Interesting that the LA times did this. Lou Dobbs reported this on CNN and it cost him his job. The only network we would see this on would be FOX. All the others are staying away from it. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican this should be of great interest to you!
Just One State - be sure and read the last part. If this doesn't open eyes, nothing will!
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.
(All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States 'annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration.
.If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will, and you wonder why Nancy Pelosi wants them to become voters!
Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement.
She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this?), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest”. (I am not rich, are you?)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans''.
This lady is out of her mind. Read that quote again and again and let it sink in! Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked for it as you have.
This woman is frightening! She could only be elected in San Francisco!
What do you think?
Imagine you are a 3- year- old to 8- year- old child. You are on your own without adults.
You are asked to walk from Houston, Texas, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, on your own with no food or belongings to sustain you.
Then you are asked to walk an additional 100 miles past Minnesota.
Could you do it?
How long would it take you as a 6 year old? That is the minimum distance these poor, helpless little ones have supposedly walked from Central America to the border of Texas, again, on their own. They didn't get lost.
And they survived the journey without help (unless you buy in to the notion that a destitute, out-of-work family, run out of their homes by gangs, and living in squalor, somehow came up with $8,000 to $10,000 for EACH child to pay a coyote to take them to the border).
Now, on the map below, you must start somewhere in the green area. Let's make it easy and start where green meets orange, so that you had the least mileage by not having to cover the whole green area. Just start where the green meets the orange. Blue, of course, is water.
Your task is to figure a route from the green area to the purple area without going into the blue area and while avoiding towns and cities in the orange area.
The black line is the distance from the nearest town to Mexico's southern border that touches the green area at Laredo, Texas, one of the CLOSEST purple towns —1,220 miles across desert and mountains with no equipment or food or help.
If orange had stopped these innocents where orange touches green, problem would not have occurred. However, what six year old do you know who could walk 1,220 miles (minimum), probably more like 1,500 miles on their own without dying?
How many days would it take for a 6 year old to walk 1,220 miles without help, directions, food, sun protection, etc.?
I am beginning to think that the truth of all this isn’t being given fully to us, folks. Someone created and assisted in this, and the media should be figuring out who it is, don’t you think?
The odds of winning the Florida lottery,
1 in 22,957,480
The odds of winning the Powerball lottery,
1 in 175,223,510
The odds of winning Mega Millions lottery,
1 in 258,890,850
The odds of a disk drive failing in any given month, are roughly
1 in 36.
The odds of 2 different drives failing in the same month. are roughly
1 in 36 squared, or 1 in about 1,300.
The odds of 3 different drives failing in the same month. is 36 cubed.
or about1 in 46,656.
The odds of 7 different drives failing in the same month (like what happened at the IRS when they received a letter asking about emails
Targeting Conservative and pro Israeli groups) is (37 to the 7th power)
about 1 in 78,664,164,096. (78 Billion to 1)
In other words, the odds are greater you will Win the Florida Lottery 342
Times than having those seven IRS hard drives crashing in the same month!!!
In this video, his last statement when asked if he thought the president lied to him; "I think so"...
WE KNOW MR OBAMA LIED..............
Gentlemen - I ask; how is it the man holding the highest office in our Nation can so glibly LIE to every American - and walk away a free man?
Why is he NOT behind bars this minute? Why is every person in Congress who repeated the same LIE free to walk the streets and continue the destruction of our Nation?
This has affected hundreds of millions - people have already died because of it - and it continues to destroy the economy and health of millions, yet those who have CLEARLY violated federal law; 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - still walking around free.... and no charges filed?
Any American who lied and was the DIRECT cause of people dying would QUICKLY find themselves behind bars! FACT.
You folks who stand for the American people need to use what laws we have available and bring each and every person who has violated the law to justice. Your peers and mr obama himself. That will include mr biden - as he has repeated the very same lie.............
There are many ways to get things done, this particular one was handed to us on a platter all dressed up and billions of taxpayer dollars spent in it's making.
Please use what he gave us and bring these criminals to justice!
Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Congressman Darrell E. Issa, Congressman Louie Gohmert, Congressman Trey Gowdy, Senator Ted Cruz
cc: Congressman Tim Huelskamp (KS-1), Congressman Steve Stockman, National Republican Congressional Committee, Senator Rand Paul, National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Erick P. Wyatt
1. The U.S. Constitution provides in Article II, Section 4, thus: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
2. The Constitution does not state what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Nor can the Federal Judiciary do so since there is no right to appeal an impeachment to any of its courts. An impeachment is a political, not a judicial, decision, and so is the definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. At stake is not the impeached officer’s property, liberty, or life. Rather, We the People, the source of all political power, take back through our representatives in Congress the office that we gave the officer. Thus, whether the President commits an impeachable ‘High Crime or Misdemeanor’ when he lies to the People is a matter for the latter and their representatives to decide.
