Worst enemy white liberals Malcolm X, Democrats Pelosi Shumer et al enemies of all Americans, Trump briefing on wall barrier with border patrol agents
“In December 2014 there were 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country who had arrived since January 2000. But job growth over this period was just 9.3 million — half of new immigration.”…Center for Immigration Studies February 2015
“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003
“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters.”…David Schippers
Malcolm X stated:
“The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.”
Liberals, aka Democrats, are the enemies of all Americans.
Anything goes in their personal/political agenda.
The end justifies the means.
I personally believe that Nancy Pelosi is mentally unstable.
And Chuck Shumer.
All they care about is opposing Trump, not the safety of the country.
From the Stars and Stripes.
“President Donald Trump has made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room, flanked by border patrol agents championing his demand for a wall on the U.S. southern border.
It’s the first time Trump has taken the podium in the briefing room.
Trump says the “people in our country want” the wall.”
“Trump is demanding that lawmakers provide billions of dollars for a border wall. The border agents who accompanied Trump told reporters the wall is essential to stopping illegal migration and drug-smuggling.”
From President Trump’s Cabinet Meeting earlier in the day.
“Every day, Border Patrol encounters roughly 2,000 illegal immigrants — I have to talk about this — trying to enter our country. Two thousand a day. And that’s a minimum. Every week, 300 Americans are killed by heroin, the vast majority of which comes across through our southern border. Our southern border is like a sieve. It just pours through our southern border. And unless we’re going to have physical barriers, it’s never going to be able to be stopped. Too much money is being made.
Last month, 20,000 minors were illegally smuggled into the United States. In the last two years, ICE officers arrested 235,000 criminals who were able to come in over the years through the United States. And we’re — we have a very tough border. I think you see that even last night, where people charged the border and tried to get through, but they couldn’t because we have a wall up. But tear gas was flying, and a lot of things were happening. And I guess, for the most part, you’ve seen it. It’s very sad.
If they knew they had a physical barrier, if they knew they had a wall, if they knew they had something that’s going to stop them, they would have never come up in the first place. When you see children getting sick, they get sick on the trail up. Very sick. It’s a terrible journey. It’s a horrible journey. And you read the things that go on in those caravans. And if they knew they couldn’t get through, they wouldn’t even start.”
What they learned in medical school could be ancient history, outdated principles.
The opioid crisis. Doctors bear some responsibility for that.
I am not anti vaccine.
I am anti stupid.
My position is somewhat compatible with Rand Paul’s.
Don’t bombard a tiny baby with multiple vaccinations.
ASK QUESTIONS.
From Dr. Rachael Ross.
“We all took an oath to first and foremost “Do No Harm.” It’s been difficult. Throughout my tenure as a physician, I have watched while our academy has pushed certain medication that we find years later has been causing more harm than good…that hurts.
I have witnessed the vaccine schedule grow from 16 doses of 4 vaccines from birth to six years old when I was a child, to the current recommendation of 49 doses of 14 vaccines between birth and age six, and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between birth and the age of eighteen….and we’ve been giving them on-time, sometimes five shots a day to help kids ‘catch-up’, and all without question. Medical school and residency taught us all to do so.
I guess I cant help but wonder if there’s a connection between the fact that when we had to give fewer vaccines we had fewer childhood diseases. It is only human to wonder. We had fewer learning disabilities, less asthma, less autism, and less diabetes. Autism in particular was 1 in 500 in the late seventies and it has now skyrocketed to 1 in 50. Why so many? Why so soon?
I am so sorry that I didn’t know that the government has paid out $3billion to families injured by vaccines through the VICP(Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). As a matter of fact, I assumed that all vaccines were very very safe. They have to be because we give them to everyone’s kids, right?!?? I am so sorry that I didn’t realize that there are tens of thousands of families on a list that have never received compensation because they couldn’t 100% prove that the vaccine created an injury (even though many of them can pinpoint the day and time that their babies’ lights dimmed).
