You Owe Them Nothing - Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

[Ryan Ruck]

You Owe Them Nothing - Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience

July 4, 2016
By Kurt Schlichter

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. It is high time to declare our personal independence from any remnant of obligation to those who have spit upon the rule of law. We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.

Think about it. If you are out driving at 3 a.m., do you stop at a stop sign when there’s no one coming? Of course you do. You don’t need a cop to be there to make you stop. You do it voluntarily because this is America and America is a country where obeying the law is the right thing to do because the law was justly made and is justly applied. Or it used to be.

The law mattered. It applied equally to everyone. We demanded that it did, all of us – politicians, the media, and regular citizens. Oh, there were mistakes and miscarriages of justice but they weren’t common and they weren’t celebrated – they were universally reviled. And, more importantly, they weren’t part and parcel of the ideology of one particular party. There was once a time where you could imagine a Democrat scandal where the media actually called for the head of the Democrat instead of deploying to cover it up.

People assumed that the law mattered, that the same rules applied to everyone. That duly enacted laws would be enforced equally until repealed. That the Constitution set the foundation and that its guarantees would be honored even if we disliked the result in a particular case. But that’s not our country today.

The idea of the rule of law today is a lie. There is no law. There is no justice. There are only lies.

Hillary Clinton is manifestly guilty of multiple felonies. Her fans deny it half-heartedly, but mostly out of habit – in the end, it’s fine with them if she’s a felon. They don’t care. It’s just some law. What’s the big deal? It doesn’t matter that anyone else would be in jail right now for doing a fraction of what she did. But the law is not important. Justice is not important.

The attorney general secretly canoodles with the husband of the subject of criminal investigation by her own department and the president, the enforcer of our laws, shrugs. The media, the challenger of the powerful, smirks. They rub our noses in their contempt for the law. And by doing so, demonstrate their contempt for us.

Only power matters, and Hillary stands ready to accumulate more power on their behalf so their oaths, their alleged principles, their duty to the country – all of it goes out the window. But it’s much worse than just one scandal that seems not to scandalize anyone in the elite. Just read the Declaration of Independence – it’s almost like those dead white Christian male proto-NRA members foresaw and cataloged the myriad oppressions of liberalism’s current junior varsity tyranny.

There is one law for them, and another for us. Sanctuary cities? Obama’s immigration orders? If you conservatives can play by the rules and pass your laws, then we liberals will just not enforce them. You don’t get the benefit of the laws you like. We get the benefit of the ones we do, though. Not you. Too bad, rubes.

So if you are still obeying the law when you don’t absolutely have to, when there isn’t some government enforcer with a gun lurking right there to make you, aren’t you kind of a sucker?

Don’t you feel foolish, like you’re the only one who didn’t get the memo that it’s every man/woman/non-binary entity for his/her/its self?

Who is standing against this? Not the judges. The Constitution? Meh. Why should their personal agendas be constrained by some sort of foundational document? Judges find rights that don’t appear in the text and gut ones that do. Just ask a married gay guy in Los Angeles who can’t carry a concealed weapons to protect himself from [OMITTED] radicals.

The politicians won’t stand against this. The Democrats support allowing the government to jail people for criticizing politicians and clamor to take away citizens’ rights merely because some government flunky has put their name on a list. Their “minority report” on Benghazi is an attack on Trump, and to them the idea of congressional oversight of a Democrat official whose incompetence put four Americans in the ground is not merely illegitimate; it’s a joke.

Is the media standing against this, those sainted watchdogs protecting us from the powerful? Don’t make me laugh.

What do these moral abortions have in common? Short term political gain over principle. These people are so used to the good life that a society’s reflexive reliance on the principle of the rule of law brings that they think they can undermine it with impunity. Oh it’s no big deal if we do this, they reason. Everyone else will keep playing by the rules, right? Everything will be fine even as we score in the short term.

The Romans had principles for a while. Then they got tempted to abandon principle for – wait for it – short term political gain. Then they got Caesar. Then the emperors. Then the barbarians. And then the Dark Ages. But hey, we’re much smarter and more sophisticated than the Romans, who were so dumb they didn’t even know that gender is a matter of choice. Our civilization is permanent and indestructible – it’s not like we are threatened by barbarians who want to come massacre us.

