Sunday, November 13, 2016

Should Trump lock Hillary up ??

Should Trump lock Hillary up? [poll]

November 12, 2016

Once only a popular rallying cry, “lock her up” could take on a very real meaning now that President Elect Donald Trump is heading to the Oval Office.

During the third and final Presidential debate, Donald Trump told Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton that if he became President, he would, “instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor into your situation.”

Throughout his campaign, Trump questioned the legitimacy of the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s illegal use of a private email server. He referred to her email scandal as, “bigger than Watergate,” and argued that she was, “protected by a rigged system.” Now he has won the presidency, and Clinton is shaking in her pantsuit that she is heading to jail.

When FBI Director James Comey did not recommend charges for the second time, Trump said, “Unbelievable what she gets away with.”

While the process of putting Clinton behind bars would be a long one, Trump could very well restart the investigation, and potentially land her in jail. Should he follow through with his threat to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, the inquiry would have to reveal that she did in fact violate criminal law. From that point, she would have the right to a fair trial in which the prosecutor would have to argue against the original evidence that led the FBI to not recommend charges.

While it’s anything from impossible, there is plenty of speculation he would actually follow through with the prosecution.

Trump praised Clinton during his victory speech, saying she was owed, “a major debt of gratitude for her 'service' to our country.” (Say what?!)

However, some Republicans have called for Trump to pardon Clinton as an act of unity, a gracious act that could help heal the post-election divide.

**********************************************
To vote, go to https://thehornnews.com/trump-lock-hillary-poll/
and scroll down to the bottom of the article. It will change automatically after you vote and you can see the results!!!

Following was the result after my vote Nov 13 2016 approx 11 AM

Thank you for voting!

Yes, lock her up! 85.35%

Other (Comment below) 7.94%

No, she should be pardoned. 6.71%

Democratic party coup is facially incompetent

12 November A.D. 2016 [GMT]

Democratic party coup is facially incompetent

MARYLAND wants to change the rules after the game is lost.
https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-maryland-refusing-electoral-college-hillary-given-presidency-as-more-states-follow/

3 USCS § 8. Manner of voting

The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.

§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors.

The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.

Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A;

and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates;

and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.

Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision;

and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision;

and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title [3 USCS § 6] from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 [3 USCS § 5] of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State;

but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title [3 USCS § 5], is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law;

and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.

No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

What we have here are the means by which the "republican"-controlled congress can allow or disallow any STATE's electoral vote. Thus, a STATE that announces its vote as dependent not on the party winning that STATE's vote but rather on winning the "popular vote" is subject to objection and disqualification.
This author expects, though, that the problem runs much deeper, legally speaking. The "electors" selected in those STATEs would have either to abide by the oaths taken at the time the then-existing threshold qualifications were applied, i.e., the qualifications set at the time of the primaries, which oaths would recognize the electoral perspective, or to be treated as disqualified.
It'd be some study into "party" by-laws and STATE statutes to determine how the "electors" would be replaced. Since the rules would have changed mid-game/stream, there's some question as to whether the people would be involved in the re-selection process or whether the "party" would just act without "popular" participation. Where the STATE and "the party" act in concert to change the rules mid-game/stream without subjecting that proposal to the people in that STATE (presuming the people are the ones relied upon to select the "electors"), there'll then be a "federal question" as to whether that constitutes interfering with agreements, namely the agreements entered into by those intending to qualify initially. That then raises an issue of standing, because the people most likely to object are those who are not directly affiliated with that "party." Although, since we're talking about filling an office that is subject not to STATE law but US law, there may be a basic federal question just because the rules were changed mid-game/stream. It's this sort of "change of position" mid-way that gives rise to some "ancient" (very settled) concepts of "estoppel."
The practical upshot for MARYLAND isn't a practical change in the outcome. And, should other STATES for which the "electoral" vote already is "called" for a womam who very likely did die in Sept. 2016, again, the practical change, if such mid-game/stream rule changes are allowed, is none. What changes is what happens four years from now, and, by then, God may have so intervened that the notion of "electoral college" disintegration (at the hands of the communists) will no longer be an issue in anyone's mind.
This is just one more way to keep things disrupted through the "end of year spending season." The commercial solution is to spend very little (none where possible) and absolutely not to increase one's debt obligations.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
Legal Reality Email Resource page: http://home.earthlink.net/~track21_comm/LegalReality/

PUTIN ISSUES INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANT FOR GEORGE SOROS … DEAD OR ALIVE

The Real Strategy

Russia has officially declared that Billionaire George Soros is a wanted man in their country, citing him and his organizations as a “threat to Russian national security”.

