Tag Archives: Citizen Wells exclusive

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

“I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.”…Linda Tripp

“The only question that remains today is whether or not Hillary Clinton gets away with another cover-up, like she did in the Vince Foster case, and runs for President in 2016, or will she finally be held accountable, and Americans learn the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack?”…Canada Free Press December 18, 2012

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion



When I discovered the damning testimony of Rosemary Jenks was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website on December 9, 2004, I smelled a rat.

A big Clinton rat.

After poking around on the internet for a while I finally found it.

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

In a WABC interview in 2003 Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,”

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,”
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.”

“In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.””

““I think she’s realizing how much this issue has grown since 9/11,” he said. “If you talked about it before then, you were just a flat-out racist. Now it’s this huge issue.”

Moving to the right of even some Republicans, the former first lady told WABC she favors “at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And … perhaps, although I’m not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report said a conservative stance on immigration would be wise in the event Mrs. Clinton runs for president in 2008.”

Read more:


On December 8, 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton placed the following on her official website:

“Senator Clinton on the Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Today is an historic day. We are coming to the end of a process that began immediately after the September 11 attacks and is ending with an historic reorganization of the intelligence community. Today’s vote, coming after months of testimony before the 9/11 commission, weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill and tough negotiations in Congress, represents a signal accomplishment in reforming our government to protect our homeland and fighting the War on Terror.

Today’s accomplishment, The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, would not have been possible without the courage, dedication and hard work of the families of the victims of September 11th. It was the persistence and resilience of these brave family members who lost their loved ones on September 11th that led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission. And it was their continued resolve that helped to keep the heat on Congress to insure that those recommendations were put into law. While not every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is included in this bill, the bill makes historic changes in the way our government will collect and analyze intelligence so that we hopefully never again have to live through a day like September 11th.

In the aftermath of September 11th, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system isn’t working the way that it should. The Commission report, following on the work of prior commissions that have studied the issue, details how we have 15 different intelligence agencies who are not sharing information, not communicating with one another and missing important linkages. This legislation, through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), breaks down the artificial barriers in the intelligence community and insures that there is a high level official, answerable to the President, who is working to insure that our intelligence agencies are sharing information and communicating with one another.

This legislation gives the DNI budget authority over the intelligence community which will allow him or her to exercise proper control over the coordination among agencies. In Washington, budget authority means real authority and strengthening the DNI is a major accomplishment of this bill. He or she will also be responsible for budget execution and have the authority to reprogram funds and transfer personnel. These powers will allow the DNI to establish objectives and priorities for the intelligence community and manage and direct tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence.

This legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The creation of this Board is intended to ensure that at the same time we enhance our nation’s intelligence and homeland defense capabilities, we also remain vigilant in protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Our civil liberties define us as Americans. As the 9/11 Commission said, “Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.” The conference report being considered today essentially charges the Board with primary executive branch responsibility for ensuring that privacy and civil liberty concerns will be appropriately considered in the implementation of provisions designed to protect us against terrorism. While the legislation that initially passed the Senate explicitly provided the Board with subpoena powers, the conference report that we are voting on today does not. That omission is unfortunate, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress to address this issue and provide such powers in the future, so that the Board will have the tools it will need to help us maintain the proper balance between our nation’s security and our liberties.

The legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the Northern Border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years.

While I look forward to a productive debate on immigration issues in the next Congress, I am pleased that there are a number of key immigration reform provisions in this legislation, including those addressing the process of obtaining U.S. visas.

I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, The Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children.

But we are being shortsighted if we limit our educational investments to countries with predominantly Muslim populations, and if we focus solely on expanding the number of U.S.-run schools in these areas, as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act does. Instead, the U.S. should work with the global community to create strong incentives for developing countries to build universal, public education systems of their own. Only then will our investments have the maximum impact because only then will they result in systemic change.

We do not know where the next Afghanistan will spring up. But we do know that extremism will flourish where educational systems fail.

The 9/11 Commission, and the commissions before it, including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart (“Hart-Rudman Commission”) and The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Governor James Gilmore III (“Gilmore Commission”), called for dramatic improvements in the sharing of intelligence information. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among federal, state, and local government agencies. The sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the war against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the war against terrorism here at home — our local communities and our first responders — are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. I am pleased that this legislation mandates major improvements in this regard.

