Category Archives: Citizen Journalism

Assange outs Hillary Clinton part two, We out Hillary at polls, Citizen journalism requires mass participation, Spread the word and inform the citizenry, We can’t sit around and let others like Wikileaks do all the work, Assange has more to reveal

Assange outs Hillary Clinton part two, We out Hillary at polls, Citizen journalism requires mass participation, Spread the word and inform the citizenry, We can’t sit around and let others like Wikileaks do all the work, Assange has more to reveal

“So Hillary’s doctor —who says Hillary’s Health is “excellent”— just claimed Hillary had an imaging study that doesn’t exist. Oops.”…Dr. Milton Wolf

“As I stated earlier, this is not about sex or private conduct, it is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, witness tamperings and abuses of power, all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States.”…David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee

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

 

Just as in the American Revolution, we are part of a new revolution, citizen journalism.

Just as in the American Revolution, this will require ordinary citizens to step up, take risks, participate to defeat the common enemy, evil and ignorance.

I had not planned on writing the article yesterday about Assange outing Hillary Clinton by the debate yesterday, September 26, 2016. It is being widely read and I want to clarify what Julian Assange has stated and what his role is.

I am reminded of an exerpt from the debate last night.

Trump criticized Obama and Hillary for the vacuum created by pulling our troops out of Iraq.

I wish that he would have reminded her that part of the job of the President and Secretary of State is responding to changing conditions and not blaming the former president for decisions made earlier under different circumstances.

So it is with Assange.

He has chosen his words carefully and as he stated already provided enough information to out Clinton under a reasonable Justice Department.

This more recent interview more closely reflects the latest circumstances.

Now for the most important part.

We ultimately can defeat Hillary Clinton at the polls.

That will require educating our citizenry.

The great middle of the country, most of whom will listen to reason.

Wikileaks provides a great service but Julian Assange can not do this task alone.

I never would have envisioned years ago that I would be writing an article like this to so many people.

I do this because I care, so do you.

We have so many avenues of sharing information on the internet.

Use them.

Share what you learn on the internet in everyday life as you interact with family, friends and total strangers.

With appropriate humility and false modesty aside, I present some of my larger efforts to expose the real Hillary Clinton.

Scrubbed articles resurrected.

Many articles, scrubbed from the internet and not found doing searches, have been placed on Citizen News and referred to in Citizen Wells articles. This includes most of the Bill and Hillary “gate” controversies and criminal activities. One you may not be familiar with is Commercegate where Hillary devised the plan to sell Commerce seats for campaign contributions. This ultimately led to the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Hillary “birther” involvement and truth behind Obama records and eligibility.

Multiple witnesses prove that the Clintons were challenging Obama’s eligibility by 2008. I am actually part of this story due to recording witness Bettina Viviano testimony to me in early 2009. I have also provided conclusive proof that Obama has provided zero proof of US birth and used many Justice Dept. attorneys at taxpayer expense to keep his records hidden. One of those attorneys, Tony West, was rewarded with the number 3 position in the Justice Dept.

Hillary health and “health records.”

Citizen Wells has challenged the authenticity of alleged health records provided by the Hillary Campaign. The latest “Dr. letter” was analyzed with the conclusion that it was probably forged.

https://citizenwells.com/2016/09/25/hillary-doctor-letter-author-ashley-neff-marketing-social-media-rebranding-specialist-did-neff-rebrand-clintons-health-hillary-september-2016-health-statement-fraudulent-procedures-dont-exist/

We can’t sit around waiting for someone else to out Hillary.

Each and every one of use can play a role.

One person can make a difference.

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

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

 

 

At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, there were only 2 types of citizens defined by US Law.

Natural born citizens and everyone else, citizens. There were no legally naturalized citizens and no provision in US Law to be naturalized until 1790.

That is why the founding fathers has to be grandfathered in with the following language:

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”

That language and the meaning of natural born citizen have not been altered.

