Evidently The Swamp Has Been Busy For A While

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today detailing some of the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in recent years. Evidently the ‘deep state’ has been busy for a while.

The article deals with the efforts to protect Hillary Clinton from the consequences of having a private email server and also notes the efforts to derail an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

The article reports:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may be the worst off. In addition to possible charges for lying under oath for denying that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal (in large part dfto answer swirling rumors in the journalistic community), it’s alleged that he ordered FBI agents working on the Clinton Foundation investigation to stand down.

Now, evidence suggests he told the FBI’s Washington field office to also “stand down” from its investigation of Clinton’s private-email server. That investigation followed a New York Times piece that appeared in 2015, detailing Hillary Clinton’s possible illegal use of an unsecured, home-brew email server for her official business as secretary of state. It appears to be a clear violation of the law.

“Multiple former FBI officials, along with a Congressional official, say that while there may have been internal squabbling over the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation at the time, there was allegedly another ‘stand-down’ order by McCabe regarding the opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her private email for official government business,” wrote independent journalist Sarah Carter.

On August 26, 2016, Fox News posted the following quote from Charles Krauthammer:

Charles Krauthammer said that after a year of speculation and diversion, the issue of what Hillary Clinton’s email scandal was about is finally clear.

“The issue we’ve always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously, she was concealing; what was she concealing?”

He said that the “most obvious possible answer” was the Clinton Foundation.

We need Charles to get well soon–we miss his insight. It is becoming obvious that the Clinton Foundation was a charity that simply enriched the Clintons and the donations to the Foundation influenced American foreign policy. The American people were victims of the pay-for-play, but the Haitian people were victims of the corruption. It is time that the truth come out and the appropriate people bear the consequences of that truth.

The article at Investor’s Business Daily concludes:

Ironic, isn’t it, that the real “collusion” all along seems to be among those who are themselves investigating Trump.

Fortunately, the Justice Department‘s Inspector General Michael Horowitz has a team of investigators looking into not only McCabe’s lies, but also how the FBI conducted itself in the Clinton email server scandal. Horowitz’ group already issued a report on McCabe, and referred his case for possible prosecution. Next up: In May, it’s expected Horowitz will release a report on Clinton’s email server use.

Increasingly, the supposed case of “Trump-Russia collusion” is morphing into a case of “FBI-Justice Department-Clinton collusion.” With the many elements finally coming together just as the mid-term congressional elections get underway, we could be in for a bumpy ride this summer.

Be assured that if the Democrats win Congress in November, all investigations into wrongdoing by the Department of Justice and FBI will end, and no one will be held accountable for their corruption. That is a scary thought. At that point the deep state will simply become deeper, and equal justice under the law will be permanently lost in America.

Fighting Back Against Misinformation

On Monday The Center for Security Policy posted an article about the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and their hate group map.

The article reports:

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has reportedly removed the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” from its website after being faced with a lawsuit.

 Attorneys for a leading British Muslim reformer, Maajid Nawaz, threatened legal action over his being included in the list, according to National Review.

 The list also included female genital mutilation victim Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney.

The SPLC report, which still exists in PDF form, was first published in December 2016 and was intended to be a resource for journalists.  It reads, “A shocking number of these extremists are seen regularly on television news programs and quoted in the pages of our leading newspapers. There, they routinely espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. More often than not, these claims go uncontested.”

Maajid Nawaz, who founded the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam Foundation in London, said on a podcast with Joe Rogan that the report was taken down under legal threat in the past few days.

Nawaz said, “We have retained Clare Lock, they are writing to the Southern Poverty Law Center as we speak. I think they’ve got wind of it – the Southern Poverty Law Center – and as of yesterday, or the day before, they’ve removed the entire list that’s been up there for two years.”

The problem with the SPLC’s hate map is that anyone who disagreed with the liberal agenda is listed as a hate group and anything said against the liberal agenda as hate speech. The people who have spoken out honestly against Sharia Law and the attempts to bring it to America have been charged with hate speech. Telling the truth is characterized as hate speech according to the SPLC. This is reminiscent of the purging of the Department of Homeland Security of documents related to terrorism (article here):

In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote the White House demanding an embargo or discontinuation of information and materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism. The letter was addressed to John Brennan, who at the time was Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Days later John Brennan agreed to create a task force to address the problem by removing personnel and products that the Muslim Brotherhood deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” This move in effect allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to control the information given to the people charged with stopping the terrorism initiated by groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. At this point, the 9/11 reports and other actual historic documents were altered to make them compliant with the new paradigm. (I thought only the Russians rewrote history.)

The Center for Security Policy article concludes:

Family Research Council Executive Vice President General Jerry Boykin denounced the SPLC as “probably one of the most evil groups in America. They’ve become a money-making machine and they’ve become an absolute Marxist, anarchist organization.”
The SPLC website says “The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.”
The SPLC did not respond to a question why they have removed the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists”.

America’s future security depends on an informed public. Organizations like the SPLC misinform the public about the dangers around them. Meanwhile some forces within our government work to prevent law enforcement from having the information they need to protect us. If Americans do not wake up, we will have to explain to our children and grandchildren how we lost their freedom.

It Has Never Worked, Why Did They Think It Would Work?

Fox News posted an article today about Finland’s decision to end its universal basic income program by the end of the year.

The article reports:

The Finnish government reportedly announced Tuesday that it will end the country’s universal basic income program by year’s end — and appears to be taking on new measures to cut benefits to those who do not actively seek employment.

Finland was considered the first European country to pay a monthly check of $685 to its unemployed between ages 25 and 58. It was considered a pilot program — serving 2,000 randomly selected jobless people — that its founders hoped to expand.

…”Proponents said the program wasn’t comprehensive enough to gauge its merits,” Whitley wrote. “Critics say it would have required a 30 percent tax increase on an already over-taxed population to be viable.”

This is a chart showing Finland’s Personal Income Tax Rate. The source is a website called tradingeconomics:

This is what taxes look like under socialism. Consider this–if you are making $15 an hour in Finland, you are making slightly less than $8 an hour after taxes. This is what the conservative members of Congress are trying to avoid. We need to cut spending in America–we need to learn the lesson of socialism–giving people something they did not work for is not a plan for a successful economy.

