Category Archives: Politics

Politics

Obama corrupts US Justice Department Chicago style, Tony West promotion classic Obama pay to play, West and USDOJ complicit with Obama hiding records and eligibility

Obama corrupts US Justice Department Chicago style, Tony West promotion classic Obama pay to play, West and USDOJ complicit with Obama hiding records and eligibility

“Now, I don’t get upset when foreign and national journalists fail to mention Tony Rezko, or the Daley boys, or how the Chicago machine plans to staff the Department of Justice, and the new Department of Homeland Casinos.”…John Kass, Chicago Tribune July 30, 2008

“Why were attorneys and law firms the largest contributing industry to the Obama campaign in 2008?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, including Tony West, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

You were warned.

Beginning in 2008, and especially with the revelations from the Tony Rezko trial, you were warned that Obama would bring his Chicago Pay to Play Politics to Washington, DC.

It has happened. In one of the worst possible places.

The US Justice Department.

One of the latest and best examples is the promotion of Tony West in the USDOJ.

First, a little background on Tony West.

From CNN November 12, 2008.

“Tony West – Friend of Barack Obama – Part One”

“But West is also known as a friend of President-Elect Barack Obama. West met Obama in 2004 and offered to help him should he elect to run for President. When Obama did, he called West and thus began West’s role as Chair of the fundraising committee for Northern California. It also started a round of basketball between the two that’s gone well enough for Obama to give West a pair of his shoes to wear for games.”

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-146599

From the Washington Post.

“Pundits speculated that Derek Anthony “Tony” West’s political career ended when he took on “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh as a client. He was a successful lawyer, working as a partner at the San Francisco firm of Morrison & Foerster, and he had lost two difficult campaigns in the previous four years.

But West didn’t have to be elected to become President Barack Obama’s assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division – just confirmed by the Senate. He now heads the DOJ office charged with defending the federal government in litigation. West has made a career out of handling complex legal issues in criminal and civil trials as well as during negotiations.

West, who is a part of a power family in California, has known Obama since 2004, and he was a top fundraiser for Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He was finance co-chair of Obama’s California campaign, where the then-senator raised a record total of $65 million.

Now, West is the lead attorney on the federal lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law, which allows law enforcement officials to question anyone they reasonably suspect of being illegal immigrants.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tony-west/gIQAthay9O_topic.html

From Citizen Wells March 12, 2012.

“A former Justice Department attorney who blew the whistle on his
department’s policies is now questioning the promotion of a former defense
attorney for an American terrorist to the No. 3 spot at the Justice
Department — specifically charged with crafting U.S. policy on Guantanamo
detainees.

J. Christian Adams, once an elections lawyer who accused the Justice
Department of racial bias in its decision to not prosecute a voter
intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, said Tony West’s
promotion from assistant attorney general for the Civil Division to acting
associate attorney general is one more step toward letting radicals run the
Justice Department.”
“”Tony West took on, and his firm, took some of the most radical causes for
America’s enemies before coming to the Justice Department,” he said.
“When he took on the representation of John Walker Lindh, even after the
sentencing, he was out shilling for him. He said things like … ‘I think
he’ll have a lot to offer after he gets out of jail.’ I mean, what is he
going to have to offer after when he gets out of jail? How to endear
yourself to prominent Democrat lawyers? I mean there’s no reason to be
talking like that.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/tony-west-obama-usdoj-eligibility-attorney-promoted-al-qaeda-terrorist-john-walker-lindh-defense-attorney-west-helped-obama-keep-records-hidden-fox-continues-coverup-of-eligibility-issues/

Consider the following timeline.

