Category Archives: white house

2010 commitment and beyond, 2010 elections beginning not end, Citizen Wells open thread, July 30, 2010

2010 commitment and beyond, 2010 elections beginning not end

Phil, from The Right Side of Life, and I have been in regular contact for several years. He has done a great job of covering eligibility lawsuits and other topics. He has a new article up about commitment.

“The question: Do you really want change? As in, honest-to-goodness change towards freedom and liberty for individual rights?

To be perfectly honest, through the end of 2009 and the first part of 2010, while I have supported the proposition of the Tea Party movement, I questioned its ability (and presently still do) to truly effect change in the body politic. Granted, when the likes of Senator Arlen Specter got “primaried” in Pennsylvania’s voting (there have been other poignant examples; this just happens to be the key point I could think of at the moment), I began to realize that this Tea Party thing truly meant business and wasn’t a huge fad; but can it keep it up?”

“Are you really ready to make that kind of commitment to America? It’s not just about one election; after all, modern liberalism in all of its forms has been building the welfare/nanny state over the past several decades. You do realize that it’s going to take more than one election to turn things back towards individual freedom and liberty for the American society, yes?”
“Oh, you thought that politics and religion were mutually exclusive? Then you’ll have to ask yourself why the American founding fathers decided to invoke the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.”

“Please realize that this year’s election is but one step on the journey of a thousand miles. And those with whom we disagree are not going to go away silently into the proverbial night. They are going to fight at least as strongly against those who believe in individual freedom and liberty as we (hopefully) will be fighting towards that end.

Are you willing to make that kind of commitment beyond 2010?”

Read more:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/07/29/a-commitment-is-required-for-those-who-want-change/

Blagojevich trial jury verdict, Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, If I were a juror, Thanks Mary Schmich

Blagojevich trial jury verdict, Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, If I were a juror

I ran across this article written by Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune.

“If I were a Blago juror …”

“If I were a juror, I’d wonder why we never heard from so many of the allegedly bad guys — Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine — mentioned by the prosecution.”

Read more:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-schmich-0728-20100728,0,2697214.column

Thanks to Mary Schmich. This should be front page news.

From part 6 in the series here on the Blagojevich trial, protecting Obama and US Justice Department corruption.

“Beginning with

“THE GOVERNMENT’S PROFFER REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY”

Pages 15 to 52  reveal Blagojevich’s involvement in corruption beginning in 2002 and going into the summer of 2008. Here are some of the names mentioned in this section:

Tony Rezko

Stuart Levine

Patti Blagojevich

John Harris

Christopher Kelly

Alonzo Monk

Joseph Cari

William Cellini

Robert Weinstein

Ali Ata

Joseph Aramanda

Daniel Mahru

Fortune Massuda

Imad Almanaseer

Michel Malek

Jacob Kiferbaum

Out of this 91 page document, 38 pages are loaded with names and events tied to Rod Blagojevich from 2002 to the summer of 2008. Beginning on page 52 and to page 90 are references to Blagojevich shady dealings primarily from the summer of 2008 on.”

As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.”

Read more

If I were a juror, I would be shocked at the prosecution’s case, their shortening of the trial and their failure to call many key witnesses.

Blagojevich trial fixed, US Justice Department corrupt, Obama protected, Media coverage?, Citizen Wells open thread, July 28, 2010

Blagojevich trial fixed, US Justice Department corrupt, Obama protected, Media coverage?

The jury begins deliberations today, Wednesday, July 28, 2010. It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the arrest and trial of Rod Blagojevich was crafted to protect Obama. The Blagojevich attorneys are correct. The prosecution did not present a case. Is this being covered properly in the media, including Fox? If you have any evidence of media coverage, please advise.

Yesterday I presented part 6 on the Blagojevich trial, protecting Obama and US Justice Dept. corruption. What I did was not rocket science. The basis of part 6 was presenting information from the Evidentiary Proffer. A cursory examination of the the evidence there reveals that the trial was rigged.

“As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.

The approximately 39 pages devoted to Blagojevich’s activities mainly from mid 2008 to his arrest reveal much about the chicanery crafted in this setup. These pages are at most a continuation of Blagojevich’s activities in the prior 6 years. They are more general in nature and in the case of the selling of the senate seat, more open to interpretation.

Compare these facts to the evidence and witnesses of the Blagojevich trial.

It is clear from the facts, from the evidence that:

Rod Blagojevich should have been arrested and indicted by 2006.

The arrest of Blagojevich was delayed until after the 2008 election to protect Obama.