Only the definition of citizen and how to attain citizenship has been altered.

It is believed by myself and many legal scholars that the founding fathers knew that one had to be born on US Soil to US citizen parents (plural).

Three years later in the Naturalization act of 1790 we find a clarification:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

Obviously from that language one had to have US citizen parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen.

Senate Resolution 511, that Barack Obama signed, stated:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Once again citizens (plural).

So from start to finish we have the requirement of 2 US Citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz had only one US Citizen parent, his mother and he was born in Canada.

Clearly not eligible.

That is why the following article from the Harvard Review is so absurd.

“We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”

This is a big lie!

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

From Citizen Wells March 16, 2015.

Truths, half truths and lies.

I will make this simple because it is.

Although our laws were derived from British laws and in fact some common laws are in force today, we have heavily modified them beginning with pre revolution colonial laws and the US Constitution.

The article above conveniently, selectively quotes the US Constitution which states:

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.

https://citizenwells.com/2015/03/16/ted-cruz-citizen-not-natural-born-citizen-cruz-not-alive-at-adoption-of-constitution-harvard-law-review-article-still-teach-to-constitution-citizen-at-birth-not-equivalent-to-natural-born-citizen/

Attorney Mario Apuzzo provides a scholarly explanation.

“I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html#8Lt4afwlA9IQXYvW.99

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html

 

 

 

Ted Cruz by law not US citizen at birth, Not natural born citizen, Cruz lied, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1 US citizen parent and not born after November 14, 1986

Ted Cruz by law not US citizen at birth, Not natural born citizen, Cruz lied, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1 US citizen parent and not born after November 14, 1986

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“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″

 

 

Ted Cruz is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

He must have known the truth.

I, like Donald Trump, had good teachers.

Therefore I have good reading comprehension skills.

But this is really simple. The law has 2 parts connected by “and.”

Why did Byron York of the Washington Examiner write this?

“Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.”

“That last category covers Cruz, making him a citizen at birth. Last year, Theodore Olson, the former Bush solicitor general who successfully defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president, told me, “My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen.”  That would likely be the conclusion of any challenge to Cruz’s eligibility, as well.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-senator-cruz-is-a-u.s.-citizen-by-birth/article/2523832

REALLY??

From Citizen News March 30, 2015.

From the US Government.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Citizenship Through Parents

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18.  The term “parents” includes:  the genetic father, the genetic mother, and the non-genetic gestational mother, if she is the legal parent at the time of birth under the law of the relevant jurisdiction.  For more information, seeUSCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories

For information on who qualifies as a “child” for citizenship purposes, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF… AND…
Both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, At least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986 The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14thbirthday.If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

  • Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
  • Employed with the U.S. government; or
  • Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

 

Ted Cruz had 1 US citizen parent but was not born after November 14, 1986.

Cruz became a citizen after birth.

Cornell Law School.

“Natural born citizen

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.

Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”

Ted Cruz did not immediately receive citizenship on birth from parents and is NOT a natural born citizen.

Case closed!

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/30/ted-cruz-not-us-citizen-at-birth-cruz-lied-not-natural-born-citizen-us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-1-us-citizen-parent-and-not-born-after-november-14-1986/

Once again, that’s an “and” 

 

 

 

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

I can’t wait to get the answer to this enigma.

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
Who paid Cheryl Chumley to do that?
On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:
“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”
“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”
Read more:
Those were her words.
From her blog:
“A blog of Cheryl K. Chumley’s conservative and Christian views of the state of the nation, the Constitution and current day politics, policies, legislation and culture.”
“Thought police, coming to a community near you”
“Thought police, in George Orwell’s dystopian 1949 work, “1984,” were government authorities tasked with rooting out thought crimes – or, the basic mental patterns that were believed to be the genesis for criminal actions – using omnipresent surveillance technologies and intelligence gathering techniques.”
“But the technology brings some queasiness – and constitutional concerns.”
Why did Cheryl Chumley, as someone with concerns about the US Constitution and Orwellian actions, leave out 9 crucial words from the presidential eligibility clause?
Who controlled the editing?
Who paid Chumley to do this?
Cheryl Chumley, please respond.
Wells

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Janet Yellen FOMC press conference March 18, 2015, Pace of employment growth has remained strong, Continued progress toward maximum employment, Of whom illegal aliens?, Job gains averaging nearly 290k per month, Slack in labor market continues to diminish, OMG what the hell is wrong with Yellen?