The critics of the program may have known something that those backing the program did not:

The initial move was met with skepticism from citizens who questioned whether an unemployed young person would be motivated to find a job if they were making a steady income, albeit small.

“There is a fear that with basic income they would just stay at home and play computer games,” Heikki Hiilamo, a professor at the University of Helsinki, told the paper.

The problem isn’t really socialism as much as it is human nature. There is something built into us that generally is not willing to work for something we can get for free.

Somehow I Don’t Get The Logic In This

Yesterday AP News reported that the outdoor recreation club at Penn State will no longer go outside because it is too dangerous in the wilderness. The outdoor recreation club was established in 1920.

The article reports:

The Penn State Outing Club, originally founded in 1920, announced last week that the university will no longer allow the club to organize outdoor, student-led trips starting next semester. The hiking, camping and other outdoors-focused activities the student-led club has long engaged in are too risky, the university’s offices of Student Affairs and Risk Management determined.

 Richard Waltz, the Outing Club’s current president, said that the decision was made by an office that never consulted them.

The decision was based on a two-month review that didn’t include consultation with student leaders at any of the clubs deemed too risky, according to students.

Two other outdoor recreation clubs — the spelunking Nittany Grotto Caving Club and the Nittany Divers SCUBA Club — also have been directed to end trip offerings.

“Safety is a legitimate concern, but it wasn’t an open dialogue,” Waltz said.

So what new hazards have been added to the wilderness since 1920? Is our current crop of students so delicate that outdoors is too dangerous for them?

I suspect this move was made to protect the school from lawsuits in case someone got sunburned or got a splinter from gathering firewood, but I think it is totally ridiculous.

The article concludes:

Penn State conducted a “proactive risk assessment” not based on any previous participant injuries, according to Powers. She said Outing Club activities were rated high risk because they take place in remote environments with poor cell service and distance from emergency services.

Penn State still will offer a university-operated outdoors trip program, Powers said. The university-run program also costs much more for students, Waltz contended.

Michael Lacey, president of the Caving Club, told the Centre Daily Times he’s not surprised by the decision but says the university’s reasons for ending the club trips don’t make sense to him.

There’s a difference between going with somebody you paid to take you on a trip and going with a bunch of your friends, Lacey said.

Powers said Penn State staff members are meeting with student leaders about the transition and how the university might still support each group’s goals.

On June 29, 2014, Time posted an article with the headline, “Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service.” Do you think there might be a connection between that and not allowing a college outdoor club to go outdoors because it’s too risky?

A Blatant Misuse Of Authority

The Parkland School anti-gun children have been off the front pages for a few days, so I guess it is logical that they would want their school back in the headlines again. However, I do question their approach.

The Daily Wire posted an article today about Kyle Kashuv, a pro-Second Amendment student at Parkland School. Kyle Kashuv posted some tweets and a video of himself at a shooting range learning about gun safety and how to use a gun properly. Because of this, he was called to the school office.

In an article posted yesterday, Twitchy describes what happened next:

Near the end of third period, my teacher got a call from the office saying I need to go down and see a Mr. Greenleaf. I didn’t know Mr. Greenleaf, but it turned out that he was an armed school resource officer. I went down and found him, and he escorted me to his office. Then a second security officer walked in and sat behind me. Both began questioning me intensely. First, they began berating my tweet, although neither of them had read it; then they began aggressively asking questions about who I went to the range with, whose gun we used, about my father, etc. They were incredibly condescending and rude.

Then a third officer from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office walked in, and began asking me the same questions again. At that point, I asked whether I could record the interview. They said no. I asked if I had done anything wrong. Again, they answered no. I asked why I was there. One said, “Don’t get snappy with me, do you not remember what happened here a few months ago?”

They continued to question me aggressively, though they could cite nothing I had done wrong. They kept calling me “the pro-Second Amendment kid.” I was shocked and honestly, scared. It definitely felt like they were attempting to intimidate me.

This student went to the gun range with his father to learn about gun safety and the proper use of firearms. There is nothing there that is the slightest bit illegal. Contrast that with the Parkland shooter who had threatened people with a gun and had a record of negative behavior. The school resource office and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office were way out of line here. Students who go to a gun range to learn about gun safety are not the ones who shoot up schools. This is as ridiculous as taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and believing that criminals will not find a way to obtain guns.

More Fallout From The Inspector General’s Report

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about information included in the Inspector General‘s report.

The article reports:

Tucked inside the inspector general’s report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was the story of an August 2016 phone call from a high-ranking Justice Department official who Mr. McCabethought was trying to shut down the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clintonwas running for president.

The official was “very pissed off” at the FBI, the report says, and demanded to know why the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant.

Former FBI officials said the fact that a call was made is even more stunning than its content.

 James Wedick, who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau, said he never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during 35 years there. He said it suggested interference.

“It is bizarre — and that word can’t be used enough — to have the Justice Department call the FBI’s deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation,” he said. “They can have some input, but they shouldn’t be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call.”

Although the inspector general’s report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Departmentofficials said it was Matthew Axelrod, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general — the title the IG report did use.

The article continues with some very curious events surrounding the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. During the time of the investigation, McCabe’s wife was running for office in Virginia and received a $700,000 donation from an organization linked to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons.

The article concludes:

Those familiar with Justice Department operations said they don’t believe the principal associate deputy attorney general would have made the McCabe call without consulting with his supervisor, which would have been Ms. Yates.

“In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum,” said Bradley Schlozman, who worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. “The notion that the principle deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who is now a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the proper chain of command for the Justice Department to follow up on an investigation would involve the head of the Criminal Division, not the PADAG, calling the FBI.

“There is no way I would have ever called the FBI on my own unless I raised concerns with my boss or my boss told me to do so,” he said. “I have a hard time believing this guy did this without consulting with Sally Yates unless he was a complete lone ranger and off the reservation.”

