From my friends at Power Line Blog:
Hot Air (and many other places on the Internet) are reporting today that America has signed a peace treaty with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The article notes:
The United States is set to sign a peace deal Saturday with the Taliban, its adversary in Afghanistan’s 18-year war. The deal marks a major turning point in a conflict marred by years of both military and diplomatic stalemate.
One provision of the agreement is the full withdrawal of American troops that is “heavily conditions based,” according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed on the deal. The officials declined to elaborate on what exactly those conditions are. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the deal publicly.
The article concludes:
This is something I was venting my frustrations about on Twitter yesterday. While I would be very pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, I can’t believe that the promises of the Taliban are worth anything. Also, even if they were being sincere, they don’t control all of the fighters in their country, so their ability to maintain a ceasefire is dubious at best.
I realize I’ve preached this line to all of you in the past, but I’ve not seen anything to sway my opinion much. The Taliban is just waiting for us to leave. If they have to wait another 14 months or another 14 years, they will. They’re very good at waiting for invading armies to grow frustrated and go home. They’ve been doing it forever. And as soon as we’re gone, they will tear now the new government and return to being a primitive, seventh century nation just as they’ve always been. At this point, we should probably just face up to that reality, use this deal as a ticket to pull our troops out and leave them to their own devices.
There are some things to remember when considering the war in Afghanistan. We made two major mistakes in that war that essentially cost us the moral high ground. Because we did not have the courage to face the problem of pedophilia in the country or to eliminate the poppy crop. Both would have been very difficult, but both would have had a positive impact on the blatant corruption in the country. Unless we were willing to overwhelm the population and stay long enough to change the culture, we were not going to be victorious there.
We also need to remember two of the basic concepts found in Islam–hudna and taqiyya. Reliance of the Traveller, which is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, states the following:
If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him Peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as it related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.
The purpose of a truce (hudna) was to give the Muslims time to stockpile weapons and become stronger.
In Islamic law, an obligation to lie exists if it is the only way to achieve an obligatory goal in Islam. Al-Taqiyya is based on a concept in Quaran 3:28 and 16:106. It is also found in the hadith, the embodiment of the sunnah, the words and actions of the prophet and his family the Ahl al-Bayt (The Twelve Imams and the prophet’s daughter, Fatimah).
We are leaving Afghanistan. Under present conditions, that is a good thing. However, to believe that this will mean that Afghanistan will no longer be a disjointed terrorist state is naive. Afghanistan has never really experienced freedom under a central government. It is naive to believe that we can superimpose a central government that espouses individual freedom over what is currently there. We need to learn the lessons of the American revolution–unless the people are willing to fight for their freedom and respect the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God, they will never be free.
Note: the information in this article about the principles of Islam are taken from Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. It is recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand the Muslim plan for worldwide Sharia Law.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Supreme Court ruled on January 21, 2010, prevents the government from restricting campaign contributions from corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
National Review posted an article on March 5, 2014, showing political campaign donations from 1989 to 2014. Below is the chart included in the article:
On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is investing $150 million to defeat President Trump in November.
The article reports:
The get-out-the-vote campaign is the biggest investment that the union has ever made in getting voters to the polls. It will largely focus on Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to the Associated Press. It will also focus on urban areas such as Detroit and Milwaukee. And while television ads will be part of the campaign, most of its resources will go to direct contact and online ads targeting minority voters.
Maria Peralta, the union’s political director, said Trump has made inroads with some minority voters who traditionally vote Democratic if they do vote. The Trump campaign plans to open community centers to win the black vote. The offices will feature African Americans who support Trump.
So what is this about? Through deregulation and other policies, the Trump administration has seen record economic growth. In order for the Democrats to stay in power, they need a permanent underclass that is dependent on the government to support them.
On February 15, Breitbart reported:
Approximately 6.1 million individuals dropped off the food stamp rolls since President Donald Trump’s first full month in office in February 2017, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
This is a threat to the growth of the Democrat party. If the Democrats can defeat President Trump, reverse his economic policies, and create a failing economy, they can gain more control over the everyday lives of Americans. That is their goal. That is the reason we need corporate money in elections to counter the union money. That is the reason Citizens United was a good decision.
It should also be noted that as the number of people dependent on the government decreases, the size of the administrative state should also decrease. That should also decrease the cost of government. That is a goal that totally frightens those involved in the administrative state. If the administrative state continues at its present size, we will never get federal deficits under control. Eventually the deficit will crash the economy.
Climate change seems to be an issue that will not die. Even when science refutes it, the call for crippling our economy in the name of the environment continues. Climate change enthusiasts seem to overlook the fact that America has reduced its carbon footprint significantly in the past few years. Meanwhile, the march toward green energy that so far is unworkable continues.
Today Issues and Answers reported the following:
“A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,’” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.”
Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming.
Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented … are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist.
The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to” the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said.
Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate.”
Follow the link to the article to see more examples of this blacklisting.
This is even more concerning when you consider the following the following comments about the true agenda of the climate-change movement:
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
As North Carolina fights for voter id laws, other states are finding people on the voter rolls that are more than 100 years old. While that is possible, it is somewhat unlikely.
Yesterday Breitbart reported that the Public Interest Legal Foundation has filed a lawsuit against Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit claims that nearly 1,600 dead people are registered to vote in the 2020 election in the county.