Contained in Title VII of the Act are provisions from the “9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004,” legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman and for which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor. Among its provisions are those that address homeland security preparedness, including a call for a unified incident command system and significantly enhancing interoperable communications between and among first responders and all levels of government. Title VII also speaks to the need for allocation of additional spectrum for first responder needs and to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunication needs, an issue that I have focused on intensely as co-chair of the E-911 Caucus.

I am extremely disappointed, however, that this legislation does not specifically mandate an improvement in how the federal government allocates critical homeland security funds to states and local communities around the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have repeatedly called upon the Administration and my colleagues to implement threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that the homeland security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for Administration officials to consider.

But threat-based funding is not only important to me and to the New Yorkers whom I represent; it was also a primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the Commission stated: “We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.”

The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that “the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.” In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating the majority of federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed.

Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Rudman Commission, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year and a half ago that “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”

Both the Senate and House-passed intelligence reform bills that were reconciled in this conference report contained language that sought to effectuate this important recommendation but, unfortunately, such language was not included in the conference report. As the 9/11 Commission, Rudman Commission, many other homeland security experts, and I have repeatedly asserted, there are few issues more important to our nation’s homeland defense than homeland security preparedness and the proper allocation of the resources to achieve that preparedness. Therefore, I will continue to work as hard as I can with my colleagues on a bi-partisan basis to make the 9/11 Commission’s call for threat and risk-based funding a reality.

At the end of the day, this legislation has the capacity to improve our security and make us safer. I would especially like to note the dogged persistence of Senators Collins and Lieberman, who were unflinching in their work on this important bill. However, passage of this legislation is just the beginning. We have now given our government the tools to make a difference. But as with anything in our system, success depends on the independence and accountability of those appointed to carry out these reforms. It is critical that the American people, and we in Congress, insist upon accountability from those whom we are asking to implement these reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in that effort.

Once again, thank you to the 9-11 families, the 9-11 Commission and all those who have worked to make this legislation a reality. Now, the hard work of implementing these reforms begins.


Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

There is even a bigger reason for her to do so.

The record of the Clinton Administration abusing the INS and rapid naturalization of immigrants to secure additional Democrat voters for the 1996 election.

This was exposed by David Schippers in his role as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, in his subsequent book “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment” and subsequent articles.

From David Schippers October 2000.

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.

In his new bookSellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment, David P. Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, details his investigation of these same issues. He concludes that were he and his investigators afforded more time, it is likely the abuses of the Citizenship USA program would have been included in the list of impeachable offenses against President Clinton. Below is an excerpt from Schippers’ book, published last month by Regnery.

My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

Read more:


Ironically and/or fitting, the link to the Rosemary Jenks House Judiciary testimony above contained the following: “666”.

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

I next went to the Wayback Machine and after trying different dates for copies, I discovered that the testimony was there for December 9, 2004 but not December 10, 2004.

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

On December 8, one day before Hillary writes of the passage of  “The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” and the strengthening of national security and the borders and the next day, House testimony about how the Clinton Administration abused the INS and the system to expedite and procure more Democrat voters for the 1996 election disappears.


Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

“Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.”

Read more:


From David Schippers and his book:

“Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

So, who scrubbed the Rosemary Jenks testimony from the House Judiciary website?



More here:





FEC 2008 FOIA request, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Old information viewed with 20 20 hindsight, Citizen Wells exclusive

FEC 2008 FOIA request, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Old information viewed with 20 20 hindsight, Citizen Wells exclusive

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

I was going through some old paperwork recently and reexamined a 2008 FOIA request I made to the FEC regarding any information they had about the Philip J Berg lawsuit which had just included them as a defendant. With the clarity of 20 20 hindsight, several items of interest are presented.

The Citizen Wells blog was definitely in the mix questioning many aspects of Obama’s past in 2008. This blog was one of the first entities anywhere to announce the Berg lawsuit due to the efforts of faithful followers. Here are the actual heads up that we received.

“Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Subject: About to break news”

“My name is XXXXXXX XXXXXXX of XX. I have been working with Phil Berg on
this project. Here’s the scoop.

Attorney Phil Berg of Philadephia, PA alleges that Obama is not a us
citizen nor his he “natural born” and within the next 30 minutes will
be filing a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order
prohibiting Obama from running for Office of the President and
enjoining the DNC from naming Obama as a nominee for Democratic
Presidential election.