The inspector general is examining the way the FBI and Justice Department handled investigations into Mrs. Clinton during the election.

The report on Mr. McCabe was a separate matter, stemming from questions about a media leak he made to try to protect his reputation, the inspector general said.

There is another Inspector General’s report due out shortly. It is my hope that the corruption that is attached to the Clintons and possibly others high up in our government will be revealed and dealt with.

This Shouldn’t Be A Surprise

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about a lawsuit that the Department of Justice is seeking to have dismissed. The article describes the Department of Justice as the Trump Administration, but I am not sure that is accurate–right now I am not sure who is running the Department of Justice.

The article reports:

The Zionist Advocacy Center, which filed the recently unsealed suit in 2015, alleges the Carter Center received more than $30 million in taxpayer grants while violating federal statutes barring it from using the cash to provide material support to terror groups.

The plaintiffs maintain the Carter Center has violated the law by hosting designated terrorists at is facilities, as well as by providing various forms of assistance to the Palestinian terror group Hamas and other known terror entities, according to recently unsealed court documents.

The Department of Justice surprised pro-Israel insiders recently when it moved to have the case dismissed on the grounds it is too expensive to prosecute, according to court filings the administration had requested remain secret.

…Evidence presented in the case purports to show the Carter Center accepted millions in government grants while falsely certifying it was not violating prohibitions on providing material support to terror groups, which include a broad range of factors including lodgings, expert advice, and other types of support.

Former President Carter’s ongoing and well-documented interactions with Hamas and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) are tantamount to material support for terror groups, the suit alleges citing evidence Carter hosted these officials at his Center’s offices.

This also includes providing services and advice to Hamas and other individuals and organizations designated as terrorists by the U.S. government.

In April 2008, The New York Daily News reported some of the sources for funding for the Carter Center:

For example, Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11 and whose royal family has funded terrorism outside the kingdom, has channeled tens of millions of dollars into the Carter Center over the years. In 1993 alone, the late King Fahd gifted $7.6 million, while more recently, the king’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center. The Carter Center has a $36 million annual budget; these amounts are hardly insignificant to its ongoing operations.

Another million-dollar-plus backer is Sultan Qaboos sin Said, monarch of Oman. Considerable financial support comes from the United Arab Emirates as well.

There’s more. In 2001, Carter received the $500,000 Zayed International Prize for the Environment and, the following year, praised the efforts of the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up.

The Zayed Center has repeatedly hosted anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers, supported terrorism and asserted that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists for world domination, and that a Jewish-American conspiracy perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11.

The article at The Washington Free Beacon concludes:

Yifa Segal, director of the International Legal Forum, a group involved in the case, told the Free Beacon that DOJ’s legal arguments do not hold water.

“According to U.S. law, the provision of expert advice or assistance otherwise known as material support, even if meant to promote peaceful and lawful conduct, can facilitate terrorism,” Segal said.

“The logic is simple. Any service provided to a terror group can help free up other resources within the organization,” Segal explained. “Taking into account that a terror organization, ultimately, aims at executing acts of terror, by freeing resources from other needs, you are very likely to contribute to the organization’s illegal acts of violence, whether you intended to do so or not.”

Services like those provided by the Carter Center can in fact “contribute to the terrorist organization’s own legitimacy,” according to Segal, who said arguments revolving around the Carter Center’s intentions in providing such services are irrelevant to the legality of the case.

“It seems that the DOJ is attempting to bury this case by making technical arguments as to this procedure,” Segal said. “Beyond our professional disagreement regarding these particular claims, the question is this: Even if their arguments are correct, why isn’t the government taking different measures to put a stop to this illegal activity?”

Jimmy Carter’s behavior as a former President has been less than exemplary. Although he has done wonderful work with Habitat for Humanity, his anti-Semitism and statements on foreign policy have generally been far off the mark. I would like to see this lawsuit move forward–it is time to end foreign money coming to American political figures and influencing our policies. That has not happened with the Trump administration–but it is becoming very evident that it has happened in other recent administrations.

When Republicans Do Stupid Things

It is quite likely that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not approve the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. The Democrats on the Committee asked Pompeo questions about gay rights and his beliefs on marriage. Since Mike Pompeo holds what used to be very acceptable traditional views on marriage, the Democrats on the Committee have chosen to vote against his confirmation as Secretary of State. This has nothing to do with Mike Pompeo’s qualifications, it is a political stunt that illustrates the Democratic Party’s move to the extreme left. There didn’t used to be a religious litmus test to hold a Cabinet position, but according to the present crop of Democrats, there is. Unfortunately some Republicans have also decided to vote against Mike Pompeo.–Rand Paul is voting against him because he supported the war in Iraq. So did a lot of other people. Just for the record, on October 14, 2014, The New York Times posted an article stating that there were WMD’s in Iraq.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today that explains that the Democrat’s efforts to block the nomination of Mike Pompeo may be unsuccessful due to a few Democrats that represent states that voted for President Trump. You can read the details of all this in The Washington Examiner, but there is another part of this story I would like to focus on.

The site biography.com lists a few of Mike Pompeo’s qualifications:

Michael Richard Pompeo was born on December 30, 1963, in Orange, California, to parents Wayne and Dorothy. He grew up in Santa Ana and attended Los Amigos High School in Fountain Valley, where he was a member of the varsity basketball team.

Pompeo enrolled at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, graduating first in his class with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986. He followed with five years of active duty in the U.S. Army, serving as a cavalry officer in East Germany and rising to the rank of captain.

Accepted to Harvard Law School, Pompeo became editor of the Harvard Law Review and earned his J.D. in 1994.

…Pompeo began his civilian career at the Williams & Connolly law firm in Washington, D.C., where he mainly worked in tax litigation. He moved to his mother’s home state of Kansas in 1996 and co-founded Thayer Aerospace, which expanded to more than 400 employees within a decade. Pompeo then became president of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment manufacturing, distribution and service company.

The man is definitely qualified and deserves to be confirmed. A no vote on this nomination is simply a political stunt, and those voting no need to be voted out of office.

