Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts

Elijah Cummings Dogged By Child Support, IRS Troubles, Foreclosure, Questionable Loans

Baltimore Sun
August 2, 2019



We travel back to the beginning of Elijah Cumming’s Congressional career when the Baltimore Sun was a respectable newspaper and took Cummings to task for his troublesome finances in 2000.
A review of state and federal records and interviews with associates provide a picture of a man who has spent years warding off debt collectors, juggling unpaid tax bills and paying to support several children.
Those problems were mounting even as Cummings, a public official for 17 years, was becoming a highly popular and influential figure. In his district, Cummings is regarded by some constituents as a surrogate mayor, and he frequently plays host to Cabinet officials and President Clinton when they visit Baltimore.
Only this year, the Democratic congressman said, has he shaken free of most of his debts. He had previously characterized his difficulties as those born of his decision in late 1995 to run for Congress after Rep. Kweisi Mfume announced that he would resign.
Among his most serious troubles:
In the mid-1990s, the Internal Revenue Service filed court papers declaring that Cummings was legally obliged to pay more than $30,000 in unpaid federal taxes. He finished paying those taxes earlier this year.
Cummings appears to have violated campaign finance law by having a donor co-sign a loan that supplied $15,000 for his first House campaign, attorneys knowledgeable about that law say.
In five instances, creditors went to court to force Cummings to pay a total of $24,000 in overdue debts.
Cummings said he has been short of money, in part, because he helps to support three children: his college-age daughter with his now-estranged wife and two children he fathered by other women out of wedlock — a 16-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter. Cummings said he paid about $30,000 last year in child support and tuition payments.
The congressman has referred to his younger daughter in many speeches. But until now, he has never publicly acknowledged the existence of his son. The teen-ager lives with his mother in Baltimore. READ MORE:

Senate's GOP tax reform bill seeks repeal of Obamacare individual mandate

CNBC
November 14, 2017


The proposed Republican tax reform bill will include repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate requiring most Americans to have some form of health insurance or pay a tax penalty, GOP leaders said Tuesday.
The decision means that Republicans, yet again in 2017, will attempt to gut a key element of the Affordable Care Act.
So far, such efforts have failed because not enough Republican senators have backed the idea of repealing the mandate, which would lead to an estimated 13 million more people lacking health insurance.
"We're optimistic that inserting individual mandate repeal would be helpful," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. on Tuesday afternoon after a lunch meeting with the Republican conference.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said, "I'm pleased the Senate Finance Committee has accepted my proposal to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate in the tax legislation."
"Repealing the mandate pays for more tax cuts for working families and protects them from being fined by the IRS for not being able to afford insurance that Obamacare made unaffordable in the first place," Cotton said. "I urge the House to include the mandate repeal in their tax legislation."
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Tex., said, "We're going to repeal the tax on poor Americans."
Cornyn said the majority of people who pay the individual mandate tax penalty for not having insurance have lower incomes.
Sen. John Thune, R-SD, told the Washington Post that there are 50 Republican senators willing to support the mandate-repealing tax reform bill. That would be enough to pass it, with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.
Thune also said the deal agreed upon is to pass that bill alongside another bill, known as Alexander-Murray, which would restore key federal subsidy reimbursements to Obamacare insurers cut off last month by President Donald Trump.

EXCLUSIVE: NBC Quietly Scrubs ‘Discredited’ Smear of Bill Clinton Rape Accuser

Breitbart
August 2, 2016

Following the receipt of a retraction demand, NBC News has quietly edited the Internet edition of a segment that aired on the highly-rated “Today Show” in which anchor Andrea Mitchell claimed Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton had been “discredited.” 

Following the receipt of a retraction demand, NBC News has quietly edited the Internet edition of a segment that aired on the highly-rated “Today Show” in which anchor Andrea Mitchell claimed Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton had been “discredited.”

After receiving the legal letter, penned by Broaddrick’s attorney and son, Kevin L. Hickey, NBC removed the word “discredited” from the network’s Internet version of Mitchell’s video report, Broaddrick and Hickey told this reporter. However, NBC did not make any indication of the edit in the video or on the webpage that hosts it.