3. Had the Constitution provided for impeachment only for “High Crimes”, the conduct underlying the impeachment would have to attain a particularly conspicuous level of unacceptability to become a ‘High Crime’. But also “Misdemeanors” support an impeachment. Hence, the level of unacceptability of a certain conduct does not determine whether it is impeachable. Nor does it affect the punishment, for impeachment always leads to the officer being “removed from Office”.
4. An impeachment is in the nature of a recall, that is, the procedure under the federal Constitution for effectuating the principle, “the People giveth, and the People taketh away”. They are the masters in government of, by, and for them. Officers are public servants and as such are answerable to their masters, the People, who can impeach them.
5. Therefore, the impeachability of an officer who lies must be determined in light of:
a. the circumstances evidencing that he knew that his statement was counterfactual so that his making it anyway was deceptive, a lie, and as a result, a betrayal of public trust on which his forfeiture of public office can be predicated;
b. the motive for lying, and
c. the consequences of the lie, even if unintended, for an officer who due to incompetence cannot foresee the consequences of his lie is also impeachable.
A. The circumstances evidencing knowledge of a counterfactual statement
6. Let’s make such determination concerning President Obama’s vouching to the American public for the honesty of his first nominee to the Supreme Court, Then-Judge Sotomayor(*>http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >jur:65§1). The circumstances evidencing his knowledge that his statement was counterfactual are these:
*NOTE: All (parenthetical) and [bracketed] blue text is references to supporting passages and footnotes, respectively, found in the study, Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting. That study is in the file downloadable through the external link http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf. In the study and everything else in the file, the blue text represents active cross-referential internal links that facilitate jumping to supporting passages and footnotes to check them.
a. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico[107a] had suspected her of concealing assets. Concealment of assets is a crime[ol:5fn10] committed to evade taxes or launder money of its illegal source and bring it back with the appearance of being lawful so as to invest it openly without the risk of self-incrimination attached to investing dirty, unlawfully obtained money.
b. The FBI must have investigated such suspicion of concealment of asset, for it could have derailed J. Sotomayor’s confirmation. Using its subpoena and search and seizure power, it must have compelled production of, and obtained, documents that even those three major news entities could not obtain employing only the means of lawful investigative journalism. Had the FBI found a satisfactory explanation that dispelled the suspicion, it would have given it to the President, who would have made it public to put the issue to rest and spare himself a major embarrassment, much worse than that experienced by P. Bush when Harriet Miers withdrew her name under criticism that she lacked the qualifications needed to be a justice.
No such explanation was ever publicized. Far from it, these news entities dropped the issue inexplicably and simultaneously. Yet, each could have reasonably expected to win a Pulitzer Prize had it found the concealed assets of J. Sotomayor or led her or the President to withdraw her name, or even caused her to resign as a circuit judge, never mind be indicted for concealing assets. Was there a quid pro quo between the President and those entities?(jur:xlviii)
c. J. Sotomayor filed “complete” financial statements with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in response to its two judicial nomination questionnaires and questions in letters. The Committee posted them on its website[107b]. To avoid embarrassing surprise(cf. jur:93¶211), the FBI must have done its due diligence by checking them against the statements that she had submitted to the President while he was considering candidates for his nomination. It would have been cause for grave concern if she had submitted inconsistent statements. After tabulating the figures in the statements filed with the Senate, they lead to this conclusion:
Judge Sotomayor earned $3,773,824 since 1988 + received $381,775 in loans = $4,155,599 + her 1976-1987 earnings, yet disclosed assets worth only $543,903 thus leaving unaccounted for in her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee $3,611,696 - taxes and the cost of her reportedly modest living[107c.i]
7. President Obama’s lie can be established or dispelled by circumstantial evidence, and also objectively, e.g., by his agreeing to release unredacted all the FBI vetting reports on J. Sotomayor.
B. The motive for lying
8. The motive of the President to lie about J. Sotomayor’s honesty was to curry favor with those who were petitioning him to replace Retiring Justice Souter with a woman and the first Latina, and from whom he expected in return their support to pass through Congress the Obamacare bill. That was the central piece of his legislative agenda, the one in which he had a personal interest because its continued validity by the Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality would make him go down in history as the president who managed to pass universal health care while many others had failed trying to do so.
C. The consequences of lying
9. The consequences of the President’s lying by vouching for J. Sotomayor’s honesty are substantially harmful and lasting. With respect to those who supported her confirmation for the Supreme Court, it constituted fraud in the inducement, for he told them a lie to induce them to support the confirmation of a person whom on his word they took for honest.
10. With respect to those petitioning for another women and the first Latina, it constituted fraud in the performance, for they could reasonably expect that out of a population of over 300 million people and the pool drawn from it of women and Latinas qualified to be justices, he would choose one who was also honest and would not disappoint and embarrass them by being exposed later on as dishonest.
11. The president heads the Executive Branch. His duty is to execute the bills of Congress enacted into law. His execution of Congress’s acts through his enforcement of the law is his function; it is not optional with him. His office carries neither discretionary power to enforce the law nor the power to exempt at will anybody from its enforcement. The president must enforce the law on everybody equally, as provided by law, including tax, financial, and criminal laws.
