Wednesday, June 12, 2019

THIS IS ELIZABETH WARREN. LEFTIST FRAUD IDEOLOGUE HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT!



  • THIS IS ELIZABETH WARREN
    LONGTIME FRAUD AND LEFTIST
  •  
  • Follow the money: The FRAUD OF ELIZABETH WARREN
    Breaking News Global on 6 Dec. 2017 had a stunning but expected report that will probably end the expectations of a second senatorial term for Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator from Massachusetts and to send her political career into ignominious flames of defeat. Why? Because she received her fake law faculty position at Harvard Law School for lying on her employment application that she was a fake Native American ( a.k.a. “Pocahontas”), thus causing her Republican opponent, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, PhD (M.I.T.) inventor of Email, an Indian-American running as a contender for Warren’s Senate seat in 2018 who cleverly declared that “only a real Indian can defeat a fake Indian.” “I’m looking forward to going against Warren. You know, I know how these elites work. I know I can defeat her,” he said.
    Trump during the campaign repeatedly said that we would win so much that we would “get tired of winning.” Since We the People are not tired of winning … yet! Let U.S. support Dr. Ayyadurai in his valiant efforts to unseat the fake Indian, fake Harvard Law Professor, creator of the fake CFPB government agency that is in realty a slush fund to launder fees confiscated illegally by the CFPB apparatchiks to funnel extorted funds (so far totaling over $5 billion) to the Democrat Party Machine and to criminals like Obama, Warren, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Socialist Party.
    Enough is enough. Interim Director Mick Mulvaney, audit the CFPB, trace and account for every fraudulent dollar, indict all wrongdoers, and then dismantle the corrupt CFPB immediately!
    CFPB = Rogue Agency Slush Fund to Enrich Democrat Campaign Donations
    TRANSCRIPT: “Trump just uncovered Elizabeth Warren stole five billion dollars from US taxpayers what she did with it will make you sick. The signature achievement of Elizabeth Warren while in the Senate has been the creation of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau or CFPB. It was created to act as a watchdog for the financial industry following the 2008 home loan financial crisis. Now it’s all coming out what she’s allegedly responsible for doing and it’s not good.”
    “Trump has appointed Mick Mulvaney to head the agency; a man who has called the agency a joke before and said that he doesn’t believe it should even exist. I’m sure Warren must be thrilled, it’s a good thing too because it means a man aware of the reality of the situation at the bureaucratic nightmare that is the CFPB. According to an explosive Wall Street Journal piece last year titled, The Consumer Financial Protection Racket, the paper’s editorial board takes an axe to the law. Instead of protecting consumers the CFPB has complied record of abuse rivaling that of Washington’s most entrenched bureaucracies and may be operating outside of the parameters of the Constitution, the Wall Street Journal editorial stated that they quoted lawyers representing a mortgage lender called PHH which had been appealing the CFPB increasing a 6.4 million dollars penalty the firm already owed to an additional $105 million. How? It appears that they just created law out of thin air, the president and the Congress have no control over this agency, PHH’s lawyers stated in court.”

    “The only check on this agency is right here, if it isn’t for the judiciary this agency could do anything it wants. It’s arguably an unconstitutional agency and one that has no problem wasting money. CFPB pays 56 employees more than the $199,700
    Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke receives. Federal reserve governor’s get $179,700, a figure exceeded by 111 CFPB workers. Six-figure salaries go to 741 employees or 61% of the CFPB workforce with one in four taking home dollar $150,000 or more.”
    According to the Gateway Pundit Warren has been allegedly operating a slush fund. The New York Post’s Paul Sperry reports that the CFPB is engaged in a wide variety of corruption – everything from amassing secret ledgers, to using penalties to launder funds and to left-wing causes. Of course, because the CFPB operates independently of the US government, a full audit of the agency’s balance sheet has never been done.” “This sad reality may very well change under Mulvaney’s leadership. According to the New York Post report bounced business owners and industry reps from secret meetings that’s held with Democrat operatives, radical civil rights activists, trial lawyers and other “community advisors,” according to a report by the House Financial Services Committee. Retained GMMB, the liberal advocacy group that created ads for the Obama and Hillary Clinton presidential campaigns, for more than $40 million, making the Democrat shop the sole recipient of CFPB’s advertising expenditure … funneled a large portion of the more than $5 billion in penalties collected from defendants to community organizers aligned with Democrats – “a slush fund by another name,” said a consultant who worked with CFPB on its civil penalty fund and requested anonymity.”
    “Reports of the CFPB awarding lucrative contracts to left-leaning organizations is nothing new the CFPB award at GMMB the Obama Hillary ad firm a $14.7 million contract for agency media and resource communication in June of 2017 and a 16 million dollars payday to marketing materials about student loans and mortgages. The post also discovered that the CFPB’s activity is raising more than a few privacy concerns. CFPB has secretly assembled giant consumer databases that raise individual privacy as well as corporate liability concerns, one sweeps up personal credit card info and another compiles data on as many as 230 million mortgage applicants focusing on race and ethnicity.”
    “While Ronald Reagan once observed that nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program, the CFPB was intended to be permanent and may now only be temporary. On his first day on the job Mulvaney instituted a 30-day freeze on all new hiring and creating of new regulations at the CFPB. The banking industry breathed a sigh of relief when he did so as they and industry analysts have long observed that some of the harsh and unjust regulations created and enforced by the agency had driven thousands of banks out of business. The agency should have been eliminated long ago it’s a relief that the captain of that ship appears to be heading deliberately into an iceberg.” [END of TRANSCRIPT]

    Big Lie Disinformation vs. Veritas (Truth)
    To demonstrate the incessant disinformation and propaganda by the Democrat Party Big Lie Media (no pun intended for BLM or Black Lives Matter), one has only to look at two headlines – the first dated 27 Nov. 2017 by the Washington Post, a worthless rag owned by the billionaire Gestapo Globalist Jeff Bezos, was titled – Sorry, Mr. President. You can’t make Mulvaney ‘acting’ head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You can even see in the title the arrogant, condescending tone of the article that we at the Washington Post know better than you, the unwashed, “Deplorable” masses; you just sit there, shut up and like pigs at the trough, eat the Big Lie garbage we give to you every day.
    Apparently, the Big Lie Media didn’t get the memo delivered to America on 8 Nov. 2016 and given full legal effect on 20 Jan. 2017. There is a new sheriff in town concurrent with the election of Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States. Trump has made it Mission #1 to destroy the Deep State and Shadow Government traitors infesting the D.C. swamp and then fully drain the swamp to make government accountable and fearful of We the People again, who at the creation of this Republic on July 4th 1776, were given the mandate to create this Constitution of the United States and all three branches of government – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
    The second headline based on Veritas (truth) was from that same propaganda rag the Washington Post, dated 28 Nov., written in the form of an unstated retraction of the article on the same subject written the previous day that I cited above. The unofficial retraction article was title –  Federal judge rules that Trump’s choice can remain at head of consumer watchdog bureau. Candidate Trump warned U.S. that we would get tired of winning so much and now I see what he means.
    Regarding rampant but protected criminality is societal institutions, Justice Louis Brandies famously said that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” The CFPB awarded 
    GMMB, the Obama-Hillary ad firm, a $14.7 million contract for “agency media and resource communication,” in June of 2017 and a $16 million payday to marketing materials about student loans and mortgages. “Most likely President Trump will not appoint a replacement until Mulvaney has exposed the corruption within it. That sunlight is toxic to Elizabeth Warren and can potentially be politically destructive to the Democrats.” wrote Sundance of Conservative Treehouse on November 27th. It is suspected that these amounts while considerable in its levels of political criminality by the Democrat Sociality Party, pales in comparison to the level of intrinsic criminal by the CFPB’s activities which as stated before from its inception were purposely shrouded in mystery. However, I am confident that the Trump administration with OMB Director Mick Mulvaney at the helm will shine the light of Veritas and expose Senator Warren the criminal slush fund of the CFPB that to date has pumped over $5 billion dollars into Democrat Socialist causes, while doing very little to help protect citizens from financial fraud.

