America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Thursday, May 18, 2023
LAWYERS AND OTHER LIARS! - ELIZABETH WARREN clearly lied her way into a Harvard Law School professorship and an erstwhile presidential candidacy by claiming, in part, quite falsely she was a Native American, supposedly Harvard’s first indigenous law professor.
But if that’s the case, why haven’t federal prosecutors
also gone after Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? She
clearly lied her way into a Harvard Law School
professorship and an erstwhile presidential candidacy by
claiming, in part, quite falsely she was a Native American,
supposedly Harvard’s first indigenous law professor.
Federal prosecutors last week announced the indictment of U.S. Representative George Santos (R-N.Y.) on a host of charges, including misuse of federal campaign funds and wire fraud, almost all of them resulting from his pathological lies.
Certainly, Santos deserved the attention of prosecutors for lying on federal documents and affidavits that may have helped him win a congressional seat as well as personal lucre.
But if that’s the case, why haven’t federal prosecutors also gone after Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? She clearly lied her way into a Harvard Law School professorship and an erstwhile presidential candidacy by claiming, in part, quite falsely she was a Native American, supposedly Harvard’s first indigenous law professor.
Her Senate colleague, Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), flatly lied (he said “misspoke”) about being a Vietnam War veteran. He never confessed to “misspeaking” about his résumé until caught. Both senators, apparently like Santos, gained political traction in their various campaigns from such lies, but the two apparently never put them in writing, or at least not as blatantly as did Santos.
New Federal Standards?
Are federal and states prosecutors now setting a new moral and legal standard by criminalizing Santos’ lies? If true, congratulations—it is long overdue.
Now can we please extend the long arm of the law to reach far beyond a bit player like Santos?
Why not reboot with the really big liars? Their lies far more undermined the integrity of our key agencies and indeed our national security.
So let us start with John Brennan, the former CIA director. He lied on two separate occasions, in one case while under oath before the U.S. Senate. His untruths were not mere campaign finance fabrications. They involved falsely swearing that the CIA did not spy on the computers of Senate staffers (“Let me assure you the CIA was in no way spying on [the committee] or the Senate.”). He also lied that U.S. drone missions in prior years had not killed innocent bystanders (“There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.”).
Brennan, only when caught, admitted to both lies. But he faced zero consequences and, in fact, was soon rewarded with an on-air analyst job at MSNBC.
Then we come to James Clapper, the former director of the Office of National Intelligence. Like Santos, he lied. But unlike Santos, Clapper was under oath to Congress. And further unlike Santos, Clapper was not a small fish, but a whale in charge of coordinating the nation’s intelligence bureaus.
Clapper’s lies mattered a great deal, especially when he swore to Congress that the National Security Agency did not spy on Americans. (“No, sir. Not wittingly.”) When caught, Clapper confessed that he gave “the least untruthful answer.” (“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying ‘no.’”). He faced zero consequences for his perjury. And like Brennan, he marketed his anti-Trump phobias into a comfortable cable news gig.
Note well that both Clapper and Brennan likely lied again when they signed the infamous Hunter Biden laptop letter, with a wink and nod suggesting it was a hallmark example of “Russian disinformation.”
Then we come to the former interim FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He is also currently working as a cable news commentator. McCabe admitted to lying—according to the inspector general, “done knowingly and intentionally”—four separate times to federal investigators, three times under oath. McCabe misled the country in matters that concerned a national election, more specifically lying that he had not leaked to the media to massage media narratives about the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
Then there is James Comey, another former FBI head, who confirmed McCabe had lied. He simply claimed on 245 occasions to House investigators and members that he either had no memory or had no knowledge, when asked under oath to explain some of the wrongdoing of the FBI during his directorship. Remember, Comey and the FBI signed off on the authenticity of Steele document material to obtain a FISA warrant, when they knew it was unreliable and Steele was not credible. Comey also likely leaked to the media a confidential memo officially memorializing a private conversation with the president of the United States.
Should we include yet another former FBI director? Robert Mueller swore under oath to Congress that he knew little about Fusion GPS (“I’m not familiar with that”) and more or less had ignored the Steele dossier. (“It’s not my purview.”) Mueller’s claims cannot be true because revelations about both were the very catalysts that prompted his own special counsel appointment.