Russian Collusion Is Real–Just Not Where Robert Mueller Is Looking

The Daily Signal posted an article today about the collusion between Russia and some popular environmental groups in America.

The article reports:

New Yorkers who are missing out on the natural gas revolution could be victims of Russian spy operations that fund popular environmental groups, current and former U.S. government officials and experts on Russia worry.

Natural gas development of the celebrated Marcellus Shale deposits has spurred jobs and other economic growth in neighboring Pennsylvania. But not in New York, which nearly 10 years ago banned the process of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to produce natural gas.

Two environmental advocacy groups that successfully lobbied against fracking in New York each received more than $10 million in grants from a foundation in California that got financial support from a Bermuda company congressional investigators linked to the Russians, public documents show.

The environmental groups Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club Foundation millions of dollars in grants from the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation.

 “Follow the money trail, and this [New York] ban on fracking could be viewed as an example of successful Russian espionage,” Ken Stiles, a CIA veteran of 29 years who now teaches at Virginia Tech, told The Daily Signal.

The article explains why the Russians would be concerned about energy development in America:

Since the U.S. is now the top producer of natural gas in the world, and well positioned to export liquefied natural gas across the globe, Russia recognizes it gradually could lose influence in parts of the world where Moscow has been the dominant supplier of oil and gas, Stiles said in a phone interview.

“America’s natural gas revolution has huge geopolitical ramifications, so Russia’s motivation to try to block our natural gas development is easy to understand,” the CIA veteran said. “If you are worried about the Russian bear rearing its ugly head in the next several years, the way to stop that and put it back into its cage is to cut it off at the knees financially.”

“That’s what natural gas pipelines are all about and that’s what fracking is all about. We are providing affordable energy to average Americans at home and our allies overseas.”

The Russian economy depends on higher oil prices. Russia also uses energy to blackmail European countries into cooperation. America’s development of its own natural resources is a necessary balance to the Russian use of energy as a blackmail tool.

 

Taking A Gun From Someone Didn’t Prevent Them From Getting A Gun

The internet is full of news stories dealing with the shooting at a Nashville Waffle House late last night. The story I will be using as a source is from Fox News. The person responsible for the shooting had been arrested near the White House last year, and the police had taken his guns away. He was not legally allowed to have access to guns. This is an example of the fact that people with nefarious goals that choose to use guns as their weapon of choice will find a way to get access to a gun. Waffle House is a gun free zone, so the only way to stop a shooter is to physically take him down. Thank God there was someone in the Waffle House that was able to do that. It would have been much easier for a person with concealed carry to end the shooting.

The article reports:

“Reinking (the shooter) was charged with unlawful entry after crossing an exterior security barrier near the White House Complex,” the Secret Service told Fox News of his arrest last summer. “Information regarding the arrest was provided to our law enforcement partners, including the FBI, at the time of arrest to ensure all appropriate authorities were aware of the circumstances surrounding Reinking’s arrest.”

In May 2016, law enforcement officials in Tazewell County, Illinois, said they encountered the suspect, who was “delusional.” Reinking claimed Swift (singer Taylor Swift) had been stalking him, and that “everyone including his own family and the police” had been involved, a police report obtained by Fox News stated.

Reinking who relatives claimed had been having delusions since August 2014, said Swift had hacked his Netflix account and told him to meet her at a Dairy Queen, according to the report.

The article reports the words of the hero who ended the shooting spree:

“I figured if I was going to die, [the gunman] was going to have to work for it,” James Shaw Jr. said of the incident at the news conference. He had entered the restaurant just two minutes ahead of the gunman.

“He shot through that door; I’m pretty sure he grazed my arm. At that time I made up my mind … that he was going to have to work to kill me. When the gun jammed or whatever happened, I hit him with the swivel door,” Shaw said.

Shaw said he managed to get one hand on the gun and grab it, then threw it over a countertop and took the shooter with him outside before the suspect ran away — a situation Shaw said “worked out in my favor.”

I have no idea how old James Shaw Jr. is or what his future plans are, but I hope he will be flooded with college acceptances and scholarships in the near future–he is truly a hero.

No, It’s Not Harmless

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted a story about the impact of marijuana use on teenagers.

The article reports:

Cannabis is responsible for 91 per cent of cases where teenagers end up being treated for drug addiction, shocking new figures reveal.

Supporters of the drug claim it is harmless, but an official report now warns the ‘increased dominance of high-potency herbal cannabis’ – known as skunk – is causing more young people to seek treatment.

The revelation comes amid growing concerns that universities – and even some public schools – are awash with high-strength cannabis and other drugs.

The findings also back up academic research, revealed in The Mail on Sunday over the past three years, that skunk is having a serious detrimental impact on the mental health of the young. At least two studies have shown repeated use triples the risk of psychosis, with sufferers repeatedly experiencing delusional thoughts. Some victims end up taking their own lives.

Obviously the article deals with the situation in Britain, but I suspect some of the results of this research are also reflected in America. The problem in Britain is related to the potency of the marijuana used by teenagers. I am unfamiliar with whether or not American marijuana has the same potency. I do know that I have heard numerous people familiar with marijuana in America say that the marijuana available in America today is much more potent than the marijuana that was available during the 1960’s. I don’t have a problem with the use of marijuana in certain medical procedures, but I wonder if it can be administered in pill form and tightly controlled in order to avoid abuse by teenagers who think it is cool. Keeping marijuana away from teenagers after making it legal will probably be about as successful as keeping alcohol away from underage teenagers in the past.

The article further states:

The large rise in the number of youngsters treated for cannabis abuse comes despite the fact that total usage is falling slightly.

The report concludes: ‘While fewer people are using cannabis, those who are using it are experiencing greater harm.’

Almost all cannabis on Britain’s streets is skunk, which is four times more powerful than types that dominated the market until the early 2000s. It can even trigger hallucinations.

We need to rethink the legalization of marijuana. It would be horrible to waste the minds of the generation that will lead this country in the future.