The article reports:
The Foundation reviewed birthdates from a portion of the County’s voter registration list against records in the Social Security Death Index. After matching other biographical information, the Foundation found 1,583 deceased registrants whose registrations should have been canceled, yet they remain actively registered to vote in the County. [Emphasis added]
…“One registrant is stated as being born in ‘June 1800,’ the same year Thomas Jefferson won eight of Pennsylvania’s 15 Electoral College votes against President John Adams,” the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit claims there are 1,178 registered voters who are missing dates of births in Allegheny County, about 193 registered voters who are missing dates of registration, and 35 registered voters with corrupted or out-of-state addresses.
Officials with the Public Interest Legal Foundation are looking to ensure that Allegheny County makes reasonable efforts to maintain their voter rolls, as required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
Unfortunately there are a number of states that have chosen to ignore the requirement to maintain their voter rolls that was part of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The act has been used to register large numbers of voters, not all of whom are citizens, with very little effort put into maintaining accurate voter rolls.
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore posted the following on this website on Wednesday:
General Assembly lawmakers requested a hearing of the full state Court of Appeals on Tuesday to review North Carolina’s voter ID law, arguing “there is no category of voters that is even theoretically prohibited from voting.”
A liberal, activist appeals court panel recently reversed a bipartisan trial court’s approval of the state’s voter ID law that allows individuals without ID to still cast a ballot.
Attorneys for state lawmakers noted that the bipartisan three-judge trial court panel found the plaintiffs in Holmes v. Moore were unlikely to succeed on their challenge to North Carolina’s voter ID law, but “an error-ridden decision that took a one-sided look at the record” from an appeals court panel reversed their ruling last week.
North Carolina’s voter ID law was passed pursuant to a constitutional amendment approved by voters, was then vetoed by Gov. Roy Cooper, but enacted by the state legislature in S.B. 824 Implementation of Voter ID Constitutional Amendment.
Arguing the case is of “exceptional importance” concerning “a constitutional mandate,” lawmakers’ request for a full hearing of the North Carolina Court of Appeals notes the state’s voter ID law “is exceptionally protective of voters and compares favorably with other laws that have been upheld in the face of similar challenges.”
“The panel failed to adequately distinguish North Carolina’s voter ID law from Virginia’s and South Carolina’s laws – which were upheld despite the fact that both laws are stricter than North Carolina’s in many respects,” attorneys for state lawmakers wrote Tuesday.
“Voters lacking ID may cast a reasonable impediment ballot that will be counted unless the declaration underlying the ballot is factually false.”
General Assembly leaders also noted in the filing that “less than 0.1% of participants in the March 2016 primary had to vote provisionally because they lacked ID under a prior law’s shorter ID list.”
“The General Assembly still exercised its discretionary authority to allow exceptions from the constitutional voter ID requirement to ensure that all registered voters will be able to vote…there thus is no category of voters that is even theoretically prohibited from voting by S.B. 824’s terms,” the motion for an en banc hearing of the state Court of Appeals said.
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland), who filed the proposed voter ID constitutional amendment approved by voters, said the state Court of Appeals must grant the request for an en banc hearing given that “the people’s voice in the democratic process is at stake.”
“The people of North Carolina deserve a full, fair hearing of the state Court of Appeals on voter ID,” Speaker Moore said this week.
“This liberal, activist appeals court panel was wrong to reverse a bipartisan trial court’s ruling and tread on the will of voters in this state. The Court of Appeals must grant the request for a full hearing on voter ID given the people’s voice in the democratic process is at stake in this litigation.”
North Carolina voters voted for voter id twice–once outright and once as an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution. It is really annoying to vote for something twice and have the courts ignore the will of the voters.
If you embrace diversity, does that mean that you are willing to sit down to dinner with cannibals? Does embracing diversity mean that you are willing to encourage people who want to replace our system of government with a repressive system of government? These are questions that those who champion diversity need to answer.
Yesterday PJ Media posted an article about a recent decision made by the City Council of Patterson, New Jersey.
The article reports:
The next Democratic debate isn’t in Paterson, New Jersey, but it should be: that unlikely city is blazing new trails in multiculturalism and diversity. On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously (with two members not voting) to grant preliminary approval to the Islamic call to prayer being broadcast over loudspeakers in the city. This followed the swearing-in earlier this month, on the Qur’an, of course, of Paterson’s new police chief, Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora, the first Muslim police chief in an American city.
Celebrate diversity, right? Sure. The problem is that it is by no means certain that this diversity will celebrate us. The Paterson noise ordinance says: “The city shall permit ‘Adhan’, call to prayer’, ‘church bells’ and other reasonable means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for duration not to exceed five minutes.”
The article continues:
So the Islamic call to prayer is just like church bells. Sure, and informed, devout Muslims are just Methodists with hats and beards. Reality, however, is not so rosy. The Islamic call to prayer, now to be sounded three times a day in Paterson, New Jersey (there are five daily prayers, but two of them fall outside the 6AM-10PM parameters of the ordinance), declares:
Allah is greater (Allahu akbar, four times)
I testify that there is no God but Allah (Ashhadu anna la ila ill Allah) (twice)
I testify that Mohammed is Allah’s Prophet (Ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah) (twice)
Come to prayer (Hayya alas salah, twice)
Come to success (Hayya alal falah, twice)
Allah is greater (Allahu akbar) (twice)
There is no God but Allah (La ilah ill Allah) (once)
Besides being screamed out by Islamic jihad terrorists all over the world (9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta said it “strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”), “Allahu akbar” is a clear demonstration of supremacism. It is often mistranslated in the Western media as “God is great,” but its actual meaning is “Allah is greater,” meaning Allah Is Greater Than Your God or Government. It is an aggressive declaration that Allah and Islam are dominant over every other form of government, religion, law, or ethic, which is why Islamic jihadists in the midst of killing infidels so often shout it.
