Category Archives: Books

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

“I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.”…Linda Tripp

“The only question that remains today is whether or not Hillary Clinton gets away with another cover-up, like she did in the Vince Foster case, and runs for President in 2016, or will she finally be held accountable, and Americans learn the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack?”…Canada Free Press December 18, 2012

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

When I discovered the damning testimony of Rosemary Jenks was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website on December 9, 2004, I smelled a rat.

A big Clinton rat.

After poking around on the internet for a while I finally found it.

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

In a WABC interview in 2003 Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,”

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,”
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.”

“In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.””

““I think she’s realizing how much this issue has grown since 9/11,” he said. “If you talked about it before then, you were just a flat-out racist. Now it’s this huge issue.”

Moving to the right of even some Republicans, the former first lady told WABC she favors “at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And … perhaps, although I’m not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report said a conservative stance on immigration would be wise in the event Mrs. Clinton runs for president in 2008.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/13/20041213-124920-6151r/

On December 8, 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton placed the following on her official website:

“Senator Clinton on the Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Today is an historic day. We are coming to the end of a process that began immediately after the September 11 attacks and is ending with an historic reorganization of the intelligence community. Today’s vote, coming after months of testimony before the 9/11 commission, weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill and tough negotiations in Congress, represents a signal accomplishment in reforming our government to protect our homeland and fighting the War on Terror.

Today’s accomplishment, The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, would not have been possible without the courage, dedication and hard work of the families of the victims of September 11th. It was the persistence and resilience of these brave family members who lost their loved ones on September 11th that led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission. And it was their continued resolve that helped to keep the heat on Congress to insure that those recommendations were put into law. While not every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is included in this bill, the bill makes historic changes in the way our government will collect and analyze intelligence so that we hopefully never again have to live through a day like September 11th.

In the aftermath of September 11th, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system isn’t working the way that it should. The Commission report, following on the work of prior commissions that have studied the issue, details how we have 15 different intelligence agencies who are not sharing information, not communicating with one another and missing important linkages. This legislation, through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), breaks down the artificial barriers in the intelligence community and insures that there is a high level official, answerable to the President, who is working to insure that our intelligence agencies are sharing information and communicating with one another.

This legislation gives the DNI budget authority over the intelligence community which will allow him or her to exercise proper control over the coordination among agencies. In Washington, budget authority means real authority and strengthening the DNI is a major accomplishment of this bill. He or she will also be responsible for budget execution and have the authority to reprogram funds and transfer personnel. These powers will allow the DNI to establish objectives and priorities for the intelligence community and manage and direct tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence.

This legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The creation of this Board is intended to ensure that at the same time we enhance our nation’s intelligence and homeland defense capabilities, we also remain vigilant in protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Our civil liberties define us as Americans. As the 9/11 Commission said, “Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.” The conference report being considered today essentially charges the Board with primary executive branch responsibility for ensuring that privacy and civil liberty concerns will be appropriately considered in the implementation of provisions designed to protect us against terrorism. While the legislation that initially passed the Senate explicitly provided the Board with subpoena powers, the conference report that we are voting on today does not. That omission is unfortunate, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress to address this issue and provide such powers in the future, so that the Board will have the tools it will need to help us maintain the proper balance between our nation’s security and our liberties.

The legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the Northern Border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years.

While I look forward to a productive debate on immigration issues in the next Congress, I am pleased that there are a number of key immigration reform provisions in this legislation, including those addressing the process of obtaining U.S. visas.

I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, The Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children.

But we are being shortsighted if we limit our educational investments to countries with predominantly Muslim populations, and if we focus solely on expanding the number of U.S.-run schools in these areas, as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act does. Instead, the U.S. should work with the global community to create strong incentives for developing countries to build universal, public education systems of their own. Only then will our investments have the maximum impact because only then will they result in systemic change.

We do not know where the next Afghanistan will spring up. But we do know that extremism will flourish where educational systems fail.

The 9/11 Commission, and the commissions before it, including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart (“Hart-Rudman Commission”) and The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Governor James Gilmore III (“Gilmore Commission”), called for dramatic improvements in the sharing of intelligence information. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among federal, state, and local government agencies. The sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the war against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the war against terrorism here at home — our local communities and our first responders — are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. I am pleased that this legislation mandates major improvements in this regard.

Contained in Title VII of the Act are provisions from the “9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004,” legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman and for which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor. Among its provisions are those that address homeland security preparedness, including a call for a unified incident command system and significantly enhancing interoperable communications between and among first responders and all levels of government. Title VII also speaks to the need for allocation of additional spectrum for first responder needs and to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunication needs, an issue that I have focused on intensely as co-chair of the E-911 Caucus.

I am extremely disappointed, however, that this legislation does not specifically mandate an improvement in how the federal government allocates critical homeland security funds to states and local communities around the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have repeatedly called upon the Administration and my colleagues to implement threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that the homeland security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for Administration officials to consider.

But threat-based funding is not only important to me and to the New Yorkers whom I represent; it was also a primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the Commission stated: “We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.”

The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that “the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.” In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating the majority of federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed.

Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Rudman Commission, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year and a half ago that “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”

Both the Senate and House-passed intelligence reform bills that were reconciled in this conference report contained language that sought to effectuate this important recommendation but, unfortunately, such language was not included in the conference report. As the 9/11 Commission, Rudman Commission, many other homeland security experts, and I have repeatedly asserted, there are few issues more important to our nation’s homeland defense than homeland security preparedness and the proper allocation of the resources to achieve that preparedness. Therefore, I will continue to work as hard as I can with my colleagues on a bi-partisan basis to make the 9/11 Commission’s call for threat and risk-based funding a reality.