Some Of The Fallout From The Inspector General’s Report Has Begun

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review reporting that the Justice Department’s inspector general has referred Andrew McCabe to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for a possible false-statements prosecution. Andrew McCarthy points out that the important fact here is not that Andrew McCabe lied, but what he lied about. Andrew McCabe leaked a conversation in which the Obama Justice Department pressured the FBI to stand down on the Clinton Foundation investigation. He later lied about leaking the information.

The article reports:

The report concludes that the former deputy director “lacked candor,” the standard for internal discipline at the FBI, from which McCabe was fired. It is a charge similar to those spelled out in the federal penal code’s false-statements and perjury laws. Specifically, the report cites four instances of lack of candor; more comprehensively, McCabe is depicted as an insidious operator.

About two weeks before Election Day 2016, the then–deputy director was stung by a Wall Street Journal story that questioned his fitness to lead an investigation of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ nominee. McCabe’s wife had received $675,000 in donations from a political action committee controlled by the Clintons’ notorious confidant, Virginia’s then–governor Terry McAuliffe — an eye-popping amount for a state senate campaign (which Mrs. McCabe lost). It was perfectly reasonable to question McCabe’s objectivity: The justice system’s integrity hinges on the perception, as well as the reality, of impartiality.

The reporter on the story, Devlin Barrett (then with the Journal, now at the Washington Post), soon had questions for the Bureau for a follow-up he was working on: Back in July, according to Barrett’s sources, McCabe had instructed agents to refrain from making overt moves that could alert the public that Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ nominee, was yet again on the FBI’s radar — this time, owing to a probe of the Clinton Foundation.

The article concludes:

The Obama Justice Department “guidance” about the Clinton Foundation probe reminds us of their approach to the Clinton emails caper — call it a “matter” not an investigation; do not use the grand jury; instead of subpoenas, try saying “pretty please” to obtain evidence; do not ask the co-conspirators hard questions because they’re lawyers so that might infringe attorney–client privilege; let the witnesses sit in on each other’s interviews; let the suspects represent each other as lawyers; if someone lies, ignore it; if someone incriminates himself, give him immunity; have the attorney general meet with the main subject’s former-president husband on the tarmac a few days before dropping the whole thing; oh, and don’t forget to write up the exoneration statement months before key witnesses — including the main subject — are interviewed. 

With the Clintons, though, enough is never enough. Obama Justice Department officials, figuring they were only a few days from succeeding in their quest to become Clinton Justice Department officials, decided to try to disappear the Clinton Foundation investigation, too. (The underline is mine.)

After nearly two years of digging, there is still no proof of Trump-campaign collusion in Russian election-meddling. But we have collusion all right: the executive branch’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus placed by the Obama administration in the service of the Clinton campaign. To find that, you don’t need to dig. You just need to open your eyes.

The picture here is becoming very clear–Hillary was going to be elected, and all criminal investigations regarding the Clintons were going to disappear. We were very close to becoming a country where justice was not blind–it was well-funded and biased. Hopefully we can get some of the swamp drained in a reasonable amount of time. It took us a long time to get here–it is going to take a while to reinstate equal justice under the law.

 

Evidently Telling The Truth Was Inconvenient

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about James Comey‘s memos. The editorial lists a number of times that James Comey lied to President Trump to advance his own agenda rather than to serve the President.

The first instance occurred when James Comey briefed President Trump on the the Russian dossier.

The editorial reports:

He says Trump was surprised that the press hadn’t already run with the story, to which Comey replied “they would get killed for reporting straight up from the source reports.”

It turns out it was Comey himself who gave the press the hook they were looking for. Just days after, CNN used Comey’s briefing of Trump as the very pretext to report on the dossier that, up until that point, they’d refused to touch.

In other words, it’s far less likely that Comey briefed Trump because he was worried the press would report on the dossier, and more likely that he briefed Trump to ensure that those details would leak.

Further evidence that Comey wasn’t being honest with Trump comes in his Jan. 28 memo, in which he fundamentally changes the reason given for why he briefed Trump in the first place.

In that memo, he says the reason he gave Trump the briefing was because “the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.”

…But at the time, Comey could have easily put that story to rest, because he knew that the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. All he had to do was tell Trump, or the public, and the entire story would have been dismissed as a Democratic smear campaign.

Instead, he never told Trump the truth about the dossier’s origins. He told ABC News this month that he didn’t because “it wasn’t necessary for my goal.”

Wasn’t necessary for his goal?

In fact, out of all the leaks coming out of the FBI about Trump, the origins of the dossier remained the best kept secret in Washington all the way until October 2017.

Comey was planting the seeds for the actions he thought would get rid of President Trump.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article–it illustrates the basic dishonesty James Comey showed in his dealings with President Trump. It is truly a shame that James Comey was not fired on day one.

 

The Questions I Haven’t Heard The Media Ask

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today that included a portion of a Wall Street Journal article by Kimberley Strassel. The article at The Wall Street Journal is behind the subscriber wall, so I am not linking to it.

Kimberley Strassel listed a number of questions she would like to hear James Comey answer.

Power Line listed six of these questions:

  • You admit the Christopher Steele dossier was still “unverified” when the FBI used it as the basis of a surveillance warrant against Carter Page. Please explain. Also explain the decision to withhold from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
  • You say you knew the dossier was funded by a “Democrat-aligned” group but that you “never knew” which one. Why not? Didn’t the FBI have a duty to find out?
  • Please explain the extraordinary accommodations the FBI provided Team Clinton during the email investigation. Why was Cheryl Mills —whose emails suggest she had early knowledge of the irregular server as Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff—allowed to claim attorney-client privilege and represent Mrs. Clinton at her interview? Why did that interview happen only at the end? Especially since you say any case hung entirely on her “intent”?
  • You’ve surely now read the texts between the FBI’s Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. That happened on your watch. Is this appropriate FBI behavior? Should we believe such behavior is limited to them? In addition to overt political bias, the texts prove the FBI took politics into account—worrying, for instance, about how much manpower to put into investigating the woman who could be our “next president.” Why should the public have any faith in the integrity of the Clinton or Trump investigation?
  • The texts ridicule former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to step aside from the Clinton probe, “since she knows no charges will be brought.” This was before the FBI even interviewed Mrs. Clinton. And it contradicts your claim at the start of your July 2016 press conference that no one at the Justice Department knew what you were about to say. Please explain.
  • You dismiss Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo as nothing but a “pretext” to fire you. Yet you don’t address its claims. Please point to the internal policies or regulations that gave you the authority to announce that Mrs. Clinton was being cleared and why. Please provide any examples of similar announcements by FBI directors. Please address the criticisms of the prior attorneys general and deputy attorneys general from both parties cited in the Rosenstein memo.