Putin banned Soros from Russia last year due to the fact that Soros helped to nearly destroy the Russian economy in the early 1990’s.

Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone said of Goldman Sachs six years ago:
“The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
“In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.”

Obviously Soros wants to be like Goldman Sachs. Phil Butler puts it well when he says: “George Soros has a finger in every political pie there is. If there is a crisis on our world, it’s a safe bet he’s had a hand in it.”

One can say that Soros and Goldman Sachs are ideologically part of the same brotherhood. Their strategy is a little different, but the end result is the destruction of lives via the economic system (be it capitalism or socialism) and political manipulation.

That’s why Soros seems to think that he is invincible. He thinks he can move the political and economic planet in a few blinks of an eye and no one can tell him to stop. In fact, he writes books such as The Alchemy of Finance. Soros thinks he can kill political stability throughout Europe and indeed in America with no challenge.

Soros is certainly old, but he doesn’t want to be obsolete. His organization has recently been caught conducting covert operations designed to destabilize Russia. Here is an interesting quote from the leaked files of Soros’ Open Society Foundation:
“Our inclination is to engage in activities and with actors that will understand and counter Russian support to movements defending traditional values…Naming and shaming from us is problematic: we are also in the business of channeling money into other countries for political purposes.”

http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/11/putin-issues-international-arrest-warrant-for-george-soros-dead-or-alive/

New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly

May 14, 2014: Pedestrians wait for cabs across the street from The New York Times in New York. (AP)

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.

Letter to NYT readers from Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet pic.twitter.com/jORqzx3BA9
— Sydney Ember (@melbournecoal) November 11, 2016

New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it [The Times] demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."
Sulzberger's letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump campaign discombobulated.

The NYT would do well to plant some roots in Red America https://t.co/HDd4SFJqtq
— Liz Spayd (@spaydl) November 9, 2016

Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”
She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”

“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Sulzberger -- who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly -- also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”

“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.

FBI 'ran 23 child pornography sites in a bid to lure and catch online predators', stunning unsealed documents reveal

The FBI reportedly operated almost two dozen child pornography websites hidden on the dark web to lure and catch predators.

Unsealed documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union revealed investigators had the authorization to run 23 such websites.

It had already been known that the agency ran the website, Playpen, to help identify users.

The FBI reportedly operated almost two dozen child pornography websites hidden on the dark web to lure and catch predators

The sites were, 'dedicated to the advertisement of child pornography, the discussion of matters pertinent to child sexual abuse', according to Ars Technica.

The agency's sites also monitored: 'methods and tactics offenders used to abuse children, as well as methods and tactics offenders used to avoid law enforcement detection while perpetuating online child sexual exploitation crimes.'

The FBI hoped to distribute malware to users of the sites so that they could be identified.

The new documents also revealed the trap sites were ran out of a government facility, and they were able to learn the identities and IP addresses of users.

The FBI sites were reportedly, 'dedicated to the advertisement of child pornography, the discussion of matters pertinent to child sexual abuse'

The new information was found in documents that were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union

Cybercrime expert Fred Jennings told Ars Technica there is: 'no other way to read (the documents) than websites 1-23 were hosted at a government facility, with the FBI's knowledge and to the FBI's informational benefit.

'It's clever phrasing on their part.'

An FBI spokesman said he was unaware of an operation with 23 websites, according to a statement given to the website.

DailyMail.com contacted the FBI for comment.

FBI operated 23 Tor-hidden child porn sites, deployed malware from them | Ars Technica

Trump-Putin alliance sparks diplomatic crisis as British ministers demand assurances from US over Russia

Britain is facing a diplomatic crisis with the US over Donald Trump’s plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime.
In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain will have some “very difficult” conversations with the President-elect in coming months over his approach to Russia.

It comes after Mr Trump used his first interviews since winning the US election to indicate that he will withdraw support for rebels in Syria and thank Vladimir Putin for sending him a “beautiful” letter.

Mr Trump said that he will instead join forces with Russia and focus on defeating Isil. He has previously said it would be “nice” if the US and Russia could work together to “knock the hell out of Isil”.

His views are in stark contrast with those of Theresa May, who has accused President Assad’s regime of perpetrating “atrocious violence” and said that the long-term future of Syria must be “without Assad”.

Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has accused Russia of perpetrating war crimes over the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

The dramatic shift in US policy has prompted significant concern in the Foreign Office, and Britain will use the next three months before Mr Trump enters the White House to try to convince him of the importance of removing President Assad.

