July 31, 2017
Imran Awan and his brother Abdul and his other brother Abdul was sending classified documents to foreign powers.
According to Gateway Pundit:
Democrats were willing or unwillingly compromised by the Awans and sensitive information leaked to foreign Enemies
On Monday Judge Napolitano dropped this bomb on the Imran Awan investigation.
Judge Nap says Awan was selling US secrets to foreign agents.
Judge Napolitano: He was arrested for some financial crime. That’s the tip of the iceberg. The real crime against him was that he had contact, he had access to emails of every member of Congress and he sold what he found in there. What did he sell and to whom did he sell it. That’s what the FBI wants to know. This may be a very, very serious national security investigation.
How much do you want to bet these guys were at the root of the "Russian hack" that the Democrats and the media are so jacked up about? I think this is a true scandal and we are going to learn all sorts of things in weeks to come. Of course, the media won't report it and Robert Mueller will have moved well beyond his original mandate.
A Florida judge has ruled an updated "stand your ground" law unconstitutional.
According to the Miami Herald:
"Florida’s updated "Stand Your Ground” self-defense law is unconstitutional, a Miami judge ruled on Monday.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing.
The judge ruled that under Florida’s constitution, that change should have been crafted by the Florida Supreme Court, not the Legislature.
"As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote in a 14-page order.
The ruling is a victory for prosecutors who have firmly opposed a law they believe makes it easier for defendants to get away with murder and other violent crime.
Hirsch’s ruling isn’t binding – other trial courts across Florida can follow the law if they choose. But it does get the ball rolling on the appeals process, and possibly getting the law reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court."
You mean to tell me that in Florida the Supreme Court crafts legislation? That means the Courts RULE Florida, acting as both Judiciary and Legislature. Why have a republican form of government at all?
This is typical of the Left, which is perfectly happy to overrule the voters when it is one of their sacred oxen being gored. They talk a good game about the sanctity of the vote and how America needs more participation, yet when it comes down to it they reserve the right to overrule the public when it suits them.
Hopefully the Florida Supreme Court will overturn this ruling.
Ever since Trayvon Martin was shot in a "stand your ground" case the liberals have hated this law and tried to kill it. Liberals prefer people to be at the mercy of criminals and, of course, of the State.
I wonder if this judge has a concealed carry permit? It's customary for liberals to exempt themselves from the very things they impose on others.
Sea level has dropped for two consecutive years in stark contrast to Global Warming theory.
Zero Hedge has the story:
"As the global warming narrative quickly unravels, and leftists scramble to throw accusations at those who dare question the false data, the media brushes facts under the rug. Amidst revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked "hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.
On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. This data clearly contradicts the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities. The narrative is climate alarmists key element of the climate change fear mongering fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.
Global warming alarmists might say this is only a "pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity and have been caught red-handed completely fabricating data to continue scaring the public into supporting a non-issue.
Even in a worse case scenario, sea levels will rise only about a foot over the next 100 years. That amount is far short of what climate alarmists would need to create an apocalyptic event based solely on the weather. Looking at current events right now, we’d say that Armageddon would be created by a world war or a global economic collapse. "
Sea levels have been rising for the last ten thousand years as the Earth recovers from the last ice age. There have been some backsteps - such as in 2010-11 when there was a sharp drop - but by and large we have witnessed steadily rising seas. What we never saw was an increase in the rate of sea level rise - which is what we should have seen if the rise were being driven by excessive heat trapped by industrial emissions. But now we have two years of decline, and the Gang Green has no answer for this. What they will do is ignore it - and if that fails they will attack, claiming it is just a "pause" The only pause I see are the grubby paws they have on our money.
Global Warming is nothing but a natural curve, a warming trend that is natural and inevitable. It's time we retired this generation long War of the Worlds scare.
When Barack Obama was elected, he boasted "this is the time when sea levels started to drop" and yet it is Donald Trump who is presiding over that. Maybe it was all the hot air Obama was outgassing that melted the glaciers? At any rate, the capitalist is making good on what the socialist promised.
Unfortunately, Charlie Gard has died.
Normally, we lament the loss of a baby by saying things like, "It's so unfair that he never had the chance to accomplish anything or live a meaningful human life." Not so in this case. For while Charlie was obviously deprived of the opportunity to fully experience life – and I mean deprived by his illness, not just by a ghoulish British health care system – his brief time on this Earth has done tremendous good for all of us.
Charlie, with the help of his heroic parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, has brought the true nature of socialized medicine, and of progressive government in general, to the attention of the world, in the clearest and most emotionally straightforward way.
At its base, the meaning of this case, having been played out so bluntly and loudly in the British and European courts, in the British Parliament, and through the international news media, could not be made any clearer to anyone who wishes to see: the socialist State owns the individual human being and may dispose of his life whenever it sees fit. There is nothing anyone – not parents, not popes, not presidents, not thousands of generous donors – can do to override the decision of the State to forcibly shorten the life of a baby who the State's medical slaves have decided is no longer "viable" or worth the government's effort or expense.
Socialized medicine is, in principle and by intention, State ownership of life – the official, legal elimination of individual liberty – which is why all communist, socialist, and fascist theorists have regarded it as an essential apparatus of any good progressive tyranny. This is not new or shocking information to anyone who examines the history of progressivism or the statements and plans of its leaders. The Charlie Gard case merely brought the fact and its full implications into bold relief, a supremely valuable service in a time when, thanks to the ubiquity of progressive education and a complicit media and entertainment industry, the true bloodthirsty essence of "progress" has been obscured and prettified with social justice pap about "caring" and "compassion."
Kidnapping is not caring. Slavery is not compassion. Stealing sick babies from their parents' arms and killing them at will, without the parents having any say in the matter, or even being allowed to take the babies home to die, is a criminal enterprise, and it violates everything modern civilization ever stood for.
