Category Archives: Washington DC

George Washington Last Will and Testament of a good man, Freed his slaves and made provisions for their education & welfare, Transformed by his interactions

George Washington Last Will and Testament of a good man, Freed his slaves and made provisions for their education & welfare, Transformed by his interactions

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”…George Washington

“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.”…George Washington


The paradigm throughout human history until George Washington’s birth was that if you conquered a people they became your slaves or worse.

Africans and negroes were considered a sub species by Europeans.

With interactions with people of color from Revolutionary War soldiers to poet Philiss Wheatley, Washington came to realize that they were humans more like himself and that slavery was wrong. Quite a evolution.

George Washington was put upon a pedestal and treated like a God but he was human with the typical human imperfections.

But he was a good man.

From the NY Times.

”An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves and the Creation of America”

“The breaking up of slave families for reasons of profit was, by Mr. Wiencek’s account, the first outrage to penetrate Washington’s self-interest. He traces Washington’s first awareness of this to time he spent in Williamsburg, Va., witnessing slave auctions held in response to an owner’s embezzling. ”In modern terms, it was as if the collapse of a Wall Street brokerage, due to the malfeasance of its officers, had led to the sale of the children of the cleaning staff to pay the debts of corporate vice presidents,” Mr. Wiencek writes.

And as a leader of soldiers, Washington was acutely aware of the importance of black soldiers even as he waffled over the question of their eventual freedom. ”George Washington won the Revolutionary War with an army that was more integrated than any military force until the Vietnam War,” Mr. Wiencek maintains. His book offers evidence that the role of black soldiers under Washington’s command was under-reported simply because it was taken for granted.

Rather than a debunking account, ”An Imperfect God” is one that measures the slow growth of Washington’s willingness to change. The author, with a great interest in genealogical research, points to many instances in which the situations of Washington’s own real and alleged family members (including West Ford, whose possible identity as Washington’s illegitimate son is explored but rejected — he may instead have been a nephew) could not help but provide impetus for change.”

George Washington’s encounter with black poet Philiss Wheatley.

“In December of 1775, Washington – the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army – received a letter from Wheatley containing an ode written in his honor. The poem illustrates Wheatley’s somewhat surprisingly passionate patriotic sentiment, which factors strongly in much of her poetry. It ends with a stanza reading: “Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side, / Thy ev’ry action let the goddess guide. / A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine, / With gold unfading, WASHINGTON! Be thine.”

Washington responded with a letter expressing his appreciation for Wheatley’s poem. He even considered publishing it but feared people might interpret that action as self-aggrandizing. Not only was this letter the only one Washington is known to have written to a former slave, but he addressed Wheatley as “Miss Phillis” and signed off as “Your obed[ien]t humble servant,”1 unusual and even paradoxical courtesies. Washington also extended an invitation for Wheatley to call on him at his headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts.””

From George Washington’s Last Will and Testament.

“Upon the decease ⟨of⟩ my wife, it is my Will & desire th⟨at⟩ all the Slaves which I hold in ⟨my⟩ own right, shall receive their free⟨dom⟩. To emancipate them during ⟨her⟩ life, would, tho’ earnestly wish⟨ed by⟩ me, be attended with such insu⟨pera⟩ble difficulties on account of thei⟨r interm⟩ixture by Marriages with the ⟨dow⟩er Negroes, as to excite the most pa⟨in⟩ful sensations, if not disagreeabl⟨e c⟩onsequences from the latter, while ⟨both⟩ descriptions are in the occupancy ⟨of⟩ the same Proprietor; it not being ⟨in⟩ my power, under the tenure by which ⟨th⟩e Dower Negroes are held, to man⟨umi⟩t them. And whereas among ⟨thos⟩e who will recieve freedom ac⟨cor⟩ding to this devise, there may b⟨e so⟩me, who from old age or bodily infi⟨rm⟩ities, and others who on account of ⟨the⟩ir infancy, that will be unable to ⟨su⟩pport themselves; it is m⟨y Will and de⟩sire that all who ⟨come under the first⟩ & second descrip⟨tion shall be comfor⟩tably cloathed & ⟨fed by my heirs while⟩ they live; and that such of the latter description as have no parents living, or if living are unable, or unwilling to provide for them, shall be bound by the Court until they shall arrive at the ag⟨e⟩ of twenty five years; and in cases where no record can be produced, whereby their ages can be ascertained, the judgment of the Court, upon its own view of the subject, shall be adequate and final. The Negros thus bound, are (by their Masters or Mistresses) to be taught to read & write; and to be brought up to some useful occupation, agreeably to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for the support of Orphan and other poor Children. and I do hereby expressly forbid the Sale, or transportation out of the said Commonwealth, of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence whatsoever. And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors hereafter named, or the Survivors of them, to see that th⟨is cla⟩use respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged and infirm; seeing that a regular and permanent fund be established for their support so long as there are subjects requiring it; not trusting to the ⟨u⟩ncertain provision to be made by individuals. And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which ha⟨v⟩e befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, whic⟨h⟩ shall be independent of the victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative; but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first; & this I give him as a test⟨im⟩ony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War.”

