Israel have unveiled plans to impose internet censorship across the world’s social media platforms by building an “international coalition” to counter criticism of Israel.
The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan announced hits internet censorship plans in an article in the Times of Israel, where he calls for “developing legislation in conjunction with European countries,” most of which “are very interested in this idea.”
The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are, a spokesman for the minister told the Israeli-based newspaper.
“Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty,” he added.
With the official story in free fall, Americans are wondering just who did this heinous deed. With the US Government itself the prime suspect, many are asking if the US Government had help from an outside nation, one with a long track record of world-changing dirty tricks.
As people start to seriously examine the plethora of evidence regarding Israel’s numerous perfidies it comes as no surprise that recently we have seen Israel’s “useful idiots” launch a propaganda campaign to claim that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9-11 attacks, based on a lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims, and a secret report that Representatives Stephen F. Lynch and Walter B. Jones are demanding be made public; a report that purportedly claims Saudi arabia was behind 9-11. But anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone for anything. That does not mean the lawsuit allegations are true. Nonsense lawsuits are a reality of the modern US court system, as are lawsuits staged primarily as political and propaganda stunts, which is what this appears to be. Likewise, the report the Representatives wish to make public appears to be the US Government’s attempt to “get ahead of the ball” and craft a new lie to replace the one that has failed. At the very least these two pieces of propaganda are intended to deflect interest away from Israel. At worst, it is the start of the campaign to justify military invasion of that country, just asSaddam’s nuclear weapons were the excuse to invade Iraq, and the more recently (and thankfully failed) attempt to justify invasion of Syria by claiming Syria’s government was gassing their own people.
As I have mentioned before, the best way to tell if you are being lied to is to look for what should be there but isn’t. In the case of the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, what should be there and isn’t is a motive for Saudi Arabia to do something like that.
Saudi Arabia does not have a history of dirty tricks, nor a demonstrated ability to carry out such deceptions. More to the point, Saudi Arabia has no motive to attack the United States. The Saudi princes have grown very rich indeed through the Petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia buys many American products and weapons ($61 billion in 2011), and unlike Israel, the American taxpayer does not have to give them the money first with which to buy those weapons. Whereas Israel constantly takes money out of the US, the Saudis pour it in! Private Saudi investment in the US economy is over $400 billion. Saudi Arabia is a major creditor to the US Government. Exact figures are hard to find but Saudi Arabia has loaned the US Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Saudi Arabia is not going to risk an attack on the US because all that wealth would vanish. The Saudi wealth inside the US would be frozen or seized, and the outstanding loans to the US would never be repaid. The “useful idiots” trying to save Israel by blaming 9-11 on Saudi Arabia have yet to come up with a motive for the Saudis to do something like 9-11 that risks losing all that cash.
Remember that Saudi Arabia was being framed for 9-11 right from the start. One of the accused hijackers, a Saudi Pilot named Saeed Al-Ghamdi, wasstill alive after 9-11 and sued the US Government for defaming him.
And finally, here is some common sense that totally undermines the attempt to frame Saudi Arabia for 9-11. If Saudi Arabia really wanted to hurt the United States, they don’t need to fly airplanes into skyscrapers to do it. All they have to do is ask for their money back, all at once. The resulting damage to the US financial system would make 9-11 look like a minor inconvenience in comparison.
And it would be perfectly legal for Saudi Arabia to ask for their money back.
Which is why we know that the claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11 has no more basis in fact than the claim that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that Assad gassed his own people right in front of the UN chemical weapons inspectors.
As the media tries to blame Saudi Arabia for 9-11, it is worth recalling that the Bush administration initially claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 to sell the 2003 invasion, then later admitted Iraq had actually been innocent. So there is a pattern of the US simply using 9-11 as a “one size fits all” excuse to invade yet another oil rich nation.
At the very least, even if you accept the new claim that Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, then it means the US Government was lying when they claimed Afghanistan and then Iraq were behind it! So why would you trust them now?
