Posts
Catherine Austin Fitts-Trump Taking On Corruption & Lawlessness
Greg Hunter
How
does Donald Trump win against the evil trying to stop his
Administration? Financial expert Catherine Austin Fitts contends,
“Trump wins by staying focused on the real issues. The U.S. economy
needs a variety of things, including turning the federal budget
around. . . . . The reality is the federal budget has a negative
return to taxpayers. It’s got to be turned positive. . . . That
comes down to tax reform, infrastructure and it comes down to Obama
Care. . . . Trump is the Titanic Turner, and he needs to stick to the
big issues. . . . He has to make sure the shriek-o- meter does not
destroy his top lieutenants and put space between him and them.
Otherwise, the pigs are going to step in and run things.”
In
closing, Fitts says, “What’s killing this economy is corruption
and lawlessness. That’s what’s killing the economy. We need to
deal with these problems.”
Join
Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts,
founder of “The Solari Report” on Solari.com.
#LockHerUp: Hillary Clinton Gradually Losing Veneer of Being 'Too Big to Jail'
13
February, 2017
While
US mainstream media is rife with rumors about Hillary Clinton's
possible political comeback, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel and
Haitian-born journalist Dady Chery told Sputnik that the two-time
presidential candidate may very soon find herself in a heap of legal
trouble.
It
appears that Hillary Clinton has no intention to leave the stage for
the time being, and rumors continue to circulate about Hillary's
comeback as the Democrats' "heavy artillery" or the Big
Apple's next mayor.
"I'm
certain Trump will screw up enough that by the fall of '18, Hillary's
numbers will be way up again," former Pennsylvania governor and
DNC chair Ed Rendell told Politico.com.
For
her part, Clinton, who sustained a resounding defeat in the 2016
presidential election, never misses a chance to criticize or mock
President Donald Trump.
3-0
1:17 PM - 10 Feb 2017
"3-0,"
Hillary tweeted last Thursday, in an apparent reference to the ruling
by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold
Judge James Robart's decision to suspend Trump's executive order on
immigration.
"The
score appeared to allude to the unanimous 3-0 decision handed down by
the appeals court," Daniel Halper of New York Post remarked
Friday.
However,
it seems that Clinton's past could get in the way of her return to
big politics.
Alleged
Fraud: It's too Big to Remain Swept Under the Rug
Charles
K. Ortel, a US writer and Wall Street investor analyst, who uncovered
General Electric stock being overvalued before market crash in 2008,
highlights that the story of The Clinton Foundation's financial
manipulation is too big to remain swept under the rug.
Presenting
a scrupulous analysis of the Foundation's financial activities on his
website, the analyst calls attention to the fact that since the late
1990s the Clinton Foundation has de facto capitalized on the most
burning humanitarian issues, by collecting millions of dollars and
providing little if any information on how the money was actually
spent.
"Since
23 October 1997, when the Clinton Foundation was organized, public
filings suggest that approximately $2 billion may have been received
in the form of contributions and grants," Ortel told Sputnik.
"That
said, there has never been a validly performed and legally compliant
independent audit of any part of the Clinton Foundation for any
period (part or full year) of operation. This means that no outsider
has ever been able to ensure that all incoming donations landed in
Clinton Foundation bank accounts. Given their loose (I might argue
non-existent) financial controls, the international spread of their
operations, and extreme volatility in foreign exchange rates, the
potential for monies to leak out (diverted revenues, fake expenses)
is substantial," the analyst stressed.
"For
example, the largest Clinton Foundation donor, a multilateral entity
based in Switzerland called UNITAID claims that it sent around $650
million towards the Clinton Foundation starting late in 2006. Year-by
year, close review of UNITAID claims made concerning their donations
differ significantly with reports issued for similar years by the
Clinton Foundation," Ortel elaborated.
"In
addition to financial irregularities that are evident following
analysis of Clinton filings and those of significant donors such as
UNITAID (others to investigate and compare include Gates Foundation,
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Children's
Investment Fund Foundation (there are at least two — one in UK and
a separate one in the US), and declarations by governments such as
Australia, Norway, Canada, UK, Sweden, Ireland, and others.), one
needs to look carefully at private gains that may have been created
through operation of the Clinton 'charities.' A place to start is
examining the 'Commitments to Action' declared by participants in the
Clinton Global Initiative — here, it seems that many 'donors'
derived benefits and that these benefits were substantial in
financial terms," the analyst said.
