Harry Reid Skates…Again

Like the FBI’s refusal to charge Hillary Clinton with violating federal law, the Federal Election Commission has decided not punish Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for violating election laws – all because it isn’t worth the money. At issue was a fundraising memo Reid’s team did for 2014 Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Lucy Flores, who lost in a landslide.

The most powerful politician in the state delivered only 62 donations to Flores. And that lack of effectiveness is the reason for no FEC action. The agency voted 4-0 against pursuing action after FEC lawyers wrote a four-page memo that said Reid’s fundraising committee admitted to failing to comply with an election law requirement, but that it wasn’t worth the time or money to prosecute.

In the fundraising email, Reid didn’t include the required disclaimer that only federally compliant donations could be made.

“The Reid Committee admits that the email, which was meant to facilitate low dollar contributions, did not inform recipients that Reid was soliciting only federally compliant funds,” said the FEC memo.

“It appears that the original solicitation, which did not inform recipients that Reid was only asking for contributions that complied with the Act, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(B).” the memo continues. “However, the contributions resulting from Reid’s solicitation email appear to have been modest, and the Reid Committee attempted to remedy the violation by sending a follow-up email explaining that all contributions had to comply with the Act’s limitations and source prohibitions. Thus, in furtherance of the Commission’s priorities, relative to other matters pending on the Enforcement docket, and in light of the corrective actions taken by the Reid Committee and the modest amount in violation, the Office of General Counsel believes that the Commission should exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the violations as to Reid and his committee.”

We are a doomed nation when the rule of law can so easily be swept aside.

Advertisements

All Hail, Queen Hillary as History Repeats

Soon, we shall see the coronation of Queen Hillary. With the recent release of the Democratic National Committee emails by Wikileaks, showing that the DNC favored Clinton over Bernie Sanders, it is easy to see that her rise to the status of nomination is the product of a rigged and corrupt system.

Further advancing the future outcome is the open knowledge that the Republican National Committee is doing its best to deconstruct its GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump. The greater the RNC damage the Trump’s campaign the greater the support for Clinton’s campaign.

Also creating an advancement for Clinton is the use (or perhaps the misuse) of the so-called ‘Third party.’ This comes from a historical perspective that shows that the third party candidate drains votes from one party, thus allowing for another party to gain the needed votes to secure the office.

On February 20, 1992, Ross Perot appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live and announced his intention to run as an independent if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states, which they did. In the 1992 election, he received 18.9-percent of the popular vote while Bill Clinton received 43-percent against George H.W. Bush’s 37.5-percent.

Arguably, had Perot not drawn 27-percent of the vote from conservatives and 53-percent coming from moderates, it is suggested that Bush would have been reelected by four to five-percent margin over Clinton. Unfortunately I fall within the 27-percent that tossed a ballot away on a candidate that had not chance at winning.

Since there are no ‘true’ third party challengers to Clinton and at least two against Trump, simple math dictates the projected winner. And if history is any indication – I see the same thing happening again.

Thus we shall be witness to not only Hillary’s ascension to the crown, the shattering of the so-called ‘glass ceiling,’ but also the shredding of Constitutional law as she selects the next supreme Court judges, who’ll rule the bench for the next forty years or more, and continued liberty damaging policies laid out before her predecessors.

Not All Oaths Have Meaning

Originally, billed as the GOP-elite’s best idea to stop Donald Trump from being nominated, worrying he’d take his supporters and run as an independent, harming GOP efforts to win against Hillary Clinton. Nothing like a plan back-firing on its planners; I mean it isn’t all that shock that it failed, given that all the Progressive minds that supported this stupid idea.

After all, it is a ‘means nothing’ kind of oath:

“I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

Now, here’s an oath that means something:

“I, [name] do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God!”

And it has no expiration date.

The Mockery of Justice

For years I’ve watched this nation implode on itself with its Godless rulers and abject distain for the rule of law, denying the U.S Constitution, and denying it to be an extension of the Ten Commandments. The decision by the FBI to rewrite law through the executive branch – to violate the precepts of the Constitution even further is literally in keeping with the false teaching that there is a ‘separation’ between God, God’s law and the state.

