The Collateral Consequences Of Hillary Clinton.

By Jerry Alatalo

“In public life, instead of modesty, incorruptibility, and honesty – shamefulness, bribery and rapacity hold sway.”

-SALLUST (86-34 B.C.) Roman historian

aaa-9Alphabet The Wall Street documentary expose’, “The Veneer of Justice in the Kingdom of Crime”, was written, produced and directed by Mr. John Titus. In the film he makes a strong case that the Obama administration Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder (the top law enforcement official in the United States), Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and others from the department protected executives of Wall Street global giant Goldman Sachs from prosecution for major financial fraud – and prison.

For those men and women who view the film, it should become readily apparent the real reasons for Hillary Clinton’s firm resolve and still-persisting refusal to show the American people the transcripts of her three (3) $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs. At the same time, the level of concern over Ms. Clinton’s nondisclosure and total lack of transparency should rise exponentially, in a natural response seeing she’s, thus far, the favorite to become the next President of the United States.

Unfortunately, Mr. Titus’ outstanding film is a documentary based on facts – and not a work of fiction. The American people are reasonable in expecting a President Hillary Clinton to appoint the same caliber of legal minds to her Justice Department as Barack Obama, illustrated by Clinton campaign advertisements featuring Eric Holder giving her his “strong” endorsement. That Mr. Holder, Mr. Breuer and other Obama Justice Department attorneys now work at the Wall Street law firm Covington & Burling representing Goldman Sachs and other major “too big to fail/jail” banks should cause Americans to stop and think.

Americans might think again about Hillary Clinton, because in the eight years of Obama’s administration not one Wall Street executive went to jail, despite what many expert observers have concluded was major, epidemic financial fraud committed in the years leading up to the economic crash of 2007-8. The people of Britain recently voted to leave the European Union in what everyone has come to know as the “Brexit”. Considering Ms. Clinton’s unyielding secrecy over her $225,000 Goldman Sachs speeches combined with the film’s Goldman Sachs-specific revelations as associated with Obama’s Justice Department officials, the American people might start looking around for the nearest “Clexit” (Clinton exit).

At first glance, an analogy of “Brexit” and “Clexit” might seem somewhat silly or even ridiculous. But after further thought, both the British and Americans share the challenge of dealing with a handful of extremely wealthy, politically connected people operating from positions of massive centralized power, able to completely escape accountability from constraining legal or democratic means. In a real sense, Americans’ electing Ms. Clinton President of the United States is the precise opposite of Brits’ voting to leave the European Union – further concentration of power versus decentralization.

As Mr. Titus’ film points out, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and their Justice Department colleagues arranged for Goldman Sachs to commit crimes with impunity, conjuring up the excuse of sparing employees, the U.S. and world economy, etc. from negative “collateral consequences”. Holder and Breuer simply made up the “collateral consequences” argument to protect their friends at Goldman Sachs from going to prison.

However, the negative collateral (parallel) consequences of a Hillary Clinton presidency would be all too real, multi-faceted – including matters of war and peace, and cause for great concern internationally – only possible through attainment of one of the most powerful positions on Earth.

(Thank you to BestEvidence at YouTube)

EU Basics – Your Guide to the UK Referendum on EU Membership

Professor Werner makes the case for Brexit…

professorwerner

by

Professor Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)

20 June 2016

The British people should be clear about just what they will be voting on at the EU referendum this Thursday. What does it actually mean to stay in the EU? What does it mean to exit?

Concerning the second question, the dominant issue in the debate has been the question whether there will be a significant negative economic impact on the UK from exiting the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron, together with the heads of the IMF, the OECD and various EU agencies have given dire warnings that economic growth will drop, the fiscal position will deteriorate, the currency will weaken and UK exports will decline precipitously. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer has threatened to cut pensions if pensioners dare to vote for exit. But what are the facts?

I have been trained in international and monetary economics…

View original post 2,760 more words