Vienna 1961 Redux: The Putin / Biden 2021 Geneva Summit

You don’t need a crystal ball to predict the consequences of the scandal over U.S. spying on European governments will have on the G7 summit in England, June 11-13 (2021). It will have little. However, it will cast a giant shadow over the critical meeting between Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, and United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in Geneva Switzerland, June 16th. This massive scandal, regardless how the mass media wishes to portray it, has shredded the US’s playbook for the summit.

 

The White House, and some Democratic members of Congress, as well as anti-Russian European lawmakers, were huffing and puffing that Biden would reproach Putin over allegations of the Kremlin’s malign conduct. Those allegations include Russian intelligence agencies and hackers interfering in Western democracies. How terribly ironic! For people willing to see the truth, this disclosure now, is a powerful self-indicting and hypocritical revelation of American and European elitists actual malign conduct.

The face to face summit was intended to demonstrate Mr. Biden as a world leader, which could set the stage for US / Russian superpower relationship for his presidency, and further the Russian / Chinese divide. Now, Mr. Putin can hardly believe his good fortunate. Yet, when dealing with US Presidents, except Donald Trump, he has always made out well. The general opinion in Russia is that recent liberal Democratic Presidents such as Carter (Iran), Clinton (Kosovo), Obama (Ukraine), and establishment Republicans such as Bush (Georgia), are, in the parlance of our time, “weak sisters.”

For Mr. Putin, the summit provides an opportunity to size up, or probably confirm his opinion of Mr. Biden, as then Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, did in Vienna, Austria, June 3 - 4, 1961*, in his meeting with US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Mr. Khrushchev was concerned how Mr. Kennedy would react to Soviet interests in Berlin — meaning the recognition of East Germany as an independent state. Mr. Putin primary concern is how Mr. Biden will react to further Russian incursion in the Ukraine. 

The Geneva Summit is yet to happen. However, it would be irresponsible not to predict what results from this summit. 

Mr. Biden is in over his head. Mr. Putin’s view of Mr. Biden is that he is weak mentally and physically. That his election to President was illegitimate. That his diplomatic record is uneventful. That his political life is spectacularly inept and corrupt. 

Ukrainian unification is not a practical possibility, and I would posit, even the Ukrainians do not want to pay the price to get it back (the annexation of Crimea and the eastern region known as Donbas). So, Mr. Putin will tell Mr. Biden that Russian annexation is the actual state of affairs. Russia will never agree to give up land it has won in the Ukraine. Mr. Biden will reply, as Mr. Kennedy had done in Berlin: 'that Russia can do what it wants to with what is yours, but do not touch what is ours' (meaning the rest of Ukraine). 

However, Mr. Putin will act in accordance with his perceived assessment of Mr. Biden’s commitment to the Ukraine. In my view, this does not augur well for the Ukraine. The summit will confirm Mr. Putin’s impression of Mr. Biden that he can be easily outmaneuver, and therefore Mr. Putin can act more aggressively in his dealings with the United States, and that there would be little price to pay for future engagements.

Thus, given this plausible scenario, it begs the question — does anyone in the Biden Administration read anything but Critical Race Theory (CRT) and/or John Rawls, A Theory of Justice? 

It’s a rhetorical question people!

*For an outstanding history of the Vienna Summit and its crucial consequences, read Frederick Kempe, “Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, And The Most Dangerous Place On Earth,” New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2011. 

COVID-19: Made In China

 

"All truth passes through three stages. 

First, it is ridiculed. 

Second, it is violently opposed. 

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”

 Arthur Schopenhauer

 

On May 26, 2021, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a bill, S. 1867, that would require an unclassified report be provided to Congress, regarding the origin of the SARS-CoV-2, aka COVID-19 virus.

As of now, Mr. Biden claims that there still is not enough evidence to determine “whether it (COVID-19) emerged from human  contact (the official Chinese government theory) with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident.”

In March 2020, the official United States government explanation was published by the National Institutes of Health’s  (NIH) article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS CoV-2, Kristian G. Andersen, et al. concluded “Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."