    I agree with the New York Post writer Paul Sperry’s reports that the CFPB is engaged in a wide-variety of corruption. Everything from amassing secret ledgers to using penalties to ‘launder,’ funds into left-wing causes. Of course, because the CFPB was funded not by Congress (as constitutionally mandated by all other agencies), but by the equally unaccountable, unconstitutional Federal Reserve, Senator Warren and the Obama administration purposely created a rogue agency without checks and balances from Congress and thus functions independently of the U.S. Government, therefore a full audit of the agency’s balance sheet should be enacted by President Trump’s interim CFPB Director, Mick Mulvaney ASAP. Only then can this typical Socialist solution to a real problem (2008 Wall Street and home loan financial crisis), be effectively addressed not with another bloodsucking layer of unaccountable, unconstitutional bureaucracy abusing U.S. business, but by identifying all illegal activity in the U.S. financial sector, purge it and bring all criminal wrongdoers like Senator Warren, President Obama and the staff of the CFPB.
     
  • Longtime professor at Harvard Law School
  • Advocates a federal student-loan program that would forgive students one year of college expenses for each year they worked in public service after college
  • Calls for greater “regulation” by the government to counter the devious tactics of “lenders who have deliberately built tricks and traps into some credit products”
  • Was appointed in 2008 by Senator Harry Reid to chair a Congressional Oversight Panel to monitor the effectiveness of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program
  • Supports a federal bailout of American families facing bankruptcy
  • Has spoken on panels with George Soros and Van Jones
  • Was appointed (in 2010) by President Obama as special assistant in charge of organizing and establishing a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012



Beginnings

Born in June 1949 and raised in Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren earned a B.S. from the University of Houston in 1970 and a J.D. from Rutgers Law School in 1976. She subsequently taught law at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas, the University of Houston, the University of Michigan, and Rutgers. Then, in 1992 she began a two-decade stint as a professor at Harvard Law School.

Warren Claims Native American Heritage

In 1984, Warren, claiming to be partially of Cherokee heritage, contributed five recipes to a cookbook titled Pow Wow Chow, which was edited by her cousin and was, according to its introduction, a compilation of “special recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.” It was later learned, however, that Warren had plagiarized at least three of her five recipes. Two of those three originated at Le Pavilion, an exclusive French restaurant in Manhattan, and, according to Breitbart.com, “had appeared in an article written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News.” Warren copied both of the recipes word-for-word. The third plagiarized recipe, “Herbed Tomatoes,” was apparently lifted from a 1959 piece in Better Homes and Gardens. For further details about Warren’s plagiarism, click here.
In April 1986, when Warren was a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, she filled out a handwritten registration form with the Texas State Bar in which she identified her race as “American Indian.” This fact would not be reported by any media outlet until February 2019.
From 1986 to 1995, Warren—without specifying her heritage—listed herself as a minority professor in the Association of American Law Schools Directory. A 1996 article in the Harvard Crimson quoted Harvard Law spokesman Michael Chmura identifying Warren as “Native American.” Two years later, the paper dubbed Warren “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured” at the law school. According to historian Victor Davis Hanson, Warren “dropped her Native American claims as soon as she at last received tenure and found her … con suddenly superfluous—to the apparent unconcern of her similarly cynical but now mum employer, Harvard.”

Warren and the FDIC & NBRC

In addition to her professorial pursuits, Warren also has been a member of the FDIC’s Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, which focuses on “expanding access to banking services” and “promot[ing] asset accumulation” for “underserved populations.” Moreover, she has served as vice president of the American Law Institute and as the chief adviser to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission.

Warren Co-Authors Book About an Unfair Financial System

In 2003 Warren and her daughter, Amelia Tyagi, co-wrote a book titled The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. The authors contend that because of the high fixed costs that modern-day Americans face, two-income families today are generally less financially stable than were single-income families in the 1970s. Warren and Tyagi portray a financial system where “the game is stacked against” ordinary Americans who seek “to provide a decent life for their children.” In the book’s Introduction, Warren praises leftist organizations like the Center for American Progress, Demos, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, and the New America Foundation for having helped raise people’s consciousness about “issues related to families’ economic stability.” She also notes, proudly, that her book has been quoted by such Democrat luminaries as Howard DeanJohn Edwards, Richard Gephardt, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Claims of Racial Injustice in America

On March 19, 2004, at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, Warren spoke at a symposium entitled “Critical Race Theory: The Next Frontier,” alongside a number of academics who, according to FreeBeacon.com, “have advocated for corporate and government reparations for African-Americans, criticized the concept of U.S. citizenship, and accused the United States of operating under a system of ‘apartheid.'” Founded by the late Derrick Bell, critical race theory is an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines.
Warren subsequently published an article in connection with that symposium, in the Fall 2004 issue of Washington and Lee Law Review. Entitled “The Economics of Race: When Making it to the Middle Is Not Enough,” Warren’s piece stated:

“A growing body of work examines how black families are having much greater difficulty accumulating wealth and how tax codes or other seemingly neutral statutes systematically disadvantage black families…. Hispanic and black homeowners face sharply increased risks of filing for bankruptcy as compared to their white counterparts. These data reinforce the view that middle class Hispanic and blacks are far more vulnerable to the financial difficulties facing every family.”

Flipping Homes for Profit

In 2006 Warren and her daughter co-authored a second book, titled All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan, wherein they identified as a myth the idea that “you can make big money buying houses and flipping [reselling] them quickly.” But as National Review Online (NRO)has chronicled, Warren herself had already bought and sold several properties in her native Oklahoma for substantial profit. Specifically:

  • Warren and her husband purchased a home for $50,000 in 1991, subsequently filed permits for mechanical and plumbing repairs, and eventually sold the house in 1998 for $109,500, a 119% gain.
  • In August 1993 Warren bought a home for $30,000, quickly obtained permits to do plumbing and electrical work, and sold it five months later for $115,000, a 383% profit.
  • Also in 1993 Warren purchased a foreclosed property in Oklahoma City for $4,000. Eleven years later she transferred the home to her brother and his wife, who eventually sold it for $30,000 in 2006; neither Warren nor her brother had ever filed any permits to make improvements on the dwelling.
  • In June 1993 Warren bought another foreclosed property in Oklahoma City for $61,000 and, despite filing no building permits to renovate, sold it for $95,000 in December 1994.
  • In 1994 Warren purchased yet another Oklahoma City house for $72,000 and, having filed no building permits to renovate, sold it for $104,000 in 1998.
Also in All Your Worth, Warren counseled against borrowers taking out home equity lines of credit. “Whether you are borrowing to pay down your credit card debt, play the stock market, or travel to Tahiti,” she wrote, “borrowing against your home is still borrowing–period. It is not saving, it is not smart, it is not savvy. A second mortgage or a home equity line of credit is plain old Steal-from-Tomorrow debt.”

Proposing the Forgiveness of College Loans in Exchange for “Public Service”

In 2007, Warren wrote a piece in the Harvard Law and Policy Review proposing the creation of a federally funded “Service Pays” program in which the government would “increase the amount students can borrow” for college loans, and would then “forgive students one year of college expenses for each year the student worked in public service after college.” This, Warren explained, would enable “typical students” to “begin adult life debt-free at twenty-six with a college diploma and four years of work experience.” Such an arrangement, she added, should also be extended to students who failed to graduate from college.
Warren envisioned Service Pays as “a reformed Peace Corps that would place young people with aid and development organizations around the world,” to assist with such tasks as “rebuilding after natural disasters”; “teaching English”; “improving water usage”; teaching math and science in “urban and rural schools with a substantial minority or lower-income student body”; running “after-school tutoring programs”; “clean[ing] up public buildings and parks”; “rebuild[ing] roads and bridges;” “improv[ing] the environment”; and “organiz[ing] communities to reduce crime and develop the local economy.” Added Warren: “Non-profit organizations that want to participate in Service Pays could apply to the program and be considered on the same basis that AmeriCorps currently uses: ‘Direct service activities must address local environmental, educational, public safety,… or other human needs.” Critics of Warren’s proposal observed that it had the potential to be used as a means of assigning young adults to work with leftwing organizations that would indoctrinate them to a particular political viewpoint.

