Fruits of Banana Republic Corruption - from middle-class to zillionaire! By the time Barack Obama left office on January 20th, 2017, he already owned THREE mansions: 1. $5.3 million mansion in the Kalorama section of Washington, D.C., the posh neighborhood of diplomats and D.C. old money
2. Multi-million dollar home in Rancho Mirage, California, a community known for its world-class golf courses 3. A second vacation home in Hawaii, which some speculate is the famous Robin Masters Estate from the 80's hit show Magnum P.I.
"So if you're keeping count, that's three homes by 1/20/2017 on three different coasts, on a salary of $400,000 a year, plus rent free living, 270 days of golf during 8 years in office, and leaving behind $20 trillion in National Debt." 4. Add Barack and Michelle Obama buying a mega-mansion in Martha's Vineyard in 2019
In 2008, Obama called on Americans to “lead by example” on global warming: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … That’s not leadership,” Obama said. And what kind of fool would waste 15 MILLION DOLLARS on a superb mansion if he believes it will be underwater in 12 years? Below are some photos of the Obama's Royal Palace in Martha's Vineyard in Dukes County, Massachusetts: Sources:
- www.dailywire.com/news/11024/obama-purchases-california-mansion-go-along-his-chase-stephens - variety.com/2016/dirt/real-estalker/obama-home-purchase-rumors-rancho-mirage-persist-1201924007 - www.tmz.com/2019/08/22/barack-michelle-obama-buying-mega-mansion-marthas-vinyard - twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1164722953650675714 - twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1164726014234320902
0 Comments
By James Delingpole
February 11th, 2019 "Theresa May and her Remainer civil servants secretly sabotaged an offer made by the EU Council President Donald Tusk of a free trade deal exit from the EU because all they ever really wanted was Brexit In Name Only. Of the many things I’ve heard about the Establishment’s outrageous scheming to scupper Brexit this is by far the most damning – and it deserves much wider coverage. It was Martin Durkin (director of Brexit: the Movie) who drew my attention to it Steve Baker MP is a member of the (ardently pro-Brexit) European Research Group. He was also – till he resigned in protest at Mrs May’s handling of the Brexit negotiations – a minister in the government’s Department for Exiting the European Union (DEXU). Baker made his revelation at the end of last month while appearing before an MP committee, in which he criticised the “governing class” for its deliberate attempts to thwart Brexit in defiance of the Referendum vote. Baker told the committee hearing: “The entire approach is suffused by a reluctance to deliver what the public wanted, which is us controlling our laws in our parliament with all that that means. So the relationship between Number 10 [Downing Street] and the DEXU ministers was always one of instinctive tension because I think the DEXU ministers believed overwhelmingly in exiting the European Union. Whereas, overwhelmingly, the staff of Number 10 seemed not to be people with a heart for it. And I think that that tension suffused the entire process. We were regularly overruled. For example, after President [of the EU Council] Donald Tusk made his offer of security co-operation, participation in institutions of research, innovation, education and culture, dealing with absurdities – flights we’ve already mentioned, driving licences data and so on. He also made an advanced free trade agreement – all sectors, no tariffs, you know what he offered. Once he’d made that offer I was very pleased because it matched the policy which DEXU ministers had decided. And I wanted to start putting it in my speeches. And one speech in particular, I remember, was edited by Number 10 to remove references to that offer because it was not the offer that the system as a whole wanted.” I gather from other sources that Britain’s trade negotiating team – led by Liam Fox – is under orders from Number 10 to ensure that nothing is done to change the post-Brexit status quo. That is, when – as has happened in at least one case – a country negotiating a new bilateral, post-Brexit deal with the UK proposes to make it as tax- and regulation-lite as possible, Britain turns down the offer flat. Despite Brexit, Mrs May is absolutely set on keeping Britain’s trading relationship with the world the same as it was while Britain was a member of the European Union. No longer, I think, can there be any doubt that the failure of the Brexit negotiations has nothing to do with Brexiteer intransigence and everything to do with Mrs May and the Remainer Deep State." My comments: If Theresa May had not rejected Donald Tusk's offer of an advanced free trade agreement, the United Kingdom would have smoothly left on March 31st 2019 without the country being so deeply divided and the future of the Union itself at risk. And it is quite possible that Theresa May's secret goal was to reverse the "Leave" result of the 2016 referendum, sabotage Brexit and keep Britain in the European Union. The British people and history should never forgive nor forget Theresa May's betrayal of Great Britain. And the British Parliament should open an inquiry to investigate if the globalist elite corrupted Theresa May or influenced/compromised her in any other way to adopt a secret agenda of sabotaging Brexit. Source: www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/11/eu-president-tusk-offered-free-trade-brexit-mrs-may-sabotaged-it Two articles are referenced below which provide explanations. The Left’s Alliance with Islam: A Curious Case of Camaraderie By Arthur Holtz (medium.com) Jun 12, 2017 "Some months back, one of my sisters was telling me about a book she had just read. Her synopsis piqued my interest, and soon enough I also read the same