Wednesday, January 31, 2018


Thank you! 

 So I am really gratified that the Conservative Caucus enjoys the posts I am on a never ending journey to locate and share...

Your comments here are great.

 A smart crowd...a sometimes angry crowd - but smart.

 Anyway, this is my blog site which I have neglected...I hope to do more writing and perhaps you can throw a few minutes of your life and stop by to hear some dopey insights from "mua"

... Anyway - I look forward to sharing the "info cycle" with y'all!

 As Ferris Bueller said once, "life moves pretty fast..."

 - William Ware
- also known as just "Bill"

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Lock. Her. Up. by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY January 6, 2018 4:00 AM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY In the Clinton-email case, her intent, regardless of her motive, was clearly criminal. The Justice Department is reviving investigations involving Hillary Clinton’s emails and the degree to which the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary was put in the service of the Clinton Foundation. Good. Indeed, it is long overdue. It underscores a point we’ve tried to make repeatedly here: You don’t need a special counsel for this kind of thing; such investigations are what we have a Justice Department full of career prosecutors for. The perverse institution of the independent prosecutor should be shunned whenever possible — and its jurisdiction tightly confined in the rare necessary case. All that said, investigations involving the mishandling of classified information by officials with privileged access to it will go nowhere unless the Justice Department restores the rule of law: investigators and prosecutors applying congressional statutes, not rewriting them as dictated by their political masters. As we have recounted (see, e.g., here), in April 2016, when the Clinton-emails investigation was in full swing but before it was anywhere close to completion, President Obama gave a nationally televised interview in which he made clear that he did not want criminal charges brought against his former secretary of state — and the already certain Democratic candidate to succeed him. Obama made two duplicitous points: Mrs. Clinton 1) had exhibited “carelessness,” but nothing worse, by using a private, non-secure email system to conduct State Department business, and 2) had not intended to endanger American national security when she stored and transmitted classified information on this system. The FBI has taken the heat because it ultimately applied these disingenuous guidelines publicly and without apology. But it was the political leadership of the executive branch that called the tune — which seems like news only because the media’s revulsion over presidential attempts to influence criminal investigations would await Donald Trump’s inauguration. Obama’s first point led to one of the great head-fakes in modern law-enforcement history — one that reverberates to this day. Using his bully pulpit, the president framed the Clinton case as one of negligence. The portrayal stuck: Incessantly, the Justice Department, the media, and eventually James Comey, then-director of the FBI, addressed the case in terms of Mrs. Clinton’s purported carelessness — a hardworking public official’s regrettable but forgivable inattention to detail. Even now, critics of Clinton and the FBI are in a lather over reports that, as Comey’s team drafted his remarks exonerating Clinton (notwithstanding that key witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not been interviewed), agent Peter Strzok changed the term “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” Substantively, these terms are indistinguishable. The emendation is said to be critical, though, because the statute applicable to Clinton’s conduct criminalizes “gross negligence.” If Comey had said the words “grossly negligent,” so the story goes, it would be the equivalent of pronouncing Clinton guilty. That is, it would be impossible to rationalize not charging her because, after all, this case was all about negligence. But it wasn’t. Never. The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information. This was a straightforward case of criminal intent. Negligence was the fallback position — for a prosecutor, an “even if” theory, as in: “Even if you’re not convinced by our overwhelming evidence of Clinton’s willfully illegal retention and transmission of classified information, you can still comfortably find her guilty if you conclude that she was grossly negligent — which, as the judge will tell you in his instructions, simply means ‘extremely careless.’” Mrs. Clinton’s criminal intent was so clear that its obfuscation also required Obama’s second point: Mrs. Clinton’s lack of intent to imperil the United States. Director Comey hammered his boss’s legerdemain again and again. And why not? After all, it was true — Clinton unquestionably had no desire to endanger our country. It’s always good to go with the truth . . . especially if you have the luxury of a Democrat-smitten media that won’t ask whether the truth you’ve highlighted is relevant to the matter under investigation. Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer. What he and those who echoed him executed was a not uncommon defense-attorney stratagem: The conflation of motive and criminal intent, two significantly distinct concepts. Motive is the reason why we do something; intent is our state of awareness in doing it — the understanding that, regardless of why we are doing something, we know we are doing it and we are doing it on purpose. To prove someone guilty of a crime, no motive need be established, but intent must always be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code) prescribes a sliding scale of classified-information offenses, from the most to the least serious. Let’s put aside the red herring of the Clinton emails case, gross negligence — at subsection (f), the bottom of the scale. The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the act. To prove this offense, the prosecutor must prove that the official 1) had possession of the information, 2) had “reason to believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” 3) transmitted it to an authorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency, and 4) acted willfully, which means acting intentionally and with an understanding that one’s actions are wrongful. Two things to notice. First, there is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; she must merely be aware that it could happen. Of course, every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this. Making the official aware of it and having the official expressly acknowledge her awareness are essential parts of the indoctrination that is a condition of getting the clearance. And thus every government official with a security