Janet Yellen FOMC press conference March 18, 2015, Pace of employment growth has remained strong, Continued progress toward maximum employment, Of whom illegal aliens?, Job gains averaging nearly 290k per month, Slack in labor market continues to diminish, OMG what the hell is wrong with Yellen?

“Why does Janet Yellen keep misrepresenting the jobs situation and quoting the big lie of the unemployment rate?”…Citizen Wells 

“In February 2015 there were 43,000 fewer white Americans employed, 354,000 more not in the labor force, 96,000 more employed and we added 295,000 jobs? Was Common Core math used?”…Citizen Wells

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

Jenet Yellen is answering questions as I write this and read the

Transcript of Chair Yellen’s FOMC Press Conference Opening Statement March 18, 2015.

“We have seen continued progress toward our objective of maximum employment. The pace of employment growth has remained strong, with job gains averaging nearly 290,000 per month over the past three months. The unemployment rate was 5.5 percent in February; that’s three-tenths lower than the latest reading available at the time of our December meeting. Broader measures of job market conditions—such as those counting individuals who want and are available to work but have not actively searched recently and people who are working part time but would rather work full time—have shown similar improvement. As we noted in our statement, slack in the labor market continues to diminish. Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate—the percentage of working-age Americans either working or seeking work—is lower than most estimates of its trend and wage growth remains sluggish, suggesting that some cyclical weakness persists. So considerable progress clearly has been achieved, but room for further improvement in the labor market continues.

We continue to expect sufficient underlying strength in economic growth to support ongoing improvement in the labor market. After averaging about 2-1/2 percent over 2014, growth of real gross domestic product appears to have slowed in the first quarter of this year, in part reflecting a moderation in household spending. In addition, the recovery in the housing sector remains subdued and export growth looks to have weakened. Looking ahead, however, the Committee continues to expect a moderate pace of GDP growth, with robust job gains and lower energy prices supporting household spending.”

“This assessment of the outlook is reflected in the individual economic projections submitted for this meeting by the FOMC participants. As always, each participant’s projections are conditioned on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy. The unemployment rate projections over the next few years and in the longer run are generally a bit lower than the December projections. At the end of this year, the central tendency for the unemployment rate stands at 5.0 to 5.2 percent, in line with participants’ estimates of the longer-run normal unemployment rate. Committee participants generally see the unemployment rate declining a little further over the course of 2016 and 2017.”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20150318.pdf

There is only one explanation for Janet Yellen’s irresponsible statements about the employment situation in the US.

She is either on drugs or being scripted by the Obama camp.

She can’t be that stupid.

She keeps quoting the unemployment rate, in fact I just heard her refer to it.

Jim Clifton, the CEO of Gallup calls it a lie!

It is!!!

And her touting the recent job gains.

The US Labor Dept. BLS reported 295,000 job gains for February 2015.

It also reported that there were only 96,000 more employments and in fact 43,000 fewer white employments.

Zero Hedge and Citizen Wells are questioning these Orwellian claims.

From Citizen Wells March 18, 2015.

Wall Street and main street had better be worried about the real state of the economy and the jobs crisis in this country.

Yesterday Zero Hedge questioned the monthly jobs data from the US Labor Dept. BLS.