book. That book was Infidel, an autobiography by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali was raised in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya as a Muslim, but later fled to the Netherlands and sought asylum to escape an arranged marriage. After some time there, she renounced her faith and became a vocal critic of Islam, and eventually even a politician in the Dutch parliament. It’s an inspiring — and often shocking — story, to be sure, but I don’t want to get too caught up in the specifics because that’s not the point I want to get across. You can read the book for yourself if you want to hear all the details. I’m merely using this background information to set the stage for the rest of this essay. Now, let’s fast-forward to late last week. While browsing YouTube the other day, I noticed an interview conducted by Dave Rubin with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I thought it would be interesting to hear what she had to say, especially having read her book fairly recently. So I clicked and sat back to watch and listen! Their conversation eventually turned to Western politics, where Rubin and Ali raised a point that really stuck with me, starting at about 13:30. This brings us to the question I would like to explore for this essay: Why does the political left find itself in some sort of alliance with Islam? The two make such strange bedfellows. What do I mean by that? In brief, here’s how I see it: Given what leftists believe is of utmost importance, I would expect them to regard Islam with healthy skepticism — at least along the lines of how they regard Christianity, which many on the left criticize without hesitation — yet I rarely hear criticism of Islam from the left. Sam Harris is the only prominent progressive I know of who will openly acknowledge the conflict, and he has been accused of Islamophobia for it by fellow progressives! If you ask me, he deserves kudos for consistent criticism of religion. First, let’s elaborate on what the left values. Then we will look at how the Muslim world writ large views those same issues. Then we will compare. Let’s get started! Living near San Francisco as I do — perhaps the left’s most vocal stronghold in the entire United States — you get a lot of exposure to leftist views. As such, I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what the left’s belief system is, even if I wouldn’t count myself among its ranks. Would anyone dispute the claim that the left believes very strongly in these three things?
Of course, there are many other pieces to the left’s platform, but I see these parts quite frequently and want to focus on them. In any event, I seriously doubt any self-described leftists would deny the importance of these tenets to the overall platform. In many ways, it seems to me Islam is at odds with these beliefs — not in the United States, but throughout much of the world, yes. Before you start flooding me with the hashtag #notallmuslims, I know. Neither I nor any reasonable person is trying to make the argument that all Muslims reject these things. I want to make it very clear that is not my position. All that said, thinking there is no significant hostility from anywhere in the Muslim world towards these principles is naïve at best, and dangerous at worst. The best evidence I can find suggests there is, although the extent of the hostility varies widely, depending on the country. Let’s consider how the Muslim world views those three points. On the topic of women’s role in society, it looks like there are inconsistencies. On one hand, in Pew’s survey of the world’s Muslims, a majority in nearly all the countries surveyed agreed that a wife must always obey her husband. On the other hand, respondents generally agreed that women should decide whether or not to wear a veil in public. Pew also asked about attitudes towards divorce and inheritance rights, and there wasn’t much consensus, aside of respondents in Southeast Europe having views more consistent with Western values. Regarding gay rights, in the aforementioned Pew survey, homosexual behavior is overwhelmingly regarded as immoral. Maybe that alone wouldn’t be such a big deal, if only that belief weren’t so often reflected in the legal system too. Numerous Muslim-majority countries are notorious for their hostile attitudes towards gays. Quickly scanning through the Wikipedia page listed above, I saw that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen prescribe capital punishment for homosexual activity. That’s not even counting extrajudicial punishment that may be rendered in countries where the sexual activity is technically legal. When it comes to a separation between church and state, there’s a wide range of attitudes towards making Islamic law the law of the land, but saying no Muslims are in favor of it is patently false. It really depends on where you look. In Iraq and Afghanistan, over 90% of respondents in Pew’s survey favored imposing sharia law. Lebanon, on the other hand, was at a mere 29%. In the interest of impartiality, I should also point out there is a major caveat to that previous point: If you look further down the page, you will find, on balance, respondents in favor of making sharia the law of the land also generally said it should only apply to Muslims. Nevertheless, I would still argue such a belief is at odds with not only the left’s platform of separating church and state, but also Western ideas in general. I think it’s obvious how imposing sharia law violates the notion of separation of church and state, so I’m not going to dwell on that too much, but my point about incompatibility with Western ideas might raise some eyebrows. Let me quickly elaborate on that. Western societies are predicated on the concept of equality before the law. Justice is supposed to be blind: No matter who you are or where