Hillary Clinton is “evil incarnate”, Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”, David Schippers interviews, Schippers life long Democrat voted twice for Bill, Man of principles
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers
“Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her””…David Schippers
I am not a fan of either political party, especially the uber corrupted Democrat Party.
David Schippers, a life long Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice, criticized both parties.
He was the lead counsel in the impeachment investigations of Bill Clinton.
Mr. Schippers passed away in October 2018. God bless him and his family.
I wish that we had a real 2 party system of people like Mr. Schippers who put God and country first over ambition and political party.
David Schippers told the truth about the Clintons and especially Hillary.
From Free Republic April 27, 2002 regarding a radio interview of David Schippers.
“David Schippers, the man called in by Henry Hyde to be chief counsel of the impeachment of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, has been very candid and succinct in his description of Hillary Clinton. When asked about her on FreeRepublic Radio, he described her as “evil incarnate.”
He also described Bill Clinton as the worst thing to ever happen to this country.
Those who are still wearing the ceremonial kneepads and drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid are hard pressed to criticize Schippers as a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Schippers, you see, is a life long Democrat. Schippers, working under Robert Kennedy, helped take down the Chicago mob. Schippers voted twice for Bill Clinton.”
In a October 21, 2016 interview by Sandy Rios on American Family Association radio, Mr. Schippers called Hillary evil again, worse even than Bill Clinton.
Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her”
Compare Google patents to Data Mine your home and kids’ bedroom to passages from 1984, Big Brother is watching you
“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
From Zero Hedge November 22, 2018.
“Google Wants To Data Mine Your Home And Kids’ Bedroom
New patents show Google is quietly developing a smart-home automated system that will routinely eavesdrop on your daily life.
The patents describe how cameras and sensors will be mounted in almost every room of the house, scanning and analyzing every movement a human makes.
According to the patent description, the smart cameras could recognize Will Smith’s face on a T-shirt. After cross-referencing this data against the human’s browser history, the smart-home might announce or send them a message, “You seem to like Will Smith. His new movie is playing in a theater near you.”
By blending that with an in-depth analysis of other electronic devices in the home, and audio signatures to determine gender, Google will have enough data to create a corporate profile on the human and even their family.
The system will then calculate “fashion tastes” by scanning the human’s outfit, and could even determine their income or social class based on any “expensive mechanical and/or electronic devices” it detects.
Even creepier, the smart-home will track audio signatures too, could be used to identify users, but also determine gender and age.”
“A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future.”
David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that every statement in this book is absolutely true and correct.”…David Schippers
Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!
Without the internet and citizen involvement in retrieving, saving and disseminating the truth, we would be kept in the dark about chicanery and corruption such as the Clintons were immersed in.
The Clintons rose to power in the bad old days of pre or minimal internet.
David Schippers was a life long Democrat, voted for Clinton twice but he was an honest, principled man.
He headed up the investigation of President Clinton to determine if impeachment proceedings were justified.
The answer was a resounding yes.
He also wrote a book, “Sellout” to tell the rest of the story about the Clintons and the proceedings for the House Judiciary Committee.
The Fake News Media has done their Orwellian best to create a narrative that the impeachment was only about a daliance with Monica Lewinsky.
David Schippers informed us that it was much more than that.
Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”
You will find next to nothing about his book “Sellout” or his investigation.
One of the interviews, from Insight Magazine, was saved by Citizen Wells and was found on Free Republic, saved by a conscientious citizen.
It has been put back up in searchable form. The interview follows:
“Insight: Did you seek the job to head the impeachment investigation?
DS: No. In January 1998 Chairman Hyde called me out of the clear blue sky. Initially, he asked me for help on oversight of a Justice Department matter. Then the Lewinsky issue broke. Hyde asked me if potentially, God forbid, it led to impeachment, would I be willing.
Insight: The White House wanted to make it look like your investigation was a prurient intrusion into Clinton’s private life. Is that so, or were there serious breaches of national security?
DS: After we saw the material assembled in the secure committee room, and after the House voted for the inquiry on Oct. 8, 1998, I went to Henry Hyde and said: “We are going to start a heavy investigation. We’re not going to touch Lewinsky; we’re going to look at Chinagate, Filegate and all the other -gates. I estimated that we wouldn’t be ready to file our findings until July or August 1999.
Insight: What did you think you were getting into with Chinagate?