“Something Strange Is Going On With Nonfarm Payrolls”

“Falling wages aside (a critical topic as it singlehandedly refutes the Fed’s bedrock thesis of no slack in a labor force in which there are 93 million Americans who no longer participate in the job market) going back to the original topic of which economic factors are prompting the Fed to assume there is an economic recovery, without exaggeration, all alone.

Is there nothing else that can validate the Fed’s rate hike hypothesis? Well… no.

Below is a selection of the economic data points that have missed expectations in just the past month.

MISSES

  1. Personal Spending
  2. Construction Spending
  3. ISM New York
  4. Factory Orders
  5. Ward’s Domestic Vehicle Sales
  6. ADP Employment
  7. Challenger Job Cuts
  8. Initial Jobless Claims
  9. Nonfarm Productivity
  10. Trade Balance
  11. Unemployment Rate
  12. Labor Market Conditions Index
  13. NFIB Small Business Optimism
  14. Wholesale Inventories
  15. Wholesale Sales
  16. IBD Economic Optimism
  17. Mortgage Apps
  18. Retail Sales
  19. Bloomberg Consumer Comfort
  20. Business Inventories
  21. UMich Consumer Sentiment
  22. Empire Manufacturing
  23. NAHB Homebuilder Confidence
  24. Housing Starts
  25. Building Permits
  26. PPI
  27. Industrial Production
  28. Capacity Utilization
  29. Manufacturing Production
  30. Dallas Fed
  31. Chicago Fed NAI
  32. Existing Home Sales
  33. Consumer Confidence
  34. Richmond Fed
  35. Personal Consumption
  36. ISM Milwaukee
  37. Chicago PMI
  38. Pending Home Sales
  39. Personal Income
  40. Personal Spending
  41. Construction Spending
  42. ISM Manufacturing
  43. Atlanta Fed GDPNow

So a pattern emerges: we have an economy in which jobs and only jobs are acting as if there is a strong recovery, while everything else is sliding, disappointing economists, and in fact hinting at another contraction (whatever you do, don’t look at the Fed’s internal model of Q1 GDP).

To be sure, economists these days are better known as weathermen, and so they are quick to blame every economic disappointment on the weather. Because, you see, they were unaware it was snowing outside when they provided their forecasts about the future, a future which should be impacted by the snowfall that day, and which they promptly scapegoat as the reason for their cluelessness. Yet one wonders: why didn’t the harsh snow (in the winter) pound February jobs as well? Recall last year’s payroll disappointments were immediately blamed on the weather which was just as “harsh” as this year. Why the difference?

And yet, today this rising “anomaly” between Nonfarm Payolls “data” and everything else, hit a crescendo, and some – such as Jim Bianco – have had it with the lies anomalies, which prompted him to ask the following:

Why Are Construction Jobs and Housing Starts Telling Different Stories? Is The Problem Non-Farm Payrolls

JobsHousingStarts

“Economists seem to start with the premise that the non-farm payroll data is correct and everything else needs to be dismissed by weather and other factors. Maybe we should ask why the non-farm payrolls number is different from everything else.”

Read more:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-17/something-strange-going-nonfarm-payrolls

Citizen Wells responded.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a math whiz to evaluate the data from the US Labor Department.

You just have to care and have basic math skills.

Sadly this is lacking in the mainstream media.

Even Fox News.

Some of the more blatant lies (yes Gallup CEO Jim Clifton was correct to call them lies), relate to the unemployment rate and it’s improvement and job growth.

For example, in February 2015 the Labor Dept. reported 295,000 jobs added.

However, there was only a 96,000  gain in employment.

And Whites had 43,000  fewer employments!

There were 354,000 more people not in the labor force!

There were 180,000 more people not in the labor force who want a job now!

Did you know?

5,205,000 full time employments were lost during the first year of Obama’s occupation of the White House from January 2009 to January 2010?

2.8 million white Americans fewer were employed during Obama’s first year.

During Obama’s term, from January 2009 to now, 75 percent of the employment went to Hispanics/Latinos.