Oh, wait. The last words of some of these people to their radical Muslim killers before they are beheaded will be, “Please remember me as not being Islamaphobic! And sorry about the Crusades!”

There used to be a social contract requiring that our government treat us all equally within the scope of the Constitution and defend us, and in return we would recognize the legitimacy of its laws and defend it when in need. But that contract has been breached. We are not all equal before the law. Our constitutional rights are not being upheld. We are not being defended – hell, we normals get blamed every time some Seventh Century savage goes on a kill spree. Yet we’re still supposed to keep going along as if everything is cool, obeying the law, subsidizing the elite with our taxes, taking their abuse. We’ve been evicted by the landlord but he still wants us to pay him rent.

Now it seems we actually have a new social contract – do what we say and don’t resist, and in return we’ll abuse you, lie about you, take your money, and look down upon you in contempt. What a bargain!

It’s not a social contract anymore – American society today is a suicide pact we never agreed to and yet we’re expected to go first.

I say “No.”

We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. Nothing.

We make it easy for them by going along. We make it simple by defaulting to the old rules. But there are no rules anymore, certainly none that morally bind us once we are outside the presence of some government worker with a gun to force our compliance. There is only will and power and we must rediscover our own. If there is no cop sitting right there, then there is nothing to make you stop at that stop sign tonight.

They don’t realize that by rejecting the rule of law, they have set us free. We are independent. We owe them nothing - not respect, not loyalty, not obedience. But with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we will still mutually pledge those who have earned our loyalty with their adherence to the rule of law, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

[American Patriot]

I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but I'm posting it here. Please disseminate this everywhere to everyone, any way you can



I have downloaded it myself and have placed copies in several places.

[vector7]

[vector7]

Comey, Clintons and Clemency

The FBI director's connections to Hillary.

April 5, 2016
Lloyd Billingsley



Hillary Clinton’s email problems, going back to her time as Secretary of State, have not drawn heavy coverage from the old-line establishment media. As the investigation nears its final stages, FBI director James Comey’s past dealings with the Clintons may prove of interest.

Detail on those dealings emerged in American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power, a 2004 book by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor to Time magazine who has written for Life, the New York Times, and Vanity Fair. None could be described as conservative but Andersen is candid about Hillary’s political past.

Hillary’s friends Robert Treuhaft and wife Jessica Mitford were “avowed Stalinists” who opposed the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and remained committed to the Communist cause. American Evita charts Hillary’s admiration for Marxist theoretician Carl Oglesby and Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, from whom Hillary learned that “the only way to make a real difference is to acquire power.”

After Bill Clinton left the White House, one staffer told Andersen, the entire focus was on “getting Hillary back in.” The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that any pardon was discussed.

The day before the election, in a letter to New Square’s main synagogue, president Bill Clinton said he looked forward to visiting the village. As Andersen noted, New Square delivered Hillary’s biggest victory margin of any community in New York state, 1,359 votes to only 10 for her opponent Rick Lazio.

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson notes, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.”

Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen finds it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

On September 4, 2013, James Comey became director of the FBI. In that role, Comey oversees the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material on her private email and server.

Whether she gets a pass this time is uncertain, but Comey’s history with the Clintons is worth media attention. So is Hillary’s history on the subject of terrorism.

“At Hillary’s urging,” Andersen writes, “the President granted clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who have been sentenced to prison following a wave of bombings from 1974 to 1983 that took the lives of six Americans and wounded scores of others. Incredibly, the terrorists had not even asked for clemency.” The worst attack was the January 24, 1975 bombing of Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan. The Puerto Rican FALN exploded a bomb during the lunch hour, “hurling body parts into the street and killing four people.”

The terrorists accepted President Clinton’s offer of clemency but expressed no regret for their actions. Former U.S. Attorney Joseph Di Genova went on record that “the Puerto Rican terrorists were pardoned because they were a political benefit to the president’s wife. Make no mistake about it.” As Anderson notes, FBI director Louis Freeh opposed the pardons, as did New York major Rudy Giuliani, senator Charles Schumer and former Puerto Rico governor Carlos Romero Barcelo who, says Andersen, “pleaded with the president not to release the bombers.”

