Kent Dunn: "Important Message to
Light Workers and White Knights"!
Meet the Fake Valerie Jarrett !!
OBAMA IS A TRAITOR AND
SHOULD BE ARRESTED ASAP!
Published on Jan 17, 2017
This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history! 62 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.
Twas the Night Before Inauguration!
Twas the night before Inauguration, and up in the tower, The Donald reflected on his newfound power.The conservative masses had come out in force, And delivered a victory that would chart a new course.The snowflakes were shell-shocked with tears in their eyes, The media lied to them . . . What a surprise.They had been promised a Hillary win,But the criminal Clinton took one on the chin.And though from all corners celebrities flew, They made no impression, for they hadn’t a clue.They talked about climate, racism, and such, And they made up good stories . . . But didn’t know much.The fake news and ignorance came at a cost, And they can’t understand all the reasons they lost.They blame it on Comey and Bernie and Vlad, But fail to acknowledge the one that was bad.Yes, Hillary Clinton, in many ways flawed, Was her own biggest hurdle toward getting the nod.The campaign exposed her corruptness and greed, And her speeches were punch-less as ten dollar weed.So out in the streets there arose such a clatter, It was Soros-paid protestors and Black Lives Matter.With cities to pillage and windows to smash, They knew not the issues, but needed the cash.Eight years of Obama had given them cause, To expect a replacement of their Santa Claus.But soon the protestors will feel the pain, When the wheels fall off of the old gravy train.And now all the snowflakes are riddled with fear, Upset and offended by things that they’ll hear.The cocoa and crayons will help for a while, But fact-based opinions will soon cramp their style.I originally supported, and voted, for Cruz, In the end, I would vote for whoever they choose.He wasn’t my first choice, but soon I would cede, The one they call Trump is the one that we need.I saw him on TV in front of a crowd,He spoke about veterans, it made me feel proud.He spoke about energy, safety, and jobs, Taking this country back from the Washington snobs.He was dressed in Armani, all tailored and neat, And the Brunos he wore made the outfit complete.
For a man of his vintage, he seemed rather fit, And he looked presidential, I have to admit.His eyes glowed like embers, his smile was the best, And his hair was the color of my old hunting vest.His love for this country was on full display, And his actions spoke louder than his words could say.He thanked all his voters, and before he was gone, Saved thousands of jobs while Obama looked on.The fate of this country left nothing to chance, So, he filled out his cabinet weeks in advance.The men he had chosen were of the same mind, Let’s set the bar high, and not lead from behind.He picked up his phone as he rose from his seat, With a flick of his finger, he sent out this tweet;“Now Mattis!, now Kelly!’ now Sessions! And Pruitt!On Perry! On Flynn, You’re the ones who can do it.Start lifting restrictions and building the wall, Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”;The roar of his audience rose from the stands, He kissed all their babies and shook all their hands.He answered their questions and calmed all their fears, They knew it would be a fantastic four years.Then he jumped in his limo, and off to his jet, A fellow that Liberals won’t soon forget.He sent one more tweet as the evening expired; “Happy Inauguration to all, AND OBAMA – YOU’RE FIRED!”
Thousands of Criminal Illegal Immigrants Sent Home After Apprehension at Southwest BorderAudit faults Border Patrol for lax oversight of consequences for criminal illegal immigrantsMorgan ChalfantJanuary 17 2017Nearly 4,000 illegal immigrants apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol at the southwest border over a three-year period were allowed to return to their home countries despite having past criminal convictions and connections to criminal networks.The statistic is included in a new government audit exposing shortcomings in the way Border Patrol agents deal with illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the border into the United States. Border Patrol agents use the Consequence Delivery System, or CDS, to classify apprehended aliens using seven criminal and noncriminal categories. They then decide which of eight consequences the apprehended aliens should receive, based on how effective the consequences are in preventing the individuals from trying again to illegally enter the United States. The CDS system plays a major role in the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to combat transnational criminal organizations and drug smuggling across the U.S. border.
