Category Archives: Citizens for the truth about Obama

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, Truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell, We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, Truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell, We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”…George Orwell

“Not every item of news should be published: rather must
those who control news policies endeavor to make every item
of news serve a certain purpose.”… Joseph Goebbels

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

 

In my lifetime, it began with the Kennedy assassination narrative.

A narrative was quickly crafted (or perhaps just implemented) and it became the story, “the truth.”

We are only recently beginning to know the real story. And yet the narrative lives.

George Orwell, “1984”:

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”

From Zero Hedge:

“Truth Is What We Hide, Self-Serving Cover Stories Are What We Sell”

We can summarize the current era in one sentence: truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell. Jean-Claude Juncker’s famous quote captures the essence of the era: “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”

And when does it become serious? When the hidden facts of the matter might be revealed to the general public. Given the regularity of vast troves of well-hidden data being made public by whistleblowers and white-hat hackers, it’s basically serious all the time now, and hence the official default everywhere is: truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell.”

“In academia, censorship and conformity have become the norm (Globe and Mail)

In truth, facts today are deemed controversial if they deviate from accepted narratives, and professors must self-censor out of fear of being condemned and losing their jobs.

Based on conversations I’ve had with colleagues still working in academia and from what I can tell about recent cases of censorship, the antagonism is primarily from left-leaning colleagues attacking other liberals.

These instances are indicative of a larger, worrisome trend – instead of debating contentious ideas, those in opposition to them throw words ending in “-phobic” around, shutting the conversation down and pretending they don’t exist.

For those who say ideas that denigrate members of society shouldn’t be entertained, silencing the debate doesn’t make hateful beliefs go away. In many cases, it isn’t controversial findings that pose a threat; the threat comes from the possibility that others will use these facts to justify discrimination. But it’s important that we distinguish between an idea and the researcher putting forth that idea, and the potential for bad behaviour.

With academics avoiding entire areas of research as a result, knowledge currently being produced is constrained, replaced by beliefs that are pleasant-sounding but biased, or downright nonsensical. The recent “grievance studies” investigation, led by academics Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, laid bare how bad the problem has become. The trio managed to get seven fake papers (but oh-so politically correct and hence “good to go”–CHS) accepted in high-ranking humanities journals.

In a consumerist-based culture accustomed to 24/7 selling of one self-serving story or another, the fact that lies and cover stories are now the official norm only makes us love our servitude with greater devotion. I’ve noticed a new twist on self-serving propaganda: an alternative opinion isn’t debated, it’s debunked, as if questioning the official narrative is by definition a “conspiracy theory” that can be “debunked” by repeating the official self-serving cover story enough times.”

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-03/truth-what-we-hide-self-serving-cover-stories-are-what-we-sell

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies

David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers  House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers

“Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that every statement in this book is absolutely true and correct.”…David Schippers

 

Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!

Without the internet and citizen involvement in retrieving, saving and disseminating the truth, we would be kept in the dark about chicanery and corruption such as the Clintons were immersed in.

The Clintons rose to power in the bad old days of pre or minimal internet.

David Schippers was a life long Democrat, voted for Clinton twice but he was an honest, principled man.

He headed up the investigation of President Clinton to determine if impeachment proceedings were justified.

The answer was a resounding yes.

He also wrote a book, “Sellout” to tell the rest of the story about the Clintons and the proceedings for the House Judiciary Committee.

The Fake News Media has done their Orwellian best to create a narrative that the impeachment was only about a daliance with Monica Lewinsky.

David Schippers informed us that it was much more than that.

Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”

You will find next to nothing about his book “Sellout” or his investigation.

One of the interviews, from Insight Magazine, was saved by Citizen Wells and was found on Free Republic, saved by a conscientious citizen.

It has been put back up in searchable form. The interview follows:

“Insight: Did you seek the job to head the impeachment investigation?

DS: No. In January 1998 Chairman Hyde called me out of the clear blue sky. Initially, he asked me for help on oversight of a Justice Department matter. Then the Lewinsky issue broke. Hyde asked me if potentially, God forbid, it led to impeachment, would I be willing.

