ACTION

             During the protest, Nielson was called serval names, including a “villain” and a “fascist pig,” and was accused of separating illegal alien minors from their parents permanently. You know, the standard talking points from Democrats and the Leftmedia.
               After the protest made the news, due to the mainstream media’s recent obsession with this latest illegal immigration controversy, Hrabar’s presence at the protest and her employment status with the DOJ was brought to light. When questioned about her involvement in the protest, Hrabar defended herself saying that she wasn’t on government time and it was her First Amendment right. She added, “It feels really good to confront people who are actually responsible, which is what we have a unique opportunity to do in DC.”
               However, while the protest may have not been on government time, it appears that Hrabar has been engaging in political speech at work. She sent several political tweets during work hours, including on Wednesday at 1:56 p.m. when she tweeted, “Keeping families together in jail is not an acceptable solution.” The Daily Caller reports, “Despite Hrabar’s claims of keeping her personal politics outside of her time as an employee of the federal government, a look at her Twitter account, @allisongeroi, features tweets during the workday openly celebrating her behavior Tuesday night.” One of those messages stated, “No one who has ever made their living terrorizing immigrants deserves peace. If you see one in a restaurant, at a movie, or in your neighborhood, remind them of that.”
               Hrabar has since privatized her account. No wonder.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56705?mailing_id=3563&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3563&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Why were the members of NAC so incensed by the citizenship question, especially when the committee is highly supportive of including more questions designed to further delineate various racial and ethnic groups? Is not the designation of “American citizen” arguably the most important identifier of the census? Critics claim that citizenship questions deter noncitizens from engaging in the census survey, but other smaller surveys of American households that include the citizenship question do not suffer this problem.
               Could the actual reason that leftists like NAC oppose the citizenship question have more to do with their globalist open-borders ideology rather than any genuine fears of discouraging noncitizens? Maybe the better question is why the Census Bureau believes it needs the help of leftist committees like NAC to conduct the census?   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56674?mailing_id=3560&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3560&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             “The conservatives’ proposal would drive control of health care almost entirely to the states, reversing the ACA’s [Affordable Care Act’s] federal mandates that seek to provide basic minimum benefits and consumer protections, which Republicans argue limit people’s choice,” The Wall Street Journal reports. “Under the conservative plan, states would receive ACA money in the form of block grants to help low-income consumers buy coverage. Health savings accounts, which let people set aside tax-free money for medical expenses, would be expanded. Insurers could give discounts to people who are young or maintain continuous coverage.”
               The Journal adds: “The block grants would be the backbone of the conservative plan. Half of the grant funding would go toward supporting the purchase of private health coverage, and half toward helping low-income Americans get coverage, although the two categories would likely overlap. The grants would ban states from using the money to fund abortions, according to the draft proposal. Medicaid expansion would also be repealed, and people on Medicaid would be able to buy private insurance coverage.”
               The caveat, of course, is succinctly laid out by the Journal: “Republican leaders have said they have no appetite for another push to repeal the ACA before the November midterm elections unless such a bill clearly has the votes to pass. Republicans faced a series of obstacles — including internal division and unified Democratic opposition — as their effort to repeal the ACA collapsed last year. There is little evidence those dynamics in Congress have changed.”
               As David Thornton points out at The Resurgent, “The midterm elections may seal the fate of the repeal effort. If Republicans lose their majority in either the House or the Senate, any serious effort to repeal the ACA would be doomed. At that point, the best that Republicans could hope for would be a bipartisan effort to fix the worst problems of the law.”
               Fortunately, even if this new liar-nObamaCare repeal endeavor falters, there are liar-nObamaCare changes afloat. The Wall Street Journal editorial board this week revealed that “the Labor Department rolled out a final rule on AHPs,” or association health plans. The editors explain: “The point is to allow more small businesses to join forces to offer health insurance, using economies of scale to reduce costs and diversify risk. This is how corporations and unions manage health insurance in the large group market, either by paying an outside issuer or self-insuring.”
