14 Things the MSM Won't Tell You About DACA

14 Things the MSM Won’t Tell You About DACA

The Associated Press

by John Nolte5 Sep 20172,371

Whenever a Republican wants to move forward — you know, pass
some legislation or even enforce the law as already written, they
always, always, ALWAYS have to run through a mainstream media
propaganda gauntlet dedicated to the status quo, loyal only to the
Democrat cause and by extension opposed to anything resembling progress.

Obamacare is an objective disaster; nonetheless, the media fights
tooth and nail to save it. Our tax code is a backwards,
prosperity-stifling haven for corporatist special interests;
nonetheless, the media will do everything in its power to ensure not a
single word is altered.



Then there is illegal immigration, which, like abortion, the MSM
treats as its own personal sacrament.  Flooding America, primarily Red
States, with illegal Democrats who also serve the interests of a Big
Business Complex desperate to keep wages low and unions non-existent,
there is nothing our corrupt media will not do to keep that illegal
flood flooding.


And so, as President Trump prepares to keep one of his biggest
promises and end President Barry’s un-constitutional Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program, all we are seeing from our
establishment media is the usual-usual propaganda: flat-out lies,  half
truths, the ignoring of vital pieces of information and points of view,
and most of all, emotional blackmail.


Man alive, the emotional blackmail.


If your only understanding of this complicated issue comes from the
MSM, of course you are outraged over the fact that Trump is about order
an army of jackbooted ICE agents to kick in daycare center doors, snatch
up all the “brown children,” and then hurl the angelic toddlers (with
actual rings of gold hovering over their heads) into cattle cars headed
south.






Hopefully the list below will offer some clarity and context. The first point, I think, is the most important.

1. This Is Only the Fault of the Parents

My wife was born in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and came to America as a
small child. But she was brought here by her parents legally and
remained here legally until she obtained her citizenship, something she
prizes above most everything else. This is how immigration is supposed
to work. If you ask my wife about DACA, she blames the parents of these
children who, unlike her own parents,  broke the law and put their
children in this situation.


If your parents don’t pay the rent, is it the landlord’s fault when you are evicted, or is it the fault of your parents?


If your parents sneak you into Disneyland without paying, is it
Disney’s fault when you are booted out, or is it the fault of your
parents?


If your parents sneak you into a country illegally, is it the
country’s fault when you get deported, or is it the fault of your
parents?






Blaming America or Trump or anyone other than the parents for any of this, is a ruse, a con, a rhetorical trick.

2. DACA Recipients Are Illegal Aliens

This simple fact has been so downplayed and memory-holed, it just needed to be spoken out loud.

3. DACA Is a Massive Amnesty Program

Although the DREAMers are in the country illegally, DACA allows some
800,000 to stay in the country legally without any kind of penalty.
Qualified DREAMers are not only given a two-year deferment from
deportation, they are eligible for a work permit, which means they can
legally take a job in America.

4. DACA Recipients Are Not the Children

DACA is eligible only to those aged 15-32.


A very large percentage of DACA recipients are adults, not children or even minors.

5. DACA Recipients Take Jobs Americans WILL Do

The idea that illegal aliens take jobs Americans won’t do is, of
course, a lie. Plenty of Americans, most especially young Americans,
would love the opportunity to work on a construction site or some other
manual labor job. Moreover, if the wages were better, plenty of American
would be willing to work in the fields. An untold number of young
Americans who live in farm communities already do. But when you flood
the country with illegal and/or foreign workers this — by design —
suppresses wages to a point where only those willing to be exploited are
willing to do this work for almost no money.


Nevertheless, even this lie does not apply to DREAMers, many of whom
have a high school diploma or a GED, and a work permit. These are not
field workers, these are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens
competing for the same jobs against the 4 million young Americans who
enter the workforce every year.

6. Some DACA Recipients are Criminals

Over 5 years, between 2013 and 2017, a total of 2,139 DACA recipients lost their amnesty benefits “due to criminality or gang affiliated concerns.”


The DACA screening process is in reality a joke, a rubber stamp.

7. DACA Is Not a Law, It Is the Violation of Law

President Obama’s DACA program is not a law or even a policy. Rather,
it is a brazen violation of the immigration law as written and passed
by the American people’s representatives in congress.






People in the country illegally are supposed to be deported and
repatriated into their own country. That is the law here in America.
That is the law in every country in the world, including Mexico.

8. Most DACA Recipients are Not Overachievers

It seems as though every time we see a DACA recipient in the media,
he or she is the next Albert Einstein, someone on the verge of curing
cancer and poverty.


