Archive for the ‘The Clintons’ Category

Are WE on the Verge of the Second Revolution?

November 3, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-zh

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

To my Family, my Friends and anyone who still has a will to open their eyes and still, has ears to hear.

 

amrevolution

 

Are WE on the Verge of the Second, American Revolution?

I am writing to you and particularly, to all those like me, that have not yet voted, in the upcoming election, on November 8, 2016.

To begin, please forgive me in taking this one liberty, in assuming you know at least something, about the American Revolution, which began officially in writing The Declaration of Independence, signed July 2nd and published July 4th, 1776. What I would like you to take from this is, that every person signing, were guilty of treason. They mutually pledged their fortunes, their sacred honor and their lives. They broke the law to protect and defend the law of God-given equality and unalienable rights!

Now, here we are in 2016, just days before the election on November 8th. Is this more, much more, than just an end finally, to the most divisive time and election of our lives? Is it a harbinger of more tumult to come, than we have ever imagined? Or are WE the People, on the verge of, the Second American Revolution, for the life of our fragile Republic?

Surely, you must be tired of this whole thing like I am and cannot wait, for it to be over and to get on with our lives, in whatever state we may find them, after this damnable or wrecking ball to restore, this THING, is over!

By now, most everyone knows that the Clinton e-mail scandal ended last July, with the findings that there was no ‘intent’ and no recommendation from the FBI, for the Justice Department to prosecute. The FBI’s director’s boss, the Attorney General, for the United States, accepted the recommendation. About half of the country were pleased and the other half were not.

The two candidates seeking the office of president continued to accuse one another and present their plans to their supporters. Donald J. Trump, accused Hillary Clinton of being “crooked’ and that the whole system was “rigged.” Clinton responded in kind, with her or her supporter’s accusations. Every day and night, mainstream media at least, had lots to talk about and their ratings soared  and their advertisers were pleased, I guess? At least many people were tuning in, to this circus and their products and services were being seen. Follow the money.

WkiLeaks started releasing a lot of incriminating emails. Their authenticity was NOT denied. Instead, the Clinton campaign accused Trump of working with the Russians to influence the election. Then, the Clinton Campaign directly accused the Russians of hacking the emails, giving them to WikiLeaks and all, to influence the election. WikiLeaks countered, that it was impossible. Just remember that WikiLeaks showed, it was, “impossible.”

Two days before Halloween, on October 28, 2016, FBI director James Comey sent a letter to some members of the House of Representatives, indicating that new information had led them to review, the Clinton email case. This letter in full, was copied and leaked. Almost immediately, the word “review” was interpreted to, “re-opening” the case.

Next, Director Comey was accused in trying to influence the election. Many that previously (just the previous July) who had praised his decision then, now accused him of breaking the law and in trying to influence the election.

A few days later, it was leaked that on a laptop, jointly shared by Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Wiener, some 650,000 emails discovered. This is significant as, Abedin had told the FBI that she had released all her files and emails to them previously. It was leaked that she did not know they were still on this laptop and that she had previously forwarded all her files to her Yahoo account, to make them easier to print and that she had previously saved them to help in preparing a book for Hillary Clinton, sometime in the future. She told the FBI that she did not know all these files had been backed up on this laptop. She has disappeared from Clinton’s side, ever since. She and her husband are most likely, looking to make some kind of deal with the FBI and/or seeking legal council. It has been leaked that the contents of this laptop contains a treasure trove of information, which may contain classified material and new material, not previously viewed by the FBI. Her estranged husband’s legal issues go beyond this to an actual investigation into his possible, pedophilia. That’s what it is, not merely just sex-ing as the media has said. It is a very serious matter, for both of them and perhaps Clinton as well? There are deeply concerned members of many federal agents that believe, FBI director Comey, has not handled these investigations correctly. Yes, there is deep division among the agencies of all across the government! All of theses things have been leaked and are not disputed. What is disputed however is, whether or not it is all a conspiracy by one party or the other, to influence the outcome of this election. Everyone seems to e leakin g, accusing and blaming each other.

Over forty states have asked the Federal government, for help in possible fraud of the polling places, in every single state. This is your first assignment, to look that up as well as a— “master key” which exists, in the software, which can change the results of each polling place!

There are several states which allow voters to change their votes and Wisconsin allows them to change their votes three times. Look that up and for how many people who have already voted which now are, wanting to change their votes. If possible, go and change your vote if necessary. Trust me, your vote is, NECESSARY!