At the end of the day, this legislation has the capacity to improve our security and make us safer. I would especially like to note the dogged persistence of Senators Collins and Lieberman, who were unflinching in their work on this important bill. However, passage of this legislation is just the beginning. We have now given our government the tools to make a difference. But as with anything in our system, success depends on the independence and accountability of those appointed to carry out these reforms. It is critical that the American people, and we in Congress, insist upon accountability from those whom we are asking to implement these reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in that effort.

Once again, thank you to the 9-11 families, the 9-11 Commission and all those who have worked to make this legislation a reality. Now, the hard work of implementing these reforms begins.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051128080436/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233911&&

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

There is even a bigger reason for her to do so.

The record of the Clinton Administration abusing the INS and rapid naturalization of immigrants to secure additional Democrat voters for the 1996 election.

This was exposed by David Schippers in his role as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, in his subsequent book “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment” and subsequent articles.

From David Schippers October 2000.

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.

In his new bookSellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment, David P. Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, details his investigation of these same issues. He concludes that were he and his investigators afforded more time, it is likely the abuses of the Citizenship USA program would have been included in the list of impeachable offenses against President Clinton. Below is an excerpt from Schippers’ book, published last month by Regnery.

My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

Ironically and/or fitting, the link to the Rosemary Jenks House Judiciary testimony above contained the following: “666”.

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

I next went to the Wayback Machine and after trying different dates for copies, I discovered that the testimony was there for December 9, 2004 but not December 10, 2004.

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

On December 8, one day before Hillary writes of the passage of  “The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” and the strengthening of national security and the borders and the next day, House testimony about how the Clinton Administration abused the INS and the system to expedite and procure more Democrat voters for the 1996 election disappears.

Coincidence?

Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

“Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.”

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

From David Schippers and his book:

“Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

So, who scrubbed the Rosemary Jenks testimony from the House Judiciary website?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David P. Schippers key to downfall of Hillary Clinton, From exposing rapegate to improper immigrant processing, Hillary “evil incarnate”, “White House used the INS to further its political agenda”, Schippers Democrat voted for Bill twice

David P. Schippers key to downfall of Hillary Clinton, From exposing rapegate to improper immigrant processing, Hillary “evil incarnate”, “White House used the INS to further its political agenda”, Schippers Democrat voted for Bill twice

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.”…David Schippers, “Sellout”

On Hillary Clinton: “evil incarnate.”…David Schippers

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

The more I drill down into the role of David Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Bill Clinton Impeachment investigation, the more I am convinced that his findings and statements about the Clintons will be the downfall of Hillary in her attempt to take the White House.

David P. Schippers is a good man, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. No right wing conspirator, who criticizes members of both parties.

From the Washington Post April 1, 1998.

“When David P. Schippers took his 10 children to the nation’s capital in 1976, he made sure they made it to the Jefferson Memorial. The founding father remains a hero of his, because he entered the political arena out of a sense of duty.

“He’s a man who never wanted to be in politics,” Schippers said yesterday. “He felt he owed it to the country to get involved in politics.”

At 68, Schippers is entering the nation’s political fray for the first time as the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator. The post itself is controversial: Democrats suspect that Schippers’s hire, which Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) announced late last week, marks the opening salvo in an impeachment crusade. Republicans say the Chicago lawyer will oversee the review of the Justice Department in connection with the agency’s first authorization in nearly two decades, but acknowledge privately that Schippers could also analyze any documents forwarded by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

Like Jefferson, Schippers insists he is coming to the Hill reluctantly.

“I don’t seek this, I didn’t seek this, and it’s something that has to be done,” he said in his first interview since he was appointed.”

“The Cook County Democrat, who once ran, unsuccessfully, for Illinois Supreme Court, might seem like an unusual pick for Hyde, a Republican. They became friends when the two of them served on a panel investigating judicial corruption in Illinois. Schippers has no Hill or constitutional-law expertise, and established his reputation in the mid-1960s as chief of the Justice Department’s task force examining organized crime in Chicago.

That prosecutor/investigator experience apparently was key for Schippers, who will receive a $130,000 salary. “We’re all concerned about what papers are dropped on us by the independent counsel,” explained one GOP source. “He knows what’s relevant.”

A Chicago native, Schippers took on foes like alleged mob boss Sam Giancana after wading through a deluge of FBI forms. After assigning investigators to each respective vice, the strike force amassed a wealth of knowledge about the mob. “It was only after we had collected all this information, without knowing it, we were building a pyramid which got to the top,” he said, adding he always focused on “what is evidence — you don’t indict unless you’re willing to go to trial the next day.”

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge William Bauer, who has witnessed Schippers’s work from both the trial and the appellate bench, said his effectiveness as an advocate stems from his ability to determine what matters most. “He knows the wheat from the chaff,” Bauer said.

That kind of discretion could apply equally well to both Schippers’s immediate task — conducting a thorough review of an agency employing more than 100,000 people — and any potential referral from Starr.

No matter what his task, Schippers vowed, he can remain above political pressures. His other role model besides Jefferson is his grandfather, an Irishman who made a fortune in the sewer business until he turned down a monopoly on government contracts in exchange for a kickback to the political establishment. He lost his business and ended up working at a paint store.

“He died of lead poisoning,” he said. “But he wouldn’t give in.””

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/schippers040198.htm

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Hillary Bill Clinton Crisis of character review and Hannity interview of Gary Byrne, The Vase chapter, Legal Insurrection questions for Hillary Clinton voters, If this is how Clinton treats her husband how will she treat the rest of us?, If this is the regard she shows the historic treasures of our nation as First Lady why should we trust her as President?