The reality is actually quite different:

“The [DACA] eligibility bar was set very low, explicitly
allowing people with multiple misdemeanor and certain felony convictions
to be approved. Only a handful of the applicants were ever interviewed,
and only rarely was the information on the application ever verified,”
said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the
Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies….


“[T]his statistic undercuts the image of DACA that has been spread by
the pro-illegal alien groups and the news media, that the DACA
recipients are mostly college kids. This is not true. We don’t know much
about the population, but one of the few credible studies that has been
done, by a scholar at Harvard University, found that at most are more
than 22 years old, and only about 20 percent graduated from or attended a
four-year college. A significant share never went beyond high school.
This is not really all that surprising, since over 72 percent come from a
family at or below poverty level and accessing some public assistance.”

While there are some true-life scholars in the DACA program, these are not a representative sample:

For example, one-third of the people in the study sample
who are older than age 25 hold four-year college bachelors’ degrees or
better. In contrast, an August 2013 report by the pro-amnesty Migration
Policy Institute showed that only 7.5 percent of the 800,000
DACA-qualified illegals who were 18 or older had four-year college
degrees or better. An August 2017 study by the MPI showed only 5 percent
of 832,000 DACA illegals who were older than 18 had four-year college
qualifications.


Also, the 7.5 percent graduation rate reported by the new study is
roughly one-quarter the 33 percent of native-born Americans with
four-year degrees.

9. DACA Is Wildly Unfair to Americans, Most Especially Young Americans Just Starting Out

You followed the rules. Your parents obeyed the law. You are one of
the 4 million Americans ready to enter the workforce every year, eager
to begin your own life, to pursue the American dream, but you have to
compete against hundreds of thousands of line-jumpers for the same
entry-level job.


Moreover, this flood of labor depresses your wages.

10. DACA Was Already Litigated and Debated in 2016

The American people have already had the DACA debate. Hillary Clinton promised to expand DACA. Trump promised to end DACA.


Trump won.

11. DACA Encourages More Illegal Immigrants

Although DACA does not officially grant amnesty to the children of
illegal immigrants who have arrived after 2007, the message is still
clear: America does not have the will to enforce its own immigration
laws. Of course that message works as a magnet for illegals.  If you recall…

Obama declared his DACA amnesty in 2012. Central
Americans saw the announcement, read the details — and roughly 400,000
people headed north during the next four years.

Moreover, making that trek is dangerous, especially from South
America. People die of exposure and are exploited, sometimes sexually,
by the Coyotes they hire to lead them here.


Illegal immigration is a lose-lose for everyone but Democrats who
desire the votes and business owners who do not want to pay a legal
resident a fair market wage.

12. In Most States, DACA Recipients are Eligible for Welfare Benefits

AZCentral:

Once DACA applicants are approved and receive a temporary
employment authorization card, they can apply for a Social Security
Number. Under this number, they can report wages and pay taxes.


DACA beneficiaries cannot receive federal benefits such as welfare
and food stamps. Some states allow for state-funded benefits, but
Arizona specifically prohibits it.

13. Unless It Is Stopped, DACA Will Never Stop Growing

Every year, more and more illegal aliens become eligible for DACA’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty program.

Obama’s deputies low-balled his election-campaign
giveaway by initially predicting it would only reach about 560,000
younger illegals who were supposedly brought into the United States by
their parents before they turned 16.


But the amnesty has already provided almost 900,000 work-permits and
Social Security cards to illegals who say they are aged 36 or less. More
than 92 percent of the applicants got their DACA approvals, with a
rejection rate of only 7 percent. The amnesty is expected to rise above
1.9 million people as additional younger illegals become adults and try
to enroll in Obama’s giveaway.

14. DACA Ignores Some Criminal Behavior

Center for Immigration Studies:

DACA applies to individuals up to age 31 (as of June
2012, so 35 now) — hardly children; consequently, many Dreamers have
long-since terminated their studies and most have committed multiple
felonies in order to get jobs — Social Security fraud, forgery, perjury
on I-9 forms, falsification of green cards and drivers’ licenses,
identity theft, etc. Dreamers continue to commit these job-related
crimes right up to the day their DACA status is approved and they obtain
work permits and their own genuine Social Security numbers.


In addition, many illegal aliens qualifying for DACA status have
previously been arrested and convicted of multiple misdemeanors and some
have previously been or continue to be associated with violent gangs,
as evidenced by a report in the Seattle Times that states that over
1,500 Dreamers have had their DACA status revoked since 2012 due to
their involvement with criminal gangs.