Alex Jones and others do not seem to understand that people are not free to do or produce that which is immoral and contrary to practical reason, as in the case of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut.
Stanley Kubrick admitted that his whole idea in directing A Clockwork Orangewas “to make an immoral person palatable.” The psychopathic main character, played by Malcolm McDowell, in order to escape the consequences of his existentially immoral actions—theft, aggravated assault, rape, and violence—tries to commit suicide in the middle of the movie by jumping out a window.
Anthony Burgess, the author who actually wrote A Clockwork Orange, has some interesting things to say about the book itself:
“It was the most painful thing I’ve ever written, that damn book. I was trying to exorcise the memory of what happened to my first wife, who was savagely attacked in London during the Second World War by four American deserters. She was pregnant at the time and lost our child. This led to a dreadful depression, and her suicide attempt.
“After that, I had to learn to start loving again. Writing that book—getting it all out—was a way of doing it. I was very drunk when I wrote it…I loathe it! And one feels so responsible putting an act of violence down on paper. If one can put an act of violence on paper, you’ve created the act! You might as well have done it! I detest that damn book now…
“I saw that the book might be dangerous because it presented good, or at least harmlessness, as remote and abstract, something for the adult future of my hero, while depicting violence in joyful dithyrambs.”
Obviously Stanley Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing to his viewers. He said:
“Watching a film is like having a daydream. It operates on portions of your mind that are only reached by dreams or dramas, and there you can explore things without any responsibility of conscious ego or conscience.”
So, if responsibility or morality is out of the question, what is left? Democracy and freedom? Or enslavement through sophisticated means? Let us allow director David Cronenberg answer that for us. Once a person dismisses morality and practical reason, says Cronenberg,
“You can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society and agent for some other power, never belonging. Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”
This is exactly what Cronenberg has tried to articulate in certainly all his movies, and it is the exact message that Kubrick is telling us in many of his films as well. Kubrick, as some scholars have pointed out, was an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche, the man who deliberately infected himself with syphilis in a demonic pact. It was Nietzsche who said that
“To be truthful means using the customary metaphor—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.”
According to the moral order, our actions in life must be subordinated to reason and not to passion or unbridled lust and manipulation. According to Nietzsche, this is incorrect. The moral order, says Nietzsche, must be dismissed, and thetransvaluation of all values is to be substituted. “Nietzsche’s thought,” one scholar argues, “run through” Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, “given the strong influence Nietzsche had on Kubrick’s work.”
But Kubrick’s other films, such as Eyes Wide Shut, is also Freudian, in that they challenge the sexual order. Scholar Karen D. Hoffman notes that Eyes Wide Shut is problematic largely because it challenges the institution of marriage:
“Marriage is an institution designed to—and predicated on the belief that individuals are able to—control the expression of sexual desire. Yet Kubrick’s film suggests that the darker forces of the personality are whimsical and unpredictable; they cannot be willed into or out of existence. The tension created by the instability and unpredictability of desire propels the film.”
This is a good assessment. But Hoffman fails to point out some of the key initiators behind Kubrick’s Eye Wide Shut. Eye Wide Shut was based on the writing of Arthur Schnitzler (1862-1931), an Austrian author and Jewish dramatist who had frequent correspondences with Sigmund Freud. “Schnitzler was branded as a pornographer after the release of his play Reigen, in which ten pairs of characters are shown before and after the sexual act, leading and ending with a prostitute.”
It was Freud who postulated in 1915 that
“Sexual morality—as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it—seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”
In 1905, Freud advocated “the granting of a greater measure of sexual freedom,” saying things like “the indissolubility of marriage” is “contrary to ‘significant ethical and hygienic principles and psychological experiences.”
Sexual freedom is what we find in Schnitzler’s work, and this was obviously why Freud praised him: “I have gained the impression that you have learned through intuition – although actually as a result of sensitive introspection – everything that I have had to unearth by laborious work on other persons.”