Look at the lead from polls, in both the popular vote and electoral vote estimates, for Hillary Clinton, just a few short days ago. Her lead was supposedly unbeatable and Donald Trump had already lost. Look at the polls most recently. Trump is either ahead and in places he was NOT supposed to be or at least the race is now, very, very tight. A few % points is one thing, but her popular vote lead was double digits and her expected electoral votes, around 333 or 63 votes more, than the 270, needed to win the presidency. What has changed in just a few short days? Was this all hype on the part of her campaign and the media? Did this many people, actually change their minds in just 3-4 days? Or, is there something else going on?

Hang on, we are just getting started!

I would like to offer a video. Please disregard the publisher’s title of this:

‘5 Minute Speech that Got Judge Napolitano Fired from Fox News.’

He was never fired! It is not true! Watch the video, which was most likely posted or copied from the original broadcast. Then, read the Judge’s comment about this program being canceled. He was not fired, because of, the content.

https://youtu.be/UgGnBCDfCLM

“In television, shows are cancelled all the time. Two of my former shows have been cancelled, and after each cancellation, Fox has rewarded me with more and better work. This cancellation—along with others that accompanied it—was the result of a business judgment here, and is completely unrelated to the FreedomWatch message. It would make a world of a difference for all of us, if you would KINDLY STOP SENDING EMAILS TO FOX. I am well. Your values are strong. I will continue to articulate those values here at Fox. But the emails many of you are sending are unfairly interfering with my work and that of my colleagues here. The emails even violate our values because they interfere with the use of private property. I have accepted the cancellation decision with good cheer and a sense of gearing up for the future. You should as well.
As a favor to me, and as I have asked this past weekend, PLEASE STOP SENDING EMAILS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT FOX ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF Freedom Watch; and please stop NOW.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, in response to his program ‘Freedom Watch’
being canceled on Fox News, in 2014

This video again, was from TWO YEARS AGO. How timely! How insightful! It is almost prophetic, as to the present time! This next video was published, on August 4th, 2016.

The NSA leaking to WikiLeaks? Remember how this began, in 1776? They broke the law to protect and defend the law! Is this the Second, American Revolution? WE haven’t seen anything yet!

Whatever is happening, something big is, underway.

I realize I have asked you to look up certain things. I want you to see for yourself. These things cannot be found in the mainstream media. Social Media is barely starting, to scratch the surface. Use the skills you were taught in grade school, how to look things up. Because, this information is so fluid, and changes so quickly! You have to look for it online, on the Internet.

Look up the following word: coup d’é•tat

One of these was recently attempted by the military in Turkey, not too long ago. What if, a coup d’é•tat was attempted the last few days, in our own country, without the military, but entirely on the Internet? Is its massive corruption covered up, by its massive co-option of the many interrelated, crony associations which may be complicit in this corruption, one way or another? Are some people starting to bail in hopes of protecting themselves from the avalanche that is about to come? Barack Obama, Michele Obama and Elizabeth Warren have all, stopped following Hilary Clinton, on Twitter, just within the last couple of days. Look that up.

What if at the same time, a counter- coup d’é•tat was also conducted on the Internet, by those in intelligence agencies that are (ongoing) breaking the law to protect and defend the law?

Now, look up the following name: Steve Pieczenik

Look first, at his bio. Now look, for any videos associated with him and recently, as of November 1st, 2016. Is he crazy? Is this man just part of another conspiracy theory? Or is he but a spokesperson, for a group of people in the NSA, CIA, FBI, NYPD (New York Police Department), Military Intelligence and other federal agencies that are willing to break the law, in order to protect and defend the law? Is this the Second, American Revolution?

For sure, there has never been anything like this, in our short 200+ years, as a representative republic! Is this or is this about to be, a Constitutional Crisis? Look that up. What do those words mean, “Constitutional Crisis?”

If WE the People are divided (and we are), is it any great thing to think that the very government which most of all of us do NOT trust, are not divided too? Is our dividing away from one another due to party, person and opinions formed, by a lot of misinformation coming from the government and the media? But the division within our government if the dual- coup d’é•tat is true, one is to cover it up and the other is to reveal it!

I realize that this all sounds so incredibly fantastic, as a work of fiction. American author Mark Twain (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910) once wrote:

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because
Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”

Mark Twain

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall [absolutely] know the truth, and the truth shall [absolutely] make you free.”