Nor did NBC fulfill Broaddrick’s request, which she says was communicated in the letter, for an apology from Mitchell on the “Today Show” as well as an acknowledgement on the show and on NBC’s website that there is no information that Broaddrick’s story has been discredited.  Instead, a staffer from NBC informed Hickey that the “discredited” statement had been removed, Broaddrick and Hickey said.
“It is incredibly disappointing that NBC and Andrea Mitchell will not publicly apologize for this egregious error, especially considering that NBC has retroactively edited the online version of the story and taken out the word ‘discredited,’” Hickey told Breitbart News.
“Why not now go the extra step, the morally right step, and publicly acknowledge the mistake and publicly apologize?” he said.
“My mom’s credibility was just fine for Lisa Myers and NBC when the story was initially aired.  Nothing has changed.  Yet NBC apparently thinks it is okay to disparage a victim like this and then do nothing to rectify the situation.”
A spokesperson for NBC News did not return a Breitbart News request for comment.
During the “Today Show” segment in question, which aired live on May 19, Mitchell wasreporting on an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity in which Donald Trump utilized the word “rape” while discussing accusations against Bill Clinton regarding women.

Nehlen Invokes Trump In Primary Challenge: Paul Ryan "Will Thwart President Trump At Every Opportunity"

Real Clear Politics
August 1, 2016





Businessman Paul Nehlen, who is challenging Rep. Paul Ryan in his Wisconsin GOP primary, nationalizes the race to throw out the Republican House Speaker, saying under a Trump administration: "Paul Ryan will be nothing but a problem: He will thwart President Trump at every opportunity. 

Nehlen slams Ryan for his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, amnesty for illegal immigrants and "jail-break" criminal justice reforms in this interview with 'Fox Business Network' host Lou Dobbs.

"August 9," the date of the GOP primary, "will be Wisconsin's Independence Day," Nehlen said, echoing the successful Brexit slogan. 

"With one vote we can take back our nation from Paul Ryan's special interests," he said. "With our one vote we can stop TPP and stop Amnesty. It is vitally important that we do this, because with President Trump in place, Paul Ryan will be nothing but a problem. He will thwart President Trump at every opportunity."

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

New York Times
July 19, 2016

A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property.

MATTHEW STAVER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Selected not Elected — Rothschild’s Hold $100,000 a Plate Dinner Fundraiser for Guess Who

Sic Semper Tyrannis!!! News
July 19, 2016

Washington, D.C. – Providing even more proof that she is simply a puppet for the ruling oligarchy, on Thursday, Hillary Clinton attended a $100,000-a-head fundraiser hosted by none other than Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent New York businesswoman, and supporter of Mrs. Clinton

.The Rothschild banking dynasty is a family line that has been accused of pulling the political strings of many different governments through their control of various economic systems throughout the world. Historically, there is ample evidence to prove that the family has used its vast fortune to control the political apparatus of numerous nations throughout history, toppling regimes and bringing entire economies to their knees.
Although the Rothschild family now keeps a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having an extemely strong voice across the geopolitical/economic spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of virtual secrecy and silence.
In March, The Free Thought Project examined Wikileaks searchable archive of Clinton’s emails and found intimations of a close relationship with the infamous Rothschild family.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild wrote an email on April 18, 2010, in which she tells Hillary she would “love to catch up” — and “I remain your loyal adoring pal.” Clinton responds, “let’s make that happen,” and signs her response,“Much love, H.”
By: via thefrethoughtproject.com

Black History Racist Democrats Refuse to Teach Today

Sic Semper Tyrannis!!! News
July 18, 2016
You Tube

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It’s a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today’s Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms.  This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled.  If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself.  There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition. 