“Anti-Semitism” in Austria, according Peter Gay’s interpretation of Schnitzler, was “neither respectable nor dangerous.” But in order to fight whatever “anti-Semitism” he perceived there was in Austria, Schnitzler obviously thought that he had to corrupt the morals of society. How interesting that Stanley Kubrick took the work of Schnitzler and articulated it on the big screens.
Eye Wide Shut obviously garnered numerous accolades, but movie goers probably did not know that it was another manipulation by the Dreadful Few to corrupt the social order.
When Kubrick was asked the question, “Are you as dark visioned about man as your films appear to indicate?,” he didn’t hesitate in responding,
“A satirist is someone who has a very skeptical, pessimistic view of human nature, but who still has the optimism to make some sort of joke out of it. However brutal that joke might be.”
So, Kubrick was using satire to bring his audience face to face with subversive ideology. If Schnitzler’s ideas didn’t get anywhere with the masses, then Kubrick made it possible through Eyes Wide Shut.
The big question here is this: can people praise Kubrick for all his work without even mentioning his immoral dimension and covert operation in his films? How again can people like Alex Jones fail to see this?
Obviously Jones and Paul Joseph Watson pretend to tell their listeners the truth about what is happening in the world, but they are ignoring some of the most important facts on the ground.
Alex Jones and Kubrick’s daughter can talk about the Second Amendment all the day long, but neither one of them seems to understand that true freedom cannot exist without morality.
As a corollary, Jones and others do not seem to understand that people are not free to do or produce that which is immoral and contrary to practical reason, as in the case of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. If they do believe that morality should play a major role in the political firmament, then why have they been promoting Kubrick’s movies without warning?
Malcolm McDowell, the man who plays the evil character in A Clockwork Orange, believes that the movie is anti-liberal, which is to say that A Clockwork Orange is a conservative film. “Any liberal with brains should hate Clockwork,” he said, “not as a matter of artistic criticism but for the trend this film represents.”
One has to be really zombified to come up with crazy statements like that. But maybe McDowell is right: A Clockwork Orange is “anti-liberal,” which means that the so-called conservative movement is as corrupt as any other revolutionary party. If it is “anti-liberal,” and Alex Jones supports the movie without a disclaimer, then Alex Jones is corrupt.
Moreover, if Delarge is right, that the movie is anti-liberal, then its essential themes support the capitalist machine and the Neoconservative ideology in America.
By supporting A Clockwork Orange and by using the same vocabulary that his oppressors have been propounding on the West from time immemorial, Alex Jones has ultimately become a thorough representative of the Powers That Be. He is almost certainly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sure, he tells some truth here and there, but vital truth?
Paul Joseph Watson is another classic representation of that statement. When he was asked the question, “What is your opinion on Jewish influence in the media,” Watson responded,
First of all, Jews do not “control the world.” But I can see why Watson is totally confused here because he reads “the news every day.” That obviously leaves little time for scholarly research. But if Watson is denying any Jewish influence in world affairs, most specifically in America and England, here’s my little homework for him. I would encourage him to go to his public library and check out the following books, which are written almost exclusively by Jewish scholars and historians. Pay close attention to their provocative titles:
Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); R. Michael Miller, Rabbis and Revolution: The Jews of Moravia in the Age of Emancipation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012); Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2012); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Anchor Books, 1988).
There are more scholarly studies that could be cited, but we don’t want to burry Watson within an avalanche of evidence. Here is what he has to do for the rest of the year, since he declares that he hasn’t seen any evidence for (negative) Jewish influence on world affairs. He has to read those studies and tell us what he thinks.
If Watson remains silent on these issues next year, then you can be sure that this man is not worth your time and penny. If he continues to perpetuate one misleading claim after another about Muslims and ignore the big issues, then you can be sure that he is right where the Powers That Be want him. Until you get a rational answer from this man, you may want to suspend sending money to Alex Jones. You work too hard for that money.
 Quoted in Vincent Lobrutto, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography (New York: Penguin, 1997), 336.
 Gene D. Phillips, ed., Stanley Kubrick Interviews (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 2001), 106.