—


On the true merits, the DACA debate is a loser for the Left and their
media — which is why the 14 facts above must remain largely unspoken.

The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming

The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming

The two most basic Smoking Guns proving that carbon from fossil fuels is warming the Earth.  


by Brian Dunning

Skeptoid Podcast
#549

December 13, 2016

Listen:

I encourage everyone to listen to this episode, or to read and
share its transcript online. Today I'm going to talk about some simple
factual observations that anyone can make, that unambiguously prove
human activity is driving warming of the Earth. I'm not going to mention
climate models, politics, predictions, economics, or how many
scientists agree or disagree — any of the topics on which there is
debate. I'm only going to share a few of the most solid basics, the
results of absolute measurements, over which there is no debate. These
are the things nobody disagrees with, but so few people understand.
Despite its contentious topic, this episode is intended to be — and
should be — completely non-controversial.


I am only going to make two points today, and they are to share two
of the "smoking guns" by which we know that this is happening. They are
simple to understand, and they are based on basic science that everyone
should remember from school. They do not depend on models or
predictions, but upon simple direct observations. They are that the
rising CO₂ (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere is definitely produced by human activity, and that that same CO₂
is warming the planet. Nothing in this episode is disputed, or is
subject to alternate explanations, but too few people are aware of these
facts. So let's begin with:

Proof that the atmosphere's excess CO₂ is human generated

You might think that carbon is carbon, and that if we find there's more CO₂
in the atmosphere, its source can't easily be proven. But chemistry is a
bit more complicated than that; there are different kinds of carbon, as
there are of most elements. They're called isotopes. One isotope of
carbon is carbon-14. Cosmic rays bombard the Earth at a rate that is
more or less constant over time. When they do, they strike atoms in the
upper atmosphere, kicking out neutrons. These neutrons then collide with
the most common atoms in our atmosphere, nitrogen. This collision kicks
a proton out of the nucleus and turns the nitrogen into carbon with two
neutrons too many: the unstable and radioactive carbon-14, instead of
the normal stable carbon-12.


You've heard of carbon dating; this is done by comparing the relative
amounts of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in a sample. Living things, like
animals and trees, are in equilibrium with the atmosphere. As they eat
and breathe and interact, they contain the same proportions of carbon
isotopes as the atmosphere. When they die, that carbon-14 decays over a
long time, and since the organism is no longer eating and breathing, no
new carbon-14 comes in, and eventually the only carbon remaining is
carbon-12 (and some carbon-13). Fossil fuels like oil and natural gas
come from plants that died millions of years ago and have no carbon-14
left. The CO₂ produced by burning fossil fuels contains only carbon-12.


When a forest fire burns, the CO₂ in the smoke came from
living or recently dead fuel, so the smoke contains the same proportions
of carbon-12 and carbon-14 as the atmosphere. This is the case with
nearly all natural sources of CO₂. We can carbon date the CO₂
in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans
burning fossil fuels. It's a direct measurement. It leaves no room for
interpretation.


There is one natural source of CO₂ that contains only
carbon-12, and which is often pointed out by climate deniers as the real
source of all of this new carbon-12: volcanoes. Volcanoes worldwide
constantly erupt, both on land and under the sea. They do so at a fairly
constant rate. We measure their output, and we know that annually,
worldwide volcanic activity averages about 200 million tons of CO₂
added to the atmosphere, all with carbon-12, which is indistinguishable
from the carbon-12 produced by burning fossil fuels. However, each
year, we measure a total of about 29 billion tons of CO₂
added to the atmosphere. That's more than 100 times the amount volcanoes
can account for. The only possible source of all the rest of that new
CO₂ is fossil fuel burned by humans.


This, in short, is the "smoking gun" that proves the increase in CO₂
in the atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuel. It's not a
conjecture or a model or a prediction, it's a measurement that anyone
can reproduce, and isotopes are isotopes, and don't have alternate
explanations.


Some have said that 29 billion tons is not a problem, because of how
small that is compared to the atmosphere's total existing carbon load.
It's true that 29 billion tons is a drop in the bucket compared to the
750 billion tons that moves through the carbon cycle each year, which is
our name for the natural processes by which carbon is exchanged between
the atmosphere and the oceans and vegetation. Each year, of that 750
billion tons, the ocean absorbs a net gain of about 6 billion, and
vegetation absorbs a net gain of about 11 billion. They're only able to
absorb about half of the 29 billion we're adding. The other half — about
15 billion tons each year — remains in the atmosphere, after maxing out
the Earth's ability to absorb it into its system. These numbers, too,
are reproducible measurements; not conjectures, models, or predictions.
The system is provably absorbing all it can, but still unable to keep
up.