You may consider allowing the Muslim call to prayer a salute to diversity, but as you read the contents of that call to prayer, you realize that there is not a reciprocal desire for diversity. A Muslim who takes his oath of office on the Qur’an is making a statement that he values the principles in the Qur’an. Those principles regard the laws in the Qur’an as overruling the U.S. Constitution. There is no freedom of religion in the Qur’an. Non-Muslims, or infidels as they are called, do not have equal rights and in many cases are murdered for their faith.
Electing a Muslim as a police chief is a risk. This city needs to be watched to make sure the celebration of diversity is reciprocal.
Yesterday Fox News posted an article about a recent drug seizure at the Arizona border.
The article reports:
A drug bust last year was hailed as the largest fentanyl bust in U.S. history—254 pounds seized at an Arizona border crossing.
The seizure came as the scourge of fentanyl continues to fuel the opioid epidemic, ravaging communities across the U.S. while killing tens of thousands of people.
“Fentanyl also continues to be a tremendous problem, contributing to 68,000 overdose deaths in the United States in 2018,” Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Congress in November. He said CBP’s seizures of fentanyl rose by 30 percent in fiscal year 2019, totaling 2,770 pounds.
Fentanyl comes from China. Often it is smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico by drug cartels involved in a violent war with Mexican police and military forces.
The historic 254-pound bust was just one of a half-dozen big fentanyl busts recorded by law enforcement in recent years, a tally shows.
These six busts have led to the seizure of some 818 pounds of fentanyl–enough to kill 229 million people, according to authorities.
The article lists the six major drug busts. Please follow the link above to the article to see the details.
On March 22, 2019, I Heart Radio reported:
A new study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows how the opioid epidemic has ballooned over the past six years. The report found that from 2011 to 2016, the number of overdose deaths from the synthetic opiate fentanyl has risen by over 1000 percent.
The CDC says that in 2011 and 2012, around 1,600 people died each year from a fentanyl overdose. The number of deaths rose to 1,900 in 2013, but in 2014 officials saw the number of fatalities jump to 4,223. In 2015 the number of deaths nearly doubled to 8,251, and in 2016 there were another 10,000 deadly overdoses, bringing the total to 18,335 for the year.
The massive spike in fentanyl-related deaths was seen mainly in men. Up until 2013, the number of men and women who overdosed on fentanyl was about the same, but in 2014 the numbers began to diverge, and in 2016 there were three times as many men killed from an overdose as women.
Fentanyl is now considered the deadliest drug in America and is responsible for 29% of all overdose deaths in the nation.
Border security matters.
As the coronavirus spreads, we need to put the threat into perspective. This is a serious virus, and people have died after contracting it, but how does this compare with the basic American flu season?
CNS News reports:
As explained by Johns Hopkins Medicine, COVID-19 is “caused by one virus, the novel 2019 coronavirus, now called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2.” The flu is “caused by any of several different types and strains of influenza viruses.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were approximately 45 million cases of the flu in the United States during the 2017-2018 influenza season. Among those cases, 810,000 people had to be hospitalized.
During that season, 61,000 people died from the flu.
…As of Feb. 25, the World Health Organization (WHO) said there were 80,239 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in 34 countries.
The WHO also reported that there have been 2,700 deaths from COVID-19.
As of Feb. 25, there were 54 COVID-19 cases in the United States but no deaths reported.
The coronavirus is a serious health concern. However, I am tired of watching news anchors with their hair on fire claiming we are all going to die and that it’s President Trump’s fault. These are the same people who criticized President Trump when he limited travel to America from China in January. That alone has probably prevented many cases of the virus in America.
Meanwhile, wash you hands. Stay away from sneezing and coughing people. Get enough sleep, and take your vitamins. Hopefully the coronavirus will be similar to the flu and will be seasonal.
The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article today about the death of Philip Haney. The police department that handled the case is expressing doubts that the death was a suicide.
The article reports:
Authorities have backtracked on initial reports that a Department of Homeland Security whistleblower committed suicide after his body was found with a gunshot wound by a California highway.
Philip Haney, who spoke out against his own agency during the Obama administration, was found dead in Plymouth, about 40 miles east of Sacramento, last Friday.
His body was found in a park and ride area near Highway 16 and Highway 124.
The Amador County Sheriff’s Office initially said the 66-year-old was found with what appeared to be a ‘self-inflicted gunshot wound’.
They also said a firearm had been found next to Haney and his vehicle.
The sheriff’s office have since described those initial reports as ‘misinformation’ and said they have asked the FBI for assistance in investigating Haney’s death.
Let’s hope they get the honest FBI and not the deep state FBI.
The article reports information that might hold some clues to the cause of death:
Haney gained national attention in 2016 when he criticized the agency – which at the time was under the Obama administration – for its handling of radical Jihadists and Islamic extremists.
He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the DHS ordered him in 2009 to delete hundreds of files that showed links between people and Islamic terror groups.
The whistleblower testified that several terror attacks in the U.S. could have been thwarted if some of those files had not been deleted.
In an opinion piece for the Hill prior to his testimony, Haney wrote: ‘It is very plausible that one or more of the subsequent terror attacks on the homeland could have been prevented if more subject matter experts in the Department of Homeland Security had been allowed to do our jobs back in late 2009.
‘It is demoralizing – and infuriating – that today, those elusive dots are even harder to find, and harder to connect, than they were during the winter of 2009.’
At the time of Haney’s testimony, Republicans questioned former Obama-era DHS Secretary Jet Johnson about the allegations.