Calling for More Government Regulation on Banks

Also in 2007, Warren began to advocate for the creation of a federal agency – modeled on the Consumer Product Safety Commission – to protect the public from “over-priced credit products, risky subprime mortgages, and misleading insurance plans.” She called for greater “regulation” by the government to counter the devious tactics of “lenders [who] have deliberately built tricks and traps into some credit products so they can ensnare families in a cycle of high-cost debt.”

Advocating Government Bailouts of Private Citizens

In September 2008, as the U.S. faced its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Warren penned an article titled “Who Will Bail Out American Families?” In that piece, she recommended that just as the federal government had bailed out failing U.S. banks, the AIG insurance company, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, it should likewise bail out American families facing bankruptcy. Depicting such people as innocent victims who had been tricked by unscrupulous bankers, Warren wrote: “They are casualties of a financial system that saw them not as customers, but as prey … a financial system that has been devastated by mindless deregulation and unchecked greed.”

Congressional Oversight Panel

In November 2008, Senator Harry Reid appointed Warren to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel that Congress had created to monitor the effectiveness of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which was designed to bail out failing U.S. financial institutions; Warren’s duty was to report regularly to Congress on whether TARP funds were being used “in the best interest of the American people.”

Lamenting the Financial Distress Associated with Capitalism

In 2009 Warren co-wrote “The Increasing Vulnerability of Older Americans: Evidence From the Bankruptcy Court.” Asserting that “the economic news for seniors is consistently grim,” this article stated that “age is increasingly associated with financial distress and with seeking protection from creditors through the bankruptcy courts.” According to the authors, since 1991 “Americans age fifty-five or older have experienced the sharpest increase in bankruptcy filings,” and “the rate of bankruptcy filings among those ages sixty-five and older has more than doubled.”
Also in 2009, Warren co-authored an article asserting that some 62.1% of all U.S. bankruptcies were the result of medical expenses that people could not afford – supposedly a 49.6% rise over 2001 bankruptcies due to medical expenses. Emphasizing that few Americans were immune from the possibility of becoming insolvent, the authors noted that “most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations”; moreover, “three quarters had health insurance.” Megan McArdle, the business and economics editor for The Atlantic, subsequently pointed out that this study was statistically flawed, and that no rise in medical-related bankruptcies had in fact occurred.
In 2009 Warren appeared in Michael Moore‘s anti-capitalist film titled Capitalism: A Love Story. In a taped interview, the filmmaker told Warren that “capitalism in and of itself, at least the capitalism we know now, is immoral, it’s not democratic, and worst of all, it doesn’t work…” Warren did not disagree, replying: “But we made up these rules, and the rules are of men, of people. We pick what the rules are. The rules have not been written for ordinary families, for the people who actually do the work. We have to rewrite those rules.” When Moore then blamed the greed of “corporate America” for allegedly having tricked people “into these adjustable rate mortgages [which] they may not be able to pay … back,” Warren said: “Its a big part of what happened, and then just layer in on top of that: ‘Can we sell them more credit cards that are loaded with tricks and traps?’”

Lucrative Personal-Injury Lawsuits

In September 2009, Warren worked as a consultant for Travelers Insurance in the Supreme Court case Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey. In that case, Travelers won permanent immunity from all personal-injury lawsuits related to its bankrupt former client, the asbestos-manufacturing Johns Manville Corporation. Records show that Travelers had been aware of the dangers of asbestos for decades, but had misled the public about those dangers. In a Supreme Court brief, Warren criticized the “enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers” who represented asbestos victims. She received more than $200,000 in legal fees for her services.

Warren’s Growing Influence

Warren was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” in 2009 and 2010.

Portraying Financial Institutions & the U.S. Economy As Crooked

In March 2010, Warren addressed a conference that also featured billionaire financier George Soros as a guest speaker. In her talk, Warren emphasized the need to shorten and simplify such documents as credit-card, mortgage, and car-loan agreements – so that people could no longer be “tricked and trapped into paying what [they] didn’t bargain for.”
In July 2010, Warren spoke at an East Hampton, New York event on the topic of “Restoring the Integrity of the U.S. Financial Markets.” Fellow panelists included George Soros and Van Jones. That same month, Warren spoke at a Netroots Nation conference on the topic of “Building a Progressive Economic Vision.”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Between 2007 and 2010, Warren’s idea of establishing a federal agency to protect financial-product consumers found considerable support in Congress and culminated in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) being incorporated into a financial regulatory reform bill that was passed in summer 2010. In the summer of that year, Senator Tom Harkin circulated a petition advocating that Warren be named as director of the new CFPB. Warren was likewise endorsed for that position by Congressman Barney Frank, Democrat Senator Al Franken, the socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, SEIU president Andrew Stern, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, and the activist organization MoveOn.
In July 2010, Warren singled out Rep. Barney Frank as the man who “deserves as much credit as anyone on this planet for keeping this Consumer Protection Financial Bureau [sic] and making it strong.”
On September 17, 2010, President Barack Obama appointed Warren to be his special assistant in charge of organizing and establishing the CFPB; in this role, Warren would also serve as a special advisor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Senate approval was not needed for Warren’s appointment, though it would have been required if Obama had named her to be CFPB’s director; Obama was aware that the Senate was unlikely to have confirmed Warren for that post. Following Warren’s appointment, Republican Congressmen Darrel Issa (CA) and Spencer Bachus (AL) sent a letter to the White House requesting more information about what they called the “unusual arrangement” that was “undermining congressional oversight” over presidential appointments. (Notably, CFPB went on to become a haven for highly-paid federal workers. As of January 2017, some 449 CFPB employees were earning at least $100,000 per year, and 228 were getting more than $200,000 annualy.)

Running For Senate

On September 14, 2011, Warren announced that she would be running (in 2012) for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat which, at that time, was held by Republican Scott Brown. While campaigning that same month, Warren stated (click here for video) that the government and the public sector play a vital role in wealth creation:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own—nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces [sic] that the rest of us paid for…. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless—keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Claiming a Connection to the Occupy Wall Street Movement

In October 2011, Warren — while enjoying a $429,000 Harvard salary and residing in a $5 million mansion — expressed support for the anti-capitalism rallies which were staged in cities across the United States by Occupy Wall Street and other activist groups. “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I support what they do.” To view a list of additional noteworthy individuals and organizations that endorsed the movement, click here.