Proof that that human-generated CO₂ is warming the planet

We
also do not need models or predictions to directly measure the source
of heat in the atmosphere. There are five gases that are primarily
responsible for the greenhouse effect. They are CO₂, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and ozone. We can tell this because of spectroscopy.


Spectroscopy is a method of detecting elements by looking at how
electromagnetic radiation passes through them. Different elements have
electrons in orbits at varying energy levels, and this affects the way
they resonate. It's the reason why neon lights produce different colors
depending on what gases we fill them with. It's also the way we're able
to tell what proportions of hydrogen, helium, and other elements are in
distant stars: the spectrum of light coming from them has peaks and
valleys that are chemical fingerprints of exactly what gases are in
them.


The Earth's surface is warmed by the sun, and as a warm globe in
space, the Earth itself emits that same heat right back out, as infrared
radiation. If we go outside and point a spectrometer at the sky, we can
see there are peaks and valleys in the infrared spectrum. Some
wavelengths of heat fly right out into space unhindered, while other
wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere, and that heat stays there,
where we're able to detect its wavelength with our spectrometer. And
exactly the same way as we're able to identify the elements in a distant
star, we're able to identify exactly which greenhouse gases are
trapping the Earth's radiative heat. This is how we were able to
identify those five main gases. And this isn't new; we've understood
this for 200 years. It's a direct measurement that anyone with a
spectrometer can reproduce. Not a model, not a prediction, not a guess.


Water vapor, which is the most prominent, defines the basic shape of
the greenhouse spectrum. Most of the infrared radiation that escapes the
Earth goes through a window left open by water vapor, which we call the
infrared window. This window in the spectrum, which is pretty wide, is
centered around a wavelength of about 10 µm (micrometers). At higher and
lower wavelengths, water vapor absorbs much of the Earth's radiated
heat, so the Earth has always relied on this open window in the spectrum
to allow the excess heat to escape. One end of the infrared window is
overlapped by CO₂'s absorption range, which is centered around 15 µm. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere acts like a sliding door which widens or narrows the infrared window. As CO₂
increases, the infrared window is narrowed, less radiation escapes into
space, and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. At the other end of
the infrared window, around 7.5 µm, methane has a similar effect,
contributing about 1/4 as much warming as CO₂.


Spectroscopy is hard science. We don't have to model or predict.
Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now,
directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly
how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here
on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the
"smoking gun" that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our
atmosphere is due to CO₂. That excess CO₂ is produced by humans burning fossil fuels.


We've also measured the Earth's infrared spectrum from space, looking
down from satellites, to see which wavelengths of heat energy are being
trapped by gases in the atmosphere, and which wavelengths are escaping.
We started this in 1970 with the IRIS satellite, giving us a baseline
to compare against future measurements. It was followed in 1996 with
the Japanese IMG satellite, and again with the AIRS satellite in 2003,
and the AURA satellite in 2004. They paint a very clear picture. We
subtract new readings from the old readings to see the delta, to see
exactly where in the spectrum any change has occurred. Within that
infrared window defined by water vapor, there is one big spike. It is
the 15 µm range of CO₂. This is explicit, unambiguous proof that the increased heat in our atmosphere is due to CO₂.
It has nothing to do with models or predictions; it is a direct
observation, it is hard chemistry and basic physics, not guesswork or
extrapolation.


As we burn fossil fuels, the CO₂ in the atmosphere
increases, the infrared window narrows, less heat radiates away from the
Earth, and more heat goes into the Earth's system. These are simple,
solid facts.


In this episode, I've tried to limit everything to just facts that
are not in dispute. That means I haven't included any estimates or
predictions. Why? Because I'm trying to take opinion and ideology-driven
spin completely out of the picture. I don't have an answer or a
solution for people who prefer to view this particular science question
through the filter of an ideology. Earth science measurements and facts
are ideology-free, just like astronomy and mathematics and zoology. The
impact that human use of fossil fuels is measured to have already made
to the Earth system is bewildering. It is from this point, from the
non-ambiguous, factual, black-and-white characterization of our
atmosphere and oceans, that we must ask ourselves whether any
ideological twisting of the facts is truly the best path forward. We
have to accurately understand a problem in order to devise a properly
informed solution.