12. By failing to enforce those laws on J. Sotomayor, President Obama committed dereliction of duty. By so failing, he also compounded the crime because he knew of her concealment of assets, and should have known if instead of looking with willful blindness at NYT, WP, and Politico’s suspicion that she had concealed assets, and looking away with willful ignorance(jur:90§§b-c), he had diligently performed his duty to vet her properly.
13. Since Obamacare had not been passed by Congress yet, the President could not possibly have nominated J. Sotomayor for a justiceship because she happened to agree with its provisions, for nobody knew what the bill would look like in its final form, that is, if it were ever passed. Moreover, the Democrats have been criticized for having rushed Obamacare through Congress with almost no debate so that the members had barely any opportunity to read it. The fact that the bill ran well in excess of 1,000 pages made it all the more difficult for anybody to read it in its entirety Thus, it is reasonable to assume that she had not read it either.
14. By the President not enforcing the law on J. Sotomayor upon an explicit or implicit agreement that in exchange for nominating her to the Supreme Court she would support the constitutionality of Obamacare when, as expected, it came before the Court for review, he committed bribery. In that unlawful swap of benefits, the President abused his power of nomination to turn his nomination of her into the benefit that he gave. In exchange, he obtained the benefit of an agreement to prejudge Obamacare to be constitutional, whereby he intended to deprive the challenging party of its right to its day in court before a fair and impartial judge; and intended to obstruct justice. Since J. Sotomayor was a public officer, the President committed an act of corruption of a public officer.
15. To vouch for J. Sotomayor’s honesty, President Obama covered up her concealment of assets. Since that is a crime, id. >he became an accessory after the fact for the crime already committed. He also became an accessory before the fact for the crime that he knew she would continue to commit, for J. Sotomayor could not thereafter declare her concealed assets without her sudden and unexplainable possession of such assets incriminating her. Therefore, relative to her continuing crime of keeping assets concealed, the President incurs continuing accessorial liability.
16. Assets are concealed to evade taxes and launder money of their unlawful origin. When the President lied to cover up J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets, he abetted and continues to abet her evasion of taxes, which are collected for the common good. So he inflicted a financial injury in fact on the people and still inflicts a continuing financial injury in fact. By allowing her to engage in money laundering, he facilitated and continues to facilitate financial corruption.
17. A judge who breaks the law shows contempt for it and those whose interests it intends to protect. She cannot reasonably be expected to respect the law enough to apply it fairly and impartially. In fact, due to practical considerations, she cannot because a yet to be exposed law-breaking judge is impaired by a conflict of interests: She has a duty to apply the law, but her application of it can lead to investigations and the incrimination of third parties. They can expose her law-breaking and cause those parties to enter into a plea bargain whereby in exchange for leniency they provide information or testimony exposing the judge’s law-breaking.
18. The risk of exposure undermines her resolve to apply the law and renders her vulnerable to, and extortionable by, third parties. She owes a debt of survival to those who did not, or have agreed explicitly or implicitly not to, expose her. Her mutually dependent survival, assured through coordination(88§a) becomes her first concern; doing justice is downgraded to only a request of litigants. Her unfitness to discharge the duties of her office is foreseeable. Such foreseeability makes applicable the principle that a person is deemed to intend the reasonable consequences of his acts.
19. By the President nominating for a justiceship J. Sotomayor, whom he knew to be breaking the law by concealing assets, and by causing senators to shepherd her confirmation through Congress(78§6), he exercised power irresponsibly since he exercised power irresponsibly since he intentionally caused a person known to him to be unfit for office to be vested with it. He also intentionally and knowingly undermined the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, the Federal Judiciary, and the process of judicial confirmation.
20. By so doing, the President has intentionally and knowingly inflicted on the American people the dishonest service of J. Sotomayor. For her next 30 years or so on the Supreme Court, just as she helps shape the law of the land that she will hold others to obey, she will continue to break it and harm others so as to resolve her conflict of interests in favor of her survival(jur:xxxv), her peers(jur:71§4), and those who can expose a source(jur:66§§2-3) of assets to conceal and the whereabouts of her concealed assets.
D. Action that the readers, journalists, and We the People can take
21. The readers of this article may share it with journalists and the rest of the national public. Informed of its considerations at the start of the mid-term election campaign, the public may demand that all candidates and politicians ask the President to release unredacted all the FBI vetting reports on Justice Sotomayor. If they raise concerns about her asset-concealing or other law-breaking, then he had at least circumstantial evidence requiring that he not vouch for her honesty because to do so was counterfactual and knowingly deceptive: a lie. Given his motive for, and the consequences of, lying, We the People and our current and would-be representatives can determine whether his lie constitutes an impeachable ‘High Crime or Misdemeanor’.
22. Journalists can pursue an investigation(ol:66) guided by a proven devastating query(jur:4¶¶10-14) that can dominate the campaign: What did the President know[23b] about J. Sotomayor’s concealment of assets and when did he know it?(ol:54)
Dare trigger history!(dcc:11)…and you may enter it.
Note: this page contains paid content.
Please, subscribe to get an access.