Part 1


Part 2

The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

American Thinker
July 18, 2016


Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels?  How about Joseph Hayne Rainey?  If not, you’re not alone.  I taught history and I never knew half of our nation’s past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.
Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it’s the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties.  Luckily, we can still venture back into America’s real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things.  Let’s take a closer look.
An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they’re all Republican!
From left to right: 
  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901):  Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War.  He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America’s first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894):  Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman.  He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868.  In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874):  Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868.  From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops.  He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled.  Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man.  However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses.  But that didn’t stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House. 
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887):  Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina.  He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872.  In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.
Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. How can this be? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party.  Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic’s founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation.  Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress.  This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.
Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead.  Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864.  Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise.  Then there’s the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males.  Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.
In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office.  For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935! 
Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods
By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era.  This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate.  The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).
This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard.  But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof.  For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they’ve scratched even more history.  Apparently, they believe it’s easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s.  Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!
Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party.
One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!” 
This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.  
The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other.  Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process.  Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.
By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills.  Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress.  Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions.  Talk about disenfranchising black voters!
There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.
Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work.  Instead, they do it themselves.  You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state’s new right-to-work legislation stating, “Whoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.”  An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, “There will be blood!”
As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It’s a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today’s Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms.  This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled.  If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself.  There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition. 

Kimberly Bloom Jackson is a former actress turned teacher who holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology. Her many writings on Hollywood, education, and culture can be found at SnoopingAnthropologist.com.

Justice Antonin Scalia Opposed a Constitutional Convention

JBS.org
February 24, 2016


"I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?" - Justice Antonin Scalia, April 17, 2014 (Click here to see video of Scalia's statement.)

In a recent email from former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Oklahoma state legislators encouraging them to pass the Convention of States application for a "limited convention," Coburn used a supportive quote attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The quote, as it appeared in the email, reads:
 

"If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let's take it." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia~

Reading this, one might believe that this portrays a recent view of the late justice, especially since Coburn's citation says "Justice." However, this is misleading.

Although no date was provided with the quote, the quote comes from remarks delivered by Scalia at a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute on May 23, 1979 - seven years before President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court. The AEI forum was entitled, "A Constitutional Convention: How Well Would It Work?" and was moderated by former ABC News chief John Charles Daly.

Scalia was not a justice of the Supreme Court when he said those words, but rather a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. At the time, Scalia also worked at the American Enterprise Institute, which he was addressing when he spoke in favor of the idea of a limited convention.

However, contrary to Senator Coburn's attempt to protray Scalia as a supporter of an Article V constitutional convention, the quote he uses from 1979 does not accurately reflect Scalia's recent views on the subject of a modern-day constitutional convention.

On April 17, 2014, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on an episode of the Kalb Report, a one-on-one panel discussion television and radio program jointly produced by the National Press Club Journalism Institute, the George Washington University, and the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The subject of their program was "A Conversation about the First Amendment."

During the program, host Marvin Kalb asked a question from Seth Dawson of the Office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding Justice John Paul Stevens's recent suggestion of a constitutional amendment to modify the Second Amendment. The question was, "If you could amend the Constitution in one way, what would it be, and why?" The first to answer was Scalia, who replied (click on above image for video):
 

I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that?

Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution and speaking in the context of amendments he clearly warned against the notion of convening a convention, which is the second method for amending the Constitution under Article V.

Following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New Jersey, on May 8, 2015, during the question-and-answer session, Scalia was asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation's interest.

"A constitutional convention is a horrible idea," Scalia replied. "This is not a good century to write a constitution."

Although the Convention of States (COS) Project would have one believe that a constitutional convention is a "totally different creature" from an Article V convention or "convention of the states," as they call it, this is simply not true.

Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive legal lexicon in American law, defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V convention as an example of one:
 

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added]

This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second edition of A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains unchanged in contemporary editions of Black's Law Dictionary.

Professor Scalia may have entertained the notion of a convention back in 1979, but by 2014 Justice Scalia was firmly set against it and rightly so, noting the uncertainty that could arise from such a modern convention. This is especially true given today's political climate and prevailing lack of education about the Constitution. The solution, as The John Birch Society advocates and Justice Scalia understood throughout his judicial career, is adhering to the Constitution, not changing it by way of amendments at an unpredictable convention.