Please, if you have any curiosity about any of the topics we've just
discussed, see the references section at the bottom of this transcript,
where you'll find links to articles and videos that are both thorough
and easy to understand. You can go into much greater depth if you're so
inclined. What's important is what you choose to do with this
information, and that part I will leave up to you.



By Brian Dunning

Cite this article:

Dunning, B. "The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media,
13 Dec 2016. Web.
4 Sep 2017. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549>

References & Further Reading

Cheng,
L., Trenberth, K., Fasullo, J., Boyer, T., Abraham, J., Zhu, J.
"Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015." Science Advances. 10 Mar. 2017, Volume 3, Number 3.


Editors. "Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming." Skeptical Science. John Cook, 11 May 2008. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm>


Editors. "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" Hawaii Volcano Observatory. US Geological Survey, 15 Feb. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html>


Lallanila, M. "What Is the Greenhouse Effect?" Planet Earth. Live Science, 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <http://www.livescience.com/37743-greenhouse-effect.html>


McClain, C. "A Story of Climate Change Told In 15 Graphs." Deep Sea News.
Craig McClain, 23 Sep. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.
<http://www.deepseanews.com/2015/09/a-story-of-climate-change-told-in-15-graphs/>


Monroe, R. "How Much CO2 Can the Oceans Take Up?" The Keeling Curve.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 3 Jul. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.
<https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/>


NOSAMS. "What is Carbon Dating?" National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometer. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 10 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <http://www.whoi.edu/nosams/page.do?pid=40138>


Riebeek, H. "The Carbon Cycle." Earth Observatory.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 16 Jun. 2011. Web. 10
Dec. 2016.
<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page1.php>

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

 

by Andrew C. McCarthy 

September 2, 2017 12:33 PM 

@AndrewCMcCarthy 

 

The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing
to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not
calling the shots.

On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the
revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement
exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before
he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.

The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher
Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman
Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump
administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give
the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the
investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including
Clinton herself, were interviewed.

It shows, they cry, that the fix was in!

News Flash: This is not news.

Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written
about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a
few months back:

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary
Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to
handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended
to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal
statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged
that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s
server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its
importance had been vastly overstated.

This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately
absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column:

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that
Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to
handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not
intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the
relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified
information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he
suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small
percentage of the emails involved.

Obama’s April statements are the significant ones. They told us how this
was going to go. The rest is just details.

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not
want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to
succeed him, to be indicted. Conveniently, his remarks (inevitably
echoed by Comey) did not mention that an intent to endanger national
security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was
suspected of committing – in classic Obama fashion, he was urging her
innocence of a strawman crime while dodging any discussion of the crimes
she had actually committed.

As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president
himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private
communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused
to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly
involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary
of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for
mishandling classified information without its being clear that
President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was
never, ever going to allow that to happen.

What else was going on in May 2016, while Comey was drafting his
findings (even though several of the things he would purportedly “base”
them on hadn’t actually happened yet)? Well, as I explained in real time
(in a column entitled “Clinton E-mails: Is the Fix In?”), the Obama
Justice Department was leaking to the Washington Post that Clinton
probably would not be charged – and that her top aide, Cheryl Mills, was
considered a cooperating witness rather than a coconspirator.

Why? Well, I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but it turns out the
Obama Justice Department had fully adopted the theory of the case
announced by President Obama in April. The Post explained that,
according to its sources inside the investigation, there was “scant
evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing” because there was “scant
evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in [the] handling of e-mails”
(emphasis added). Like Obama, the Post and its sources neglected to
mention that Mrs. Clinton’s felonies did not require proof of “malicious
intent” or any purpose to harm the United States – just that she
willfully transmitted classified information, was grossly negligent in
handling it, and withheld or destroyed government records.

As I recounted in the same May 2016 column, the Obama Justice Department
was simultaneously barring the FBI from asking Mills questions that
went to the heart of the e-mails investigation – questions about the
process by which Clinton and her underlings decided which of her 60,000
e-mails to surrender to the State Department, and which would be
withheld (it ended up being about 33,000) as purportedly “private” (a
goodly percentage were not).

This was the start of a series of Justice Department shenanigans we
would come to learn about: Cutting off key areas of inquiry; cutting
inexplicable immunity deals; declining to use the grand jury to compel
evidence; agreeing to limit searches of computers (in order to miss key
time-frames when obstruction occurred); agreeing to destroy physical
evidence (laptop computers); failing to charge and squeeze witnesses who
made patently false statements; allowing subjects of the investigation
to act as lawyers for other subjects of the investigation (in order to
promote the charade that some evidence was off-limits due to the
attorney-client privilege); and so on. There is a way – a notoriously
aggressive way – that the Justice Department and FBI go about their
business when they are trying to make a case. Here, they were trying to
unmake a case.