“To the Trustees (⟨Go⟩vernors, or by whatsoever other name they may be designated) of the Academy in the Town of Alexandria, I give and bequeath, in Trust, four thousand dollars, or in other words twenty of the shares which I hold in the Bank of Alexandria, towards the support of a Free school established at, and annexed to, the said Academy; for the purpose of Educating such Orphan children, or the children of such other poor and indigent persons as are unable to accomplish it with their own means; and who, in the judgment of the Trustees of the said Seminary, are best entitled to the benefit of this donation. The aforesaid twenty shares I give & bequeath in perpetuity; the dividends only of which are to be drawn for, and applied by the said Trustees for the time being, for the uses above mentioned; the stock to remain entire and untouched; unless indications of a failure of the said Bank should be so apparent, or a discontinuance thereof should render a removal of this fund necessary; in either of these cases, the amount of the Stock here devised, is to be vested in some other Bank or public Institution, whereby the interest may with regularity & certainty be drawn, and applied as above. And to prevent misconception, my meaning is, and is hereby declared to be, that these twenty shares are in lieu of, and not in addition to, the thousand pounds given by a missive letter some years ago; in consequence whereof an annuity of fifty pounds has since been paid towards the support of this Institution.”



More here:



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

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

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

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

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


Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!

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

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

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

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

The answer was a resounding yes.

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

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

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

Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?

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

Insight: And the Republicans?

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

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?

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

Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?

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

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

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

Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?

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

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

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

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

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

Insight: Why did you get that response?

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

Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?

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

Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?

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

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

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

Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?

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

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

DS: They’ll say his injuries are not

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

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

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

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

Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?

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

Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?

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

Read more:

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.”


More here:


Hillary Clinton lies obstruction of justice documented in legal documents and NY Times article, Senate whitewater report, Independent counsel Robert W. Ray statement June 22, 2000, NY Times January 8, 1996 Hillary blizzard of lies

Hillary Clinton lies obstruction of justice documented in legal documents and NY Times article, Senate whitewater report, Independent counsel Robert W. Ray statement June 22, 2000, NY Times January 8, 1996 Hillary blizzard of lies

“Viewed in the aggregate, then, these numerous instances of
White House interference with several ongoing law enforcement investigations
amounted to far more than just aggressive lawyering
or political naivete. Rather, the Special Committee concludes that
the actions of these senior White House officials constitute a highly
improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.
Mrs. Clinton was closely involved in the handling of documents in
Mr. Foster’s office following his death and directed that investigators
be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to his office”…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

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


Hard core Hillary Clinton supporters may not be swayed by her ever changing, poll reactive and politically expedient positions.

However, there is much documented about Hillary, the Clintons and the staffs they supervised and worked closely with.

For your edification and utter amazement I am providing some of this legal documentation.

Hillary Clinton has a well documented history of lying and obstruction of justice, long before she became Secretary of State.

From the NY Times June 23, 2000.