Hillary Bill Clinton Crisis of character review and Hannity interview of Gary Byrne, The Vase chapter, Legal Insurrection questions for Hillary Clinton voters, If this is how Clinton treats her husband how will she treat the rest of us?, If this is the regard she shows the historic treasures of our nation as First Lady why should we trust her as President?

“Millions of cretinous and amoral Americans still admire Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two foulest amoral slimebags that have ever besmirched the White House. These two foulmouthed and lying psychopaths have been, and still are, blindly supported by masses of non-clinical morons, diehard Democrats, and whorish liberal journalists and their editors.

The Clintons’ habitual lies, gutter language, anti-Semitic outbursts, and anti-black slurs have been documented by reliable writers but have been — and still are — routinely suppressed by the so-called liberal media.”…Reinhold Aman, Ph.D.

“I watched her on countless occasions blatantly lie to the American people and knowingly lie.”…Linda Tripp

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

 

From Legal Insurrection July 4, 2016.

“Book Review: Crisis of Character”

“While traveling back home from a conference in Atlanta, I had a chance to read the new book Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate by Gary Byrne.

Byrne’s book is a gripping read, as he conveys his personal history to join the Secret Service, his time at the White House, and his decision to join the Federal Air Marshals Service. However, it is not an easy read, as it is difficult to learn of how the Clintons and other elite politicos disdainfully treated patriotic Americans such a Byrne, who want only to serve their country.

The author has already discussed his book on numerous venues (but notably not on mainstream media outlets), and has focused on his troubling experiences with Hillary Clinton during the interview. He was inspired to write this history because Clinton is poised to be President, and Byrne describes her as “divisive, abuse, and paranoid.”

However, I would like to share a bit related to the chapter entitled “The Vase.” One morning in 1995, the White House staff was treated to a reverberating verbal battle between the Clintons. The row then evolved into something more physical. After a resounding crash, the Secret Service agents were obliged to investigate the source of the sound.

Byrne discovered the shattered remains of a historic vase packed away in the curator’s office. He also noted that Bill Clinton came in the next day with a big black eye not well hidden by makeup. When Byrne commented about Clinton’s bruise to the president’s personal secretary Bettie Curie, she dismissed it as a coffee allergy.

So, the Secret Service officers had to figure out what to do when the President’s wife posed a physical threat to the President.

Here are three mental exercises I would propose that Legal Insurrection readers put to those they know who are voting for Hillary Clinton:

  • How would you suggest Secret Service officers handle a President who is a physical threat to those around her?
  • If this is how Clinton treats her husband, how will she treat the rest of us?  If this is the regard she shows the historic treasures of our nation as First Lady, why should we trust her as President?
  • How would the mainstream media be covering this episode, if the story involved Donald Trump throwing a vase and striking Melania?

Read more:

Book Review: Crisis of Character

This is a must see interview of Gary Byrne by Sean Hannity.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com

Carly Fiorina protecting more than Ted Cruz?, Montgomery Sibley book “Why just her”, Sibley reveals “Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races”, DC Madam phone records and other revelations

Carly Fiorina protecting more than Ted Cruz?, Montgomery Sibley book “Why just her”, Sibley reveals “Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races”, DC Madam phone records and other revelations

“You could drive down the streets of Washington and look at every building on your left and right and in each and every one of those buildings, we had clients.”…DC Madam

“Since 2007, I have been under court order restraining me from publically releasing those records. Those records contain information relevant to the 2016 presidential election,”…Montgomery Blair Sibley

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

While we are waiting on DC Madam phone records to be released by Montgomery Blair Sibley, There is more information of interest to be perused.

Montgomery Sibley wrote a book published in 2009, “Why just her.”

From Amazon:

Why Just Her” identifies the external and internal demons that drove the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, from an initially defiant woman willing to fight the government to a woman so despairing as to take her own life prior to sentencing upon her conviction for Prostitution Racketeering. Starting with the execution of search on her home and seizure warrants for her bank accounts in October 2006 through her death on May 1, 2008, the book traces Jeane’s final 20 months as the judicial system time and again failed to live up to its promise to insure ‘justice’. Instead, unwittingly sitting atop a client list of the most powerful men in the world, that system made sure that Jeane’s story would never be fully told.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Just-Montgomery-Blair-Sibley/dp/1439227950

As usual, one thing led to another and the “Yellow Brick Road” led to an older version of a Sibley website and the Wayback Machine.

There were found some interesting tidbits.

From Montgomery Sibley, Civilforfeiture.com.

“Questions and Answers”

Q.    Do you identify any new clients of the service in the book?

Yes and no.  I do identify that clients of Jeane’s escort service included individuals associated with a wide-range of companies, institutions and government agencies including: the Archdiocese of Washington, the Army Capabilities Integration Center, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the US Army Information Systems Command, the National Drug Intelligence Center and the law firms of (i) Jones Day Reavis and Pogue, (ii) Akin Gump Strauss, (iii) The Durst Law Firm, (iv)  Patterson Belknap Webb, and (v) Reed Smith among many others.

Additionally, I note that those clients included: a  Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency; a Commander of the 332rd  Expeditionary Maintenance Group, Balad Air Base,. Iraq; a high ranking officer of Colonel Pipeline Company which had reached a Settlement for Oil Spills in Five States; an Environmental Protection Agency employee; a former President of National District Attorney Association; a Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races; a director of the Association of Foreign Intelligence Officers; a state representative from Louisiana; a member of the Maryland Public Service Commission; a NASA Astronaut; and a Special Envoy for Middle East Security appointed by Condoleezza Rice.