First Action Request:
Click here for the phone number of your state legislators. Phone them and ask them to vote against all bills and resolutions making application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments.
Tell them that our state legislatures and Congress should enforce the Constitution, not rewrite it.

Second Action Request:
Click here to send a prewritten, editable message to your state legislators.
 It is preferable (to get the maximum impact) to edit the message in some way, such as adding opening or closing remarks, or editing the message itself. Then send the email message.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Societ
y

Many Question Scalia's Death as Suspicious

Angry Patriot
February 15, 2016

As you know by now, Justice Scalia passed away over the weekend. As more details are revealed, things are starting to take an odd turn as to the actual cause of his death. These theories are getting a lot of steam, so I would be remiss by not discussing them with you.
Just prior to his death, a climate change initiative was put in front of the Supreme Court.This climate change initiative was blocked by a vote of 5-4, with Scalia’s vote being the swing vote to block it.
When the legislation was blocked, The Hill did an in-depth article as to why this was so devastating to the Obama administration. The Clean Power Plan was to be part of Obama’s legacy, and the administration was not happy at all it was blocked.
In effect, if the administration fails to have this legislation passed, a major platform position of Obama will be a complete failure, significantly damaging his legacy.
So, how does this tie into the Justice’s death?
There are currently some very strong conspiracy theories going around, one of which I will address later today. These theories surround the suspicious manner in which the judge was found as well as there being no autopsy performed to give a cut and dry cause of death.
I hate to say it, but it wreaks of some type of cover up. The one thing that has me completely puzzled is why his family is not allowing an autopsy to be performed. It just baffles me!
Do we need to look further into this? I think we have to because of the circumstances surrounding his death and the events leading up to it.
Did Obama resort to something horrific to get his agenda pushed through before he leaves office? The American in me wants to refuse to believe something like this could happen today. But I honestly just don’t know.
What do you think about Justice Scalia’s death? Do you think Obama was up to no good? Please share the story on Facebook and let us know because we want to hear YOUR voice!

Exclusive: Congressman Introduces Resolution of Condemnation and Censure Against Obama

Breitbart
January 13, 2016

Congressman 
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) 
introduced a Resolution of Condemnation and Censure against President Obama today.

The resolution states that “President Barack Obama has failed to fulfill his duty in article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, that he has failed to ensure a strong national defense, has failed to fulfill his duty in article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States, and that his foreign policy has led to increased global instability.”
The resolution adds that the House of Representatives “hereby censure and condemn President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy.”
A full copy of the letter can be found here.
Yoho told Breitbart News exclusively that President Obama’s foreign policies have been a disaster for every single country in the world. He added that the only country that is better off under the Obama administration is Iran.
“The one thing he can’t tout is his accomplishments in foreign affairs and our national security,” Yoho told Breitbart News. “He has been a disaster in that,” Yoho added.
“The world is less safe. Americans are less safe. We’ve got terrorists on our soil here and it’s because of his failure, whether you look at it in Afghanistan or Iraq policies with announcing troop withdrawals.”
Yoho told Breitbart News that Obama’s foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan have “allowed the Taliban to move in and incidentally the Taliban controls more land mass today than they ever have.” He added that this has “led to the creation of ISIS.”
Yoho also said that Obama’s strategy in Syria has “allowed Assad to kill or slaughter over 300,000 of his own people. That has led to the largest mass exodus since WW2.”
The Congressman lists the following events as just a few of President Obama’s foreign policy failures:
2009 – U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan took 13 lives and injured more than 30 others in the worst attack on an American military base. Obama’s DOD classifies the attack as workplace violence.
2012 – Islamic militants kill Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in attacks on U.S. diplomatic compounds in Benghazi, Libya.  Obama’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Clinton, and Press Secretary J. Carney blame a YouTube video
2013 – Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev kill four – including Officer Collier and 8-year-old Martin Richard – and injure over 250.  Obama’s Administration ignores advance intelligence on the radicalization of Dzhokhar.
2015 – Mohamman Abdulazeez opens fire on Chattanooga, TN, military facility killing four Marines. Obama calls it a mass shooting and calls for stricter gun control.
2015 – San Bernardino shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik kill 14 and injure 22. Obama calls for stricter gun control.
2016 – Philadelphia, PA, self-proclaimed jihadist, Edward Archer ambushes Officer Hartnett “in the name of Islam.” Obama’s Press Secretary Josh Earnest calls for stricter gun laws.