ADVERTISING
However, Border Patrol agents incorrectly classified roughly 15,000 criminal alien apprehensions between fiscal years 2013-15, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued this month. Twenty-four percent of these aliens, or 3,717, were allowed to voluntarily return to their countries of origin. Voluntary return is rated as the least effective and efficient of the consequences. More severe consequences include criminal prosecution. “Our analysis showed that criminal aliens not classified in accordance with agency guidance were less likely to face prosecution and more likely to be voluntarily returned to their home country than criminal aliens overall,” the GAO investigation concluded. Border Patrol agents were less likely in 2015 to choose the most effective and efficient consequences in cases of apprehended aliens. Agents’ use of these consequences declined from 28 percent in fiscal 2013 to 18 percent in 2015; data from fiscal 2016 was not available to auditors. “Border Patrol has not assessed reasons for the relatively low application of consequences determined to be the Most Effective and Efficient consequence in each sector; but some agency officials stated that challenges include agents’ hesitation to apply consequences that require referral to federal partners facing capacity constraints, such as Department of Justice immigration courts,” the GAO wrote. Auditors found that Border Patrol significantly underestimated the recidivism rate for apprehended aliens, which the department uses to measure the performance of the CDS process. According to GAO’s analysis, 29 percent of past offenders were apprehended again in fiscal 2015, compared with the 14 percent recidivism rate reported by Border Patrol for the same time period. Auditors recommended that Border Patrol more accurately measure recidivism, collect testimony on why agents don’t apply consequences rated most effective and efficient, and boost oversight of the CDS process. Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, told the Washington Free Beacon that he plans to follow up with the department on its implementation of GAO’s recommendations. “The CBP needs to better measure the effectiveness of the consequences it provides to aliens who cross the border illegally to prevent recidivism,” McCaul said on Monday. “This report provides several recommendations to that end, and I will be following up with CBP to ensure it implements those recommendations.” The audit was issued days after retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to oversee immigration and the border as secretary of homeland security, appeared before the Senate for his confirmation hearing. Kelly, a former commander of the U.S. Southern Command, underscored the need to staunch the flow of drugs and people across the southern border with a “layered defense” that includes human patrols, sensors, and cooperation with neighboring countries like Mexico. Kelly said that a “physical barrier” like a border wall, the cornerstone of Trump’s campaign rhetoric on immigration, would not be enough on its own to secure the border. Border Patrol agents caught more than 1.1 million aliens along the southwest border over the three-year period covered by the audit. They apprehended roughly 300,000 in fiscal 2015 alone. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/thousands-criminal-illegal-immigrants-sent-home/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=dfb9c792d5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-dfb9c792d5-46164789 |
Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.
The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team — and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.
In the ensuing crisis, Russian troops moved into the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, and Manafort dropped off the radar.
Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
She said she shared her concern with Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his radar, but that he wasn’t particularly concerned about the operative’s ties to Trump since he didn’t believe Trump stood much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.
Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions. She added, though, “they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It’s a political issue, and they didn’t want to get involved politically because they couldn’t.”
Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining “we were stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to interfere into the campaign affairs.”
Shulyar said her work with Chalupa “didn’t involve the campaign,” and she specifically stressed that “We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort.”
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.
In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide an update on an American media outlet’s ongoing investigation into Manafort.
Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar that, “If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump’s involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September.”Sure seems like pretty close coordination between a DNC consultant and the official embassy of Ukraine in the midst of a Presidential election.
While it’s not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign — and certainly for Manafort — can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency — and publicized by a parliamentarian — appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, Yanukovych.
The New York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers’ existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were “a focus” of an investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Clinton’s campaign seized on the story to advance Democrats’ argument that Trump’s campaign was closely linked to Russia. The ledger represented “more troubling connections between Donald Trump’s team and pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine,” Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said in a statement. He demanded that Trump “disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort’s and all other campaign employees’ and advisers’ ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump’s employees or advisers are currently representing and or being paid by them.”