Will the Santos prosecutors go after Anthony Fauci, the recently retired head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases?
Fauci seemingly lied under oath to the Senate when he preposterously claimed the money he channeled through a third party to the Wuhan virology lab did not entail support for gain-of-function virology research. (“The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”) Many virologists were aghast at Fauci’s claims, since they knew gain-of-function research conducted in China—the point being to skirt U.S. laws—was precisely what the U.S.-subsidized researchers in China were doing.
The Bidens
Prosecutors are currently looking at the various shenanigans of Hunter Biden, whose lies may even be a match for those of George Santos. Joe Biden’s son apparently lied on his firearms background check affidavit when applying for a handgun purchase—so far, with impunity.
When asked point blank on national television whether his lost laptop was his own—he had signed a receipt for it at the repair shop—Biden refused to give a yes or no answer.
Hunter Biden has apparently de facto lied for years when he purportedly did not report either his entire income or his real business expenses accurately, or that he was the father of a child he conceived with an ex-stripper in Arkansas.
If Hunter’s lies do not match the number of Santos’ prevarications, his were at least far more significant. His lie that the laptop was not his prompted current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a former top Biden 2020 campaign aide, to call up Mike Morell, former interim CIA director. Morell’s mission was to round up as many intelligence authorities as he could to lie on the eve of a presidential election that the laptop had “all the hallmarks” of “Russian disinformation.” He found 51, including himself. Apparently, some active members of the CIA pitched in as well to lend the letter additional authenticity.
Note that Morell swears Blinken called him to solicit signers of the bogus letter, while Blinken claims he did not. So either the current secretary of state or the former interim director of the CIA is lying—or they both are. Again, among the first to sign the fraudulent intelligence letter were Brennan and Clapper. They apparently had earned a reputation as team players, given that both men had been willing to lie under oath to Congress. Misleading the nation again about the laptop to aid Joe Biden’s campaign was small potatoes.
Biden, on spec, promulgated the lie when he said in his second debate with Trump, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it, except his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”
A subsequent poll suggested the Bidens’ concocted laptop lies may have influenced voters to side with Biden in the election. If true, that was a lie that should be of far more interest to current federal prosecutors than Santos’ crazy fairy tales.
The Lies of the “Big Guy”
So we come to the greatest prevaricator of all.
Joe Biden flat-out lied on numerous occasions, such as when he claimed that he never discussed the family shake-down business with Hunter Biden.
Joe Biden, in fact, turns up on the laptop as someone deeply connected to Hunter Biden’s quid pro quo companies (“10 [percent] for the Big Guy”). Tony Bobulinksi, a former business associate of Hunter’s, has sworn that Joe and his brother Jim Biden were deeply involved in their foreign leveraging efforts.
A photo shows Joe Biden with Hunter’s “business” associates. Will the current Santos prosecutors turn their attention to the Oval Office occupant’s financial records to determine whether his lavish private homes and lifestyle were viable under his reported stated income?
Biden lied to Americans dozens of times to get elected. The tragic death of his wife in a car accident was not due to the drunkenness and fault of a truck driver. That was a horrific smear designed to shift blame onto an innocent man and gain sympathy for himself.
He lied that his son, Beau, died while serving in Iraq.
Biden dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after he was caught lying about his college records and plagiarizing a speech from a British politician.
So we know that in the past, Joe Biden’s lies have left a mark on history in a fashion that Santos’ never will.
When Biden prefaces his whoppers with “No joke!” or “This is the God’s honest truth!” and especially when he swears, “My word as a Biden!” then it is a fair bet that he is lying.
When Biden entered office, he lied about the number of Americans previously vaccinated under the Trump Administration and preposterously claimed there had been no COVID vaccine available.
He lied that his loan forgiveness amnesty passed Congress by two votes. In fact, Biden simply declared amnesty by fiat and never submitted the request to Congress at all.
He repeatedly lies that billionaires pay only three percent of their income in taxes on average. He lies about minor details, from giving his Uncle Frank a purple heart to matters of national concern, such as the price of gas when he entered office. It was most certainly not $5 a gallon!