DS: Prior to the inquiry, I had read the book Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake and William Triplett, and I realized that there was something there that had to be looked into. So the very first call I made after the House voted for the inquiry was to Timperlake and Triplett. And I asked if they’d cooperate and do the advance investigation because they had so much knowledge from the Senate investigation under Senator Fred Thompson [R-Tenn.]. They said, “We’ll not only help, we’ll work 24 hours a day.” China, to me, was the most dangerous part of the whole thing.
Insight: Why did the Thompson committee drop the ball on Chinagate?
DS: Timperlake and Triplett both had the same question. Nobody seemed to know. We were reaching out for more information, and we were told, “Stop, it’s over.” Little did I realize the frustration we would be facing within a month.
Insight: What kind of job did the House commission led by Rep. Christopher Cox of California do in investigating the Chinagate issues?
DS: Oh, Cox and his colleagues did a good job, but it’s all still classified and nobody can get at it. Cox made clear that he was aware U.S. security had been seriously compromised but he couldn’t go into the specifics because of the security issue.
Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?
DS: The Democrats always were friendly; they always were affable.
Insight: And the Republicans?
DS: Majority Leader Dick Armey was on our side 100 percent. But others in the Republican leadership, House Speaker Newt Gingrich in particular, were a problem for us. We would have meetings with Gingrich and reach an agreement, “We’re going to do it this way,” but by the time we’d get back to our offices he would be with Minority Leader Richard Gephardt doing exactly the opposite.
Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?
DS: Our original plan was not to make anything public, to keep it under the tightest security, until we made our reports. But it was Gephardt and Gingrich who decided they were going to let out all the crap. Unfortunately most of it was that sex stuff the media immediately fastened on to send up the battle cry that “It’s only about sex.”
Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?
DS: Had it not gone to the media, and had I been able to list 15 felonies, you’d have seen almost no sex in it. It was the felonies on which we focused.
Insight: What about the impeachment committee? Did they release information improperly?
DS: Not Henry Hyde, not the members of the committee. And they fought like tigers. Hyde constantly was pressing the leadership, trying to get them to do things the right way. We originally arranged it so only the members of the committee could get into the room and view the evidence; Gingrich could not get in there until much later. We had an ultrasecure room with ultrasecure evidence, no leaks coming out. Then, in that two weeks [after the House leadership authorized the release of the sex-scandal material], everybody was having a feeding frenzy on all that garbage.
Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?
DS: Oh, yes. They were the ones who against our wishes put out [President Clinton’s] grand-jury testimony. Never mind that the deposition [to Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] was more useful. First, it was shorter; second, it contained many more lies, more provable lies.
Insight: But the sex issue obscured the damage to U.S. national security.
DS: The whole national-security dimension was lost. The entire matter of the fact that he [Clinton] was committing perjury, obstructions and all that — that was lost. The Filegate thing was lost, everything we intended to get into.
We were going into the committee vote on the impeachment articles. I had thought the strongest article was abuse of the Office of the President. Another of the abuses was that Citizenship USA matter, where the administration had politicized everything and used everything at its disposal. An amendment passed that completely emasculated that article, which meant that we would lose it, and we did lose it.
Insight: Did you have any idea the Senate would respond the way it did to the impeachment articles?
DS: No way. When we finished in the House — the managers, the staff and myself — we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word “sex” they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.
We had four to five weeks’ worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the truth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.
That’s why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, “You’re not going to dump that garbage on us.” Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.
Insight: Why did you get that response?
DS: I was shocked because I thought things were on the square. I thought that when a senator took the oath to give equal and impartial justice that he would do that. But it was completely partisan. The Democrats were adamant that the evidence not be produced, and the Republicans did not have the courage to fight them.
The ultimate failure of Republican courage in the Senate was absolutely sickening. They just let the Democrats run roughshod.
Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?
DS: They had a stand-up crew. The discipline in the Democratic Party was absolutely remarkable. I don’t know if it was because of Filegate or what. On the committee in the House, once members saw all the evidence, we expected to pick up four or five of the committee Democrats and vote to impeach. But even in the Senate the only one who broke was Senator [Russell] Feingold [of Wisconsin] who voted against the motion to dismiss. He broke with the party and voted his conscience on that.
Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?
DS: I think they wanted to be in the position to say, like Senator [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa] said, “Oh, gee, if I’d known that, I would have changed my vote.” They didn’t want to know anything.
Insight: What do you mean when you say that it may have been Filegate that kept the senators from convicting Clinton?