Works for me.

 

Stuck On Stupid?

The first rule of holes is that when you find yourself in one–stop digging! Unfortunately our political leaders have not mastered this concept. This article is based on two posts–one at The Conservative Treehouse and one at The Gateway Pundit. The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Campaign–the same Democratic National Committee that fixed the 2016 Democratic primary election to ensure that Hillary Clinton got the nomination (story here). The same Democratic National Committee that would not let the FBI examine their servers after they claimed to be hacked by the Russians. It is obvious to those paying attention that as the Mueller investigation winds down after finding no evidence of Russian collusion (on the Republican side and avoiding looking at the Democrat side), that the Democrats need something to use in their fundraising letters.

The Gateway Pundit reports:

The lawsuit claims that the Trump campaign worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to bring down Clinton.

“DNC already has a moribund publicity lawsuit which the press has became bored of–hence the need to refile it as a “new” suit before mid-terms. As an accurate publisher of newsworthy information WikiLeaks is constitutionally protected from such suits,” the official WikiLeaks account tweeted.

In a second tweet, they added that the “DNC is suing WikiLeaks for spectacularly revealing that the DNC rigged its primaries on behalf of Hillary Clinton. The DNC was so corrupt that five of its officers, including its president, were forced to resign.”

The Gateway Pundit reports:

The DNC lawsuit will most likely be dismissed as frivolous.  However, in the event it is allowed the proceed the Trump campaign can stand to gain a great deal of information during the discovery phase.  The Trump team respond:

[…]  If this lawsuit proceeds, the Trump Campaign will be prepared to leverage the discovery process and explore the DNC’s now-secret records about the actual corruption they perpetrated to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Everything will be on the table, including:

♦How the DNC contributed to the fake dossier, using Fusion GPS along with the Clinton Campaign as the basis for the launch of a phony investigation.
♦Why the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC servers in the course of their investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal.
♦How the DNC conspired to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination over Bernie Sanders.
♦How officials at the highest levels of the DNC colluded with the news media to influence the outcome of the DNC nomination.
♦Management decisions by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Tom Perez, and John Podesta; their e-mails, personnel decisions, budgets, opposition research, and more.

This could get really interesting!

I Am Not Sure What This Means, But I Think That If My Name Were On The List, I Would Be Nervous

Katie Pavlich posted an article at Townhall yesterday about a letter sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions by eleven House Republicans.

The article reports:

Eleven House Republicans have sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray officially referring Hillary Clinton, fired FBI Director James Comey, fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for criminal investigation. FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were caught sending hundreds of anti-Trump text messages during the Clinton investigation, have also been referred for criminal investigation. U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tapped by Sessions a few weeks ago to investigate the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe, was copied on the request.

“Because we believe that those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately,” lawmakers wrote.

As the letter outlines, Comey is under fire for allegedly giving false testimony to Congress last summer about the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s repeated mishandling of classified information. Specifically, lawmakers cite Comey’s decision to draft an exoneration memo of Clinton months before FBI agents were done with their work and before Clinton and key staffers were interviewed for the probe. They’re also going after him for leaking classified information to a friend, which Comey admitted to under oath.

The Conservative Treehouse also posted an article on the letter yesterday.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse notes:

The identified reasoning for each of the referrals is outlined in the letter below.  However, the risk to James Comey is not simply contained within the letter, but also contained within the non-discussed fact that FBI chief-legal-counsel James Baker is a cooperating witness for IG Horowitz and Huber.

One of the lesser discussed aspects to the ongoing investigative overview is how a few key people, with direct and specific knowledge of the events that took place within the FBI and DOJ activity, remain inside the institutions as they are being investigated.

Those key DOJ and FBI officials have been removed from their position, yet remain inside with no identified or explained responsibility.

Peter Strzok (FBI), Lisa Page (DOJ/FBI), Bruce Ohr (DOJ) and James Baker (FBI) are still employed. Insofar as they are within the DOJ/FBI system it’s more than highly likely they are being retained for their cooperation in exchange for some form of immunity.

Other identified co-conspirators left their positions as soon as the IG discoveries began hitting the headlines in December ’17, and January ’18.

Those who quit include, but not limited to: James Comey’s chief-of-staff, James Rybicki (resigned); FBI Director of Communications Michael Kortan (resigned); DOJ-NSD Asst Attorney David Laufman (resigned). Each of those officials was named and outlined within the Page/Strzok text messages as a key participant, and quit as soon as the scope of the internal Inspection Division (INSD) investigative material was identified by media.

Prior to the IG/INSD release, other resignations were earlier: DOJ-NSD head Mary McCord (April ’17) and DOJ-NSD head John Carlin (Oct 16).

Dana Boente, the current FBI chief legal counsel was inside Main Justice and specifically inside the DOJ-NSD apparatus the entire time the 2015, 2016 and 2017 political schemes were happening. Therefore Boente has the full scope of understanding and dirt on Sally Yates, John Carlin, Mary McCord et al. Boente’s understanding obviously bolstered by DOJ-NSD Deputy Attorney Bruce Ohr, who, not coincidentally, is also removed from position but still remains employed.

There are some very odd things about recent Justice Department investigations–particularly those dealing with the handling of classified material. It is well documented that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified material, yet she has suffered no consequences. The same can be said of Anthony Weiner,  Huma Abedin, and James Comey.

I have no idea where this is going, but somehow I think we need to pay attention. What happens next will tell us whether or not America still has equal justice under the law.