If you can't understand that, it's too late for you. If you are thinking through these matters deeply for the first time, then you can thank a tiny baby, Charlie Gard, and his magnificent and courageous parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, for setting you on the path to spiritual freedom.
God bless all three of them.
If you will recall from a few weeks ago, there was polling showing Donald Trump at 50% or higher in counties he won and further polling that showed Hillary Clinton even more unpopular than him. Republicans and Trump supporters should not get overly confident from the data as the President’s overall popularity in states he won is headed in the wrong trajectory. But there is increasing data showing that, contrary to conventional wisdom or anything you’d get on television or in newspapers, Democrats are actually viewed less favorably than the President in the places that matter.
Salena Zito had a piece in the New York Post over the weekend highlighting the struggles of the few remaining Blue Dog Democrats — the so called moderate to conservative Democrats in districts that lean right. Now
Josh Kraushaar has data from a Democrat pollster who conducted a poll for Democrats.
The poll surveyed working-class white voters in pivotal districts that Democrats are targeting in the midterms. Despite the Trump turmoil in Washington, Republicans held a 10-point lead on the generic ballot (43-33 percent) among these blue-collar voters. Democrats hold a whopping 61 percent disapproval rating among these voters, with only 32 percent approving. Even Trump’s job-approval rating is a respectable 52 percent with the demographic in these swing districts.
Democrats maintain that with robust economic messaging, they can move those numbers in their favor. But the results show how difficult that task will be. By a stunning 35-point margin, blue-collar white voters believe that Republicans will be better at improving the economy and creating jobs than Democrats.
I remember one of the survey points from the election exits that showed, among Obama voters who voted for Trump, they thought Clinton was more interested in putting men in women’s bathrooms than in putting people back to work. You would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson on this, but they have been so busy blaming Russia for stealing the election they cannot fathom there are voters who hate them more than Trump.
Read the rest.
I don't remember this being the case during the Dinkins years, when I worked in the city. And it sure wasn't happening during Rudy's or Bloomberg's days.
See our website at: www.danamarthamusic.com
Federal laws for Renewable Fuel Standards require that refiners blend steadily increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline, and expect the private sector to produce growing amounts of cellulosic, biomass-based and "advanced” biofuels. Except for corn-based ethanol, the production expectations have been mostly fantasies. The pollution, oil import and climate change justifications for renewable fuels were exaggerations then, and are indefensible now.
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a previously unheard of proposal: to reduce the RFS total target for 2018 below its 2017 level. It’s an almost imperceptible reduction, but it’s a start. My article explains why it’s time to apply tough, realistic energy, economic and environmental standards to "renewable” fuels … as well as to wind, solar and electric vehicle mandates and subsidies – and terminate all of them.
Biofuel justifications are illusory
It’s time to really cut, cut, cut ethanol and other renewable fuel mandates – maybe to zero
The closest thing to earthly eternal life, President Ronald Reagan used to say, is a government program.
Those who benefit from a program actively and vocally defend it, often giving millions in campaign cash to politicians who help perpetuate it, while those who oppose the program or are harmed by it are usually disorganized and distracted by daily life. Legislative inertia and obstruction of the kind so graphically on display in the Senate over the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) also help to perpetuate program life.
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act and expanded by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, is a perfect example. It has more lives than Freddy Krueger.
The laws require that refiners blend steadily increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline, and expect the private sector to produce growing amounts of "cellulosic” biofuel, "biomass-based diesel” and "advanced” biofuels. Except for corn ethanol, the production expectations have mostly turned out to be fantasies. The justifications for renewable fuels were scary exaggerations then, and are now illusions.
Let’s begin with claims made to justify this RFS extravaganza in the first place. It would reduce pollution, we were told. But cars are already 95% cleaner than their 1970 predecessors, so there are no real benefits.
The USA was depleting its petroleum reserves, and the RFS would reduce oil imports from unstable, unfriendly nations. But the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) revolution has given the United States at least a century of new reserves. America now exports more oil and refined products than it imports, and US foreign oil consumption is now the lowest since 1970.
Renewable fuels would help prevent dangerous manmade climate change, we were also told. This assumes climate is driven by manmade carbon dioxide – and not by changes in solar heat output, cosmic rays, ocean currents and other powerful natural forces that brought ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, droughts and floods. It assumes biofuels don’t emit CO2, or at least not as much as gasoline; in reality, over their full life cycle, they emit at least as much, if not more, of this plant-fertilizing molecule.
Moreover, contrary to the hysteria, computer models and Al Gore’s new movie, humanity and planet are not experiencing unusual or unprecedented climate or weather. Inconvenient to Mr. Gore’s theme, in fact not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the US mainland since October 2005, a record 11 years, 9 months. He simply presents a seemingly endless stream of weather calamities – what Australian science writer Jo Nova aptly refers to as "primal weather porn” and suggests that these events are unprecedented and caused by humans. The claim reflects deliberate distortion of the truth, abysmal grasp of science (by a man who received a C and a D in his only two college science courses), or both.
To get far more complete, factual, honest climate science, see the Climate Hustle documentary instead.
Moreover, with China, India, the rest of Asia, Africa, Poland and even Germany burning more and more coal – and more gasoline and natural gas – total atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. But meanwhile, Greenland just had the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, and global average temperatures are back to the 1998-2017 hiatus they had before the 2015-16 El Niño.
Regardless, the immortal RFS is still with us. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a previously unheard of proposal: to reduce the RFS total target for 2018 below its 2017 level. It’s a tiny 0.2% reduction, and EPA is not planning to roll back the 15-billion-gallon obligation for "conventional” biofuel, mostly ethanol from corn. But it suggests that a little healthy realism may finally be taking root.