In
addition, the Foundation's collaboration with foreign sponsors during
Hillary Clinton's term as a US Secretary of State had repeatedly
raised concerns of alleged conflict of interest.
"The
Clinton Foundation (including its various entities) has never
truthfully disclosed on state forms (see requirements in New York and
California, for example) the exact amounts and stated purposes of
donations from numerous foreign governments," Ortel noted.
Who Will Launch an Investigation Into the Clinton Foundation's Alleged Fraud?
The
question then arises why an all-out investigation into the alleged
fraud has yet to be initiated by US authorities.
Dady
Chery, News Junkie Post Co-Editor in Chief and DadyChery.org editor
who authored "We Have Dared to Be Free: Haiti's Struggle Against
Occupation" believes that sooner or later the Clinton
Foundation's operators will be held accountable for their misdeeds.
In
her previous interviews with Sputnik Chery shed light on the
Clintons' cashing in on the Haitian earthquake of 2010.
"I
don't think the Trump administration wants any accusation of
persecuting its political opponents," Chery told Sputnik on
Monday, "This is probably why, during his confirmation hearings,
former Senator and now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions said he would
bow out of any Hillary Clinton investigations."
"This
does not mean that Hillary Clinton will get a pass," she
specified, "It just means that in the US, it is probably the
Congress that will spearhead the investigation."
"Representative
Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, has promised that the investigations would
continue. I certainly hope that the fate of the USAID funds for
Haiti's reconstruction, for example, will be investigated, and all
those found guilty of misappropriation will be punished," Chery
stressed.
However,
it's not only up to the US Congress or President Trump to expedite
the process: for their part, the Foundation's foreign sponsors might
raise the issue of the misappropriation of funds.
"One
thing to consider is that while the Clintons may be able to
manipulate America's bitterly divided political landscape and opaque
regulatory system, they and their 'foundations' are subject to
foreign laws, and vulnerable, in my view, should investigations
expand and prosecutions result in foreign jurisdictions," Ortel
told Sputnik.
"As
a guess," he added, "foreign governments until now have
been reluctant to examine vexing questions surrounding how Clinton
entities could take and spend donations without organizing,
operating, and reporting lawfully, because the IRS and other US
regulators have not yet acted."
However,
it is up to foreign donors "to decide what they may wish to do
to recover donations made to Clinton charities, if they conclude, as
I see just from evidence in the public domain that this is certainly
not charity," Ortel noted.
What's
Behind Hillary Clinton's Renewed Political Activity?
Meanwhile,
some generous foreign sponsors have turned their back of the Clinton
Foundation by slashing their donations to the charity after Hillary
Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race.
"A
cynic might suggest that the Clintons were able to garner much of
their current wealth by catering to those who sought to benefit (or
escape prosecution) under a Hillary Clinton Administration,"
Ortel said commenting on the matter.
"The
Clintons, until recently, had a long record of rewarding political
supporters and of punishing political enemies. When they left the
White House in January 2001, they were 'dead-broke' by their own
admission — now they are said to be multi-millionaires," he
explained.
And
this is the cause of Hillary Clinton's renewed political activity,
according to the analyst.
"Unless
a member of the Clinton family is rumored to be seeking elected
office, their ability to attract more wealth and income arguably ebbs
— so, it seems natural they might float plans whether for Hillary
or even for Chelsea to seek political office," Ortel assumed.
In
apparent attempt to gain political capital, Hillary Clinton has
openly endorsed protest movements against Trump's policies.
I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.
"I
stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending
our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are,"
Clinton tweeted on January 29 commenting on protests against Trump's
executive order on immigration.
Politico's
Kenneth Vogel noted in his November op-ed that powerful liberal
magnates, including George Soros, were up in arms about Trump's rise.
Observers believe that these sponsors could have been behind the
protests.