  • Beginning in January 2009, when Obama took control of the White House and Justice Department, he began using USDOJ attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to prevent his birth, college and other records from being released. Prior to then Obama used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie to keep his records hidden. Tony West is one of those USDOJ attorneys. See list below.
  • On January 21, 2009 retired Naval Commander Charles Kerchner, represented by attorney Mario Appuzo, filed a lawsuit against Barack Obama challenging his eligibility for the presidency. “Obama has sealed most of his important documents that would shed light on his true identity and the main stream media has not challenged him as to why he did so.”
  • The case was subsequently appealed. A response was given by USDOJ attorneys on March 8, 2010. Tony West was listed at the top of the list. “Plaintiffs’
    alleged grievances regarding President Obama’s constitutional
    qualifications reflect a generalized interest in the proper
    administration of the law “shared by all the American people,”
    App. 10, not a concrete injury particular to plaintiffs. The
    Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article III standing may
    not be predicated on such injury. Plaintiffs’ attempts to
    aggrandize their harms, based on oaths they have taken to support
    to the Constitution, their heightened interest in constitutional
    principles, or the possibility of future military service, fail.”
  • Tony West appeared before the House Judiciary committee on June 24, 2010. “One of this Subcommittee’s duties and obligations is to oversee the activities of the various components of the Department of Justice over which the Subcommittee has jurisdiction.” “I thank Assistant Attorney General Tony West of California and points west, the head of the Civil Division, for appearing before us today and to report on the division’s recent activities.” As you can already see, this is like questioning the fox on recent activity in the hen house.
  • Mr. West made a number of statements that you will find interesting:”Since assuming this position in April 2009, I have focused on three main priorities for the Civil Division: Protecting the American people, protecting taxpayer dollars, and protecting the Nation’s consumers.””The Civil Division is vigorously defending the Affordable Care Act health care reform statute against multiple lawsuits brought on constitutional and other grounds.””The President has pledged to make this Administration the most open and transparent in history, and the department is doing its part to make that pledge a reality.”  Read more below.
  • On September 20, 2012 Obama nominated Tony West to be the full time number 3 position in the USDOJ.

Anybody see a problem here? A conflict of interest!

Chicago Pay to Play Politics.

Obama’s use of Tony West, a friend and fundraiser, to assist him, in cooperation with other USDOJ attorneys, in eligibility lawsuits and in keeping his records hidden, is a clear conflict of interest. This was further exacerbated by West representing the USDOJ before the House Judiciary Committee on June 24, 2010. Obama’s nomination of Tony West to a full time position as the number 3 position in the USDOJ is a clear case of Obama’s continued Chicago pay to play politics of reward your crony, put them in a power position and use them to protect and further your agenda.

Our checks and balances have been destroyed by the Obama camp. We no longer have a viable US Justice Department. Congress and the Judiciary Committee have failed to do their job and we have the most corrupt person ever to occupy the White House.

We cannot immediately remove members of congress or the Judiciary Committee, but we can contact them, voice our disgust and let them know that history will not view them kindly. The members of the Judiciary Committee can be found in the document below.

References

USDOJ attorneys complicit with Obama.

“Here is a list of some of the US Justice Department attorneys who have assisted Obama in keeping his records hidden. Their representation of Obama is a matter of public record. This list does not include the support staffs.

Eric Fleisig-Greene

Elizabeth A. Pascal

Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General

R. CraiG Lawrence

Mark B. Stern

Andre Birotte Jr.

Leon W. Weidman

David A. Dejute

Roger E. West

George S. Cardona

Tony West

Paul J. Fishman”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/obama-attorneys-unholy-alliance-obama-and-his-attorneys-subvert-constitution-and-justice-obama-protected-from-lawsuits-and-corruption-prosecution/

Tony West USDOJ attorneys response to CDR Charles Kerchner, Mario Appuzo appeal of Obama eligibility challenge March 8, 2010.

Tony West appearance before House Judiciary hearing.

Advertisements

Obama vs Santorum matchup would be good for the country, Kyle Scott, Political science professor, Duke University, Santorum message consistent with core Republican values

Obama vs Santorum matchup would be good for the country, Kyle Scott, Political science professor, Duke University, Santorum message consistent with core Republican values

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“He (Rick Santorum) had no problems with what I told him that I may be doing,”… Sheriff Joe Arpaio 

By  Kyle Scott, Political Science Professor at Duke University, and published in the Baltimore Sun February 14, 2012.

“An Obama-Santorum matchup would be good for the country
Obama vs. Santorum is the only contest where real issues would be the focus”

“Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee — until he wasn’t.

In order to sustain a lead, a candidate’s message must resonate with the heart and the mind. Mr. Romney’s cakewalk to the nomination has been stymied by the inability to get anyone excited about his campaign. He has supporters but not believers.

Rick Santorum’s message resonates with voters’ hearts and minds (this week at least), because he is a true believer. He believes in his message, and his message is consistent with core Republican values. What gave Mr. Santorum the edge in Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri can give him an edge in the general election against President Barack Obama.

Mr. Santorum speaks directly to issues that are most relevant to core Republicans. He focuses on social and cultural issues that evoke emotions, and emotions move people to vote, especially those who align themselves with a particular party. This has helped him do well in primaries and caucuses when core conservatives turn out to vote in greater numbers than independents.

