The Pentagon's Missing Trillions: What You Need to Know
Dr. Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University joins us to discuss his research with Catherine Austin Fitts into the $21 trillion in unaccounted transactions on the books of the US Department of Defence and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. We discuss what we know and don't know about the subject, the Pentagon's nonsensical and inadequate excuses for the debacle, the new accounting guideline that legally allows every department of the federal government to create fake and altered books for public consumption, the recent failed Pentagon audit, the government's refusal to provide any information about the problem, the failure of congress to pursue the issue, and the failure of the press to report on it.
If the movement in America to bypass the Constitution and directly elect the President by a national popular vote succeeds, it will destroy the American Republic.
TheNational Popular Vote Interstate Compact(NPVIC) would guarantee victory to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. To date, twelve states and the district of Columbia have agreed to the compact totaling 172 electoral votes, with Colorado and Oregon about to add 19.
If the total exceeds 270, those states will require their electors to vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the highest national popular vote count. All the states that have signed-on to NPVIC have state legislatures controlled by Democrats.
The Constitution defines our form of government as a Republic where representatives are selected by the people, and those representatives govern. The voters in each state choose their members of the U.S. Congress, and select the candidate for President that best represents the interests of their state. Madison discusses in Federalist Paper No. 10 why we are a Republic. The founding principle of America is that individuals have unalienable rights and that government is instituted to protect these rights. History, and common-sense, indicate that Democracies fail to protect unalienable rights because they create a sustained majority rule of popular factions and parties. And, this majority construct inevitably fails to protect the rights and property of minority factions and parties. It is human nature that a faction, a political party, when always in control, will vote itself, and its members, government benefits as a means to maintain and grow membership. And, the minority is subject to unequal taxation and loss of property. Rights protected by the Constitution, but not favored by the majority, would disappear.
In Madison’s words:
“Hence it is that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
'Pure Genocide': Over 6,000 Nigerian Christians Slaughtered, Mostly Women and Children ByStoyan Zaimov, Christian Post
Not surprizingly, the article neglects to mention that "their adoption of Islam increased the Fulanis' feeling of cultural and religious superiority to surrounding peoples, and that adoption became a major ethnic boundary marker.
On a 234-193 party line vote, HouseDemocratspassed their top legislative priority since taking control in January -- the so-called "For the People Act." The stated intent of the measure is to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthenethicsrules for public servants.”
At every turn, it grants federal regulators more power. Time and again, it renders federal election law more complex — creating a chilling effect on political communication through sheer uncertainty and confusion.
At a time of extraordinary public harassment,boycotts, intimidating public shame campaigns, the act would expand financial-disclosure requirements, including in some circumstances requiring public disclosure of the names and addresses even of donors who did not know about or perhaps even support the political message of the organization they funded. Donors may give money, for example, to fund one aspect of an organization’s mission only to be involuntarily exposed as a “political donor” when the organization chooses — without the donor’s knowledge or consent — to mention a politician by name in a different context. As the ACLU points out, “it is unfair to hold donors responsible for every communication in which an organization engages.”
Moreover, in the effort to further limit “coordination” between candidates and political action committees, the bill sets forth language so broad that, as the ACLU explains, it affects communications that “merely refer to a candidate or an opponent to a candidate 120 days before an election or 60 days before a primary or a caucus.” The Institute for Free Speech’sBradley Smith argues that, with such language, “the goal seems to be to limit discussion of candidates to the candidates and parties themselves, at the expense of the public at large.”
From theFirst Amendment to your ballot box, Democrats want to rewrite the rules to favor themselves and their friends. Upending theFEC, squeezing taxpayers, attacking privacy and jeopardizing our elections are a price they’ll happily pay for this partisan power grab.
Fortunately, the November elections that handed Pelosi the House also expanded Republicans’ Senate majority. I hope the two bodies can find common ground and build on the bipartisan successes of last Congress— but this outlandish Democrat proposal is not a promising start. My colleagues and I will proudly defend your privacy and your elections.
It's a good start...and a reminder of how important is it to have a legislative check on the ambitions of congressional Democrats.
All the signs that herald the collapse of a civilization are upon us. Watch this video by social commentator Paul Joseph Watson as he explains how great civilizations commit suicide as they descend into Godlessness, immorality, drugs, contempt for life, androgyny and the failure of education to produce great artists, thinkers and culture.
Moments After Trump Issues First Veto, Angel Mom Steps In with Incredible Statement
Given the fact that the Republicans have controlled at least one house of Congress since he’s taken office, President Donald Trump hasn’t had to use his veto pen. That changed Friday after both houses passed legislation that sought to overturn his emergency declaration to fund a portion of the wall along the southern border.