The reduction is for cellulosic biofuel. The federal statutory target is 4.25 billion gallons in 2018. (Set a target, it will become reality, is the mindset.) EPA proposes to reduce the regulatory target to 24 million gallons for 2018, down from 31 million for 2017. But actual production and use of this fuel in 2015 was a meager 2.2 million gallons. This minuscule reduction is a good first step, but far greater reductions in statutory and regulatory targets are realistic and needed, along with a full overhaul of the RFS program.
A little over 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol were produced in 2016 – but only 143 billion gallons of gasoline were sold. That means using all the ethanol would require blends above 10% (E10 gasoline) – which is why Big Ethanol is lobbying hard for government mandates (or at least permission) for more E15 (15% ethanol) gasoline blends and pumps. Refiners refer to the current situation as the "blend wall.”
But E15 damages engines and fuel systems in older cars and motorcycles, as well as small engines for boats and garden equipment, and using E15 voids their warranties. You can already find E15 pumps, but finding zero-ethanol, pure-gasoline pumps is a tall order. Moreover, to produce ethanol, the United States is already devoting 40% of its corn crop, grown on nearly 40 million acres – along with billions of gallons of water to irrigate corn fields, plus huge amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels.
Much of the leftover "mash” from ethanol distillation is sold as animal feed. However, the RFS program still enriches a relatively few corn farmers, while raising costs for beef, pork, poultry and fish farmers, and for poor, minority, working class and African families. Ethanol also gets a third less mileage per gallon than gasoline, so cars cannot go as far on a tank of E10 and go even shorter distances with E15.
Ethanol sales also involve the complexities – and sometimes fraudulent practices – of buying and selling Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs: certificates and credits for ethanol. Large integrated oil companies blend more gasoline than they refine, so they collect more RINs than they need, allowing them to hoard RINs and drive up the prices they charge to independent refiners that must buy these RINs to comply with the law. Large retail businesses like Cumberland Farms, Sheetz, Wawa and Walmart blend fuel and collect RINs, but have no RFS obligation; they use RINs as subsidies and their large volumes to command lower prices from refiners, and thereby gain an unfair advantage over small gas station owners.
The net result is that small mom-and-pop gas stations are squeezed hard and often driven out of business. Small refiners, and those on the East Coast that don’t have large wholesale and retail businesses are forced to buy pricey RINs from integrated oil company competitors, which puts those smaller outfits at a disadvantage and threatens their ability to stay in business. That means steel and refinery jobs and employee benefits are at risk. All told, the RFS presents a lot of problems for illusory benefits.
All these hard realities almost persuaded the US Senate Environment Committee to vote on a recent bill that would have revised some of the outdated and outlandish RFS mandates. It didn’t happen, but the political machinations suggest that even some progressive Democrats are beginning to question the RFS.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are becoming increasingly popular in some states and countries. To cite the perspective of "progressive ethicists” like Peter Singer, perhaps it’s time to apply the same principles to government programs that have outlived their usefulness or should never have been born.
At the very least, politically spawned, politically correct energy programs – founded on questionable, exaggerated or fabricated climate, environmental, consumer or security scares – should no longer get free passes on land use, habitat and wildlife impacts, environmental quality or consumer and employment issues. They need to be subjected to the same tough legislative, regulatory, activist and judicial assessments that we insist on for oil, gas, coal and nuclear programs
This should apply to wind and solar, electric vehicle and battery proposals, as well as to Renewable Fuel Standards. It would restore some much-needed integrity and accountability to our government.
(The opportunity for signing up to present oral testimony at EPA’s August 1 public hearing on the 2018 biofuel standards has passed. However, written statements and supporting information submitted to EPA by August 31 will be given the same weight as comments and materials presented at the hearing.)
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
Dana Mathewson forwards this:
Tired of high taxes on everything from your home to your plastic shopping bags? Concerned that violent crime may be seeping into your once seemingly idyllic neighborhood? Worried that your children will be placed in subpar public schools?
Are you conservative? And would you like move?
If you answered yes to these questions than Paul Chabot may be able to help.
Chabot, a 43-year-old Republican and native of Southern California, in recent years had become increasingly frustrated with what he saw as a liberal shift in his home state and the effects it was having on his family’s life. After two failed congressional runs, Chabot decided it was time to bail on the Golden State and move to the Lone Star State -- specifically, Collin County in north Texas -- in January.
"When I was growing up in a Republican state, we had safe towns and great schools,” Chabot told Fox News. "But California has done a 180. It’s not a family-friendly state anymore so we decided to move to Texas.
When Chabot, his wife Brenda and their four children arrived in McKinney – a town about 30 miles north of Dallas – they realized that many of the 168,000-plus residents of the town had pulled up their own roots in California and headed to the Lone Star state.
That gave Chabot an idea.
"We’re not pioneers. We’re probably actually late to the game when it comes to moving to Texas,” Chabot said. "But we decided to make a business out of it.”
The business, Conservative Move, aims to help Republicans living in blue states follow the Chabot family’s lead and move to a state more aligned with their conservative ethos. Chabot’s company helps set up homeowners in blue states with conservative realtors to sell their properties and also find a new home in Texas. But the company doesn’t just help conservatives leave blue states.
Read it all!
July 30, 2017
In civilization's ongoing battle against the advance of progressive authoritarianism, the story of Charlie Gard – may he rest in peace – is an object lesson in the dangerof unclear principles and the value of clear ones.The defenders of the despotism of socialized medicine have a vested interest in persuading you that the Charlie Gardcase is at its core a medical issue. It is not, and it never was. It is an issue of individual liberty versus the tyrannical State.