The shortening of the trial was designed to protect Obama and the Democrats.

The withholding of evidence and not calling witnesses such as Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine was designed to protect Blagojevich and Obama. The theatrics playing out in court are likely to be a diversion to make it appear that the defense wanted Rezko and Levine to take the witness stand. Rezko and Levine know too much about both Blagojevich and Obama. That is why the Justice Department did not call them as witnesses. We have confirmation from this apparent scheme and other revelations that the US Justice Department is corrupt.”

Are there anymore whistleblowers in the US Justice Department? Anymore attorneys who believe in the US Constituton and rule of law?

Blagojevich trial conspiracy, Protect Obama, US Justice Department corruption, Part 6, Trial shortened, Evidence omitted

Blagojevich trial conspiracy, Protect Obama, US Justice Department corruption, Part 6

Blagojevich trial

Protecting Obama

Part 6

Trial shortened – Evidence omitted

From the Evidentiary Proffer in the Rod Blagojevich trial.

“This proffer begins by discussing case law governing the admissibility of co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and, alternatively, other provisions of Rule 801(d)(2). Next, this proffer summarizes some of the evidence supporting the admission of co-conspirator statements. In this manner, the government will establish to the Court the existence of the evidence available to complete the necessary foundation at trial, the roles of certain witnesses, and the bases for admission. The government is not detailing all of its evidence that would go to show the existence of the pertinent conspiracies, or all of the co-conspirator statements that were made in furtherance of the conspiracies charged in the indictment. Rather, this proffer highlights for the Court samples of the government’s evidence in order to establish to the Court the existence of the conspiracies described in Counts Two, Seventeen, Eighteen, Twenty-One, and Twenty-Three, and the scheme described in Counts Three through Thirteen, and the roles of the various conspirators.”

OVERVIEW OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES
“Defendant Rod Blagojevich has been charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering acts, racketeering, mail and wire fraud, attempted extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion, bribery, and conspiracy to commit bribery, while defendant Robert Blagojevich has been charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit extortion, attempted extortion, and conspiracy to commit bribery. The Second Superseding indictment charges that the defendants, together with others, used and agreed to use the powers of the Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois, and of certain state boards and commissions subject to influence by the Office of the Governor, to take and cause governmental actions, including: appointments to boards and commissions; the awarding of state business, grants,
and investment fund allocations; the enactment of legislation and executive orders; and the appointment of a United States Senator; in order to obtain financial benefits for themselves and others, including campaign contributions for Rod Blagojevich, and employment for Rod Blagojevich and his wife.”

Beginning with

“THE GOVERNMENT’S PROFFER REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY”

Pages 15 to 52  reveal Blagojevich’s involvement in corruption beginning in 2002 and going into the summer of 2008. Here are some of the names mentioned in this section:

Tony Rezko

Stuart Levine

Patti Blagojevich

John Harris

Christopher Kelly

Alonzo Monk

Joseph Cari

William Cellini

Robert Weinstein

Ali Ata

Joseph Aramanda

Daniel Mahru

Fortune Massuda

Imad Almanaseer

Michel Malek

Jacob Kiferbaum

Out of this 91 page document, 38 pages are loaded with names and events tied to Rod Blagojevich from 2002 to the summer of 2008. Beginning on page 52 and to page 90 are references to Blagojevich shady dealings primarily from the summer of 2008 on.

CONCLUSION
“The above is an outline of the evidence that the government will introduce to establish that a conspiracy existed involving defendant Rod Blagojevich, Blagojevich’s wife, defendant Robert Blagojevich, Christopher Kelly, Antoin Rezko, Alonzo Monk, Stuart Levine, Sheldon Pekin, Joseph Cari, Jacob Kiferbaum, William Cellini, John Harris, Deputy Governor A, Individual I, Advisor A, and Advisor B, and that conspiracy allowed defendants Rod Blagojevich and Robert Blagojevich to commit the charged offenses. This Court should find, based upon this proffer, that coconspirators’ statements are admissible pending the introduction of evidence to support this proffer.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29924979/Government-Evidentiary-Proffer-Against-Rod-Blagojevich-4-14-10

As noted in part 5 of this series, Tony Rezko’s name was mentioned approximately 288 times in the Evidentiary Proffer. The above numbers reveal that of the evidence presented in the Proffer, 38 pages are loaded with names and corruption activities tied to Blagojevich from 2002 to mid 2008. And yet neither Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called as witnesses. And just as predicted and warned about here, the focus of the trial was the selling of Obama’s senate seat.