However, as detailed in the book, I have been put under court order not to reveal these names publicly by Judge Robertson.  So I can’t reveal those names only because I risk being incarcerated for contempt-of-court.

Thus the real story became – why was I silenced?  Why did the government want so badly to keep these – and other clients of Jeans’s escort service – from being publicly identified by me?

Q.   Did the White House really call you?

Yes.   Here is the message:

http://www.civilforfeiture.com/wjh/images/WH1.wav


Read more:

http://civilforfeiture.com/wjh/qanda.html

From Chapter 20 of the book:

“December 14, 2007 – Part II

Something curious, however, had happened the morning that I was at court with Judge Robertson. One of the subpoenas authorized by Judge Kessler had been answered, with startling information.

Among the subpoenas that Judge Kessler had authorized in November was a subpoena to Verizon Wireless, to which I had attached a list of 5,902 telephone numbers that had turned up in Jeane’s telephone records. The subpoena had sought the account holder information for each telephone number that appeared in Verizon Wireless’ records on the day the call was made to Jeane’s escort service. All of the telephone companies had been complaining to me that the task was too big, but I kept reminding them that this was a federal subpoena and they would be explaining that to the federal judge who had authorized the subpoena.

Thus, it was a surprise to me when I returned to my office after the December 14th hearing to find a FedEx package from Verizon Wireless containing a CD with Verizon Wireless’ response to the subpoena: 815 account holders names, addresses, social security numbers, and home and business telephone numbers—all contained in an Excel spreadsheet. Each name represented a former escort or client who had a cell phone number that had called Jeane’s escort service when that cell phone number was owned by that person. Stated another way, I now had 815 new leads who had not, heretofore, been identified through the telephone records by anyone.

The leads were stunning. Among the entities whose corporate cell phone numbers showed up were:

  • Washington College
  • Jones Day Reavis and Pogue, a large law firm
  • Archdiocese of Washington
  • Hewlett Packard
  • Akin Gump Strauss, a large law firm
  • The Durst Law Firm
  • Philips Electronics North America
  • NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. – Providing engineers and designers with semiconductors, system solutions and software that deliver better sensory experiences. Net sales of $6.32 billion in 2007.
  • Patterson Belknap Webb, a large law firm
  • Defense Group, Inc. – is a high technology company, advancing public safety and national security through innovative research, new technologies, and systems assessments. DGI has key competencies in U.S. strategy and policy, intelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction, vulnerability assessments, and homeland security, as well as technologies and products that support first responder and medical communities.
  • The Roger Richman Agency Inc – The Roger Richman Agency, Inc. was purchased by Corbis’ owner Bill Gates in 2005 and is the preeminent licensing agency specializing in protecting and promoting the personae of world-renowned entertainment and historic personalities.
  • U.S. Dept of Commerce
  • Internal Revenue Service
  • The Army Capabilities Integration Center – The Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) is the Army’s leader in the identification, design, development, and synchronization of capabilities into the Army current Modular Force and the future Modular Force, bringing together all the Army agencies as well as Joint, Multinational, and other DoD agencies to manage rapid change. ARCIC supports TRADOC in providing adaptive soldiers, leaders and units by contributing to the development of doctrine, TTPs, and the collective training experience.
  • U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command – TRADOC recruits, trains and educates the Army’s soldiers; develops leaders; supports training in units; develops doctrine; establishes standards; and builds the future Army. TRADOC is the architect of the Army and “thinks for the Army” to meet the demands of a nation at war while simultaneously anticipating solutions to the challenges of tomorrow.
  • US Postal Service
  • USPS – Information Technology
  • United States Coast Guard
  • Embassy of Japan
  • Constellation Energy – Constellation Energy, a Fortune 125 competitive energy company based in Baltimore, is the nation’s largest supplier of wholesale power and competitive electricity to large commercial and industrial customers, and a major generator of electricity, with a diversified fleet of power plants strategically located throughout the United States.
  • Andersen Consulting
  • Department of Health & Human Services – Office of the Inspector, The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency – is a Department of Defense combat support agency and a member of the national Intelligence Community (IC). NGA develops imagery and map-based intelligence solutions for U.S. national defense, homeland security and safety of navigation.
  • Reed Smith – a law firm that represents many of the world’s leading companies in complex litigation and other high-stakes disputes, cross-border and other strategic transactions, and crucial regulatory matters. With lawyers from coast-to-coast in the U.S. as well as in the U.K., continental Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the firm is known for its experience across a broad array of industry sectors. The firm counsels 28 of the top 30 U.S. banks and 10 of the world’s 12 largest pharmaceutical companies.
  • USAISC – U.S. Army Information Systems Command
  • LogicTree – provides innovative IVR solutions for the Transit and 511 markets. They provide solutions focused on connecting agencies to their customers, making access to transit and traffic information easy and intuitive. Since 2001, LogicTree has led the market with innovative, proven solutions, deploying the world’s first speech-enabled transit trip planning IVR, the first Personalized 511 and the first Spanish 511 systems, all using proven speech recognition technology and LogicTree’s patented VoxLinx telephony platform.
  • The National Drug Intelligence Center – established by the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993. Placed under the direction and control of the Attorney General, NDIC was established to “coordinate and consolidate drug intelligence from all national security and law enforcement agencies, and produce information regarding the structure, membership, finances, communications, and activities of drug trafficking organizations.”
  • Atlantic Research Corporation Political Action Committee
  • Fauquier Bank
  • Lockheed Martin MS2– MS2 provides surface, air, and undersea applications on more than 460 programs for U.S. military and international customers