Warren’s “Native American” Heritage Resurfaces in Controversy

In April 2012, Warren became embroiled in controversy when the Boston Herald reported that during the 1990s, administrators at Harvard Law School had “prominently touted Warren’s Native American background … in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male.” When the media subsequently asked Warren’s Senate campaign for proof of the candidate’s tribal heritage, the campaign initially denied that Warren had ever boasted about it. Warren herself suggested that even if she were unable to produce documentation of a such a heritage, her family “lore” backed up her claim. “Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born,” said Warren. “These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American[s] and talked about tribes since I was a little girl.” Speaking to a reporter on a local news station in Boston, Warren cited her the “high cheekbones” of her “papaw” (grandfather) as further evidence of her Native American lineage. Said Warren soon thereafter: “I listed myself [as a minority] in the [professional law-school] directory [from 1986-1995] in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am.”
On May 1, 2012, it was reported that Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes had discovered that one of Warren’s great-great uncles had made a notation on his own marriage license indicating that his mother (Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford) was a Cherokee. If that notation (which was not part of the official license) was accurate, it would make Warren 1/32 Cherokee. But in mid-May 2012, it was learned that the document bearing the aforementioned notation was merely an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Further, census records list O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford as “white,” and Warren’s family is not listed in the Cherokee registry.
Notwithstanding the evidence that Warren’s Cherokee heritage claims were false, Warren repeated her claim in A Fighting Chance, a new book that she released in April 2014. In response to this, the aforementioned Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes wrote in a blog post: “She [Warren] could have used her new book to acknowledge the truth and apologize for her blatant disrespect of minorities, but instead, she’s continued to perpetuate the lie and attempted to portray herself as a victim.”
In that same post, Barnes then cited the following excerpt from Warren’s book: “What really threw me, though, were the constant attacks from the other side. I would almost persuade myself that I was starting to get the hang of full-throttle campaigning and then — bam! Out of left field, the state Republican Party, or the [Scott] Brown campaign, or some blogger would launch a rocket at me.” To that, Barnes wrote:

“Doing the research, finding the facts and sharing the truth about someone is not an attack. If people were launching rockets, it is because Warren gave them a big target. Research was done to determine if she had Cherokee ancestry. She didn’t have any. That is not an opinion. It is a sound conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence found in historical documents. No one had any control over the lies told except Elizabeth Warren. She had control over it when she opened her mouth and told the story. She also had control when she repeatedly defended her story, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If Elizabeth Warren was a victim, she was only a victim of her own arrogance and dishonesty. If she felt hurt and angry over what happened, she has no one to blame but herself. She could have, should have, just told the truth. She chose not to do that. I don’t feel sorry for her.”
In March 2018, Warren was interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press with Chuck Todd,” where she was asked whether she would consider taking an easily accessible DNA test to address critics who had questioned her purported Native American heritage. But Warren did not answer the question, instead telling a story about how her mother and father had met and married as teenagers over the bitter objections of her father’s family, which opposed the couple’s union because the young woman was part Native American. “That’s the story that my brothers and I all learned from our Mom and our Dad, from our grandparents and all of our aunts and uncles. It’s a part of me, and nobody is going to take that part of me away — not ever,” said Warren. Todd, in response, reiterated his question, to which Warren replied: “I do know. I know who I am. And never used it for anything, never got any benefit from it anywhere.”
For a timeline of events regarding Warren’s claims of Native American heritage, click here.
In October 2018, Warren shared with the Boston Globe the results of a DNA test conducted upon her by Stanford University researcher Carlos D. Bustamante. In a summary of his findings, Bustamante wrote: “The results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor … in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” This means that Warren’s ancestry is somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American – i.e., between .09 percent and 1.6 percent Native American. The average European-American, meanwhile, has 0.18 percent Native American DNA.
The Globe noted, moreover, that “because Native American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in genetic databases,” there is no Native American DNA available for genetic testing. “To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA,” the paper reported, “Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south.”
Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr. issued the following statement vis-a-vis Warren’s DNA test results:

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

Addressing the DNC

On September 5, 2012, Warren spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Not Licensed to Practice Law in Massachusetts

In a September 24, 2012 interview with Boston’s 96.9 FM radio program Jim and Margery, Warren, who had provided paid legal services for many clients during the preceding decade—including the Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett law firm that paid her $212,000 and listed her as “of counsel” in the 2009 brief they submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance—admitted that she has never been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. According to LegalInsurrection.com:

“[T]here are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts.  Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.”

Senator Warren

In November 2012 Warren was elected to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.

Positions on Minimum Wage, Social Security, & College Loans

In March 2013 Warren suggested raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $22 per hour: “If we started in 1960, and we said [that] as productivity goes up … then the minimum wage was going to go up the same … if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour.” “What happened to the other $14.75?” she asked. “It sure didn’t go to the worker.”
In addition to a minimum-wage hike, Warren also favored an increase in Social Security benefits to retirees, notwithstanding the fact that with a rapidly rising number of baby boomers retiring, the Social Security program itself was headed inexorably toward fiscal collapse. As a December 2013 Wall Street Journal report explained:

“Undeterred by this undebatable solvency crisis, Sen. Warren wants to increase benefits to all seniors, including billionaires, and to pay for them by increasing taxes on working people and their employers. Her approach requires a $750 billion tax hike over the next 10 years that hits mostly Millennials and Gen Xers, plus another $750 billion tax on the businesses that employ them.
In an April 2014 interview with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, Warren cited the escalating cost of borrowing money for college as an example of how America has changed in recent times: “That’s what’s fundamentally changed. Look, it’s tough out there. It really is a rigged game, and it’s set up now over and over and over … that the rich get richer and the powerful get more powerful. They’ve got all the advantages of concentrated money and concentrated power.”
The key to addressing this problem, said Warren, is to get involved in politics: “All we got on the other side, is we got our voices and we got our votes, and if we get out there and make something out of them, that’s how we make a difference.”

Claiming Sexism in the Senate

In an October 2014 interview with CNN, Warren was asked whether she felt that her male colleagues in the U.S. Senate sometimes treated her in a disrespectful or sexist manner because she was a woman. She answered curtly, “Yes.” When asked if she could elaborate, Warren said, “Nope. Nope. I’ve said all I’m gonna say.” The interviewer then asked whether the senator found the disparate treatment “surprising.” Warren sighed audibly and then replied: “Not really. I wish it were. But it’s hard to change these big, male-dominated institutions. What I am very happy about is that there are now enough women in the United States Senate to begin to change that place, and I think that’s just powerfully important…. You know, others have said it before me. If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re probably on the menu. And so it is important that we have women in the United States Senate, strong women, and women who are there to help advance an agenda that is important to women.”

Ethics Violation

In a January 2017 op-ed which she wrote for the Washington Post, Warren said “it is critical that each nominee [for newly elected President Donald Trump’s cabinet] follows basic ethics rules to ensure that they will act for the benefit of all the American people.” Emphasizing that nominees with “complex financial histories” must be “forthcoming and transparent,” she argued that financial disclosures were especially vital because they might “reveal potentially damaging information that may undermine fitness to serve.” A few days later, the Washington Free Beacon reported:

“Warren, meanwhile, continues to skirt congressional ethics laws by failing to include a $1.3 million line of credit against her Cambridge, Massachusetts home on financial disclosure forms. The line of credit was extended to Warren and her husband Bruce Mann in 2007 through financial giant Bank of America. It was first noted by the Boston Herald after Warren failed to included the line of credit as a liability on her 2014 financial disclosure filing. It was also absent from her 2015 filing.
“An aide for Warren, who is worth millions, defended the omission, stating at the time that a home equity line of credit like the one that Warren received from Bank of America doesn’t have the same reporting requirements as a typical home mortgage, which would have to be reported.
“The STOCK Act, which was signed into law in 2012, mandated that all members of Congress disclose details of any mortgages on their personal residences in their annual filings. The legislation, however, does not mention home equity lines of credit, which banks offer as alternatives to a mortgage. The Warren aide said that the senator had yet to borrow on the line of credit, which allowed her to leave it off disclosure forms. The exact terms of Warren’s deal with Bank of America such as her interest rate remain a mystery due to the lack of disclosure.”

Warren’s Hypocrisy on the “Gender Pay Gap”

Warren has long claimed — falsely and deceptively — that female workers in the United States are paid considerably less than equally qualified men who do the same work, and that the American workplace is thus “rigged against women.” As the Washington Free Beacon reported on Wednesday, April 5, 2017: “Warren has used Equal Pay Day, which fell on April 4 this year, in years past as an opportunity to speak out on the gender pay gap. Last year she took to the Senate floor to call Equal Pay Day a ‘national day of embarrassment’ and pledged to continue her ‘fight’ until the pay gap was erased. She gave similar statements on Equal Pay Day in 20152014, and 2013, her first year in the Senate.” But as the Beacon further noted in its April 5 report, Warren now “failed to acknowledge Equal Pay Day for the first time in her Senate career after it was reported on Tuesday that women working in her Senate office earned just 71 percent of what was earned by men.”