clearance knows it is wrongful to transfer classified information to a person not authorized to have it or to a place where its storage is not authorized. Second, you may be saying to yourself: “But ‘intent to harm the United States’ is significant, so it should be part of a classified-information offense.” That’s right, and that’s why it is a part of a classified-information offense — it just happens not to be the offense we’re talking about in Mrs. Clinton’s case. If an official illegally transmits classified information “with an intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,” then that official commits the more serious felony offense prescribed at the top of the Espionage Act’s scale — subsection (a). If someone had suggested charging Mrs. Clinton with this treasonous offense, then she, President Obama, and Director Comey would have been quite right to stress that she had no such intent. But no one suggested that. Rather, it was urged that she had transmitted classified information on purpose, but not with intent to do the country harm. That is less heinous than the treasonous offense. But it is still egregious. It is a crime that puts the lives of intelligence sources and the effectiveness of life-saving intelligence operations at risk. That Clinton did not intend that any harm come to the United States does not make her innocent of willfully transmitting classified information to unauthorized persons or places. Moreover, it is a black-letter principle that a person’s innocence of Crime A is inadmissible to prove that the person has not committed Crime B. For example, the fact that I have not personally sold drugs has no bearing on whether I laundered drug money. And the fact that Mrs. Clinton did not intend that any harm come to the United States does not make her innocent of willfully transmitting classified information to unauthorized persons or places, or of retaining it when she left the government and when the State Department finally requested that she surrender the government records in her possession. Motive is different from intent, but it is easy even for lawyers to confound the two. Unless a criminal statute explicitly makes motive a part of the offense, there is no requirement that it be proved. Yet we can’t say that motive is completely irrelevant because the prosecutor is always permitted to offer motive evidence. This is not because a motive must be established; it is because intent must be established, and a person who has a motive is likely to have acted intentionally rather than mistakenly. Motive evidence is thus admissible because it helps prove intent. But that does not turn intent into motive, and it does not mean a particular motive, such as wanting to hurt the country, must be proved before we can find that someone who illegally transferred classified information acted intentionally, cognizant that what she was doing was wrong. As for Mrs. Clinton’s motives, no sensible person believes she wanted to imperil the country; many, however, justifiably believe she put her own interests ahead of the potential that the country could be threatened. I have always believed her motive in setting up a private communications network for her government work was twofold: to conceal the links between State Department business and Clinton Foundation business; and, as she was contemplating a presidential bid, to insulate her communications from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, congressional oversight, and other government-transparency measures. Regardless of whether my motive theory is sound, however, the evidence that Clinton willfully mishandled classified information is mountainous. Before she was ever secretary of state, Clinton lived and worked in a White House where classified-information protocols were observed. She had to apply these protocols for years as a senator whose committee assignments were intelligence-intensive. Before becoming secretary of state, she was indoctrinated in the handling of classified information and signed documentation attesting that she had read and understood the relevant executive orders about intelligence classification and handling. Clinton well understood that the position of secretary of state involved immersion in classified information. She wrote in her memoir about the extraordinary steps she was required to take to safeguard classified information. Given the nature of her responsibilities for foreign relations and national security, her decision to conduct all her government business on a private server system made it inevitable that classified information would be transmitted in and stored on the private system. There is no possibility that she did not know this. The private system she set up was in violation of government and State Department regulations. Her loyal staff fought efforts to bring her into the government email system – even though she forced the resignation of an ambassador over, among other things, his conducting of government business over an unauthorized private email system. When the request was made that Clinton surrender her emails to the State Department, she turned them over to her own lawyers and subordinates who did not have the security clearances required for access to the information. She destroyed tens of thousands of emails, even though they were under subpoena, so that they could not be reviewed by the State Department or the FBI. Of the 30,000 she deigned to surrender to the State Department, over 2,000 contained classified information, some of it among the nation’s most highly classified national-defense secrets. And she serially lied in her public statements about her emails, in congressional testimony (in which she brazenly claimed to have turned over all work-related email to the State Department, and that her lawyers had carefully reviewed every email before designating which should be surrendered and which withheld), and in her FBI interview (in which she pretended not to know what the ubiquitous “[C]” designation — for confidential — in classified documents meant). Any prosecutor who understood there was no need to prove intent to harm the United States would be delighted to take that case to the jury — especially once the prosecutor realized he’d get to tell the jury: “Even if you suspend disbelief and buy the defense argument that she didn’t mean to horde and transmit classified information, you must still find her guilty if you conclude she was grossly negligent — as in ‘extremely careless.’” The Trump administration and its Justice Department say they want to stop rampant leaking by government officials. It won’t stop absent a reversal of the last administration’s fiction that the prosecutor must establish a motive to harm the United States. The law does not require it. The rule of law requires correcting it. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. Read more at:

Cardinal on the front lines... The intrepid Cardinal Wilfrid Napier has once again blasted the modern abortion-rights culture, suggesting that a society that “destroys its unborn babies with such abandon” should never hope to have a happy or peaceful future. The South African Cardinal was responding to news posted on social media by pro-life champion Obianuju Ekeocha, who noted that only three days into 2018, the world had already seen the deaths of 293,548 unborn babies through “legal” abortion. “I beg all people of goodwill to speak up against this injustice,” Ms. Ekeocha said. “Make it part of your mission this year to be unabashedly pro-life.” Cardinal Napier replied with a rhetorical question, “How can a culture that destroys its unborn babies with such abandon ever hope to have a happy or peaceful future, which is the deepest-seated desire of every human heart?” Shortly afterward, the prelate launched another indictment of the abortion lobby, this time in response to an Ohio ad campaign by an abortion provider that calls abortion “life-saving,” “sacred,” “a blessing,” and “safer than childbirth.” “To say abortion is safer than child birth,” the cardinal tweeted, “is like saying ‘life’ in a grave in the cemetery is safer than life on the street. On the street you could get knocked over by a bus, mugged by a desperate drug user, or shot by an extremist!” This is not the first time this cardinal, who is also the archbishop of Durban, has strongly voiced his firm opposition to the killing of children in the womb. Last January, the cardinal reacted forcefully to President Obama’s farewell address to the nation by reminding people that Obama had been a global advocate of abortion-on-demand as well as an enemy of religious liberty. Immediately following the farewell address, Napier retweeted a number of particularly pointed critiques of the outgoing president and his legacy, stressing the irony of Obama as a “son of Africa” funding illegal abortions in Africa as well as Marie Stopes International, the notorious abortion promoter that works throughout African nations. In the summer of 2016, Napier called for an apology for the countless deaths at the hands of the U.S. abortion industry and, in particular, the disproportionate number of black babies who have been aborted, which he referred to as “genocide.” Quoting the figure of more than 57 million babies legally aborted in the United States since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision (from Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute), the Cardinal asked, “Isn’t this something we should be apologizing for?”
Life is short - you gotta laugh...hell, you must laugh!

Deep State Corruption about to get exposed...

This site, Conservative Tree House, written by a person who's moniker us "Sundance"  is smashing the corruption of the Deep State...

If you have not followed this story - Get. On. Board.

All Killah - no Fillah...

Here we go:

Notice something missing recently?
The House Intelligence Committee now has the bank records of Fusion-GPS.  They were turned over Friday after a federal judge on Thursday shot-down a last-ditch effort by attorneys from Fusion to get an emergency injunction.
Chairman Devin Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee now have the records of payments made by Fusion-GPS to “journalists and media companies” during 2016 and early 2017 when Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby and Peter Fritsch were shopping the Christopher Steele ‘Russian dossier’ to enhance the “Insurance Policy”.
Perhaps we will find out which journalists and media companies were paid by Fusion-GPS. Perhaps those payments are part of the reason the media apparatus, writ large, made a concerted effort last week to distance the Steele Dossier from the origin of the FBI Counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump that began in July 2016.
Additionally, and I shall easily say ‘predictably‘, there’s been far less visible evidence of congressional or intelligence community leaks to the media.  The Wolff book has provided a deafening cover for the media retreat; but the absence of IC leaks is also deafening.  Aswe previously shared, this outcome was fully anticipated.
Most of the direct (“small group”) FBI (CoIntel), DOJ (NatSec Division) and Special Counsel co-conspirators are only able to talk amid themselves.  They know by now they are being monitored and they have strong suspicion the size of the surveillance upon them. [Hi guys.] No-one else is willing to put themselves at risk now.  Congressional allies now view the small group as carrying a legal ebola virus.  Contact is now a risk.
All of the ‘Muh Russia’ co-conspirators, and the aggregate DC enablers, along with their media mouthpieces are nervous.  The Wolff book noise is hiding a genuine trepidation that all of the scheming for the past 18+ months is about to come crashing down.
The larger American electorate have NO IDEA the scale and scope of the bigger storybehind the vast Russian conspiracy.  The people involved are fully aware of the potential for their visible trail to become increasingly public.
The special FBI and DOJ unit that Rod Rosenstein put together, at the request of AG Jeff Sessions and DNI Dan Coats, is still hunting congressional and IC leak agents.  Almost no-one in the media has discussed this ongoing reality, but their silence on the story doesn’t mean their behavior has not changed directly because of it.
WASHINGTON – […] Gaining access to Fusion GPS’s bank records marks yet another victory for the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee, which earlier in the week secureddocuments and text messagesrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had pursued the information for months and threatened a contempt of Congress charge against both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray after they refused to turn over the information.
Two Republican senators earlier in the day Friday recommended that the Justice Department criminally investigate the author of the Trump dossier, which contains salacious and unverified claims about President Trump’s ties to Russia. Republicans are concerned the dossier may have been the impetus behind the federal inquiry looking into possible Russian collusion between that country and the Trump campaign.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a senior committee member, told the DOJ they believe Christopher Steele, the former British spy who helped put together the dossier, knowingly lied to federal authorities about his communications with U.S. journalists.
A lawyer for Fusion GPS lashed out at the senators, accusing them of making “another attempt to discredit government sources.”  (read more)
As the Inspector General investigation continues: ♦FBI Agent Peter Strzok has been reassigned to the HR department.  ♦FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, personal legal aide to FBI Asst. Director, Andrew “Andy” McCabe, has been returned to the DOJ side. ♦FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker has been relieved of his duties by FBI Director Christopher Wray. ♦FBI Asst Director Andrew McCabe has announced his intent to retire in March.
All of these FBI personnel moves are a preliminary outcomes of the still ongoing Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation.   All of this has been reported.  None of these moves are speculative.  All of these geese are cooked.  However, this is just one side of the 2016 political “Trump operation”, the FBI investigative Counterintelligence Division side.
The other side, the legal side of the Trump operation, stems from the National Security Division of the DOJ.  A FISA application is submitted from the DOJ-NSD  for use by the FBI Counterintelligence team.   Sunlight upon this side of the collaboration is the reason for all of the current distraction narratives.
The Department of Justice, National Security Division, FISC application(s) and the FISA 702(16)(17) wiretapping and surveillance collection, along with the unmasking that followed, is the focus of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.  He is tackling the biggest scandal – OUTLINED HERE –
Sometime this month, after the initial Inspector General Michael Horowitz release, House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley will likely call for a Special Counsel to investigate the upper-level management of the FBI and DOJ.
We should support that approach.  The SC can quickly put a Grand Jury together and start presenting the IG investigative evidence, as well as enforceable subpoenas for witnesses.
There’s a lot of different down-stream legal issues:
  • The unlawful exoneration of Hillary Clinton by political operatives in the DOJ/FBI.
  • The unlawful destruction of evidence; and the manipulation of investigative protocols to gain a specific and pre-planned political outcome. (Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe)
  • The unlawful use of the FISA court for political spy operations by the DOJ/FBI.
  • The unlawful use of the Dept of Justice National Security Division.  For weaponized political benefit.  (Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr)
  • The unlawful use of the FBI Counterintelligence Division. For weaponized political benefit. (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker)
  • The unlawful use of a Special Counsel (Mueller) investigation to hide the conspiracy; (James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Andrew Weissman, Jeannie Rhee, Aaron Zebley)
All of the origination details are part of the minutia that will surface in the next 30 days.  Devin Nunes, Bob Goodlatte and Chuck Grassley using the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to collect evidence and tell the public everything outlined HERE and more.
Dave NYiii has a terrific discussion thread on the pending OIG Release HERE


IG Stimulated Releases of Information:

♦Release #1 was the FBI Agent Strzok and Attorney Lisa Page story; and the repercussions from discovering their politically motivated bias in the 2015/2016 Clinton email investigation and 2016/2017 Russian Election investigation.
♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.
♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.
♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actualcontract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.
♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.