“Today, I am vetoing this resolution,” Trump said from the Oval Office, according to The New York Times. “Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution, and I have the duty to veto it.” READ ON
President Trump Uses VetoFor First Time March 15 2019 President Trump has used his veto for the first time, sweeping aside an attempted blocking of emergency powers to build the Southern border wall.Fox Newsreports: President Trump on Friday used the first veto of his administration to reject a bipartisan resolution that sought to block his declaration of a national emergency at the border, a move almost certain to kill the measure.
Trump’s veto came a day after 12 Senate Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the resolution, despite last-minute efforts between the White House and GOP lawmakers to keep the Republican Party united. The measure ultimately passed 59-41, and Trump immediately vowed to veto.
While the original passage marked a stinging rebuke from members of Trump’s own party, his veto is likely the last word as lawmakers are unlikely to muster the two-thirds majority required to override.
Trump originally declared a national emergency on the border last month after Congress granted only a fraction of the $5.7 billion he requested for a wall on the border. Declaring a national emergency allows Trump to steer an extra $3.6 billion to the wall.
This is unprecedented in the Trump administration, but it reflects a relative harmony between the branches as it hasn’t been used in two years. Will there be more vetoes to come?
Harrisburg, PA–-(Ammoland.com)-A new bill introduced in Pennsylvania would establish a gun registry within the state.
HB0768 is known as the Firearms Registration Act. The Democrats that introduced the bill were Mary Louise Isaacson (D), Angel Cruz (D), and Mary Jo Daley (D). Last Friday, the General Assembly referred the bill to the committee on judiciary.
The bill would require gun owners in the Keystone State to register their firearms with the Pennsylvania State Police. Owners would have to provide the police with the make, model, and the serial numbers of all their guns.
Along with the application that the gun owner must swear to under oath, the gun owner would have to submit fingerprints, two photographs that are no older than 30 days and go through a background check for each firearm that they own. This background check is the same one that they must go through to purchase a gun.
In addition to this requirement, they must also provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their home and work address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, age, sex, and citizenship. This requirement is more information than a person needs to vote.
If the State Police rejects the person's application, then they will have ten days to appeal the decision. The owner must turn their firearms into the State Police within three days of receiving notification of the rejection. If a person does not appeal the decision within ten days, their right is forfeit.
A gun owner cannot transfer any unregistered firearm. Anyone caught with an unregistered gun is guilty of a crime even if they are unaware of the firearm registration status. Also just holding an unregistered firearm at a range is a crime.
The gun owner must keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. If a firearms owner doesn't secure their firearm that way, they would be guilty of a crime. This rule even applies to homes with no children.
The gun owner has 48 hours to update the State Police if they change jobs, phone numbers, addresses, or anything else on the application. If they do not update the State Police, then they could be prosecuted for violating the law.
The certificate which will cost $10 per firearm will expire after one year. The gun owner would have to start the process over again to renew their certification. This process must be done 60 days before the certificate expires. The procedure can get confusing for gun owners with large collections.
The bill makes no mention of how the state will enforce the law.
Other states that have tried gun registration and bans have seen limited success. New Jersey has had zero magazines turned in since their magazine ban went into effect.
New York saw nearly one million firearms owners defy the state law to register their “assault weapons.” The same thing played out in Connecticut when only 50,000 out of 350,000 registered their semi-automatic rifles.
Expanding a registry to all firearms will be impossible to enforce without conducting door to door searches of houses. It is unclear how these Democrats plan to deal with this reality.
None of the bill’s sponsor responded to our request for comment.
Lisa Page admitted Obama DOJ ordered stand-down on Clinton email prosecution, GOP rep says ByGregg Re| Fox News
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that "the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information," the congressman alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page's closed-door testimony.
Page and since-fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, who were romantically involved, exchangednumerous anti-Trump text messages in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Republicans have long accused the bureau of political bias. But Page's testimony was perhaps the most salient evidence yet that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the FBI's supposedly independent conclusions on Clinton's criminal culpability, Ratcliffe alleged.
"So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory," Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter. "But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —"
Page interrupted: "That is correct," as Ratcliffe finished his sentence, " -- bring a case based on that."
The document dump was part of a major release by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, who on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year's closed-door interview with Page, revealing new details about the bureau's controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald Trump. Fox News has previously reviewed portions of Page's testimony.
Responding to the transcript revelations, Trump on Wednesday tweeted: "The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!"
The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!