               It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s progress. “For once,” the Journal writes, “the test of a health-care policy will depend less on government dictates than on the choices of millions of Americans.”   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56671?mailing_id=3560&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3560&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Quilliam founder Maajid Nawaz, an Islamic reformist, was highlighted in the SPLC’s “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” a few years ago. In response, a lawsuit was filed by Quilliam, the outcome of which was revealed this week. According to a Quilliam press release, “The Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. has apologized to Quilliam and its founder Maajid Nawaz for wrongly naming them in its controversial Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” The press release adds, “The SPLC also agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement, which Quilliam and Nawaz intend to use to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism.”
               Of course, the $3.75 million figure is chump change relative to the SPLC’s $432.7 million endowment. It does, however, hopefully send a signal. How many more people and organizations stand on equally solid legal grounds to sue? Many, for sure. And a massive retaliation could theoretically bankrupt SPLC if litigation wasn’t so expensive. Sadly, money, not legitimacy, is at the heart of SPLC’s modern-day mission. As columnist Dennis Prager  writes, “Any organization that labels Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the extraordinary Somali-American woman who devotes her life to fighting for oppressed women, especially in the Islamic world — an ‘extremist,’ as the SPLC has done, is not a moral organization.” It is, for all intents and purposes, the Southern Poverty Lies Center.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56642?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             On Monday, in what may have been one of the most pointed exchanges during the Senate hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) countered Horowitz’s conclusion that he found no bias in the FBI’s eventual conclusion with its liar-Clinton investigation. Graham stated, “I’m not buying that the liar-Clinton investigation was on the up and up, and the reason I am not buying it is because the two people intimately involved, one, the lead investigator, clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become president of the United State.” He was referring to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Graham later noted that between former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Strzok “someone is lying” about McCabe’s presence in a particular meeting. Horowitz effectively agreed.
               Tuesday, it was the House’s turn, and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) didn’t hold back. Gowdy specifically focused on the IG report’s findings on the behavior and decisions made by former FBI Director James Comey. “We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ polices to follow and which to ignore,” Gowdy noted. “He appointed himself FBI director, attorney general, special counsel, lead investigator and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world according to him.” Gowdy then pointed out the obviously biased actions taken by members of the FBI who conducted the liar-Clinton email investigation, stating, “These exact same FBI agents and attorney prejudged the outcome of the Russia investigation before. Prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it begins,” Gowdy insisted, is the “textbook definition of bias.”
               Here are more of Gowdy’s statements: I am alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed by the Inspector General’s finding of numerous failures by DOJ and FBI in investigating potential Espionage Act violations by former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton.
               This report confirms investigative decisions made by the FBI during the pendency of this investigation were unprecedented and deviated from traditional investigative procedures in favor of a much more permissive and voluntary approach. This is not the way normal investigations are run.
               The investigation was mishandled. The investigatory conclusions were reached before the end of the witness interviews. The July 5th press conference marked a serious violation of policy and process. And the letters to Congress in the fall of 2016 were both delayed in substance and unnecessary in form.
               Moreover, the treatment afforded to former Secretary liar-Clinton and other potential subjects and targets was starkly different from the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign officials. Voluntariness and consent in the former were replaced with search warrants, subpoenas, and other compulsory processes in the latter. Many of the investigators and supervisors were the same in both investigations but the investigatory tactics were not.
               Former Director Comey violated Department policy in several significant ways. The FBI’s actions and those of former Director Comey severely damaged the credibility of the investigation, the public’s ability to rely on the results of the investigation, and the very institutions he claims to revere.
               The report also conclusively shows an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI. Peter Strzok’s manifest bias trending toward animus casts a pall on this investigation. Bias is so pernicious and malignant as to both taint the process, the result, and the ability to have confidence in either.
               The law enforcement community has no greater ally in Congress than me. But continued revelations of questionable decision making by FBI and DOJ leadership destroys confidence in the impartiality of the institutions I have long served, respected, and believed in.
               This is not the FBI I know. This is not the FBI our country needs. This is not the FBI citizens and suspects alike deserve.
               It is now urgently incumbent on Attorney General Sessions and Director Wray to take decisive action to restore Americans’ confidence in our justice system.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56645?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             President Donald Trump was elected to undo much of Barack liar-nObama’s legacy, and part of that legacy was having liar-Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC, if that wasn’t clear before) sign the U.S. on to participate in this farce after George W. Bush had refused. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced Tuesday that the U.S. is withdrawing both membership and funding from the HRC. The final straw was the council’s chief calling U.S. border policies concerning families“unconscionable.”
