Hillary Clinton before she even runs. According to the Washington Post, Clinton is experiencing the worst approval ratings she has seen in six years while, at the same time, the GOP brand continues to rise in favorability amongst Americans.
 
Democratic pollster Anderson Robbins Research and GOP pollster Shaw & Company shows a 49% approval rating for Clinton with a 45% unfavorable rating.
 
The last time she enjoyed ratings this low was during the 2008 presidential primary as she and Sen. Barack Obama duked it out.
 
Though that appears far from disastrous, Hillary Clinton’s likely run for president in 2016 has a bit of a tailwind as many Americans want to see a female president in the White House. As we approach the 2016 elections, however, the GOP will come out strongly and very publicly against the former Secretary of State who has accumulated no significant political achievements, but still has the Benghazi scandal hanging around her neck.
 
After Islamic terrorists attacked our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, Secretary of State Clinton and other top State Department officials spun a ludicrous narrative  concerning a YouTube video that was soundly rejected by the American public. After years of investigation, the scandal still remains at the forefront of political conversations, especially after Clinton infamously wondered during her Congressional testimony, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!”
 
According to the same polls, however, Americans appear to be warming to the Republican Party as we head into the midterms. 45% hold a favorable opinion, 45% hold an unfavorable opinion.
 
In October, only 30% held a favorable opinion of the GOP with 63% reporting an unfavorable opinion.
 
Furthermore, Clinton may encounter some significantly choppy waters as she approached her presidential bid as the majority of Americans believe that the government is hiding details about the Benghazi attack and the majority want Congress to continue to investigate.
 

7 Blockbuster Obamacare Charts That the White House Doesn’t Want America to See

7 Blockbuster Obamacare Charts That the White House Doesn’t Want America to See

Remember all those promises that were made to sell Obamacare? Like lowering premiums for a family of 4 by $2,500 a year, allowing people to keep their plans and their doctors, not adding a dime to the deficit, and all of that?
Well, let’s just see how much of a striking success “Obamacare” is based on the numbers so far. The Heritage Foundation created these charts based on the HHS’ own numbers, the CBO’s, and the Kaiser Family Foundation’s.

1.Young People’s Premiums are Jacked Up

Premiums_Age27If you’re a young person, you’re pretty much screwed. Not only will you be paying higher premiums to subsidize your elders, you will be paying more taxes over your lifetime to pay back the loans we’re accruing just to pay for this boondoggle. You’re welcome, right?

2. Family of Four – Your Premiums Did Not Drop $2,500/Yr.

CP-Obamacare-in-Pictures-5_HIGHRES
So… Mr. Smooth was going to save a family of four $2,500 a year in premiums, as promised so many times it’s laughable. About that… a family of four is likely to get an increase in premiums, and in addition, basically anyone who wants to work and live the American Dream will be penalized with higher taxes.

3. New Taxes for Everybody!

CP-Obamacare-in-Pictures-11_HIGHRESSpeaking of taxes, check out these bad boys. Not just one, but 18 new taxes lumped into one giant bill that should be called “Obamatax.” Hey, it’s not a tax! Oh yeah, well, now it is.

4. Raiders of the Lost Medicare


Medicarecuts
You would think from all the hysteria nowadays about Medicaid expansion to the states that this was the main purpose of Obamacare – to spread a huge soviet-style welfare program to as many homes as possible (and let those who are on it tell ya about the amazin’ service while they’re at it!) Anyway, let’s frame some of that left-wing hypocrisy by pointing out Obamacare’s massive cuts to another government program – Medicare.

5. You Like Higher Deductibles? Well, Obamacare’s Got ‘Em!


CP-Obamacare-in-Pictures-6_HIGHRES
Now, show him the deductibles, Bob! Average deductibles on the “Catastrophic,” “Bronze,” and “Silver” plans are going through the roof. (No worries if you live in Colorado or Washington, just light up a joint and forget you read this.)

6. Obamacare Costs Way More Than Projected – And It’s Not Even Warmed Up


CP-Obamacare-in-Pictures-8_HIGHRES
Now here comes the biggie – cost. If you were one of the supporters of this law who thought it wouldn’t “add a dime” to the deficit, I want you to turn to your (theoretical) children and grandchildren and apologize. We’ll wait.
No, tell them the part about how you’ll be sticking your kids with your generation’s bills, and how debt is the unpaid portion of the federal budget that gets passed on to someone else.
Still don’t feel guilty? How about realizing that all of those taxes coming out of the private sector to pay for this disaster will limit your children’s futures, indicated in part by the half of college graduates who can’t find jobs in their fields? Oh, now you feel guilty.