Conventional wisdom states a candidate must win independents to win an election. But this is only true if independents show up to vote in large numbers.

Generally, independents are less likely to vote than party-identifiers. In 2008, Mr. Obama’s message and charisma evoked an emotional response from independents. But with the president failing to meet the expectations of many whom he energized in 2008, turnout among this bloc of voters is expected to be small in 2012, which means winning independents will be less important.

When independents stay at home, getting the party base to turn out becomes more important. Mr. Santorum has been able to do this, and Mr. Romney has not.

What pushed Mr. Santorum to the front in the most recent contests — and vaulted him into a tie with Mr. Romney in at least one national poll — was his ability to stay above the bickering and negativity that took place between Mr. Romney and Newt Gingrich. Mr. Santorum is not as susceptible to personal attacks, as he seems to have a clean personal life, as far as we know. This means to attack Mr. Santorum, one must attack his policy positions. This cannot be done in the GOP nomination process because to attack Mr. Santorum’s policy positions would be to attack the Republican platform.

This wouldn’t stop the president from criticizing Mr. Santorum’s policy positions in the general election, but it also means we would see a campaign in which policy would have to be discussed in a meaningful way. Could we be so lucky?

If Mr. Gingrich wins the nomination, the Obama campaign will go after his personal life and his over-the-top persona. If Mr. Romney wins the right to go up against the president, the focus will be on his tax returns, flip-flopping and his work at Bain Capital.

But if Mr. Santorum wins the nomination, he and the president will be forced to defend their respective parties’ views of what good government entails and which policies are best for the country. In other words, an Obama-Santorum matchup will focus on things that actually matter.

An election about issues is what this country needs. It may be too much to hope for, but it is a prospect we should all get excited about. To win the GOP nomination, Mr. Santorum must find a way to keep his campaign positive and issue-focused. Not only will it help him win the nomination, but it is the right thing to do.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-santorum-20120214,0,4766981.story

 

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 1

Obama GA ballot challenge, Natural born citizen status, Judge Michael Malihi, Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?, Part 1

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”…Barack Obama

“Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama. The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics. Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds. This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”…Jill Hazelbaker, McCain campaign communications director

“Sen. Obama (IL) opted out of the public financing program for the general election. Primary matching fund payouts in 2008 were the lowest since the inception of the presidential election public funding program in 1976.”…FEC website

Why did Obama refuse matching funds in 2008?

Part 1

To Judge Michael Malihi , presiding judge of the Obama GA ballot challenge, members of congress, presidential candidates and other interested Americans. This multi part series on facts regarding Obama refusing Federal Matching Funds in 2008 will raise reasonable doubts about Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.

From Politico February 07, 2007.

“Obama Wants Public Financing Option

My colleague Ken Vogel emails that the reports today that Obama has opted out of public financing aren’t quite right.

Vogel writes:

Contrary to media reports today, Sen. Barack Obama is trying to leave open the option of accepting public financing for his expected presidential bid.

Obama, D-Ill., last week asked the Federal Election Commission whether he could raise contributions that would disqualify him from receiving public financing, but return them later if he decided he wanted to receive taxpayer money for his campaign.

Obama’s question, tendered in the form of a request for an advisory opinion, is a new one for the Commission, which is expected to post the request on its Web site Wednesday afternoon. (UPDATE: Here it is now(.pdf).)

The request lays out the following scenario: Obama’s campaign would accept contributions for both the primary and general elections, but then return the general election contributions later if the Republican nominee agreed to accept public financing. The public financing system provides taxpayer dollars to candidates who abide by restrictions on how much they can raise.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0207/Obama_Wants_Public_Financing_Option.html

From ABC News June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

The Obama campaign disputes this. Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama spox Bill Burton, Potter “immediately made it clear there was no basis for further discussion,” that they weren’t interested in any sort of agreement.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

Judge Michael Malihi, et al,

Why did Obama break his promise to use Federal Matching Funds?

For those paying attention, the answer is obvious.

More to come.

The Corruption of America, Porter Stansberry, America is in decline, Americans Are Getting Poorer Fast, Entitlement root of many serious cultural problems

The Corruption of America, Porter Stansberry, America is in decline, Americans Are Getting Poorer Fast, Entitlement root of many serious cultural problems

The following are exerpts from a well written article by Porter Stansberry on many of the economic and social woes of America. The full article is worthy of your time.