DS: I don’t think that anybody in the White House or the president’s entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, “Look, we’ve got something on you and if you do this we’re going to out you,” but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn’t want made public. Who knows?
But everybody knew that if the president had it he would use it. There was always that sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.
Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?
DS: Filegate never was resolved. Never. And it probably never will be unless Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch breaks it. He had a lot of information that he was willing to furnish to us in connection with the impeachment had we been able to get into Filegate, and he was extremely unhappy when we were not allowed to get to it. I think Larry eventually may be the one to get to the bottom of it.
Insight: How else has the administration’s impunity undermined our national-security system? What about the 1997 case of Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly, the Navy intelligence officer whose eyes were burned when a Russian spy ship fired a laser at him, and the Clinton administration covered it up?
DS: They’ll say his injuries are not
service-connected.
Insight: That’s exactly what the Navy has been saying.
DS: The dirty bastards, and they know better! They don’t dare admit it, because then they’ll be admitting that the Russians committed a crime against humanity and an act of war.
Insight: Is there anything not in your book that you think should have been?
DS: Oh, yeah, some of the things I learned in the [Charles] Labella report [on campaign finance from the FBI], some of the things in the room that now are in the archives. I can’t go into specifics, but there’s a lot of material there that corroborated the theory that there was a massive obstruction of justice. There are an awful lot of leads that, had I had more concrete evidence of the kind we intended to get, would have led a hell of a lot more into Chinagate.
Also, I would have gone more into Filegate. And I would have gone into the matter of [late commerce secretary] Ron Brown and [Clinton/Gore fund-raiser and suspected Chinese spy] John Huang and those trips that were being sold on Commerce planes. There’s a lot more I would have gone into had we had more direct proof, but we were given no chance to get it.
Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?
DS: Time. And the leadership in the House. Right after the [1998] election, Henry Hyde was told, “You will finish this by the first of December and, if this goes on into the next Congress, you won’t get authorization; you won’t get more money for the investigation. We don’t want you to do any further investigation. You go with what you’ve got.” Which essentially was the Paula Jones case.
It was the leadership, though I don’t know who specifically talked to Hyde. He never told us. It had to be Gingrich, and after Gingrich resigned the shot was going to be called by whoever would succeed him. Then they got Livingston.
Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?
DS: Originally we were told that it wouldn’t come out of committee and that if it did come out of the committee they’d make sure that 40 Republicans came out against impeachment in the House. We asked that all the Republicans come over and look at what we had, hear the witnesses, see the evidence. We had 65 Republicans over, including a number who said they weren’t going to impeach. And, of those 65, all but one voted to impeach.”
David Schippers interviewed by Sandy Rios of American Family Association.
“The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.”
David Schippers obituary, Part 2: ” fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies”, Fake News media rectifies
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers
If you have read Fake News media reports regarding the House impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton or the obituary or legacy of David Schippers, you are likely reading a watered down, diminished or as Orwell put it “rectified” version of the facts.
Citizen Wells is the antidote for the Fake News media, aka Big Brother.
David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998.
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”
“I.
There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by:
(A) Providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury;
(B) Withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and
(C) Tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.
The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a “cover story” to conceal their activities. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, at pp. 54-55, 234). On December 6, 1997, the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky’s name had appeared on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. (Clinton GJ, p. 84). He informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on December 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jonescase. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123;
M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). The President at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123). On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128).
Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place:
1) In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky
told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to
testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do
the same. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 127).
2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to
get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before
giving testimony in the Jones case. (Tripp 7/16/98 GJ,
p. 75; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 71).
3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false
and intentionally misleading affidavit to be
filed in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,
pp. 200-203).
4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft
affidavit to a third party for approval and
discussed changes calculated to mislead.
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202).
5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone
on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would
give false and misleading answers to questions
about her job at the Pentagon. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 197).
6) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false
and misleading affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 203).
Conspirators intended to use the affidavit
to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer).
7) After Ms. Lewinsky’s name surfaced, conspirators
began to employ code names in their contacts. (M.L.
8/6/98 GJ, pp. 215-217).
8) On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the
President met at the White House and discussed
the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky
suggested that she conceal the gifts received
from the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).
9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal
secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of
the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ,
pp. 107-108; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-156).
10) Betty Currie hid the box of gifts under her bed
at home. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108;
Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58).
11) The President gave false answers to questions
contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.
(V2-DC-53; V2-DC-104).