7. Still Unpopular After All These Years

Ocare_popularity
And lo and behold, this healthcare “reform” boondoggle passed through procedural gimmickry with no bipartisan support whatsoever loaded with nonsense and unread in full by most of the nation’s “representation” in Washington still has very little support  – beyond those Democrats who would support anything the party told them to.

The Stephen Colbert That Just Schooled Common Core is a Stephen Colbert We Can Get Behind

HT Heritage Foundation

Revelation 17 (King James Version)

Revelation 17 (King James Version)

Page Options
Add parallel

Revelation 17

King James Version (KJV)
17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

FACT SHEET: Ukraine-Related Sanctions

FACT SHEET: Ukraine-Related Sanctions

President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) under the national emergency with respect to Ukraine that finds that the actions and policies of the Russian government with respect to Ukraine -– including through the deployment of Russian military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine –- undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.
This new authority expands upon E.O. 13660, which the President signed less than two weeks ago, by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on named officials of the Russian government, any individual or entity that operates in the Russian arms industry, and any designated individual or entity that acts on behalf of, or that provides material or other support to, any senior Russian government official.  We have fashioned these sanctions to impose costs on named individuals who wield influence in the Russian government and those responsible for the deteriorating situation in Ukraine.  We stand ready to use these authorities in a direct and targeted fashion as events warrant.
In response to the Russian government’s actions contributing to the crisis in Ukraine, this new E.O. lists seven Russian government officials who are being designated for sanctions.  These individuals are Vladislav Surkov, Sergey Glazyev, Leonid Slutsky, Andrei Klishas, Valentina Matviyenko, Dmitry Rogozin, and Yelena Mizulina.
The United States also will seek to hold accountable individuals who use their resources or influence to support or act on behalf of senior Russian government officials.  We recognize that the Russian leadership derives significant support from, and takes action through, individuals who do not themselves serve in any official capacity.  Our current focus is to identify these individuals and target their personal assets, but not companies that they may manage on behalf of the Russian state.
In addition to the new E.O., the Treasury Department today has imposed sanctions on four other individuals under E.O. 13660, issued on March 6, for their actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine and in undermining the Government of Ukraine.  They are Crimea-based separatist leaders Sergey Aksyonov and Vladimir Konstantinov; former Ukrainian presidential chief of staff Viktor Medvedchuk; and former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.
Today’s actions send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation.  The United States, together with international partners, will continue to stand by the Ukrainian government to ensure that costs are imposed on Crimean separatists and their Russian backers.  Today’s actions also serve as notice to Russia that unless it abides by its international obligations and returns its military forces to their original bases and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the United States is prepared to take additional steps to impose further political and economic costs.
  • Vladislav Surkov:  Surkov is being sanctioned for his status as a Presidential Aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
  • Sergey Glazyev:  Glazyev is being sanctioned for his status as a Presidential Adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
  • Leonid Slutsky:  Slutsky is being sanctioned for his status as a State Duma deputy, where he is Chairman of the Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration, and Relations with Compatriots. 
  • Andrei Klishas:  Klishas is being sanctioned for his status as a Member of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and as Chairman of the Federation Council Committee of Constitutional Law, Judicial, and Legal Affairs, and the Development of Civil Society. 
  • Valentina Matviyenko:  Matviyenko is being sanctioned for her status as Head of the Federation Council
  • Dmitry Rogozin:  Rogozin is being sanctioned for his status as the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation.
  • Yelena Mizulina:  Mizulina is being sanctioned for her status as a State Duma Deputy.
  • Sergey Aksyonov:  Aksyonov is being designated for threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for undermining Ukraine’s democratic institutions and processes.  Aksyonov claims to be the Prime Minister of Crimea and has rejected the authority of the legitimate government in Kyiv.
  • Vladimir Konstantinov:  Konstantinov is being designated for threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for undermining Ukraine’s democratic institutions and processes.  Konstantinov is the speaker of the Crimean parliament, which on March 11, 2014, declared independence from Ukraine.
  • Viktor Medvedchuk:  Medvedchuk, leader of Ukrainian Choice, is being designated for threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for undermining Ukraine’s democratic institutions and processes.  He is also being designated because he has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support to Yanukovych and because he is a leader of an entity that has, or whose members have, engaged in actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine and actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.
  • Viktor Yanukovych:  Former Ukrainian President Yanukovych is being designated for threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for undermining Ukraine’s democratic institutions and processes.  After abandoning Kyiv and ultimately fleeing to Russia, Viktor Yanukovych called upon Russian President Vladimir Putin to send Russian troops into Ukraine.