Since it is PI Day and Einstein’s birthday, I present some new data and a math lesson. Math that I understood by the fifth grade.

Below are the changes in employment by race during the first 6 years of the Obama Administration.

The ratio of employment added in 6 years over employment in Jan. 2009 is given with the resulting percent change over 6 years.

White

1,172,000 / 116,863,000 = .01 = 1 %

Black

1,590,000 / 15,481,000 = .103 = 10.3 %

Hispanic/Latino

4,511,000 / 19,794,000 = .228 = 22.8 %

Asian

1,934,000 / 6,606,000 = .293 = 29.3 %

How do you like those numbers?

Seen/heard them reported by the White House or mainstream media, Fox?

Our math capabilities have diminished in this country.

But our real problems are priorities and integrity.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/fed-jitters-or-jobs-economy-jitters-jobs-employment-crisis-being-ignored-no-recovery-evidence-in-real-jobs-numbers-personal-and-construction-spending-record-government-food-stamp-and-public-assistan/

 

 

 

Citizen Wells letter and warning to Edward Snowden, Do not return to Obama Justice Department controlled US, Avoid America until Obama leaves White House, There is no justice with Obama, One North Carolinian to another

Citizen Wells letter and warning to Edward Snowden, Do not return to Obama Justice Department controlled US, Avoid America until Obama leaves White House, There is no justice with Obama, One North Carolinian to another

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

Citizen Wells to Edward Snowden.

I will make this short and sweet.

As one North Carolinian to another.

Truth seeker to truth seeker.

Under no circumstances should you return to the US as long as Obama is in the White House.

It was scary enough before Obama took control of the White House and Justice Department in January 2009.

The bias in US courts of all levels in 2008 was surprising and scary.

I will not burden you with details but there are plenty on this site.

However, the fact that numerous Justice Department attorneys assisted Obama with keeping his records hidden should be enough to frighten you.

Scan this website for court and Justice Department references.

If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.

At your service Wells.

God bless.

 

Edward Snowden answers on Reddit February 23, 2015, I would have come forward sooner, Government power authority exponentially more difficult to roll back, If you’re not willing to be called a few names to help out your country you don’t care enough

Edward Snowden answers on Reddit February 23, 2015, I would have come forward sooner,  Government power authority exponentially more difficult to roll  back, If you’re not willing to be called a few names to help out your country you don’t care enough

“Edward Snowden should not be forced to choose between living in Russia or spending decades in a cage inside a high-security American prison.
DC officials and journalists are being extremely deceitful when they say: ‘if he thinks he did the right thing,he should come back and face trial and argue that.”
Under the Espionage Act, Snowden would be barred even from raising a defense of justification. The courts would not allow it. So he’d be barred from raising the defense they keep saying he should come back and raise.
The goal of the US government is to threaten, bully and intimidate all whistleblowers – which is what explains the mistreatment and oppression of the heroic Chelsea Manning – because they think that climate of fear is crucial to deterring future whistleblowers.
As long as they embrace that tactic, it’s hard to envision them letting Ed return to his country. But we as citizens should be much more interested in the question of why our government threatens and imprisons whistleblowers.”…Glenn Greenwald Reddit February 23, 2015

“The detentions have thankfully stopped, at least for now. Starting in 2006, after I came back from making a film about Iraq’s first election, I was stopped and detained at the US border over 40 times, often times for hours. After I went public with my experiences (Glenn broke the story in 2012), the harassment stopped. Unfortunately there are countless others who aren’t so lucky.”…Laura Poitras Reddit February 23, 2015

” My perspective is if you’re not willing to be called a few names to help out your country, you don’t care enough.
“If this be treason, then let us make the most of it.””…Edward Snowden Reddit February 23, 2015

 

Here are many of the Edward Snowden responses from the February 23, 2015 Reddit question and answer session.

“Good question, thanks for asking.