While there might be innocent explanations for company cell phones repeatedly calling an escort service, certainly among the list were former escorts and customers. This supposition was certain as the account holder’s cell phone numbers matched with the date of calls to Jeane’s escort service. Moreover, the list of individuals was also comprehensive and included, among others:

  • a director of the Defense Contract Management Agency
  • a commander of the 332rd Expeditionary Maintenance Group, Balad Air Base, Iraq
  • a high ranking officer of Colonel Pipeline Company which had reached a Settlement for Oil Spills in Five States
  • an Environmental Protection Agency employee
  • a former president of the National District Attorney Association
  • a Hewlett Packard Director who had made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races
  • an attorney with the prominent Akin Gump law firm (the law firm that fired “Abbey.” an employee upon learning she was an escort for Jeane)
  • a director of the Association of Foreign Intelligence Officers
  • an attorney with Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, another major law firm with deep Washington, D.C. ties
  • a state representative from Louisiana
  • a member of the Maryland Public Service Commission
  • a NASA astronaut
  • a special envoy for Middle East Security appointed by Condoleezza Rice

Plainly, I now had the ability to bring a parade of former clients, companies and government agencies in front of the jury to establish either that (a) no sex was had, or (b) that if sex for money was involved, then “Why Just Jeane?”

However, my dilemma was that Judge Robertson had just quashed this subpoena, meaning that I was not supposed to have, or use, this information.

Moreover, these names were just from Verizon Wireless. Subpoena returns were still outstanding from AT&T Mobility, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile USA and Alltel. Those cell phone companies would never respond, as word that Judge Robertson had quashed the subpoenas was apparently rapidly communicated by the Government to prevent these cell phone companies from replying to the subpoenas and further identifying former escorts and clients of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Judge Robertson would subsequently issue a written order overruling Judge Kessler and quashing almost all the subpoenas she had ordered served. Among those quashed were all of the cell phone telephone company subpoenas. As a result, further names and entities would never come to light and those learned through the Verizon Wireless records would, thanks to Preston, likewise never see the light of day.  (N.B. I have now securely stored these records on off-shore servers to be publicly released in the event of my curious disappearance or demise).”

Read more:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090504011856/http://civilforfeiture.com/wjh/excerpt.html

Most of us are aware of Carly Fiorina jumping in at the press conference to deflect a reporter’s question and protect Ted Cruz.

From Law Newz March 31, 2016.

“Former CIA Expert: Carly Fiorina Now Helping Cruz Deceive Public on Alleged Infidelity”

“Monday’s Ted Cruz press conference in Wisconsin, in which former Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina leaped in to intercept a reporter’s question about Cruz’s alleged marital infidelity, was pivotal. It marked the first time we have seen an instance of collective deception in what appears to be a desperate effort to keep Cruz sufficiently unsullied to stop Donald Trump.

The question, posed by Daily Mail reporter David Martosko, was straight and to the point: “Can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you’ve never been unfaithful to your wife?” It was a question that was screaming to be asked, in light of the deceptive nature of Cruz’s response to the National Enquirer story, which we have previously highlighted.

What ensued reminded us of the old adage, “One lies and the other swears to it.” That Fiorina felt compelled to jump in and rescue Cruz from the question was enormously troubling in itself. Why did she feel she couldn’t just let Cruz respond categorically that he had never been unfaithful? But an even more troubling dimension unfolded as Fiorina launched into a harsh attack on Trump, on the media, and, bewilderingly, on President Obama. The attack behavior was clearly aimed at shifting the spotlight away from Cruz, because, we believe Fiorina must have feared, the truth was not Cruz’s ally.”

Read more:

http://lawnewz.com/politics/cia-experts-carly-fiorina-now-helping-cruz-deceive-public-on-alleged-infidelity/

From Montgomery Sibley above:

“Hewlett Packard Director who made substantial contributions to U.S. Senate races”

Is Carly Fiorina protecting someone else too?

 

 

Ted Cruz forward US Constitution For Dummies, Book reveals Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, US Supreme Court 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Chief Justice Melville Fuller … were eligible to the presidency while children of our citizens born abroad were not

Ted Cruz forward US Constitution For Dummies, Book reveals Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, US Supreme Court 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Chief Justice Melville Fuller … were eligible to the presidency while children of our citizens born abroad were not

“It is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country . . . were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”…Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Wong Kim Ark

“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

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Allegedly from a 2012 interview with Ted Cruz:

“In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” ”

http://intellectualconservative.com/the-end-of-the-american-presidency/

Citizen Wells commenter and Illinois ballot challenger Bill Graham provided the following information last night.

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Constitution-Dummies-Michael-Arnheim/dp/0764587803/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8#reader_0764587803

“Can’t make this stuff up. Did you know Cruz wrote the forward to this book by a non-lawyer Brit? The book does mention NBC qualification, born here of citizen parents on page 115. Of course Cruz could have written the forward without reading the book. On-line reviews are mediocre.”

From U.S. Constitution for Dummies by Michael Arnheim.

“The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment”

“Defining Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment”

“The birthright basis of U.S. citizenship was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. This ruling was made in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to Chinese noncitizen parents. The court decided that he was a U.S. citizen even though his parents were not.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller in his dissenting opinion in Wong’s case put his finger on a problem with the birthright rule: “It is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country . . . were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.””

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment.html

From the book:

“Foreword by Ted Cruz Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Former Solicitor General of Texas”

From the Forward:

““We the people” are the opening words of the U.S. Constitution, and it is fi tting that this book is written for “We the people.” Both the Constitution itself, and this book explaining it, were meant for everybody, for all of the American people. This book can be read on several different levels. If you just want to understand the basics of the Constitution, this book offers you an easy, enjoyable, and at times humorous way to do so.”

