• Home
  • Govt. Corruption/Tyranny

Video: The CAFR Swindle - The Biggest Shell Game In Town


Taxes are no longer necessary. This video exposes a deliberate and massive accounting shell game/swindle that is perpetrated by every government agency from your local school district all the way up to the Federal government.  This is the second Version of this expose' on public finance. Similar to first version, but incorporating input from Walter Burien and Clint Richardson.

See their sites for much more info:
cafr1.com
thecorporationnation.com
realitybloger.wordpress.com

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Probing Mueller: What Were His Roles in Boston Mafia Murders, Uranium One, and Other FBI Scandals?


By William F. Jasper
TheNewAmerican.com


Why has Robert Mueller (shown) been shielded from questions about his role in some of the FBI’s most shameful scandals? Is it because his “Russia collusion” probe is the pointy tip of the Deep State spear aimed at President Trump?

What was Robert Mueller’s role in the infamous “partnership” between the FBI and the Boston Mafia that involved multiple murders, racketeering, extortion, witness tampering, and much more? Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a media-crafted image as “Mr. Integrity,” a straight-shooting, non-partisan, nose-to-the-grindstone, publicity-shunning public servant. The anti-Trump media projected the same kind of squeaky-clean image for former FBI Director James Comey. However, it is now public knowledge that he is a lying, leaking, partisan, political hack who grossly abused his powerful office. He should be facing criminal prosecution instead of being rewarded with a secretive (and potentially illegal) multi-million dollar book deal.

Robert Mueller’s past appears to be even more checkered than Comey’s. In her blog post for March 20, investigative reporter Sarah Carter brings up nagging questions about Robert Mueller’s troubled history that refuse to go away — because they have never been answered. Entitled, “Questions Still Surround Robert Mueller’s Boston Past,” the article deals with Mueller's involvement in what is usually referred to as “The Whitey Bulger Case” or “The FBI-Boston Mob Case,” one of the most sensational black eyes the FBI has ever suffered.

Whitey Bulger, as The New American detailed back in 1998 (“FBI Covering for Criminals”), was the murderous boss of Boston’s notorious Winter Hill Gang, also known as the “Irish Mafia.” For two decades (1975-1994) Bulger led a charmed existence, as his brutal gang carried out their crime rampage under the FBI’s protection! Time after time, Massachusetts state and local police had their elaborate, years-long investigations of Bulger foiled by FBI interference. FBI Special Agent John Connolly and John Morris, who was in charge of the FBI’s Boston Organized Crime Squad, were Bulger’s protectors and would tip him off to investigations and wiretaps by other police agencies. This corrupt FBI-Bulger relationship was dramatized in Martin Scorcese’s 2006 film, The Departed, starring Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Matt Damon. In 1994, Bulger was tipped off by his FBI handler John Connolly that investigators were closing in on him. He went on the lam and eluded capture for 16 years. He was arrested in California in 2011 and went on trial in 2013, charged with 32 counts of racketeering, including 19 murders. The jury convicted Bulger of 31 of the 32 counts, including 11 of the 19 murders. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences plus five years.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Trump Is Right: The Special Counsel Should Never Have Been Appointed


President Trump is right in saying that a special counsel should never have been appointed to investigate the so-called Russian connection. There was no evidence of any crime committed by the Trump administration. But there was plenty of evidence that Russian operatives had tried to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, and perhaps other elections, in the hope of destabilizing democracy. Yet, appointing a special counsel to look for crimes, behind the closed doors of a grand jury, was precisely the wrong way to address this ongoing challenge to our democracy.

The right way would have been (and still is) to appoint a nonpartisan investigative commission, such as the one appointed following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, to conduct a broad and open investigation of the Russian involvement in our elections. This is what other democracies, such as Great Britain and Israel, do in response to systemic problems. The virtue of such a commission is precisely the nonpartisan credibility of its objective experts, who have no political stake in the outcome.

Such a commission could have informed the American public of what Russia did and how to prevent it from doing it again. It would not seek partisan benefit from its findings, the way congressional committees invariably do. Nor would it be searching for crimes in an effort to criminalize political sins, the way special counsels do to justify their existence and budget. Its only job would be to gather information and make recommendations.

The vice of a special counsel is that he is supposed to find crimes, and if he comes up empty-handed, after spending lots of taxpayer money, then he is deemed a failure. If he can’t charge the designated target — in this case, the president — he must at least charge some of those close to the target, even if it is for crimes unrelated to the special counsel’s core mandate. By indicting these low-hanging fruits, he shows that he is trying. Maybe those lesser defendants will flip and sing against higher-ups, but the problem is that the pressure to sing may cause certain defendants to “compose,” meaning make up or enhance evidence in order to get a better deal for themselves.

In this case, the appointment of a special counsel has done more harm than good. It has politicized our justice system beyond repair. The FBI deputy director has been fired for leaking and lying. His testimony appears to be in conflict with that of the former FBI director as to whether the leaks were authorized. Messages by high-ranking FBI agents suggest strong bias against Trump. A tweet by the former CIA director reveals equally strong negative views of the president. Perhaps these revelations prove nothing more than that law enforcement and national security officials are human and hold political views like everyone else.

But these views are not supposed to influence their decisions. In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions. This is not all attributable to the appointment of the special counsel, but the criminalization of political differences on both sides of the aisle has certainly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust in our justice system.

The public has lost faith in the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI. They don’t trust congressional investigative committees. They don’t know whom to believe when they hear conflicting accounts. There are leaks galore followed by denials of leaks. It’s a total mess. And what do we have to show for it? Just a handful of low-level indictments based largely on alleged crimes that are either unrelated or only marginally related to Russia’s attempt to influence our presidential election in 2016.

It’s not too late to try to repair some of the damage done. Let Congress now appoint a nonpartisan commission to conduct a transparent investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence our elections. Let the special counsel suspend his investigation until the nonpartisan commission issues its report. If the report identifies crimes and criminals, there will be time enough to indict and prosecute. Right now, we need the nonpartisan truth, because we aren’t getting it from the special counsel.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The UK’s Hidden Hand in Julian Assange’s Detention


It now emerges that the last four years of Julian Assange’s effective imprisonment in the Ecuadorean embassy in London have been entirely unnecessary. In fact, they depended on a legal charade.

Behind the scenes, Sweden wanted to drop the extradition case against Assange back in 2013. Why was this not made public? Because Britain persuaded Sweden to pretend that they still wished to pursue the case.

In other words, for more than four years Assange has been holed up in a tiny room, policed at great cost to British taxpayers, not because of any allegations in Sweden but because the British authorities wanted him to remain there. On what possible grounds could that be, one has to wonder? Might it have something to do with his work as the head of Wikileaks, publishing information from whistleblowers that has severely embarrassed the United States and the UK.

In fact, Assange should have walked free years ago if this was really about an investigation – a sham one at that – into an alleged sexual assault in Sweden. Instead, as Assange has long warned, there is a very different agenda at work: efforts to extradite him onwards to the US, where he could be locked away for good. That was why UN experts argued two years ago that he was being “arbitrarily detained” – for political crimes – not unlike the situation of dissidents in other parts of the world that win the support of western liberals and leftists.

According to a new, limited release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on 18 October 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case for extradition to be continued. This was, remember, after Sweden had repeatedly failed to take up an offer from Assange to interview him in London, as had happened in 44 other extradition cases between Sweden and Britain.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)