To join an argument without understanding one's own position, right down to its grounding principles, is to leave yourself open to confusion and insecurity when confronted with the pseudo-logic of opponents who speak with a self-assurance that may shake your confidence – unless you can quickly identify how they are misrepresenting the issue, thereby rendering their bluster impotent and easily dismissible. I have written numerous articles about this awful case of the true heart of socialized medicine, including several here at American Thinker. Invariably, the readers' comments on these pieces have included many – even apart from the obvious paid trolls – by people who insist that I am failing to appreciate the expertise of the Great Ormond Street doctors, professionals who face difficult decisions like this every day and therefore know much more about Charlie's illness than either his parents or moralizing political commentators like yours truly.
The cleverer among these defenders of Charlie's absolute right to be killed "with dignity" without his parents' consent have usually supported their position with arguments like the following (which I paraphrase closely from actual readers' comments and other writers' articles on this case):
"Haven't you considered the possibility that the doctors may be right, and that Charlie's case really is hopeless?"
"The American doctor's proposed experimental treatment is untested on humans and has little chance of success, and furthermore, it is probably far too late now anyway."
"The baby's condition is so deteriorated that even if he could be kept alive, it would be without meaningful brain function or quality of life."
"As much as we might sympathize with parents who cannot accept the death of a beloved baby, the truth is that terrible things happen, and this baby's condition is simply one of those tragic facts of life: sometimes there is really nothing to be done."
If any of those arguments resonates with you and leave you feeling a little torn, then you have entered this discussion without a firm hold on the principles involved. For in truth, we might answer, "Yes, you're exactly right" to each and every one of the above points and yet still say, with all the firmness in the world – as I do in fact say – that what the British government has done in this case, through the agency of its socialist slaves at the Great Ormond Street Hospital, is immoral and tyrannical in the highest degree.
For the issue at stake here is not, and never was, whether the GOSH doctors know more than most of us about medicine. Neither is it whether all sick infants can be saved. Nor is it whether a severely ill child's parents might tend to grasp beyond the reach of reasonable probability.
The issue is this: "All things being equal, who has the moral authority to make life and death decisions about a child in cases such as these – the child's parents or the State?"
To answer "the parents" is to abide by modern liberty's founding principles, including the principles of self-ownership and self-preservation. It is also to grant a notion that may be traced through the entire history of Western political philosophy and is of the essence of our modern concept of "civil society" – namely, that political community is preceded, both logically and chronologically, by the private family, such that a political community is, at base, a union of families. The family is thus nature's protective filter between the individual human being – particularly the child, who most needs protection – and the State's coercive and subordinating impulses.
In this light, it is clear that a society with pretenses of being free must preserve for the private family the greatest possible latitude in managing the affairs that fall properly under the jurisdiction of the family relationship and do not cross over into the realm of criminal rights violations. Families, or more specifically parents, are in effect the proxy rights-holders for their underage children and are therefore obliged to act in the interests of their children's rightful self-ownership and self-preservation to whatever extent they can, within reason.
Hence, for example, in a free society, parents, and not government, ought to have the ultimate authority in educating children – a premise we have long since abandoned, of course, which is the chief reason civil society has deteriorated to the tatters we live in today.
Hence, for another example, in a free society, parents, and not government, must have the ultimate authority in deciding whether to pursue one more last-gasp effort at saving the life of a deathly ill infant. Whether survival seems likely in the eyes of "most experts" is, and should be, a major factor the parents will weigh in making their decisions. But, assuming the parents' basic competence, rationality, and acceptance of their responsibilities as parents, there can be no legitimate grounds, in any society that hopes to remain free, for denying them their authority to do what they deem necessary or best for their child's life and welfare.
In short, the issue in the Charlie Gard case is not, and never was, whether Charlie would have been likely to respond well to Michio Hirano's experimental treatment if the parents had been permitted to take him to America in a timely fashion. The issue is, and always was, whether Chris Gard and Connie Yates had the moral authority and – on principles of modern liberty – the right to take their child to any available world-class specialist they damn well pleased (at their own expense) in their honorable efforts to save their son's life.
Seen properly, the whole case revolves around this pair of questions: does the impersonal State own the individual human being – in other words, are we slaves? Or does the individual have a right to self-ownership and self-preservation, to be represented, in the case of one who is pre-rational or unconscious, by those who most intimately and naturally identify with his rights and interests – namely, the parents who brought him into the world and thereby assumed personal responsibility for his life?
Stated in this way – the proper and clear way – the issue at stake here was obviously not a question of whether or not to respect medical expertise. It was an issue of freedom versus tyranny. If the State owns the individual, as the British government has declared with abundant clarity in its treatment of Charlie Gard and his parents, then tyranny has won.
What part of that is difficult for the defenders of State baby-killers to understand? Probably no part of it – which is why they take such pains to fool you (and themselves) into believing that this case was about medical expertise and "accepting the inevitable."
Don't let them fool you. They are defending tyranny, plain and simple. Make them own it.
Part 1Part 1Part 1Part 1 Part 1
Joseph Dalton Leatherwood
The American "news media” must take direct responsibility for the current state of affairs the nation finds itself today, a state of affairs presenting us with a darkness known as socialism and a nation engaged in what can only be described as an uncivil civil war.
Now, I must point out at the beginning, the bulk of the responsibility for the current state of affairs lies at the feet of "We the People,” ourselves. As a people, we have demonstrated, through a growing apathy, an unwillingness to govern our own nation. That is to say, the republican form of government gifted to us by our forefathers requires we (a) become a well-informed citizen (citizenry) and (b) give consent to the government to take actions. As a people, we have failed to fulfill those responsibilities, reflecting an engulfing political apostasy.1
While "We the People,” must take the bulk of the blame, it is, nonetheless, the news media and other forms of media (The Great Stereopticon) that have systematically undermined the foundations of this nation. The Great Stereopticon has been able to do this because of their ability to permeate what we read, the airwaves and what we watch. Through their strategies of deception and manipulation, they have created enough confusion and complacency among the people to bring about the apathy and ignorance now reigning o’er the nation.