Mr Johnson is expected to fly to the US within weeks to meet with senior figures in Mr Trump’s administration and make clear that Britain believes that Mr Assad must go.

The diplomatic tensions emerged as a flotilla of Russian warships which passed through the English Channel has now arrived off the coast of Syria ahead of a major offensive against Isil.
In other developments:

Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, warned that European members of Nato have become “too dependent” on the support of the US after Mr Trump accused them of failing to pull their weight.
Mrs May will on Monday highlight the importance of globalisation to international security in an ever-changing World. She will also compare the US election to Brexit and say that that the West must recognise the concerns of people who have “seen their communities changed" by migration.
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, met with members of Donald Trump's inner circle at Trump Tower in New York after saying Theresa May must "mend fences" with the President Elect.
Marie Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right Front National, praised President Putin for “defending the interests of his own country” as she criticised US and European aggression towards Russia.
Mr Johnson boycotted a “crisis” meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels to discuss how Europe will deal with the aftermath of the US election.
Mr Trump said on Twitter yesterday: "This will prove to be a great time in the lives of all Americans. We will unite and we will win, win, win!"

In his first interview Mr Trump told the Wall Street Journal that his administration will prioritise defeating Isil in Syria rather than removing President Assad.

He told the Wall Street Journal: "I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you're fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS.

“Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria. Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are."
He added that if the US attacks President Assad’s regime “we end up fighting Russia”.

The Sunday Telegraph understands that Britain will spend the next two months trying to convince Mr Trump's team of the need to remove President Assad. The issue will be the “number one” priority.

The Government had hoped that Mr Trump would be prepared to soften his stance on the issue after winning the election, as he has with several other flagship plans including his pledge to repeal Obamacare. However his interview signalled that he will pursue the alliance with Russia.

Foreign Office officials believe that it will be “incredibly difficult” but emphasised that Britain will not change its position.

“We have been very clear that Assad has no place in the future of Syria,” the official said. “He has the blood of 400,000 people on his hands.”
Another Foreign Office source said that there is hope that Mr Trump will be forced to change his position when he deals with Mr Putin directly.

“There is no doubt that he looks upon Putin as a person who he thinks he can do business with,” the source said. “When he discovers that Putin is not a rational or reasonable guy he might change his mind. This will take time to settle down.”
It came as Vladimir Putin urged Donald Trump to encourage Nato to withdraw its forces from Russia's borders as part of a bid to improve relations.

Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's official spokesman, said in an interview with The Associated Press that Russia now sees "NATO's muscles getting bigger and bigger and closer and closer to Russian borders." He said that as a "confidence-building measure" between the US and Russia Mr Trump could help relations between the US and Russia by "slowing down" or "withdrawing" Nato's military presence entirely from its borders.

There are also mounting concerns over the future of Nato after Mr Trump suggested that the US may withdraw support from the organisation because European members are failing to “pay their bills”.

During a visit to Norway Sir Michael Fallon agreed that the levels of expenditure by EU countries is “not good enough”.

Defence spending by European members has fallen from 1.7 per cent of national income to 1.4 percent on average. Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain all spent less than one per cent last year.

It came as four Americans were killed yesterday in a suicide bombing inside the largest US military base in Afghanistan, The Taliban claimed responsibility for the bombing inside the heavily fortified Bagram Airfield, north of the capital Kabul, which left 16 other US service members and a Polish soldier wounded.
The assault highlights rising insecurity in Afghanistan nearly two years after US-led Nato forces formally ended their combat operations.

Sir Michael said: “When we go out of the EU, only 20 per cent of the Nato budget be paid by EU countries. That's not good enough. Therefore, we ask that rich European countries spend more on defence.”

The Prime Minister will on Monday evening say in an address at Mansion House in London that Brexit and Mr Trump’s election shows that “change is in the air”.
She will say: “A year ago, few among us would have predicted the events ahead. A clear, determined decision to leave the European Union and forge a bold, new, confident future for ourselves in the world. And, of course, a new President-elect in the US who defied the polls and the pundits all the way up to election day itself."

While defending globalisation she will say that Britain and the West must recognise the concerns of those who feel left behind.

She will say: “These people – often those on modest to low incomes living in rich countries like our own – see their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut. They see their communities changing around them and don’t remember giving their permission for that to be the case.”

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, hopes that he can act as a “bridge” between Britain and Mr Trump and help to address concerns about the future of Nato.
He told Fox News: “Mrs May’s team have been quite rude about Trump. There are some fences to be mended. He’s got to meet her. We can have a sensible trade relationship, cut tariffs, we’re massive investors in each other countries, we’ve got a bright future.”