And until recently, I had never heard of a CDC scientist/whistleblower named Dr. William Thompson (note, I can’t link to a story because even the article written in Forbes has been removed online). Dr Thompson was brave enough to come forward because his conscience was killing him. I feel like such an ignorant ASS to say the least.”
Mueller covering his ass too in phony Russian collusion narrative, Keeping heat off Clintons protected him, Robert Mueller over FBI when Hillary made uranium deal, On his watch
“As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.”…Wikileaks.org October 7, 2016
“An American businessman who worked for years undercover as an FBI confidential witness was blocked by the Obama Justice Department from telling Congress about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and influence Obama administration decisions”…The Hill October 18, 2017
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
Facts regarding the sale of uranium assets to the Russians orchestrated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office have been cogitating in my head for years.
I knew why Hillary wanted the phony Russian collusion narrative perpetuated.
To rationalize her loss in the 2016 election and to cover their ass.
I kept wondering why Robert Mueller was so zealous in his efforts.
And then it dawned on me.
Minimally, the uranium deal happened on his watch as head of the FBI.
I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn’s attorney has refused to submit it as well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally and internally.”
“Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch commented to me that the “Process is the punishment.” This is the most accurate description I have heard regarding the time Mike has gone through with this process and the year and a half I was ostracized and idled before I resigned. This process is one which many FBI employees, current, retired and former, feel was brought to the FBI by Mueller and he subsequently brought this to the Special Prosecutor investigation. It also fostered the behavior among FBI “leadership” which we find ourselves shocked at when revealed on a daily basis. Is this the proper way to seek justice? I say no. I swore to uphold the Constitution while protecting the civil rights of the American people. I believe many individuals involved in Mike’s case have lost their way and could care less about protection of due process, civil and legal rights of who they are targeting. Mike has had extensive punishment throughout this process. This process has punished him harder than anyone else could.”
“I believe I have a unique inside view of the mannerisms surrounding Andrew McCabe, other FBI Executive Management and Former Director Mueller, as well as the unethical and coercive tactics they use, not to seek the truth, but to coerce pleas or admissions to end the pain, as I call it. They destroy lives for their own agendas instead of seeking the truth for the American people. Candor is something that should be encouraged and used by leadership to have necessary and continued improvement. Under Mueller, it was seen as a threat and viciously opposed by those he pulled up in the chain of command.”
“Eight years after its informant uncovered criminal wrongdoing inside Russia’s nuclear industry, the FBI has identified 37 pages of documents that might reveal what agents told the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others about the controversial Uranium One deal.
There’s just one problem: The FBI claims it must keep the memos secret from the public.
Their excuses for the veil of nondisclosure range from protecting national security and law enforcement techniques to guarding the privacy of individual Americans and the ability of agencies to communicate with each other.
Sound familiar?”
“The FBI’s declaration and list of withheld documents — entitled simply “Uranium One Transaction” — were posted recently inside its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) online vault.”
“Campbell gathered extensive evidence for his FBI counterintelligence handlers by early 2010 that Rosatom’s main executive in the United States, Vadim Mikerin, orchestrated a racketeering plot involving kickbacks, bribes and extortion that corrupted the main uranium trucking company in the United States. That is a serious national security compromise by any measure.
The evidence was compiled as Secretary Clinton courted Russia for better relations, as her husband former President Clinton collected a $500,000 speech payday in Moscow, and as the Obama administration approved the sale of a U.S. mining company, Uranium One, to Rosatom.
The sale — made famous years later by author Peter Schweizer and an epic New York Times exposé in 2015 — turned over a large swath of America’s untapped uranium deposits to Russia.”
“Campbell tells me his FBI handlers assured him they had briefed Obama and then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, now the Russia special prosecutor, on Rosatom’s criminal activities as part of the president’s daily briefing and that agents suggested to him that “politics” was the reason the sale was allowed to go through.”
“Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Saturday special counsel Robert Mueller is trying to cover up his involvement with the Uranium One deal that benefited the Clintons while “trying to have a coup against the president.””