Senator Ted Cruz asked: ‘Was Mr Haney’s testimony that the Department of Homeland Security order over 800 documents… altered or deleted accurate?’
Johnson replied he had ‘no idea’ and denied knowing who Haney was.
‘I don’t know who Mr Haney is. I wouldn’t know him if he walked into the room,’ he said.
Hopefully Mr. Haney left the information for his next book with a reliable person.
I don’t believe that Philip Haney committed suicide. I hope the investigation will be kept open until authorities know exactly what did happen.
The Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday with the following headline, “Eight Democrats and Independents in Mississippi Switch Parties to Republican — Leaders Express Concern Over Socialist Bernie Sanders.” This is the result of a group of extremists taking over the Democrat party. This ultra-left group appeals to the younger generation by promising them free things. Unfortunately, this segment of the younger generation, in addition to wanting free things instead of working, does not always have the ambition to get out and vote.
The article quotes WLOX, a local news station:
The Mississippi Republican Party is welcoming some new members and all of them were elected public offices as Democrats or Independents in this most recent election cycle.
The Mississippi Republican Party Chairman says he doesn’t expect this will be the last time they are welcoming new members to the GOP.
“We have had a relentless focus on switching conservative Democrats over to the Republican party,” explained MSGOP Chairman Lucien Smith. “They recognize increasingly that there is only one party that represents the conservative values of our state and that is the Republican party.”
All eight of the latest party switchers were from Smith and Covington Counties and one District Attorney whose district covers those areas. But the conservation didn’t take long to expand to the national party ties.
“We are in a scenario in this country where you can choose to be a member of the party led by Donald J. Trump or you can choose to be a member of the socialist Democratic party led by Bernie Sanders,” noted Governor Tate Reeves.
There is genuine concern in the establishment Democrat party that if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination the Democrats will lose their majority in the House of Representatives and will lose seats in the Senate. The Democrat party may be taking a sharp left turn, but a vast section of American has chosen not to follow.
Joe Biden is running for President. He probably shouldn’t be–he has definitely lost a few steps in recent years. Yesterday in a speech, he asked people to vote for him because he was running for the Senate. Last night in the Democrat debate, he illustrated that at times he has a very tenuous relationship with the truth.
The U. K. Mail reported today that during the debate, Joe Biden stated that 150 million Americans have died from gun violence since 2007. The estimated population of the United States is approximately 330 million. According to Pew Research, there are approximately 40,000 gun deaths in America annually and roughly six in ten of those are suicides. That is a far cry from the numbers former Vice-President Biden was citing.
The article reports:
Biden’s blunder came as he sought to take aim at party front-runner Bernie Sanders during Tuesday’s Democratic debate over his past support of a law that protected gun manufacturers from being held responsible for gun-related deaths.
According to that logic, car manufacturers would be held liable for deaths caused by drunk drivers. In both cases, something was misused by the person using it–the user–not the manufacturer should be held responsible. If you carry the idea of having the manufacturer held responsible for product misuse, how would that impact manufacturing in America? This is another Democratic idea that would unintentionally cripple the American economy.
The article continues:
According to the Center for American Progress, the number of firearm deaths – both violent and accidental deaths – in the US between 2007 to 2017 was 373,663, a mere fraction of the 150 million Biden stated.
Voters took to Twitter to mock the outlandish claims, sparking fresh concerns over his mental capacity.
One person tweeted: ‘How many people does he think there are in America?’
Another posted, ‘Biden for Senate 2020’ – a reference to the candidate’s other blunder just hours earlier where he had told crowds he was running for the Senate.
Biden addressed a crowd in South Carolina on Monday and appeared to forget which campaign he was running in.
He said: ‘My name’s Joe Biden and I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see help out, if not, vote for the other Biden.’
A clip of his latest gaffe was posted on Twitter by activist Shaun King, who wrote: ‘This is so sad.’
He added: ‘I honestly wish he would’ve retired & not subjected himself to the rigors of this campaign.’
It truly is time for Joe Biden to leave the stage.
Yesterday The National Review posted an article with the title, “With Liberty and Two-Track Justice for All.” Unless things change quickly, we will officially become a banana republic.
The article notes the contrasts in the way similar charges against Americans were handled:
• President Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is doing seven and a half years at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pa., for his pre-Trump tax and bank fraud. Manafort has endured solitary confinement.
• Former campaign aide George Papadopoulos served twelve days in the slammer for false statements to FBI officers. His steep legal bills and spooked clients drove him back into his parents’ house.
• Former national security adviser Michael Flynn awaits sentencing, and wants his charges dropped, after pleading guilty to false statements. Flynn reportedly took a plea after selling his house to pay his lawyers. DOJ prosecuted Flynn, although no less than Andrew McCabe acknowledged that “the two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying.” Indeed, the G-men who spoke with Flynn later reported: “Throughout the interview, Flynn had a very ‘sure’ demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception. He did not parse his words or hesitate in any of his answers.” Never mind those details; Flynn still could wind up in an orange jump suit.
The article compares the above scenarios with the fate of James Comey:
As the OIG concluded:
Comey violated applicable policies and his Employment Agreement by failing to either surrender his copies of Memos 2, 4, 6, and 7 to the FBI or seek authorization to retain them; by releasing official FBI information and records to third parties without authorization; and by failing to immediately alert the FBI about his disclosures to his personal attorneys once he became aware in June 2017 that Memo 2 contained six words (four of which were names of foreign countries mentioned by the President) that the FBI had determined were classified at the “CONFIDENTIAL” level.
