THE LEFT AND DEMOCRAT WAR ON BLACKS

PATRIOTS: I HAVE BEEN RANTING THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF EXCLUSION.. The Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the

Four S’s: 

Slavery, 

Secession, 

Segregation and now 

Socialism.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS A LONG HISTORY OF BEING AGAINST BLACKS! THE PARTY IS REALLY "ANTI HUMAN BEINGS" UNLESS IT SERVES THEIR SOCIALIST PURPOSES:
HERE ARE A LONG LIST OF FACTS TO PROVE MY POINT!
From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

The Democrat Race Lie revealed.
October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy“shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans



March 30, 1868
 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”



September 30, 1953
 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law
And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

So the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.
SHARE AND PROVE YOUR POINT!!
And I’m tired of the recitation that Southern Democrats became racist Republicans and took those tendencies with them. Even today, it never takes long for a Democrat to play the race card purely for political advantage.

Iranian Regime Threatens to Release Names of Western Officials Who Took Bribes to Pass Nuke Deal. That would Include the Obama Cabal, The John Kerry Associates,

BREAKING NEWS....

Iranian Regime Threatens to Release Names of Western Officials Who Took Bribes to Pass Nuke Deal. That would Include the Obama Cabal, The John Kerry Associates, Angela Merkel, Putin and Others.

Earlier this week President Trump withdrew from the sham Iranian nuclear deal. President Trump knew the deal with the Iranian mullahs was not working.

This was despite former Secretary of State John Kerry working against the Trump administration to salvage the weak deal with the Iranian regime.






On Saturday John Kerry was spotted at a meeting with Iranian officials in Paris, France.
Of course, the Iranian regime is very upset with President Trump’s decision. They are using their Ace in the Hole... to try and get the Deal back on the table.. BLACKMAIL !

I WAS RIGHT IN 2016.. THE IRANIANS PAID THE OBAMA AND KERRY AND KICK BACKS.. JUST LIKE THE RUSSIANS PAID HILLARY AND OBAMA KICKBACKS !

My Posts from 2016. Click To read!!

http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2016/08/obama-and-keryy-kickbacks-from-iran.html

http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2015/03/analysis-of-why-obama-likes-muslims-and.html

Now this…
Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari warned Western officials this week that if they do not put pressure on the Trump administration the Iranian regime will leak the names of all Western officials who were bribed to pass the weak deal.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari (Press TV)

H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.”
That would be interesting.#JCPOA

— Raman Ghavami (@Raman_Ghavami) May 8, 2018

So John Kerry just left a meeting @ L’Avenue in Paris w/3 Iranians. A friend was sitting next to their table and heard JK blasting @realDonaldTrump. The Iranians had a 5 person security detail and left in diplomatic vehicles. Is he FARA registered?

So John Kerry just left a meeting @ L’Avenue in Paris w/3 Iranians. A friend was sitting next to their table and heard JK blasting @realDonaldTrump. The Iranians had a 5 person security detail and left in diplomatic vehicles. Is he FARA registered? @seanhannity @TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/vVYwDQTPNb

— Jason Osborne (@_JasonOsborne) May 12, 2018

UPDATE: PHTOS OF THE THREE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS HAVE EMERGED:

#BREAKING New photos emerge of 3 Iranians who held secret meeting with John Kerry yesterday in Paris pic.twitter.com/ZhQcdGGtuz

— Jack Posobiec🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 13, 2018

WHAT WAS JOHN KERRY DOING IN PARIS SATURDAY AT NOON WITH THREE IRANIAN DIPLOMATS, WHILE HIS PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, HAD JUST CANCELED THE NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS?


Obviously, the former catastrophic diplomat who cannot even stand on a bike does not fear being prosecuted for treason against his country: he is a Democrat, and therefore he is protected.
Admittedly, the FBI has indicted Michael Flynn, the national security advisor to President-elect Trump, for identical but less serious reasons: he spoke with Russians during a cocktail party while he was still a simple citizen: Flynn is a Republican, all the force of the law apply.
And of course, the media won’t say a word about it: collusion with a foreign power, it only interests them if they can accuse President Trump.

@JasonOsborne, Former Senior Advisor to Donald Trump Pres. Campaign just tweeted the following message:
“So John Kerry just left a meeting @ L’Avenue in Paris w/3 Iranians. A friend was sitting next to their table and heard JK blasting @realDonaldTrump. The Iranians had a 5 person security detail and left in diplomatic vehicles. Is he FARA registered?”