“Statement on Travel Office Inquiry

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Following is the statement today by the independent counsel Robert W. Ray on his investigation of the firings at the White House travel office in 1993:

The office of the independent counsel has concluded an investigation commonly known as the travel office matter. This matter concerned allegations that David Watkins, former assistant to the president for management and administration, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621, or obstructed justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503, in connection with their statements and testimony concerning the May 19, 1993, firing of seven employees of the White House travel office. Independent counsel has concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Watkins or Mrs. Clinton made any knowingly false statements, committed perjury or obstructed justice in this matter.”

“In contrast to the cooperation received from the White House in the F.B.I. files investigation, concluded in March of this year, this office experienced substantial resistance in its efforts to obtain relevant evidence in the travel office matter.

For example, the White House asserted unfounded privileges that were later rejected in court.

White House officials also conducted inadequate searches for documents and failed to make timely production of documents, including relevant e-mails, in their possession.

Despite these and other obstacles that substantially delayed the receipt of relevant evidence by this office, the independent counsel has concluded that the investigation may now be closed.”

Read more:

From the Senate Whitewater investigation report June 13, 1996.

“Because the testimony of witnesses before the Special Committee
was often contradictory, incomplete, or inaccurate as to important
events and actions, the Committee placed particular emphasis on
available documentary evidence. Unfortunately, throughout its in
quiry, the Committee was hindered by parties unduly delaying the
production of, or withholding outright, documents critical to its investigation.
Although the White House was most often and most
notably engaged in this course of action, the pattern of noncooperation
extended to other parties, as this Report lays out more fully
in the Washington Phase of the Special Committee’s inquiry.”


“Against the backdrop of the death of a high-ranking U.S. official, this controversy has been fueled by a series of misguided actions taken by senior White House officials to shield the documents in Mr. Foster’s office from
independent career law enforcement investigators and to spirit the
documents to the White House Residence.
As Deputy Counsel to the President, Mr. Foster was the number
two lawyer in the White House. He worked on the most important
public issues faced by the new Clinton Administration. At the time
of his death, Mr. Foster also was one of the Clintons’ key advisors
on Whitewater and Travelgate.”

“After careful review of all the evidence, the Special Committee
concludes that senior White House officials, particularly members
of the Office of the White House Counsel, engaged in a pattern of
highly improper conduct in their handling of the documents in Mr.
Foster’s office following his death. These senior White House officials
deliberately prevented career law enforcement officers from
the Department of Justice and Park Police from fully investigating
the circumstances surrounding Mr. Foster’s death, including
whether he took his own life because of troubling matters involving
the President and Mrs. Clinton. At every turn, senior White House
officials prevented Justice Department and Park Police investigators
from examining the documents in Mr. Foster’s office, particularly
those relating to the Whitewater and Travelgate affairs then
under investigation.