Revelation 16

Revelation 16

King James Version (KJV)
16 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.
12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.
13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

Congress, Stop Making Empty Threats and Stop Obama

Congress, Stop Making Empty Threats and Stop Obama

Congress keeps talking about stopping President Obama, yet he continues to do what he does, virtually unchecked.
We have grown tired of hearing the empty threats.  We are ready to see decisive action.
There are some good people in Congress, like Trey Gowdy, who are men and women that are determined to do what is right.  But they are not the ones in power, and they are outnumbered by the status quo establishment politicians.
Obama is being protected on a whole range of scandalous issues by the establishment of both parties, especially on Benghazi, the IRS targeting scandal and the NSA spying scandal.  They do this because it is the safe bet from their perspective.  Career politicians that make deals and constantly compromise with the opposition don’t want to rock the boat.  There is too much at stake for them to lose if they do.
We all know that nothing of consequence is going to be done in the Senate, at least not while Harry Reid is in charge.  Even so, there are a handful of Senators making waves and upsetting the establishment.  Senators like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are serious about confronting and putting a stop to Obama’s unconstitutional power grabs and Executive actions.
Unfortunately, Rand, Ted and Mike aren’t the guys calling the shots in the Senate.  As much noise as they may make, they can’t yet get past the old establishment guys in leadership like Mitch McConnell, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who would rather make backroom deals or pal around with Democrats than actually stand up for the American people, the Constitution and the founding principles of our country and their party.
This only shows the vital importance of Republicans taking control of the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms.  Yes, the good guys like Rand, Ted and Mike may still have to deal with the likes of McConnell, McCain and Graham, but with Harry Reid out of the way, and Republicans in the majority, it will likely be far easier for the good guys to bring more Senators over to their side, allowing them to put ever increasing pressure on McConnell to actually listen to the base and make serious moves to stop Obama.
It is a somewhat similar story in the House, even with Republicans already holding the majority.  There are actually quite a few good guys and gals in the House, namely Trey Gowdy, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Louis Gohmert, Steve Stockman, Bill Flores, Steve King, Jason Chaffetz, Duncan Hunter, Michelle Bachmann, and Jim Bridenstine, to name just a few, and they have been able to exert pressure on leadership to do things, even though they know such things have no chance in the Harry Reid led Senate.
The biggest problem in the House is the Speaker, John Boehner.  He says the right things sometimes, and moves along bills, but only when he knows that it will get stopped in Harry Reid’s Senate.  He stalls on the big issues, caves on all of the big fights, compromising with Obama and the Democrats instead of standing strong and fighting alongside his Republican colleagues and the American people.  He is also quick to turn on his fellow GOP “friends”, blaming them when the pressure gets too high.
The solution to the problem is clear.  First, Republicans must take back control of the Senate.  Liberty minded Senators must grow their caucus and exert constant pressure on Mitch McConnell to do the right things.  Second, Republicans need to hold on to the House, grow their base of Constitutional and freedom loving Representatives, replace John Boehner as Speaker, and then send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, where McConnell will be forced to act upon them and proceed with the trial.
We here at Capitalism Institute nominate Trey Gowdy to be the next Speaker of the House.  Do you second that nomination?
Please share on Facebook and Twitter if you are tired of the empty threats and are ready for Congress to get serious about stopping Obama.
Click here to share:

Senator: If GOP Takes the Senate, Impeachment is Next

Senator: If GOP Takes the Senate, Impeachment is Next

We have heard a lot of talk about impeaching President Obama, and have grown tired of the empty threats and rhetoric.  But, so long as Harry Reid controls the Senate, we know impeachment will never happen.
We know that there are enough votes for impeachment in the House, so it comes down to Republicans taking control of the Senate in 2014, which is on track to happen.
Democrats know that they are likely to lose control of the Senate in the midterms, and admit that they are worried about impeachment after that.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) recently said that if the GOP takes control of the Senate in the midterms, then impeachment will be on the table.
(H/T Tea Party Crusaders)
Appearing on “The Rusty Humphries Show” Thursday, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said, “Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said.
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told Humphries.
Inhofe was presumably speaking about the Benghazi coverup, but could just as easily been talking about the IRS targeting scandal, NSA spying, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, or any number of other scandalous activities and behavior exhibited by Obama and his administration.
Inhofe stresses that impeachment rests solely upon the ability of Republicans to regain control of the Senate.  It is imperative that Harry Reid and the Democrats are ousted from the majority, not only for impeachment, but as a general way to slow down or stop Obama’s progressive liberal agenda that is destroying our country’s economy, military and standing on the world stage.
Please share on Facebook or Twitter if you are glad to hear impeachment will be a priority if the GOP takes control of the Senate.
Click here to share:

Weak Russian Sanctions A Cover For Obama’s Gun Control Efforts!