To date, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) still does not find plausible evidence to refute a natural origin for COVID-19. On May 5th, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, stated in an interview with National Geographic, that "If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated-the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species."

Yet, on May 23rd, Dr. Fauci, stated “that he is “not convinced” COVID-19 developed naturally and called for further investigation into the virus’s origins after the lab-leak theory had been dismissed by many as a right-wing conspiracy theory for months” (National Review, May 23, 2021). Dr. Fauci's behavior borders on schizophrenia. 

However, rational-minded people remain skeptical that COVID-19 is natural and animal-based. US Senator Tom Cotton, had this to say on Fox’s Marie Bartiromo, Sunday Morning Futures: “evidence that came out in the final days of the Trump administration, that some employees and staff at these labs may have had coronavirus-like symptoms as early as October or September of 2019, continues to point to these labs as the origin of this virus, not that food market that the Chinese Communist Party used as a cover story from the very beginning.” 

As of now, there is still no overwhelming consensus on COVID-19’s origin, mostly depending on the old policy adage, “where you stand, depends on where you sit.”

There have been multiple epidemiological studies that enhance our understanding of COVID-19’s origin. One focus was simply tracking the emergence of COVID-19. There is no evidence of an increase in pneumonia-like illness, all-cause mortality, or even purchase of medications to treat fever or respiratory symptoms prior to the emergence of illness in Wuhan in late 2019. The increase in hospitalizations and deaths started to rise in Wuhan in January 2020, and then later outside Wuhan but within Hubei Province. So the evidence does support the emergence of COVID-19 in and around Wuhan. Further, an extensive review of hospital records did not find any likely cases of COVID-19 in October or November 2019 in Wuhan, so it was likely not circulating before its emergence in December. 

Therefore. the data overwhelmingly supports Wuhan China as the epicenter of the COVID-19 virus. However, whether it was natural or made by man, is still being contested.

Moreover, there has been no paucity of scientific explanations regarding the origin of the COVID-19 virus. However, we do not need science to determine its origin. We need to understand the Chinese!

From the beginning (January 2020), it has been my belief that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not only created by the Chinese government in their Wuhan Laboratory but more balefully, was purposely let out on the world, for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump's reelection. This view is countered that to do so, the Chinese government would infect and kill many of their own people, and therefore preposterous. 

Bo, You Don't Know Diddley!

During the Korean War, Mao’s Chinese Communist Party did not hesitate to spend the lives of 190,000 (Official Chinese Government figure) to 900,000 (CIA Files), with other estimates put at 400,000 people (Michael Hickey, author of The Korean War: The West Confronts Communism). Like Stalin's Soviet Communists, Mao demanded a belief in the price that other men have to pay for the good of their vision. In time, monstrous crimes would be inflicted, not just on their foreign enemies, but on their own citizens. No estimate of the Chinese death rate from COVID-19 can be convincing, given that information is provided by Chinese state media. However, a population of 1.39 billion people, and an estimated death rate ratio of 2.97 (Globally), calculates a total COVID-19 death toll in China of 461,279. 

The point is a simple one. In China, life has been and is cheap. I would strongly proffer that Chinese Communist leaders considered 461,279 Chinese citizens' deaths a bargain to stop Donald Trump's reelection.                              

It is possible that in the fullness of time, we will learn the truth. We invariably know a lot about a lot of things our government will not or cannot admit (to). There is a strongly held and valid perception today that institutions such as the Justice Department (DoJ); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and the US Judiciary; are all sworn to protect our democracy, have been compromised and no longer conduct themselves under the rule of law. Now, sadly, we can add the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Indeed, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" (Arthur Schopenhauer)

All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing now for you.

What are you going to do?

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing now for you.

Time has come, and you know what,

what you must do.

So, what are you going to do?

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing now for you.

You need to be ready,

‘cause your country needs you (to).

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing now for you.

You need to be together with

your brothers and sisters in arms;

they’ve brought the fight, 

and now you must answer; 

You can't back down. 

No, you can't back down (now).

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing now for you.

The cold winds are coming,

and you must be true.