Stories on the Clinton pardons have not been a staple of the current campaign, in which Republicans have been the targets of choice on the terrorism issue. Perhaps a bit more balance is in order. Reporters, meanwhile, will find American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power a worthy refresher course on the

[vector7]

Senator Admits The FBI Is "About To Ask Putin For His Copies Of Hillary's Emails"

by Tyler Durden
Jul 4, 2016 6:57 PM

It is well known that the FBI still does not have roughly 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server due to Clinton categorizing them as personal and not work related. We have also reported that Russia may be in possession of those emails, and according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, there is a debate going on in the Kremlin about whether or not to release them.

Given that the FBI still doesn't have the emails, Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton (of the US is "under-incarcerated" fame), who is a Trump supporter and also serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has become so frustrated that Cotton suggests the FBI is about to ask Putin for his copies. Cotton also took a jab at Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, saying that his plane was also on the tarmac, and he thought Bill Clinton may be waiting to climb on board to talk with him as well.



As Breitbart reports

A combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, Sen. Thomas Cotton (R.-Ark.) said he was glad to make it on time for his speech after a series of travel delays.

“We were on the tarmac, I thought Bill Clinton might be boarding my plane to talk to me,” said the former Army Airborne Ranger officer.

Cotton said it was shocking, but not shocking to him, that the former president would meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch — whose department is investigating both his wife and himself for his handling of the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton’s decision to conduct all her official business on her own private email account on her own private server and the way she has handled official and media inquires about it was just teaser of how her administration will approach transparency and national security, Cotton said.

The FBI still does not have 30,000 emails the expected Democratic nominee for president claimed to have deleted.

“It has gotten so bad, the FBI is on the verge of asking Vladimir Putin for his copies of Hillary’s emails,” Cotton said.

In addition to the criminal nature of the former first lady scheme, he said, conducting official and classified business on an unsecured server exposed American national security to our enemies.

Americans should not be surprised that the former secretary of state would put America at risk, he said. Working with President Barack Obama, Clinton oversaw a foreign policy that treated allies as troublemakers and our enemies as victims with legitimate complaints about the United States. Chief among the enemies is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Obama-Clinton empowered by lifting sanctions, thawing frozen assets, and ignoring Iran’s support of violent terrorism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...illarys-emails

[American Patriot]

Just check wikileaks and Julian Assange


Idiots.

[vector7]

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-hillary-hook

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
July 5, 2016 12:45 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

[vector7]

America Died At 11:00 ET 7/5/2016

The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets

2016-07-05 10:34 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 5899 references

America Died At 11:00 ET 7/5/2016

There is no longer the Rule of Law in this nation.

The law is clear. Knowingly removing classified documents is a criminal offense.
The very setting up of such a server and transmission or reception of classified material violates the statute since it is not possible to accidentally cross the SIPRNet boundary. It can only be occur through intentional conduct.

Further, there has been zero mention of the Clinton Foundation and what facially appears to have been the selling of favors by the Clintons during and after Hillary's time in office.

Here is the section of US law that Comey admitted and stated that the FBI found Hillary violated:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

and

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Which in turn implicates Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and every one of the people who worked on said server or in Hillary's entourage and knew what Hillary was doing.

In short:

The Rule of Law was officially burned and buried today on live television by the Director of the FBI.
You therefore no longer have any moral requirement to adhere to same; your entire analysis must now rest on whether you are sufficiently afraid of being shot -- and nothing more.

America, as envisioned and fought for by the founders, died today at 11:00 AM ET, 7/5/2016.
240 years and one day from birth to death.

[vector7]

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds

America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic republic envisioned by Founding Fathers.

Rather, it has taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

One finding in the study: The U.S. government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported.

In the study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” researchers compared 1,800 different U.S. policies that were put in place by politicians between 1981 and 2002 to the type of policies preferred by the average and wealthy American, or special interest groups.

Researchers then concluded that U.S. policies are formed more by special interest groups than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study found.

The study also found: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/.45..epublic-unive/

[American Patriot]

Wilfull misconduct in ordering the markings removed. Then ordering them transmitted becomes a felony.

[vector7]

Companion Posts:

Why Did Bill Clinton And Loretta Lynch Meet On Her Airplane In Phoenix This Week? [VIDEO]

Reporter: FBI ordered ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones’ during Clinton/Lynch meeting

posted at 7:21 am on July 1, 2016 by Larry O'Connor

This Is What Loretta Lynch Said When Cornered About Her Clinton Meeting

Comey, Clintons and Clemency

The FBI director's connections to Hillary.