Kerry was there to cover his ass and that of Hussein Obama who are up to eyeballs in Shady Money.

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman confirmed the meetings after the Boston Globe broke the news, declaring , “We don’t see the U.S. just as Mr. Trump; the United States is not just the current ruling administration.” Think about what this means. Iran is a terrorist state responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq, whose leaders hold rallies where thousands chant “Death to America!” Kerry was working with a sworn enemy of the United States to try to undermine the foreign policy of the elected president of the United States.

In 2016 Obama and his Cabal were Stonewalling on Details of the $1.7 Billion in "Iransom" Payoffs. 

I KNEW WHY THEN. . I THINK YOU KNOW WHY! BUT THE LEFTY PRESS AND THE FOOLS IN CONGRESS PRETENDS THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY!!

LET ME EXPOSE IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.. THE WORK IS "KICK BACKS!" THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN ARAB COUNTRIES!

The structured transfers of $1.3 billion from a Treasury slush fund remain shrouded in mystery.

Confidentiality”? MY ASS!! BUT Yes, that’s the State Department’s story on why the Obama administration is stonewalling the American people regarding the president’s illegal and increasingly suspicious Iransom payoff.

The administration refused to divulge any further information about the $1.7 billion the president acknowledges paying the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Grilled on Wednesday about how Obama managed to pay the final $1.3 billion installment — particularly given the president’s claim that it is not possible to send Tehran a check or wire-transfer — State Department spokesman Mark Toner decreed that the administration would continue “withholding this information” in order “to protect confidentiality.” Whose confidentiality? The mullahs’? That of the intermediaries the president used? Whose privacy takes precedence over our right to know how Obama funneled our money to our enemies? The closest thing to an answer we have to the latest round of questions comes courtesy of the perseverance of the investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. (You weren’t expecting the Republican Congress to be minding the purse, were you?) Recall that we have been asking about the $1.3 billion payment since the first revelations about this sordid affair. After all, if, as Obama and his toadies maintain, the payment is totally on the up and up — just a routine legal settlement involving Iran’s own money — then why won’t they answer basic questions about it? Why are such matters as the administration’s process in tapping a congressionally appropriated funding source for the settlement — a settlement Congress did not approve and seems to be in the dark about paying for — being treated as if they were state secrets so sensitive you’d need have a Clinton.mail account (or be a Russian hacker of a Clinton.mail account) to see them?

Generally speaking, the State, Treasury, and Justice Departments cannot issue press releases fast enough to salute themselves over legal settlements that supposedly benefit taxpayers by billions of dollars — at least according to the same math that brought you all those Obamacare savings. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely above-board legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff? With the administration taking the Fifth, it was left to Claudia to crawl through Leviathan’s catacombs. In her New York Sun report on Monday, we learned that she hit pay dirt: stumbling upon a bizarre string of 13 identical money transfers of $99,999,999.99 each — yes, all of them one cent less than $100 million — paid out of an obscure Treasury Department stash known as the “Judgment Fund.” The transfers were made — to whom, it is not said — on January 19, just two days after the administration announced it had reached the $1.7 billion settlement with Iran. They aggregate to just 13 cents shy of $1.3 billion, the same amount the State Department claims Iran was owed in “interest” from the $400 million that our government had been holding since the shah deposited it in a failed arms deal just prior to the Khomeini revolution. So, stacked atop of the pallets of $400 million in foreign cash that Obama arranged to shuttle from Geneva to Tehran as ransom (or, as the administration prefers, “leverage”) for the release of American hostages — via an unmarked cargo plane belonging to Iran Air, a terrorist arm of the mullahs’ terrorist coordinator, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — we now have a second whopping money transfer that (a) violates federal criminal laws against providing things of value to Iran and (b) looks like it was conceived by Nicky Barnes.

While “the most transparent administration in history” continues to insist that this transaction is completely legit, Claudia could not find the 13 transfers of $99,999,999.99 by searching for “Iran” listings in the judgment fund. Acknowledgment of payments to Iran is nowhere to be found. Instead, she happened upon this $1.3 billion (minus the 13 cents) by locating cases in which the State Department was a party. And with that, another intriguing wrinkle emerged: a 14th unexplained transfer by Treasury, on State’s behalf, in the amount of $10 million — bringing the total to $1.31 billion. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely aboveboard legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff?