Insight: The White House wanted to make it look like your investigation was a prurient intrusion into Clinton’s private life. Is that so, or were there serious breaches of national security?

DS: After we saw the material assembled in the secure committee room, and after the House voted for the inquiry on Oct. 8, 1998, I went to Henry Hyde and said: “We are going to start a heavy investigation. We’re not going to touch Lewinsky; we’re going to look at Chinagate, Filegate and all the other -gates. I estimated that we wouldn’t be ready to file our findings until July or August 1999.

Insight: What did you think you were getting into with Chinagate?

DS: Prior to the inquiry, I had read the book Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake and William Triplett, and I realized that there was something there that had to be looked into. So the very first call I made after the House voted for the inquiry was to Timperlake and Triplett. And I asked if they’d cooperate and do the advance investigation because they had so much knowledge from the Senate investigation under Senator Fred Thompson [R-Tenn.]. They said, “We’ll not only help, we’ll work 24 hours a day.” China, to me, was the most dangerous part of the whole thing.

Insight: Why did the Thompson committee drop the ball on Chinagate?

DS: Timperlake and Triplett both had the same question. Nobody seemed to know. We were reaching out for more information, and we were told, “Stop, it’s over.” Little did I realize the frustration we would be facing within a month.

Insight: What kind of job did the House commission led by Rep. Christopher Cox of California do in investigating the Chinagate issues?

DS: Oh, Cox and his colleagues did a good job, but it’s all still classified and nobody can get at it. Cox made clear that he was aware U.S. security had been seriously compromised but he couldn’t go into the specifics because of the security issue.

Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?

DS: The Democrats always were friendly; they always were affable.

Insight: And the Republicans?

DS: Majority Leader Dick Armey was on our side 100 percent. But others in the Republican leadership, House Speaker Newt Gingrich in particular, were a problem for us. We would have meetings with Gingrich and reach an agreement, “We’re going to do it this way,” but by the time we’d get back to our offices he would be with Minority Leader Richard Gephardt doing exactly the opposite.

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?

DS: Our original plan was not to make anything public, to keep it under the tightest security, until we made our reports. But it was Gephardt and Gingrich who decided they were going to let out all the crap. Unfortunately most of it was that sex stuff the media immediately fastened on to send up the battle cry that “It’s only about sex.”

Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?

DS: Had it not gone to the media, and had I been able to list 15 felonies, you’d have seen almost no sex in it. It was the felonies on which we focused.

Insight: What about the impeachment committee? Did they release information improperly?

DS: Not Henry Hyde, not the members of the committee. And they fought like tigers. Hyde constantly was pressing the leadership, trying to get them to do things the right way. We originally arranged it so only the members of the committee could get into the room and view the evidence; Gingrich could not get in there until much later. We had an ultrasecure room with ultrasecure evidence, no leaks coming out. Then, in that two weeks [after the House leadership authorized the release of the sex-scandal material], everybody was having a feeding frenzy on all that garbage.

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?

DS: Oh, yes. They were the ones who against our wishes put out [President Clinton’s] grand-jury testimony. Never mind that the deposition [to Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] was more useful. First, it was shorter; second, it contained many more lies, more provable lies.

Insight: But the sex issue obscured the damage to U.S. national security.

DS: The whole national-security dimension was lost. The entire matter of the fact that he [Clinton] was committing perjury, obstructions and all that — that was lost. The Filegate thing was lost, everything we intended to get into.
We were going into the committee vote on the impeachment articles. I had thought the strongest article was abuse of the Office of the President. Another of the abuses was that Citizenship USA matter, where the administration had politicized everything and used everything at its disposal. An amendment passed that completely emasculated that article, which meant that we would lose it, and we did lose it.

Insight: Did you have any idea the Senate would respond the way it did to the impeachment articles?

DS: No way. When we finished in the House — the managers, the staff and myself — we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word “sex” they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.
We had four to five weeks’ worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the truth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.
That’s why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, “You’re not going to dump that garbage on us.” Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.