The answer is “of course not.” You’ll notice in all of these articles, the assertions ultimately come down to speculation and suspicion. None of them claim to have any actual proof, they’re just so damned sure I’m a russian spy that it must be true.
And I get that. I really do. I mean come on – I used to teach “cyber counterintelligence” (their term) at DIA.
But when you look at in aggregate, what sense does that make? If I were a russian spy, why go to Hong Kong? It’s would have been an unacceptable risk. And further – why give any information to journalists at all, for that matter, much less so much and of such importance? Any intelligence value it would have to the russians would be immediately compromised.
If I were a spy for the russians, why the hell was I trapped in any airport for a month? I would have gotten a parade and a medal instead.
The reality is I spent so long in that damn airport because I wouldn’t play ball and nobody knew what to do with me. I refused to cooperate with Russian intelligence in any way (see my testimony to EU Parliament on this one if you’re interested), and that hasn’t changed.
At this point, I think the reason I get away with it is because of my public profile. What can they really do to me? If I show up with broken fingers, everybody will know what happened.”

“It is very realistic that in the realpolitik of great powers, this kind of thing could happen. I don’t like to think that it would happen, but it certainly could.
At the same time, I’m so incredibly blessed to have had an opportunity to give so much back to the people and internet that I love. I acted in accordance with my conscience and in so doing have enjoyed far more luck than any one person can ask for. If that luck should run out sooner rather than later, on balance I will still – and always – be satisfied.”

“I would have come forward sooner. I talked to Daniel Ellsberg about this at length, who has explained why more eloquently than I can.
Had I come forward a little sooner, these programs would have been a little less entrenched, and those abusing them would have felt a little less familiar with and accustomed to the exercise of those powers. This is something we see in almost every sector of government, not just in the national security space, but it’s very important:
Once you grant the government some new power or authority, it becomes exponentially more difficult to roll it back. Regardless of how little value a program or power has been shown to have (such as the Section 215 dragnet interception of call records in the United States, which the government’s own investigation found never stopped a single imminent terrorist attack despite a decade of operation), once it’s a sunk cost, once dollars and reputations have been invested in it, it’s hard to peel that back.
Don’t let it happen in your country.”

“To tag on to the Putin question: There’s not, and that’s part of the problem world-wide. We can’t just reform the laws in one country, wipe our hands, and call it a day. We have to ensure that our rights aren’t just being protected by letters on a sheet of paper somewhere, or those protections will evaporate the minute our communications get routed across a border. The only way to ensure the human rights of citizens around the world are being respected in the digital realm is to enforce them through systems and standards rather than policies and procedures.”

“Whistleblower protection laws, a strong defense of the right for someone charged with political crimes to make any defense they want (currently in the US, someone charged with revealing classified information is entirely prohibited from arguing before the jury that the programs were unlawful, immoral, or otherwise wrongful), and support for the development of technically and legally protected means of communications between sources and journalists.
The sad truth is that societies that demand whistleblowers be martyrs often find themselves without either, and always when it matters the most.”

“This is a good question, and there are some good traditional answers here. Organizing is important. Activism is important.
At the same time, we should remember that governments don’t often reform themselves. One of the arguments in a book I read recently (Bruce Schneier, “Data and Goliath”), is that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case. The end of crime sounds pretty compelling, right, so how can that be?
Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews.
But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana?
Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had — entirely within the law — rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?
Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren’t just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing thour futures.
How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens’ discontent.
How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.
You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn’t to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where — if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen — we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new — and permanent — basis.
Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it’s entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.
We haven’t had to think about that much in the last few decades because quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a significant way, and that has led to a comfortable complacency. But here and there throughout history, we’ll occasionally come across these periods where governments think more about what they “can” do rather than what they “should” do, and what is lawful will become increasingly distinct from what is moral.
In such times, we’d do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn’t defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends.”