Is that extra $10 million a sweetener for someone in this deal? of Course it was  its that Obama administration won’t tell us. ;-) Of course they wont.. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK ITS FOR ?? OBAMA KERRY AND THE UNDERLINGS!! They got a whole lot more than the $ 10 Million

It won’t even confirm that the string of transfers was for Iran, though that appears undeniable:

Here is the Iranian Video and you can see the pallets of cash at 11:00 (prompted):


Not only does the amount fit; the administration has grudgingly conceded in response to inquiries from Representatives Ed Royce (R., Calif.) and Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) that it got the money to pay Iran from the judgment fund. You might think that members of Congress, the branch of government that is supposed to approve all spending by the federal government, would not have to ask where the executive branch got money to pay a government obligation. But in Obama’s eccentric interpretation of the Constitution, there are apparently special Iran clauses. So in this instance, lawmakers have to ask because this is not a bill they ever agreed to pay; and Obama had to try to sneak it by them because he knows that, had he asked for more piles of money — in addition to the tens of billions in sanctions relief — to bestow on an incorrigible jihadist enemy of the United States, Congress would have said “No.”

That’s where the judgment fund comes in. It would be better labeled the “slush fund.” As Claudia reports, Treasury portrays this fund as a “permanent, indefinite appropriation” available to pay legal judgments against federal agencies “where funds are not legally available to pay the award from the agency’s own appropriations.” Really? There is only one reason why funds would not be “legally available to pay . . . from an agency’s own appropriations”: namely, that Congress has not made an appropriation that gives the agency permission to pay the funds in question. In case you’re scoring, that is supposed to mean the agency does not pay.

Could Congress appropriate a finite fund with respect to which it vests the executive branch with discretion to pay court judgments up to a certain amount without seeking legislative authorization? Sure it could. But a “permanent, indefinite appropriation”? No way. It is one thing to say a judgment fund should be “permanent” in the sense that litigation goes on every year and the government is bound to be on the losing end of some cases, so Congress should make an annual appropriation — just as it does for, say, FEMA, despite the absence of foreknowledge of what emergencies will arise. And it is one thing to say that particular pay-outs from this judgment fund are “indefinite” in the sense that Congress will not know when it passes the budget what specific judgment amounts will be during the coming year. But a fund cannot constitutionally be “permanent and indefinite” in the sense of being an all-purpose, limitless reservoir of money that empowers the president to pay anything to anyone simply by orchestrating a lawsuit and then “settling” it.

The Constitution requires definite appropriations. That is a key limitation on executive power without which the Constitution would not have been adopted in the first place. And here, that’s not the half of it. Obama has not just orchestrated a king’s ransom — better, an ayatollah’s ransom — for the benefit of the Death to America regime in the absence of congressional authorization. He refuses to tell us how he transferred it to them. Why not a single transfer? Why structure it with 13 payments just under $100 million? And what is the other $10 million about? Is that related to this deal?

Lets face it.. Obama and Kerry are crooks and they have got a secret Pay out. They do not want us to know .. Period...

Robert Mueller Exposed for who he is! A DIRTY FBI MAN. PAID BY THE SOROS CROWD

ROBERT MUELLER IS A DIRTY COP

 

The Left and The Socialists who want to bring Donald Trump down and restore the rails on the Highway to the Destruction of the Constitutional Republic CALLED AMERICA have  characterized Robert Mueller as “ramrod straight” and “utterly incorruptible.” 

Similar language was breathlessly repeated in mainstream media biographies on Mueller in Politico, BBC, and Time magazine. Mueller’s Vietnam-era service in the United States Marine Corps and 2004 tag-team with then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey to save American democracy from warrantless spying are mainstays of these biographies, which always send a clear message that his integrity is beyond reproach.

It’s always suspicious when anyone’s credibility is oversold like this, but that goes double when the same person was FBI director for 12 years—spanning across both the Bush and Obama administrations from 2001 to 2013—yet most people can’t remember anything about him. We should remember actions he took to impartially uphold the law. Sadly, that is not the case.