Are you?

Are you?

Are you true?

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing now for you.

Are you red, white, and blue?

Hell yes, I’m red, white, and blue,

and you will see my fury,

when the days of reckoning roar.

Now tell me true, 

Can you hear that whistleblowing?

It’s blowing NOW for you!

Hooyah!

L. Scott Schneiderman

Trump's Syrian Gambit

This analysis is not intended to be definitive. However, it is intended to analysis the current Turkish war against the Kurds in Syria, which has been induced by United States President Donald Trump’s decision to remove U.S. Special Forces (appox. 1,000 troops) from the Syrian border with Turkey, on October 7, 2019.

The United States has had in recent years two trustworthy and reliable friends in the Middle East, Israel and the Kurds. Therefore, it would seem inexplicable for the United States to abandon the Kurdish -- People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia in Syria. The YPG has been America’s partner and its ground force in the U.S. led campaign against IS in Syria. YPG forces are the only forces on the ground in Syria that is loyal to the U.S.

An astute observer of the Middle East, Caroline Glick posited in 2018 "In announcing the departure of U.S. forces, Trump essentially told the Kurds that they are on their own. Unless the U.S. agrees to arm and supply YPG forces, and unless the U.S. intends to use other means to deter Erdogan from attacking them, Syria’s Kurds will face the unenviable choice between facing the Turks alone or throwing their hats in with the Russians and Iranians in the hopes of receiving some sort of protection from the Turks."

The hell with Turkey! They have had every opportunity for partnership and constructive intervention in the region and have never failed to miss an opportunity. It’s long over due for Turkey to support its NATO partner(s). For nearly twenty years, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s (Erdogan) Turkey has distinguished itself as a strategic threat to America’s core interests and policies and those of its closest allies in the Middle East. No matter what they wish to think -- Kurds are not Turks. And, the Kurds are not a direct threat to Turkey’s national security.

The loathsome reality is that Turkey wants to eliminate another minority. Between 1915 through 1923, the Turkish Ottoman government systematically exterminated 1.5 million Turkish Armenian citizens. By any definition of the facts, it was genocidal.

Logically, petitio principii, why would Trump take this action? Or in the parlance of the day that begs the question. In either case why did he do it, and why now?

Trump it is posited understood that he failed and missed an opportunity to retaliate against Iran after its military attack on one of Saudi Arabia’s major oil installation. The sine qua non of US foreign policy for the last 70 years has been the protection of Saudi oil installations and maintaining the safety of maritime routes in and around the Persian Gulf. In the percipient words of a former U.S. President, “this will not stand” (George H. W. Bush, 1990).

Here now is the gambit. Trump has an “understanding” with Erdogan to fully utilize U.S. military assets in Turkey, i.e. Incirlik Air Force Base, for an attack on Iran. This is critical to reestablish US credibility and power in the region that has been deteriorating for lack of a response to Iranian belligerence both overtly (seizure of ships in Persian Gulf and other hostile acts), and covertly (continued development of its nuclear arms program and ballistic missile program).

Yet indeed, there are pitfalls. At the end of the day, can Erdogan be trusted? Turkey will not engage Iran militarily, and Erdogan has been known to renege on a promise and commitment. Additionally, Turkey may be happy to see the Kurds dispersed from its Syrian border, but if Syrian forces (including Russian) – and, by extension, Iran itself – gain a foothold on Turkey’s doorstep, it’s a bit of a pyrrhic victory. Finally, unless Iran is seriously deteriorated, this policy gambit leaves Iran and Russia calling the shots in Syria, and the Middle East.

"What the hell's going on out there?"

Mass Shootings in the United States: Refuting The Pundits

It is arguably a good thing that the left and the “intellectual” establishment rebel so strenuously against Donald Trump. In this way, their sensational objections, and even violent acts, only serve to question their motives in any policy debate. Intellectual opinion at best, is flawed by political concerns, i.e., “where you stand is where you sit;” but is nugatory when serving an ideological master.