“Representative Louie Gohmer…”
The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.”
After arriving at my conclusions above, I found the following.
From WSAU.
“Holy Cow! DEEP STATE Goes after Uranium One Whistleblower
Robert Mueller actually colluded with the Russians
This is amazing and Deep State corruption at its worse. The Uranium One scandal is one of the main reasons why Robert Muller was appointed to investigate Donald Trump. They need to bring President Trump down to protect themselves.
FBI Raids Recognized Whistleblower’s Home for Clinton Foundation
Robert Mueller actually colluded with the Russians and allowed them to take control of about 20% of America’s Uranium. FACT! He was the head of the FBI and signed off on it. So did all the other department heads in the Obama administration. They all colluded with Russia.
Why would any of these people do that? The same people that are telling you, RIGHT NOW, that Russia is a major threat to America, gave Russia OUR Uranium. They are the same people who, RIGHT NOW, say if Trump even talked to Russians he should be locked up.
The logical conclusion is they did it because they were paid by the Russians. The Clinton foundation was a pay to play scheme. We all know it. It is why Hillary had a hidden private server. It is why Hillary deleted 30,000 subpoenaed emails illegally. It is why no one is being held accountable.
Robert Mueller is leading the special counsel because he has skin in the game.”
Clinton “foundation was not a charitable organization per se, but in point of fact was a closely held family partnership”, Lawerence Doyle testimony before congress
“The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, which reportedly expects to raise $200 million to build a library to help memorialize the ex-president’s legacy, is nothing more than a ‘slush fund,’”...Dick Morris, 2001
“Hillary: “If you want to talk about real evil, it’s her””…David Schippers
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
From Sara Carter.
“Financial Bounty Hunters Testify: Clinton Foundation Operated As Foreign Agent
The Clinton Foundation operated as a foreign agent ‘early in its life’ and ‘throughout it’s existence’ and did not operate as a 501c3 charitable foundation as required by its and is not entitled to its status as a nonprofit, alleged two highly qualified forensic investigators, accompanied by three other investigators, said in explosive testimony Thursday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
John Moynihan and Lawerence W. Doyle, both graduates of the Catholic Jesuit College of the Holy Cross and former expert forensic government investigators, gave their shocking testimony before congress based on a nearly two-year investigation into the foundation’s work both nationally and internationally. They were assisted by three other highly trained experts in taxation law and financial forensic investigations. The forensic investigators stressed that they obtained all the documentation on the foundation legally and through Freedom of Information Request Acts from the IRS and other agencies.
Former Utah U.S. Attorney General John Huber, who resigned when he was appointed by former Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the issues surrounding the approval to sell 20 percent of U.S. Uranium assets to Russia, declined to attend the hearing. Chairman Mark Meadows, R-NC, who oversaw the hearing stated that it was disappointing that Huber declined, leaving Congress in the dark regarding the DOJ’s investigation.
Investigations into the Clinton Foundation have always been plagued by politics but Moynihan wanted to make clear in his opening statement that this investigation was one of many his firm has conducted on nonprofits and had nothing to do with politics.
Doyle and Moynihan have amassed 6,000 documents in their nearly two-year investigation through their private firm MDA Analytics LLC. The documents were turned over more than a year and a half ago to the IRS, according to John Solomon, who first published the report last week in The Hill.
“The investigation clearly demonstrates that the foundation was not a charitable organization per se, but in point of fact was a closely held family partnership,” said Doyle, who formerly worked on Wall Street and has been involved with finance for the last ten years conducting investigations. “As such, it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance the personal interests of its principles as detailed within the financial analysis of this submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence section.”
At the onset of the hearing, Moynihan wanted to make perfectly clear that the intention to look into the Clinton Foundation was not political but based on their work with the firm.”
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 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.”
David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that every statement in this book is absolutely true and correct.”…David Schippers
Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!