What stands out most during then-FBI Director Mueller’s term in office is the two-tiered system of justice, when obvious crimes and scandals involving government officials and private-sector elites were ignored or even covered up by the FBI. What Mueller failed to do to protect our country says more than anything he did.

Recent leaks suggest that Special Counsel Mueller is examining one of the President’s 2008 Palm Beach real estate deals, as well as the 2013 Miss Universe competition held in Moscow. During the very same time period as those events, FBI Director Mueller repeatedly failed to act in cases involving government corruption and dangerous crimes. His level of aggressiveness in investigating our President is the exact inverse of how he acted when he was tasked with protecting America.

SO LETS LAY OUT THE CASE OF ROBERT MUELLER  DIRTY COP.

Here are some of  theMajor Scandals During Mueller’s FBI Years:
As the nation’s top cop, then-FBI Director Mueller had massive resources to investigate crimes, as well as the ability to arrest suspects and recommend prosecution of the offenders. The following is an abbreviated list of major scandals and likely crimes that Mueller did not meaningfully investigate as FBI Director—no arrests, no consequences:

Falsification of Iraq War intelligence (2003): information providing the sole justification for a war that caused the death and dismemberment of thousands of American soldiers was later found to be fabricated, false, or overstated at the time it was presented to the public. Mueller not only failed to investigate and arrest any of the perpetrators of this deception—he actively participated in the plot:

Vanishing Currency (2003): the US government sent $12 billion in $100 bills to the Iraq War combat theater, which mostly went unaccounted for after it entered the country

NSA Warrantless Surveillance (2001-2013): illegal collection of domestic phone records and internet communications that were sent or received by US citizens, in violation of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure, followed by potential perjury committed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who denied the practices under oath; the 2013 Snowden revelations proved that the 2004 story about Comey and Mueller stopping illegal surveillance practices was nearly meaningless in practice

Emailgate (2007): discovery that several top Bush administration officials violated the Presidential Records Act by using an RNC server for email communications while conducting official business, followed by the deletion of millions of the same emails

Walter Reed Neglect Scandal (2007): troops recovering from severe war-related injuries were subjected to squalid living conditions and grotesquely substandard care due to a privatization agreement that resulted in drastic staffing cuts, after which patients were told to “keep quiet” and whistleblowers suffered retaliation from higher-ups

IRS Targeting (2010-2013): the IRS intentionally selected and then delayed or denied tax-exempt 501(c)(3) applications from conservative groups to prevent them from participating in the 2012 election, followed by IRS agent Lois Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

Fast and Furious (2010): this ATF program, which seems to have served no rational purpose, allowed over 2,000 guns to be purchased illegally inside the United States and then “walked” into Mexico for use by criminals, one of which was later used in the 2010 murder of Border Agent Brian Terry by the member of a Mexican cartel

Associated Press Spying (2012): the Department of Justice illegally seized the communications of AP reporters made during April and May 2012, allowing the DOJ to unmask journalists’ confidential sources

Clinton Foundation Pay-for-Play (2009-2013): during the period in which Hillary Clinton held the office of Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton received millions of dollars in paid speaking fees and a million dollar “gift” from countries involved in matters with the State Department, many of which had ties to terrorism and human rights abuses; some of these funds were apparently diverted from charitable causes to personal expenses, such as Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding
Russian Uranium Deal (2009-2013): Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved a deal allowing a Russian company to control 20% of the uranium mining production capacity inside the United States, which was followed by millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with the transaction
Clinton Private Email Server (2009-2013): during her entire tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton dodged Freedom of Information Act requirements by using a private email server to conduct official government business, as well as sent and received classified information that was Top Secret over an unsecured system—an “extremely reckless” (and obviously illegal) act

HSBC Bank Money Laundering Scandal:
Although it received little coverage in the mainstream media, the HSBC money laundering case reveals the complete and total corruption of federal law enforcement toward the end of Mueller’s term as FBI Director. No case demonstrates how the swamp works better than this one.

For nearly the entire duration of Mueller’s term, UK-based HSBC, an international bank with divisions and depositors worldwide, was doing billions of dollars in business with drug cartels, rouge nations, and even banks associated with terrorism, taking massive deposits made in foreign nations and funneling them into its US banks. The overall amounts were staggering, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, which likely gave HSBC a comparative advantage over its rivals and greater market share, while providing international criminals with the ability to “launder” money into the US banking system with little-to-no oversight. In 2012, a whistleblower, who collected information and recorded conversations with HSBC employees, provided strong proof to the public that the bank was operating as a “criminal enterprise.”