This pattern of concealment and obstruction continues even to
the present day. The Special Committee concludes that senior
White House officials and other close Clinton associates were not
candid in their testimony before the Committee. Specifically, the
Committee concludes that Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to the
First Lady, Susan Thomases, a New York attorney and close advisor
to Mrs. Clinton, Bernard Nussbaum, then-White House Counsel,
and Webster Hubbell, former Associate Attorney General and
now-convicted felon, all provided inaccurate and incomplete testimony
to the Committee in order to conceal Mrs. Clinton’s pivotal
role in the decisions surrounding the handling of Mr. Foster’s documents
following his death.
Finally, the Special Committee concludes that the misconduct
surrounding the handling of Mr. Foster’s documents is part of a
larger and more troubling pattern, that began in Arkansas in the
1980s and has continued in Washington during the Clinton Administration,
in which the Clintons and their associates have sought to
hinder, impede and control investigations into Madison Guaranty
S&L and the Whitewater real estate investment. Parts of this larger
pattern include (i) Mrs. Clinton’s decision in 1988—when federal
investigators were examining possible misconduct leading to Madison
Guaranty’s failure just two years before—to order the destruction
of records relating to her representation of this S&L; (ii) Mr.
Foster’s and Mr. Hubbell’s improper and unauthorized 1992 removal
of Rose Law Firm records and files relating to Mrs. Clinton’s
representation of this corrupt S&L; and (iii) and the improper communication
to White House officials during the fall of 1993 of confidential
information relating to ongoing criminal investigations of
Madison Guaranty and of Capital Management Services, Inc., a
small business investment company also central to the Whitewater
By the time of Vincent Foster’s death in July 1993, the Clintons had
established a pattern of concealing their involvement with
Whitewater and the McDougals’ Madison Guaranty S&L
The actions of senior White House officials and other close Clinton
associates in the days and weeks following Mr. Foster’s death
cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Their actions were but part of a
pattern that began in 1988 of concealing, controlling and even destroying
damaging information concerning the Whitewater real estate
investment and the Clintons’ ties to James and Susan
McDougal and the Madison S&L. Indeed, at the time of Mr. Foster’s
death, the Clintons and their associates were aware that the
Clintons’ involvement with Whitewater land deal, the McDougals,
and the Madison S&L might subject them to civil liability and even
criminal investigation.
In 1988, Mrs. Clinton ordered the destruction of records relating
to her representation of Mr. McDougal’s Madison S&L.11 This was
not a routine destruction of records. At the time, federal regulators
were investigating the operation and solvency of Madison in anticipation
of taking it over. These Rose Law Firm records, which after
Madison’s failure would have belonged to the Resolution Trust Corporation
(‘‘RTC’’),12 were directly relevant to that investigation.
By ordering their destruction, Mrs. Clinton eliminated pertinent
records and also exposed her firm to potential liability with respect
to her representation. Indeed, if such representation was proper, as
Mrs. Clinton has claimed, her document destruction deprived the
law firm of the records necessary to defend itself in a suit by federal
investigators. Moreover, in 1988, Seth Ward, a former associate
of Mr. McDougal and Webster Hubbell’s father-in-law, was actually
suing Madison Guaranty over a land deal that federal regulators
have described as a fraud.13 Mrs. Clinton had performed
work on the project, including having numerous telephones calls
and meetings with Mr. Ward, and the law firm record of her work
and the transactions surrounding this land deal certainly would
have been highly relevant to the conduct of that suit.
Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton’s destruction of documents could constitute
a breach of legal ethics and, possibly, a violation of law if
done with the knowledge that the documents are material to investigations
or ongoing litigation.14 Professor Stephen Gillers of New
York University, a noted ethics expert, has recently stated: ‘‘I don’t
know how it could be that these files were destroyed. . . . It makes
it stranger that they were destroyed, not only so soon after they
were created but also at a time when this lawsuit was about to go
to trial. . . . It certainly could lead to suspicion that she has something
to hide because one possible inference from the destruction
is that there was something in those files that she did not want
to have made public.’’ 15
The pattern further continued during the 1992 presidential campaign,
after questions arose about the Clintons’ investment with
the McDougals in Whitewater and Mrs. Clinton’s representation of
Madison Guaranty before a state agency. In an effort to respond to
inquiries from the press and charges from other candidates, Mrs.
Clinton’s then-law partner, Vincent Foster, collected all the information
he could on the Madison representation. At the conclusion
of the campaign, the Madison files, which were by now the property
of the RTC as conservator of Madison, as well as the files of
other Rose clients for whom Mrs. Clinton had performed legal services,
were secretly removed from the firm by another then-Rose
Law Firm partner, Webster Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell removed these
files, at times taking the firm’s only copies,16 without obtaining the
consent of the firm or client.17 Given that Mr. Hubbell was about
to assume a position of great public trust as Associate Attorney
General, his unauthorized decision to remove these files is especially

“After federal investigators began to look into matters relating to
Madison Guaranty and Whitewater, a number of subpoenas were
issued for these Rose Law Firm billing records. By then, however,
the records were nowhere to be found. Despite extensive searches
conducted by the law firm, neither the originals nor copies were
discovered.20 They were not in the firm computers, its client files,
or the firm’s storage facility.21
Apparently, at some point, someone removed these billing
records from the Rose Law Firm. In August 1995, Carolyn Huber,
an assistant to Mrs. Clinton, discovered them in the book room of
the White House Residence, next to Mrs. Clinton’s office.”