There is much to condemn as to the opinions and debate of the recent mass shootings[1] in El Paso,[2] Texas, Dayton, Ohio,[3] and Chicago, Illinois,[4] over the August 2-4, 2019 weekend, in the United States. The Democratic Party’s and its leftist apparatchiks championing the myopic fixation of gun control, averred by all 2020 Democratic candidates for president, and the fatigued assertion that simply denying Americans the “right to bear arms,” will solve America’s gun violence, is a major part of the problem, and as a society, our ability to solve it.

These are the facts.

The El Paso shooter had apparently extreme view on illegal immigration, while the Dayton shooter had extreme left-wing views, and backed Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And, while the Chicago shooters political views are unknown, one can assume since they are African – American, they would support Democrats and left-wing views.[5]

51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino. Three mass shooters were Asian, two were American Indian and one was Arab. These numbers are if anything vastly understated. As many as half of the mass shootings that took place in 2019 thus far remain unsolved, but they often took place in black areas and claimed black victims.

We are beginning to understand a great deal more about mass shooters.[6] However, and this is important, it will not be through ideological biased opinion research (polling). Anecdotal, cherry-picked data, generalizations, straw man and Aunt Sally, and presenting complex issues in terms of two inherently opposite sides (firearm ownership or banning the private ownership of firearms), et cetera, arguments are insufficient in finding a solution.

However, a particular worrisome aspect of the left’s point of view is their attempt to link discussion of mass shootings and the immigration issue; and the fallacious allegations alleged by President Trump’s enemies that his “rhetoric” has caused the horrific mass shootings recently experienced in this country. Hence, it is proffered that the Trump Administration’s objection to illegal immigration is the root of the problem of mass shooting in the US today.

What the majority of Americans oppose, and what President Trump has given voice to, is not immigration, but illegal immigration. President Trump’s verbal opposition to illegal immigration is not inflammatory, even though it is portrayed as such by those who oppose his viewpoint on the matter. For example, A pundit[7] who’s description of Americans that support President Trump’s thinking on immigration as “officially sanctioned anti-immigration rhetoric,” is unfortunate, unsound, and unjust. To challenge an argument, or position on a policy, by asserting the manner in which it is presented is unsatisfactory, and regrettably sophomoric.

Do these same pundits agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) suspending immigration to Jews in 1939? Or his (FDR’s) executive proclamation 2526 and 2526, in 1941, interning Japanese Americans, and suspending immigration to anyone of German, Japanese, and Italian nationality? There was no substantial criticism of FDR, when he enacted these policies.

Accordingly, it is logical to conclude that if you sit in front of a fireplace, and speak in a professorial mode, with a patrician tone, you can remove people’s rights, and allow the systematic extermination of 6 million people, without objection from the Progressive left and the mainstream media.

On the other hand, President Trump, for the past three years, has been defined by the ideological left and mainstream media, as a racist, white supremacist, fascist, and Nazis. Without any incertitude, they purposefully misrepresent and even falsify his Administration’s policies. Any effort to clarify his position on any issue is met with allegations of racism and unsavory “anti-immigration rhetoric.” While the left advocates lawlessness without challenge!

Moreover, where was mainstream media when Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, called me a racist? Where were this same media and liberal pundits lamenting Obama’s, Holder’s, Ms. Clinton’s, et. al., rhetoric and leadership style while the country was being torn apart by identity politics?

The fact is there is no basis for the left’s personal attacks on Mr. Trump’s character and style of leadership. The left’s and mainstream media ad hominem attacks is what bullies do when they can offer no legitimate alternative(s).

Is there any evidence that: President Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election; that he has been more mendacious and had more scandals[8] than Barack Obama when he was President; that he was a greater womanizer than Bill Clinton; or a weaker leader than George W. Bush. The short answer is that there is none (evidence). Yet, President Trump is portrayed by the left and mainstream media as the least virtuous and qualified of the lot. There is no question, this contempt for Trump borders on the pathological.

In the last analysis, Americans like guns. Americans understand that gun ownership keeps America free and a democratic country. It’s not the gun that kills – it’s the gun owner. It’s not immigration that Americans object to – it’s illegal immigration. It’s not the immigrant – it’s the illegal immigrant. America’s “right to bear arms,” is the essential reason we are free people today.