Weak Russian Sanctions A Cover For Obama’s Gun Control Efforts!


By  via DOWNTREND

Leave it to Obama to sneak his gun control agenda into the Ukraine crisis. As you may have heard, the president has issued some incredibly weak sanctions against Russia for its efforts to annex Crimea from the Ukraine. What you may not have known is, these sanctions also give Obama the power to stop the importation of many popular Russian firearms and ammunition.

According to whithouse.gov, the executive order Obama signed on Monday gives him the authority to impose trade sanctions upon Russia without Congressional approval:
This new authority expands upon E.O. 13660, which the President signed less than two weeks ago, by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on named officials of the Russian government, any individual or entity that operates in the Russian arms industry, and any designated individual or entity that acts on behalf of, or that provides material or other support to, any senior Russian government official. (my emphasis added)
In other words, Obama can stop the importation of Russian-made firearms and ammunition for the consumer market. That means that popular guns like AK-47 variants and Saiga shotguns will more than likely no longer be available on the shelves of American gun stores.
As bad, or worse in my opinion, will be the drying up of inexpensive Russian ammo like TulAmmo, Wolf, and Brown Bear. My days of a cheap day at the range, blasting through a half-case of 7.62, look to be numbered. At around 20 cents a round, Russian-made ammo is a hell of a lot more affordable than $1.50 a round for Remington 7.62×39.
For those of you that think I’m overacting to some words slipped into a presidential EO, understand this: Obama has the ability to freeze the assets of any entity or individual that operates in the Russian arms industry. Saigas, Veprs, and AK-variants are made by the Russian arms industry and imported to the US. Assets are things like containers full of guns or ammo. They are also things like money US importers send to Russia to pay for guns and ammo.
The EO isn’t a direct ban, but if all money and merchandise can be seized and/or frozen, no business on either side of the Atlantic is going to risk being a part of the Russian gun importation process. Hence, it is a virtual ban on guns in common use.
That brings us back to Obama’s secret war on the 2nd Amendment. These sanctions are a joke that will do nothing to deter Russia’s ambitions in Crimea. Critics have called them a slap on the wrist, but they are more like slapstick comedy. There is no reason for the sanctions, nor any hope that they will achieve meaningful political gains. The only thing I can see coming out of this is Obama’s ability to chip away at gun ownership in America.
The other offshoot of this will be another Obama-induced gun buying frenzy. Look for a Russian-made guns and ammo panic-buy to start kicking in immediately. It’s hard to believe the president isn’t on the payroll of the gun industry the way he gets so many Americans to purchase firearms.
CLARK KENT @ AMERICAS FREEDOM FIGHTERS
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK TOO!

Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

Posted: Updated: 06/14/2012 6:45 pm
Obama Trade Leak
WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.
The leaked document has been posted on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.
"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.
The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.
"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.

Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document. The one that is not contravened in the present document -- regarding access to life-saving medication -- is in conflict with a previously leaked document on intellectual property (IP) standards.
"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules.
In a statement provided to HuffPost, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative downplayed the concerns.
"This administration is committed to ensuring strong environmental, public health and safety laws," said USTR spokesperson Nkenge Harmon. "Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government's ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation, including measures to protect public health, public safety and the environment."
Words like "legitimate" and "nondiscriminatory" can have flexible interpretations among international tribunals, however, which have recently ruled that U.S. dolphin-safe tuna labelling and anti-teen smoking efforts are unfair barriers to trade, according to prior trade pacts. The new investment rules, for instance, extend to government contracting negotiations, eliminating so-called "Buy American" preferences for domestic manufacturers.
USTR has previously stated that it does not comment on the terms of an allegedly leaked document.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative insists that while broad standards require many medical patents and IP rules that would increase the price of medications, the U.S. intends to work with countries involved in the Trans-Pacific talks to ensure that the agreement does not restrict access to life-saving drugs.
That statement is belied somewhat by recent American efforts in other international negotiations to establish controversial medical patents that grant companies long-term monopolies on life-saving medications. Those monopolies increase drug prices, which impede access to medications, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization and dozens of nonprofit public health groups have objected to the standards sought by the Obama administration. Two United Nations groups recently urged global governments not to agree to trade terms currently being advocated by the Obama administration, on the grounds that such rules would hurt public health.
Such foreign investment standards have also come under fire at home, from both conservative sovereignty purists and progressive activists for the potential to hamper domestic priorities implemented by democratically elected leaders. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 1993, and a host of subsequent trade pacts granted corporations new powers that had previously been reserved for sovereign nations and that have allowed companies to sue nations directly over issues.
While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.
Public Citizen challenged the independence of these international tribunals, noting that "The tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as 'judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments," according to the text of the agreement.
In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation.
Speaking to the environmental concerns raised by the leaked document, Margrete Strand Rangnes, Labor and Trade Director for the Sierra Club, an environmental group said, "Our worst fears about the investment chapter have been confirmed by this leaked text ... This investment chapter would severely undermine attempts to strengthen environmental law and policy."
Basic public health and land-use rules would be subject to challenge before an international tribunal, as would bank regulations at capital levels that might be used to stymie bank runs or financial crises. The IMF has advocated the use of such capital controls, which would be prohibited under the current version of the leaked trade pact. Although several countries have proposed exceptions that would allow them to regulate speculative financial bets, the U.S. has resisted those proposals, according to Public Citizen.
Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
This post has been updated to include comment from the USTR and the Sierra Club.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said the leaked document was posted to the Public Citizen website. It was posted to the Citizens Trade Campaign website.

EPA Prepares to Make Biggest Land-Grab In History

EPA Prepares to Make Biggest Land-Grab In History

Lawmakers and land-owners are worried that the Obama regime’s newest attempt at government control of what is now private property would allow the EPA in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Energy and the Army to dictate on a never-before-seen scale everything from grazing rights, food production, animal health and the use of energy on private lands. Naturally, we are supposed to believe this shift to federal control private and state land is benign, but have these agencies proven to be benevolent in the past?
Why are farmers and lawmakers worried? The Environmental Protection Agency is requesting jurisdiction over all public and private streams in the United States that are “intermittent, seasonal and rain-dependent.”
Let that sink in for a minute:
The EPA wants control over all land that is currently owned by States or private citizens, that has rivers, streams, or creeks on it or has in the past.
The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late March jointly released a proposed rule, Waters of the United States, in an effort to clarify which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. A statement issued by the EPA says “the proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.”
But some lawmakers strongly disagree.
According to congressional budget testimony last week, Waters of the United States would give the EPA authority over streams on private property even when the water beds have been dry, in some cases for hundreds of years.
Calling it “the biggest land grab in the history of the world,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said the “economic impact of that would be profound.”
“A community needing to build on private land that had on it one of these so-called streams that you considered a waterway under the new rule would have to travel thousands, hundreds of miles to D.C., to get approval,” Rogers said.
The congressman argued it “would absolutely freeze economic activity in this country.”
Rogers said the proposal is “proof in and of itself of the mal-intent of this administration toward the private sector.”
Civil liberties
When Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, probed EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy further about how the new Waters of the United States rule would affect Americans’ civil liberties and ability to conduct business, McCarthy was unable to cite specifics.
She said the rule is currently posted on the EPA website for a 90-day commenting period and the scientific basis to support it has not been completed.
The proposed rule tinkers with the definition of “navigable” waters, which was the central point of litigation in a battle between the Supreme Court and the EPA regarding the Clean Water Act.
“We are clarifying protection for the upstream waters that are absolutely vital to downstream communities,” McCarthy said.
“Clean water is essential to every single American, from families who rely on safe places to swim and healthy fish to eat, to farmers who need abundant and reliable sources of water to grow their crops, to hunters and fishermen who depend on healthy waters for recreation and their work, and to businesses that need a steady supply of water for operations.”
Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works, argued the nation’s waters and wetlands “are valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations.”
In effect these changes would give sweeping powers over nearly any land the EPA or BLM decided to target, and we have recently seen how responsible they can be, over in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch. In a tactic that has become more and more common, these government agencies are using friendly-sounding programs established with real beneficial intents (like the Clean Water Act) as their diabolical political tools.

cant this nasty hoe die

This News Is So Bad For Hillary, We Almost Felt Bad For Her

In other news, America's future looks a little bit brighter...