The Corruption of America

“Why I’m still bullish on America
By: Porter Stansberry
The numbers tell us America is in decline… if not outright collapse.

I say “the numbers tell us” because I’ve become very sensitive to the impact this kind of statement has on people. When I warned about the impending
bankruptcy of General Motors in 2006 and 2007, readers actually blamed me for the company’s problems – as if my warnings to the public were the real problem, rather than GM’s $400 billion in debt.

The claim was absurd. But the resentment my work engendered was real.

So please… before you read this issue, which makes several arresting claims about the future of our country… understand I am only writing about the facts
as I find them today. I am only drawing conclusions based on the situation as it stands. I am not saying that these conditions can’t improve. Or that they
won’t improve.

The truth is, I am optimistic. I believe our country is heading into a crisis. But I also believe that… sooner or later… Americans will make the right
choices and put our country back on sound footing.

Please pay careful attention to the data I cite. And please send me corrections to the facts. I will happily publish any correction that can be
substantiated. But please don’t send me threats, accusations against my character, or baseless claims about my lack of patriotism. If I didn’t love our
country, none of these facts would bother me. I wouldn’t have bothered writing this letter.

I know this is a politically charged and emotional issue. My conclusions will not be easy for most readers to accept. Likewise, many of the things I am
writing about this month will challenge my subscribers to re-examine what they believe about their country. The facts about America today tell a painful
story about a country in a steep decline, beset by problems of its own making.

One last point, before we begin… I realize that this kind of macro-economic/political analysis is not, primarily, what you pay me for. You rightly expect me to provide you with investment opportunities – whether bull market, bear market, or total societal collapse. And that’s what I’ve done every month for more than 15 years.

But that’s not what I’ve done this month. You won’t find any investment ideas at all in these pages. This issue is unlike any other I have ever written.

I’m sure it will spark a wave of cancellations – costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I fear it will spark a tremendous amount of controversy. Many
people will surely accuse me of deliberately writing inflammatory things in order to stir the pot and gain attention. That’s not my intention. The truth is,
I’ve gone to great lengths throughout my career to protect my privacy.

I am speaking out now because I believe someone must. And I have the resources to do it. I am sharing these ideas with my subscribers because I know we have arrived at the moment of a long-brewing crisis.

Our political leaders, our business leaders, and our cultural leaders have made a series of catastrophic choices. The result has been a long decline in
America’s standard of living.

For decades, we have papered over these problems with massive amounts of borrowing. But now, our debts total close to 400% of GDP, and America is the world’s largest borrower (after being the world’s largest creditor only 40 years ago)… And the holes in our society can no longer be hidden…

We’ve reached the point where we will have to fix what lies at the heart of America’s decline… or be satisfied with a vastly lower standard of living in
the future.

How do I know? How do I statistically define the decline of America?

The broadest measure of national wealth is per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). Economists use this figure to judge standards of living around the world.
It shows the value of the country’s annual production divided by the number of its citizens. No, the production isn’t actually divided among all the
citizens, but this measure provides us with a fair benchmark to compare different economies around the world. Likewise, this measure shows the growth (or the decline) in wealth in societies across time.

So… is America growing richer or poorer based on per-capita GDP? Seems like a simple enough question, doesn’t it? Is our economy growing faster than our
population? Are we, as individuals, becoming more affluent? Or is the pie, measured on a per-person basis, growing smaller?

This is the most fundamental measure of the success or the failure of any political system or culture. Are the legal and social rules we live under aiding
our economic development or holding us back? What do the numbers say?

Unfortunately, it’s a harder question to answer than it should be. The problem is, we don’t have a sound currency with which to measure GDP through time.
Until 1971, the U.S. dollar was defined as a certain amount of gold. And the price of gold was fixed by international agreement. It didn’t actually begin to
trade freely until 1975. Therefore, the value of the U.S. dollar (and thus the value of U.S. production, which is measured in dollars) was manipulated higher
for many years.

Even today, our government’s nominal GDP figures are greatly influenced by inflation. The influence of inflation is particularly pernicious in GDP studies.
You see, inflation, which actually reduces our standard of living, drives up the amount of nominal GDP. So it creates the appearance of a wealthier
country… while the nation is actually getting poorer.”

“You see, I believe the decline of our country is primarily a decline of our culture.