Ms Pen told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC One that US and European aggression have provoked Russia. She also suggested Mr Trump's victory increases her chances of becoming President because of her patriotism.
Ms Le Pen said: "The model that is defended by Vladimir Putin, which is one of reasoned protectionism, looking after the interests of his own country, defending his identity, is one that I like, as long as I can defend this model in my own country."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/trump-putin-alliance-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/

Betrayal is a B!*ch - Clinton Campaign Blames “Most Devastating Loss in the History of American Politics” on Media for being Pro-Trump

n a completely and utterly amazing statement, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta told supporters on Thursday that Clinton's loss was "the most devastating loss in the history of American politics."

Podesta's comments came while in the midst of a conference call to Clinton's campaign team, as well as several donors.

"The media always covered her as the person who would be president and therefore tried to eviscerate her before the election, but covered Trump who was someone who was entertaining and sort of gave him a pass," Podesta said. "We need to reflect and analyze that and put our voices forward."

Wow! Can you believe that statement after the beating Donald Trump took during debates and the primaries by the very media Podesta is talking about?
Trump would often scold the media for how they reported things and how they would twist things. In fact, in referencing the media in an October Time Magazine article, Trump said, "We need to be mindful of the fact that they're going to continue, they won't quit, they're going to continue to throw mud," he said of the press, adding that Clinton supporters need to "defend her and her legacy and the kind of person she is."
The Hill reports on the private call:

At one point on the call, Podesta noted that Comey is the guy "who we think may have cost us the election," according to one Clinton surrogate who relayed details about the call to The Hill.

Another unidentified aide also seemed to blame Comey.

"We saw turnout down and didn't do nearly as well as we thought. Something happened and it happened in a pretty steady way late in the race," the aide said, according to the surrogate.

The surrogate said the clear message from the call was that Comey had contributed to the declining turnout.

"That last week, it was just one too many things," Palmieri added later, referring to the post-Comey final week of the campaign.

The issue is not James Comey. Comey wasn't planning on doing anything to Clinton in the first place. He already had the goods on her and chose purposefully not to recommend that she brought up on charges, and there's millions of reasons why. If anything, Podesta and company should thank James Comey as he did nothing more than put in the minds of many people the idea that Clinton was innocent of any wrong doing simply because there was no real attempt to prosecute her.

As for the claims about the media, I hope everyone gets a good laugh at that one as Clinton actually garnered more votes from people than did Trump. Thank God the founders had enough sense about them to install the Electoral College so that we might not be ruled as a democracy, but as a Republic.

http://freedomoutpost.com/clinton-campaign-blames-most-devastating-loss-in-the-history-of-american-politics-on-media-for-being-pro-trump/

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Stuff They Don't Want You to Know - The Thorium

This is a good read…

I’m going to let all you upset Hillary supporters in on a little secret. To those of you questioning now how you will ever be able to raise a child in a world full of hate and bigotry, saying this election has provided even a further wedge in our nations divide, etc. Donald J. Trump will not come into your home and teach your children real values and morals, you will. He will not hold your hand and walk you down the street and tell you to smile when you pass a stranger, you will. He will not teach your children to not see color, gender, nor disabilities, you will. He will not teach your children to be open-minded toward others beliefs, views, and opinions, you will. WE are the ones that shape our communities, WE are the only ones that can solve this racial divide, and WE are the ones that can really make the difference in our lives, our childrens lives, and each others lives.

But, some things he will do is clean up this mess of a tax system, healthcare system; strengthen our military, back the blue, support our vets, bring jobs back, strengthen our borders, and sustain our given rights as Americans. All so that you CAN raise a child in a safe and great America. The rest is up to you, and up to US as Americans. The days of handouts, the blame game, and participation trophies are officially over, let’s take on the responsibility of our behaviors and make a change in our own back yards.

Now…Let’s HELP make America GREAT again!!!

You created 'US'

Copied from, Lydia Lyon: Dear Democrats and Liberals,

I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.

Some of you are apparently "triggered". Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.

How did this happen you ask.

You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.

You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.

You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.

You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.

You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.

You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.

You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.

You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.

You created "us" when you attacked our flag.

You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.

You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.

You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.

You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.

You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.

You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.

You created "us" the silent majority.

And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.

And we did it with ballots, not bullets.

NESARA- REPUBLIC NOW - GALACTIC NEWS

Sunday, November 13, 2016