The approximately 39 pages devoted to Blagojevich’s activities mainly from mid 2008 to his arrest reveal much about the chicanery crafted in this setup. These pages are at most a continuation of Blagojevich’s activities in the prior 6 years. They are more general in nature and in the case of the selling of the senate seat, more open to interpretation.

Compare these facts to the evidence and witnesses of the Blagojevich trial.

It is clear from the facts, from the evidence that:

Rod Blagojevich should have been arrested and indicted by 2006.

The arrest of Blagojevich was delayed until after the 2008 election to protect Obama.

The shortening of the trial was designed to protect Obama and the Democrats.

The withholding of evidence and not calling witnesses such as Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine was designed to protect Blagojevich and Obama. The theatrics playing out in court are likely to be a diversion to make it appear that the defense wanted Rezko and Levine to take the witness stand. Rezko and Levine know too much about both Blagojevich and Obama. That is why the Justice Department did not call them as witnesses. We have confirmation from this apparent scheme and other revelations that the US Justice Department is corrupt.

Blagojevich trial corruption revealed, Witnesses not called, Evidence not presented, Citizen Wells open thread, July 27, 2010

Blagojevich trial corruption revealed, Witnesses not called, Evidence not presented

“Curiouser and curiouser”…Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

From the last article at Citizen Wells article taken from the Chicago Tribune. Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Jr. leaves the courtroom in protest.

“Adam announced to U.S. District Judge James Zagel that he wouldn’t follow the judge’s order barring him from arguing that the government didn’t call some key witnesses to point the finger at the former governor. Adam wants to be able to tell the jury that they weren’t called because they would have been helpful to Blagojevich.

Zagel threatened to hold him in contempt of court if he proceeded, and Adam said he would take that risk.

“I’m willing to go to jail for this, your honor,” Adam said loudly. “I cannot follow your order on this.”

Having that door closed makes it impossible for him to effectively represent Blagojevich, Adam said. He said he should be able to argue that the government could have called witnesses such as fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, political insider Stuart Levine and Blagojevich’s general counsel, William Quinlan.”

Is this part of some theatric scheme? A diversion on top of diversions? Bringing Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine to the stand does not help Blagojevich, but it does hurt Obama.

Part 6 of the series on protecting Obama and US Justice Department corruption will be presented today. It further reveals the amount of evidence withheld and how the trial was skewed to focus on events that happened in the latter half of 2008 to the exclusion of most of the corruption that Blagojevich and his cronies were involved in.

Blagojevich trial, Sam Adam Jr threatened with contempt, Key witnesses not called, Rezko Levine Quinlan, Judge James Zagel

Blagojevich trial, Sam Adam Jr threatened with contempt, Key witnesses not called

I am not certain if this is part of some preordained script but I agree with Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Jr., the government should have called Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine to the witness stand.

From the Chicago Tribune July 26, 2010.

“Following his dispute with the trial judge, Blagojevich’s lawyer, Sam Adam Jr., walked over to the former governor and shook his hand in a way that suggested to reporters he was done representing him.
Adam then walked out of Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, leaving it in doubt whether he will return tomorrow to deliver the closing argument for the former governor.

Asked by reporters if he would be back for the closings, Adam responded, “I don’t know yet.”

Adam announced to U.S. District Judge James Zagel that he wouldn’t follow the judge’s order barring him from arguing that the government didn’t call some key witnesses to point the finger at the former governor. Adam wants to be able to tell the jury that they weren’t called because they would have been helpful to Blagojevich.

Zagel threatened to hold him in contempt of court if he proceeded, and Adam said he would take that risk.

“I’m willing to go to jail for this, your honor,” Adam said loudly. “I cannot follow your order on this.”

Having that door closed makes it impossible for him to effectively represent Blagojevich, Adam said. He said he should be able to argue that the government could have called witnesses such as fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, political insider Stuart Levine and Blagojevich’s general counsel, William Quinlan.”