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.”

“It is with this knowledge that the Clintons and their advisers
came to Washington, taking with them the important documents
relating to Whitewater and Madison. The documents (including
documents improperly taken from the law firm) were entrusted
only to close associates of the Clintons, chiefly Messrs. Foster and

“White House officials engaged in highly improper conduct in handling
documents in Vincent Foster’s office following his death
The evidence before the Special Committee established that
White House officials engaged in a pattern of deliberate obstruction,
and interference with, efforts by law enforcement authorities
to conduct their several investigations into Mr. Foster’s death.”

“The pattern of obstruction continued with the White House dealings
with the Justice Department.”

“Beyond this, the Special Committee concludes that the ‘‘review’’
of documents in Mr. Foster’s office on July 22 was a sham. Law enforcement
authorities did not review any documents; Mr. Nussbaum
relied on their presence simply to ‘‘dress up’’ the review.”

“Viewed in the aggregate, then, these numerous instances of
White House interference with several ongoing law enforcement investigations
amounted to far more than just aggressive lawyering
or political naivete. Rather, the Special Committee concludes that
the actions of these senior White House officials constitute a highly
improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.
Mrs. Clinton was closely involved in the handling of documents in
Mr. Foster’s office following his death and directed that investigators
be denied ‘‘unfettered access’’ to his office.”

“The evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that, early in
the morning of July 22, Mrs. Clinton, Susan Thomases and Margaret
Williams discussed the procedures for conducting the review
of documents in Mr. Foster’s office.”

“The Special Committee concludes that its effort to find the truth
about the events of July 20–27, 1993 was impeded by what appeared
to be a disturbing pattern of incomplete and inaccurate testimony
by senior White House officials and close Clinton associates.
Time and again, the testimony of career law enforcement officials
and others without a motive to lie, as well as documentary evidence,
told one consistent story, while senior White House officials
and close Clinton associates offered a contradictory version of the

“As set forth below in the Findings of this Report, the Committee
concludes that four persons—Margaret Williams, Susan Thomases,
Bernard Nussbaum and Webster Hubbell—provided incomplete
and inaccurate testimony to the Committee in an apparent effort
to conceal the intimate involvement of Mrs. Clinton in the events
following Mr. Foster’s death.
The Office of the White House Counsel was misused to impede ongoing
investigations and to serve the purely personal legal interests
of the President, Mrs. Clinton and their associates
Every citizen is entitled to mount a defense to civil and criminal
charges. The President is no different. He is not entitled, however,
to use the power of his office to gain a defense of his private legal
affairs not available to other Americans. The White House Counsel’s
Office is supposed to serve the President in his official executive
capacity. These lawyer are paid by the taxpayers to serve the
public interest.
In the matter of Mr. Foster’s death, the Office of the White
House counsel served, in effect, as the Clintons’ personal defense
law firm. This service extended beyond Mr. Foster’s employment as
the Clinton’s personal attorney to the use of the White House
Counsel’s Office in the days following his death to interfere with
and hinder several ongoing federal investigations into Mr. Foster’s
death and the handling of documents in Mr. Foster’s office at the
time of his death. Instead of cooperating with law enforcement officials,
the Office of the White House Counsel impeded the investigations
of the Park Police and the Department of Justice. The White
House lawyers ignored and, in some cases, intentionally violated
established procedures that would have ensured the proper handling
of documents in Mr. Foster’s office.”