Mexican Drug Cartels: From 2002 to at least 2009 (and possibly much longer), HSBC bank laundered billions of US dollars for Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s murderous Sinaloa Cartel and similar groups. In 2009, Forbes placed El Chapo at #41 on its “World’s Most Powerful People” list. The same year, many experts agreed that Mexico’s drug war had rendered it a “failed state.” By 2012, the Sinaloa cartel alone was estimated to have annual revenues of $3 billion, which were comparable to Facebook or Netflix. By April 2013, toward the end of Mueller’s term, the Sinaloa and other Mexican cartels had become the number one importer and distributor of narcotics inside the United States (with many of the cartel’s top agents living inside the United States), El Chapo had become “public enemy no. 1,” and 70,000 murders and nearly 27,000 disappearances were attributable to the drug war inside Mexico.

Ignoring the obvious, HSBC inexplicably designated Mexico a “low risk” country for money laundering, allowing shady depositors and known drug kingpins to deposit billions of US dollars—in cash—into bank accounts in HSBC Mexico, followed by the same money becoming accessible at HSBC in the US. With legitimate-looking banking, the Mexican drug cartels were given huge expansion potential inside the US that would otherwise have been easily detected if the cartels tried to purchase properties, vehicles, and shell businesses here using cash.

Much of the cash crossing the US-Mexico border (estimated at $25 billion per year in 2010) found a ready home in HSBC branches south of the Rio Grande. HSBC Mexico made billions of dollars in suspicious transactions, such as customers depositing hundreds of thousands of US dollars into a single bank account in a single day, during which the cash was put through teller windows in boxes that were designed to fit through the window openings. Because there was virtually no investigation into these transactions or even the identities of depositors, who included high-profile drug dealers, accounts were rarely closed due to the suspicious activity. After all, Mexico was a “low risk” country for money laundering at the time.

Terrorists and Rogue Nations: The bank’s practices also allowed terrorist groups and rogue nations to have access to our financial markets in a similar manner, facilitating financing of their activities inside this country, as well as providing greater international investment possibilities for sanctioned regimes—including $19 billion deposited from Iran into HSBC’s foreign affiliate banks. There were also lax rules for setting up relationships with affiliate banks in other countries, which included a Saudi Arabian bank with ties to funding terrorism.

Policies Prevented Catching Crooks: Even in the rare instance where money laundering controls were in place, inadequate follow-up measures undermined any intervention. The US division of HSBC allowed thousands of suspicious accounts to remain open after they were flagged for closure. “Know your customer” practices were virtually nonexistent, which allowed bad actors to get around things like Iranian sanctions and Patriot Act protections, which in turn was aggravated by bank employees doing things like deleting information about the country of origin on deposits from places like Iran. Large-scale warnings, such as the migration of billions of US dollars in cash deposits into HSBC Mexico, went unnoticed because the bank apparently had no system in place to monitor such activity. To say all of this was “extremely reckless” would be an understatement—it’s inconceivable that the bank’s employees and executives didn’t know what was happening at the time.