Read more:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/blagojevich-on-trial/2010/07/blagojevichs-lawyer-sam-adam-jr-will-not-be-arguing-today-to-the-jury-after-all-following-a-tiff-with-the-judgeadam-ann.html

Blagojevich trial closing arguments, Trial fixed, Verdict US Justice Department corrupt, Citizen Wells open thread, July 26, 2010

Blagojevich trial closing arguments, Trial fixed, Verdict US Justice Department corrupt

Closing arguments in the Blagojevich trial will begin, and,  according to Judge James Zagel, end today, Monday, July 26, 2010. Of course the verdict is already in. The fix was in years ago. I am convinced that Blagojevich, Obama and Rezko made a deal some time ago. The arrest of Blagojevich was conveniently delayed until after the 2008 election. The conclusion of the trial has conveniently been hurried to end months before the 2010 election. The trial continues to be misportrayed as mostly about selling the senate seat when, in fact, Blagojevich, as indicated in the legal documents, was involved in corruption going back to at least 2002. No witnesses such as Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine were called, no witnesses who would reveal the depth of corruption that Blagojevich and, yes, Obama, were involved in.

Anita Moncrief ACORN voter fraud, ACORN background, NY Times, Obama ACORN ties, Documentary, US House report

Anita Moncrief ACORN voter fraud, ACORN background, NY Times, Obama ACORN ties

Many of you have seen the following video. Below the video are just some of the articles presented here over the past year or so about ACORN voter fraud.

October 12, 2009

Vote Fraud Criminal Darnell Nash Should Be ACORN’s Poster Boy

Read more

October 5, 2009

ACORN voter fraud in Minnesota?

Read more

September 28, 2009

US House of Representatives report on ACORN

Read more

September 25, 2009

Documentary update: “We will not be Silenced”

Read more

September 15, 2009

Catholic Bishops cut funding to ACORN and reveal truth about ACORN agenda

Read more

August 19, 2009

Nevada ACORN director guilty

Read more

August 14, 2009

Obama lied about his connections to ACORN

Read more

April 3, 2009

NY Times admits pulling ACORN story before 2008 election

Read more

Anita Moncrief FEC charges against Obama administration, ACORN whistleblower, Video, Citizen Wells open thread, July 25, 2010

Anita Moncrief FEC charges against Obama administration, ACORN whistleblower, Video

“ACORN whistle-blower Anita Moncrief held a press conference today at the Right Online Convention in Las Vegas. She announced today that she will press FEC charges against the Obama Administration for the campaign’s illegal work with ACORN during the 2008 election.”

Thanks Charles.

Judge Susan Bolton may enjoin Arizona Law in part, SB 1070, Section by section, Citizen Wells open thread, July 24, 2010

Judge Susan Bolton may enjoin Arizona Law in part, SB 1070, Section by section

From The Phoenix New Times July 23, 2010.

“In a day filled with protests, arrests, legal arguments, an appearance by the governor, and at least one certified neo-Nazi, the most significant developments in the SB 1070 saga happened within the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, not without.

There, Judge Susan R. Bolton oversaw two hearings Thursday where the plaintiffs sought to have her enjoin SB 1070, Arizona’s new “papers, please” legislation. But Bolton, without indicating when she would make a decision, signaled that if she enjoins SB 1070, she will do so in part, perhaps gutting significant portions of the law while leaving the remainder ready to go into effect July 29.

Whatever her decision, legal experts anticipate that her ruling will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which would likely put the law on hold.

Although lawyers for the ACLU, MALDEF, and finally the U.S. Department of Justice argued in separate hearings that the law must be taken as a whole, Bolton kept directing them to the specifics of certain provisions.

“You’re not asking me to do that?” Bolton asked ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat at one point in the morning hearing on the ACLU/MALDEF suit about his request that she enjoin 1070 in its entirety.

“Shouldn’t we be talking about it section by section?” she continued. “And talk about what you want me to enjoin?”

She cited the severability clause in the statute, which would allow her to partially enjoin, while leaving the rest of the statute in force.

Jadwat contended that the law’s stated intent, to make “attrition through enforcement” the policy of Arizona, indicated that all parts of SB 1070 were meant to work together toward this goal.

However, Bolton declared that, “I cannot enjoin the [law’s] intent.””

“”Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to [illegal immigrants]?” wondered Bolton at one point.”
“Playing devil’s advocate, Bolton observed that not a day goes by without the news reporting on a drop house being busted by authorities. Didn’t Arizona have a legitimate concern with “public safety” and the “dangerous situation” that harboring illegal aliens causes?”

“Bolton does not have to issue a decision on an injunction before July 29, the date 1070 is scheduled to go into effect, but most observers believed she will.

It’s worth remembering that an injunction would not overturn the law, just place all or part of it on hold until the various lawsuits play themselves out. The question remaining seems to be how much of the law Bolton will allow to go into effect come the 29th.”

Read more:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/07/sb_1070_field_day_will_judge_s.php