Insight: Why did you get that response?

DS: I was shocked because I thought things were on the square. I thought that when a senator took the oath to give equal and impartial justice that he would do that. But it was completely partisan. The Democrats were adamant that the evidence not be produced, and the Republicans did not have the courage to fight them.
The ultimate failure of Republican courage in the Senate was absolutely sickening. They just let the Democrats run roughshod.

Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?

DS: They had a stand-up crew. The discipline in the Democratic Party was absolutely remarkable. I don’t know if it was because of Filegate or what. On the committee in the House, once members saw all the evidence, we expected to pick up four or five of the committee Democrats and vote to impeach. But even in the Senate the only one who broke was Senator [Russell] Feingold [of Wisconsin] who voted against the motion to dismiss. He broke with the party and voted his conscience on that.

Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?

DS: I think they wanted to be in the position to say, like Senator [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa] said, “Oh, gee, if I’d known that, I would have changed my vote.” They didn’t want to know anything.

Insight: What do you mean when you say that it may have been Filegate that kept the senators from convicting Clinton?

DS: I don’t think that anybody in the White House or the president’s entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, “Look, we’ve got something on you and if you do this we’re going to out you,” but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn’t want made public. Who knows?
But everybody knew that if the president had it he would use it. There was always that sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.

Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?

DS: Filegate never was resolved. Never. And it probably never will be unless Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch breaks it. He had a lot of information that he was willing to furnish to us in connection with the impeachment had we been able to get into Filegate, and he was extremely unhappy when we were not allowed to get to it. I think Larry eventually may be the one to get to the bottom of it.

Insight: How else has the administration’s impunity undermined our national-security system? What about the 1997 case of Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly, the Navy intelligence officer whose eyes were burned when a Russian spy ship fired a laser at him, and the Clinton administration covered it up?

DS: They’ll say his injuries are not
service-connected.

Insight: That’s exactly what the Navy has been saying.

DS: The dirty bastards, and they know better! They don’t dare admit it, because then they’ll be admitting that the Russians committed a crime against humanity and an act of war.

Insight: Is there anything not in your book that you think should have been?

DS: Oh, yeah, some of the things I learned in the [Charles] Labella report [on campaign finance from the FBI], some of the things in the room that now are in the archives. I can’t go into specifics, but there’s a lot of material there that corroborated the theory that there was a massive obstruction of justice. There are an awful lot of leads that, had I had more concrete evidence of the kind we intended to get, would have led a hell of a lot more into Chinagate.
Also, I would have gone more into Filegate. And I would have gone into the matter of [late commerce secretary] Ron Brown and [Clinton/Gore fund-raiser and suspected Chinese spy] John Huang and those trips that were being sold on Commerce planes. There’s a lot more I would have gone into had we had more direct proof, but we were given no chance to get it.

Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?

DS: Time. And the leadership in the House. Right after the [1998] election, Henry Hyde was told, “You will finish this by the first of December and, if this goes on into the next Congress, you won’t get authorization; you won’t get more money for the investigation. We don’t want you to do any further investigation. You go with what you’ve got.” Which essentially was the Paula Jones case.
It was the leadership, though I don’t know who specifically talked to Hyde. He never told us. It had to be Gingrich, and after Gingrich resigned the shot was going to be called by whoever would succeed him. Then they got Livingston.

Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?

DS: Originally we were told that it wouldn’t come out of committee and that if it did come out of the committee they’d make sure that 40 Republicans came out against impeachment in the House. We asked that all the Republicans come over and look at what we had, hear the witnesses, see the evidence. We had 65 Republicans over, including a number who said they weren’t going to impeach. And, of those 65, all but one voted to impeach.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2018/11/20/schippers-exposes-impeachment-debacle-david-schippers-interview-by-insight-magazine-december-8-2000-democrat-schippers-book-sellout/

David Schippers interviewed by Sandy Rios of American Family Association.