“Wow the questions really blew up on this one. Let me start digging in…
To be honest, I laughed at NPH. I don’t think it was meant as a political statement, but even if it was, that’s not so bad. My perspective is if you’re not willing to be called a few names to help out your country, you don’t care enough.
“If this be treason, then let us make the most of it.””

“So when you work at NSA, you get sent what are called “Agency-All” emails. They’re what they sound like: messages that go to everybody in the workforce.
In addition to normal bureaucratic communications, they’re used frequently for opinion-shaping internally, and are often classified at least in part. They assert (frequently without evidence) what is true or false about cases and controversies in the public news that might influence the thinking about the Intelligence Community workforce, while at the same time reminding them how totally screwed they’ll be if they talk to a journalist (while helpfully reminding them to refer people to the public affairs office).
Think about what it does to a person to come into their special top-secret office every day and get a special secret email from “The Director of NSA” (actually drafted by totally different people, of course, because senior officials don’t have time to write PR emails) explaining to you why everything you heard in the news is wrong, and how only the brave, patriotic, and hard-working team of cleared professionals in the IC know the truth.
Think about how badly you want to believe that. Everybody wants to be valued and special, and nobody wants to think they’ve perhaps contributed to a huge mistake. It’s not evil, it’s human.
Tell your friend I was just like they are. But there’s a reason the government has — now almost two years out — never shown me to have told a lie. I don’t ask anybody to believe me. I don’t want anybody to believe me. I want you to look around and decide for yourself what you believe, independent of what people says, indepedent of what’s on TV, and independent of what your classified emails might claim.”

“One of the biggest problems in governance today is the difficulty faced by citizens looking to hold officials to account when they cross the line. We can develop new tools and traditions to protect our rights, and we can do our best to elect new and better representatives, but if we cannot enforce consequences on powerful officials for abusive behavior, we end up in a system where the incentives reward bad behavior post-election.

That’s how we end up with candidates who say one thing but, once in power, do something radically different. How do you fix that? Good question.”

“To answer the question, I don’t. Poll after poll is confirming that, contrary to what we tend to think, people not only care, they care a lot. The problem is we feel disempowered. We feel like we can’t do anything about it, so we may as well not try.
It’s going to be a long process, but that’s starting to change. The technical community (and a special shoutout to every underpaid and overworked student out there working on this — you are the noble Atlas lifting up the globe in our wildly inequitable current system) is in a lot of way left holding the bag on this one by virtue of the nature of the problems, but that’s not all bad. 2013, for a lot of engineers and researchers, was a kind of atomic moment for computer science. Much like physics post-Manhattan project, an entire field of research that was broadly apolitical realized that work intended to improve the human condition could also be subverted to degrade it.
Politicians and the powerful have indeed got a hell of a head start on us, but equality of awareness is a powerful equalizer. In almost every jurisdiction you see officials scrambling to grab for new surveillance powers now not because they think they’re necessary — even government reports say mass surveillance doesn’t work — but because they think it’s their last chance.
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I think they’re right. In twenty years’ time, the paradigm of digital communications will have changed entirely, and so too with the norms of mass surveillance.”

“To dogpile on to this, many of the changes that are happening are invisible because they’re happening at the engineering level. Google encrypted the backhaul communications between their data centers to prevent passive monitoring. Apple was the first forward with an FDE-by-default smartphone (kudos!). Grad students around the world are trying to come up with ways to solve the metadata problem (the opportunity to monitor everyone’s associations — who you talk to, who you sleep with, who you vote for — even in encrypted communications).
The biggest change has been in awareness. Before 2013, if you said the NSA was making records of everybody’s phonecalls and the GCHQ was monitoring lawyers and journalists, people raised eyebrows and called you a conspiracy theorist.
Those days are over. Facts allow us to stop speculating and start building, and that’s the foundation we need to fix the internet. We just happened to be the generation stuck with fighting these fires.”

Read more:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2wwdep/we_are_edward_snowden_laura_poitras_and_glenn/

Any of this remind you of the past 7 years, Obama campaigns and administration?