The Bible, John 8:31, 32

Our founders had the fear and threat of the unknown. They persevered, for the hope of something better. We have their history of what they wrought, what republic left they gave us and the responsibility to VOTE, for its continuance! Do WE really know what the meesage of our Republic is? If we do, do WE not also, have the responsibility to protect and defend the messengers of our Republic? Keep digging, this is a whole lot more than just two people running for president. It could be the end or, the beginning of, The Second, American Revolution!

Are there true patriots which are actually, breaking the law to save our fragile republic? Will WE the People, VOTE to continue this republic of, by and for the people?

Vote! Pray! Pray for yourself! Pray for me! Pray for the true messengers! Pray for the United States of America!!!

AsEyeSeeIt

I implore you to share this everywhere!

1 of WE,

MySignature_clr

Advertisements

Class Action Lawsuit

July 8, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-yk

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

If pure law was made to protect the law-abiding (and it was) and not the lawless (and it wasn’t), why does it seem that the law-abiding are punished (and they often are) and the lawless get off FREE, (and they often do)? What is the problem? Is it the law or is it the lawyers? You can answer that for yourself.

But whether you intend to break the law (have criminal intent) or just break it because you are ignorant, unknowing or just incompetent, does this mean there should be little or no consequence? And please do not use the Bill Clinton (lawyer) response, “That it depends on what is, is.”

Dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s might be useful (but not necessarily, necessary to understand, in writing sentences and reading them, but it appears to be absolutely necessary; a requirement in legal terms, as is punctuation, capital letters or not, certain words, keywords, and all kinds of extraneous and a superfluity of bullshite loopholes. Lawyers make these legal terms or direct them.

I can certainly understand that punishment for ‘intent’ would be greater than the punishment, for just breaking the law, but because ‘intent’ has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not or should not mean that no charges are filed, there should not be a jury, or a grand jury, or judge only, should NOT hear the case, try the case and judge that consequences of breaking the law applies, convict if proven guilty and mete out a just punishment, swiftly!!!!

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

The quote above is a legal maxim— an established principle or proposition. Just like lawyers, and congress and government in general can’t agree on much of anything, no one seems to agree on where this quote came from either.

‘Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, attributes it to William Ewart Gladstone, but it CANNOT be verified.

Some believe it was first used by William Penn in the form of, “to delay Justice is Injustice,” according to:

‘Penn, William (1693), ‘Some Fruits of Solitude, Headley, 1905, p. 86.

Mentions of ‘justice delayed and denied’ are found in the Pirkei Avot 5:7, a section of the Mishnah (1st century BCE – 2nd century CE): “Our Rabbis taught: …

“The sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied…,”

10 Minutes of Torah. Ethical Teachings Selections’ from Pirkei Avot.
http://tmt.urj.net/archives/4jewishethics/052605.htm

The Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 reads, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., used the phrase in the form, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied,” in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, smuggled out of jail in 1963, ascribing it to a “distinguished jurist of yesteryear”.

Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Burger, “What’s Wrong With the Courts: The Chief Justice Speaks Out”, U.S. News & World Report (vol. 69, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1970) 68, 71 (address to ABA meeting, Aug. 10, 1970).

The courts are made up of judges and judges are first, lawyers. Lawyers graduate from law schools. Law schools are supposed to teach law and many of the professors may be lawyers or former lawyers that also, graduated from some law school. Sometimes, presidents are lawyers or have a law background. Congress has many former lawyers. The supreme court judges are all, first and foremost, lawyers. The entire government is riddled with lawyers.

Our biggest problem is not with the law per se, it is with the lawyers or the executives, legislators and the judiciary that make the laws, enforce or not enforce them and are more prone to NOT seek justice, but to win their cases, make their arguments, profit from them, protect themselves and their profession; their intuitions of law, and rather than protecting the innocent, they protect the lawless. Loopholes and interpretations, legislating from the bench and not whether one is guilty or not, but what can be proved is, their training and their focus.

No matter what side you may be on with the latest FBI conclusion that no criminal charges against the former Secretary of State and presumptive Democrat nominee for president of the United States, Hilary Clinton, with her mishandling of classified material and the Justice Department accepting that recommendation and no criminal charges will be filed, it’s not the law which is troubling, but the lawyers that wrote, write, interpret, defend or prosecute them, apparently at their discretion and their benefit.