you come from, the rules must be applied to everyone equally. (Perhaps not so coincidentally, countries that follow this principle often have relatively low corruption and homicide rates, along with increased per capita wealth.) Having one set of rules for Muslims and another set for everyone else — even if the rules for everyone else are more lenient — is nevertheless in violation of this principle. When you look at some core beliefs of the left and compare to the greater Muslim world, in many ways, I see a sizeable gap. That’s why I want to ask: How did the left end up in some kind of alliance with Islam? Why are its members so reluctant to criticize Islam when they will readily — eagerly, even — criticize Christianity for similar beliefs? I realize my claim about the left being allied with Islam might be questionable, so I’ll try to back that up. For starters, Pew’s survey of Muslim Americans indicates they lean strongly towards the Democratic party. Perhaps this has to do with perceived hostility from the Republican party; I couldn’t say for sure. Still, I think everyone would agree Democrats are more to the left than Republicans. One other compelling link I see between the left and Islam came from pictures I saw of the Women’s March earlier this year. The event was ostensibly about women’s rights, but I would argue it was more about advocating leftist views. If you don’t believe me, I have a few rhetorical questions for you. Look at the march’s official platform. I can see how one would argue reproductive rights are an integral part of women’s rights, even though I’m not sure I agree with the claim. But what about the rest? How do worker rights or environmental justice at all relate to women’s rights? If you value those things, fine, but don’t try and pass them off as issues specific to women. Also consider this: Politically speaking, how do you think most of the march’s participants identified? Call me presumptuous, but I would be genuinely surprised if there were many right wingers in attendance. If the march were truly only about women, I would expect to see women of all political persuasions. To connect the Women’s March back to Islam, did you see the official posters portraying a woman dressed in a veil — perhaps a hijab — styled as an American flag? I’m open to being proven wrong on this point, but as far as I can tell, the veil is supposed to symbolize Islam. I’m unaware of its significance in any other religious or cultural context. Now that I’ve established how I see a link between the left and Islam, let’s get back to the question of why. Ali mentions having heard others argue this alliance has to do with the left’s hatred of America and capitalism, although she seems skeptical of that argument. Whatever her stance might be, I can only see that applying to the far left — the types that are hellbent on completely dismantling capitalism — and hardline Islamists. That doesn’t explain the moderates. Ali then brings up another possible explanation involving the left’s tendency to perceive conflicts as a fight between oppressor and oppressed. I think she’s on to something here, and it’s such an astute insight! To explain, I need to take a quick detour. In The Righteous Mind (a book I’ve referenced before) Jonathan Haidt argues that differences in perceptions of morality — and by extension, political views — lie in what dimensions of morality people value. He uses an analogy to our sense of taste. You might think of it as different people have different “taste preferences” of morality. This is called moral foundations theory. Haidt believes there are at least five foundations: Care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. Progressives weight the first two much more heavily than the others, while conservatives weight them all closer together. Such a finding is at least consistent with my personal experience. I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve seen image macros on Facebook from Democrats accusing Republicans of being callous or heartless — or the reverse, with Republicans accusing Democrats of being disloyal or disgusting. (Both eagerly call each other stupid.) Back to Ali’s point, I think the left sees Muslims as an oppressed minority, which sets off the “care” moral response. Beyond that, I can only speculate as to why. Maybe it stems from seeing the wars raging throughout the Muslim world, and the refugees seeking safety therefrom. Or perhaps it’s the fear of backlash against innocent Muslims carried out by angry Americans who want retribution for Islamist terrorist attacks against the West. When Ayaan Hirsi Ali first pointed out the peculiarity of the left’s alliance with Islam, I was intrigued. It is strange how people who value women’s and gay rights so highly would be reluctant to criticize a religion whose adherents around the world often oppose those principles. Yet she makes a great point that it may have something to do with concern over oppression. I’m curious if anyone has a better explanation." The Left's Unlikely Alliance with Islam By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr. (americanthinker.com) August 28, 2010 "As we look around the world at the countries that practice Islam as a state religion, it is almost incomprehensible that the left should defend Islam so fervently. We don't have to look to the radicals in the Taliban or Hamas to see issues that most Americans would question. Sharia Law is practiced by most Islamic centric countries, and it is in almost direct opposition to the principles on which America was established and in direct contrast to the agenda of the left in America. What is important to realize is that Sharia Law isn't an outlier, practiced by radicals like al-Qaeda, but actually the mainstream core of jurisprudence in the Islamic world. The application of Sharia Law is incomprehensible to