We have lost our sense of honor, humility, and the dedication to personal responsibility that, for more than 200 years, made our country the greatest hope for mankind. I want to detail some of the factors that gave rise to the current entitlement society. We have become a country of people who believe their well-being is someone else’s responsibility.

I’ve labeled these problems: The Corruption of America.

These problems manifest themselves in different ways across institutions in all parts of our society. But at their root, they are simply facets of the same
stone. They are all part of the same essential problem.

The corruption of America isn’t happening in one part of our country… or in one type of institution. It is happening across the landscape of our society,
in almost every institution. It’s a kind of moral decay… a kind of greed… a kind of desperate grasp for power… And it’s destroying our nation.

The Ethos of ‘Getting Yours’

Americans know, in their bones, that something terrible is happening. Maybe you can’t articulate it. Maybe you don’t have the statistics to understand
exactly what’s going on. But my bet is, you think about it a lot.”

“Bloomberg news published an article based on confidential sources about how Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and the Republican U.S. Treasury secretary during the financial crisis, held a secret meeting with the top 20 hedge-fund managers in New York City in late July 2008. This was about two weeks after he testified to Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “well-capitalized.””

“This was the most outrageous example of graft and corruption I have ever seen. Certainly it involves more billions of dollars in misappropriated value than
any other similar story I can recall. These managers had the risk-free ability to make tens of billions of dollars, if not hundreds of billions, by using
derivatives to capitalize on what they knew was the imminent collapse of the world’s largest mortgage bank. Who picked up the tab? You know perfectly well.
It was you and me, the taxpayers.”

“What does that say about our country when even the most egregious kind of corruption – involving hundreds of billions of dollars – is simply ignored?

It seems like everyone in our country has lost his moral bearing, from the highest government officials and senior corporate leaders all the way down to
schoolteachers and local community leaders. The ethos of my fellow Americans seems to have changed from one of personal integrity and responsibility to
“getting yours” – the all-out attempt, by any means possible, to get the most amount of benefits with the least amount of work.”

“It is routinely alleged in national political debates that something is fundamentally unfair and un-American about the huge “wealth gap” between the poorest Americans and the wealthiest. Some politicians like to argue that the poor never have a real shot at the American dream, and as a nation, we owe them more and more of our resources to correct this injustice. Most important, it is alleged that only the government has the resources to correct this inequality.

This is a dangerous notion…

First, it promotes the idea of entitlement. Entitlement is a fairly new idea in the American political lexicon – perhaps because most of our nation’s wealth
is still fairly new. The American idea of entitlement argues that because you were born into a rich society, other people owe you something. The idea has
become pervasive in our culture. It underlies the basic assumptions behind the idea of a “wealth gap.” Implicit is the assumption that successful Americans
haven’t rightfully earned their wealth… that in one way or another, they’ve taken advantage of the society and have an obligation to give back most of what
they’ve “taken.”

As you’ll see, I believe the idea of entitlement lies at the root of many of our most serious cultural problems.

The more obvious problem is the idea that the government is responsible for fixing the “wealth gap.” But the government has proved wholly ineffective at
dealing with poverty in America. The data is nearly conclusive that government efforts are far more likely to be the cause of the wealth gap than the
solution.”

“It has now been almost 50 years since the start of the War on Poverty, President Lyndon Johnson’s program to radically increase domestic welfare spending.
These programs and their various spinoffs have been at the center of Democratic politics ever since. In fact, if you compare speeches about these programs from the mid-1960s until today, you will find the verbiage never changes. Obama is merely echoing the same calls for “social justice” that Robert Kennedy used in his ill-fated 1968 campaign for president.”
“And what do the Democrats do with this power? They push a form of American socialism. This political system features transfer payments, government jobs, and lucrative government contracts to voters in exchange for political support – and in many cases, outright bribes. They do all of these things under the cover
of “progressive” politics and “social justice.”

But if you brush away the veneer, what you find is a history of abuse of power, corruption, and outright bribery. Conyers himself was found guilty of several
minor ethical violations in 2006 – mainly of using his staff as personal servants, forcing them to babysit and chauffer his children. In 1992, he was one of
the most egregious abusers of the House Banking scandal. He wrote 273 bad checks and left his account overdrawn for nine months. But that’s all small-time
graft compared to how things really work in his office and in his district.

How do I know? Well… just ask yourself where Conyers’ wife sleeps today.