Go to the US District Court, Eastern District of PA, 2nd floor Clerk’s
Office on 601 Market Street in Philadelphia, PA”

“Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Subject: Update from xxxxxxx”

“I just spoke to Phil Berg. The suit is filed in Philadelphia in the
US District Court, Eastern District of PA, at 601 Market St, 2nd
floor District Clerk’s office. There will be an emergency hearing in
the morning to determine if they will issue the temporary injunction
barring him from running anymore.”

On August 21, 2008, the following was reported at Citizen Wells.

“We were given a heads up earlier that a complaint was being filed in US District Court, Eastern District of PA. The complaint is a follows: ”for an emergency temporary restraining order prohibiting Obama from running for president, and enjoining the DNC from nominating Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate.””


From the FOIA documents sent to me.

Cover letter pg 1, 2.



Within approx. 24 hours of the filing of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit, the following memo surfaced. Notice “Re: Victory in Berg v. Obama” What does this mean?

Scribd pg 3


Letter to FEC referencing an email.

Scribd pg 6


“August 18, 2008”

“This is a request for an opinion”

“email which I have received from a friend in Arizona”

Email received by letter author from a friend in Arizona.

Scribd pg 7


“I did not find anything to confirm or refute this story. Should everyone (extra should) wait til later to see if this hits the fan?”

Scribd pg 8


“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help answer this question?”
Response from FEC.

Scribd pg 4


“You ask the Commission to consider issues arising in an email circulating on the internet. The email, which is attached to your letter, asserts that a candidate for President is not eligible to be President because the candidate may not be a U.S. natural-born citizen. You ask how the legal requirements for obtaining and maintaining U.S. citizenship would apply to the assertions made in the email.”

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”

The letter is dated 3 days before the Berg lawsuit.  

The wording above indicates to me that the person who sent the email and the person who wrote the letter are likely involved in the election process as election officials or are involved in a political party.

The following comments are particularly interesting.

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped?”

“Should everyone wait til later to see if this hits the fan?”

The FEC response states “your inquiry does not qualify as an advisory opinion request.”

However, the FEC website states:

“Election Administration

The FEC’s Office of Election Administration (OEA) serves as a central exchange for information and research on issues related to the administration of federal elections on the state and local level.”

Who “dropped the ball”? Obviously the FEC.

Blagojevich trial, May 11, 2010, Blagojevich pleads Guilty?, Citizen Wells exclusive, Deaths Suicides Murders, Obama subpoena clues, Who will throw who under the bus

Blagojevich trial, May 11, 2010, Blagojevich pleads Guilty?

I just responded to the following comment on this blog:

“Powerful information, CW about the events prior to 2009 concerning BHO. We would not be getting this kind of background or current info re. the Chicago events from any other source that I know of. Very little re. Blago’s hearing has been covered by anyone, as far as I can ascertain.
Thanks for pulling it all together.”

My response:

“Thanks Cabby.
That is why I have spent so much time reporting on the truth about Blagojevich, BO, Rezko, Levine, et al.
There has been a conspiracy to downplay these stories.
As I posted several months ago, O’Reilly only asked Blago about the alleged senate seat selling.
This is, of course, what Blago & Obama want.”

I have been sickened and disgusted by the lack of coverage of the long time, deep corruption involvement by Rod Blagojevich and our entertainment based media playing into Blagojevich’s hands. I have performed an informal survey over the past several months of otherwise intelligent people. I asked them what their perception was of the corruption charges against Blagojevich. They all gave the same predictable response. The alleged selling of Obama’s old senate seat.

Over the past two years this blog has extensively covered Obama’s ties to Chicago and Illinois crime and corruption. I called for the indictment of Rod Blagojevich before he was arrested and indicated that Obama should be next. I also called into question the timing of waiting until after the 2008 election to arrest Blagojevich.

I have given this much thought. Given the amount of evidence, the number of witnesses, the suicides and other questionable deaths of those connected to Blagojevich and ultimately Obama. Given the power Obama has over the Justice Department. Given the fact that the Blagojevich team seems desperate to delay the trial. I believe that it is highly likely that Blagojevich may cop a plea.

The question remains.

Who will throw who under the bus?