“Ramrod” Mueller to the Rescue: What did Mueller do to aggressively investigate and shut down this massive “foreign influence” involving our country’s drug epidemic and threat of terrorism? Basically nothing. No bank executives or employees were arrested or jailed. People have spent more time in jail for smoking a joint than any HSBC executive or employee did for facilitating drug cartel business and terrorist financing.
On October 17, 2010, the Treasury Department issued “cease and desist” letter to HSBC for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. This was followed by a Senate subcommittee investigation, which provided a comprehensive report and took hearing testimony on July 17, 2012. In what appeared to be prepared remarks, one bank compliance executive resigned at the hearing, while another executive indicated HSBC “did our best” in Mexico.
With nearly all of the investigation already completed by the Senate and already in the public eye, the Department of Justice was finally forced to file a four-count felony indictment against defendant HSBC on December 11, 2012, which included three felony counts relating to grossly inadequate anti-money laundering practices and one count for violation of the Trading With The Enemy Act.
On the same day, and over the objections of career DOJ prosecutors, then-AG Holder allowed HSBC to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement, under which the charges would be dropped if the bank stayed out of trouble for 5 years and paid a “record fine” consisting of $1.256 billion in forfeited assets and an additional $665 million in civil penalties. Added together, the punishment totaled approximately 9% of one year’s profits for HSBC’s worldwide operations, which amounted to a whopping $21.9 billion in 2011 alone.
Also the same day, then-US Attorney Loretta Lynch led a press conference alleging that (1) an alphabet soup of federal agencies had conducted a serious investigation and (2) the “record fine” was somehow adequate punishment. Notably, “ramrod straight” Mueller and Holder were not present, despite the obvious national importance of the case. The DOJ’s press release (echoed by the FBI, which simply re-posted DOJ’s release) bragged about the “heavy price” of the fine being imposed. Despite the “heavy price” paid for its rampant criminal behavior, HSBC was somehow able to sponsor the star-studded 2014 Clinton Global Initiative. (Perhaps not coincidentally, the Clinton Foundation also received up to $81,000,000 in donations from HSBC’s illustrious group of account holders.)
But not everyone bought into Lynch’s sales pitch. Even CBS News seemed suspicious of the deal, which was obviously disproportionate to the criminal conduct involved:
While a US citizen sending money to terrorists can result in a 20-year prison sentence, and many US citizens have been sentenced to decades in prison for even marijuana-related crimes, the bank’s executives and employees never spent one day in jail for their roles in assisting terrorist-connected nations and Mexican drug cartels to do business in the United States—an example of the “two systems” of justice than many Americans believe exist between the elites and regular citizens.
If the FBI uses search warrants, recorded transactions, confidential informants, wiretaps, GPS tracking, and conducts a broad sweep of witness interviews in cases involving drug trafficking and terrorism in other cases, why wouldn’t Mueller have done the same to build a case here? Mueller’s absence in the HSBC case says as much about the cover-up as when Holder refused to prosecute over the objections of career prosecutors.

James Comey Joins HSBC’s Board of Directors: Less than two months after the 2012 deferred prosecution agreement, HSBC appointed James Comey to its Board of Directors as head of the Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee.

When he joined HSBC, Comey left a job working as general counsel for Bridgewater Associates hedge fund, where he earned over $6.6 million per year, for a position at a disgraced criminal bank—one recently charged with laundering El Chapo’s money—that paid under $200,000 per year (approximately three percent of his salary at Bridgewater). It’s hard to say why anyone would take that job, and that pay cut, unless there was some additional incentive.
While Comey may have provided HSBC with a Norman Rockwell-type face for its money laundering reform program, it doesn’t appear that Comey actually reformed any of the bank’s practices. During the time Comey was on the Board, HSBC was involved in laundering hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia into the British banking system—a scheme with direct ties to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin. Apparently Comey missed this activity while he led the search for “vulnerabilities” in HSBC’s “financial system.”
Comey left HSBC in July 2013 to become FBI Director when Mueller stepped down.


Mueller Became Partner At The Law Firm That Represented HSBC: In its 2012 Year In Review, law firm Wilmer Hale indicated the following: “our regulatory, transactional, securities and investigations experience converged in our representation of HSBC in connection with Department of Justice and Senate inquiries.”
Less than one year after leaving the FBI, the “utterly incorruptible” Mueller took a lucrative position as a partner at the same law firm that represented HSBC in 2012, working in the “government investigations practice” section of the firm. Although it’s unknown whether Mueller ever handled HSBC’s matters personally, Wilmer Hale still includes HSBC in its list of “representative clients.” In 2016 alone, profits per partner at Wilmer Hale were $1.81 million.
In May 2017, Mueller left the firm to become Special Counsel for the Russia investigation.

Subsequent Inaction: In 2014, President Obama appointed Loretta Lynch to replace Holder as Attorney General. Despite criticism of her role in the HSBC case, the Senate voted to confirm Lynch to the post in 2015. A few weeks before she was sworn in, her own office suggested that HSBC had not complied with the 2012 deferred prosecution agreement. What did AG Lynch do to hold HSBC “accountable” once she took over? Nothing. By 2016, even Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was critical of Lynch’s inaction against HSBC—it was that bad.
Russia, Russia, Russia:

If Mueller failed to do anything to stop these obviously corrupt and criminal practices during his own 12-year term as FBI Director, it’s hard to believe that he will conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the politically-charged assumption of “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential election.