Knowing all these things, as we now do and have for a year, I’m baffled
by complaints that Comey allegedly made “his” decision not to charge
Clinton before key witnesses were interviewed. The main issue is not
that witnesses hadn’t been questioned; it is that by April 2016,
restraints were already in place to ensure that witness interviews would
be fruitless, and that any incriminating information they accidentally
turned up would be ignored or buried.

The decision not to indict Hillary Clinton was not made by then-FBI
Director Comey. It was made by President Obama and his Justice
Department – Comey’s superiors. If you want to say Comey went along for
the ride rather than bucking the tide (as he concedes doing when Lynch
directed him to call the Clinton probe a “matter,” not an
“investigation”), that’s fair. But the fact that Comey already knew in
April what he would say in July has long been perfectly obvious. The
Obama administration was going to follow its leader. What Comey
ultimately stated was just a repeat of what Obama was openly saying in
April, and what Obama’s Justice Department was leaking to the press in
May.

Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department
adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one
was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified
information with an intent to harm the United States. With
media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could
not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort
to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly
hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the
evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the
Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the
statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd
rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey
began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it
was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451053/not-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas-decision

ARCHITECT OF MASS VOTER FRAUD: Hollywood Producer Tells Stunning Story Of How Obama Stole Election In 2008 

ARCHITECT OF MASS VOTER FRAUD: Hollywood Producer Tells Stunning Story Of How Obama Stole Election In 2008

By 100% FED Up -

Nov 5, 2016

Obama went out of his way to convince Americans there
was no voter fraud going into the November elections and that
Republicans are making a lot of noise about nothing. This video shows
that he is not only a liar, but quite possibly the architect of mass
voter fraud in America…

“Democrats don’t consider voter
fraud to be bad. They don’t consider breaking laws to be bad, because
they have moral relativity. You’re stupid. They know better than you do
about what’s best for the country. So if they cheat, steal and lie,
they’re doing it for the better of the country.”

This is a stunning story that only proves what the Democrats are capable of when it comes to elections.

Bettina Viviano started her own film production company in 1990
after serving as vice president of production for Steven Spielberg’s
Ambling Entertainment. Her credits included the second and third “Back
to the Future” films, “Cape Fear,” “Land Before Time,” “Schindler’s
List,” “Always,” “Roger Rabbit” and the third “Indiana Jones” film. In
2008, she got a call from one of her clients and best friends who is a
director got a call from someone who worked in the Bill Clinton White
House and worked for Hillary. She asked if Viviano wanted to make a
documentary about voter fraud in the Democratic Primary. Vivian recalls,“My mother was a Hillary supporter, so for whatever reason, I said ‘yes.'” It wasn’t long after she started on the documentary that she recalls,”
Almost immediately we saw the Obama-Saul Alinsky, create chaos, ACORN.
It was possibly…I mean, I am scarred for life. I will never forget it. I
will never forget the death threats, the vandalism, the theft,  the
phony documentation, the falsification of documents, you know the
threats…I mean, these people are appalling.”

Bettina Viviano on Barack Obama:“They chose him, I have an email
from Donna Brazile back in 2004. I mean they had chosen him that far
back, and they weren’t going to let her get in their way. He was gonna
be the candidate, no matter what anyone  The problem is, you can’t
enforce the laws against the DNC because they’re a private party. And we
tried.” 

“We actually thought that since we proved that Obama stole the
election that they would say, ‘Okay, you’ve proved the fraud, we’ll give
it back’, but we were reporting it to the DNC and the Nancy Pelosi’s
and Howard Dean’s who committed the fraud. So we were basically
reporting it to the people who did it. We watched Hillary stepping down
which was all orchestrated.”

The Clintons were the original “birthers,” Viviano told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.


“Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or
the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she
said.


“It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said
Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she
produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic
National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.


Viviano said that she was on a conference phone call during the
primary season in the spring of 2008 in which she heard Bill Clinton
refer to Obama as ineligible for the presidency.


In the course of the phone conversation with Hillary delegates, she recalled, Bill Clinton spoke of Obama as “the non-citizen.”


“In the world we were in, with [Hillary’s] super-delegates and
delegates, it just was, ‘He’s not legit – that’s the end of it, period,
end of story.’ It wasn’t up for discussion,” Viviano said.