most Americans used to Western common law. For example, late last year, the Saudi equivalent of the Supreme Court refused to grant a divorce to an eight-year-old who was essentially sold to her fifty-year-old husband by her father. Child brides are prevalent and legal in Muslim countries governed by Sharia law. In another example, just recently, a case of a couple who were stoned to death for having sexual relations outside marriage made the news from Afghanistan, and a thirteen-year-old was stoned to death for being raped and ending up pregnant. When the leader of Iran says that there are no homosexuals in Iran at a Columbia university speech, he is saying the bare truth, as Iran frequently executes homosexuals since homosexuality is a capital crime under Sharia Law. In addition, under Sharia law, killings of children or wives for embarrassing the "honor" of a family are often tolerated and considered excusable. In Saudi Arabia, it is even taught to children that killing adulterers is a good thing. Finally, even in moderate Islamic countries, women are second- or third-class citizens, being denied education, prevented from driving, holding a job, and even dressing themselves as they wish. Without even delving into the actions of violent radicals, in one paragraph, we have illustrated any number of things that would be outright crimes in the USA and would seem to go directly against the agenda of the left. Apparently gay rights, women's equality, protection of children, human trafficking, and murder or domestic violence are not important to the left so long as the perpetrator of the incident is of the religion of Islam. The left's support for the Ground Zero mosque in New York is perplexing, as it would seem to go against many of their stated political goals. However, the support for the mosque is only one of many incidents that form a pattern of political and moral support for Islam. In fact, the Obama administration has made a number of conciliatory gestures to Islamic countries, even going so far as apologize to Islam and preach American tolerance of Islam in Cairo, Egypt. Combined with the removal of the words "terrorism" and "Islamic radicalism" from State and Justice Departments language, the pattern is unambiguous. Finally, the left has shown that it is perfectly willing to deride those who question the practices of Islam and Sharia law as "Islamophobes" while ignoring obvious intolerance from the practitioners of Islam. The fact that the critics of Islam get censored and threatened with death for speaking out doesn't seem to bother the left's interpretation of the First Amendment in the way that a death threat from a Catholic to atheist critics would. The alliance between the left and Islam is also a study in irony. If either of the two groups were to achieve all of its aims, the other group would be wiped out. Let's say, hypothetically, that the left is able to convert the whole world to a secular socialist state. In such a world, there would be no room for discrimination of gays or slavery of woman, not to mention any room for a fundamentalist religion at all. On the other hand, if the Islamic radicals were ever to establish their Caliphate, the left would be plowed under with all of the rest of the non-believers, the homosexuals would be executed on discovery, the women who dared practice feminine independence in selection of their intimate partners would be stoned to death, and in general they would be subjugated to be little more than property. When searching for the reason why these two unlikely groups might get together, we find that the only thing that they share in common is a deep-seated belief that America is the cause of most of the problems throughout the world. Even moderate Islamic countries have long pressed the worldview that despite the fact that the world's energy supply has come from the Middle East for sixty years, that it is America that is the reason for abject poverty in most of the Middle East. Neither the American left nor the Islamic countries even consider that it could be the dictators sitting on golden toilets and oppressing their people with militant force and autocratic control of the media that might be the problem. America is, to many countries in the Islamic world, at best infidels and at worst the great Satan. In either case, the Koran mandates violence against us in many suras; those suras are no more open to interpretation than are any other part of the Koran, as the Koran is the exact word of God to Muslims. Interpretation is not only impossible; it is blasphemous to Muslims. The violent Islamic radicals have been very clear that their goal is to bring about a world-dominating Caliphate and convert the world to Islam and Sharia Law by force. This isn't an accusation, but something they admit to and are proud of. They occasionally latch on to various political issues to forward their agenda, but the agenda itself is driven by a deeply believed religious conviction that "there is no god but Allah" and anyone who believes otherwise is to be subjugated if possible or destroyed. The left in America proceed under the assumption that it is the "excesses" of the Western Caucasians that are the cause of strife in the world. The left has outright said that it is the "imperialism" of the USA that has caused the problems in the world today despite America not actually having an empire. The undertone message is that if it weren't for us, there wouldn't be any terrorism, poverty, war, disease, or strife. Of course, that is preposterous. Only a person with little education in the way the rest of the world actually lives would put forth such incredible proposals. In a recent talk at the Brookings Institution, Hillary Clinton actually opined that America should be more like Brazil, a statement that could be uttered only by someone who hasn't seen the miles