Flashback:
Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry, Official Says

By MATT APUZZO
JULY 1, 2016




Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch in Phoenix on Tuesday. A private meeting at the city’s airport between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political uproar. Credit Nancy Wiechec/Reuters Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said. Her decision removes the possibility that a political appointee will overrule investigators in the case.

The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.

Republicans said the meeting, which took place at the Phoenix airport, had compromised the independence of the investigation as the F.B.I. was winding it down. Some called for Ms. Lynch to recuse herself, but she did not take herself off the case — one that could influence a presidential election.

Ms. Lynch plans to discuss the matter at a conference in Aspen, Colo., on Friday. The Justice Department declined to comment. The official who confirmed the discussion did so on the condition of anonymity because the internal decision-making process is normally kept confidential.

The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state. Internal investigators have concluded that the server was used to send classified information, and Republicans have seized on the matter to question Mrs. Clinton’s judgment.

For the Justice Department, the central question is whether the conduct met the legal standard for the crime of mishandling classified information.

Ms. Lynch said that the meeting with Mr. Clinton was unplanned, largely social and did not touch on the email investigation. She suggested that he walked uninvited from his plane to her government plane, both of which were parked on a tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

“He did come over and say hello, and speak to my husband and myself, and talk about his grandchildren and his travels and things like that,” Ms. Lynch said at a news conference in Los Angeles on Wednesday, where she was promoting community policing. “That was the extent of that. And no discussions were held into any cases or things like that.”

That did not mollify Republican lawmakers, who said the meeting raised questions about the integrity of the government’s investigation.

“In light of the apparent conflicts of interest, I have called repeatedly on Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel to ensure the investigation is as far from politics as possible,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement on Thursday.

The meeting created an awkward situation for Ms. Lynch, a veteran prosecutor who was nominated from outside Washington’s normal political circles. In her confirmation, her allies repeatedly sought to contrast her with her predecessor, Eric H. Holder Jr., an outspoken liberal voice in the administration who clashed frequently with Republicans who accused him of politicizing the office.

Ms. Lynch has said she wants to handle the Clinton investigation like any other case. Since the attorney general often follows the recommendations of career prosecutors, Ms. Lynch is keeping the regular process largely intact.

Her reassurance that she will not overrule her investigators, however, is significant. When the F.B.I. sought to bring felony charges against David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director, for mishandling classified information and lying about it, Mr. Holder stepped in and reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. That decision created a deep — and public — rift.

The F.B.I. is expected to make a recommendation to the Justice Department in the coming weeks, though agents have yet to interview Mrs. Clinton. While some legal experts said they believed that criminal indictments in the case were unlikely, the investigation continues to cast a shadow over Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seized on the private encounter, describing it in a radio interview as a “sneak” meeting and saying it exposed the rigged nature of the process.

Even some Democrats criticized the meeting. “It doesn’t send the right signal,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, said in response to a question on CNN’s “New Day.” While he said he believed that Ms. Lynch was an independent prosecutor, “I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual, social meeting with the former president.”

Beyond the day-to-day workings of the Justice Department, there is precedent for explicitly relying on career officials to make politically charged decisions. When the Justice Department was considering whether to recommend sanctions against former Bush administration lawyers who approved waterboarding, Mr. Holder relied on his most senior career prosecutor to make the decision. No sanctions were recommended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us...rver.html?_r=0

[vector7]

Flashback:
Eric Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With

Katie Pavlich

Posted: Feb 25, 2014 9:02 AM

Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced attorneys in the Department of Justice would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was later struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court.

[American Patriot]

Dicks.

[American Patriot]

Here’s why I’m DELIGHTED about the FBI’s verdict on Hillary…

Written by Allen West on July 5, 2016



Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision.