Seeking to Punish a Conservative Broadcasting Group

In April 2018, Warren was one of 12 U.S. senators who sought to punish the Sinclair Broadcast Group – widely perceived as a conservative media company – which (a) consisted of 193 television stations and 614 channels in 89 markets nationwide, and (b) had recently announced plans to acquire the Tribune Media Company’s 42 TV stations in 33 markets, a merger that, if completed, would extend Sinclair’s reach to 72% of all American households. The twelve senators included Warren, Independent Bernie Sanders, and 10 other DemocratsTammy BaldwinRichard BlumenthalCory Booker, Maria Cantwell, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, Tina Smith, Tom Udall, and Ron Wyden.
In a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai, these senators expressed concern over the fact that Sinclair had recently aired an ad showing its various local anchors reading from a corporate scriptextolling the virtue of “balanced journalism”; stating that “truth is neither politically ‘left or right’”; emphasizing the importance of a “commitment” to reporting that “seek[s] the truth and strive[s] to be fair, balanced and factual”; criticizing “some members of the media” for “us[ing] their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’”; and condemning “the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.”
Viewing the Sinclair ad as an implicit defense of President Donald Trump, who had long been under withering attack by media outlets nationwide, the senators wrote in their letter: “We are concerned that Sinclair is engaged in a systematic news distortion operation that seeks to undermine freedom of the press and the robust localism and diversity of viewpoint that is the foundation of our national broadcasting laws.” “We have strong concerns,” they added, “that Sinclair has violated the public interest obligation inherent in holding broadcast licenses. Sinclair may have violated the FCC’s longstanding policy against broadcast licensees deliberately distorting news by staging, slanting, or falsifying information.” The senators also demanded that the FCC put on hold its review of Sinclair’s potential merger with Tribune.
In his response, Pai said he “must respectfully decline” the senators’ request “in light of my commitment to protecting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.” “I understand that you disliked or disagreed with the content of particular broadcasts,” he added, “but I can hardly think of an action more chilling of free speech than the federal government investigating a broadcast station because of disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that coverage.”

Claiming That the Criminal Justice System Is Racist

During a question-and-answer session hosted by Congressional Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond at the historically black Dillard University in New Orleans, Warren delivered what she called “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: It’s racist … I mean front to back.” In the course of her remarks, the senator cited such things as disproportionate arrests of blacks for petty drug possession; an overburdened public defender system; and state laws that sometimes bar convicted felons from voting in political elections for the rest of their lives.

Reaction to a Murder Committed by Illegal Alien

In an August 2018 television interview on CNN, Warren was asked to comment on the recent death of Mollie Tibbetts, a 20-year-old student at the University of Iowa who had been murdered by an illegal immigrant from Mexico. She replied:

“I’m so sorry for the family here, and I know this is hard not only for the family but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa. But one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are. Last month, I went down to the border, and I saw where children had been taken away from their mothers. I met with those mothers who had been lied to, who didn’t know where their children were, who hadn’t had a chance to talk to their children. And there was no plan for how they would be reunified with their children. I think we need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat. And I don’t think mamas and babies are the place that we should be spending our resources. Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country safer.”

Ethics Violation


On October 29, 2018, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a non-partisan ethics watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Senator Warren and Senator Kamala Harris. Said the FACT complaint: “Senators Warren and Harris both sent campaign fundraising emails before the Senate vote on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Specifically, the campaign emails both stated Senators Warren and Harris’s official role and positions on the ongoing confirmation hearing and then made direct requests for campaign donations with ‘DONATE NOW’ and ‘CONTRIBUTE’ buttons. Senate ethics laws prohibit candidates from using the promise of official action or legislative work in a direct ask for campaign cash.” “This is a clear violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the appearance or actuality of elected officials ‘cashing in’ on their official position for political purposes,” said FACT executive director Kendra Arnold.

Announcing Her 2020 Presidential Campaign


On December 31, 2018, Warren announced that she planned to run for the office of U.S. President in 2020.

Proposing a Wealth Tax


On January 24, 2019, Warren’s presidential campaign announced that Warren, if elected, planned to impose a 2 percent wealth tax on the holdings of any Americans with assets worth more than $50 million, and a 3 percent wealth tax on anyone whose assets are worth than $1 billion. Warren herself provided additional details in a series of tweets:

  • “We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand new – an annual tax on the wealth of the richest Americans. I’m calling it the ‘Ultra-Millionaire Tax’ & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50M.”
  • “The rich & powerful run Washington. Here’s one benefit they wrote for themselves: After making a killing from the economy they’ve rigged, they don’t pay taxes on that accumulated wealth. It’s a system that’s rigged for the top if I ever saw one.”
  • “The ultra-rich have rigged our economy & rigged our tax rules. We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand-new: An annual wealth tax on the tippy-top 0.1%. We’d get $3 trillion in new revenue to invest in rebuilding the middle-class. Let’s make it happen.”

That same day, Warren made the following remarks to MSNBC’s Chris Hayes:

  • “Look at it this way. For years now, for decades now, rich people have gone to Washington and said, ‘just tilt the playing field in our favor just a little bit.’ And then they come back and say, ’tilt it just a little bit more.’ And the next year, ’tilt it just a little bit more, just a little bit more, just a little bit more.’ Until today, in America, the top 1/10th of one percent has amassed about as much wealth as 90% of America.”
  • “[T]he way that this is written is to say is to say first all of going to tax all your assets wherever located around the globe. So if you were planning to move them to Switzerland or some island, doesn’t make any difference. They are all going to be taxed. The second part of it is we’re going to build right into the administration of this tax that it has a very high rate of monitoring, of auditing. The rich people on the ultra-millionaire tax. So we’re going to be out there counting them and watching them. And the third part is once you identify these assets, it’s actually not that complicated and hard because unlike some other places that tried to build this one isn’t going to have a bunch of exceptions. This one says all your assets wherever located and we’re going to keep counting. And you’re going to have to to pay if you have more than $50 million in assets. This is the ultrarich. You’re going to have to pay 2% a year of that amount over $50 million.”

Warren Conflates the Threats Posed by White Nationalists, ISIS, and Al Qaeda

At a March 2019 town hall meeting hosted by CNN in Jackson, Mississippi, Warren was asked: “Since the election of Donald Trump, the number of hate crimes has increased and white supremacists have become more emboldened online and in public. What are your plans to unite the country?” She replied: “Oh, good. Thank you for that question. You know, it starts with the fact that we’ve got to recognize the threat posed by white nationalism. White supremacists pose a threat to the United States like any other terrorist group, like ISIS, like Al Qaeda.”

Blaming “Prejudice” for Blacks’ Worse Maternal Health Outcomes

At a “She the People Democratic Presidential Forum” in Texas in May 2019, a young woman who identified herself as a worker in the maternal health field and a “proud member of the Black Lives [Matter] movement” asked Warren what she would do, as president, to address the fact that “for black women, the risk of death from pregnancy-related causes is three to four times higher than for white women, and black women are twice as likely to suffer from life-threatening pregnancy complications.” In response, Warren said that how the federal government “treats its mamas and its babies” is “ultimately about our values.” She added: “We have failed our babies exactly in the way you talk about…. And the best studies that I’m seeing put it down to just one thing — prejudice. That doctors and nurses don’t hear African-American women’s medical issues the same way that they hear the same things from white women. And we’ve got to change that and we’ve got to change it fast because people’s lives are at stake.”

Warren’s Voting Record


For an overview of Warren’s voting record on an array of key issues, click here.

Additional Information

For additional information on Elizabeth Warren, click here.