“The actions of the White House are especially serious because
the Special Committee has discovered that the files shielded from
the Department of Justice contained evidence relevant to two investigations
that touched on the Clintons’ personal interests: the
criminal referral into Madison S&L, and the anticipated investigation,
by Congress and others, into the Travel Office firings. As demonstrated
in this Report, the White House, including Mrs. Clinton,
were on notice that these investigations were either ongoing or imminent.
As it happens, both of these investigations were of sufficient
weight to be now under the jurisdiction of an Independent
Against this background, the actions of the White House during
the week after Mr. Foster’s death must be judged. These White
House actions were highly improper; they were deliberate; and they
adversely affected ongoing investigations by career law enforcement
officials. The American people will never be sure of the contents
of Vincent Foster’s office at the time of his death. Their uncertainty
and doubts, however, clearly are the direct result of the
wrongful action by the White House.”

I urge you to read more and share this information.

From the NY Times January 8, 1996.

“Essay;Blizzard of Lies”

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

“3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

Read more:



Judicial Watch Obama tops 10 most corrupt Washington politicians 2013, Master at catch me if you can corrupt politics, Administration secretive and dishonest, Obama Chicago pay to play politics

Judicial Watch Obama tops 10 most corrupt Washington politicians 2013, Master at catch me if you can corrupt politics, Administration secretive and dishonest, Obama Chicago pay to play politics

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“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

“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



No one should be surprised. Obama mastered Chicago pay to play politics long before he went to Washington.

His entire life is a secret, although the puzzle pieces are being filled in.

From Judicial Watch January 2, 2014.

President Barack Obama:

President Barack Obama actually tops this “Top Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for 2013 as the driving force behind so many of the misdeeds. This is Obama’s seventh straight year on the list, dating back all the way to 2007 (in 2006, he earned a “Dishonorable Mention”). He is a master at catch-me-if-you-can, corrupt politics.  This year, he has again acted as a one-man Congress, rewriting entire sections of federal law on his own.  Not only is his administration secretive and dishonest; its callous disregard for the rule of law undermines our constitutional republic. Examples include:

  • Perhaps Obama’s most outrageous actions over the past year were his continual lies about the ability of Americans to keep their own health insurance under Obamacare. According the Free Beacon, Obama misled the American people a total of 36 times between 2008 and 2013 with his promise, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” And according to NBC News, Obama knew, even as he repeated his lie, that “more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them:”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date – the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example – the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

  • Throughout 2013, the Obama family continued to use the White House as its own personal travel bureau and the taxpayers as their personal expense account.
  • Though Obama quickly disavowed any knowledge of the IRS assault on Tea Party and other conservative groups leading up to the 2012 presidential election, the fact is that it was the president himself who fingered the groups for what might be called “special handling.” Consider Obama’s own hostile and aggressive statements, made just as his IRS officials were gearing up their assault:

August 9, 2010: During his weekly radio address, Obama warned of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.” The President said:  We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them . . . you don’t know if it’s a foreign controlled corporation. … The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

September 20, 2010:  Speaking in Philadelphia, Obama once again warned that “nobody knows” the identities of the individuals who support conservative groups.

September 22, 2010: Speaking in New York, Obama warned against groups opposing his policies “[posing] as non-for-profit social and welfare trade groups” and he claimed such groups were “guided by seasoned Republican political operatives” and potentially supported by some unidentified “foreign controlled entity.”

October 14, 2010: Obama attacked organizations with “benign sounding” names as “a problem for democracy.”

Little wonder that after their boss sounded the call to attack, Obama’s IRS appointees obeyed the command. And even less wonder that, caught red-handed, Obama first claimed total ignorance and, when the ploy failed, simply labeled it all a “phony scandal.”

  • According to the Galen Institute, Obama has now unilaterally rewritten the Obamacare law as passed by Congress 14 times by executive fiat, with the majority of those changes coming in 2013. Those changes include such major overhauls as the congressional opt-out, eviscerating the individual mandate, and delaying the employer mandate. The latest Obama fix came on December 20, when he suddenly moved to allow hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their insurance due to Obamacare to sign up for bare-bone “catastrophic” plans. As National Reviewobserved, “Of course, like every other exemption from Obamacare the latest fix is supposed to last only a year, raising the prospect that people will be kicked off their catastrophic coverage as soon as the 2014 election is safely in the political rear-view mirror.””