Monica Conyers, the wife of the second-longest tenured congressman in the United States, sleeps in a federal prison in West Virginia. She pled guilty to
bribery in June 2009. She is serving a 37-month sentence for accepting $60,000 in bribes as the president pro tempore of the Detroit City Council. And yet…
and yet… Conyers won re-election handily in 2010.”

“Government Employee Unions:
Organized Corruption

A big part of the answer lies in understanding the key mechanism in the Democratic Party’s funding system. (Don’t worry… so far, we’ve been talking about Democratic Party failures, but I’ll get to the Republicans next. The corruption of America is a bipartisan problem.)”

“A government union turns the public servant into the public’s master. It is a means of using the government’s own spending to organize control of that
government. And that is exactly what’s happened. The government, unlike private companies, isn’t limited by normal economics because the government controls the monopoly on force and has the power to levy taxes.”

“Our country’s core problems are not found in only one political party.

There is just as much corruption, if not more, on the Republican side of the aisle. It was, for example, as I pointed out earlier, a white, Republican-
appointed Treasury secretary (Henry Paulson) who tipped off 20 top hedge-fund managers about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s imminent collapse after assuring the public that it wouldn’t happen.

For big business, the powerful role of government in our society is simply too valuable to ignore. And the amount of corruption it inspires is stunning. Few
politicians even bother trying to hide the fact that they’re bought and sold like furniture.

Take Newt Gingrich. The white, Republican former House speaker was paid $1.6 million for “consulting” by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during a period of time the two firms were under constant attack by Newt’s fellow Republicans. Were the attacks efforts to truly reform a major threat to our financial system… or were they merely shakedowns? All we know for certain is Fannie and Freddie collapsed, just as many Republicans warned they would. The Republican effort to reform the firms failed. Newt collected $1.6 million.

Fannie and Freddie could end up costing taxpayers as much as $500 billion. No, I’m not ignoring the colossal role the Democrats played in staffing Fannie and
Freddie, lobbying Congress for the companies, etc. I’m simply pointing out that, in Washington, everything and everyone seems to be for sale, on both sides
of the aisle.”

“Here’s a simple solution. Hold the senators and congressmen personally liable for any deficit, each year. We elected these people to be our leaders. We did
not elect them to spend us into bankruptcy. We did not elect them to feather their own nests with unlimited public spending. We did not elect them to buy
votes. The only way to stop what’s happening is to make them personally responsible for their actions. Either they will balance the budget or face personal
financial ruin.

Demanding personal accountability for fiduciary responsibilities would have an immediate and profound impact on our society. It would wipe out the
entitlement mentality that’s destroying our society – almost overnight.”

“I do agree that the nation will soon face a choice between heading down the path towards fascism… or turning back the power of government and restoring the limited Republic that was our birthright. I continue to believe Americans will choose personal liberty.

I believe they will choose more freedom rather than more totalitarian rule. I don’t believe Americans will tolerate martial law for long – even in the advent
of a real emergency, which I do believe will occur.”

“What gives me confidence for the future? Gun sales, for one thing. U.S. citizens legally own around 270 million firearms – about 88 guns per 100 citizens
(including children) today.

That’s a hard population to police without its consent. America is the No. 1 country in the world as ranked by the number of guns per-capita. That plays a
major factor in the kind of government you will see take root in America. Things might go too far in this country for a while… And I’d argue they’ve been
going the wrong way for too long. But the government can only take things so far before they’ll be faced with a very angry, well-armed opposition.

If the government attempts to take our guns… my opinion would change immediately. But that’s one right the Supreme Court has been strengthening recently.
It gives me hope that most people in America still understand that the right to bear arms has little to do with protecting ourselves from crime and
everything to do with protecting ourselves from government…”

Read more:

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112PSI_issue.html

Thank you, Porter Stansberry,  for this well written and insightful article.

I urge you all to read the entire article and pass it along to your elected officials and those running for office.

SC primary January 21, 2012, Retired teacher undecided, I don’t want Obama for another four years, Rick Santorum endorsement

SC primary January 21, 2012, Retired teacher undecided, I don’t want Obama for another four years, Rick Santorum endorsement

From the Wall Street Journal January 12, 2012.

“A Lesson on the S.C. Primary”

“After 30 years of running the mock elections at a public school in Orangeburg, S.C.,  retired teacher Linda Davis is enjoying the first Republican primary race where she can show her true colors.”