As a group, they have purposely looked the other way or directly aided and abetted the rise of socialism, the cheap (Fabian) socialist politician, and the corruption gripping the United States government. They have served as little more than the propaganda arm of the State (government and its administrators) in manipulating or trying to purposely beguile the American public about (a) the establishmentarian ruling class and (b) the actions of the State.
1 Assigning blame is a dangerous thing because there are many individuals and entities besides the press and ‘We the People’ to include in bringing about the current state of affairs in the United States. Major institutions have been penetrated and taken over by the Fabians. They include the education establishment (at all levels), the law profession, government, entertainment, many corporations and businesses, many charitable organizations, large business associations and other organizations where Fabians have used stealth and deception to "push through their socialists objectives.” [Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo, (New York, New York: Veritas foundation, 1962), page 17.]
When the "media” and the government’s agenda and objectives are the same; then the nation has a real problem. A problem because the "media”, such as it is, is no longer a free press or institution but an auxiliary of the government (State). It has become an agent of the State and its administrators and an enemy of ‘We the People.’
As an auxiliary, the "media” becomes little more than a Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda. It is no longer a purveyor of news; rather it becomes a processor and propagator (mouthpiece) of (a) "news” of and for the State or (b) "news” to call for, substantiate and support State actions or (c) "news” to manipulate the population in accepting Statism. The modern day "media” have become little more than the public relations arm of the State charged with running the marketing campaign for its administrators (socialists) and their statist agenda.
Both in the United States and around the world, The Great Stereopticon has become little more than beatificators for the State and its governors. At every opportunity, we observe they are the loudest chorus line singing the praises of the State and calling for its empowerment over individuals, institutions,
businesses and the people. Furthermore, they have become bootlickers for every statist socialists around the world. Even the most repugnant of these statists are ignored and even celebrated by these sycophants.
The Great Stereopticon has become the mouthpiece for statism. Through their actions they seek to create and induce actions pointed toward a predetermined end. That "predetermined end” is the empowerment of the State, protection and exaltation of Statist administrators and maintaining, consolidating and extending the political power of the State (and its administrators).
The Great Stereopticon is nothing more than the statist media – the ministry of propaganda – assuming the role as mouthpiece to curry favor with every statist socialist politician. The statist media has increasingly allied itself with one political party and become its principal propagators and defenders. The statist media have become the central drivers of the statist agenda because of its faith in socialist ideals, opinions and policies. They have become the guardians of socialist orthodoxy and its principle apologists.
Instead of being a watchdog taking government and the ruling class to task, they have effectively joined forces with the State and the establishment ignoring the absolute failure of government policies and programs (socialist in nature) over the past 100 years.
Socialism has arrived in America thanks to what is commonly termed the "media” because of its failure to inform the American people about what has been going on in this nation. Richard M. Weaver foretold of this coming corruption in his book Ideas Have Consequences. Weaver warned the nation of the "media’s” impact on the individual, culture and the nation. He clumped the news media into an all-encompassing phrase "The Great Stereopticon” which included all forms of media from the written word to the talkers to the hypocrites on celluloid.2
2 Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 92.
The Great Stereopticon is this conglomerate used to persuade and manipulate the collective activity of the people. Its purpose is "… the systematic indoctrination from day to day of the whole citizenry through channels of information and entertainment.” The function of this machine is to "…project selected pictures of life in the hope that what is seen will be imitated.” As weaver wrote, "We are told the time to laugh and the time to cry, and signs are not wanting that the audience grows ever more responsive to its cues.”3
We have corruption running rampant in Washington and across this nation. Yet, the "media” have failed in their responsibility to inform the American people about this corruption. They have failed in their jobs, their professions, because they have become an integral part of the establishment ruling class.
Over the past 100 years, the "media” have slowly abandoned their responsibility of holding government and politicians accountable and joined with the ruling class and what we basically have today is a State-Media complex that is geared toward persuasion and manipulation of the American public.
In his 1961 farewell address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned the nation about the Military-Industrial Complex; instead, he should have taken the time to warn us about a far more sinister threat the State – Media Complex that has been far more insidious in its actions and its results.
We now have a giant public relations complex spewing out twisted logic; analyses, newspeak and Fake news to justify (protect) the actions of the State, its administrators and supporters. Not only have they abandoned their primary responsibility, they have become highly partisan in their actions. It is obvious they have stopped reporting and uncovering corruption when it involves fellow travelers. They are little more than repeaters of government news releases and reports as truth while engaging in interpreting (justifying) what the administrators of the State desire.
As a partisan arm of the state, they seek to present the side of the administrators glorifying their actions and championing their every policy and program in the most favorable light.4 There is little difference in the efforts of the so-called news media and the wishes of the administrators of the state - they [the "media”] dutifully conform to the unconstrained vision put forth by the administrators and ruling class and they are committed to furthering the state’s objectives over the people. The media have become little more than a propaganda arm of the State and an enemy of ‘We the People.’
3 Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 93.
4 When speaking of the actions of the administrators what we are talking about are those who manage the government, those who manage the apparatus of power - the government. Their actions take the form of executive orders, legislative mechanisms, judicial fiats, and bureaucratic rulings. So long as the actions taken by the administrators is to expand the scope and role of government, the so-called media will go along with that action but will oppose in the most virulent manner any persons or administrators who seek to limit or roll back government intervention
The Executive Orders That End Obamacare - Once and For All
Wayne Allyn Root
Republican Senator John McCain just singlehandedly killed the repeal of Obamacare. Now it’s time for President Trump to act. It’s time for President Trump to expose McCain and the rest of Congress for the frauds and hypocrites they are. It’s time for two Executive Orders that have the power to change everything.