Biden constantly lies about his résumé. He was never a long-haul truck driver. Nor was he a star athlete almost headed for the Naval Academy on a sports scholarship if only Dallas Cowboys legend Roger Staubach had not beat him out. “I was appointed to the academy in 1965 by a senator who I was running against in 1972. I didn’t come to the academy because I wanted to be a football star. And you had a guy named Staubach and Bellino here. So I went to Delaware.”
His house was never almost destroyed by a fire. He was never raised “politically” as a Puerto Rican. Biden never pinned the Silver Star on a Navy Afghanistan war hero for bringing back the body of a fellow soldier from a deep ravine. He was never arrested, either in South Africa or in Atlanta, for demonstrating on behalf of civil rights.
No foreign leader can believe Biden. He never traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He lied about his own Amtrak travel. He lied about his record on inflation and economic growth. He lied about upping Social Security payments. (It was a larger-than-usual automatic cost-of-living increase spurred by his inflationary policies.) He lied about the nature of the Trump tax cuts.
Biden keeps lying that the southern border is “secure” even as nearly 2 million people have crossed illegally on his watch and tens of thousands more are massed to enter the country as Title 42 restrictions are lifted.
He insists that five police officers died at the hands of protestors on January 6, 2021. In truth, the one person we know for certain who died violently that day was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed protester who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police lieutenant with a checkered record, whose identity was suppressed for months while Babbitt’s past was sullied by the press.
Biden’s defenders hint that either he is cognitively compromised and thus not responsible—as if he has told the truth the last 40 years when he was hale!—or his lies are mere “exaggerations” unlike the “lies” of Trump—as if lying about the death of one’s spouse or son or school record or resume or major legislation or his presidency is a mere “exaggeration.”
As a general rule, since 2015, if any federal bureaucrat or elected official lied in service of opposing Donald Trump, he was exempted from consequences. If not, he was properly held responsible for his lying. So the more that the fake Steele dossier, the Russian collusion hoax, and the Russian disinformation laptop lie warped the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the more the promulgators of those falsehoods never faced any consequences for their untruths.
So, yes, let federal prosecutors go after the lying George Santos to set a precedent that the lying of government officials has consequences.
But in the great scheme of lying things, Santos is a prevaricating minnow who was snagged to great acclaim because the lying sharks swim and circle with impunity.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Elizabeth Warren, makin' it up again, this time about bein' too poor to go to college
Is Elizabeth Warren misrepresenting her history, poormouthing her lower middle class background into dirt-poor 'can't-even-afford-a-college-application-fee' poor?
By the time I graduated high school, my folks couldn't even afford a college application—much less four years of college. High school debate gave me amazing opportunities, and it was great to meet Oklahoma’s state champions!
Matt Margolis at PJMedia interprets that as a phony suggestion that she was so poor she couldn't even afford to go to college. She went to college just fine, he notes, suggesting she was concealing her record.
But I read it slightly differently from him. What she's saying is that only a debate scholarship, at George Washington University, got her in, according to her tweet. No scholarship, no college.
Which is suspect in itself, given that she probably would have had to pay the George Washington University application fee anyway just to have been able to apply for the scholarship. If she did, somehow she would have gotten mom and dad to shell out for that.
To say that George Washington was her first-choice of school is suspect, too, given that there are lots and lots of schools out there and she probably applied to others, too, fancier and less fancy, meaning, her parents paid application fees for them, too, somehow not being too poor to afford them, as she said.
A GWU application fee, based on estimates of other schools at the time, probably would have been about $25. The fanciest schools in 1965 charged in the $35 to $50 range (and these are very rough ballpark figures) so for less-prestigious schools such as George Washington University, which today is a distinguished school, but years ago, was considered middling, would have been around $25.
She couldn't afford that? She probably did afford that, and more, more, more.
George Washington, which knows the ways of Washington, has always been an expensive school. Tuition in 1965 at GW was $700 a semester, or $1,400 a year in 1965, which was likely more than other places. Warren claiming she couldn't go to college, was probably a reference to being unable to go to pricey George Washington U without a scholarship.
Yet she did get into George Washington all right, supposedly by the skin of her teeth on a debate scholarship, and says that without it there would be no college at all for her. Actually, there probably just would have been no George Washington.