So, Comey did spill state secrets.
“By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action,” the OIG concluded in August, “Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.”
So, is Comey breaking rocks? Awaiting his prison sentence? Preparing for trial?
The article notes the activities of Hillary Clinton:
Despite 588 security violations that the State Department attributed to Hillary Clinton and her associates in the Emailgate scandal, as well as her role in purchasing the “dirty dossier” that triggered the Russia hoax, the former first lady has suffered zero consequences for an entire career of professional misconduct. Anyone who survived her husband’s presidency recalls Hillary as a latter-day Ma Barker, or Bonnie to Bill’s Clyde. Regardless, Hillary always walks away, Scot-free. And she always gets paid.
Her 2014 book Hard Choices scored her some $14 million. The next year, Business Insider reports, she made $12 million in speaking fees to well-connected organizations and huge corporations. A sample of these for 2015 included:
California Medical Association: $100,000 (via satellite!)
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce: $150,000
Institute of Scrap Metal Recycling Industries: $225,000
National Automobile Dealers Association: $225,500
United Fresh Produce Association: $225,000
eBay Inc.: $315,000 (for a 20-minute speech)
Cisco: $325,000 (She reportedly sat onstage with the CEO)
Biotechnology Industry Organization: $335,000
Qualcomm Incorporated: $335,000
GTCR Private Equity: $780,000
Atop this steady cash, Hillary never stops playing presidential-campaign hokey-pokey: She puts her left foot in, she takes her left foot out, she puts her left foot in, and she shakes it all about. Rumors that Michael Bloomberg is considering her as a potential running mate gives this entitled woman yet another opportunity to show some West Wing ankle.
Lois Lerner also made the list of insiders with minimal consequences for breaking the law:
Lois Lerner ran the IRS unit that perpetrated the systematic political profiling of conservative groups that sought tax-exempt designation. IRS’s wingtip-dragging, relentless demands for paperwork, and Orwellian questions (“please provide the percentage of time your organization spends on prayer groups”) all subjected to extra scrutiny 94 percent of center-right and Tea Party groups that sought 501(c)(3) and (c)(4)status, versus 6 percent of analogous liberal outfits, the House Ways and Means Committee found in August 2013. Consequently, rather than educate citizens on limited-government principles before the 2012 election, scores of these organizations either failed to launch or did so, only to run out of fuel and tumble back to earth.
Lerner supervised this virtual gag-the-Right scheme. When GOP congressional overseers sought Lerner’s laptop hard drive, they learned that it was shipped to a Federal Bureau of Prisons recycling facility in Florida. As the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration testified in 2015, “this shipment of hard drives was destroyed using an AMERI-SHRED AMS-750HD shredder.” The industrial-strength machine chopped the drives into quarter-sized pieces. The Feds then sold this material as scrap.
Was Lerner punished? Reprimanded? Ordered to stand in the corner for 20 minutes?
Lerner was placed on administrative leave. This is Potomac for “paid vacation.” She received her $177,000 annual salary while she stayed home and relaxed. (If she were U.S. senator Lois Lerner, she would have earned $3,000 less.) According to the Washington Post, “Lerner has received a $100,000 annual pension since retiring from the IRS in September 2013, and she and her husband, an attorney with a national law firm, live in a $2.5 million home in Bethesda,” Maryland, where she walks her dogs and gardens outside her 6,500-square-foot house.
The article concludes:
America needs equal justice, but neither undue leniency nor undeserved cruelty toward Stone.
Given Stone’s sentence, McCabe, Comey, Clinton, and Lerner should be locked up.
But since those four got zero prison time, plus book deals, TV contracts, and a hefty pension, then Roger Stone deserves to walk into a green room at Fox News Channel. I would expect to congratulate him there on his new contributor agreement and hear all about his upcoming memoir.
Fair is fair.
Yesterday The Daily Caller reported that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Trump administration can continue stripping federal funding from clinics that offer abortions. Note that he did not shut down the clinics–he just said that they would not receive federal funding. That ruling is an example of the impact President Trump’s judicial appointments have had on the Ninth Circuit.
Yesterday Fox News reported:
President Trump has reshaped the “notoriously liberal” U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to Carrie Severino, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network’s chief counsel and policy director, who noted it was often referred to as the “Ninth Circus.”
The former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the comments Monday on “Fox & Friends” in response to a Los Angeles Times article titled “Trump has flipped the 9th Circuit — and some new judges are causing a ‘shock wave.’”
The article said that when President Trump talks about his accomplishments in office, “he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington, was a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped into a more moderate court by the Trump administration.
The Daily Caller notes:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) followed the decision in June by alerting clinics that it would enforce the administration’s ban. Planned Parenthood withdrew from the Title X federal family planning program, thereby forgoing about $60 million a year, in August 2019 rather than comply with this decision.
The Daily Caller article includes a screenshot of a comment by Leana Wen, M.D., a former president of Planned Parenthood. She comments that she will continue to fight so that millions of women across the country can receive care. Note the vocabulary used here–abortion is being framed as care. In a stretch of logic I suppose you could consider abortion care for the mother, but it is definitely not care for the baby. By controlling the vocabulary, Dr. Wen seeks to control the argument. The government should not be funding clinics that lead women to abortions–they should be funding clinics that lead women to prenatal care and support for their pregnancy.
The American Spectator posted an article today updating the progress President Trump has made in undoing the “Waters of the United States (WOTUS)” rule put in place by the Obama administration. Under the guise of protecting the environment, the rule essentially gives the government control of your property if you have a mud puddle that shows up every Spring. The article notes that undoing something put in place by a federal bureaucracy is harder than reversing the direction of an aircraft carrier.