Read more:



Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare, study, Chances better with non Obamacare individual plans, Doctors and hospital names often not listed on exchanges

Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare, study, Chances better with non Obamacare individual plans, Doctors and hospital names often not listed on exchanges

“If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”…Barack Obama

“millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.”…NBC News October 29, 2013

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



From US News October 30, 2013.

“Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare”
“The Obama Administration has been claiming that insurance companies will be competing for your dollars under the Affordable Care Act, but apparently they haven’t surveyed the nation’s top hospitals.

Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.

“This doesn’t surprise me,” said Gail Wilensky, Medicare advisor for the second Bush Administration and senior fellow for Project HOPE. “There has been an incredible amount of focus on the premium cost and subsidy, and precious little focus on what you get for your money.”

Regulations driven by the Obama White House have indeed made insurance more affordable – if, like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, you’re looking only at price. But responding to Obamacare caps on premiums, many insurers will, in turn, simply offer top-tier doctors and hospitals far less cash for services rendered. looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014. We contacted each hospital to determine their contracts and talked to several insurance companies, as well.

The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.

Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities. For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.

And that’s not because their exchanges don’t offer options. Both Ohio and California have a dozen insurance companies on their exchanges, yet two of the states’ premier hospitals – Cleveland Clinic and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center – have only one company in their respective networks.”

“Though top-ranked hospitals like Case Medical Center accept plans from dozens of private insurers, if you buy your insurance on the Obamacare exchanges your options for treatment may be limited.

Wellpoint and Aetna’s decision to not educate the public on its choices doesn’t sit well with two experts.

“There is no reason to keep that quiet. It’s not going to be a good secret for very long when people want to use the plans,” Wilensky said.

“In many cases, consumers are shopping blind when it comes to what doctors and hospitals are included in their Obamacare exchange plans,” said Josh Archambault, senior fellow with the think tank Foundation for Government Accountability. “These patients will be in for a rude awakening once they need care, and get stuck with a big bill for going out-of-network without realizing it.”

All of this represents a larger problem with the Affordable Care Act, said Archambault, who has extensively studied the law.

“It reflects deeper issues in implementation,” he said. “Some hospitals and doctors don’t even know if they are in the network.””

Read more:

NSA spies on Merkel, US Treasury criticizes German economy, Germany may grant asylum to Edward Snowden and seek testimony, Obama et al ruin US economy and continue to blame others

NSA spies on Merkel, US Treasury criticizes German economy, Germany may grant asylum to Edward Snowden and seek testimony, Obama et al ruin US economy and continue to blame others

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,”…Keith Hall, former BLS chief

“Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. “…CBO September 17, 2013

“So if Obama was hoping that all the late summer scandals that have taken his reputation to an all time low would at least push the NSA spying scandal away from the front page, he may need some additional fabricated and YouTube-validated false flag wars very soon.”…Zero Hedge October 31, 2013



Obama et al have ruined the US economy, are in the process of ruining our health care system with Obamacare and they continue to blame everyone else.

From Zero Hedge October 31, 2013.

“US Blasts Germany’s Economic Model; Germany Blasts Right Back… And May Use Snowden As Leverage”

“The chart below showing the portion of GDP generated through net exports by select group of trade surplus countries is well-known to most. Except, it seems, to the Treasury. Apparently to Jack Lew’s henchmen it comes as a complete shock that
Germany’s exports account for 41.4% of GDP – 50% more than traditionally
evil “mercantilist” China.

It is also a complete shock to the US Treasury that the current layout of the Eurozone – the same Eurozone that the Fed has stepped in on numerous occasions to bailout, common currency and all – was simply to facilitate German exports to fellow European countries.

Which is probably why, after years of saying nothing, in its semi-annual currency report released yesterday and “employing unusually sharp language, the U.S. openly criticized Germany’s economic policies and blamed the euro-zone powerhouse for dragging down its neighbors and the rest of the global economy.”