 David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70;
 See E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), chapter 2.
 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, trans. by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954), 47.
 Mark T. Conard, “Chaos, Order, and Morality: Nietzsche’s Influence on Full Metal Jacket,” Jerold J. Abrams, ed., The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2007), 34.
 Karen D. Hoffman, “Where the Rainbow Ends: Eyes Wide Shut,” Ibid., 78.
 Quoted in Peter Gay, Freud: A Life of Our Time (New York: Norton, 1998 and 2006), 143.
 Phillips, ed., Stanley Kubrick Interviews, 107.
 Quoted in Barry Krusch, The Kubrick FAQ (ICI Press, 2010), kindle edition.
 See for example David Horowitz, Culture Wars: The Black Book of the American Left (Los Angeles: Second Thoughts Books, 2014).
Jonas E. Alexis graduated from Avon Park High School, studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and has a master’s degree in education from Grand Canyon University.
He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.
Alexis welcomes comments, letters, and queries in order to advance, explain, and expound rational and logical discussion on issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of Christianity, and the history of ideas.
In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, Alexis asks that all queries be appropriately respectful and maintain a level of civility. As the saying goes, “iron sharpens iron,” and the best way to sharpen one’s mind is through constructive criticism, good and bad.
However, Alexis has no patience with name-calling and ad hominem attack. He has deliberately ignored many queries and irrational individuals in the past for this specific reason—and he will continue to abide by this policy.
Michael Bautista captured part of the downtown Dallas shooting on video. He saw one officer down, dragged into vehicle and taken away. The video was broadcast during a Facebook Live post. – Source: The Dallas Morning News
While ANP has received emails and seen Internet chatter with people wondering if this was a “staged” event, with some even claiming the whole thing was a hoax, we find one sentence within a Daily Mail article which leads us to believe that it was not a “hoax,” but was was an orchestrated event to use the death of these Dallas officers to create a racial civil war in America.
It is not known if the shooters were protesters, however they appear to have been militarily trained. Their motive is not clear.
Screen shot below, in case that lines ends up disappearing from the DM article, because it confirms information Doug Hagmann puts forth in an article titled “Helter Skelter in a Summer Swelter,” quoted below the screencap.
Doug Hagmann receieved a call from a Dallas, Texas police officer who indicated the MSM was already in “spin-mode” and was deliberately downplaying significant information about the shooters.
He emphasized that this was a very well-planned and well-coordinated attack that was executed with a disturbing level of precision. He described the attackers as utilizing body armor and having access to communications equipment, as well as a significant amount of weapons, ammunition and bomb-making materials and devices. He further emphasized that the planning of this attack had certain signatures of paramilitary or Muslim terrorist groups, although was careful not to make any direct linkage at this early stage. “It just had that feel,” he said.
This source stated that the methods used by the attackers in terms of “triangulation of targets” was both acknowledged and alarming, meaning that knowledge of the hastily-planned route used by the demonstrators was known and used by the perpetrators for “maximum damage.” In other words, he stated, “this [attack] against the police might have been planned before the event and adapted for use at this event, which goes back to having certain disconcerting ‘signatures’ as I just mentioned.”
Once again we see the same type of methods utilized…. black men shot – Check! BLM organizes nationwide protests – Check! Chaos ensues – Check!
This same scene has been playing out over and over again, the sole purpose is to stoke tensions to the point where civil war erupts.
Flashback 2014 – Two uniformed NYPD officers were shot dead Saturday afternoon as they sat in their marked police car on a Brooklyn street corner — in what investigators believe was a crazed gunman’s assassination-style mission to avenge Eric Garner and Michael Brown.
Flashback 2015 – Just hours after a Harris County, Tex. sheriff’s deputy was ambushed and executed at a Houston-area gas station, BLM protesters were chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”
Polizette reports that “Anti Police Rhetoric Turns Deadly,” and that is the point, the shootings aren’t a “hoax,” but they are quite possibly false flag attacks, with the sole purpose of stoking racial tensions, geared towards using the BLM patsies to stage protests in order bring about conditions that would give the government cause to declare martial law.