This is how President Trump makes "The House of Cards" collapse. This is how President Trump ends Obamacare once and for all.
Executive Order #1: President Trump should issue an immediate Executive Order forcing every member of Congress to use the same healthcare plan as the rest of us. Let Senator McCain come off his high horse and live under the rules of Obamacare. Make every member of Congress live by same rules as the rest of us.
I wonder if John McCain would have voted against the Obamacare repeal, if he had to live under the rules of Obamacare? I wonder how quick and successful his brain cancer surgery would have been, if he had to use the Obamacare plan. Or the VA system.
Would he have waited 6 months in line, like rest of us? Maybe a year. Of course, he’d probably be dead by then. That’s how the VA solved their money shortage a few years back. They put vets on waiting lists until they died. Problem solved. Why not make Senators wait on those same waiting lists?
Or would McCain have had a gigantic deductible (just like the rest of us)? Would he have had a $30,000 bill after surgery that insurance would not cover (just like the rest of us)?
Executive Order #2. My gut instinct is usually on the money. I feel it in my bones. The Senators who voted against the repeal are corrupted, bribed, on the take. Senators and Congressmen are making an unimaginable fortune off of Obamacare. That’s why they are against the repeal. They don’t want to end the gravy train.
They want the system complex and expensive. They want government involved. They want taxpayer money wasted by the billions. That's how they milk the system. They all own stocks of medical companies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies. I'm betting many actually own companies with government contracts that benefit from Obamacare. They put them in the names of their spouses, children, parents, siblings, childhood buddies. They own them in offshore accounts. The conflicts of interest are the size of Texas.
Obamacare is the best thing to ever happen to Senator Schumer, Senator McCain, Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Nevada Senator Heller. They’re all bums. They’re all thieves. They are all getting rich at our expense.
President Trump should issue an immediate Executive Order demanding disclosure of all financial interests and ownership in healthcare related companies or stock by every member of Congress- including all family members and offshore accounts. Failure to disclose will result in a long prison term.
Then we’ll find out why they voted against repeal. They are all on the gravy train
Read the rest!
I reply to Rich Baehr's group email of articles:
7. "A takedown of anti-Semite George Soros: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267324/jewashing-george-soros-daniel-greenfield"
Depends on the definition of "takedown." Last time I looked, George Soros still has his billions, maybe the same bodyguard I saw when I heard him speak at Barnes & Nobles in Union Square, NY City, a few years ago. And he is grooming his kids to continue his vile legacy in politics and business.
Don't confuse criticism with an end to a problem.
UPDATE: The term "take down" is a term I know from high school, college and Olympic wrestling. The referee has to award a wrestler points to claim it as a take down, not the wrestler's fans or sports writers who root for him.
Senator John McCain, the Ashley Wilkes of American politics, "Still in Saigon John", the man who loves to promote himself on the bodies of his fallen comrads in political arms, has done it again. After undergoing brain surgery to remove part of a brain tumor (and that is but a temporary fix; McCain has a poor prognosis, likely about a year-and-a-half of life) the Senator from Arizona, rather than staying home to recover, drove all the way from Phoenix to Washington D.C. He couldn't fly because of the dangers posed by air pressure changes. So the dedicated Senator McCain drove the whole long way.
To vote on the healthcare repeal. See, the margin was thin as Bill Clinton's wedding vows (well, that is a HUGE stretch as Bill's wedding vows all involved not getting caught) and McCain was needed to get the "skinny repeal" passed. But then, after receiving a hero's welcome, McCAin VOTED AGAINST THE BILL!
This is not a rational act.
Had McCain been opposed to it he could merely have said so and stayed in Arizona, spending time with his family and doing what a normal person would do. But not he, not the great man. No; he had to travel all that way just to thumb Donald Trump, the Republican caucus, and ultimately the American People in their collective eyes. His anger and his bitterness drove the man from a sick bed just to screw over his compadres.
AS I say, it was not a rational act.
Granted, the man has a brain tumor and so he may not be acting rationally, but this is vintage McCain. mcCain was known to have, well, not collaborated with his captors in the Hanoi Hilton but he did seem to be somewhat cooperative. That is understandable; he was trying to avoid being tortured or having his men tortured. And of course he was there for years, refusing to leave until his men left (and the Vietnamese wanted him to go as a way to break down the rest). McCain was once a hero, even if he did cooperate with his captors.
But what he did was learn a bad lesson. I would call it Stockholm Syndrome; McCain bonds with his captors and treats his friends like enemies on occasion. He has been doing that ever since he got to Washington, enjoying the "maverick" status and basking in the warm glow of praise from the Democrats and Media (who stopped praising him when he ran for President, but have since resumed now that he's back to his old self). In the Hanoi Hilton McCain learned that in order to survive he had to shmooze his captors. He's been doing that ever since.
But this goes beyond any rationality. Think about it.
A normal person would retire, move back home and spend his remaining days with his family. But McCain - and indeed the rest of the Washington Establishment - can no more envision life outside of their political empire than they can imagine living in a tent in the Alaskan bush. The power and the influence and the glory are like drugs, and McCain is completely addicted. He will no doubt stay in D.C. until his very last breath, desperate to remain the Great Man.
And, as a very vengeful man, McCain will do everything in his power to stick it to Trump and the people who supported him, no matter how badly the American People are hurt. McCain's great pride, his arrogance, will not allow anything else.
So we shouldn't be surprised that the Great Maverick went to such extremes just to vote no. I would have been surprised had he done anything else.
You would think he would start thinking about eternity. But it is my observation that men like John McCain rarely do, because they have so much of what they want here and do not want it to ever end. But deeath comes to us all in the end; it is the great equalizer. John McCain will decay and be forgotten just like everyone else. It's too bad he's not thinking about that right now.
