Inappropriations
 
Scandal was called again over a tweet by a first-year Representative from Congress. For the second time that I’ve observed a specific Representative has been accused of anti-Semitism when what is ACTUALLY occurring is an act of ... securities fraud. The first time I observed this she commented regarding a prayer to her deity in connection with what turned out that day to be a confirmation of a delivery on an Israeli missile system to India. Something not so dissimilar happened this time but there is more.

​

Last night CNN featured two commentators who are often pitted against each other regarding a tweet from the Representative that was again alleged to be anti-Semitic. The CNN broadcast did little to assuage concerns over the implications of the actual undercurrents correlating with the tweet. As has already been posted, this week there are a number of reissues on Treasuries, including one for today that is a reopening of a $24 billion bond from Feb. 15, 2019. The events from Feb. 15, 2019 are a sort of anniversary from previous years (ie, 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year terms, as the reissue from yesterday was for 3-year notes at $38 billion) that would potentially correlate with lesser-term issues. This year was a correlation with a publicly-reported case from Chicago wherein a man was alleged to be a victim of a hate crime for being gay and African American only to later be revealed to have staged the act himself. That his attackers were white-skinned men from Nigeria is no coincidence. He was supposedly investigated for a 16-count indictment and served 16 hours of community service — Thursday’s issue for a 30-year Treasury bond is $16 billion. I will not mention here the other implications of Thursday’s issue.

​

I will mention that on what is now reflected as Feb. 9, 2017 (while I was composing a report on war crimes allegations that was finalized on Feb. 14, 2017) a publication I had formerly worked and edited at featured an article on a Bay Area “white nationalist.” Included in that online article were samples of his FaceBook messages. The pairing of this article with what I was working on was profound; I did not discover the correlations regarding this article for a semi-monthly publication until over a year later even though I was conscious of concurrent trends in my life that associated events from that time frame with allegations of “white nationalism.” It was specific correlating media messaging that provided the pairing possibilities.

​

The next year, a young man with a Spanish-sounding surname shot up his school in Florida, killing a number of students that also included members of the junior ROTC program. The day of that shooting I was in “school” preparing for a qualifying exam in Level II Ultrasonic Testing certification for Non Destructive Testing. I did not obtain that certificate then or later.

​

Last night, the woman repeating the Representative’s allegations that the man of reference was a “white nationalist” used as an example the fact that he said and did something while he was in high school. That means while he was a minor. That’s a low blow as they say. I am sure that the political currents outraged by this person’s alleged affinities would also advocate sealing the records of juvenile offenders in consideration of their adulthood. But they should also know that it’s unacceptable to use moments from the lives of people below the age of legal consent for public notices. I am additionally concerned that the woman commentator who said what she did works for a program that has the same name as a youth driver’s instruction program that I believe should be investigated for its questionable — if not downright sabotory — activities.

​

Now the allegations of anti-Semitism levied against this Representative need to be countered with refutations regarding Jewish identity and/or a “Jewish” representative who will have their name connected to it. And THAT is the anti-Semitism here. I’m certain the effort of the commentator to discuss a slight against a Hispanic/Latino minor was an effort to connect the person of interest’s past with the present situation on the U.S.-Mexico border. But the “heritage” on this reissue says something else. Who in Congress DOES NOT know exactly what that means?

​

It is not a Senator running for the Presidency that was featured after this commentary in a town hall meeting. During this Senator’s “town hall meeting” last night she was asked by a young man with chronic illness concerns what she was going to do to fight against pharmaceutical companies that were charging high prescription drug prices. She diverted to “campaign finance reform” and then spoke about young people organizing against gun violence, including those who were walking out of their high schools. She did not, however, say ANYTHING about the President of the United States signing a military omnibus appropriations bill while over 200,000 young leaders were in Washington DC specifically to protest gun violence in 2018. I do not believe ANYONE said or did ANYTHING about that specific and strategic move by the President. That Democrats kept silent on the implications is one of the most revealing factors in the Democrat’s extended campaign of inappropriate policies with regards to youth. Then following that reference, she pointed out that a young man at a town hall for the Senator of the State where the Feb. 14, 2018 school shooting occurred refused to deny campaign support from a specific lobbying group she referred to by it's three-letter acronym. In other words, she “tagged” that State’s Senator for a reissue on the Feb. 15, 2019 issue. Someone else for her party had made sure to do that with a number of other people at the time. I am most concerned with how that specific act is connected to the aforementioned circumstances regarding the allegations in Chicago and how it all factors into the fact that this week Treasury is engaged in strategic repositioning.

​

I might have been a bit more conciliatory if I did not ALSO see that earlier in the day there was a meeting between the Secretary of the Treasury and another Senator. On April 13, 2016 I attended a Budget and Operations Committee meeting of the appropriate City Council wherein there was a bottom of the agenda for an approval of a multi-hundred-million dollar water bond issue but there was no vote on it. Later in the minutes of the overall City Council meeting, however, it was reported it had been approved. What ACTUALLY happened was that the agenda was reordered at the beginning of the meeting; there was an Alderman who spoke during in the order of the original agenda, not the amended agenda, and was told to wait until his item came up; and there was a protracted discussion in the stead of his attempt to address issues concerning Tax-Increment Financing revenue to pay for public teachers salaries a discussion on women- and minority-owned business programs in that city that would be eligible for Community Renewal Act credits. The CRA aspects had not been specifically discussed in the meeting; that was information I obtained from a different source. However, I DID send a report to the Attorney General, the appropriate Department of Justice AND the City's Office of the Inspector General about that specific meeting among other things in May of 2017. I have not heard back from them. But the Secretary of the Treasury wanted to leave by “5:15.” May 15 is my birthday, and not not to be so self-centered, it is ALSO the anniversary of the opening of a bank that was mentioned in another post that has a branch conference on April 15 (the date that the reissue of concern from yesterday is dated for) and has been seeking to enter into the CRA market for several years.

​

Trying to make sense of what these Democrat’s are saying and doing is no different than the superficial alarm that Democrats sound when President Trump verbally earmarks an event. The problem here is that NO ONE is being honest about what Congress and the Executive office is actually doing and to what they are obligating the People of the United States. Is EVERY member of Congress so ignorant of these processes that they cannot consciously and honestly discuss these processes with us? No. They know what they are doing. And they crossed the line.

​

4/10/2019

​

​