“The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.”

https://afr.net/podcasts/sandy-rios-in-the-morning/2016/october/interview-with-david-schippers-chief-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-judiciary-committee/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David Schippers obituary, Part 2: ” fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies”, Fake News media rectifies

David Schippers obituary, Part 2: ” fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies”, Fake News media rectifies

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers  House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers

 

If you have read Fake News media reports regarding the House impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton or the obituary or legacy of David Schippers, you are likely reading a watered down, diminished or as Orwell put it “rectified” version of the facts.

Citizen Wells is the antidote for the Fake News media, aka Big Brother.

David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998.

“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”

“I.

There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by:

(A) Providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury;

(B) Withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and

(C) Tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.

The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a “cover story” to conceal their activities. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, at pp. 54-55, 234). On December 6, 1997, the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky’s name had appeared on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. (Clinton GJ, p. 84). He informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on December 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jonescase. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123;

M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). The President at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123). On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128).

Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place:

1) In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky

told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to

testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do

the same. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 127).

2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to

get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before

giving testimony in the Jones case. (Tripp 7/16/98 GJ,

p. 75; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 71).

3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false

and intentionally misleading affidavit to be

filed in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,

pp. 200-203).

4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft

affidavit to a third party for approval and

discussed changes calculated to mislead.

(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202).

5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone

on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would

give false and misleading answers to questions

about her job at the Pentagon. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,

p. 197).

6) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false

and misleading affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 203).

Conspirators intended to use the affidavit

to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.

(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer).

7) After Ms. Lewinsky’s name surfaced, conspirators

began to employ code names in their contacts. (M.L.

8/6/98 GJ, pp. 215-217).

8) On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the

President met at the White House and discussed

the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky

suggested that she conceal the gifts received

from the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).

9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal

secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of

the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ,

pp. 107-108; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-156).

10) Betty Currie hid the box of gifts under her bed

at home. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108;

Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58).

11) The President gave false answers to questions

contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.

(V2-DC-53; V2-DC-104).

12) On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the

suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft

notes to the President. (M.L. 8/1/98 OIC Interview,

p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in

the Jones case.

13) On January 17, 1998, the President’s attorney

produced Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at the President’s deposition and the President adopted it as true.

14) On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the

President gave false and misleading testimony

under oath concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him

and several other matters. (Clinton Dep., pp. 49-84;

M.L. 7/27/98 OIC Interview, pp. 12-15).

15) The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie,

to give a false and misleading account of the

Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.

(Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81).

16) The President narrated elaborate detailed

false accounts of his relationship with Monica

Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with

the intention that those false accounts would

be repeated in testimony. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ,

pp. 71-74, 81; Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pp. 88-92;

Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 49-51; Blumenthal 6/25/98

GJ, p. 8; Bowles 4/2/98 GJ, pp. 83-84;

Ickes 6/10/98 GJ, p. 73; Ickes 8/5/98 GJ, p. 88).

17) On August 17, 1998, the President gave false

and misleading testimony under oath to a

federal grand jury on the following points:

his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, his testimony

in the January 17, 1998 deposition, his

conversations with various individuals and

his knowledge of Ms. Lewinsky’s affidavit and its

falsity.”

Read more:

http://citizenwells.net/2016/08/30/david-p-schippers-results-of-analysis-and-review-house-judiciary-committee-october-5-1998-there-exists-substantial-and-credible-evidence-of-fifteen-separate-events-directly-involving-president-wil/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers

David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers

“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers

“Thank God for the life of David Schippers. He is a shining example for all Americans.”…Citizen Wells

 

If you are a Democrat, first get right with God and then follow the example of David Schippers, a man of principle.

The fake news media has covered his passing, but they have not reported how he exposed the Clintons. Citizen Wells will.

From Legacy Obituaries.