12) On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the
suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft
notes to the President. (M.L. 8/1/98 OIC Interview,
p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in
the Jones case.
13) On January 17, 1998, the President’s attorney
produced Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at the President’s deposition and the President adopted it as true.
14) On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the
President gave false and misleading testimony
under oath concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him
and several other matters. (Clinton Dep., pp. 49-84;
M.L. 7/27/98 OIC Interview, pp. 12-15).
15) The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie,
to give a false and misleading account of the
Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.
(Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81).
16) The President narrated elaborate detailed
false accounts of his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with
the intention that those false accounts would
be repeated in testimony. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ,
pp. 71-74, 81; Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pp. 88-92;
Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 49-51; Blumenthal 6/25/98
David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers
“Thank God for the life of David Schippers. He is a shining example for all Americans.”…Citizen Wells
If you are a Democrat, first get right with God and then follow the example of David Schippers, a man of principle.
The fake news media has covered his passing, but they have not reported how he exposed the Clintons. Citizen Wells will.
From Legacy Obituaries.
“David Phillip Schippers, Jr., age 88, a resident of Grayslake, passed away on Friday, September 28, 2018 at his home. He was born on November 4, 1929. David was an attorney for 59 years, a member of St. Gilbert Catholic Church and a lifelong White Sox fan. David is survived by his devoted wife, Jacquline, of 66 years. He is further survived by his 10 children, Kate Schippers (Michael Batka), David Schippers III ( Pat Connor), Tiyi Schippers (David Bunce), Ann Schippers Winter (Bob Winter), Colleen Schippers Margolis (Lou Margolis), Hon. Thomas Schippers (Carol), Kevin Schippers (Beth), Dr. Mimi Schippers ( Robert Scott Bullock, Marc Pagani), Patrick Schippers (Trisha), Peter Schippers (Dr. Laura Taylor); 26 grandchildren; and 29 great grandchildren.”
“David P. Schippers Jr., the Republican Party’s chief counsel in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died of pancreatic cancer Friday at 88 at his home in Grayslake.
In 1998, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appointed Mr. Schippers to be the committee’s chief investigator as it weighed whether to endorse the impeachment of Clinton.
After independent counsel Ken Starr had recommended 11 grounds for impeachment, including obstruction of justice and lying under oath, Mr. Schippers, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said there were at least 15.
“If you don’t impeach, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again,” he said. “The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.”
In December 1998, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, sending the question to the full House. Days later, for just the second time in history, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach a president–in this case, for misleading officials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
After a trial, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999, to acquit Clinton.
“In the U.S. Senate, politics trumped principles, and polls trumped honor,” Mr. Schippers said in a book he wrote with Alan P. Henry, “Sellout: the Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”
He felt “he had a solid case, and he didn’t think all of those people in the Senate were honoring their oath of office,” according to his son David. But his son said he also knew this: “You win some, you lose some.””
“He used to tell his kids, “Never bet against God, Notre Dame and the Democratic Party,” according to his son, who said, “After he got old and the Clinton impeachment, he said, ‘At least, I’m two out of three.’ ”
As a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the 1960s, Mr. Schippers headed an organized-crime division under then-U.S. Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan. He helped prosecute Sam Battaglia, a successor to Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. And his unit’s work led to a yearlong stay at the Cook County Jail for Giancana, sent there for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.”
Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley, 1984 reveals how censorship and language are used to control people today, Thought Criminals, Destruction of language, Rewriting history
“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”
“1984” by George Orwell was being written while I was in my mother’s womb.
It was published shortly after I was born.
It was required reading in High School (Thank God).
“1984” reentered my life prominently in 2008 as the election cycle unfolded shortly after Citizen Wells began.
It had become abundantly clear that we had entered the age of Big Brother.
The vicious attacks of those labeled “Thought Criminals”, those asking any questions about Obama, the destruction of language and definitions (Natural Born Citizen) and the revision (rectification) of history were in my face, as if in the body of the protagonist, Winston Smith.
I immediately began quoting “1984” and still do almost every day of my life.
This should scare the hell out of every person on this planet.
And once again this morning, “Thought Criminal” Julian Assange.
From Zero Hedge November 16, 2018.
“Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley
One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.”
“But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley’s superiority can be dismantled.
Most importantly, Huxley’s main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through “entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies” is not actually absent in 1984.
In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called “PornSec,” which mass produces porn for the Proles. One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford’s film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be ‘repurposed’ as porn.