My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.
However, James Comey just delivered a gift wrapped with a bow. Why do I say that?
Simple, here’s what FBI Director Comey said regarding Hillary Clinton and this email server episode:

• He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
• He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
• He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
• He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
• And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

Here’s a simple Southern summation. Hillary Clinton was extremely careless with our not just classified, but highly classified, information — why not just term this gross negligence? I can tell you, if I were a member of our Armed Services who’s been punished for misuse or mishandling of classified information, I would be filing an appeal. See, in the military, at a minimum, you’ll lose your security clearance; maximum, you’ll face courts-martial punishment.
Comey has said Hillary Clinton is not reasonable — is that who you want as president and commander in chief? And Mrs. Clinton’s actions were not appropriate or acceptable. That follows with Mrs. Clinton’s blatant lie about not having any classified material on her private server — her unclassified, private, personal server. Hillary Clinton stated there was no classified correspondence she emailed — wrong, a lie. Lastly, Comey confirmed Hillary Clinton inappropriately deleted the property of the American people — State Department, work-related emails. We know from the deposition of her closest aide, the daughter of Muslim Brotherhood associates Huma Abedin, that she admitted to burning emails.


And yes, Hillary Clinton lied about not having any of her emails “hacked.”
Andrew McCarthy, in his article at the National Review, stated:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
Marcus Tullius Cicero referred to this as “the arrogance of officialdom.” Consider that just last week, there was a secret, private meeting between former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The attorney general told us they talked about golf vacations and grandkids. Over the weekend, quietly, Hillary Clinton visited FBI headquarters and then came out to give an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd — who stated he had inside information there would be no charges. Then the morning after our 240th Independence Day, Director Comey announces a press conference — as the pre-flight checks were being conducted on Air Force One, preparing to fly President Obama and Hillary Clinton on a campaign ride to North Carolina. The optics of this rivals any episode of “Game of Thrones” or “House of Cards.”
Comey announces no charges, and Air Force One takes off. Barack Obama is flying, on taxpayer dollar, not with someone under criminal investigation — but a recently-exonerated Hillary Clinton. This, Ladies and Gents, is the “policy of political corruption” on full display. And it’s offensive to me, and should be to you, that these chuckleheads think so little of the American people.
Well, not all. Certainly the Kool-Aid drinking sycophants are rejoicing — and so am I. Why, because we see who these progressive socialists truly are and how they’ll use any means in order to achieve their ends. It’s obvious that somewhere there are emails involving Barack Obama, so the Clintons got the drop on him and Valerie Jarrett. Loretta Lynch paid her homage to the Clintons, not the Obamas.
So, is this the “new normal?” Have we decided there are political elites who are indeed above the law? It appears that is the case…but I believe the final vote will be cast by the American people. James Comey gave us every reason to look upon that stage in Charlotte, North Carolina, with abject disdain toward two of the biggest liars in U.S. political history. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood together on that stage, you saw two people who abandoned Americans to die and lied about it. We saw on that stage that the new American socialist party resembles the old Soviet politburo where there are no rules for the few — but rules, laws and edicts for others.
If you looked upon Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on that stage yesterday and cheered, the day after our 240th American Independence Day — you are no Patriot and citizen of this Republic. You are nothing more than, as Vladimir Lenin stated, a “useful idiot” — and a supporter of liars. We can ill afford the mindless lemmings to take this nation further down the road to perdition. Thanks, Director Comey, you may have just become the one person who will end the corrupt reign of the Clinton Family, and terminate any chance for an honorable legacy for Barack Obama.

[American Patriot]

http://www.allenbwest.com/michelleje...of-fbi-verdict

BREAKING: GOP House makes BOLD move in wake of FBI verdict

Written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor on July 6, 2016



Far from quieting the controversy around presumptive Democrat nominee’s email scandal, the FBI’s stunning announcement of no charges for Hillary Clinton has only amped it up to new decibel levels.



And FBI Director James Comey has some ‘splaining to do. The GOP House Oversight Committee has just announced the FBI director will testify tomorrow.


Via Politico:


House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced that FBI Director James Comey will testify before his panel on Thursday regarding the bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices.



“Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI’s investigation,” Chaffetz said in a statement announcing that Comey had agreed to his request.


Indeed we do. It’s not just a right, it’s an imperative for the future of our republic and the rule of law.




If there has ever been a time for our GOP leadership to stand up, it’s now. This is a start…


Will be interesting to understand how Comey reconciles his determination that Clinton was “extremely careless” for using her private email server to send classified material as secretary of State with his decision not to recommend charges against her.


[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]

[American Patriot]

BREAKING: Romanian hacker with access to Clinton emails found dead in jail cell

By admin1 -
July 5, 2016
10646

Christian Times Newspaper has learned that Guccifer, the Romanian hacker currently being held on charges for hacking Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, has been found in his Virginia jail cell, dead of an apparent suicide.