BIDEN TO THE NAVY: ‘OUR FORCES WILL HAVE TO BE READY’ FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Breitbart
May 24, 2015

Matheny's Note: Our current administration are out of their minds...
Kevin Wolf / Associated Press

Speaking at a Commencement Ceremony for the Naval Academy today, Vice President Joe Biden warned graduates that they would have to be prepared for the devastating effects of climate change.
“We’ll rely on you, the United States Navy, to lead in solving these emerging problems,” he said, pointing to the massive devastation caused by a major typhoon in the Philippines.
The United States Navy, he explained, “filled the void” in the humanitarian efforts after the major natural disaster.
“Our presence, your presence, matters,” he said.
Biden directly quoted President Obama’s Coast Guard Academy address warning of more extreme storms as a result of climate change.
“Our forces will have to be ready, you remain indispensable,” he stated. “America’s command of the oceans is the measure and the symbol of our diplomatic and military primacy in the world.”

CONGRESS TELLS COURT THAT CONGRESS CAN’T BE INVESTIGATED FOR INSIDER TRADING

The Intercept
May 11, 2015

Featured photo - Congress Tells Court That Congress Can’t Be Investigated for Insider Trading









In a little-noticed brief filed last summer, lawyers for the House of Representatives claimed that an SEC investigation of congressional insider trading should be blocked on principle, because lawmakers and their staff are constitutionally protected from such inquiries given the nature of their work.
The legal team led by Kerry W. Kircher, who was appointed House General Counsel by Speaker John Boehner in 2011, claimed that the insider trading probe violated the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch.
In 2012, members of Congress patted themselves on the back for passing the STOCK Act, a bill meant to curb insider trading for lawmakers and their staff. “We all know that Washington is broken and today members of both parties took a big step forward to fix it,” said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, upon passage of the law.
But as the Securities and Exchange Commission made news with the first major investigation of political insider trading, Congress moved to block the inquiry.
The SEC investigation focused on how Brian Sutter, then a staffer for the House Ways and Means Committee, allegedly passed along information about an upcoming Medicare decision to a lobbyist, who then shared the tip with other firms. Leading hedge funds used the insider tip to trade on health insurance stocks that were affected by the soon-to-be announced Medicare decision.
Calling the SEC’s inquiry a “remarkable fishing expedition for congressional records,” Kircher and his team claimed that the SEC had no business issuing a subpoena to Sutter. “Communications with lobbyists, of course, are a normal and routine part of Committee information-gathering,” the brief continued, arguing that there “is no room for the SEC to inquire into the Committee’s or Mr. Sutter’s purpose or motives.”
Wall Street investors routinely hire specialized “political intelligence” lobbyists in Washington to get insider knowledge of major government decisions so that they may make trades using the information. But little is known about the mechanics of political intelligence lobbying, which falls outside the scope of traditional lobbying law, and therefore does not show up in mandatory lobbying disclosure reports.
There are occasional hints, though.
Personal finance forms reveal that from July of 2011 through May of 2013, David Berteau served as a consultant to Height Analytics, the political intelligence firm at the center of the SEC’s current probe. At the time of his work for Height Analytics, Berteau simultaneously worked as a vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a prominent think tank in Washington. Berteau is now the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness.
Congressional travel forms show that on December 12, 2012, Emily Porter, at the time an employee of Boehner’s office, traveled to New York on a sponsored trip to meet with JNK Securities for a group lunch with business clients. According to the Wall Street Journal, JNK “has emerged as one of the most aggressive” political intelligence firms on Capitol Hill.
This is hardly the first time Congress has moved to undermine its own ethics rules. In 2011, congressional Republicans quickly abandoned their promise to post the text of bills online “for at least three days” before voting on them.
Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images