“For good or for ill, the meaning of the Constitution has often been very much in the hands of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Constitution is designed to limit government and to protect all the freedoms that you and I cherish as Americans. And this book is a clear, straightforward roadmap to understanding how it works — and a lot more.”

Mr. Graham also provided an update to his Illinois ballot challenge to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

January 26, 2016 5:30 PM.

“Filed today rebuttals to Memoranda of Law from Rubio and Cruz; all documents now with Hearing Officer. Today’s filing on Founders intent referred to Maskill’s CRS update 1-11-16 and on NBC definition to Mario Apuzzo 11-29-15 opinion on Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

Candidates claim anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen, even if they owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment or Naturalization law. Even if their one or both parents have allegiance to another country. Founders wasted undivided allegiance.”

 

 

Hillary Clinton lies and hypocrisy on marriage religion, Bill Clinton well documented sex exploits, Hillary knew he was cheating, Affair with Vince Foster, Open marriage? Marriage for political expediency

Hillary Clinton lies and hypocrisy on marriage religion, Bill Clinton well documented sex exploits, Hillary knew he was cheating, Affair with Vince Foster, Open marriage? Marriage for political expediency

“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”…Hillary Clinton 2004

“Bob Hartlein reports for The National Enquirer, Nov. 14, 2014, that in his sworn testimony, Officer L.D. Brown said he had eyewitnessed the wife-swapping of Bill, Hillary, and their respective lovers.”
“Brown said that Bill and Hillary Clinton are wild “swingers” – a bombshell disclosure 
that can ruin her chances of winning the White House in 2016”…DC ClothesLine November 22, 2014

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”…Matthew 7:15

 

 

Even in the nineties, when internet reporting and researching was in its infancy, I knew enough to know that Bill Clinton was a womanizer many times over and that Hillary was aware of it.

One of my so called Christian associates in the nineties was constantly defending Bill Clinton and that it was not a big deal. The end justifies the means.

Another friend from a few years ago, somewhat liberal, but I believe a Christian, said she would never vote for or support Hillary Clinton because she tolerated Bill’s infidelity.

In searching for Hillary Clinton quotes on marriage I encountered the following.

From The Gospel Coalition April 24, 2015.

What is marriage? Back in 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton gave a pretty good definition. To be fair, the larger context was her speaking against the idea of a federal marriage amendment, but in the course of her speech she resolutely defended the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they become adults.

She later sounded quite conservative in warning about the consequences of what we might call non-traditional family situations.

We could stand on this floor for hours talking about the importance of marriage, the significance of the role of marriage in not only bringing children into the world but enabling them to be successful citizens in the world. How many of us have struggled for years to deal with the consequences of illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births, of divorce, of the kinds of anomie and disassociation that too many children experienced because of that.

Mrs. Clinton even defended the rights of the states to define marriage as they see fit.

The States, which have always defined and enforced the laws of marriage, are taking action. Thirty-eight States–maybe it is up to 40 now–already have laws banning same-sex marriage. Voters in at least eight States are considering amendments to their constitutions reserving marriage to unions between a man and a woman. But the sponsors argue that we have to act with a Federal constitutional amendment because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will eventually force States, if there are any left, that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages to do so. That is not the way I read the case law. With all due respect, the way I read the case law is that the full faith and credit clause has never been interpreted to mean that every State must recognize every marriage performed in every other State.”

“Three cheers for the Clintons–of 1993 and 2004! Are there any Democrats or Republicans or college presidents or members of the mainstream media who would dare to say the same things today?”

Read more:

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/04/24/three-cheers-for-bill-and-hillary-clinton/

God I hope not.

Talk about drinking the koolaid.

Kevin DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan.

Mr. DeYoung, you are taught as a Christian to beware of false prophets.

Did you really believe the Clintons?!!

From Joe the Plumber April 28, 2015.

“Hillary Takes Direct Aim at Changing Christian Beliefs: Media Silent”

“Clinton, the proud recipient of the Margaret Sanger award in 2009, the award from none other than the “mother of eugenics,” now wants to change your “deep seated…religious beliefs” among other aspects of your culture, so that abortions will be available without interference from principles that shouldn’t matter.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will.” “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” Clinton added.”

“It was perhaps Clinton’s attempt to hammer the final nail into America’s proverbial coffin by lessening Christians’ religious, cultural, and familial beliefs. If achieved, the result will be that God, the Bible and the U.S. Constitution which was founded upon Christian principles, will take a back seat to other progressive agendas, at least in a Clinton presidency.”

“In an answer that Pelosi could be proud of, Clinton answered, “At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking.” She continued, “I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it.” Clinton concluded, “I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.””

“I’m not buying it. Let us not forget how Clinton once “evolved” on her views toward gay marriage when she was first against it and then for it.

Undoubtedly, if true to Clinton form, look for her further evolution when it comes to changing Americans’ religious beliefs, family and culture should she be elected president.”

Read more:

http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/hillary-clintons-speech-2015-womens-summit-beginning-another-evolution-geared-toward-transforming-christian-beliefs/#

From Citizen News April 28, 2015.