G-d Bless America!

---

[1] Definition of a “mass shooter,” is one that shoots and kills four or more people.

[2] El Paso, Texas, August 3, 2019, 22 people killed and 24 others were wounded or injured.

[3] Dayton, Ohio, August 4, 2019, 10 people killed and 27 wounded or injured.

[4] CBS (Chicago), “7 Killed, 46 Wounded In Weekend Shootings, by Mugo Odigwe, August 5, 2019 at 7:31 AM. Seven people were killed and 46 others were wounded in shootings since Friday evening, in Chicago, IL.

[5] 93 percent of African – Americans voted for Barack Obama, in the 2012 Presidential election. In the 2016 Presidential election, Hillary Clinton got 94 percent of the black women vote (4 percent for Donald Trump), and 80 percent of men (13 percent for Mr. Trump).

[6] Op-Ed: “We have studied every mass shooting since 1966. Here’s what we’ve learned about the shooters,” Jillian Peterson and James Densley, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 4, 2019, 9:41 AM

[7] “Dissenting Opinions: On Mass Shootings in the United States,” Geopolitical Futures (GPF), August 8, 2019, Austin, TX.

[8] The following are examples of serious violations of law not investigated by the Obama Administration: Operation “Fast and Furious;” Benghazi terrorist attack and cover-up; IRS’s targeting of conservative entities; Department of Justice’s seizing records of journalists; NSA surveillance of ordinary Americans; Ransom payments to Iran for release of hostages; Bowe Bergdahl’s prisoner exchange; Secret Service prostitution scandal; Hillary Clinton's email scandal; Clinton Foundation scandal; The VA death-list scandal; Solyndra green energy scandal; Administration Officials lying to Congress; Voter Fraud in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Elections; Russia hacking White House computers in 2014; Clinton campaign coordinating with DOJ and Attorney General Loretta Lynch; US Taxpayers Funding Iran Military; Fusion GPS; et cetera.

Trump’s Tweet

 Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Jul 14, 2019

“So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

The upshot, Trump’s tweets exposed the left’s increasing proclivity to loudly and viciously tell the people of the United States that its system of government is omne malum.

It should be clearly understood by now that the president’s use of tweeter to get his message out is not an aimless blunder. Who other than a leftist would allow their viewpoint filtered and interpreted by the Mainstream Media? The question is rhetorical.

There is nothing remotely racist in the tweet. The charge of racism is the Left’s cudgel for anyone who disagrees with their Socialist / Communist world-view. However, it has become increasingly worn and inefficacious, which is regrettable since there has been a serious and unacceptable exponential rise in anti-Semitism by these same Leftists who accuse others of racism. The hypocrisy is deafening!

Now, as a United States’ citizen, you do have the right to democratically want to change America. However, as a citizen, you took an oath, to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that means you must abide by all of it, whether you like it or not.

Indeed, if you don’t like it here, then leave this place!

January 1, 2019: A Mark In Time

January 1, 2019

Is this really a new year? 

Another period by which we mark time is over and done. 

Did you notice? 

Of course, who could not?

Always willing to lament, 

Yet with vile and contempt do they whine. 

Did you notice?

Of course you did,

They will not let you forget.

On and on they opine, 

Oh the horror they bleep.

What foul stench will strike us next?

And, when will it end?

They know best,

If only they were allowed to rule.

How can anyone not understand what they know?

Only if those fools, those deplorable fools,

Would see the light.

So, will the coming mark in time bring an end?

An end to their bleeping.

Unfortunately no,

Bleeping is all they know.

So, madness it will be, 

And where it ends,

May well be to the marrow.

In the end, 

Remember this,

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.[1]

Of whom do I speak?

I have come to understand that today Liberalism / Progressivism (The Democratic Party) is rigidly ideological, proudly sanctimonious, and hence represented by a profound evil. Wrapped so tightly in their own sense of righteousness and superiority over others they are unable to compromise, that would engender public policies for the greater good. Such people are narcissists rather than moralists. They care less about succeeding than about sneering. But worse, these tedious people, with their greed for power, are therefore not fully human. Too harsh you may say. Then consider this.