In reading everything out there about the massacre in Dallas, I ran across a SQ alert that ties shooting of black men by police, the following execution of cops and protests, together with other disturbing reports we have been getting regarding the increasing sightings of UN vehicles being positioned and moved across the U.S., along with the October announcement about Obama’s “global police force” to fight extremism within America.
How quickly we forget – POLICE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED BY UNITED NATIONS BLUE HATS!!!! They are within our police depts.
ANSWER TO ALL THE SENSELESS SHOOTINGS? Obama administration’s goal is to further nationalize and federalize local law enforcement. Exactly what we see happening across America. So are these federal officers American’s? The first seven cities to be targeted will be Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stockton, California. They are using U.S. taxpayer dollars to deploy federal employees charged with training LOCAL officers to act in a manner that the DOJ deems just inessence doing the bidding of the Obama administration. According to the official announcement, an unspecified number of police departments and communities will also be targeted. This made headlines in March 2015 when Obama signed the executive order. This is not the homegrown police officers that are doing this – I feel strongly in my spirit our police departments across the country (especially in large cities) have been infiltrated with the global police force Obama spoke of as early as his first campaign speeches. My prayer is that this message will be received with the discernment God gives believers to as many as possible.
FLASHBACK – RED ALERT: UN Global Police Force Invades US Cities To Hunt “Extremists”
THIS IS WAR – ‘MORE WILL BE ASSASSINATED IN THE COMING DAYS’
Former Congressman Joe Walsh deleted a tweet that created outrage on Twitter, when he stated ‘3 Dallas cops killed, 7 wounded. This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming for you,” according to Daily Mail.
That gives quite a bit of meaning to the BBC report that claims the suspect in the Dallas shooting stated “The end is coming.”
In order to understand just how ugly this is going to get, all one has to do is look at a comment on the Black Lives Matter Dallas Chapter Facebook page, where a post that is still up at the moment states “If you want to stop this. Word needs to get to Isis. When you protest, protest with signs asking Isis to help you. Do this every TIME they kill our people, I bet you you will get the attention and support you so dearly need. Protest for Isis to help us! Isis don’t hate black people, but the whites want you to think they do. Call on Isis, cuz you damn president won’t help you. Your damn hip hop rappers, Oprah, Tyler Perry, Beyonce, none of them, but Isis. Call up Isis in your protest on social media. Call!”
Screen shot below in case they delete that comment from their post:
[UPDATE] Think the BLM connection to ISIS and Muslim extremists is a coincidence? Reminder, Valerie Jarrett, 1977 – RE: Complete Muslim Takeover Underway!
Americans are being played at every level here as we see the same scenario over and over, with the MSM playing its part by highlighting each black death by cop without noting that more whites are killed by cops than black, because black deaths “generate more outrage.”
While “hoax” theories are popular, a step back to look at the bigger picture indicates an orchestrated set of events which better fit the “flase flag” definition than the hoax definition, as we note time and again incidents meant to inflame racial tensions, and they continuously happen when the nations eyes are on events that do not further the race war/civil war agenda, such as the Clinton scanadal and the FBI nullifying the rule of law by letting her off without prosecution.
Politics doesn’t garner the outrage, the violence, the atmosphere of “this is war,” mentality, so… BAM, a massacre occurs.
A Hollywood special effects expert points out some strange visuals in the Dallas shooting live coverage.
To his credit, he is focuses on ONE, specific camera angle and talks about something he has real professional experience with.
Subject: Brilliant false flag analysis
Confused by the false flag conversation?
Good. It means you’re paying attention.
It’s not a simple issue.
A Hollywood special effects expert points out some strange visuals in the Dallas shooting live coverage.
First there were many snipers. Then there was just one.
The “lone nut” conveniently left his a journal behind and was conveniently killed before anyone could talk to him.