To me, it's telling that she specifically mentioned college-application fees, rather than tuition itself. My parents weren't all that different from hers, from hardscrabble and small town backgrounds (in their case, in the Midwest), and around 1980 when I applied to college, it wasn't a matter of them not being able to pay the fees, they just didn't want to. Why should they pay fees to high-falutin' places in far off states when there were good state schools and they had been paying taxes to support them for years?
It was probably the same deal with Warren's parents in Oklahoma, which also has good state schools. In my case, if I wanted to apply to those other places, I had to cough up the money myself.
Warren herself negated her own argument about college not being affordable when it turns out she ended up finishing at a state college, this time in Texas, where she moved with her first husband after dropping out of George Washington U. So much for college being out of reach, it was there for her in 1965 and it's still there now.
What I suspect happened with Warren was that her parents knew she was a bad investment and would probably drop out to marry someone, so why pay for a degree that would be unlikely to be completed? They would have known that she was flighty and put her boyfriend matters before academics, and didn't have the wherewithal to complete a college degree. Why finance that if the figured she'd just marry and dump the degree stuff they'd shelled out so much for? It would be throwing good money after bad. No wonder they didn't want to pay for her college application fees.
Now she's making herself the victim and her state college degree after a scholarship dropout elsewhere a virtue.
It's another phony story, almost as phony as her fake-Indian story, her fake fired-pregnant-teacher story, or her fake research, but now she's getting more sophisticated in her inventions.
Shock Poll: Dem Elizabeth Warren Surprisingly Vulnerable, Trails GOP’s Charlie Baker by Double Digits
Former Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) holds a double-digit lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in a hypothetical U.S. Senate race match-up in Massachusetts, according to a poll.
The poll, conducted by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, shows that 49 percent of the likely voter respondents would back Baker if he announced a bid, placing him 15 points ahead of Warren at 34 percent.
Moreover, the moderate Republican leads by a wide margin with independents, as Fiscal Alliance Foundation spokesman Paul D. Craney noted in a release associated with the survey:
Senator Warren has significantly higher unfavorable numbers than her fellow Democrats statewide and that seems to be creating an opening for Baker, who always enjoyed large amounts of cross-party appeal. Looking at the cross tabs, Republicans seem to coalesce behind Baker (79%) in a way that Democrats do not around Warren (56%), and Baker leads with independent/unenrolled voters 2-1 at 57-26%.
Warren’s favorability rating is 5 points above water, with 49 percent finding her favorable and 44 percent saying she is unfavorable, including 35 percent who find her “very unfavorable.” As Craney pointed out, her favorability rating indicates she is far less secure than some of her fellow prominent elected Democrat officials in the Bay State.
For instance, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s net favorability rating is plus 16 percent, as 47 percent view her positively, versus 31 percent who do so negatively. Similarly, 52 percent of likely voters say newly-minted Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) is favorable compared to 27 percent who say she is unfavorable, giving her a net rating of plus 25 percent.
Baker and Warren both ran their last general election campaigns in 2018, and – perhaps surprisingly – Baker commanded more votes than Warren as a state-wide candidate that year and won his race by a larger margin than she won hers. In his contest against Democrat Jay Gonzalez, Baker took 1,781,982 votes to Gonzalez’s 886,281, an impressive margin of 67 percent to 33 percent for a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts.
The general election for U.S. Senate in 2018 saw a race between Warren and Republican Geoff Diehl, who lost last year’s gubernatorial race to Healey. Warren garnered 1,643,213 votes, or 60 percent of the electorate, to Diehl’s 979,507 votes (36 percent).
While the poll looks promising for Baker, it remains to be seen if he will launch a bid for the seat after becoming the president of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) a few months ago.
The Fiscal Alliance Foundation sampled 750 likely voters May 7-8. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percent, with a 95 percent confidence level.
Echoes of Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren as fake Indian professor uncovered at Cal Berkeley, facing demands to resign
Warren’s Anti-Corruption Plan Does Not Prevent Hunter Biden Scenario
An anti-corruption plan put forth by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the 2020 Democrat presidential primary would not prevent a scenario where a sitting vice president’s child is allowed to serve on the board of a foreign corporation, as former Vice President Joe Biden’s son did.
Warren: We Are Headed for Financial Crisis as Bad as 2008
Elizabeth Warren: Lying, Money-Laundering Socialist
No comments:
Post a Comment