Michele Thomas, a Hillary campaigner from Los Angeles, confirmed to
WND that she learned from “many people who were close to Hillary” that
Obama “was not eligible to be president.”


Thomas led a nationwide petition drive among delegates to force a
vote on Hillary’s nomination at the convention after then-DNC Chairman
Howard Dean announced her name would not be put into nomination and
Obama would be declared the winner by unanimous acclamation.


Viviano said that it was understood that Bill Clinton would
eventually go public with his contention that Obama was ineligible for
the presidency.


“He, I believe, was frothing at the mouth to tell the truth about Obama,” she said.


In the meantime, she recalled, the former president would make ironic
references in public in which he “teetered” on revealing he position.


“He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments
about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35
and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”


She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally
state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks
by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic
Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just two weeks before the Democratic
National Convention in Denver.


Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered
Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times.
Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no
motive.


The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”


Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name
she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s
murder was a message to Bill Clinton.


“I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.


The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the
intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about
Obama’s eligibility


“And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’


“And then Bill never said anything.”


Others in the campaign who believe Gwatney’s murder was a message to
the Clintons think it had to do with the fact that Gwatney was resisting
an effort by the Obama campaign and the party to intimidate Hillary
delegates into voting for Obama.


But Viviano argues that California delegates also were rebelling, and
she says her source told her the same story two years later.


Since the 2008 campaign, Clinton has insisted publicly that Obama is eligible for the White House.


He weighed in on the issue in an April 2011 interview with ABC’s
“Good Morning America,” when Donald Trump was urging Obama to release
his long-form birth certificate to the public.


“If I were them, I’d be really careful riding that birther horse too much,” Clinton said. “Everyone knows it’s ludicrous.” – WND


Watch Bettina tell Jerome Corsi her story here:

Watch the clips rom the groundbreaking documentary “We Will Not be
Silenced,” and WND investigative reporter Jerome Corsi’s ongoing
investigation of Barack Obama. Democrats explain how massive voter fraud
was committed to ensure a win for Barack Obama:

Bill Clinton jumped aboard 'Lolita Express' for junkets along with Jeffrey Epstein

Bill Clinton jumped aboard 'Lolita Express' for junkets along with Jeffrey Epstein

Bill Clinton jumped aboard disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's
'Lolita Express' plane for junkets 26 TIMES in just three years

• Financier
  Jeffrey Epstein drew a light 18-month prison term for soliciting
  prostitutes and procuring underage girls for prostitution
• The
  famously Lothario-like Bill Clinton is one of several big names who
  hung with Epstein before the depth of his legal problems were made
  public
• Epstein's jet was reportedly set up with a bed where guests had trysts with young girls
• Flight
  logs show the former president jetting to Brunei, Norway, Russia,
  Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, the Azores, Africa, Belgium, China, New
  York, and Belgium – all on Epstein's plane

By

Geoff Earle, Deputy Us Political Editor


and
David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com

Published:
16:26 EST, 13 May 2016

|
Updated:
20:44 EST, 16 May 2016
 

Bill
Clinton spent enough time aboard disgraced Wall Street mogul Jeffrey
Epstein's 'Lolita Express' airplane that he should be eligible for
frequent flyer miles, according to a shocking new report that reveals
how often the former U.S. president road along with with the convicted
sex offender.

Flight logs reviewed by Fox News show Clinton took 26 trips aboard Epstein's Boeing 727 jet, more than double the 11 flights previously known.

Epstein's jet was reportedly set up with a bed where guests had group sex with young girls.

One
of them, Virginia Giuffre, has claimed she was lured into joining
Epstein's harem when she was just 15 years old and was then known
as Virginia Roberts.

The former teen prostitute has said she was used as a 'sex slave.'

+6

FREQUENT
FLYER: Bill Clinton took far more rides on convicted sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita Express' airplane than has been previously
disclosed, according to a Fox News report

'MADAM': Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's
ex-lover, is pictured hugging him on the day a child sex abuse
investigation was opened into him. She has denied recruiting young girls
for him to have sex with

Roberts, 32, has claimed she saw Clinton in 2002 on an Epstein junket to St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Virginia Roberts, the woman at the center of allegations against Jeffrey Epstein, was photographed last year in Colorado

But
according to Fox, flight logs don't show the former president aboard a
flight headed there. St. Thomas has a landing strip long enough to
accommodate the jet.

The
logs do show the former president jetting to such exotic locales as
Brunei, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, the Azores, Africa,
Belgium, China, New York, and Belgium – all on Epstein's plane.