In March 2015, it became publicly known that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as United States Secretary of State, had exclusively used her family’s private email server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Those official communications included thousands of emails that were marked classified.

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey said his agency had concluded its investigation stating that although Clinton was “extremely careless” in her “handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”, he would recommend to the Justice Department that “no charges are appropriate in this case. The following day, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed that the investigation into Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state was closed without criminal charges.

By not recommending charges be laid against Clinton for violating federal law as she kept a secreted private server on which she did ‘official government business,’ flies in the face of every law abiding citizen of this nation. Instead of following the ‘rule of law,’ they decided to exonerate her actions through so-called ‘lack of intent.’

Intent is defined as, “the thing that you plan to do or achieve: an aim or purpose…” However, she set the server up intentionally, she intentionally used it to communicate government business, and she intentionally kept its use a secret. Both Comey and Lynch’s action in this matter have made a mockery of justice.

Without the rule of law there is no hope for this nation to survive as a Constitutional Republic.

‘Best Practices’ and ‘Collaboration’

A confidential Department of Justice (DOJ) memo, released February 5, 2013, says the federal government can kill an American citizen if it’s believed they are a “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. The 16-page memo provides new details about the legal reasoning behind strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were both U.S. citizens and never indicted or charged with any crimes.

The memo, filled with words like ‘best practices,’ and collaboration,’ also eliminates the barriers of “geographic limitations,” and asserts the ability to “follow” the target to “a new nation.” That leaves the entire world as the battlefield, including the United States.

Couple this to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security laid the foundation on April 7, 2009 on whom it considers a terrorist. These so-called “terrorists’ include anyone who is concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms and veterans.

Even more nefarious is the ‘Strong Cities Network,’ which was introduced by the DOJ on September 28, 2015 in a press release, that also uses ‘best practices,’ and collaboration,’ the federal government has joined with a U.N. supported international law enforcement coalition for the claimed purpose of “strengthen[ing] community resilience against violent extremism.” Essentially, the ‘Strong Cities Network’ has the potential to grow into something complete with laws that are both foreign and adverse to the U.S. Constitution.

Now add to the mix the July 1, 2016 Executive Order, titled, “Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force.” And while the title seems innocuous, the language of the order is broad and vague, though it too uses ‘best practices,’ and collaboration,’ freely.

But what is most striking is that this order makes no distinction between military operations “against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities,” and U.S. soil. The circle fully closes once the memo of February 2013 is taken into consideration; leading to the fact that all one has to do to wind-up dead is threaten “the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense…”

The Fourth Amendment Survives Another Attack

A federal judge has thrown out evidence obtained illegally through the use of a device known as a “Stingray,” “Hailstorm,’ or “Triggerfish.” The device acts by tricking cell phones in a certain range to show their location; it does this by acting as a cell phone tower.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled Tuesday that defendant Raymond Lambis’ rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used it without a warrant to find his apartment, writing, “Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen’s cell phone into a tracking device.”

“Here, the use of the cell-site simulator to obtain more precise information about the target phone’s location was not contemplated by the original warrant application,” the judge added. “If the Government had wished to use a cell-site simulator, it could have obtained a warrant.”

Under the Fourth Amendment, prosecutors must show probable cause to a judge to support specific things and persons to be searched that will show evidence of a crime. In the 1928 case of Olmstead vs. the U.S., Justice Louis Brandeis issued a warning about advances in technology, and how they would be used by the government to violate our right of privacy:

“The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home…”

The Democratic Party’s 2016 Political Platform is Set

The Democratic National Committee has written its most Progressive policy agenda in modern history. Their platform includes language on breaking up “too-big-to fail” banks and reinstating a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act, which requires commercial banking and securities activities be separated.

They’re also calling for abolishing the death penalty; and fighting for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizen’s United case, which barred the government from restricting political spending by nonprofit corporations. It also calls for the creation of a $15 per hour minimum wage, a price on carbon emissions and the complete decriminalization of marijuana.

The document also encourages the use of body cameras, the end of racial profiling, and requires the Department of Justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police-involved shootings. What it doesn’t include is language that opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership or any other global initiative.