If this is purely political theater (as was said by those who seek to keep this matter going), the Republican Party response seems to go to yet another law and associate it with what the FBI and the Justice Department views as, a closed case. And what law is that? Did the former secretary lie to congress, but not the FBI? But the FBI did not include that testimony in their “comprehensive” investigation. When asked why not, the Director of the FBI said that Congress had not sent them a formal request. To this the person asking said, “You will have one shortly!” So, if this continues, it could only end in a charge or charges of perjury. But perjury will be difficult to prove. The entire matter is laden with corruption and perversion. If the “careless” mishandling of classified material were not concerning on its own, as it is, the lawyers or lawyer-directed legalese that have corrupted and perverted the intent of the law, the law of the land— which is, to protect US, WE the People, from the lawless and punish  the lawless, to me is even more egregious an a threat to national security!

I will give you an example of this corruption and perversion from my own state of New York and my own personal experience.

About a year ago, I was pulled over on the ramp of an entrance to a highway. It was an obvious traffic stop, looking for drunk drivers or to see if people were wearing their seat-belts, I supposed. This was, seat-belt related. After I stopped, an officer approached me and gave me a ticket, as he was told to do, by his supervisor. His supervisor said, that he saw me NOT wearing a seatbelt and to ticket me. Now of course, I would, as most people charged with anything would say, “I’m innocent.” And it does not matter if I really was or not, as you will shortly understand. But I had two choices. I could pay whatever fine was required by my state and county and etc. or try to fight it in court. I decided to go to court.

On my court date, I was given two more choices. I was to either plead guilty and pay whatever the judge said or I could have a trial. Ooops, and I thought I was at trial and the officer would be there? Nope.

OK, I wasn’t there because I was guilty, but before I said I wasn’t, I asked the judge a question, which he allowed. “If I come to trial and plead innocent and win, will they drop all charges and any costs to me, except for my time wasted in coming to court twice? Well the judge informed me that there are no court costs, but there is an administrative fee, which I would have to pay, one way or another. Sure, label that jar of peas, peanut butter, but it’s still peas! Costs or fees, it’s still monies. That’s legalese and PC (political correctness) all rolled into one lump court cost that’s not?

So, let me see if I have this straight? Plead guilty to something I did not do. Pay whatever fine the judge decides. Points are deducted from my license. Enter a plea of guilty that become public record. My insurance most likely will go up. AND I still have to pay the (about) $100, the administrative fee? Yes. And if I go to trial and lose, I may have to pay a larger fine and the $100 administrative fee? Yes. Oh, and one more thing. The police can give me a ticket, even if they know I’ve done nothing wrong because, one way or another, I’m going to have to pay that $100! Is this messed up or what? Does this sound like extortion, racketeering and collusion to you? Is it the law or the lawyers that wrote it or directed it? Well, my prosecution rests! 🙂

WE the People, should ALL file a class action suit against the law profession?! WE the People should just sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them! But who would do it for US? Who could WE get to represent US?????

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

This proverb is based on the opinion, probably first expressed by a lawyer, that self-representation in court is likely to end badly. As with many proverbs, it is difficult to determine a precise origin, but this expression first began appearing in print in the early 19th century. An early example comes in ‘The flowers of Wit’, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:

…observed the eminent lawyer, “I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.

In the play, King Lear, by William Shakespeare, In Act I, Sc. 4, the king’s fool makes a lengthy rhyming speech, containing a great many trite, but useful moral maxims, such as:

Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest, &c.,

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

Lear. This is nothing, fool.
Fool. Then, ‘tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer: you gave me nothing for it.

Representing oneself in Latin is, acting pro se, which means, for oneself.

If WE could find among US, a lawyer(s) that could and would represent US, would they be a fool, in representing themselves as well? And their profession might think them a fool, if they dare go against them? Are WE then just shite (old English term, you figure out its current meaning) out of luck? Are WE, without representation? Are WE, without a prayer? Are WE, up a creek without a paddle? NO!

WE the People have two, to represent us— The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. One these two documents, all the law and all the laws of the United States are supposed to be based on. The legal profession does NOT view them like that!

Regardless of what the courts might rule, the Declaration of Independence is not some past historical writing of its time and just some relic to be archived in a museum. I was then and remains a legal document, an affidavit  of fact and conclusions. In logic, it presents its factual premises (whereas) and its conclusions (therefore). It is the the foundation of Our Republic. It is Our raison d’être (reason to be). It is (WE are), The Apple of Gold in a picture of silver. It is Our Constitution which is the picture of silver, made of , by, and for WE the People, to protect, defend and preserve for ourselves and our  posterity, Our unalienable rights! The picture was made to serve US, WE the Apple of Gold, and NOT US, for the picture of silver!