Without the internet and citizen involvement in retrieving, saving and disseminating the truth, we would be kept in the dark about chicanery and corruption such as the Clintons were immersed in.
The Clintons rose to power in the bad old days of pre or minimal internet.
David Schippers was a life long Democrat, voted for Clinton twice but he was an honest, principled man.
He headed up the investigation of President Clinton to determine if impeachment proceedings were justified.
The answer was a resounding yes.
He also wrote a book, “Sellout” to tell the rest of the story about the Clintons and the proceedings for the House Judiciary Committee.
The Fake News Media has done their Orwellian best to create a narrative that the impeachment was only about a daliance with Monica Lewinsky.
David Schippers informed us that it was much more than that.
Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”
You will find next to nothing about his book “Sellout” or his investigation.
One of the interviews, from Insight Magazine, was saved by Citizen Wells and was found on Free Republic, saved by a conscientious citizen.
It has been put back up in searchable form. The interview follows:
“Insight: Did you seek the job to head the impeachment investigation?
DS: No. In January 1998 Chairman Hyde called me out of the clear blue sky. Initially, he asked me for help on oversight of a Justice Department matter. Then the Lewinsky issue broke. Hyde asked me if potentially, God forbid, it led to impeachment, would I be willing.
Insight: The White House wanted to make it look like your investigation was a prurient intrusion into Clinton’s private life. Is that so, or were there serious breaches of national security?
DS: After we saw the material assembled in the secure committee room, and after the House voted for the inquiry on Oct. 8, 1998, I went to Henry Hyde and said: “We are going to start a heavy investigation. We’re not going to touch Lewinsky; we’re going to look at Chinagate, Filegate and all the other -gates. I estimated that we wouldn’t be ready to file our findings until July or August 1999.
Insight: What did you think you were getting into with Chinagate?
DS: Prior to the inquiry, I had read the book Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake and William Triplett, and I realized that there was something there that had to be looked into. So the very first call I made after the House voted for the inquiry was to Timperlake and Triplett. And I asked if they’d cooperate and do the advance investigation because they had so much knowledge from the Senate investigation under Senator Fred Thompson [R-Tenn.]. They said, “We’ll not only help, we’ll work 24 hours a day.” China, to me, was the most dangerous part of the whole thing.
Insight: Why did the Thompson committee drop the ball on Chinagate?
DS: Timperlake and Triplett both had the same question. Nobody seemed to know. We were reaching out for more information, and we were told, “Stop, it’s over.” Little did I realize the frustration we would be facing within a month.
Insight: What kind of job did the House commission led by Rep. Christopher Cox of California do in investigating the Chinagate issues?
DS: Oh, Cox and his colleagues did a good job, but it’s all still classified and nobody can get at it. Cox made clear that he was aware U.S. security had been seriously compromised but he couldn’t go into the specifics because of the security issue.
Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?
DS: The Democrats always were friendly; they always were affable.
Insight: And the Republicans?
DS: Majority Leader Dick Armey was on our side 100 percent. But others in the Republican leadership, House Speaker Newt Gingrich in particular, were a problem for us. We would have meetings with Gingrich and reach an agreement, “We’re going to do it this way,” but by the time we’d get back to our offices he would be with Minority Leader Richard Gephardt doing exactly the opposite.
Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?
DS: Our original plan was not to make anything public, to keep it under the tightest security, until we made our reports. But it was Gephardt and Gingrich who decided they were going to let out all the crap. Unfortunately most of it was that sex stuff the media immediately fastened on to send up the battle cry that “It’s only about sex.”
Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?
DS: Had it not gone to the media, and had I been able to list 15 felonies, you’d have seen almost no sex in it. It was the felonies on which we focused.
Insight: What about the impeachment committee? Did they release information improperly?
DS: Not Henry Hyde, not the members of the committee. And they fought like tigers. Hyde constantly was pressing the leadership, trying to get them to do things the right way. We originally arranged it so only the members of the committee could get into the room and view the evidence; Gingrich could not get in there until much later. We had an ultrasecure room with ultrasecure evidence, no leaks coming out. Then, in that two weeks [after the House leadership authorized the release of the sex-scandal material], everybody was having a feeding frenzy on all that garbage.
Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?
DS: Oh, yes. They were the ones who against our wishes put out [President Clinton’s] grand-jury testimony. Never mind that the deposition [to Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] was more useful. First, it was shorter; second, it contained many more lies, more provable lies.
Insight: But the sex issue obscured the damage to U.S. national security.
DS: The whole national-security dimension was lost. The entire matter of the fact that he [Clinton] was committing perjury, obstructions and all that — that was lost. The Filegate thing was lost, everything we intended to get into.
We were going into the committee vote on the impeachment articles. I had thought the strongest article was abuse of the Office of the President. Another of the abuses was that Citizenship USA matter, where the administration had politicized everything and used everything at its disposal. An amendment passed that completely emasculated that article, which meant that we would lose it, and we did lose it.
Insight: Did you have any idea the Senate would respond the way it did to the impeachment articles?
DS: No way. When we finished in the House — the managers, the staff and myself — we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word “sex” they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.
We had four to five weeks’ worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the truth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.
That’s why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, “You’re not going to dump that garbage on us.” Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.
Insight: Why did you get that response?
DS: I was shocked because I thought things were on the square. I thought that when a senator took the oath to give equal and impartial justice that he would do that. But it was completely partisan. The Democrats were adamant that the evidence not be produced, and the Republicans did not have the courage to fight them.
The ultimate failure of Republican courage in the Senate was absolutely sickening. They just let the Democrats run roughshod.
Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?
DS: They had a stand-up crew. The discipline in the Democratic Party was absolutely remarkable. I don’t know if it was because of Filegate or what. On the committee in the House, once members saw all the evidence, we expected to pick up four or five of the committee Democrats and vote to impeach. But even in the Senate the only one who broke was Senator [Russell] Feingold [of Wisconsin] who voted against the motion to dismiss. He broke with the party and voted his conscience on that.
Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?
DS: I think they wanted to be in the position to say, like Senator [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa] said, “Oh, gee, if I’d known that, I would have changed my vote.” They didn’t want to know anything.
Insight: What do you mean when you say that it may have been Filegate that kept the senators from convicting Clinton?
DS: I don’t think that anybody in the White House or the president’s entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, “Look, we’ve got something on you and if you do this we’re going to out you,” but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn’t want made public. Who knows?
But everybody knew that if the president had it he would use it. There was always that sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.
Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?
DS: Filegate never was resolved. Never. And it probably never will be unless Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch breaks it. He had a lot of information that he was willing to furnish to us in connection with the impeachment had we been able to get into Filegate, and he was extremely unhappy when we were not allowed to get to it. I think Larry eventually may be the one to get to the bottom of it.
Insight: How else has the administration’s impunity undermined our national-security system? What about the 1997 case of Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly, the Navy intelligence officer whose eyes were burned when a Russian spy ship fired a laser at him, and the Clinton administration covered it up?
DS: They’ll say his injuries are not
service-connected.
Insight: That’s exactly what the Navy has been saying.
DS: The dirty bastards, and they know better! They don’t dare admit it, because then they’ll be admitting that the Russians committed a crime against humanity and an act of war.
Insight: Is there anything not in your book that you think should have been?
DS: Oh, yeah, some of the things I learned in the [Charles] Labella report [on campaign finance from the FBI], some of the things in the room that now are in the archives. I can’t go into specifics, but there’s a lot of material there that corroborated the theory that there was a massive obstruction of justice. There are an awful lot of leads that, had I had more concrete evidence of the kind we intended to get, would have led a hell of a lot more into Chinagate.
Also, I would have gone more into Filegate. And I would have gone into the matter of [late commerce secretary] Ron Brown and [Clinton/Gore fund-raiser and suspected Chinese spy] John Huang and those trips that were being sold on Commerce planes. There’s a lot more I would have gone into had we had more direct proof, but we were given no chance to get it.
Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?
DS: Time. And the leadership in the House. Right after the [1998] election, Henry Hyde was told, “You will finish this by the first of December and, if this goes on into the next Congress, you won’t get authorization; you won’t get more money for the investigation. We don’t want you to do any further investigation. You go with what you’ve got.” Which essentially was the Paula Jones case.
It was the leadership, though I don’t know who specifically talked to Hyde. He never told us. It had to be Gingrich, and after Gingrich resigned the shot was going to be called by whoever would succeed him. Then they got Livingston.
Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?
DS: Originally we were told that it wouldn’t come out of committee and that if it did come out of the committee they’d make sure that 40 Republicans came out against impeachment in the House. We asked that all the Republicans come over and look at what we had, hear the witnesses, see the evidence. We had 65 Republicans over, including a number who said they weren’t going to impeach. And, of those 65, all but one voted to impeach.”
David Schippers interviewed by Sandy Rios of American Family Association.
“The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.”
David Schippers obituary, Part 2: ” fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies”, Fake News media rectifies
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers
If you have read Fake News media reports regarding the House impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton or the obituary or legacy of David Schippers, you are likely reading a watered down, diminished or as Orwell put it “rectified” version of the facts.
Citizen Wells is the antidote for the Fake News media, aka Big Brother.
David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998.
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”
“I.
There is substantial and credible evidence that the President may have been part of a conspiracy with Monica Lewinsky and others to obstruct justice and the due administration of justice by:
(A) Providing false and misleading testimony under oath in a civil deposition and before the grand jury;
(B) Withholding evidence and causing evidence to be withheld and concealed; and
(C) Tampering with prospective witnesses in a civil lawsuit and before a federal grand jury.
The President and Ms. Lewinsky had developed a “cover story” to conceal their activities. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, at pp. 54-55, 234). On December 6, 1997, the President learned that Ms. Lewinsky’s name had appeared on the Jones v. Clinton witness list. (Clinton GJ, p. 84). He informed Ms. Lewinsky of that fact on December 17, 1997, and the two agreed that they would employ the same cover story in the Jonescase. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123;
M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer). The President at that time suggested that an affidavit might be enough to prevent Ms. Lewinsky from testifying. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123). On December 19, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky was subpoenaed to give a deposition in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 128).
Thereafter, the record tends to establish that the following events took place:
1) In the second week of December, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky
told Ms. Tripp that she would lie if called to
testify and tried to convince Ms. Tripp to do
the same. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 127).
2) Ms. Lewinsky attempted on several occasions to
get Ms. Tripp to contact the White House before
giving testimony in the Jones case. (Tripp 7/16/98 GJ,
p. 75; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 71).
3) Ms. Lewinsky participated in preparing a false
and intentionally misleading affidavit to be
filed in the Jones case. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,
pp. 200-203).
4) Ms. Lewinsky provided a copy of the draft
affidavit to a third party for approval and
discussed changes calculated to mislead.
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 200-202).
5) Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked by phone
on January 6, 1998, and agreed that she would
give false and misleading answers to questions
about her job at the Pentagon. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ,
p. 197).
6) On January 7, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky signed the false
and misleading affidavit. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 203).
Conspirators intended to use the affidavit
to avoid Ms. Lewinsky’s giving a deposition.
(M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 122-123; M.L. 2/1/98 Proffer).
7) After Ms. Lewinsky’s name surfaced, conspirators
began to employ code names in their contacts. (M.L.
8/6/98 GJ, pp. 215-217).
8) On December 28, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky and the
President met at the White House and discussed
the subpoena she had received. Ms. Lewinsky
suggested that she conceal the gifts received
from the President. (M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, p. 152).
9) Shortly thereafter, the President’s personal
secretary, Betty Currie, picked up a box of
the gifts from Ms. Lewinsky. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ,
pp. 107-108; M.L. 8/6/98 GJ, pp. 154-156).