Traveling with Epstein was New York socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, whom Roberts has accused of pimping her out.

If nothing else, Clinton brought protection. 

Flight
logs filed with the Federal Aviation Administration show Clinton
brought as many as 10 U.S. Secret Service agents along with him on some
trips.

But
a journey to Asia in 2002 didn't list any Secret Service protection. As
a former president, Clinton still gets a taxpayer-funded security
detail for life.

The
cable network reported that Clinton would have been required to file an
official form to leave his protective forces behind, although the
Secret Service hasn't responded to formal document requests.

Epstein
pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008, and
served just 18 months in jail for the offense despite outrage from
victims advocates.

Others reported to have spent time with Epstein include Great Britain's Prince Andrew and legal eagle Alan Dershowitz.  

+6

'LOLITA EXPRESS' AND THE MILE-HIGH
CLUB: This Boeing 727 owned by Epstein reportedly had a bed inside that
was iused for sex romps with underage girls

INTO AFRICA: This was the flight from
New York's JFK airport to the Azores which began a tour of Africa for
Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and others on board Epstein's private jet. He
was not then a convicted pedophile

+6

ANOTHER TRIP: Bill Clinton, Naomi
Campbell and key Clinton aide Doug Band were on board Epstein's private
Boeing 727 as it flew from London Luton airport to JFK

The
Palm Beach, Florida police and the FBI both investigated charges that
Epstein consorted with underage girls used for prostitution.

Court
documents show that police found a 'clear indication that Epstein's
staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between
the ages of 12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three
times per day.'

One victim said under oath that Epstein molested her at least 50 times, beginning when she was 13.

She
said she and other girls were lured to Epstein's home with promises of
hundreds of dollars for modeling or for massaging him. 

But
once they were at his house, she said, Epstein ordered them to disrobe
and massage his naked body – while he masturbated and abused them with
sex toys.

Ultimately,
Epstein's plea deal in the solicitation case stalled federal
prosecutors' efforts to bring a broader indictment for child sex abuse,
witness tampering and money laundering.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been accused of socializing with Epstein. 

But
sources at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida said the
billionaire banned him from the premises years ago after he was seen
hitting on a teenage girl.

Trump declined comment on that development when DailyMail.com asked him about it. 

But Trump's attorney, Alan Garten, told Fox News that 'there was no relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump.'

'They were not friends and they did not socialize together.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589628/Report-Bill-Clinton-jumped-aboard-disgraced-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-plane-junkets-26-TIMES-just-three-years.html#ixzz4Mhz723TB

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

New Wikileaks Emails: Clinton Campaign Insiders Fear Bill's Sex Life Could Sink Hillary » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

New Wikileaks Emails: Clinton Campaign Insiders Fear Bill's Sex Life Could Sink Hillary 

New Wikileaks Emails: Clinton Campaign Insiders Fear Bill’s Sex Life Could Sink Hillary

They should "shut the hell up about this," Podesta told

Paul Joseph Watson -
October 10, 2016 

6.1K

0

A new Wikileaks email
dump released today reveals that some Hillary campaign insiders are
petrified that Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual past could severely damage
Hillary’s chances.

The
revelation is of particular note because it dovetails with Donald Trump
holding a press conference yesterday before the debate with three of
Bill Clinton’s sexual abuse victims.

The email,
which is marked “confidential,” was sent to Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta by prominent left-wing journalist Brent Budowsky. It
includes details of Budowsky’s exchange “with someone in the media,” who
told him that, “there are people close to the Clintons who says WJC’s
(William Jefferson Clinton) sex life could be damaging to her.”

Although
Budowsky stresses his view that the more Bill Clinton the better for
Hillary, he adds that, “there were people purportedly close to the
Clintons pushing the line that the less WJC the better.”

“Whoever
is peddling this crap from somewhere within the Clinton camp is having
the effect of encouraging the media to give the issue more prominence,”
complains Budowsky.

“They are
hurting both Clintons. I always stay out of intra-staff stuff like this,
both Clinton’s would be well advised to advise the people in their
orbit to shut the hell up about this,” he concludes.

In
an unprecedented move, Donald Trump tricked the media yesterday by
holding a press conference before the debate, only to be joined by three
of Bill Clinton’s alleged rape victims – Juanita Broaddrick, Paula
Jones and Kathleen Willey, as well as Kathy Shelton, who accuses Hillary
Clinton of helping her rapist get away with the crime and then laughing
about it on tape.

The new batch of Podesta emails released by Wikileaks can be found here.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?