Regardless of what any court might rule, the preamble to Our Constitution and the entirety of Our Constitution is relevant, essential and inseparable to the Declaration of Independence and to US, WE the People, the Apple of Gold! WE the people do have standing, and state, and original jurisdiction, to bring this case before them! Consider the following excerpts.

                                                                                                              

“The word “Unalienable” appears in one of the greatest phrases of The United States of America’s history.”

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [all-inclusive noun] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

“The Kansas City Court of Appeals for the State of Missouri quoted verbatim the above language of 1776 with approval in Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App 1952), and then went on to say (also quoting):”

Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred, at least without one’s consent.”

Webster New International Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2,
Page 1254. 252 S.W.2d at 101.

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

“You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.”

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952).”

“You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons (not individuals) have inalienable rights.”

“Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Here we have the so-called same defined words of unalienable and
inalienable being separated, not as the same thing, but differently and by an appellate court judge.”

“You and I may think inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but apparently, courts and states do not. Therefore, what is unalienable cannot be taken or transferred and relates itself to rights, and what is inalienable, could be surrendered or transferred if by consent and relates itself to privileges. Words have meaning and carry rights and results or privileges and consequences.”

“In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,”

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.”

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.

Here again we find a federal court judge using both the words “privilege” and “rights.” From the context, this is referring to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Did you ever think that a judge would make such a ruling?”

“OUR privileges and inalienable rights could be taken or transferred, but if you or I want OUR unalienable rights protected, WE have to fight for them and become “belligerent.” WE out of necessity, to protect OUR rights, must stand in contempt of court. Words have meaning and they carry results or consequences.”

Here in the ruling is, but one example of division, or separation and in essence, an adversarial relationship.”

“If WE the People do not know OUR rights and fight for them, who will?”

Excerpts from: ‘RESET’ (An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)
Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

                                                                                                      

Just imagine, just suppose we were able to actually get a court to hear this case. What do you think their decision would be? Yes, for themselves, the defendants! OK, so what if we get it appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court? What would be their decision? Would they allow US, WE the People, to RESET our Republic or rule in their favor, to keep their jobs appointed for life? Most likely to keep their job, but for US? Probably— NOT!!!!

Let’s sue the Legal Profession? Let’s bring a class action suit against the legal profession? Let US, WE the People, sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them? Probably NOT!

Do you know why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Well, I used to believe she could see, but she blindfolded herself on purpose or purposefully, for equality; for equal justice. Now, I’m really starting to think the legal profession poked her eyes out so, she would not know the scales were being tipped (imbalanced) and the whole legal profession rigged the system, for their exclusive benefit!

ClassAction3

There must be a better way? There is! It involves bypassing the legal profession entirely, but it is legal and the legal profession must YIELD, to the authority and power of, WE the People! Another Blog post on another day. Look for, The Thirteen Coming Soon!
1 of WE,

Dahni

Damn the Appearance of Evil

June 11, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-wH

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

4Monkeys

The four wise monkeys— speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil and do no evil

Damn the appearance of evil!

Now maybe this will anger you or maybe not, but this is from me. It is from my blog, this blog. These are my words and my thoughts and the last time I looked, this is still the home of the brave and the land of the FREE! When last I knew, I am still entitled to my opinion. I think there are sufficient facts to bear out the reasons for my conclusions.

My opinions were formed long ago, when both the Clinton’s and I were living in the state of Arkansas. So it’s clear, we three were not living together. 🙂 We were just in the same state. I’ve never met either of them. Setting one aside, suffice it to say, I have never liked, respected or trusted, Hillary Clinton. Let there be no mistake about this, she is presently under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That is a fact.

Possible charges of espionage and corruption by the Clinton Foundation and/or the Clinton Global Initiative aside, whether intentional or not, she is at least lacking PERMISSION if not guilty of, having used a private server for email. She did have and did use a private server and that is a fact.

According to many polls, about 60% of those asked, do not trust her handling of this matter and many other matters, not here addressed. That is a present fact. Her favorability is way low and that is a fact.

It is a presidential political year and that is a fact. She recently became the presumptive Democratic Nominee for president, based on the delegate count (including super delegates) and she was recently endorsed by the current president and a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Those are facts.

After almost two years, Hillary Clinton finally agreed to appear on Fox News. That is a fact. It is no surprise that she as well as many, do not like Fox News. In an election year such as this, it only makes sense to get your message out to as many people as possible, wherever possible, even if it happens to be through Fox News. But she did appear recently and sat down for an interview with Bret Baier, June 8, 2016. That is a fact. Please watch the following video, all the way to the end (about 7 minutes 56 seconds), before you return to this post.