The article reports:
WOTUS represented one of the great power grabs in government history. By redefining “waters of the U.S.,” Obama-era officials asserted federal authority (virtual ownership) over almost all water in the country — not only large lakes, rivers, and oceans, but also streams, creeks, wetlands, ponds, parking lot puddles, and irrigation ditches. Nothing in the law justified such a broad sweep.
The new rule, released this week, is unfortunately still much broader than the law justifies. The Clean Water Act, which sought to control pollution of the nation’s major waterways, contains the phrase “waters of the U.S.” in 12 places. Of those, nine use the phrase “navigable waters of the U.S.,” and the other three refer specifically to barges and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. “Navigable waters” were defined as “waters of the U.S.,” meaning the terms are synonymous. There are no waters of the U.S. that are not navigable. Not in the law.
Nevertheless, the new rule continues to assert federal jurisdiction over waters never intended by Congress. On the plus side, it includes a final definition of what are, and are not, waters of the United States. It specifically disclaims federal jurisdiction over farms, ranches, irrigation ditches, stock ponds, wastewater treatment systems, and rainwater runoff. But in addition to “territorial seas and navigable waters,” the definition still includes “perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters,” “certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments,” and “wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters.”
The article concludes:
Vague definitions lead to abuses, which are far too common in recent years. Most recently, the prosecution of Jack LaPant, whose decision to plant wheat on his California farm — with full approval of the Agriculture Department — resulted in over $5 million in fines. It seems the Corps of Engineers considers topsoil a pollutant. That’s about as nonsensical as an attempt by the EPA a few years ago to declare sunlight a pollutant. In LaPlant’s case, the Corps missed a vitally important detail: Congress specifically exempted “normal farming activities” from federal “jurisdiction.” That clearly includes planting wheat, especially on existing farms where wheat has been grown before.
We understand the natural instinct of all bureaucracies to seek more power. But like most farms, that one has no floating boats, and it is not “navigable water.” The Trump administration inherited the case but has not dismissed it or stopped the prosecution. It turns out that turning the bureaucracy, despite orders from the admiral, is actually much harder than turning an aircraft carrier.
The above story illustrates why we need to re-elect President Trump. Hopefully the WOTUS rule can be revisited so that America’s ability to grow food to feed its people is not impacted.
Breitbart is reporting today that the the leak saying that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election is not true. Just as an aside, Russia has always interfered in our elections–they don’t care who wins–they just want to disrupt things and hopefully cause Americans to lose faith in the electoral process. Unfortunately they have been more successful at times than I would have liked.
The article reports:
U.S. intelligence and national security officials have reportedly refuted the claim that Russia is interfering in the 2020 elections to help President Donald Trump’s re-election, arguing in media reports published over the weekend that the United States does not have evidence to support the allegation.
House Democrat lawmakers pushing the allegation that the Kremlin is trying to help Trump “misheard or misinterpreted” the intelligence community’s formal assessment of ongoing U.S. election interference by the Russians, unnamed U.S. officials suggested to the New York Times.
Just another example of fake news put forth by the Democrats and the mainstream media.
The article concludes:
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the Washington Post recently reported that U.S. officials had warned Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that Russia is trying to get him to the White House. Sanders is currently the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has described the assertion that Russia is trying to help Sanders as “false,” lambasting Trump for repeating it.
Echoing the U.S. intelligence and national security officers who spoke to CNN and the Times, White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien and Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short denied the ODNI official’s claim that Russia is interfering in the 2020 presidential election to aid Trump’s re-election.
Nevertheless, Democrat lawmakers continue to claim that Russia is interfering in the U.S. elections on behalf of Trump.
President Trump has called for an investigation into a possible leak of classified intelligence unveiled during the briefing on election interference, accusing Schiff of leaking the information.
What needs to happen here is that the person who leaked whatever information was leaked needs to be prosecuted for leaking.
Hot Air is reporting today that America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.
The article reports:
Increased natural gas consumption helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Chances are you haven’t heard. That’s because the mainstream media and environmentalists insist on condemning the Trump administration for championing fossil fuels even though the United States is doing a better job at reducing emissions than many other countries that signed the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
The public can credit much of this success to the fracking boom, which has made natural gas much more plentiful. Cheap, abundant natural gas has gradually been displacing coal, which emits about twice as much carbon dioxide. A recent Rhodium Group study found that coal-fired power generation dropped by 18% last year, the lowest level since 1975.
The article concludes:
Meanwhile, thanks to a huge abundance of cheap natural gas (generated via fracking), America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2% in 2019 after previously cutting them by the same amount the prior year. In fact, U.S. emissions went down by 12% between 2005 and 2017. By next year, American emissions are projected to be the lowest they have been since 1991, a time when the population was much lower than it is now.
By comparison, how are the “good” countries who signed on to the Paris accord doing? As it turns out, France Germany and the United Kingdom all missed their emissions reduction goals last year. Germany’s emissions actually increased after they started gutting their nuclear power program and were forced to restart some coal-fired plants to keep the lights turned on.
The only countries that are given high marks for meeting the climate agreement’s objectives are very small nations with low populations and not very much economic or industrial activity. So who are the real bad guys in this story? Before any global consortium starts trying to dictate to us how to handle our greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they should get their own houses in order and follow our example. Rather than just talking about reducing emissions, we’re actually doing it. And we didn’t need a treaty with anyone else to get the job done.