““My students never knew I normally vote Republican,” Ms. Davis said Thursday at a campaign stop in Orangeburg for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. As a teacher of third, fourth and fifth graders, “I couldn’t put a yard sign out — the kids knew where I lived,” she said. “Now I have the opportunity to go out and speak my mind.”

Ms. Davis hasn’t yet decided who she will support in the state’s Jan. 21 primary, even after watching every debate.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has “a lot of baggage,” and she worried about Mr. Perry’s ability to beat President Barack Obama in a general election. “I’m leaning toward [Mitt] Romney because I don’t want Obama for another four years,” she said. But he hasn’t sealed the deal.

“I probably won’t make my final decision until the morning I go to vote,” she said.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/12/a-lesson-on-the-s-c-primary/

From the Chicago tribune January 8, 2012.

“Rick Santorum says South Carolina his ‘best chance to win'”

“Rick Santorum’s campaign continued to gain momentum Sunday as he made two campaign stops in South Carolina, where he was met with cheering crowds and picked up an endorsement from conservative leader Gary Bauer.

“For me, Ronald Reagan has always defined what the right political position was in the U.S. I gave up on the idea that I would ever find another Ronald Reagan,” Bauer, a former Reagan advisor, said at a Republican fundraiser in Greenville. “Over the last year I’ve watched [Santorum] as he’s gone out and talked to the American people…. I realized the next Ronald Reagan was standing in front of me the whole time.”

The endorsement is another feather in the cap of Santorum, who has seen his poll numbers surge in the past two weeks. Recent polls show Mitt Romneyleading the state with about one-third of the vote, with Santorum and Gingrich tied for second with about 20% each. But even that is a surprising change for Santorum, who had polled as low as 2% in South Carolina in December.

The surge in popularity follows his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, and is a strong contrast to just a few weeks ago, when many of Santorum’s events drew only a few dozen people and little media attention.

“People were always saying to us, ‘We like him; he’s just not doing well in the polls and we don’t want to throw our vote away.’ ” Santorum said Sunday. “As soon as it became apparent that we could actually do well, our numbers went from, in the last five days, from 15 to 25, and that’s momentum.””
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-south-carolina-best-chance-santorum-20120108,0,4930274.story

Michael Reagan on Iowa Caucus results and Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Republican presidential nomination

Michael Reagan on Iowa Caucus results and Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Republican presidential nomination

From Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, January 5, 2012.

“Iowa caucus results show it’s still early in the game and nothing’s certain.

So what happened on the way to the Republican presidential nomination?

Well, even with a slim official win, Mitt Romney did no better in practical terms this year than he did four years ago in 2008 because of the level of competition. This proves that the road to the 2012 nomination will be anything but smooth, and that he has a tough road ahead if he is to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt has a big problem in his seeming inability to relate to the average working man or woman. He’s a bit too self-assured. As for Rick Santorum, he threw a monkey wrench into Ron Paul’s meteoric rise by almost winning, and proved that Romney is not as unbeatable as his worshippers in the media would like us to believe.

Rick gave an off-the-cuff, Reaganesque speech that marked him as a staunch conservative in the style of my late Dad, Ronald Reagan. He leaves no doubt that his love for America is genuine and deep-rooted.

Ron Paul proved that his supporters are in there for the long haul. Moreover he proved that the GOP needs to pay attention to his message of fiscal sanity and restraint in federal spending or the average Republican, fed up with the witless squandering of our tax dollars, might bolt in November.

Newt Gingrich managed to live to see another day, and he’ll do battle in both New Hampshire and South Carolina — not with Romney, who he’s out to destroy, but with Rick Santorum. Newt needs to be more passionate and less professorial and, for heaven’s sake, Newt, put on a damned tie.

Perry needs to retool his message and overcome the gaffes for which he has become so infamous. He says he’s going home to reconsider his candidacy, but if he stays in the race he will meet Santorum and Gingrich in South Carolina and that will be the end for him. The conservative winner there will then go on, and the others will need to go home.

As for Michele Bachmann, she made the right decision to go back to Minnesota and run for re-election and not be like California’s Bob Dornan, who stayed too long in running for president and as a result lost his House seat to Loretta Sanchez.

The Iowa caucuses are over but the fun has just begun. Fasten your seatbelts, America, the ride ahead may get bumpy. There might now be room for another candidate to emerge and sweep the field.

Stay tuned.”

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/01/05/reagan-iowa-votes/?subscriber=1

 

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.