You see it was all Germany’s fault.”
Why the US would scramble to antagonize a Germany which as recently as a week ago was shocked to find out the NSA was spying on its beloved Angela Merkel is a mystery but apparently now that the fiction that Europe is “fine” and nobody can criticize it has ended and is no longer necessary because Spain is, in its own words, recovering, it is fair game to throw Germany and all other nations that dare to export better and more competitive goods and services than the US. under the bus. Because, you see, unless every “ally” of the US has the same “growth” model of internal consumption funded by titanic amounts of debt, be it household, corporate of sovereign, and is in the same insolvent boat at the end of the day as the US, they deserve to be spat upon.

“”The U.S. government should critically analyze its own economic situation,” said Michael Meister, a senior lawmaker and close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, criticizing the high debt level in the U.S., which “doesn’t just unsettle [the U.S.], but has negative effects on the global economy.”

“The German economy is competitive, with record-high employment—so it’s really not understandable why we’re being blamed for this success,” Mr. Meister added.”

Read more:




Obamacare helps entitlement crowd hurts middle America, High premiums and deductibles hurt working families, Many lose affordable policies, 2010 Wyatt Emmerich study welfare pays

Obamacare helps entitlement crowd hurts middle America, High premiums and deductibles hurt working families, Many lose affordable policies, 2010 Wyatt Emmerich study welfare pays

“millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.”…NBC News October 29, 2013

“…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”…Margaret Thatcher

“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″

When I wrote “Obamacare helps entitlement crowd” I meant only in the short term monetary sense because ultimately it will hurt all Americans and their healthcare.

A 2010 study analysis by Wyatt Emmerich concluded that welfare pays.

He found that a part time worker receiving a wide range of entitlement benefits could fare better that a family earning $ 60,000 per year.

From Zero hedge November 22, 2010.

“In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year”

“Tonight’s stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.” And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper – it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world’s most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Read more:

This analysis was pre Obamacare.

The unfairness is even worse now.

From the LA Times October 26, 2013.

“Many middle-class Californians with individual health plans are surprised they need policies that cover more — and cost more.”

“Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacarewill cost them — and many don’t like what they see.

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.”

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan throughHealth Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.””

Read more:,0,2756077.story#axzz2jD0EDmJP

Here is a copy of an original Wyatt Emmerich from the Wayback Machine archives.

“With welfare it makes sense to work less”

Remember when Mississippi used to have new manufacturing plants popping up weekly? What happened?

If you ask the business leaders, the problem is a lack of skilled labor. People don’t want to work. Especially in the Delta, people just won’t show up on time and often fail drug tests.

“How can this be?” you may ask. You have to work to eat. Well, that’s really not true anymore. In fact, our welfare state rewards not working. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working a $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

It is quite easy to check my numbers, thanks to the Internet. In fact, it only took me a couple of hours on the net to gather this data. Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up “benefits calculators.” Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.

Just to double-check, I looked at what our country spends on welfare at a national level. Backing out Social Security, the U.S. spends about $750 billion a year on welfare. The U.S. has about 120 million households. If 25 million get welfare (20 percent), that comes to about $30,000 per family. This figure pretty much backs up my analysis.

The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

First of all, working only one week a month saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays.

By working only one week a month at a minimum-wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.

Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. A typical Mississippi family coverage would cost around $12,000, adding deductibles and co-pays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That’s a huge hit.

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than working one week a month at minimum wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job.

In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll-deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market side job gives you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.

My analysis only includes the better-known welfare programs. One Web site I used,, gave me a list of dozens of additional programs and private grants available to low-income family providers.

This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? I soon realized that getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were willing to cheat.

Even if you didn’t cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job.

I have left out the mother of all welfare programs – Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSI pays $8,088 per year for each “disabled” family member. A person can be deemed “disabled” if they are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.

If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.

Ironically, most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing required to get welfare checks.

Granted, some of these welfare programs have restrictions to prevent double dipping. No doubt our efficient federal bureaucracy does a bang-up job of preventing such fraud.

I hope I have helped answer the question concerning why Mississippi doesn’t get many new industries. The welfare system in communist China is far stingier. Those people have to work to eat.”