and miles of slums that make the poor in America look like millionaires. Still, even the educated and well-traveled left fail to recognize the excellence of America. The left often attribute to American soldiers the traits of third-world dictators' armies without blinking an eye. Finally, the left often accuse America of being imperialistic even though America has left after rebuilding every country that has attacked it. However, the problem that many Americans not on the hard left have with the moderate Islamic countries has nothing to do with racism, as Islam is a political and religious ideology, not a race. Instead, the disagreements center around the Islamic countries' continued support of brutality inherent in Sharia Law, their refusal to condemn and expel violent extremists in their midst, and their steadfast devotion to demonizing the Western world for all of their domestic woes. Tolerance, in the American psyche, is not a one-way street, but must be reciprocated by the Islamic people tolerating the American culture. When the Muslims wish to build a mosque in a spot designed to twist a knife in America's guts, named The Cordoba House -- historically symbolic of Muslim conquest -- Americans don't see tolerance of their views. Most fair-minded Americans have no problem with people who wish to practice their religion. In addition, most fair-minded Americans know of the difficult pasts of Christianity and Judaism and would demand of Islam what has been demanded of other religions. Americans don't tolerate inquisitions anymore than they do Sharia courts. Americans realize that religious freedom is inherent in the melting pot that is America, but they also understand that all religions must exist under an umbrella of mutual respect and within the boundaries of common law. Americans would no more accept honor killings than they would accept a Catholic man killing atheists for the sake of his religion. The freedom of religion, in the end, is not a carte blanche to do whatever you wish and then yell "first amendment," but rather a constraint to prevent the government from imposing a single religion, as Islamic governments do. The Islamic radicals are happy to use their influence with the left to forward their agenda, but when are fair-minded people who lean politically left going to realize that their allies are not allies at all -- that they are being used to forward an agenda in direct contrast to their own? How is this representative democracy? Recall Petition time? List of MPs from LEAVE Constituencies with REMAIN IN EU positions: One wonders if the Chief Leaker's name is "Sir Humphrey".... "John Redwood Dismisses Leaked No-Brexit Report As "Project Fear On Steroids: The report on Operation Yellowhammer in the Sunday Times suggests if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, we should be facing shortages of food, fuel and medicine, as well as a hard border in Northern Ireland. But speaking to Andrew Castle, the Conservative MP dismissed those claims one-by-one. He said: "It's Project Fear on steroids, with the added lie that we won't be able to import any steroids for Project Fear to thrive on." Andrew queried how these leaks can even happen and Mr Redwood insisted: "Just because it comes from a Cabinet Office doesn't mean we have to believe them. They are the same old scares now hyped up that we've rejected endlessly. "These people need to understand how a modern trading system works under World Trade Organisation rules and they need to understand how our current trading system works." Mr Redwood pointed out that the chiefs in the port of Calais insist everything will run smoothly and we run the Port of Dover, so would have no reason to change the way we run that. That means he insists there should be no additional concerns over the availability of items such as fuel and drugs." www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/andrew-castle/john-redwood-dismisses-leaked-no-brexit-report by Cassandra Fairbanks, December 6, 2018
"A Minnesota State University professor has sparked backlash after asserting that the Virgin Mary did not give consent to be impregnated and implied that God was predatory. Psychology professor and sex therapist Dr. Eric Sprankle tweeted “the virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.” It was quickly pointed out that Mary did indeed consent, to which Sprankle argued that there is too much of a power dynamic between God and a human to have been legit. “The biblical god regularly punished disobedience,” Sprankle rebutted. “The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying ‘no’ negates her ‘yes.’ To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst.” Sprankle frequently tweets about Satanism, BDSM and sex. Campus Reform noted that Sprankle also decorated his Christmas tree with Satanic imagery. Sources: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/minnesota-state-university-professor-asserts-that-mary-didnt-give-consent-accuses-god-of-being-predatory 406 out of 632 constituencies in the United Kingdom voted FOR Brexit in 2016. Fact Check: TRUE8/18/2019 64% (almost an absolute 2/3rds majority) of constituencies voted for Brexit. Any MP elected from those constituencies is betraying her or his voters if s/he votes to delay Brexit at end of October 2019. The #Brexit Party should get to work and collect enough signatures for RECALL in those constituencies! "France and Germany tell EU states ‘to take refugees or pay’:
The measure is seen as a form of “alternative solidarity” in which EU member states pay into the EU’s budget for developmental projects in Africa. The document aims to prevent renewed conflicts over taking migrants. By paying off their responsibility to take migrants, EU rows with countries that don’t want to take migrants or refugees could be prevented. Among other things, the document does say that a situation should be avoided in which all countries prefer to pay. Countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic have frequently repeated they don’t want to take migrants. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said near the start of the migrant crisis that “Hungary does not need a single migrant for the economy to work or the population to" [be replenished]." In summary, Merkel and Macron are pushing to the max to destabilize all of Europe as has already happened in France, Benelux, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Sources: - voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/france-and-germany-tell-eu-states-to-take-refugees-or-pay - www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants/france-and-germany-soften-demands-on-eu-hosting-refugees-document-idUSKBN1O51X9 "Danish doctor warns: Vegan food may lead to mental retardation:
Chief physician Allan M. Lund at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen warns that vegan food can have severe consequences, such as epilepsy and ultimately developmental disorders. In Denmark, there is now a debate about the suitability of an increasing number of families giving their children only vegan food. Critics are opposed to scrapping all animal products in small children’s diet. The problem is that poor food, which for example requires the addition of vitamin B12, can have serious consequences for children. And as a result several children on a vegan diet have been treated at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. “Such a diet may involve developing different brain symptoms. With muscle weakness, poor contact and epilepsy. And in the long term mental retardation”, says chief physician Allan M. Lund to TV4. According to Lund, one should not completely remove meat, eggs and dairy products from small children’s diet without first consulting with a dietician. In addition to developmental disorders, it can also cause nutritional deficiencies." Source: voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/danish-doctor-warns-vegan-food-may-lead-to-mental-retardation "If some local magistrate — or, say, the United States Congress — ever lays a subpoena on you, the best thing to do, probably the easiest thing to do, is just to show up in court — or, say, on Capitol Hill — and save yourself all the headaches.
You could ignore the subpoena, of course; it happens, more than you might expect. If you choose that route, though, get ready for a world of legal hurt involving lawyers, lots of wasted time, possible fines and, maybe, some jail time. Neither option is great. That comes with subpoenas. '[Y]ou're legally bound to show up,' Anthony Madonna, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia, says. 'The problem with that has always been enforcement.' What Is a Subpoena? Simply, subpoenas are documents that allow attorneys (or Congresspeople) to gather useful information. That info is used in court proceedings or in Congressional investigations. Subpoenas, generally, are the same whether they're issued by Congress or some other governmental entity. From FindLaw: There are two types of subpoenas. The first, called subpoena ad testificandum (pronounced 'ad test- te-fi-kan-dum'), requires you to testify before a court, or other legal authority. The second, called subpoena duces tecum (pronounced 'doo-seez tee-kum'), requires you to produce documents, materials, or other tangible evidence. In most cases, an attorney usually requests a subpoena, and somebody like a justice of the peace, a clerk — even a notary public — signs off on it. Then, it's usually served, in person, to the one being subpoenaed. In the case of a Congressional subpoena, it's issued by a committee, often performing a duty known as Congressional oversight to probe possible wrongdoing in the government. Congress famously issued subpoenas to get to the bottom of the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s and during Watergate in the 1970s. More recently, the Republican-backed Benghazi report in 2016 is a prime example of the use of subpoenas to investigate, as are the Democrat-fueled inquiries into the administration of Donald Trump, his finances and any possible connections to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Why Would Anyone Ignore a Subpoena? Congress, if you hadn't noticed, is a political body that often acts like it. Interacting with it often means dodging a lot of political potholes. Among the most publicized of those who have defied a Congressional subpoena in recent years are former attorney general Eric Holder (in 2012, see Now That's Interesting, below) and former White House counsel Harriet Miers (in 2008). In early 2019, Democrats leading the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in regards to special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump ordered McGahn to ignore the subpoena, citing a 'testimonial immunity' for senior advisers to the president. Trump famously called the Mueller inquiry a 'witch hunt' and blamed 'angry Democrats.' For those faced with a subpoena of the non-Congressional variety, going to court — perhaps facing people you don't want to see (a soon-to-be-ex in a divorce case, a driver who plowed into you, your former boss) — is hardly enticing. Sometimes, ignoring a subpoena and taking your legal lumps seems like the safer bet. Spoiler: It probably isn't. What Happens If You Bolt on a Subpoena? The courts, and Congress, have ways of enforcing subpoenas. They're not always effective. They often take time. But they have their ways. If you ignore or defy a subpoena, the court that demanded your presence can find you in contempt. A fine or jail time is possible. In the case of defying a Congressional subpoena, the committee that issued to subpoena votes to issue a contempt citation, and then the full chamber votes on it. If it passes, Congress has three ways to prosecute contempt charges, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS):