Thursday, January 4, 2018

James Caviezel is a warrior-king who fights for the KING... JESUS CHRIST

Praise God for Jim Caviezel

What do you think of vaccinations? Are you a fan? Have you done any basic research? Me? Not a subscriber to this group think. Many vaccines use aborted baby tissue cells...did you know that? That cannot be good. Because ipso facto abortion (the murdering of a baby) is inherently wrong...and well MURDER. But I digress... So Billy Preston wrote a song "Nothing from nothing leaves you nothing" So true. You cannot get life (spiritual life) from a murdered fetal cell... That is my view. What say you?


 Here is an article (Spirit Daily)  - read it and be wise.

  "Attention-Deficit And Autism"

 "It’s flu season and many take vaccinations for it. 

 It’s difficult to discern which is more harmful: the flu (particularly striking the very young or elderly) or the vaccine itself. It’s not a call we’re qualified to make. 

 It’s a call perhaps no one is qualified to make, at this point (including medical “experts”). The business of vaccinations is certainly a huge one. The problem: vaccinations are not natural and interpose foreign elements, including metals like aluminum, and in some cases mercury, into our systems. 

 Reports of severe reactions to that are not rare — and too many parents have noted a sudden and radical effect on their children after they’ve received vaccine “cocktails” or combos, including a descent into autism (mercury, used less than it used to be, but perhaps causing residual effect, can affect the brain). Image result for BRAIN and so many have asked, as have we, through the years: Might it be that the epidemic of autism as well as “attention-deficit” syndrome are linked? 

Or at least: why so many kids with focus problems? One of the proponents of “attention-deficit-disorder” diagnoses, Dr. Keith Conners, notes that recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show such a diagnosis has been made in fifteen percent of high school-age children, and that the number of children on medication for the disorder soared (take in these numbers) to 3.5 million from 600,000 in 1990. 

He questioned the rising rates of diagnosis and called them “a national disaster of dangerous proportions” (according to The New York Times). A six-fold increase since 1990? “The numbers make it look like an epidemic. Well, it’s not. It’s preposterous,” Dr. Conners, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Duke University, said in an interview. “This is a concoction to justify the giving out of medication at unprecedented and unjustifiable levels.” 

 When it comes to a deficit in attention, going back to the old way of life — simpler food (far less sugar) and letting kids play outside far more than school currently do — might go a long way. What we probably do not need: all the newfangled drugs they treat “attention-deficit disorder” with. In fact, in many cases a decreased attention span has afflicted us all and may be more the result of a lack of discipline and exposure to television, cell phones, and the internet than anything physical. Meanwhile, we must ask whether are we pushing kids too hard when it comes to the intellectual side. 

Image result for BRAINA study reported recently in School Psychology Quarterly underscored the importance of recess for kids with ADHD: “Results showed that levels of inappropriate behavior were consistently higher on days when participants [with ADHD] did not have recess, compared to days when they did have it.” 

 As for autism, which gets more serious: A while ago actor Robert DeNiro, who has an autistic child, joined a press conference to expose the autism-vaccine connection. He was joined by Robert Kennedy Jr., who spearheads the drive to expose what they see as a clear connection. President Trump is very sympathetic. As the American Conservative reported: “Since at least 2007, Trump has suggested that the recent ‘epidemic’ of autism might be related to current immunization practices. He is not categorically against immunization—in fact, he is ‘totally in favor of vaccines,’ as he says—but he suggests that the rate and quantity of injections given to infants, per the recommended immunization schedule, may contribute to incidents of autism. In Trump’s words, ‘massive combined inoculations’ and ‘simultaneous vaccinations’ may be producing a wave of ‘doctor-inflicted autism.’” (Some wonder if his son Barron has been affected; Barron was born in 2006.) 

 Meanwhile, a study at Yale University recently reported that “patients diagnosed with neuropsychiatric disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder and anorexia nervosa were more likely to have received vaccinations three months prior to their diagnoses” and “one vaccine in particular: the influenza vaccine, which was associated with higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder, anorexia, anxiety disorder and tic disorder.” Pretty rampant in our time, aren’t these “afflictions”? Even some allergies have been connected, perhaps due to the reaction of our immune systems to the foreign substances — some of which, in a few vaccines, were originally derived from cell lines extracted from aborted infants. (Here’s a list of vaccines that involve that. Or go to this site.) That is evil (as is profiting on health), and evil bears poor fruit." 


WDW 1/4/18