A former Ukrainian investigative journalist and current parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, who was elected in 2014 as part of Poroshenko’s party, held a news conference to highlight the ledgers, and to urge Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort.
“I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law — we have the proof from these books,” Leshchenko said during the news conference, which attracted international media coverage. “If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he has to be interrogated into this case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,” Leshchenko added.These are some really serious allegations, which makes his current behavior, which I’ll highlight later, that much more concerning.
Manafort denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, and said that he had never been contacted about the ledger by Ukrainian or American investigators, later telling POLITICO “I was just caught in the crossfire.”
The scrutiny around the ledgers — combined with that from other stories about his Ukraine work — proved too much, and he stepped down from the Trump campaign less than a week after the Times story.
At the time, Leshchenko suggested that his motivation was partly to undermine Trump. “For me, it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world,” Leshchenko told the Financial Times about two weeks after his news conference. The newspaper noted that Trump’s candidacy had spurred “Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,” and the story quoted Leshchenko asserting that the majority of Ukraine’s politicians are “on Hillary Clinton’s side.”Well, well, well…but there’s more.
An operative who has worked extensively in Ukraine, including as an adviser to Poroshenko, said it was highly unlikely that either Leshchenko or the anti-corruption bureau would have pushed the issue without at least tacit approval from Poroshenko or his closest allies.
“It was something that Poroshenko was probably aware of and could have stopped if he wanted to,” said the operative.
And, almost immediately after Trump’s stunning victory over Clinton, questions began mounting about the investigations into the ledgers — and the ledgers themselves.
An official with the anti-corruption bureau told a Ukrainian newspaper, “Mr. Manafort does not have a role in this case.”Note that the only thing that changed is Trump won the election, which apparently caused the Ukrainian government to backtrack on the entire thing after its sabotage failed to deliver the desire outcome.
And, while the anti-corruption bureau told Politico late last month that a “general investigation [is] still ongoing” of the ledger, it said Manafort is not a target of the investigation. “As he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law couldn’t investigate him personally,” the bureau said in a statement.
Some Poroshenko critics have gone further, suggesting that the bureau is backing away from investigating because the ledgers might have been doctored or even forged.
And in an interview this week, Manafort, who re-emerged as an informal advisor to Trump after Election Day, suggested that the ledgers were inauthentic and called their publication “a politically motivated false attack on me. My role as a paid consultant was public. There was nothing off the books, but the way that this was presented tried to make it look shady.”
Poroshenko’s allies are scrambling to figure out how to build a relationship with Trump, who is known for harboring and prosecuting grudges for years.
A delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians allied with Poroshenko last month traveled to Washington partly to try to make inroads with the Trump transition team, but they were unable to secure a meeting, according to a Washington foreign policy operative familiar with the trip. And operatives in Washington and Kiev say that after the election, Poroshenko met in Kiev with top executives from the Washington lobbying firm BGR — including Ed Rogers and Lester Munson — about how to navigate the Trump regime.
Weeks later, BGR reported to the Department of Justice that the government of Ukraine would pay the firm $50,000 a month to “provide strategic public relations and government affairs counsel,” including “outreach to U.S. government officials, non-government organizations, members of the media and other individuals.”The fact that foreign influence is purchased like this is simply disgusting, but I digress.
The Poroshenko regime’s standing with Trump is considered so dire that the president’s allies after the election actually reached out to make amends with — and even seek assistance from — Manafort, according to two operatives familiar with Ukraine’s efforts to make inroads with Trump.After essentially claiming that Manafort was a hired gun for Putin to intervene in the internal affairs of Ukraine, the government is now reaching out to him? You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to see something’s not adding up here. Was the entire investigation a fraud to help Hillary Clinton win the election? If so, isn’t that election interference?