JOE BIDEN: CROOKED, SLEEPY, SLY, SLICK AND CREEPY

Joe Biden Corruption 

Biden's history of corruption

"A bank account that Hunter Biden drew a lot of money from and that a lot of foreign entities put a lot of money into," the author noted. "Just to give you an idea, over a 14-month period, from 2014 through early 2016, while Joe Biden is vice president of the United States, a Ukrainian company called Burisma — it's controlled by a very corrupt oligarch — sends three million dollars into this account."
"A Chinese government entity called Bohai Harvest — which is run by the Bank of China — sends $650,000 into this account," Schweizer added. "There's $1.2 million that comes from an LLC with a small boutique Swiss bank. We don't know who's behind the LLC. The bank itself has been charged in six countries for money laundering, so that makes it kind of sketchy."
How does this connect to Joe Biden? Not only was the elder Biden vice president at the time, but he was directly involved with the countries his son struck deals with.

"If you look at the trajectory of Joe Biden as vice president, he was essentially U.S. point person on Chinese policy, and he was widely criticized for going very soft on them as it related to the South China Sea," Schweizer said. "That’s at the same time his son is getting large checks from the Chinese government."
"Joe Biden is also point person on U.S. policy towards Ukraine, at the same time that his son is getting large checks from the Ukrainian government. And he’s accused of looking the other way at fraudulent behavior and corruption with the government of Ukraine," the author added.

As Biden and Kerry Went Soft on China, Sons Made Nuclear, Military Business Deals with Chinese Gov't

"Joe Biden, every year he’s vice president, he has to disclose his income. Assuming those disclosures are honest, he can’t have a big fat check from the Chinese government in that disclosure form. But this adult son, Hunter Biden? He doesn’t have to disclose anything."Schweizer's recent book is a must-read. The investigative journalist documented a great deal of corruption, but Joe Biden and Barack Obama came under the most scrutiny. Biden's son Hunter and John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz both profited from their father's soft policy towards China. Hunter Biden also reaped rewards from his father's blind eye to Ukraine corruption. Obama's policies enriched his best friend — and now head of the Obama Foundation.

 YES PEOPLE FOLLOW THE MONEY




Friday, June 7, 2019

Obama's Crooked Deals. Follow the Money Trail People!

OBAMA GETS KICK BACKS FOR ALL HIS DEALS


Obama Regulations on For-Profit Colleges, Finance, Railroads, and Airlines All Profited His Best Friend.

Barack Obama led regulatory attacks on numerous industries during his tenure at the White House. In many cases, his regulations — ostensibly to protect the public good — tanked the stock of various companies, enabling his close friends to swoop in and buy them for pennies on the dollar. Perhaps no figure best represents this "smash and grab" technique better than Marty Nesbitt, now head of the Obama Foundation.

Nesbitt first met Obama back in the 1980s, after playing basketball with Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson, at Princeton University. While at business school in Chicago, he met Obama playing basketball. When Obama ran for Congress in 2000, Nesbitt served as campaign chairman. He also fundraised for Obama's state Senate and U.S. Senate campaigns, and served as his campaign chairman in 2008.
Nesbitt's wife supposedly delivered Obama's two daughters although the rupors abound that Michelle did not birth them! His family frequently vacationed with the Obamas in Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard. Nesbitt became chairman of the Obama Foundation in 2014. The Chicago Tribune has branded Nesbitt "the First Friend."

Obama's policies enabled Nesbitt to swoop in and profit after companies felt the regulatory fire of the White House.
Nesbitt even formed a firm called Vistria, aimed to capitalize on "the nexus of the public and private sectors." He filed for the trademark shortly after Obama's reelection, and ten days before joining the Obamas for Christmas in Hawaii.
“Obama and his administration would attack industries with government power, which led to substantially lower valuations for these companies. Nesbitt and Vistria, or others close to Obama, could then acquire those assets for pennies on the dollar," Schweizer explains. Nesbitt followed this pattern in at least four industries targeted by Obama.
In 2013, President Obama turned his ire toward for-profit colleges. He declared that students were being "preyed upon very badly," and accused these schools of "making out like a bandit." For all their faults, for-profit schools have their defenders, and Nesbitt himself would later invest in America's largest one..

The Obama administration began the push in 2011, when the Department of Education (DOE) announced the so-called gainful employment rule, requiring for-profit schools to track job placements for graduates. DOE meetings to craft regulations included Deputy Education Secretary Tony Miller and Secretary Arne Duncan, both of whom would later join Vistria.

The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sounded the alarm about emails showing that senior DOE officials were communicating with hedge fund investors planning to "short" for-profit stocks based on these rules.
In his second term, Obama's administration pushed "a broader series of crackdowns on the industry by agencies including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)."
The regulatory onslaught hit Apollo Education Group, which operated America's largest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix, particularly hard. In July 2015, the FTC announced an investigation into Apollo, and in October, the Department of Defense (DOD) put the University of Phoenix on probation.
This DOD attack suspended the University of Phoenix at military bases across the country and cut off the school's $2-4 billion per year in taxpayer funds. The soldiers, sailors, and Marines attending the school lost their GI Bill benefits, leaving some bereft of housing payments — and some homeless -- as a result.
According to Schweizer, about 15 schools committed similar offenses to the University of Phoenix, but the Pentagon only suspended four of them, including this largest school.
Thanks to these attacks, Apollo's stock price dropped from $11.29 per share in October 2015 to $6.38 by January 2016. The January price represented a 90 percent drop from January 2009 when Obama took office.
The "smash" had been carried out, and it became time for the "grab." Obama-connected investors swooped in. The Wall Street firm Apollo Global Management (not previously affiliated with Apollo Education Group), another firm called Najafi Companies, and ... Marty Nesbitt's Vistria Group teamed up to buy the company. The purchase required DOE approval, but Vistria's Paul Miller used to be a senior official there.
Vistria and its partners hired an attorney to lobby the Pentagon, and the suspension was lifted in January 2016.
In December 2016, the Obama administration approved the sale, but the DOE required a few conditions — most notably a signed letter of credit valued at 25 percent of the federal funding the University of Phoenix would receive from student loans and grants. Vistria and its co-investors objected. On December 20, just weeks before Obama left office, the requirement was dropped to 10 percent.
Apollo Global Management, Najafi, and Vistria bought the University of Phoenix for just $10 a share, at $1.14 billion. Before the Obama administration's regulatory onslaught, the company was worth almost nine times that price.
Tony Miller, who had been the number two official at the DOE, became the chairman of the board. Arne Duncan set up an office at Vistria's headquarters in Chicago.

"It's ironic that a former senior official at the Department of Education — an agency that has intentionally targeted and sought to dismantle the for-profit college industry—would now take the reins at the country's largest for-profit college," said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.). Diane Jones, a DOE official under former President George W. Bush, told Schweizer these changing terms were highly unusual.
President Obama's best friend Marty Nesbitt also jumped into the financial industry after Obama's regulations brought it to heel.
The president turned his ire against the cash advance industry, which provided short-term loans to individuals and businesses. Many abuses had taken place in the industry, but in 2011 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported that more than 33 million households were unbanked or underbanked. This industry plays a vital role in the economy.
Even so, under Obama, the DOJ teamed up with the CFPB in December 2012 to target what it deemed to be financial crimes. They formed a new agency, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF). The DOJ also launched Operation Choke Point in 2013, targeting banks and the business they do with payday lenders, payment processors, and other financial companies.
In response, banks terminated their accounts with payday lenders. Cash advance firms began to shrink. Regular banks stopped offering cash advances.
Amid this crackdown, however, ForwardLine Financial, a company founded in 2003 to extend alternative financing solutions to small businesses, adapted to the new rules. In October 2015, none other than Obama best friend Marty Nesbitt became FrontLine Financial's board chairman. Vistria associate Michael Castleforte also joined the board.
Early on, Vistria had hired Obama's former deputy assistant for legislative affairs, Jon Samuels. Samuels had worked on the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. Fortune magazine noted Samuels' hiring at the time, reporting that he "doesn't appear to have any experience working in the financial services industry. Rather, Samuels has made his career in politics."
As of June 2017, FrontLine boasted that it finances "98% of U.S. businesses that banks consider too small and too risky for a business loan." Its competitors had been effectively smashed, and it seems FrontLine had been grabbed by Obama's best friend.
The Obama administration also targeted the railway industry, which had been deregulated back in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. Roughly thirty years later, Obama sought to tax and regulate the industry.
In its 2012 report to the SEC, Norfolk Southern Railroad noted, "Efforts have been made over the past several years to re-subject the rail industry to increased federal economic regulation, and such efforts are expected to continue in 2013." The Surface Transportation Board (STB) became a wholly independent federal agency, with widespread control over railroads' environmental, safety, and security practices.
Mere weeks after President Obama was sworn in for his second term, Norfolk Southern announced that Obama best friend Marty Nesbitt was joining their corporate board. He had no background in railroads or transportation, but his 2015 compensation was $278,937.