Is
Hillary Clinton Involved in Anti-Trump Protests?
Is
it possible that the Clintons are also involved in these activities?
"[George]
Soros' influence has been on the decline since Hillary Clinton lost
the presidential election," Chery responded, "So far, by
financing various protests and legal challenges against Trump through
his various foundations Soros has managed to control the news agenda
and draw attention away from the changes by the new administration."
"[Soros]
is not used to losing, but he might as well start to like it, because
he'll probably not win much else," Chery believes.
Ortel
shares a similar stance.
"I
suspect that like-minded associates of the Clintons and of Soros are
deeply involved in coordinating resistance to the Trump
Administration," he said.
"Here,
I think they will fail and caution them that there are also strict
rules on the books that should be enforced assiduously against
'charities' that are in fact political advocacy organizations. Two
that spring to mind are Media Matters and Center for American
Progress but there are many others funded by Soros and his allies
that offer tax deductions to fund partisan political activity —
this is forbidden according to existing laws. The question now is how
the new Administration will exercise discretion to investigate and
then to prosecute the worst offenders," Ortel told Sputnik.
Both
experts don't believe that the Clintons will manage to win this
political battle.
"It's
hard to believe that the Democratic Party, or anybody for that
matter, would bet on her again for any political office. She had
everything going for her, and she still lost. Besides, she will
probably soon be in a heap of legal trouble," Chery suggested.
Ortel
is also highly skeptical about Hillary Clinton's chances: "I am
not a political expert, but I struggle to find examples where a
supposed front-runner for the US presidency has lost twice, so
badly."
However,
it seems that the Clintons may find themselves in a deep trouble if
the Foundation's alleged fraud is confirmed: "In other cases
that are far smaller in financial terms, and in my view, less
serious, operators of charity frauds have suffered lengthy jail
terms, and crippling financial penalties," Ortel said.
In
Hillary Clinton's own words: "There should be no individual too
big to jail."
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary #DemDebate
This
is, I grant you,from a biased source. But does it need to be pointed
out that bias is NOT the same as “false news”
DHS
Whistleblower: I was ordered to scrub records of Muslims with terror
ties
“A
political scrubbing of records”
7
February, 2017
Obama’s
first year in office was a busy one as he worked tirelessly to hinder
the government’s ability to identify, locate, track, or make common
sense connections between Islamists and terrorism.
In
April of 2009, the DHS
released a now-infamous report entitled
“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate
Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and in which
conservatives were labeled potential terrorists not because they are
radical militants but because they are pro-life, support the Tenth
Amendment, or are veterans.
Michelle
Malkin wrote at
that time:
It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.
From the report, p.2:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
From the report. p. 3:
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
Also
in 2009, the Washington
Times reports that
a senior White House aide called for the elimination of the term
“jihadist” because jihadis should be considered simply
“extremists.” Two years later, the Washington
Times continues,
the White House “ordered a cleansing of training materials that
Islamic groups deemed offensive.”
In
2011, the Obama administration ordered
the FBI to cease all surveillance on mosques that
might be radicalizing potential jihadis in the U. S.; this move was
pointed to as a
reason that the Boston bombers were not detected before
their terrorist attack.
Now,
a former DHS employee contends that he was ordered in 2009—the
month before the failed attempt of the Christmas Day “underwear
bomber“—to
edit or delete hundreds of files on individuals connected to Islamic
terrorism.
. . . [I]n early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.
A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future—especially beforean attack occurs.
Haney
goes on to explain that had this information not been removed or
modified terror attacks after November 2009 might have been
prevented.
As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015).
It is very plausible that one or more of the subsequent terror attacks on the homeland could have been prevented if more subject matter experts in the Department of Homeland Security had been allowed to do our jobs back in late 2009. It is demoralizing—and infuriating—that today, those elusive dots are even harder to find, and harder to connect, than they were during the winter of 2009.
This
is not
the first time that Haney
has raised concerns about
the Obama administration’s frantic efforts to switch the focus of
government surveillance away from potential terrorists.
Watch
him discuss his concerns about his surveillance program that might
have thwarted the San Bernardino terror attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.