Guccifer, also known as Marcel Lazar Lehel, was extradited to the United States to face charges after openly admitting to repeatedly hacking Hillary Clinton’s email server. This claim occurred in the midst of an FBI probe that was concluded this morning by Director Comey.



Lehel claimed that the server was “like an open orchid on the Internet” and that it “was easy … easy for me, for everybody.”


After the FBI cleared Clinton of any charges Tuesday morning, a rumor began circulating that Guccifer was missing from his jail cell. Tuesday night, reports began spreading that the Romanian hacker was found after the evening’s dinner hanging from a rope in his personal cell.


Comey, in his statement Tuesday morning, alluded to the fact that American enemies and individual actors most likely accessed Hillary Clinton’s emails, but Guccifer was the only person to come forward with knowledge of their contents.


Reports are still developing, and CTN is waiting on statements from authorities.


It is worth noting that the Clinton White House faced allegations that Hillary and her aides were involved in the questionable suicide of White House employee Vince Foster in 1995.

[vector7]

Not good, in fact kind of scary.

[vector7]

Could be a rumor...

Statement on "Guccifer" Rumors

Marcel Lehel Lazar, a federal inmate also known as Guccifer, is at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Va. He is alive and has never been missing from this facility.
Sheriff Dana Lawhorne
July 6, 2016

[American Patriot]

Could be a rumor....

Some of the sources I pull things from are questionable.

Last night, I questioned the whole conspiracy of the "guillotines". Turns out this nonsense has been running around the Internet since George Bush Jr.

I was in a group called "The American Patriot", and had a discussion with one of the admins who stated The Bushes are Evil. And blah blah. I refuted this, and explained I worked for the White House during the days of Barbara Bush, G HW Bush and Reagan. They asked me my opinion of Alex Jones and I gave it... I'm not polite about him usually.

I found myself banned this morning.

Apparently the people who want Trump believe the Bushs are evil, Obama is evil, everyone is evil except of course themselves, and maybe Trump.

I'm pretty fed up right now with politics. I'm fed up with corruption in the US government. I'm sick and tired of people who have to be able to have their opinions but can't allow others to have their own... you either think like them or you're done.

Americans have to stand together on principles. Not opinions. Franklin said, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must, indeed, stand together, or most assuredly we shall hang separately". He got that right.

The so-called "Patriot" community is scattered, disorganized, hateful of other groups, skeptical of facts, completely devoid of people the ability to listen to others' opinions and in serious need of being able to work together.

I don't see ANYTHING good coming out of the FBI Director's remarks the other day or his "examination" under a Congressional Inquiry today. I predict more of the same, lies, deceit and obfuscation.

We are stuck with a corrupt government. People inside are all lax in bothering to look into things, they make too much money, the power has gravitated from the people to the Congress and President, everyone is appointed based on loyalty to a party and not to the Nation.

America, as we knew it, has died and there is no such thing as "resurrection". There is only what is to come, a dark dismal future where usurpation comes more and more every day, rights evaporate, government entities become worse.

I suppose this had to come sooner or later. I'd hoped it would be later and I could leave my grandchildren a good place. Now, all they will get is whatever they can steal for themselves.

There's a bright side to all of this. A reset is coming. When it comes I will fight for the Rights and Freedoms we had, not for an illegitimate power that has set itself up to collect the spoils, and I will die a free man...

[vector7]

I heard about guillotines years ago. I have to say some of the rumors sounded crazy then, including the enemies lists which I do believe exist.

Look where we've come thus far. The country is more divided now than it has in decades and people are not the same today as in 50s, 60s,70s, 80s or even 90s.

The far Left have shown they will do anything to hold power. They were all over Nixon for lying about a break in and drummed him out and now most of the same people on Left are in control of the Democratic Party including the Obama/Clinton machine lying to the American people every day including the MSM which are also full of the same far Left people

The Democrats are full of hypocrisy but then there are no rules for radicals.

If this was a Republican Administration the media would never stop the coverage and they would have lost the elections for many cycles. I do believe the elite have plans and all the prepping by the Government and weaponry is not just for disaster relief or to make us safe.

They have broken the Republic by design by knowingly overwhelming the system on every level. They are tired of the Constitution and are preparing to reboot Amerika into their Marxist Utopian dream.