Nesbitt took part in at least one other "smash and grab," Schweizer notes. Just as Obama's best friend joined the board of Norfolk Southern, American Airlines was facing bankruptcy, and announced a merger with US Airways. The Obama DOJ filed suit to stop the merger.
A whopping sixty-five Democratic congressmen and congresswomen signed a letter in support of American. While the Obama administration backed down from this attack, American Airlines struggled with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the administration launched a federal investigation into price gouging in July 2015.
American Airlines also lobbied the federal government to "shield us from competition and roll back consumer protections." On October 17, 2015, the merger between American Airlines and US Airways took place. Less than a month later, Obama's best friend Marty Nesbitt joined the board of directors.
As with Norfolk Southern, Nesbitt had no experience in the airline industry. In 2016, he took home $395,704 as a member of the board for American Airlines.
"Today, as chairman of the Obama Foundation, Marty Nesbitt is, as Politico puts it, 'the man building Barack Obama's future.' From an empire-building perspective, this payback makes sense, given that Obama has already helped Nesbitt build his legacy," Schweizer concludes.
Schweizer includes many stories of Obama's "smash and grab" technique. "A circle of investors including Vistria and others linked to Obama would consistently purchase companies in these sectors once their valuations dropped under the government onslaught," the author writes. Other investors besides Nesbitt cashed in on the financial crackdown, and many more made bank in the energy industry thanks to new regulations.
Nesbitt is far from alone, but as Obama's friend and the head of the Obama Foundation, his corruption proves particularly egregious. In his powerful book, Schweizer also reveals multiple scandals involving Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, leading congressmen,




 

THE FAILED ROBERT MUELLER REPORT.. READ ALL THE DISTORTION IN IT!

5 Intentional Discrepancies Expose the Evil Relentless effort to Discredit Trump.

It was a crooked Report set up to try and destroy the integrity of Donald Trump and remove him from office through impeachment because the other BULLSHIT did not work!

FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL
Click this link for Theory of "WHY"
https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2019/04/obama-directed-spying-of-trump-here-is.html

The Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by the lawyers working under former special counsel Robert Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.
Additionally, we now know that sections of the report were also selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report, and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.
Lastly, there are troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.
What makes these examples particularly notable is that access to the underlying material used in the Mueller report is extremely limited. In each of the instances where information is publicly available—documents released in the ongoing Flynn case, a rebuttal letter from lawyers for the individual mentioned in the Mueller report, and details surrounding the Papadopoulos case—they highlight inconsistencies, thereby raising concerns that Mueller’s report may be hiding many more such problems.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) highlighted the Dowd transcript in a May 31 tweet, saying, “This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…”

Selective Editing in President’s Lawyer’s Voicemail

Contained within the executive summary to Volume II of the report, which pertains to Mueller’s obstruction investigation, is a section dedicated to an interaction between Dowd and attorneys for Flynn.
As previously reported, “the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail from Trump’s lawyer to Flynn’s lawyer was prompted by Flynn’s withdrawal from a joint defense agreement with Trump, in order to enter a plea agreement with the special counsel. The Mueller report states that Flynn’s attorneys returned the call the next day.”

Flynn’s attorneys reportedly told the special counsel that “the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement” and also stated that Dowd told them that he interpreted what they said to him as “a reflection of Flynn’s hostility toward the president,” Flynn’s attorneys also reportedly said they “understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.”

Notably, Dowd was never interviewed by the special counsel, who cited attorney-client privilege issues as the reason in a footnote within the report. Dowd’s voicemail was edited in the presentation within the Mueller report to appear as follows:

“I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms. … [I]t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with … the government. … [I]f … there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, … so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can …. [R]emember what we’ ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains …”
This somewhat menacing version leaves out important details and distorts the actual context of Dowd’s voicemail. Dowd’s full message was actually far more friendly and touched on two distinctly separate matters. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dowd specifically cautioned Flynn’s attorney that he wasn’t requesting any confidential information:

“Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I’m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that. .. implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.”
The Dowd discrepancies were first discovered by a researcher on the internet who goes under the Twitter name Rosie Memos.
Dowd himself also responded to a fellow attorney on Twitter with a short statement on the discrepancy in the report, noting “It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel – with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed.”
Dowd also issued a more formal statement, in which he noted that he had “provided to Flynn’s counsel, advice and encouragement to provide to the SC as part of his effort to cooperate with SC. SC never raised or questioned the President’s counsel about these allegations despite numerous opportunities to do so.”
In a recent interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Dowd noted, “Isn’t it ironic that this man who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes committed a false statement in his own report. By taking out half my words, they changed the tenor and the contents of that conversation with [Flynn lawyer] Robert Kelner.”

The Rtskhiladze Texts

Another example of selected editing exists in a short sequence detailing communications between former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who was born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and has been a US citizen since 2017.
The Mueller report, which incorrectly refers to Rtskhiladze as a “Russian businessman,” contains excerpts of some texts between the two men:
“On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know …. “
Rtskhiladze said ” tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump, rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia.

Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze.
Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”
In a strongly worded 10-page letter to Attorney General William Barr that includes attachments with photos of the actual texts, a lawyer for Rtskhiladze walked through each allegation and provided more lengthy rebuttals. The attorney noted that Rtskhiladze indicated to Cohen “that there was nothing to the rumors of the tapes, and that he did not believe there were any tapes, nor had he seen what was on the tapes, even if they existed.”
The Mueller report also removed the word “some” from the text transcript.  The original text exchange read “some tapes,” indicating Rtskhiladze did not know actual details about the tapes. Follow-on dialogue that provided context was also removed by the special counsel, but was highlighted by Rtskhiladze’s lawyer in the letter to Barr:
Rtskhiladze: Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so u know.
Cohen: Tapes of what?
Rtskhiladze: Not sure of content but person in Moscow bragging [that he] had tapes from Russia trip. Will try to dial you tomorrow but wanted to be aware. I’m sure it’s not a big deal but there are lots of stupid people.
Cohen: You have no idea.
Rtskhiladze: I do trust me.
It seems clear from the actual texts that Rtskhiladze didn’t know what was on the tapes nor did he know exactly who said they had them. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer specifically noted that Rtskhiladze “does not know and cannot identify who allegedly made the statements about the tapes.”
Rtskhiladze’s lawyer noted that this information was specifically conveyed to the special counsel lawyers, and that both the FBI and the attorneys who authored the report are in possession of all the text messages between Rtskhiladze and Cohen. He closed his letter with a demand for a “full and immediate retraction of these gross misstatements.”

Papadopoulos’s Meeting With Downer

In the sequence of events surrounding George Papadopoulos’ meeting with Alexander Downer, there is a small discrepancy in dates. Papadopoulos was a low-level adviser to the Trump campaign during the 2016 elections. His meeting with Downer, who at the time was Australia’s top diplomat in the UK, has been credited as the reason why the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.
The Mueller report notes that “On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Joseph Mifsud is a Maltese academic who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt “in the form of thousands of Clinton emails.”
Publicly available information has always shown that Papadopoulos met with Downer on May 10th—and both Downer and the Australian government appear to stand by this date.