The reason the success of America in reducing greenhouse gases is not heralded is that the success goes against the purpose of the climate change agenda–it doesn’t allow tyrannical countries to shake down democracies and republics.The goal of the climate change rhetoric is to redistribute the world’s wealth–to take money from countries that have prospered under the free market and give it to countries where the government controls the economy. America’s success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions simply does not fit the desired template.
The Gateway Pundit posted an article today with the following headline:
Three Years Ago a FISA Report Confirmed Obama Admin Was Sending FISA Obtained Information on Americans to Non Government Entities We Still Don’t Know Whose Data Was Sent to What Companies
This is a serious violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans.
The article states:
The FISA Court Ruling showed widespread abuse of the FISA mandate. According to the report, Obama’s FBI, NSA and DOJ performed searches on Americans that were against their 4th Amendment rights. This went on for years. One paragraph in the report states that 85% of the Section 704 and 705(b) FISA searches made during the time of the audit (a few months in 2015) were non-compliant with applicable laws and therefore criminal.
In addition, Obama’s DOJ and FBI were illegally searching Americans against their rights. Unbeknownst to most Americans, Obama’s FBI was providing this information to outside contractors who had no business or legal cause or claim for the information.
A review of the report showed on page 19 that the Court stated that Obama’s NSA had an institutional “lack of candor”.
The article includes the report.
The article concludes:
The level of corruption within Obama’s NSA, FBI and DOJ is shocking.
To date no one has been charged with crimes or is serving time as a result of the many crimes committed by this group of government hoodlums. We still don’t know what companies were receiving personal information on which Americans during the Obama years.
It’s been more than four years!!!
It is high time that those responsible for violating the constitutional rights of American citizens be brought to justice.
Fox News reported yesterday that Dave Ayres, a Zamboni driver for the Toronto Marlies of the American Hockey League, saved the day for the North Carolina Hurricanes. The Hurricanes were playing the Toronto Maple Leafs.
The article reports:
Ayres, who works as a Zamboni driver for the Toronto Marlies of the American Hockey League, was forced into action midway through the second period after Carolina’s James Reimer and Petr Mrazek were injured. The Hurricanes were leading 3-1 when the 42-year-old Ayres took over.
The article details how the game went:
Carolina trailed 1-0 after the first, but tied it at 5:46 of the second when Wallmark scored off a scramble in front of Andersen. Niederrieter then blasted a one-timer on a power play at 9:43 before Foegele made it 3-1 at 10:49.
Mrazek made 14 saves in relief of Reimer, but left the game 30 seconds after Foegele’s first goal. The Czech netminder lay on the ice for a few minutes before leaving.
And after a delay, Ayres emerged from the Hurricanes locker room sporting No. 90. He got a some warmup shots from his new teammates before getting thrown into the fray.
Aho made it 4-1 with Clifford in the penalty box for charging at 13:17, but Tavares scored on the first shot against Ayres through the pads 19 seconds later.
Engvall scored off a loose puck on Toronto’s next shot against Ayres at 15:10.
The Leafs got a power play after that — fans at Scotiabank Arena screamed “Shoot!” almost every time a Toronto player had the puck anywhere near the Carolina goal — but the Hurricanes didn’t allow anything through.
Ayres made his first save late in the second on Auston Matthews as Carolina led 4-3 through a wild 40 minutes.
What a wild story!
Yesterday One America News reported that the Supreme Court ruled five to four to expand the “public charge” rule across the entire country. This is the rule that allows states to deny green cards to people that they feel will rely on public assistance. We need to remember that immigrants who arrived in America before the War on Poverty had to provide for their own needs. They were the people who built this country. Unfortunately we are now in a situation where many immigrants come here for what they can get, not what they can contribute.
The article reports:
“President Trump’s administration is reinforcing the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, ensuring that immigrants are able to support themselves and become successful here in America,” stated USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli.
The Department of Homeland Security defined the scope of “public charge” in August 2019. They expanded it to include immigrants who are likely to use public benefits like Medicaid, food stamp and housing vouchers.
Several states, including California, New York and Illinois, issued “universal” injunctions to stop enforcement of the rule across the country.
“It is a point of principle that we stand up at a moment like this, as a state, and assert ourselves,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.). “(We will) protect not only the values of the state, but the remarkable diversity that we represent within this state.”
Last month, the high court struck down the injunctions and expanded the rule to every state except Illinois, which has been since included in the ruling.
Advocates have urged immigrants not to be afraid of signing up for public assistance. They claimed the affected population will be small.
“The people who are actually, directly impacted by this is very small,” said Immigration Advocates Network Director Rodrigo Camarena. “We should remind our immigrant friends and neighbors that, in all likelihood, this decision does not affect you.”
First of all, we need to do away with the idea of ‘universal injunctions.’ There is no way under our Constitution that one state should be able to control the actions of another state.
The article concludes:
The new order will allow the federal government to enforce the “public charge” rule without being blocked, but courts will still be able to appeal the rule in their state.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Illinois will hear oral arguments on the issue next week. The new rule will take effect nationwide on Monday.
Keep in mind that the Democrats need a dependent class in order to win elections. That is what this is really about.
Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article titled, “State Department Employee in Japan Ignored President Trump’s Orders and Allowed Americans with Coronavirus to Fly Back to the US.” The State Department employee who ignored the President’s orders is Ian Brownlee, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs. He needs to be fired immediately.
The article reports:
‘It’s important to remember this was an emerging and unusual circumstance,’ said Ian Brownlee, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs.
‘We had 328 people on buses, a plan to execute and we received lab results on people who were otherwise asymptomatic, un-ill people on a bus on the way to the airport.