Mueller isn’t the one to investigate the swamp—Mueller is the swamp. He is a dirty cop who never should have been appointed Special Counsel, and he should be fired immediately.

NOW DO YOU SEE THAT ROBERT MUELLER IS A DIRTY COP !

SMOKING GUN.. ROSENSTEIN MUELLER PART IN TRUMP POLITICAL ASSASSINATION PLOT EXPOSED

*.* 🚬🔫 THE SMOKING GUN 🚬🔫❗❗❗💢💢 PLANTING EVIDENCE.

🎯🎯 READ THE "DATE" OF THE REDACTED MEMO

*.*

Rod Rosenstein wrote this memo AUTHORIZING ROBERT MUELLER TO RAID PAUL MANAFORT'S HOME... 1 Week AFTER .. YES "AFTER" Robert Mueller had already raided Paul Manaforts house guns drawn and knocking down his front door. In a Legal Raid... You cannot give Authority to raid after the DEED HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE!

Its like getting a SEARCH WARRANT 1 WEEK AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY BROKEN DOWN THE DOOR AND RAIDED A LOCATION!

Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller are DIRTY COPS COVERING UP THEIR POLITICAL ASSASSINATION PLOT OF DONALD TRUMP!

This August 2, 2017, Rosenstein memo clearly shows that it is being used by Mueller and Rosenstein to to affirm Mueller’s authority to investigate Manafort’s non-election-related, years-old business dealings. AFTER THE FACT! Like I said its like getting a search warrant after you have already been searched! IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL. Jeff Sessions whines and looks the other way!

By the time of the August 2 memo, Mueller already was investigating Manafort’s business dealings and gathering evidence for an indictment (which would be unsealed less than three months later).

On July 26, 2017 —ONE WEEK BEFORE the Rosensten memo was even written — Mueller’s team had already raided Manafort’s home, as the Washington Post reported on August 9, 2017:

FBI agents raided the home in Alexandria, Va., of President Trump’s former campaign chairman, arriving in the pre-dawn hours late last month and seizing documents and other materials related to the special counsel investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The raid, which occurred without warning on July 26, signaled an aggressive new approach by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team in dealing with a key figure in the Russia inquiry. Manafort has been under increasing pressure as the Mueller team looked into his personal finances and his professional career as a highly paid foreign political consultant.

Using a search warrant, agents appeared the day Manafort was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a day after he met voluntarily with Senate Intelligence Committee staff members.

The search warrant requested documents related to tax, banking and other matters. People familiar with the search said agents departed the Manafort residence with a trove of material, including binders prepared ahead of Manafort’s congressional testimony.

The August 2, 2017 memo was classic boostrapping. It purported to confirm Mueller’s authority to go after Manafort’s business dealings, but Mueller already was doing that and had been doing it for weeks, culminating in the July 26 home raid.

STOP THESE CROOKS PATRIOTS. ITS TIME THIS STOPS.

Un elected Bureaucrats Like Rod Rosenstein should not have Unfettered authority to do what they want so that their Lefty Thugs bosses like Soros and his minions can pay them later through lucrative employment in some Obscure firm or through smarmy book deal or speaking fees. In the

In the end they all get PAID.

THIS IS A SICK COUNTRY WE LIVE IN NOW. IT NEEDS TO BE CURED !

RRR

Time to Fight back.

This is not a Country ruled by the Unelected. IF WE DO NOT TAKE UP ARMS AND STOP THIS NOW.. THEY WILL WIN.

APATHY IS SURRENDER!

EXPOSED. Comey And Mueller Had Private Conversations on Tactics Days After He Was Fired

EXPOSED!

 

Comey And Mueller Had Private Conversations Days After He Was Fired

Now will Jeff Sessions look into this Collusion? Demand that Jeff Sessions fire Mueller! There is a Huge Conflict of Interest for Mueller.

The corruption allegations of the special counsel’s ‘legal team’ received more evidence as conversations were reported during the eight day gap between the firing and the appointment.

Jeff Sessions knows that this has nothing to do with the Russia Collusion that he recused himself from. This is plain BLACK LETTER LAW!. If Sessions does not fire Mueller he is either a POLITICAL EUNUCH or a Deep State State Trojan Horse. Time to call him out!

Comey’s own personal security detail ratted him out with hard evidence proving the corruption allegations that have been floating around for months.