The third type of enforcement is 'inherent contempt power,' a rarely used and mostly outdated method. A chamber of Congress can actually have the subpoenaed would-be witness jailed for refusing to cooperate. From the CRS:
If you defy a Congressional subpoena and are found guilty of contempt, it's a misdemeanor, 'punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.' The penalties for ignoring non-Congressional subpoenas vary with jurisdiction, and are at the discretion of the presiding judge. Whether it's bucking Congress or your local magistrate, ignoring a subpoena clearly is a gamble. If the paperwork and hours in court don't get you, the fine and/or jail time might. And in the end, it's hard to predict what will happen. If there is an end. 'One of the lines I always like to tell my students is, 'Rules matter until they don't,'' Madonna says. 'At the end of the day, rules matter until somebody decides we're going to stop enforcing them or we're going to enforce them a different way. That's scarily or sadly always the case.'" Sources: - people.howstuffworks.com/can-ignore-subpoena.htm - litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/what-is-a-subpoena.html (What Is a Subpoena?) - fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf (Congressional Subpoenas: Enforcing Executive Branch Compliance) Brexit will create a $8 BILLION hole in the European Union's budget EVERY YEAR. Fact Check: TRUE!8/9/2019 Britain contributes 14.1 BILLION EUROs to the EU's budget every year. Britain only receives 7 BILLION EUROs from the EU every year. This means that there is a net wealth transfer of 7.1 BLLION EUROs ($8 BILLION) of British GDP to the EU every year, or $80 BILLION every decade. That is VERY BIG MONEY! Remoaners of the British establishment will never tell you this because they are corrupt puppets of the globalist criminal syndicate. Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union (the Wiki article contains links to primary sources) Note to Conservatives:
The Western World is at war with the biggest and most evil domestic enemy in its history. Saul Alinsky's 13 Rules for Radicals are below:Below are some of the most famous quotes of Goebbels.
Thought Exercise:
In 2019, independent reporting by citizens and real journalists on social media are the only impediment to the mainstream media again rendering the masses unconscious. That is why Silicon Valley is pushing censorship so hard. Quotes of Goebbels:
The below quote is often attributed to Goebbels but it is not confirmed that he said or wrote it. It is included in the list because projection is a key tactic used in modern propaganda:
Karl Marx had very noble ideas in Das Kapital but he ignored human nature. Fact Check: TRUE8/8/2019 "Equality", the foundational principle of the belief system of modern liberals, is exactly the same as the communist philosophy of Karl Marx and Josef Stalin.
But the fundamental problem with these ideals is that they are fantasy, they are only achievable in a utopian planet of compatible aliens, not human beings!
This is why the practical output of communism/socialism is the equivalent of crony capitalism - every time:
130 million people were murdered in the 20th century by the pursuit of the impossible ideals of socialism. The open borders craze is also a direct consequence of socialism:
The only proven system which is compatible with human nature and has repeatedly enabled humanity to thrive is laissez-faire capitalism:
"Irish lecturer, John Dowling, 66, was fatally stabbed 13 times in the throat and chest by student ‘offended’ by a drawing of Mohammed during a lecture.
No other students saw any such image displayed by Professor Dowling and police say there is no evidence of it, yet Ali R., the student that stabbed the lecturer claimed that was his reason for committing the murder. According to government prosecutor Catherine Denis, Ali held an ‘obsessive resentment’ against the university since he was expelled in September of 2017. “He came to France two years ago to join the management school, but did not pass his first year,” Denis said. “Since then he had been returning to the college, and had become unwanted to the point that he was not allowed in any more.” She went on to further explain that Ali told authorities, “He produced a drawing, which he showed off in class, insulting the prophet Mohammed”. Though no evidence of any such drawing, according to the Daily Mail, he had long held a personal grudge against the lecturer. French authorities have said there is no existing evidence that Ali, a native of Pakistan, was radicalised by a terrorist organisation, rather, he was just ‘pious’ about his religion." Source: voiceofeurope.com/2018/12/muslim-student-stabs-professor-to-death-in-paris-as-he-insulted-the-prophet Historical Facts:
Extreme racist and/or environmental ideologies require socialist state control of the people in order to be effectively implemented. It is not possible to implement such extreme ideologies in free, laissez-faire capitalist societies. Glenn Thrush could have been a “reporter” for State Media of Wojciech Jaruzelski in Poland in the 1980s and nobody would have known the difference. Link to Tweet of Glenn Thrush: twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/1071390698342100994 A lot of mainstream media propaganda spreading the Big Lie that Gilets Jaunes is unrelated to anti-globalism. Absolutely false. Listen to this interview with a leader of Gilets Jaunes saying the following: French (original):
Translation in English:
10/19/2018 - Hungary took a strong stand for science and against absurd anti-science liberal insanity! Reminder of basic biology: XX and XY chromosomes are the only natural combinations!