In 1961 Arthur c. Clark wrote a story called "Death and the Senator" about this very thing. In the story the Senator eventually realizes he largely threw away his life in search of power and fame and at the end he retires to spend the remaining time with his family - until death tiptoes upon him as he sits on a park bench. This was a poignant story, a cautionary tale about throwing away what matters for ambition. John McCain should take a little time to read it.
Breaking: President Trump Fires Reince
Priebus, Hires General John Kelly as
Chief of Staff… Conservative Tree House, by Sundance Original Article 7/28/2017 5:07:07 PM Post Reply President Trump has just announced via Twitter that he has fired Reince Priebus from the position of Chief-of-Staff and has replaced him with DHS Secretary John Kelly. It would appear GOPe Priebus’s inability to guide ObamaCare was the final straw. (Tweets) Perhaps this also provides the opening to move HR McMaster out of the NSC and into the DHS position…. interesting development.
Lifelong Dems control the White House, however...
When Donald Trump won the election, someone at Amer. Thinker said that with Hillary as President we would have been playing Russian Roulette with six bullets in the chambers of a six-shooter - and with Trump we are playing that game with three bullets in the chambers. I thought it was prescient then - and it is still prescient. There is chaos here and American voters - and politicians - still need to grow up. But I'd rather have Trump as the starting point than "vote for me, deplorable peasants" Hillary.
To make an analogy with former NY Mayor Bloomberg, he was a lifelong Democrat but a businessman who graduated M.I.T. He was far to sensible for the NY Democrat establishment and he knew it, so he ran as a Republican and got elected and reelected. He had - and has - his faults but he ran a reasonable decent administration and kept crime rates down and the subways running. I have a similar view of Trump with the exception that Trump has a stronger advocacy of America's military.
Well, Ringling Brothers Circus went out of business recently. And apparently the clowns and jugglers have moved to Washington to advice BOTH parties.
Lifelong Democrats Now Control the White House
By Ed Willing | July 28, 2017, 08:14pm | @EddieWilling
The conversion is now complete. The Republican Party no longer has any significant influence in, or around the White House.
Twitter feeds report that Reince Preibus is no longer the White House Chief of Staff. Preibus, who accompanied the president on Air Force One to a Long Island event today as his last act, served the president for just over six months.
I would amuse myself by thinking he listened to the tweet of a fellow Wisconsinite and former church-mate when he offered his resignation at almost the exact moment I tweeted him, but I’ll just enjoy the coincidence.
(Again, please note, I’m only making the implication in jest… EVERYONE has been begging him for months to save face and jump ship.)
CNN reports that Preibus submitted his resignation to the president last night. White House staff appeared surprised as they found out about the change through Twitter and news feeds like everyone else.
His replacement will be General John Kelly (ret.), who has been secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for the first few months of this year will likely have no problem with the management side of running the White House. However, his lack of legislative/political experience may prove to be a liability for a job already handicapped by a president who’s own management style is so erratic that it’s hard to blame anyone for not being able to control the daily maelstrom coming from the West Wing.
Managing A Nation - Trump 2.0
If you want to drain a swamp, you don't hire someone who once flew over a swamp and wants to be an alligator. You hire someone who has experience draining swamps, can deal with the regulatory agencies and can hire a competent contractor to do the necessary construction work.
If your company is struggling with internal management issues, you don't hire individuals who kiss up and kick down. You don't hire someone who on day one threatens to fire every employee in the building.
If you want to protect the castle, you don't hire three individuals to coordinate and develop a strategy to protect the castle who are more interested in protecting their own living quarters than the entire castle.
If you want to lead a nation diversified in color and gender, you don't make your public face three men of the same color who each look like if you turned your back, they would kick your puppy.
And you never publicly humiliate anyone on your team. Who would come work for you next?
If the White House were The Apprentice, what would the President do?
It is time for the major shakeup. It is past time for the major shakeup.
Read the whole thing!
July 28, 2017
Below is the abstract of the paper by Dr. James P. Wallace III Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso which shows that all of the global warming of the last few decades are a result of "corrections" of the data and not actual planetary temperature rise.
This paper was countersigned by the following scientists:
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Here is the abstract:
The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings
From Urgent Agenda. This could work in our favor, though some of us probably won't live to see it.
Last year, three states in the Northeast — New Jersey, New York and Connecticut — landed in the top five places people were moving out of fastest, according to 2017 data from United Van Lines.
(The other two states on the list were Illinois and Kansas.) And data from Pew Charitable Trusts found that while people are all about moving to the South (their population grew by nearly 1.4 million people from 2014 to 2015) and the West (866,000 more people), the population growth in the Northeast is "sluggish.”
The Northeastern exodus is particularly acute in many big cities like New York City. Since 2010, more than 1 million people have moved from the New York area — which includes parts of New Jersey, Connecticut and Long Island — to other parts of the country.
Entire article here: http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20IX/JULY%202017/26.NORTHEAST.HTML
One reason given was "The horrendous weather"
We told you winter was coming to the North — and it’s so bad that many people are leaving the Northeast in search of better weather. Indeed, the largest migration between states is from New York to Florida, according to data from the Census Bureau. And simple looks at recent winters in the Northeast explain why. For example, in 2015, Boston had its snowiest winter on record and New York City had one of its snowiest blizzards on record in 2016.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
Not sure what to think about that. While losing population concentration may help us (it certainly would reduce the number of electoral votes the Democrats get) it may only flip some of the good states that have been solidly in our corner. Then again, the liberals don't reproduce, so they have to recruit or perish. If they go where they aren't wanted aka the south and midwest will they be able to do what tehy did in the northeast? Maybe; they are good at taking over. But then too they may fail to successfully propagandize in their new homes, in which case we may well come out ahead.