They will not stop. They are paid too well, and live too lavish a lifestyle, for pretending to fight on behalf of the downtrodden. Yet, all they do is to keep the downtrodden down. You should not confuse their lofty intentions with genuine commitment. This grotesqueness is only comparable to its shamefulness.

The liberal socialist agenda of the Democratic Party has a pitiful record of achievement. Its failures are listed here only as a footnote, and should be understood as a sample, and not exhaustive.[2][3]Another failure of the Democratic Party is lawlessness, in which laws would not be enforced that conflicted with its goals and objectives, even though officials took an oath to do so. This was in full view under the eight years of the Obama Administration.[4]

Liberalism / Socialism is in fact athwart to freedom and democracy. It is the home to tyrants, dictators, and global elites of all miens. Again you say too harsh. Then consider this. 

Martin Amis meditations on tyrants and dictators expressed this menace and horror in his treatment of Stalin. Amis writes, “torture … was part of Stalin’s war against truth. He tortured, not to force you to reveal a fact, but to force you to collude in a fiction.” [5]

Now think in terms of the Mueller Investigation (or as I have written, The Mueller Inquisition[6]), which after two years has failed to find any creditable evidence to support its existence and continuation. An investigation based entirely on a deceit. Mr. Mueller’s indictments, like Stalin’s use of torture, is to force innocent people to admit to collusion, where in fact none existed. Like any unaccountable tyrant, Mueller uses his unrestricted, expansive, and unethical practices[7], to bring great harm to people unrelated to the reason for his Special Counsel appointment. 

The final mark has ticked for a year gone by. And our history begins once more. Should we suffer again? Should we continue to avoid or deny the inescapable fact, that the liberal socialist Democratic Party holds a pathological contempt for others, and this contempt is arguably implicit in their entire ideology? 

There is more than one way a people can be governed, therefore it is desirable and essential that the governed understand that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are always at risk, and cannot be viewed with indifference.

A Happy New Year ?

---

[1]W. H. Auden, “September 1, 1939,” From Another Time, published by Random House, 1940.

[2]The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care); a plethora of spasmodic restrictive Federal Regulations resulting in the worst economy after a recession in US history; total capitulation to Islamic Terrorism; failure to secure immigration and US border, and therefore putting American citizens in harms way; et cetera.

[3]In March 2010, the black unemployment rate was 16.8%, under Barack Obama, after over two years of being President. In May 2018, the black unemployment rate was 5.9%, under Donald Trump, a record low, after the same period of time. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Labor Force Statistics

[4]The following are examples of serious violations of law not investigated by the Obama Administration: Operation “Fast and Furious;” Benghazi terrorist attack and cover-up; IRS’s targeting of conservative entities; Department of Justice’s seizing records of journalists; NSA surveillance of ordinary Americans; Ransom payments to Iran for release of hostages; Bowe Bergdahl’s prisoner exchange; Secret Service prostitution scandal; Hillary Clinton's email scandal; Clinton Foundation scandal; The VA death-list scandal; Solyndra green energy scandal; Administration Officials lying to Congress; Voter Fraud in 2008, 2012 and 2016 Elections; Russia hacking White House computers in 2014; Clinton campaign coordinating with DOJ and Attorney General Loretta Lynch; US Taxpayers Funding Iran Military; et cetera.

[5]Martin Amis, KOBA THE DREAD: Laughter and The Twenty Million, Vintage Books, USA, 2002, cited in Christopher Hitchens, “Legacies of Totalitarianism,” in his book Arguably, 12 The Twelve, The Hachette Book Group, New York, 2011, Page 627.

[6]Lawrence S. Schneiderman, “The Mueller Inquisition,”The Grey Grater, June 17, 2017.

[7]Mr. Mueller’s behavior is deemed unethical since it goes against the agreed upon code of conduct, which in fact may be considered illegal, in and of itself.