“Crossfire: Witness in the Clinton Investigation”

“L. D. Brown has been a witness to almost all of the alleged offenses circling around Bill Clinton in Arkansas: misuse of state funds for sexual liasons, Whitewater, illegal campaign fundraising and bribery, as well as cocaine use and cocaine smuggling. Through his cooperation with prosecutors and congressional investigators, Brown has learned the inside story on Robert Fiske’s and Kenneth Starr’s operations and on congressional hearings. But most of all, L. D. Brown can tell the story of the methods used by the Clinton White House to control potentially damaging witnesses. Most of what is written in this book has been told under the penalty of perjury to investigators for Congress and the Office of Independent Counsel.”

“He announced that the investigation into the death of Vincent Foster could not be properly concluded until someone INTERROGATED Hillary Rodham Clinton about her affair with Vince Foster. “You’ve heard the rumors and the denials, but I’m here to give first person evidence that it was real. I saw it and talked to them both about it. And she’s never even been interviewed!””

“From DC ClothesLine November 22, 2014.

“Arkansas State trooper: Bill and Hillary Clinton are swingers”

“On Nov. 10, 1997, Brown gave a deposition at the DoubleTree Hotel in Little Rock. The text of the deposition, published in full by The Washington Post on March 13, 1998, was released by Paula Jones’s lawyers, as part of their response to the Clinton legal team’s motion for summary judgement.”

“Now that Hillary Clinton, from all indications, has her eyes set on running for president in 2016The National Enquirer undertook a special investigation and succeeded in tracking down a testimony that L.D. Brown had made under oath during a government investigation into the mysterious 1993 suicide of the Clintons’ White House lawyer, Vince Foster. In his testimony, Brown said that Bill and Hillary Clinton are wild “swingers” – a bombshell disclosure 
that can ruin her chances of winning the White House in 2016.

Recall that it was the Enquirer — when other media refused to — that alone pursued and broke the scandalous story of then-Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards’ adultery and “love child” with political groupie Rielle Hunter. (See “John Edwards, a cad to the end“)”

“Bob Hartlein reports for The National Enquirer, Nov. 14, 2014, that in his sworn testimony, Officer L.D. Brown said he had eyewitnessed the wife-swapping of Bill, Hillary, and their respective lovers.

Brown told independent counsel Kenneth Starr that he was guarding then-Arkansas Governor Clinton and his wife at a Little Rock restaurant while they dined in a private dining room with two other couples.

What happened was “a diagonal swap,” bolstered by booze. Officer Brown watched in astonishment as Hillary and Vince kissed and fondled each other, while Vince’s wife looked on. Bill sat just a few feet away, kissing and hugging the wife of the third couple, whom Brown described as a “beautiful, gleaming Kewpie doll with brains.”

When the couples left the restaurant, Brown said Hillary and Foster were “drunk, kissing passionately,” and Foster had “his hand on Hillary’s rear and is just squeezing it all to hell.”

Brown also said both Bill and Hillary had admitted to him that they had an “openmarriage.” Bill referred to the wife-swapping, saying: “We need to be happy, satisfied. Some people are satisfied in different ways!””

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/28/l-d-brown-witness-in-the-clinton-investigation-bill-and-hillary-clinton-are-wild-swingers-wife-swapping-vince-foster-affair-hillary-lies-on-marriage-not-supported-by-her-actions/

VinceFosterClintons

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton Vince Foster murder/suicide coverup, The strange death of Vincent Foster, Christopher Ruddy investigation, NewsMax articles resurrected by Citizen Wells, Scathing Foster investigation articles, Clintons’ reach extends?

Hillary Clinton Vince Foster murder/suicide coverup, The strange death of Vincent Foster, Christopher Ruddy investigation, NewsMax articles resurrected by Citizen Wells, Scathing Foster investigation articles, Clintons’ reach extends?

 

I have been digging into the details of the Vincent Foster death in 1993  and subsequent coverups and botched investigations.

The amount of information on the internet is amazing and once again I am encountering important, damning articles that are no longer found at their origin.

I have resurrected 2 and they are presented below.

Also, in the true spirit of citizen journalism, one of the dedicated commenters here, oldsoldier79 recently presented a Cspan II video of a presentation of jounalist and author Christopher Ruddy who investigated the death of Vince Foster and subsequent inquiries. Ruddy then wrote “The Strange death of Vincent Foster.”

Christopher Ruddy founded NewsMax Media in 1998.

From NewsMax April 4, 2001.

“‘Vince Foster’s Gun’ Serial Number Searched Before Death

When Vince Foster was found dead from an apparent gunshot wound to the head in 1993, the government was quick to write off the death as a suicide.

That sat well with Bill Clinton and Vince’s closest confidante, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For years, detail after detail emerged questioning the official ruling.

Significant questions were raised about the unusual gun – a .38 Colt revolver made from the parts of three guns with two serial numbers – found conveniently in Vince’s hand.

The Park Police said one of the serial numbers indicated the gun was vintage 1913 – and had no pedigree.

Foster family members insisted neither Foster nor his father ever owned the old revolver.

Recently, a NewsMax.com reader named Craig Brinkley contacted us.

Curious about the gun, Brinkley had filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI, asking details of requests on the gun’s serial numbers with the NCIC – the National Crime Information Center.

The NCIC keeps records of all law enforcment inquiries of serial numbers.

On March 23, 2001, the FBI responded to Brinkley’s request.

Serial number 356555, one of the numbers on the gun, was never searched, not by the FBI, the Park Police or by that “investigation” by Ken Starr.

Serial number 355055 was found on the frame of the gun. Brinkley believes that was the gun’s real nnumber.

That number was indeed searched by the Park Police, on the evening of Foster’s death, more exactly at 22:45 EDT on July 20, 1993.

Interestingly, searches were conducted on the same serial number no fewer than three times earlier that year, before Foster’s death, on March 3, March 7 and April 29.