My take and my point in the above video and for this entire post is, the confidence in which she replied, to Bret Baier’s final question.

BAIER

“The Clinton Foundation Investigation, The FBI Investigation, The Email Investigation, what you’re saying is, there is 0 chance, for this to be a problem, for you in this election?”

CLINTON

“Absolutely. That’s what I’m saying. That happens to be the truth.”

I marvel at her confidence!!! Although I question her judgment, ethics and ulterior motives, I have never and do not question this woman’s intelligence! I believe it is in NOT within the realm of possibility, for her to look anyone in the eyes and boldly and with conviction, tell a lie! However, I do not perceive this in her final statement above, to Bret Baier. So, I take her at her word and she said it confidently— without reservation or hesitation. Is it “truth” because she has done nothing wrong or is it “truth” (her word even though it would be a fact) that she will never be held accountable for her actions? Truth is universal and unchanging, but facts can change.

Now, all of the above leads me to my opinion.

I do not believe the Obamas’ or the Clintons’ have ever liked or respected one another. I still don’t! I believe her appointment, as Secretary of State was, nothing more than appeasement and for God knows what, political purposes. I am quite confident that the president would like to see his legacy continue into at least, the next four years. There is no one running, for his office, more suited than Clinton to his purposes, with all due respect to Bernie Sanders.

I believe that Hillary is smarter than the president. I believe she purposefully set up a private email server to control the data between herself and the State Department and even the White House, and to hide the trail of her doings so to speak, and to shield her from Freedom of Information requests (FOIA), even IF it was just a matter of her not trusting our own government, the same government that employed her.

It is a fact that the president has been found to have sent and received at least two emails, over the past however many years, from then Secretary of State Clinton’s, private email server. IF the FBI ever recommends to the Department of Justice, criminal charges, and IF the DOJ proceeds with a grand jury, and IF she would ever be indicted, the president of the United States could be called as a witness, and he would be complicit in corresponding (knowingly or not) over an unsecured email server! And it would not matter if it was sensitive, confidential, classified or even personal!

I do not know what and when the FBI will conclude their investigation. I do not know what their recommendations will be (if any). But based on Clinton’s confidence that there is “O chance,” of any of these things being a problem to her in this election, even IF the FBI recommends charges to the Department of Justice, the DOJ will NOT, absolutely NOT bring charges, convene a gran jury, nor will she ever be indicted or spend a moment in jail or prison for any, if any, wrong doings!!!

It won’t matter how many emails were deleted (at least 30,000), how many that have been redacted, how many were sensitive, confidential, classified, if her email server was hacked once or possibly more (and even possibly by foreign governments), how many lives may have been put into jeopardy or that the security of the United States of America has been compromised, there is “O chance,” she will ever be indicted! And if she were, I am CONFIDENT that the president of the United States has the power to not only pardon her, but himself as well!

Damn my evil surmising imaginings or damn this corruption within the bowels of Our Republic, but damn Hillary Rodham Clinton, for— THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL!

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

1 Thessalonians 5:22 The Bible, King James Version (KJV)

1 of WE,

Dahni

What Difference at this Point Does it Make?

June 3, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-we

by Dahni

© 2016, all rights reserved

WhatDifI used to think, vote your conscience. Vote for the best person you believe will do the best job. I don’t believe this anymore. “What difference at this point does it make?”

Our founders, in their wisdom knew that all of us are imperfect beings, corrupt and can often, easily be manipulated and corrupted. They understood that government is, a necessary evil. But they also, realized that the lust for power and control would attract certain types of people and personalities that would desire to— run everything, law everything and interpret everything.

So, rather than put the whole bunch under one tent, they purposely constrained, restricted and limited government, to three branches.

This has worked out pretty well for the last 240 years, except? Except theses power-hungry people have always been trying to find loopholes or language they could interpret to gain, maintain and expand their powers.

Our founders knew these three branches would each try to take over the others. They made making changes to the Constitution NOT easy, but hard, to limit the government from taking over our unalienable rights such as, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! It was a limited government, NOT an UNLIMITED one where the president executes, legislates and judicates or adjudicates; the Legislative executes and judicates; and the Supreme Court executes its own interpretations and legislates from the bench. Is this limited government? I think NOT!

For example, baring in mind the original intent was to limit government, the Supreme Count decided long ago, to interpret that the, “under good behavior” phrase from the Constitution means, they can keep their jobs for life? I think NOT!

Do you really suppose the original intent for representatives and senators was for them to make lifelong careers? I think NOT!