“David Phillip Schippers, Jr., age 88, a resident of Grayslake, passed away on Friday, September 28, 2018 at his home. He was born on November 4, 1929. David was an attorney for 59 years, a member of St. Gilbert Catholic Church and a lifelong White Sox fan. David is survived by his devoted wife, Jacquline, of 66 years. He is further survived by his 10 children, Kate Schippers (Michael Batka), David Schippers III ( Pat Connor), Tiyi Schippers (David Bunce), Ann Schippers Winter (Bob Winter), Colleen Schippers Margolis (Lou Margolis), Hon. Thomas Schippers (Carol), Kevin Schippers (Beth), Dr. Mimi Schippers ( Robert Scott Bullock, Marc Pagani), Patrick Schippers (Trisha), Peter Schippers (Dr. Laura Taylor); 26 grandchildren; and 29 great grandchildren.”

Read more:

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?n=david-phillip-schippers&pid=190355734&fhid=24620

From the Chicago SunTimes.

“David P. Schippers Jr., the Republican Party’s chief counsel in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died of pancreatic cancer Friday at 88 at his home in Grayslake.

In 1998, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appointed Mr. Schippers to be the committee’s chief investigator as it weighed whether to endorse the impeachment of Clinton.

After independent counsel Ken Starr had recommended 11 grounds for impeachment, including obstruction of justice and lying under oath, Mr. Schippers, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said there were at least 15.

“If you don’t impeach, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again,” he said. “The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.”

In December 1998, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, sending the question to the full House. Days later, for just the second time in history, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach a president–in this case, for misleading officials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

After a trial, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999, to acquit Clinton.

“In the U.S. Senate, politics trumped principles, and polls trumped honor,” Mr. Schippers said in a book he wrote with Alan P. Henry, “Sellout: the Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”

He felt “he had a solid case, and he didn’t think all of those people in the Senate were honoring their oath of office,” according to his son David. But his son said he also knew this: “You win some, you lose some.””

“He used to tell his kids, “Never bet against God, Notre Dame and the Democratic Party,” according to his son, who said, “After he got old and the Clinton impeachment, he said, ‘At least, I’m two out of three.’ ”

As a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the 1960s, Mr. Schippers headed an organized-crime division under then-U.S. Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan. He helped prosecute Sam Battaglia, a successor to Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. And his unit’s work led to a yearlong stay at the Cook County Jail for Giancana, sent there for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.”

Read more:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-attorney-david-schippers-a-key-figure-in-bill-clinton-impeachment-dies/

For the rest of the story, what fake news is not telling you, stay tuned.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley, 1984 reveals how censorship and language are used to control people today, Thought Criminals, Destruction of language, Rewriting history

Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley, 1984 reveals how censorship and language are used to control people today, Thought Criminals, Destruction of language, Rewriting history

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”

 

“1984” by George Orwell was being written while I was in my mother’s womb.

It was published shortly after I was born.

It was required reading in High School (Thank God).

“1984” reentered my life prominently in 2008 as the election cycle unfolded shortly after Citizen Wells began.

It had become abundantly clear that we had entered the age of Big Brother.

The vicious attacks of those labeled “Thought Criminals”, those asking any questions about Obama, the destruction of language and definitions (Natural Born Citizen) and the revision (rectification) of history were in my face, as if in the body of the protagonist, Winston Smith.

I immediately began quoting “1984” and still do almost every day of my life.

This should scare the hell out of every person on this planet.

And once again this morning, “Thought Criminal” Julian Assange.

From Zero Hedge November 16, 2018.

“Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley

One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.”

“But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley’s superiority can be dismantled.

Most importantly, Huxley’s main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through “entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies” is not actually absent in 1984.

In fact, Orwell’s view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and sophisticated than Huxley’s, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a parody of the naive “free love” notions of H.G.Wells.

While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, ‘anti-Sex’ is used to strengthen the hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left — and to a certain degree the Dissident Right — are the most undersexed.

Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell’s dystopian vision. While Brave New World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory Coffee, and Victory Tobacco — all highly addictive substances that affect people’s moods and reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:

The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the telescreens.

Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured with cloves, the speciality of the cafe…

In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.

But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing.

But most brilliant of all is Orwell’s prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed “thought crime,” to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their “Newspeak” dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.

Orwell’s insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley’s novel. The same can be said about Orwell’s treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today.

In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian empire. The concept of “three minutes hate” has so much resonance with our own age, where triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.