I am one of the few people who does not believe this "demographics is destiny" thing insofar as we aren't talking about immutable characteristics (like skin color) but about ideas, and people can and do change their minds. If they didn't we would live in a socialist state by now, because many a young leftist saw the light and turned from their evil ways. But it's hard. As the Jesuits used to say "give me a child for the first seven years and he will be ours for life". Basic beliefs are formed in childhood, and if the liberals get their hands on the children they can make them into a clone army.
People are starting to wake up to that, however.
So Dana I'm not sure what to think of this. It is clearly a sign that the Left is petering out.
Oh, and if they all want to move because of the weather, isn't that proof positive that they really no longer believe in Global Warming? Who is going to move south when you expect a ten degree rise in temperatures?
In many ways that is good news in and of itself
By Prints LeBlanc
There is a live action international mystery novel being played out on Capitol Hill. It is a mystery the Democrat Party and the mainstream media are trying desperately to ignore. However, the mystery appears to be unraveling and it is ensnaring one of the most powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) has had a rough year. First, Wasserman-Schultz was forced out of her position as Democratic National Committee Chairwoman. After a series of email leaks on Wikileaks, it was revealed Wasserman-Schultz backed Hillary Clintonover Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the 2016 primary. The head of the DNC was supposed to be a neutral party in the primary. After being forced out of a position of power and humiliated in the general election, the next shoe dropped for Wasserman-Schultz.
The story starts late in early 2017. Five members of one family were banned from the House of Representatives network. Three brothers and two of their wives were accused of stealing equipmentand violations of House IT network security protocols. They did this while making over $160,000 per year, a sum slightly below what a member of the House of Representatives makes. Most of the staffers were fired from the offices they worked at, with the exception of Imran Awan. He stayed employed with Wasserman-Schultz.
Imran was recently arrested for bank fraud. The charge stems from a property the family owns. Hina Alvi took out a second mortgageon a house they claimed was their principal residence. Upon investigation, this turned out to be false and the property was being used as a rental, that is bank fraud. There was also no reported rental income on her taxes. The rental checks were supposedly written to Hina Alvi’s mother, Suriaya Begum.
When Imran was arrested, he was attempting to flee the U.S. to Pakistan, as his wife had already done. The attempted escape came just days after the FBI became involved in the case. At one of Imran’s rental properties, the current renter found smashed computer equipment. The renter had served in the Marines, and knew what government property looked like. He called the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the FBI showed up at the property.
It seems like the FBI decided to act upon learning the subject transferred $300,000 to Pakistan and planned to travel to there. The U.S. is currently having trouble getting Pakistan to extradite a terrorist, it doesn’t seem likely they would extradite someone that might have connections to Pakistani ISI.
Wasserman-Schultz has refused to cooperate with the investigation from the beginning. Even after a majority of the Democrats employing the family cut ties, Wasserman-Schultz continued to pay Imran. Imran was not fired after the Capitol Police launched the criminal investigation. Imran was not fired after it was revealed he was sending Capitol Hill data to an offsite server. He was finally fired by Wasserman-Schultz after the arrest earlier this week.
The former DNC chair is clearly hiding something. She even went so far as to threaten "consequences” against the Chief of Capitol Hill Police investigating her staffer. In case you were wondering, she sits on the committee that controls the Capitol Hill Police budget. Imran hid his office assigned laptop in one of the empty rooms of the Capitol Hill complex. The laptop was found and confiscated by a police officer doing a routine check. It was not in the building Wasserman-Schultz worked in.
Wasserman-Schultz is now invoking the "Speech and Debate clause,” of the Constitution. The Congressional Research Service states, "The Constitution provides that ‘for any speech or debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place’ Commonly referred to as the Speech or Debate Clause, this language affords Members of Congress immunity from certain civil and criminal suits relating to their legislative acts. In addition, the clause also provides a testimonial privilege that extends not only to oral testimony about privileged matters but to the production of privileged documents.”
According to recent reportsshe, is "negotiating” with Capitol Hill Police, who have the laptop her staffer hid, to allow access to the data. If this was nothing more than a scam to steal equipment and money, why would Wasserman-Schultz risk obstruction of justice, and impede the investigation at every step? Not only did she fight the investigation, she continued to pay him his salary, despite not being allowed on Capitol Hill by the police.
Since the story broke, many IT staffers employed by the House Chief Administrative Office, not the individual members, have voiced concern. Some have even worried over potential blackmail. "I don’t know what they have, but they have something on someone. It’s been months at this point” with no arrests, said Pat Sowers, who has managed IT for several House offices for 12 years. "Something is rotten in Denmark.”
The story continues to get weirder from there. The sleuths that deep dive on Wikileaks documents, have discovered a very interesting email. Keep in mind, the ringleader Imran had access to all of Wasserman-Schultz’ electronic equipment. The group also had unlimited access to the electronic equipment of dozens of other Democrat members of Congress, some of them working for the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees. It now appears he also had access to some of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) electronic equipment. The email stated, "Pelosi is doing [a] closed door meeting. No staff or anyone allowed. Kaitlyn come to Rayburn room and get her iPad for Imran.” What was Awan doing with the Minority Leader’s iPad?
I seem to recall the DNC had some cybersecurity issues last year, but provided no evidence of who did it. Could this be why?
You cannot expect Congress to investigate themselves and reveal the mistakes they made to the world, especially if one side is dead set against it because they made all the mistakes. You cannot expect the Chief Administrative Officer to investigate a fraud that has been going on for years under their nose. If there was ever a need for a special counsel, this is it.
Printus LeBlanc is a contributing reporter for Americans for Limited Government.
30 queries taking 0.115 seconds, 99 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.