‘The people on the ground did exactly the right thing…in bringing them home.’
People who had tested positive were put into isolation units on board the two cargo planes, which then flew to Joint Base San Antonio – Lackland in Texas and Travis Air Base in California.
Although officials reassured the press that the sick passengers were thoroughly contained and every precaution had been taken to ensure the safety of the healthy people onboard, reports later emerged that people on the flights had no idea they were sharing yet another even more confined space with infected individuals.
When the planes landed at their respective destinations late Sunday night, six ‘high risk’ passengers from Lackland and seven from Travis were ushered onto an additional flight to Omaha Eppley Airfield in Nebraska.
Mr. Brownlee did not have the authority to override the President’s orders. Hopefully everything will work out in the end, but Mr. Brownlee has created a risk for American citizens that did not need to be there. He should be immediately terminated for insubordination.
From my friends at Power Line Blog:
Philip Haney was well known in intelligence circles. He was an honest man who told the truth and blew the whistle on some of the ‘questionable’ practices of the Obama administration. He was well respected and totally honest in his assessments of terrorist threats. He was murdered in California earlier this week.
Law Enforcement Today posted an article this morning.
The article reports:
We have a quick update for the story we broke earlier today in the apparent murder of our friend, Philip Haney. We will continue to provide details as they become available.
While we and The Gateway Pundit are the only outlets covering this developing news, conversation on Twitter is exploding.
LET broke this tragic news to the nation this morning.
A screen shot taken from Frank Andrew Bostom’s Twitter feed shows what appears to be a statement from Frank Gaffney, the Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy.
The statement reads:
“As you may know, we lost this week one of our most brilliant, most dedicated and most devout comrades-in-arms: Philip Haney.
While the details are sketchy at the moment, Phil went missing on Wednesday in the area he called home in northern California to which he returned after the passing of his beloved wife, Francesca, following a long struggle with a series of terrible health afflictions. On Friday morning, a sheriff’s deputy finally found his body with a gunshot wound to the chest.
As of now, we have no word about suspects or motives.
It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this loss to the cause of freedom…”
The article includes a screenshot of a tweet by Andrew Bostom:
On Thursday, The Washington Times posted an article about President Trump’s naming of Richard Grenell as the new acting director of national intelligence. The political left is complaining about the nomination, claiming that Ambassador Grenell is not qualified. The article reports that when Leon Panetta was chosen by President Obama to lead the CIA, Panetta had no intelligence experience.
The article notes:
What’s wrong is Grenell is pro-Trump and he’s being appointed to head an agency with a deep state reputation filled with deep state resentments about this president. The left is panicked about the potential for light to shine on their anti-Trump — anti-American — covert activities.
So they’re pretending as if Grenell isn’t the right guy for the job based on his experience.
And this, from ex-FBI agent Clint Watts, on Twitter: “Grennell as DNI can only be seen as a way for Trump to achieve confirmation bias for his conspiracies & block real analysis and true assessments of threats. Not a serious nominee. How much tax payer money will be used to run down nonsense?”
The article concludes:
Grenell, at least, is an ambassador — somebody who has to deal with national security issues while navigating complicated, oft-conflicting waters, while calming and soothing and wheeling-and-dealing with a variety of personalities, all expressing a variety of interests. In other words: Grenell is somebody who at least has some hands-on experience doing exactly what intel folk do.
And that’s why the deep state and globalist elites deem him unqualified.
On Friday, The Conservative Treehouse reported:
Kash Patel previously worked as Devin Nunes’ senior staffer on the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI). It was Patel who was the lead author of the Nunes memo exposing corrupt conduct of the FBI and DOJ officials during Crossfire Hurricane.
Patel joined the National Security Council’s International Organizations and Alliances directorate last February and was promoted to the senior counterterrorism role at the NSC mid-summer 2019. According to recent reporting Patel is now joining Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell as a Senior Advisor and Catherine Herridge is reporting the objective is to ‘clean house‘.
I wonder how much of this ‘housecleaning’ is going to put some members of Congress in a very bad light. Bring it on!
Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about a question asked at the end of the recent Democrat debate.
The article reports:
It was the final question in a wild and furious Democrat debate last night: “If no candidate earns the majority of delegates how should a nominee be chosen?” Should the candidate with the most delegates be selected as the nominee?
Every candidate on stage -except Bernie Sanders- stated the private Club rules should determine the nominee at the DNC convention in Wisconsin; regardless of who comes to the convention with the highest number of delegates. Bernie Sanders position is that whoever has the highest number of votes and earned delegates should be the nominee.
The super delegates at the Democrat Convention do not vote on the first ballot (although that could change if Bernie Sanders has a strong lead). They do, however, vote on the second ballot. The smoke-filled-room Democrats do not want Bernie Sanders as the candidate–they see him as another George McGovern.
The article concludes:
With proportional distribution this difference of opinion could be problematic if most of the candidates stay in the race (quite probable now, except Biden) and split the non-Bernie vote. Yet, Bernie Sanders beats them all in the popular vote and earned delegate count.
After the first round delegate count at the convention the 700 ‘Super Delegates’ could select a ‘non-Bernie’ nominee in round two. This has always looked like the Club plan; however, Team Bernie will likely go bananas.
My question is this, “If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter and see him robbed of the nomination twice, will you still vote Democrat?” That is the question the people in the smoke-filled rooms need to consider. Although Bernie Sanders as the candidate would probably give the election to President Trump, wouldn’t taking the nomination away from Bernie Sanders after he won it also give the election to President Trump? It’s an interesting dilemma.