Was someone checking to see that this gun had a “clean” predigree and was untraceable?

We called Marilyn Walton at the FBI’s Access Integrity Unit. She told us that the government does not disclose which law enforcement agencies requested a trace on the serial number. She said it could have been made by local or federal agencies who have access to the NCIC computer.

She noted that serial numbers are often duplicated, and usually when a request is made, it includes additional information, such as the gun’s make and model.

In all four cases no such information was entered, just the number. Walton added that many guns share similar serial numbers.

Is it a coincidence that in the year of Foster’s death, four searches were conducted on the serial number found on the old gun – none ever before or after?”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/16/vince-fosters-gun-serial-number-searched-before-death-newsmax-article-april-4-2001-1993-four-searches-conducted-craig-brinkley-foia-request-with-fbi-park-police-searched-evening-of-foster-dea/

From NewsMax December 4, 2003 via Free Republic.

“Vince Foster: What the Media Won’t Tell You”

“Major media outlets reported Wednesday on the Supreme Court hearing of California lawyer Allan Favish’s case that government photographs of Vincent Foster’s death scene be released for public viewing. The media report that no fewer than five investigations have found that Foster committed suicide because he was depressed. But despite 10 years of denial by the major media, the Foster case has not “closed” – as the Supreme Court hearing Wednesday demonstrated.
The case won’t close because of the failure of authorities to make full disclosure – and to conduct a full investigation into the case, including a complete autopsy.

Vince Foster was not only deputy White House counsel but also the personal attorney to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

On the night of Foster’s death, top Clinton aides made a frantic effort to enter and remove documents from his West Wing office. In the days that followed, federal investigators were stymied in their investigation of Foster’s office and strange death.

Since Foster’s July 1993 death, the facts of his death have been obfuscated by friends of Bill and Hillary in the major media, but here’s the undeniable truth:

There weren’t “five” investigations into Foster’s death, as the media report. The Park Police, best known for their meter and horse patrols around Washington, were put in charge of the initial death inquiry of the most important federal official to die suspiciously since President Kennedy. The Park Police, contradicting standard procedure, declared the death a suicide before launching their inquiry.

The FBI never officially investigated the case but simply signed off on the Park Police “probe.” The bureau had little choice. The day before Foster’s death, Bill Clinton hurriedly fired the director of the FBI, William Sessions. Sessions later charged that Clinton had “politicized” the bureau.

Later, Robert Fiske, selected by Clinton’s counsel Bernie Nussbaum and Janet Reno, quickly confirmed the Park Police probe as a suicide.

But when Ken Starr entered the investigation, he reopened the case. His chief prosecutor in the case, Miquel Rodriguez, later quit the Starr investigation, claiming that Starr’s staff was engaging in a cover-up of Foster’s death.

Rodriguez, a Harvard-educated federal prosecutor, argued that one of the Polaroid photos taken of Foster at the crime scene indicated an additional wound on Foster’s neck – never noted on the autopsy report. Favish’s suit before the Supreme Court is seeking to release this photo, among others.

No fewer than three of the paramedics on the scene indicated in reports or testimony that the crime scene was consistent with a murder scene, not a suicide.

A careful FBI microscopic investigation of Foster’s shoes found not a trace of soil or grass stains on them, though he supposedly walked several hundred yards through wooded Fort Marcy Park to where his body was found. [Years later, Starr’s investigation found plenty of soil and grass stains. Rodriguez charged that the shoes were tampered with to produce such “evidence.”]

Foster was found with little blood around his body – and despite claims that he fired the gun into his mouth, practically no blood was found on the front of his shirt.

Foster was found with a 1913 revolver no one in his family could claim, with two serial numbers, made from the parts of three or more guns. None of Foster’s fingerprints were found on the gun.

The bullet that supposedly killed Foster was never found, despite intensive searches.

Despite claims to the contrary, no one who knew Foster, including Hillary, Web Hubbell and his own wife, saw signs of depression.

A so-called suicide note was found in an office briefcase that had been searched and found to be empty after Foster’s death. The note was torn into 27 pieces. Yet an FBI examination found no trace of Foster’s fingerprints on the note and a top Oxford handwriting expert found the note to be an “obvious” forgery.

Despite the enormity of the case, Foster’s autopsy lasted an astounding 45 minutes. The coroner in the case had previously been overruled in other cases he declared “suicides” that were later found to be murders.

All of the X-rays taken during the autopsy are missing.

Complete crime scene photos don’t exist. The Park Police said all the photos were “accidentally” overexposed. A series of close-up Polaroids, which Favish is suing for, remain. This is just a brief summary of the dozens of inconsistencies in the case. Two New York homicide investigators who looked into the case concluded that Foster’s body had been moved to the crime scene and that murder could not be ruled out.

Despite overwhelming evidence of a cover-up, the media won’t question the official ruling.

Ken Starr, who could find no criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons during his “intensive” probe, confirmed a ruling of suicide. Starr even hired O.J. Simpson’s defense expert to prove his case.

If ever there were a case for public disclosure of government records and photos, it’s the Vince Foster case. The high court should decide in Allan Favish’s favor.”

http://citizenwells.net/2015/04/16/vince-foster-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-newsmax-article-december-4-2003-supreme-court-hearing-release-of-government-photographs-of-vincent-foster-death-scene-clinton-effort-to-remove/

It appears that NewsMax’ archives only go back to 2007.

Is that the reason that these 2 articles can’t be found there?

Who made the decision for a news site to only keep articles from 2007 on?

Why?

Is there another reason?

More to come

VinceFosterStrangeDeath