10) Betty Currie hid the box of gifts under her bed
at home. (Currie 5/6/98 GJ, pp. 107-108;
Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 57-58).
11) The President gave false answers to questions
contained in Interrogatories in the Jones case.
(V2-DC-53; V2-DC-104).
12) On December 31, 1997, Ms. Lewinsky, at the
suggestion of a third party, deleted 50 draft
notes to the President. (M.L. 8/1/98 OIC Interview,
p. 13). She had already been subpoenaed in
the Jones case.
13) On January 17, 1998, the President’s attorney
produced Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at the President’s deposition and the President adopted it as true.
14) On January 17, 1998, in his deposition, the
President gave false and misleading testimony
under oath concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky about the gifts she had given him
and several other matters. (Clinton Dep., pp. 49-84;
M.L. 7/27/98 OIC Interview, pp. 12-15).
15) The President, on January 18, 1998, and thereafter, coached his personal secretary, Betty Currie,
to give a false and misleading account of the
Lewinsky relationship if called to testify.
(Currie 1/27/98 GJ, pp. 71-74, 81).
16) The President narrated elaborate detailed
false accounts of his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky to prospective witnesses with
the intention that those false accounts would
be repeated in testimony. (Currie 1/27/98 GJ,
pp. 71-74, 81; Podesta 6/16/98 GJ, pp. 88-92;
Blumenthal 6/4/98 GJ, pp. 49-51; Blumenthal 6/25/98
David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers
“Thank God for the life of David Schippers. He is a shining example for all Americans.”…Citizen Wells
If you are a Democrat, first get right with God and then follow the example of David Schippers, a man of principle.
The fake news media has covered his passing, but they have not reported how he exposed the Clintons. Citizen Wells will.
From Legacy Obituaries.
“David Phillip Schippers, Jr., age 88, a resident of Grayslake, passed away on Friday, September 28, 2018 at his home. He was born on November 4, 1929. David was an attorney for 59 years, a member of St. Gilbert Catholic Church and a lifelong White Sox fan. David is survived by his devoted wife, Jacquline, of 66 years. He is further survived by his 10 children, Kate Schippers (Michael Batka), David Schippers III ( Pat Connor), Tiyi Schippers (David Bunce), Ann Schippers Winter (Bob Winter), Colleen Schippers Margolis (Lou Margolis), Hon. Thomas Schippers (Carol), Kevin Schippers (Beth), Dr. Mimi Schippers ( Robert Scott Bullock, Marc Pagani), Patrick Schippers (Trisha), Peter Schippers (Dr. Laura Taylor); 26 grandchildren; and 29 great grandchildren.”
“David P. Schippers Jr., the Republican Party’s chief counsel in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died of pancreatic cancer Friday at 88 at his home in Grayslake.
In 1998, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appointed Mr. Schippers to be the committee’s chief investigator as it weighed whether to endorse the impeachment of Clinton.
After independent counsel Ken Starr had recommended 11 grounds for impeachment, including obstruction of justice and lying under oath, Mr. Schippers, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said there were at least 15.
“If you don’t impeach, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again,” he said. “The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.”
In December 1998, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, sending the question to the full House. Days later, for just the second time in history, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach a president–in this case, for misleading officials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
After a trial, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999, to acquit Clinton.
“In the U.S. Senate, politics trumped principles, and polls trumped honor,” Mr. Schippers said in a book he wrote with Alan P. Henry, “Sellout: the Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”
He felt “he had a solid case, and he didn’t think all of those people in the Senate were honoring their oath of office,” according to his son David. But his son said he also knew this: “You win some, you lose some.””
“He used to tell his kids, “Never bet against God, Notre Dame and the Democratic Party,” according to his son, who said, “After he got old and the Clinton impeachment, he said, ‘At least, I’m two out of three.’ ”
As a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the 1960s, Mr. Schippers headed an organized-crime division under then-U.S. Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan. He helped prosecute Sam Battaglia, a successor to Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. And his unit’s work led to a yearlong stay at the Cook County Jail for Giancana, sent there for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.”
Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley, 1984 reveals how censorship and language are used to control people today, Thought Criminals, Destruction of language, Rewriting history
“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984”
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“”You’re a traitor!” yelled the boy. “You’re a thought criminal!””…George Orwell, “1984”
“1984” by George Orwell was being written while I was in my mother’s womb.
It was published shortly after I was born.
It was required reading in High School (Thank God).
“1984” reentered my life prominently in 2008 as the election cycle unfolded shortly after Citizen Wells began.
It had become abundantly clear that we had entered the age of Big Brother.
The vicious attacks of those labeled “Thought Criminals”, those asking any questions about Obama, the destruction of language and definitions (Natural Born Citizen) and the revision (rectification) of history were in my face, as if in the body of the protagonist, Winston Smith.
I immediately began quoting “1984” and still do almost every day of my life.
This should scare the hell out of every person on this planet.
And once again this morning, “Thought Criminal” Julian Assange.
From Zero Hedge November 16, 2018.
“Why Orwell Is Superior To Huxley
One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.”
“But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley’s superiority can be dismantled.
Most importantly, Huxley’s main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through “entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies” is not actually absent in 1984.
In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called “PornSec,” which mass produces porn for the Proles. One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford’s film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be ‘repurposed’ as porn.
In fact, Orwell’s view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and sophisticated than Huxley’s, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a parody of the naive “free love” notions of H.G.Wells.
While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, ‘anti-Sex’ is used to strengthen the hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left — and to a certain degree the Dissident Right — are the most undersexed.
Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell’s dystopian vision. While Brave New World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory Coffee, and Victory Tobacco — all highly addictive substances that affect people’s moods and reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:
The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the telescreens.
Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured with cloves, the speciality of the cafe…
In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.
But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing.
But most brilliant of all is Orwell’s prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed “thought crime,” to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their “Newspeak” dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.
Orwell’s insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley’s novel. The same can be said about Orwell’s treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today.
In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian empire. The concept of “three minutes hate” has so much resonance with our own age, where triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.
In Huxley’s book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed they are so clearly defined – in fact biologically so – that there is no conflict between them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean spheres.
In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself — a rational actor, controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled member of the British upper classes.
Orwell’s book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for it.”
Michelle Obama “Becoming” a bigger liar, Hillary campaign started birther movement, The Blaze gets Natural Born Citizen requirement wrong again, Awarded 2 Orwells, Winston Churchill eligible for POTUS?
“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND
“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
The Blaze, Pat Gray, Glenn Beck, et al, quit listening to uninformed Bill O’Reilly and read the damned US Constitution and supporting documents.
The requirement for POTUS is Natural Born Citizen not Citizen!
You are misinforming your audience, following in lock step fake news media and in Orwellian fashion, creating a narrative that becomes history.
From The Blaze November 12, 2018.
“Michelle Obama will make money off ‘birther’ controversy — despite how much she claims to hate it
In her book, which goes on sale on Tuesday, Michelle wrote the following:
“The whole thing was crazy and mean-spirited, of course, its underlying bigotry and xenophobia hardly concealed. But it was also dangerous, deliberately meant to stir up the wingnuts and kooks. What if someone with an unstable mind loaded a gun and drove to Washington? What if that person went looking for our girls?
Donald Trump, with his loud and reckless innuendos, was putting my family’s safety at risk. And for this, I’d never forgive him.”
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton’s campaign brought Barack Obama’s birth certificate to the forefront during the 2008 Democratic primary election.”
“Pat asserted that he did not care for the birther movement, calling it “ill-conceived” and saying that there was “nothing to it.”
Constitutionally speaking, even if the birth certificate released by Barack Obama had been a fake — a claim made by many people involved in the “birther” movement — he would still have been eligible to run for president because of his mother’s American citizenship.”
Citizen WElls 