In Huxley’s book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed they are so clearly defined – in fact biologically so – that there is no conflict between them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean spheres.

In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself — a rational actor, controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled member of the British upper classes.

Orwell’s book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for it.”

Read More:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/why-orwell-superior-huxley

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Michelle Obama “Becoming” a bigger liar, Hillary campaign started birther movement, The Blaze gets Natural Born Citizen requirement wrong again, Awarded 2 Orwells, Winston Churchill eligible for POTUS?

Michelle Obama “Becoming” a bigger liar, Hillary campaign started birther movement, The Blaze gets Natural Born Citizen requirement wrong again, Awarded 2 Orwells, Winston Churchill eligible for POTUS?

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

The Blaze, Pat Gray, Glenn Beck, et al, quit listening to uninformed Bill O’Reilly and read the damned US Constitution and supporting documents.

The requirement for POTUS is Natural Born Citizen not Citizen!

You are misinforming your audience, following in lock step fake news media and in Orwellian fashion, creating a narrative that becomes history.

From The Blaze November 12, 2018.

“Michelle Obama will make money off ‘birther’ controversy — despite how much she claims to hate it

In her book, which goes on sale on Tuesday, Michelle wrote the following:

“The whole thing was crazy and mean-spirited, of course, its underlying bigotry and xenophobia hardly concealed. But it was also dangerous, deliberately meant to stir up the wingnuts and kooks. What if someone with an unstable mind loaded a gun and drove to Washington? What if that person went looking for our girls?

Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family’s safety at risk. And for this, I’d never forgive him.”

It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton’s campaign brought Barack Obama’s birth certificate to the forefront during the 2008 Democratic primary election.”

“Pat asserted that he did not care for the birther movement, calling it “ill-conceived” and saying that there was “nothing to it.”

Constitutionally speaking, even if the birth certificate released by Barack Obama had been a fake — a claim made by many people involved in the “birther” movement — he would still have been eligible to run for president because of his mother’s American citizenship.”

Read More:

https://www.theblaze.com/video/michelle-obama-will-make-money-off-birther-controversy-despite-how-much-she-claims-to-hate-it

So Pat Gray, are you saying that Winston Churchill would have been eligible for the US Presidency?

Churchill had an American mother and British father, just like Obama.

Pat Gray and The Blaze are awarded 2 Orwells.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Palmer Luckey thought criminal aka Trump Supporter fired by Facebook for opposing Hillary aka Big Brother, Donated $10,000 to an anti Hillary Clinton group

Palmer Luckey thought criminal aka Trump Supporter fired by Facebook for opposing Hillary aka Big Brother, Donated $10,000 to an anti Hillary Clinton group

“That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.”…George Orwell, 1984

“Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room.”
“the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically.”
“He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia.”
“There were also whispered stories of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies”
“In it’s second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices”… George Orwell “1984″

“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”

 

From the WSJ November 11, 2018.

“Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump

Palmer Luckey, co-founder of virtual-reality pioneer Oculus, was ousted after his political activity sparked a furor within the social-media giant and Silicon Valley”

“Facebook Inc. FB -1.97% executive and virtual-reality wunderkind Palmer Luckey was a rising star of Silicon Valley when, at the height of the 2016 presidential contest, he donated $10,000 to an anti-Hillary Clinton group.

His donation sparked a backlash from his colleagues. Six months later, he was out. Neither Facebook nor Mr. Luckey has ever said why he left the social-media giant. When testifying before Congress about data privacy earlier this year, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg denied the departure had anything to do with politics.

Mr. Luckey, it turns out, was put on leave, then fired, according to people familiar with the matter. More recently, he has told people the reason was his support for Donald Trump and the furor that his political beliefs sparked within Facebook and Silicon Valley, some of those people say.

Internal Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the donation simmered, Facebook executives including Mr. Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s yearslong support of Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the conversations and internal emails viewed by The Wall Street Journal.”

Read more:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-did-facebook-fire-a-top-executive-hint-it-had-something-to-do-with-trump-1541965245

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/