"The Government's standpoint is that people are born either male or female," a spokesman for the prime minister told CNN, "and we do not consider it acceptable for us to talk about socially-constructed genders, rather than biological sexes." Source: edition.cnn.com/2018/10/19/europe/hungary-bans-gender-study-at-colleges-trnd/index.html The attack, which occurred in September, was launched on a vulnerable girl who was befriended by one of her rapists.
The Afghan asylum seeker forced her into sex, and then brought other men who have been accused of assaulting her too. The main suspect alleges that the sex with the 15 year old girl was “consensual”, and Bavarian police are currently in the middle of an investigation. A similar case happened recently in Freiburg where 7 young Syrian men housed in refugee camps were arrested and convicted with raping an 18 year old German student. This case prompted outcry and several protests, led in part by the AfD. Many Germans have been outraged at these cases of sexual assault by migrants and have called upon the Government to reverse their lenient immigration policy engineered by Angela Merkel. Paul Joseph Watson: "Bavarian police have arrested five migrant men in connection with the rape of a 15-year-old schoolgirl in Munich. I can barely even keep up with these stories anymore." Sources: - voiceofeurope.com/2018/10/another-migrant-rape-scandal-rocks-germany-six-afghans-rape-vulnerable-child - twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1057775694770515968 Leftist insanity is not only wasting more and more taxpayer money, but making life more and more uncomfortable for women and girls! Aug 16, 2018 - "A notice has gone up outside the recently-refurbished toilets at Westminster HQ asking men to close the doors. It says: “Women are finding use of the toilets quite distressing and are not using these toilets as a result.” Five male and five female loos have been converted to 10 unisex facilities, each with three cubicles. The cost of remodelling them was £28,892.50 with signs bearing a picture of a lavatory and the words Gender Neutral Toilets coming in at £8,070.70 to bring the total to £36,963.20. A Home Office spokesman said the loos were designed to create a comfortable environment for all staff and that it was among a growing number of Government departments introducing gender-neutral facilities. He said: “We are committed to being an inclusive employer and creating an environment where all staff feel comfortable at work. “The works contracted came out of a budget reserved for building maintenance and modification.” But James Price, of the Tax- Payers’ Alliance campaign group, said that if the new facility was not serving its purpose, it meant public money had been “effectively flushed away”. He said: “Public spending should be predicated on how people behave in real life, not on how some mandarin thinks they ought to behave on paper. “If these facilities are not being used properly, then lessons should be learnt to ensure money isn’t wasted on similar projects.” The Home Office is not alone in introducing gender-neutral toilets. The army removed two Ladies and Gents signs at its £44million headquarters in Andover, Hampshire, and changed to unisex this summer. The BBC, which has 417 transgender staff, has gender-neutral toilets in all its buildings. Channel 4 created gender-neutral toilets at its HQ last year and Google plans to install them at its office in central London." Source: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1004231/gender-neutral-toilets-home-office Venezuelan migrants pose humanitarian problem in Brazil
"In Brazil, as many as 40,000 Venezuelans have arrived. Just over half of them have applied for asylum, a bureaucratic process that can take two years." Some migrants in Boa Vista are finding ways to get by, finding cheap accommodation or lodging in the few shelters, like a local gym, that authorities have provided. Others wander homeless, some turning to crime, like prostitution, adding law enforcement woes to the social challenges. “We have a very serious problem that will only get worse.” said Boa Vista Mayor Teresa Surita, adding that the city’s once quiet streets are increasingly filled with poor Venezuelans. Staffed only during the day, the border post in essence is open, allowing as many as 400 migrants to enter daily, according to authorities. For a state with the lowest population and smallest economy of any in Brazil, that is no small influx. Despite a long history of immigration, Latin America’s biggest country has struggled this decade to accommodate asylum seekers from countries including Haiti and Syria. Although Brazil has granted asylum for more than 2,700 Syrians, the refugees have received scant government support even in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s richest state. A senior official in Brazil’s foreign ministry, who asked to remain anonymous, said the country will not close its borders. Okoth-Obbo said his U.N. agency and Brazil’s government are discussing ways to move refugees to larger cities. Link with more details: www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-crisis-brazil-idUSKBN1E51KV Procter & Gamble Loses $5 Billion Dollars Following ‘Woke’ Gillette Ad Campaign. Get woke, go broke. Link with more details: summit.news/2019/07/31/procter-gamble-loses-5-billion-dollars-following-woke-gillette-ad-campaign |
Archives |