If congress won’t go along, isn’t this what executive orders and presidential proclamations are for, to circumvent Congress? I think NOT!

Should not the president tell the Supreme court what is and what is not the law? I think NOT!

Then what about dynasty families like the Kennedy’s, the Bush’s and the Clinton’s? Is this the real limiting of government as was intended? I think NOT!

Do you really think our founders ever intended a 3-term president like  Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who might have had four had he lived? I think NOT!

I think that presidential term of only 8 years was amended in the Constitution?

Government has even tried to regulate elections, if they can’t outright control and eliminate them. What a pain in their collective arses to be subjected to the humiliation of having to get elected or re-elected again? Too bad, not sad, deal with it!

Well, obviously, for them to have to deal with it, there has to be elections. This means, voters and actually voters, voting! If we don’t like that jerk or jerk-et (feminine equivalent of the masculine jerk), we can vote for the lesser of two evils and maybe get a whole new box O’ rocks (or dumber than) and have a whole new crop of jerks and jerk-ets?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

So, yes, WE the People must vote, for the lesser of two or more evils. Well, in this presidential election year (2016), there is one presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and one for the Republican Party. Not everyone likes either one. What to do?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

WhatDif1

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

I’m not sure, but maybe the families of those that died Sept. 11, 2012, from the bombing at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by Islamist radical terrorists, might want to know why you lied, why you never sent help, why you were sleeping, why over half of the country do NOT trust you, trust or believe your answers to your handling of email, trust the Clinton Foundation or believe you are qualified to be president of the United States? But all that aside, “What difference at this point does it make?” I want alternatives! Okey-doke.— see later in this post

1. Vote for Bernie Sanders (Hello, he can’t, cannot, nope— he absolutely can’t win, unless of course he is the only one left standing at the convention)?
2. NOT vote at all (stay home because I am bitter or a baby (didn’t get my way), an idiot or an idiotic illegal alien and can’t vote or am not supposed to be able to anyway)?
3. Vote for some third-party candidate? see: #’s 1 & 2 above
4. Vote for Hillary Clinton (assuming she is not indicted and/or jailed, prior to November 3rd, 2016?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

THERE IS, NO DIFFERENCE, WHATSOEVER!!!!!

A vote for Hillary or no vote, is still a vote for her! Well, what if?

What if Trump becomes president and he’s been lying?

WhatDif2

This could equate to four more years or more of SOS (same ole’ sh-t) until— we run out of sh-t, which is about yesterday anyway!

What if Trump Becomes president and he’s been telling the truth? Is his motto anything new or something we have never heard before?

WhatDif3

1980 Campaign Button for Ronald Reagan Republican

This slogan uses just six (6) words (counting the word Let’s, as 2). It is a complete sentence. “Let’s Make America Great Again. ”Let’s…,” let us, (implies a suggestion). It is an all-inclusive vision. “Let’s… (let us)…Make America Great Again.” It is an appeal for help, from US, us being, WE the People. It is suggestive of, permission. It implies that at that time, America was not great. It also, implies, that WE or US, might NOT (did not) make America Great Again.

WhatDif4

From a 1992 campaign video, Bill Clinton Democrat

This campaign slogan was most likely borrowed from the Reagan campaign in 1980. It uses 11 words. It is also, a complete sentence. “I want to attack these problems and make America Great Again. It implies that at that time, America was not great. “Notice the personal pronoun “I,” “I want to attack these problems and…,” and by following the nearest noun (personal pronoun) as its antecedent, I want – “…to make America Great Again.” Absent in this remark, is WE, US, you and I. This statement is exclusive of all others except, for the one making it. In other words, all we poor pathetic peons needed to do was vote for him and he “wants” (wanted) to, “attack the problems,…” and he, “wants…” (wanted) “to make America Great Again.” There is nothing in this statement that he either did or did not attack the problems or make America great again. But maybe he will become the  ‘First Man’ and economic adviser to the president, his wife? Then he could finish the job and make his America great again. “Giant Sucking Sound,” said opposing candidate, Ross Perot in a 1992, Presidential Debate.

“We’ve shipped millions of jobs overseas and we have a strange situation because we have a process in Washington where after you’ve served for a while you cash in and become a foreign lobbyist, make $30,000 a month; then take a leave, work on Presidential campaigns, make sure you got good contacts, and then go back out. Now if you just want to get down to brass tacks, the first thing you ought to do is get all these folks who’ve got these one-way trade agreements that we’ve negotiated over the years and say, “Fellows, we’ll take the same deal we gave you.” And they’ll gridlock right at that point because, for example, we’ve got international competitors who simply could not unload their cars off the ships if they had to comply — you see, if it was a two-way street — just couldn’t do it. We have got to stop sending jobs overseas.”