Photo Credit: Facebook/Hillary Clinton for President 2016
As the heir apparent to continue Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, the left continues to rally around Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The rest of the nation, however, seems to be tiring of the former secretary of state at an alarming rate.
Results of a recent bipartisan poll indicate the public is largely split on the likely Democrat contender as her favorability rate dropped below 50 percent. Her results are similar to those of the Republican Party as a whole; however, the opinion shifts are trending in opposite directions.
In Hillary’s case, public approval is at its lowest point since she dropped out of the 2008 presidential race. Since that point, she has served as Secretary of State during the Benghazi scandal. Her reaction to that deadly attack led many to conclude that she places a higher premium on her political self-interest than getting to the bottom of a security breach at the Libyan embassy.
The GOP, on the other hand, is experiencing a resurgence of favorability. Just six months ago, polling indicated that Republicans were deemed unfavorable by respondents by a whopping 63-30 margin. Current results place the party on even footing at 45-45.
In fact, the Republican Party is now faring better statistically than Democrats. As Barack Obama remains firmly underwater regarding his public image with a 51 percent unfavorable rate, his party needs a leader who can evoke widespread approval if leftists hope to maintain control of the federal government.
Judging from the latest poll numbers, Hillary is not that candidate.
While she might be able to gain some easy positive publicity based on her daughter’s recently announced pregnancy, a contentious election season in 2016 will bring up numerous concerns voters have with the first lady-turned-politico.
As the presidential cycle takes shape, upcoming elections appear to be the Republican Party’s to lose.
Photo Credit: Facebook/Hillary Clinton for President 2016

With Afghan drawdown ongoing, U.S. to set up center in Bahrain to continue drug smuggling

With Afghan drawdown ongoing, U.S. to set up center in Bahrain to continue drug smuggling
By ERMUSTO LONGDONGO
The Assassinated Press
January 15 , 2014

As the United States shrinks its civilian drug smuggling presence in Afghanistan, limiting its ability to monopolize the country’s booming drug industry, U.S. officials intend to establish an intelligence center in Bahrain to continue their participation in the flow of the trade.
The center in the tiny Persian Gulf nation, home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, will be an “integral part” of the Defense Department’s post-2014 drug business in Afghanistan, Erin Logan, who oversees the Pentagon’s r­narcotics efforts, said Wednesday afternoon.
“The center will help fill the gap where space for personnel on the ground in Afghanistan is no longer available,” she told a Senate panel on narcotics proliferation.
Lawmakers and the inspector general overseeing reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan said they were alarmed that a big bucks industry that Washington has spent billions of dollars trying to bogart is likely to worsen and further cut Uncle Slimey’s cud in Afghanistan at a critical time.
John F. Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, said that during a recent visit to the country, Afghan and U.S. officials conveyed to him that Afghanistan’s drug trade is “booming, with much prospect for improvement in 2014 or beyond,” after the end of the U.S. mission.
“The narcotics trade is the sole support of the US and Afghan financial sectors, fueling growing wigged out yet vital economies,” said Sopko, who has launched an audit of U.S. rnarcotics efforts. “This, in turn, is undermining the US’s legitimacy but Wall Street is too high to see it as they further stoke corruption, nourish criminal networks and provide significant financial support to the right wing oligarchies around the globe.
Cultivation of opium poppies, which are processed to make heroin under the tutelage of CIA agronomists, reached a record high of 516,450 acres last year, according to the United Nations. The statistic raised eyebrows about the return on Washington’s $7 billion investment in efforts to grow poppy and break the link between the trade and its competitors the insurgency. Administration officials conceded that those efforts are going to become more challenging because “It’s tough to move that much product.”
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's mission in Kabul, which included nearly 100 personnel as of the end of last year, is in the midst of its own drawdown. Although staffing plans have not been finalized, the agency intends to trim its personnel to 45 permanent slots by October and 25 to 30 by the end of the year, according to a document outlining the plans that was obtained by The Washington Post. This should make the CIA’s task of moving the drugs that much easier.
James L. Capra, the agency’s chief of operations, testified that DEA agents will soon lose the ability to travel easily across the country, particularly to provinces in the south that form the backbone of the poppy industry.
“Currently, the government of Afghanistan is not capable of absorbing or replicating the scale of growing done by the CIA,” he said.
DEA agents hope to continue working suborning elite Afghan police units that have carried out drug investigations in recent years, Capra said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairing a recent government narco sit down, called Afghanistan’s drug trade a problem with “no easy solution,” adding that new approaches must be found to grow and get the drugs out. “We ignore it at our peril,” she said. “We need the American people to stay high on anything at our disposal.”