I’m Sure This Is Just An Incredible Coincidence

On Tuesday, Twitchy reported that during the Michael Cohen hearing (Judge Kimba Wood presiding–look her up), the lawyers that argued for the disclosure of a relationship between Michael Cohen and Sean Hannity were the attorneys for CNN and The New York Times. You don’t suppose they might have had a conflict of interest.

The article reports:

According to reports from inside the courtroom, Judge Kimba Wood was ready to allow Michael Cohen to submit the name of his 3rd client — who we now know is Sean Hannity — under seal, but an attorney for CNN and the New York Times convinced her otherwise.

Also posted in the article:

Smile, you are being manipulated by hair-on-fire reporters and partisan judges.

If The Democrats Gain Control Of Congress…

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about one aspect of the Democratic legislative plan if they retake control of Congress. This is something all of us might want to consider as we vote.

The article reports:

A wealthy Democratic donor club plotting the future of the liberal movement hopes to be fighting for reparations by 2022, according to a document obtained by the Washington Free Beacon from the Democracy Alliance‘s fall conference this week in Atlanta.

The desire was stated in the invitation for a Monday reception during the biannual conference, which was attended by top Democratic Party officials such as DNC chairman Tom Perez, former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, and Reps. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.) and Mark Pocan (Wis.).

The reception, “Way to Win: 2022 Victory Party,” was presented as a look forward at what’s possible if Democrats can be effective in coming elections.

“It’s 2022 and we are celebrating policy victories across the nation: Medicare for All and Free College, and next on the agenda is Reparations,” the group projected, according to an invitation to the event.

This is simply another scheme to take money away from those who have earned it and give to those who have not earned it.

The article continues:

The group further predicts that the successful implementation of universal health care and free college will lead to more sweeping election victories, including the governorship in Texas and its electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election.

“Because we’re governing with gusto, we’re seeing victories up and down the ballot—including winning a governorship in Texas and putting 38 electoral votes in grasp by 2024,” it says. “Stop in 2020 and 2019 when local power builders turned Arizona and Florida solidly blue and established Virginia as a progressive governance juggernaut.”

The event was headlined with a speech by Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who the group predicted would “set the course for a new wave of leaders.” She was pictured on the night of the event with McAuliffe, who was also a featured speaker at the conference and is considering a run for president in 2020.

Abrams has not publicly backed plans for universal health care or free college tuition, both policy positions supported by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). She has also not come out in support of reparations, a policy proposal that even Sanders has come out against.

I predict bankruptcy for America if these people gain control of Congress.

Good News For Taxpayers

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about a new bill in Tennessee. On April 9, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed a bill that ends state taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in the state.

The article states:

The bill will direct TennCare, the state’s Medicaid program, money to health care facilities instead of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

“This money is a form of supporting abortions,” state Rep. Jimmy Matlock said last month, reported The Tennessean. He fought to remove state funding from Planned Parenthood, saying that in the last six years, nearly $1 million has been paid to abortion clinics in Tennessee out of TennCare reimbursements.

…Monica Burke, a research assistant in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that no state should use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

“The government should not be entangled with Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry,” Burke said. “Taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortion. In order to provide women with quality health care, public funding should be directed to qualified health care centers instead.”

Abortion is legal in America, but there is no reason taxpayers should be forced to pay for it. I am not a doctor, but my understanding is that there is sometimes a medical need to do an abortion. I have no problem with that, but abortion should not be a million dollar industry. In 2015, Breitbart reported that Planned Parenthood reports more than $127 million in excess revenue, and over $1.4 billion in net assets. The majority of that money comes from performing abortions. I am sure that I am not the only person who finds that offensive. It’s time for Americans to step up to the plate–teach abstinence in our schools, help teenage mothers who do get pregnant, and adopt the children of teenage mothers. We also need to look closely at those government programs that encourage having children without benefit of marriage. We are looking at the future predicted by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965. We can change that future, but it will take time and serious effort.

Unfortunately In The Electronic Age There Are A Lot Of Different Ways To Silence Conservative Speech

Although I am a blogger, I am not a computer geek. Were it not for the efforts of my husband and one of my daughters, I would not be a blogger. This is a wordpress blog that works pretty much like Microsoft Windows, so even a non-geek can easily use it. Please understand as I report the next item, that I have limited experience in the technical details, but I am posting the story because I think it is important.

On April 15th, The Gateway Pundit posted a story titled, “Soros Is Targeting District Attorney Races to Create Havoc Against Conservatives.” This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone–particularly anyone who has seen the video “Rocky Mountain Heist.”

The article reports:

Soros Consultant’s PAC Could Influence DA Races in Oregon

A longtime consultant to liberal billionaire George Soros is listed on recently filed documents with the state of Oregon related to the formation of a political action committee that appears to be an avenue for Soros to influence yet another district attorney’s race, state records show.

The paperwork was filed with Oregon’s secretary of state’s office in early April to launch the Oregon Law & Justice PAC, which intends to “support candidates advocating for justice.”

Whitney Tymas, an attorney who acts as the treasurer of a number of Soros PACs, is listed as the director, correspondence recipient, and alternate transaction filer for the committee. The address listed for Tymas is the same address as Perkins Coie, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm.

No activity has been reported from the PAC other than its formation. However, Tymas previously expressed interest in criminal defense attorney Max Wall, who is running for district attorney in Washington County, the second largest county in the state.

Again, this is hardly news, but posting the story did result in consequences.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported:

The Gateway Pundit has been under constant DDoS attack for the past two days from an unknown source originating in California, DC, and Seattle. A DDoS (short for distributed denial of service) attack is a cyber attack that floods a website with so much fake traffic that the server that the infrastructure that hosts the website is unable to function, shutting the site down and providing unreliable service. It’s a very common tool used by malicious leftists, the Drudge Report was targeted with a similar attack last year.

The attacks against Gateway Pundit have been ongoing since April 15th, when Jim Hoft published a widely-shared article about George Soros targeting district attorney races throughout the United States. Nearly immediately, we were hit with over 140,000 hacking attempts along with continuing DDoS attacks that have persisted through today.