George Papadopoulos
While it might appear that the difference in dates is small, it becomes more significant in the context of two different meetings that took place on or about May 6, ahead of the Downer meeting on May 10th.
On May 5 or 6, 2016, immediately following an interview with The Times of London—in which Papadopoulos said then-Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for calling Trump “divisive, stupid, and wrong”—two Americans from the U.S. embassy in the UK, Gregory Baker and Terrence Dudley, reached out to him and they met for dinner.

“They’re spending a lot of money on me, they’re probing me, they’re asking me about my ties in the Middle East. They’re asking me about what Trump wants to do with Russia,” Papadopoulos noted during a Nov. 2, 2018, interview with podcast host Dan Bongino. Papadopoulos said he was “just deflecting them” throughout the entire dinner.
Why did these men reach out to Papadopoulos and what U.S. agencies did they represent? And who instructed the two men to reach out to Papadopoulos in the first place?

The day following Papadopoulos’ meeting with the two Americans, he was contacted by Erika Thompson, who wrote to him: “Hi George, I would just like to let you know that Alexander Downer just wants to meet with you.” Thompson, who was previously introduced to Papadopoulos by her boyfriend, an Israeli diplomat named Christian Cantor, has been described by Papadopoulos as an Australian intelligence officer and an assistant to Downer. Sources have denied to Australian media that Thompson is an ASIS agent, but is instead a “mainstream DFAT officer.”
As Papadopoulos correctly noted in his interview with Bongino, Downer “isn’t a random low-level Australian diplomat. This man ran the equivalent of the CIA in Australia for 17 years. He was the foreign minister and he was their biggest diplomat in London.”
Interestingly, nowhere in the July 28, 2017, affidavit and the Oct. 5, 2017, Statement of the Offense from the Papadopoulos case is the meeting with Downer, Thompson, or Baker and Dudley mentioned.
The discrepancy in the dates, as well as the omission of the other key meetings in the Mueller report, point to either an intent to obscure and conflate certain events, or outright sloppiness on the part of the report’s authors.

Rosenstein, Sessions Discussed Need to Remove Comey

The firing of former FBI Director James Comey features prominently in Volume II of the Mueller report, as does the role of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but again several critical bits of information appear to have been left out. The Mueller report notes that former White House counsel Don McGahn sought out the views of both Sessions and Rosenstein during a May 8, 2017, meeting that also included Jody Hunt, who was Sessions’ chief of staff:
“Sessions, Rosenstein, and Hunt met with McGahn and White House Counsel’s Office attorney Uttam Dhillon at the White House. McGahn said that the President had decided to fire Comey and asked for Sessions’ and Rosenstein’s views. Sessions and Rosenstein criticized Comey and didn’t raise concerns about replacing him.
McGahn and Dhillon said the fact that neither Sessions nor Rosenstein objected to replacing Comey gave them peace of mind that the President’s decision to fire Comey was not an attempt to obstruct justice.”

Rod Rosenstein speaks during a press conference
The report also noted that “Hunt, who was in the room, recalled that Sessions responded that he had previously recommended that Comey be replaced. McGahn and Dhillon said Rosenstein described his concerns about Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.”

While the report does acknowledge that Hunt remembered Sessions saying he had previously recommended Comey be fired, no further details surrounding this recommendation are provided. And left out of the report was the fact that Rosenstein and Sessions had discussed the need to fire Comey as far back as Sessions’ nomination for Attorney General—and well before Rosenstein’s April 25, 2017, confirmation as DAG.
On May 19, 2017, Rosenstein testified before Congress, stating: “On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader.” As for the memo he wrote recommending Comey be fired, Rosenstein said: “I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it.”
Rosenstein then testified that he had discussed removing Comey with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions prior to Sessions’ confirmation as attorney general:
“In one of my first meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements, and eliminate leaks.”
Rosenstein and Sessions had both thought Comey needed to be removed as FBI director long before the president took action to fire him. Although their reasons for the need to fire Comey may have differed from the president, these opinions—likely voiced to the president directly—add additional context to Comey’s firing that is missing from the report.

Why Was Nader Allowed to Leave Country

Another issue that has arisen is the testimony of George Nader, who is mentioned more than 100 times in the Mueller report. Nader, who worked as an adviser for the United Arab Emirates, arranged a meeting between Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national who heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, and Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, during the transition period following the 2016 presidential election.
The Mueller report notes that “Nader provided information to the Office in multiple interviews, all but one of which were conducted under a proffer agreement.” Proffer or “queen for a day” letters are agreements under which individuals who are under criminal investigation can provide prosecutors with information with some assurances against prosecution.
Nader wasn’t the only individual to receive a proffer agreement—both Prince and former senior White House adviser Steve Bannon were also interviewed under similar terms. Neither Prince nor Bannon has been charged or referred for any crime by the special counsel.

George Nader, then-president of Middle East Insight, in a 1998 C-SPAN video. (C-SPAN via AP, File)
Although the media has frequently reported Nader as being tied solely to the Trump campaign, this description is inaccurate. The Mueller report notes that “Nader developed contacts with both U.S. presidential campaigns during the 2016 election” and ABC News reported that Nader “had frequent access to almost every White House — Democrat and Republican — since President Ronald Reagan was in office — except for the Obama White House — sources and records showed.”
Nader was arrested June 3 on charges of possessing child pornography on one of his cell phones. The sequence of events leading to his arrest is telling. On Jan. 17, 2018, Nader was interviewed by FBI agents on a matter unrelated to the current charges. At the conclusion of the interview, Nader was notified of a search warrant for his phones.

The FBI already had the serial numbers of all three phones, although one phone was mistakenly identified as an iPhone 6+, when it was actually an iPhone 7. Although not definitive, the fact that the FBI had the serial numbers of Nader’s three phones suggest there may have been some sort of surveillance prior to his January interview.
On Feb. 12, 2018, the phones were searched for evidence under the search warrant, which was unrelated to any matters of child pornography. It was at this point that the child pornography was discovered and referred to the charging agent.
On March 8, 2018, journalist Natasha Bertrand broke the story of 1985 child pornography allegations against Nader, as was recently pointed out by an internet researcher on Twitter. On March 15, 2018, the Associated Press reported that Nader had been convicted by Prague’s Municipal Court of 10 cases of sexually abusing minors and sentenced to a one-year prison term in May 2003. He was later expelled from the country.
On March 16, a search warrant was obtained by the FBI to allow for the search of Nader’s phone for child pornography; the same day, a Politico article detailed a 1991 conviction of Nader for child pornography. On April 19, 2018, a sealed complaint was filed against Nader for possession of child pornography, although Nader was no longer in the country. He didn’t return to the United States until June 3, when he was arrested. If convicted on the charges, Nader faces a minimum of 15 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years.
Representing him during what was reported as seven interviews with staff of the office of the special counsel was Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under Obama and had previously worked with Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on the Mueller team, on the Enron Task Force.
According to the Washington Post, following Nader’s initial FBI interview at Dulles Airport, “over the following weeks, Nader began to cooperate with authorities, providing grand jury testimony about his interactions with Trump supporters, according to people familiar with the matter.” Given that Nader’s cooperation with the special counsel appears to have occurred through at least February, Nader’s possession of child pornography was known to at least some within the FBI while Nader was providing testimony to Mueller’s team.
If accurate, this raises substantial questions as to why Nader was later allowed to leave the country, given the Feb. 12, 2018, discovery of the child pornography on his phone.
The larger question raised by these issues is the notable omission of critical details within the Mueller report—many of them taking place in Volume II, which deals with issues of obstruction.
If it’s this easy to uncover discrepancies with limited public information, one wonders what may exist in comparison to underlying source documents.

Expose the FRAUD OF THE CENTURY! It was soft coup to cover the tracks of the Cabal who stole from America for 8 years before the Landmark election of Donald Trump!