Actually, the police did talk with him and are letting us know what he said. That’s convenient.
What’s also convenient is the timing of all this: Hillary under fire, murders by police in the news, and the slow, but steady movement towards a financial system collapse which no one has any idea what to do about.
Why did he go on a suicide mission? There was no need for that. With the skills he apparently had, he could have picked off police one-by-one for months and lived to tell the tale.
Why did he go on a suicide mission? There was no need for that. With the skills he apparently had, he could have picked off police one-by-one for months and lived to tell the tale.
Instead, he engaged in a suicide mission that created maximum sympathy for police and cast a shadow over a legitimate social movement (protests against police violence.)
How did a reservist who was a carpenter with a engineering unit become a one-man commando operation? (not everyone in the Army gets Rambo combat infantry training.)
Reuters found a picture of himself wearing African style clothes and flashing the black power salute just days before the shooting. He posted it to a Black Panther Facebook page. How convenient is that?
This incident was also used to introduce a new “law enforcement” technology: sending a robot into a property and blowing it up. A new SWAT team tool?
WHEN AMERICA WAS NOTunder the rule of Jews, a Hillary Clinton would have gotten no further than employed as an hourly wage clerk at the local five-and-dime.
But times have morphed into Jewmerica’s culture of deceit, the politics of lying is commonplace, and rank mediocrities who act as marionettes for Jews can park their arses on a swivel chair all the way into the Oval Office of the White House.
And although FBI Director James Comey told Congress that Clinton lied about her emails when testifying under Congressional oath, pressing “perjury” charges is a problematic task and could take months to pursue.
And besides, a prosecutor required to prove “intent to deceive” as an element of perjury will give Hillary and her Jewishenablers—like George Soros, JB Pritzker, and Haim Saban—plenty of wiggle room in a trial court to crawl out of the charge…especially with the Star of David parked on Capitol Hill.
It wouldn’t be the first time Hillary set up a scheme to conceal in order to bypass customary channels of public information, official business, and justice.
HERE’S WHAT FBI DIRECTORJames Comey had to say at today’s hearing:
Gowdy: Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true.
Gowdy: Clinton said, ‘I did not send classified email to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.’ Was that true?
Comey: There was classified material emailed.
Gowdy: Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Clinton said, ‘All work-related emails were returned to the State Department.’ Was that true?
THAT’S ENOUGH EVIDENCEto toss any candidate into the trash bin of political stalking. Or used to be, in better times, (pre-Jewish rule), when merely the scandal alone would have killed Hillary’s chances.
But Clinton is so prized by Jews—who control the entire electoral system—though drawn out of a sewer, Hillary’s Jewish enablers will douse her with eau de cologne so she smells like the queen of the prom.
And the queen may soon be king, and her partner in crimes and misdemeanors, Bill, may soon be queen.
Cross-dressing is now the fashion and every White House closet will soon nestle even more Jews. Even the mothballs will be marked “Kosher.”
This is not an exclusive list, nor does it relate to charges that might possibly be made against Ms. Clinton on grounds other than the unquestionable and basic ground that she moved all of her State Department email operation to a private and non-secured computer outside the State Department, and then attempted to destroy the record of those emails.
Here are the six criminal laws of that type, which, I here allege, she clearly broke:
18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure
(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure
Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction
Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(c) Whoever corruptly
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …
18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —
Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
If we are a nation “of laws, not of men” (as that old basic description of democracy phrased it), then Ms. Clinton will be prosecuted, at least through the grand jury stage, on (at least) those grounds. The decision regarding her innocence or guilt will be made by jurors, not by the broader public — and also not by the nation’s Executive: the President and his appointed Administration. That is what it means for a government to be a functioning democracy. Any government which violates this principle — that it is “of laws, not of men [including women]” — is not functioning as a democracy: it’s something else.
In addition to these criminal laws, there are federal regulations also against these matters, but violations merely of federal regulations (such as these) are far less serious than are actions that violate also federal criminal laws (such as the six that are listed above).