In fact, Orwell’s view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and sophisticated than Huxley’s, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a parody of the naive “free love” notions of H.G.Wells.
While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, ‘anti-Sex’ is used to strengthen the hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left — and to a certain degree the Dissident Right — are the most undersexed.
Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell’s dystopian vision. While Brave New World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory Coffee, and Victory Tobacco — all highly addictive substances that affect people’s moods and reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:
The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the telescreens.
Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured with cloves, the speciality of the cafe…
In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.
But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing.
But most brilliant of all is Orwell’s prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed “thought crime,” to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their “Newspeak” dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.
Orwell’s insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley’s novel. The same can be said about Orwell’s treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today.
In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian empire. The concept of “three minutes hate” has so much resonance with our own age, where triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.
In Huxley’s book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed they are so clearly defined – in fact biologically so – that there is no conflict between them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean spheres.
In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself — a rational actor, controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled member of the British upper classes.
Orwell’s book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for it.”
Michelle Obama “Becoming” a bigger liar, Hillary campaign started birther movement, The Blaze gets Natural Born Citizen requirement wrong again, Awarded 2 Orwells, Winston Churchill eligible for POTUS?
“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND
“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
The Blaze, Pat Gray, Glenn Beck, et al, quit listening to uninformed Bill O’Reilly and read the damned US Constitution and supporting documents.
The requirement for POTUS is Natural Born Citizen not Citizen!
You are misinforming your audience, following in lock step fake news media and in Orwellian fashion, creating a narrative that becomes history.
From The Blaze November 12, 2018.
“Michelle Obama will make money off ‘birther’ controversy — despite how much she claims to hate it
In her book, which goes on sale on Tuesday, Michelle wrote the following:
“The whole thing was crazy and mean-spirited, of course, its underlying bigotry and xenophobia hardly concealed. But it was also dangerous, deliberately meant to stir up the wingnuts and kooks. What if someone with an unstable mind loaded a gun and drove to Washington? What if that person went looking for our girls?
Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family’s safety at risk. And for this, I’d never forgive him.”
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton’s campaign brought Barack Obama’s birth certificate to the forefront during the 2008 Democratic primary election.”
“Pat asserted that he did not care for the birther movement, calling it “ill-conceived” and saying that there was “nothing to it.”
Constitutionally speaking, even if the birth certificate released by Barack Obama had been a fake — a claim made by many people involved in the “birther” movement — he would still have been eligible to run for president because of his mother’s American citizenship.”
Thrivent claims experiences impact on my faith and others, Thrivent claims core Christian values but that was not my experience, Impact not just financial physical & emotional
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”…1 Corinthians 13
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.”…2 Peter 2:1-3
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32
This may be the most important article that I write about my claims experiences with Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (and now anybody).
Aside from the devastating financial, physical and emotional impact of their treatment of me over many years and 2 claims experiences, there was potential for impacting my faith.
If Thrivent had been my predominant experience with the Lutheran Church, I would have run away screaming in despair.
From the Washington Post March 28, 2014.
The change from “Thrivent Financial for Lutherans” to just “Thrivent Financial” was not a simple response to declining membership in the Lutheran church, Moeller said, although that factor was discussed during the lengthy transition talks.
It’s more about having a long-term strategy to share the company’s Christian business principles with more people, he said.
“It will open many, many new doors for us in terms of our ability to expand and help our members and communities,” he said.
The U.S. has three main Lutheran denominations, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The ELCA, the largest of the three with 3.9 million members in the U.S., reported a drop in weekly attendance of 26 percent from 2003 to 2011.
1. Put your faith in God and the message of Jesus.
2. Whether you are involved in an organized religion or not, live your life properly, as Jesus taught. People may not believe what you say but they will certainly believe what you do.
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:16
I was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church, raised attending, was an acolyte, attended catechism class and confirmed at age 12.
I sang in the choir for years.
As I grew older I became less enamored with organized religion, with its emphasis on money, buildings and temporal matters.
I have attended other denominations and hung out with the Baptists.
I have known many Godly people of various denominations.
I have also observed behavior that would turn many away.
During my first claims experience with Thrivent in 2002, I had a conversation with Sandy Kruse. I had been in great pain before, during and after surgery. I had been trying to get a proper date of disability from the surgeon to Thrivent. It was frustrating. As it turns out, and well documented now, Thrivent used the incorrect language of “unable to work” instead of “unable to perform regular occupation.” Thrivent later corrected a form but never apologized to me or made reparations.