Unfortunately I doubt that the attacks on the Drudge Report and the Gateway Pundit are isolated events–I suspect there is a pattern here. Free speech is a right that all of us have to treasure and protect. There are people in our country who want to take that right away.

 

 

Pro-growth Or No-growth

Guy Benson posted an article at Townhall today about the impact of the Trump Tax Cuts on the American economy. As has been pointed out by anyone with a brain, any deficits in Washington are caused by a spending problem–not by a lack of tax revenue.

The article includes a chart showing revised economic growth estimates based on the growth that has already occurred because of the tax cuts:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now projects 156.8 million jobs in America by year-end 2027—2.6 million more jobs than in its June 2017 Budget and Economic Outlook. CBO attributes an average of 1.1 million additional jobs over the next 10 years to the recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

On April 10, I posted an article detailing the Democrats plan to roll back the tax cuts and increase both personal and corporate taxes. That will bring us back to the slow economic growth we experienced under President Obama. The Republicans need to make sure that the American voters understand that–a vote for a Democratic Congressman is a vote for economic slowdown.

Economic policies do have consequences. That has become very obvious in the past year or so.

Progress Made

The Washington Examiner reported today the the Justice Department has target for arrest at least 48 people who were involved in a “multi-state heroin and fentanyl network.”

The article reports:

The takedown was in Huntington, W.V. — a city U.S. Attorney Mike Stuart called the “epicenter of the opioid crisis.”

“Huntington has become ground zero,” he told reporters earlier Tuesday. “The highest per capita overdose death rate for opioids is in Southern District of West Virginia.”

 The arrests were ongoing Tuesday, he said, and wouldn’t necessarily end Tuesday either.

The take down targeted the Peterson Drug Trafficking Organization, and charged at least 15 individuals with conspiracy to distribute heroin and fentanyl in the Southern District of West Virginia,

Another 15 were indicted in county court Monday, and additional members are expected to be charged in Detroit.

”At least 48 individuals are targeted for arrest on various narcotics, violent crime and firearms related charges at the federal or state level as determined by the circumstances of each matter,” the Justice Department said.

The drug trafficking organization has been operating in Huntington for nearly 15 years, trafficking heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine from Detroit to Huntington, the Justice Department said.

The operation took at least 450 grams of fentanyl off of the streets — enough to kill more than 250,000 people.

We have a major drug problem in America. According to the chart I found at statista, in America the highest number of deaths from drug overdoses occur to Americans between the ages of 25 and 55.

This is the chart:

Number of drug overdose deaths in the U.S. from 2014 to 2016, by age

It is interesting to me that the age range that generally has the greatest amount of disposable income is the age range that is most likely to die from a drug overdose. It is very sad that many people get involved with drugs during the most productive years of their lives.

Hopefully the taking down of the drug network in West Virginia will be the beginning of dealing with one aspect of America’s drug problem.

School Policies Have Consequences

In 2013, the Obama Administration instituted the Promise Program (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education). The purpose of the program was to slow down the rate of students going directly from high school to prison. If essence, the Promise Program simply looked the other way if the students committed crimes. Broward County Florida schools adopted the program.

An article at a website called Matter of Cause posted the following:

Broward’s Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline was announced in early November. Instead of suspensions, students can now be referred to the PROMISE program, where they receive counseling for several days and then return to school. A host of non-violent misdemeanors no longer require an arrest, though officers can sometimes override that if they feel it is necessary (“I wanted to make sure deputies always had discretion,” says Scott Israel, Broward County’s sheriff). The school district’s Office of Minority Male Achievement reviews data to ensure that punishments for minor infractions and racial disparities are on the decline.

“There’s been success with other districts working to address parts of the problem,” says Alana Greer, an attorney with the Advancement Project who consulted on the agreement. In recent years, Los Angeles and Denver have limited the range of minor behavior infractions that can be punished by a suspension. “But what Broward did that really set it apart is they put together this incredible breadth of stakeholders. They have been able to not only address one piece of it, but create a set of policies that work together to hopefully eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline in Broward.”

Broward is unusual because representatives from law enforcement, the district, and the community were able to agree on reform, and the superintendent approved it. “In dealing with the previous administration, people were afraid to look at disparate impact issues,” says Weekes. “[Runcie] was not backing away from it.” The new superintendent released the data and acknowledged that the problem had a racial dynamic. “It’s a problem all over the country,” Runcie says, “and Broward is no exception.”

The article was very optimistic, but Hot Air posted an article today with the results of the program:

Broward County’s PROMISE program (which stands for Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education) coincides with higher levels of violent crime among juveniles, even as levels of such crime have been falling statewide.

…Broward County now has the highest percentage of “the most serious, violent [and] chronic”juvenile offenders in Florida, according to the county’s chief juvenile probation officer…

Within two years of adopting the discipline reforms, Broward’s juvenile recidivism rate surged higher than the Florida state average.

The negative trends continued through last year, the most recent juvenile crime data show.

Prosecutors and probation officers complain that while overall juvenile arrests are down, serious violent crimes involving school-aged Broward youths – including armed robbery, kidnapping and even murder – have spiked, even as such violent crimes across the state have dropped.

Juvenile arrests for murder and manslaughter increased 150 percent between 2013 and 2016. They increased by another 50 percent in 2017. County juveniles were responsible for a total of 16 murders or manslaughters in the past two years alone, according to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice…

After Broward schools began emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration, fights broke out virtually every day in classrooms, hallways, cafeterias and campuses across the district. Last year, more than 3,000 fights erupted in the district’s 300-plus schools, including the altercations involving Cruz. No brawlers were arrested, even after their third fight, and even if they sent other children to the hospital.

Federal data show almost half of Broward middle school students have been involved in fights, with many suffering injuries requiring medical treatment.

Because the students involved in the fights are considered “mutual combatants,” administrators tell parents they cannot be referred to police under the new discipline code.

The Promise Program may have sounded really good on paper, but it lacked a knowledge of human nature and teenagers–teenagers generally like to push boundaries. If they can get away with something, they will. That’s human nature. It was unrealistic to expect that undisciplined students would discipline themselves.