Over the weekend, Trump-supporting top officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation spouted a fountain of leaks sure to rival the earthshaking power of Yellowstone’s Steamboat Geyser. The whole Russia “collusion” collaboration seems to have been blown wide open. James Comey was on the phone with his old pal Robert Mueller hours after being fired by President Trump. The former Director of the FBI then privately colluded and conspired with Mueller for an entire week before Mueller was appointed Independent Counsel.

Comey’s own personal security detail ratted him out with hard evidence, confirming allegations that the Russian probe is a corrupt witch hunt. At the end of the newly infamous “eight-day gap,” during which the conspiracy was plotted in retaliation, Mueller was appointed Grand Inquisitor and started gathering firewood to burn President Trump at the stake.

That is something Comey failed to mention in his recent “tell-all” book.

“High-level FBI sources” are spilling their guts about Comey’s flight home from Los Angeles in disgrace. “Insiders with direct knowledge” warmed things up by divulging confidential details of the in-flight phone call that Comey made to Mueller from his DOJ chartered Gulfstream.

Mueller never disclosed any talks with Comey either. Especially none occurring in the eight days that elapsed between Comey’s termination and Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel to lead the Trump-Russia investigation.

The only people besides Comey and Mueller who could possibly know of the clandestine call on May 9, are five male FBI agents, who were part of the ex-Director’s security detail, and the civilian flight crew. The Justice Department chartered the twin-engine “Aerospace” from a private corporation.

Exactly a week after Comey flew home from the Los Angeles field office after being dismissed, his leak about rear-end covering memos was published by the New York Times. He led the press to believe he had proof that President Trump asked him to “rig the Michael Flynn investigation.”

Comey never expected his memos to actually see the light of day. He made the determination himself that some of them were classified. Now that they were made public, they prove no such thing ever happened.

Hours after the article based on Comey’s classified, misleading information, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as U.S. Special Counsel. The move was made specifically to show the American public they can “have full confidence in the outcome.”

Because of all the public interest, someone “who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command,” Rosenstein explained, must head the investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not in charge because he exercised an abundance of caution and “recused himself.”

Federal law forbids individual DOJ officials from investigating any political campaign that they participated in and Sessions helped campaign for President Trump. What nobody knew until now is that Mueller was hand-picked to lead the probe in the direction they wanted it to go, against President Trump.

Nobody said a word about the hours Comey and the so-called “independent investigator” had their heads together plotting the best way to do in Donald Trump. Rosenstein didn’t even run the idea past Sessions before announcing the decision Mueller had been hired.

That was a busy week for the FBI branch of the Hillary Clinton fan club. They worked out their “next moves” quietly, behind the scenes.

Even though the first thing that Mueller did after being appointed was coach Comey on what to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee, not a single lawmaker has asked him if he talked to Mueller before his appointment.

Just the fact the grand inquisitor himself was advising Comey on how to answer congressional questions is suspicious all by itself.

Looking back with the 20-20 vision of hindsight, it appears that Comey leaked his memos at Mueller’s suggestion, virtually engineering Mueller’s subsequent Special Counsel appointment.

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok may have been part of Comey’s “legal team” at the time. We already know that the lovers exchanged Trump hate tweets and came up with some kind of “insurance policy” in Deputy FBI Director “Andy” McCabe’s office.

Comey’s second in command was just as nervous as they were. By then it was obvious that President Trump had a viable chance of getting elected.

Comey and Mueller “are career bureaucrats and very slick,” one of the sources warns. “They both know the system’s ins and outs and on top of that, they are friends.”

As Comey sat under the hot lights for grilling by the Senate, over and over again he told the committee how well Robert Mueller would fit the job description of investigating the new President on charges of election tampering with Russian help.

“Bob Mueller is one of this country’s great pros and I’m sure you’ll be able to work it out with him to run it in parallel,” he testified.

Just because he worked together with Mueller since the early ‘90’s and the fact they are close friends is no reason to think the recommendation could be, in any way, biased. In his book, Comey tries very hard to shove Mueller off at arm’s length. Even though the two shared dinners and played golf, “he and I are not close friends.”

They may not be close, but Comey called Mueller before he called his wife, someone on the plane security detail says. Now we wait for the letters followed by subpoenas for “any and all” phone or email records for both Comey and Mueller that week.