During the conversation, as indicated by Thrivent in the transcript of the call I requested, I quoted 3 different bible verses. Ms. Kruse was offended and went on to slander and libel me with the local Thrivent rep.
In the second claims experience, beginning in 2009, I now have proof that Thrivent fraudulently misrepresented the policy provisions and used this posture for unreasonable requests and ultimately to accuse me of fraud when in fact it was they who were committing fraud.
Thrivent has been the antithesis of exhibiting core Christian values.
I am not the only one affected.
George Tiedemann, a Lutheran, was surprised at how he was treated by Thrivent:
“The insurance the Tiedemanns bought in 1993 didn’t restrict their ability to sue over disputes. But in 1999 Aid Association for Lutherans amended its bylaws, effectively blocking policyholders from the courts and substituting a three-step dispute-resolution process.
For members who have found themselves in disputes with Thrivent, the retroactive change rankles. “You’re wondering how Lutheran organizations can treat their own customers that way,” says Mr. Tiedemann, an 83-year-old retiree who navigated the dispute-resolution process for more than two years before giving up. The couple is maintaining Lucy Tiedemann’s policy, who is recovering from a recent fall.”
Palmer Luckey thought criminal aka Trump Supporter fired by Facebook for opposing Hillary aka Big Brother, Donated $10,000 to an anti Hillary Clinton group
“That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.”…George Orwell, 1984
“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”… George Orwell “1984″
“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”
From the WSJ November 11, 2018.
“Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump
Palmer Luckey, co-founder of virtual-reality pioneer Oculus, was ousted after his political activity sparked a furor within the social-media giant and Silicon Valley”
“FacebookInc.FB -1.97% executive and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group.
Mr. Luckey, it turns out, was put on leave, then fired, according to people familiar with the matter. More recently, he has told people the reason was his support for Donald Trump and the furor that his political beliefs sparked within Facebook and Silicon Valley, some of those people say.
Internal Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the donation simmered, Facebook executives including Mr. Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s yearslong support of Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the conversations and internal emails viewed by The Wall Street Journal.”
Michelle Obama book answers questions?, Why you “relinquished” law license?, Seen copy of certified original birth certificate?, Where was Barack November 4, 1999?, Why TUCC Jeremiah Wright church?, Why Barack publisher stated Kenya?
“Why was Barack Obama absent from the opening session of the IL Senate on November 4, 1999?”…Citizen Wells
“In both conversations with Obama for America and AKP Message & Media, I explained that on November 6, 1999, I had been introduced to Barack Obama by a friend and that Obama had, in fact, sold me an eight-ball of cocaine and had himself engaged in smoking crack cocaine in my limo on that date and again in my hotel room the following day.”…Larry Sinclair, “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder”
“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND
We are all awaiting the release of Michelle Obama’s new book “Becoming.”
Certainly it will contain the usual candor and honesty we have come to expect from the Obamas.
Listed below are perhaps the top 5 questions that many of us have wanted answers to:
Why did Michelle Obama ‘relinquish” her law license? Law school is years of hard work and passing the bar exam is no easy matter. So why would she give it up after so much effort? It is believed that Barack surrendered his law license to avoid having it taken for documented lies on his application.
Michelle, have you seen a certified copy of an original birth certificate for Barack? We have not. The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov was not. It was not a certified copy of an original because Hawaiian birth certificates did not look like that at the time of his birth. At the bottom of that document it states “or abstract.” If it is indeed an official HI document, it does not prove birth there. Only that data was pulled from documents recording birth somewhere. Many believe it was faked.
Michelle, where was your husband on November 4, 1999 the opening session of the IL legislature in Springfield? Larry Sinclair alleged a drug and sex encounter with Barack in November 1999.
Why did you attend Jeremiah Wright’s church TUCC? Was it for the “Down Low Club at Trinity?”“It was more that Wright served as a matchmaker,” said Carolyn, a 20-year member of Trinity who has played a role in church administration and knows the Obamas personally.“He kept his eye on the young guys coming up in Trinity,” she said, “and if he spotted someone that acted or looked gay, then Wright would give them kind of a guidance counselor-type direction on how to keep down low – how to do the things they wanted to do, but then also getting married and looking ‘respectable’ – being part of black society.” WND October 2, 2012.
Why did Barack’s publisher list his place of birth as Kenya?
By the way Michelle, no one is disputing that Barack is a citizen.
Citizen WElls 