“To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time and you’ve got a mature work force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making a car — have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a Giant Sucking Sound Going South.”

excerpts of Transcript of the 2nd TV Presidential Debate, comments by candidate Ross Perot, in response to a question from the audience and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which later, president Bill Clinton signed into law

Perot was right! Now, government wants to expand this crap. Clinton helped Clinton pass NAFTA. She/they, HillBill-y are globalists. Remember ‘It Takes a Village’, Hill’s book and Obama’s statement, “You didn’t build that,” (business)?”

“What difference at this point does it make?”

WhatDif5

2016 Donald Trump campaign slogan – Republican

“Make America Great Again.” This statement is, a complete sentence. It is visionary. It is inclusive. It is inclusive as it does not single out anyone(s) nor excludes anyone(s). It is not an appeal, a suggestion, a desire, a hope or merely something that one person wants to do. It is an imperative statement, as simple as, JUST DO IT! It is left as the responsibility of every man, woman and child that are citizens of the United States of America or those seeking to become citizens legally. It is the responsibility of all that have the power to make it great again, to make it great again! One way is to vote, by all those that are eligible to vote! As long as the USA remains, this is a timeless statement, for as long as, America is not great. The statement suggests that America is not presently “great.” Is this true? You know it’s true because, we are NOT presently great.

I have never seen nor presently see a campaign slogan that says something like the following:

Four years or more-y of Hunky-dory

And with all due disrespect to president Obama’s speech in Elkhart, IN, on June 1, 2016, no one is running on a campaign of “Okey-doke,” either! “Okey-doke” or okey-dokey is an urban language term for the reduplicated, reduplication of OK. It also suggests that anyone that believes in okey-doke are just witless wonders. The pres said that, “…Okey-doke, on June 1, 2016 in Elkhart, IN. He went there to take credit for Indiana’s economic recovery, when in fact, it was not his policies that made the difference, but it was due mostly to fracking and the recovery of shale-oil! News Flash, soon to be, ex-president, not everyone believes you or in you; and many can’t wait for your bye-bye and could care less about your legacy! We are more concerned with making America great again!

The statement suggests that America is not presently “great.” Is this true? You know it’s true because, we are NOT presently great.

So, if we are NOT great, then it’s up to you and I, all of US, WE the People (including Trump), to make it great again! Why would this statement also, include Trump? Because he is running for president, to do his part in making America Great Again. He’s campaigning on better trade deals, winning again and in essence—AMERICA FIRST!

“What difference at this point does it make?”

Make America Great Again?

OK, so you don’t like being told what to do, being told to, Make America Great Again? Maybe you don’t want us to be great again? Maybe you just want the return of “business as usual?” A vote for Trump might help make America great again? Maybe not and if not, then maybe if he’s lying, we would all just return to, “business as usual?” So, we have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong with Trump. Don’t like those odds? Then by all means:

1. Vote for Bernie Sanders (Hello, he can’t, cannot, nope— he absolutely can’t win, unless of course he is the only one left standing at the convention)?
2. NOT vote at all (stay home because I am either an idiot or an idiotic illegal alien and can’t vote or am not supposed to be able to anyway)?
3. Vote for some third-party candidate? see: #’s 1 & 2 above
4. Vote for Hillary Clinton (assuming she is not indicted and/or jailed, prior to November 3rd, 2016?

“What difference at this point does it make?”

THERE IS, NO DIFFERENCE, WHATSOEVER!!!!!

After all the votes are cast and counted, it’s still up to You and I to:

Make America Great Again!

I’m willing to make a difference! What about you?

I will end this post with two videos. The first is an editorial, by a real judge.  The Last one is fiction, by a real actor.

5-Minute Speech that Got Judge Napolitano Fired at Fox News

The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER…

 

Note: I’m sorry, but the above video does not allow embedding. You must watch it onYouTube_icon and then return here

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

Appearances

April 23, 2015

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-oB

 

What do you get when you pair two lawyers (one a Rhodes Scholar) with Uranium?

TheClintons

 

“The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” 

“The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.” 

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.” 

“Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.” 

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.” 

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

excerpts from: The NY Times article by By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE, APRIL 23, 2015 – http://goo.gl/j2phCF

 

It’s all perfectly legal? Nothing New Here? Move along!