               “The council has failed in its stated objectives,” Pompeo declared, adding that it’s an “exercise in shameless hypocrisy.” Furthermore, he said, “The council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable.”
               Haley rebuked the “hypocritical and self-serving” organization for defending rights abusers. This “cesspool of political bias,” she said, is particularly guilty of “chronic” and “pathological” bias against Israel. She accused the council of “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel,” which included its issuing of more resolutions (70) condemning Israel than North Korea, Iran and Syria combined. It’s never passed a resolution condemning abuses in China, Russia, Cuba or Saudi Arabia, but it has regularly recommended “improvement” for the United States.
               “American participation is the last shred of credibility that the council has,” Haley concluded. “That is precisely why we must leave.”
               In effect, the inmates are running the HRC asylum and the Trump administration will no longer indulge that lunacy. It’s about time.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56663?mailing_id=3557&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3557&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             One of those photographs was used to create a viral social media firestorm claiming it was “children ripped from the arms of their parents by Donald Trump,” and comparing Trump to Hitler — even though the photo in question was taken when liar-nObama was in charge.
               There were no outrageous claims of “children ripped from the arms of their parents by Barack liar-nObama!”
               Clearly, Democrat leaders don’t care about “the children” unless they can be used as fodder to advance their statist political agenda — in this case, establishing open borders to ensure future voters.

~The Patriot Post 

             In the Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, the Court ruled 9-0 against a group of Democrat voters who claimed that the state’s redistricting plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
               Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the alleged dilution of the plaintiff’s voting power is an injury specific to a voting district. “Remedying the individual voter’s harm, therefore, does not necessarily require restructuring of all the state’s legislative districts,” Roberts wrote. The case was sent back to the lower courts for another look.
               Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch objected only in sending the case back for review. “After a year and a half of litigation in the District Court,” Thomas wrote, “the plaintiffs had a more-than-ample opportunity to prove their standing under these principles. They failed to do so.”
               In the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, the Court ruled against Republican voters in Maryland who claimed Democrat officials put them at a disadvantage in drawing a congressional district that led to the defeat of Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett in 2012. In an unsigned opinion, the Court sided with the district court, which decided not to block Maryland from holding congressional elections and forcing the state to redraw the district in question.
               The Supreme Court added that the plaintiffs waited too long to seek relief, since they did not ask for an injunction until 2017.
               Voting-rights advocates were stunned by the back-to-back decisions. The ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and other leftist voter groups had hoped the Supreme Court would pass down specific guidance on how to handle these types of cases. In other words, they were hoping that the justices would legislate from the bench.
               No such luck. The Supreme Court has a solid track record of stepping around gerrymandering cases and avoiding wading into the political quagmire. Districting is a power delegated to the political branches, notes David French of National Review. “States can choose different ways to district,” writes French, “but when a state chooses the political path, the Supreme Court’s default position should be to defer, absent clear and unequivocal constitutional violations.” Claiming that your voting power was diluted because your political party happens to be in the minority in your district or state does not constitute a violation of voting rights.
               Democrats have cried foul about redistricting for much of this decade because Republicans have won control of so many of the levers of power at the state and national level. Of course, Democrats can thank Barack liar-nObama for their plight. His presidency drove millions into the waiting arms of the GOP, which picked up close to 1,000 state seats to give it control of two-thirds of state legislatures, as well as winning Congress by gaining 63 House seats and 10 Senate seats. But it wasn’t just liar-nObama who poisoned Democrat fortunes. Activist judges are primarily responsible for the pickle the Democrat Party finds itself in with redistricting.
               In the 1980s, Democrats redrew congressional districts with the express purpose of putting more blacks and Hispanics in Congress. This effort was clearly aimed to help the Democrat Party because these minority groups vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Districts were remade so that large numbers of minorities would virtually guarantee electing a minority to Congress. However, by grouping minorities into specific districts, other districts inevitably became more nonminority, in some cases overwhelmingly so. The result was that formerly competitive majority-minority districts ended up becoming Republican strongholds with few minority voters.
               Democrats should not be puzzled that their high vote counts have not translated into widespread electoral victory. What is happening now is a consequence of their attempts going back 30 years to game the system in their favor. If Democrats want to fix it, they must look elsewhere, because the Supreme Court has decided, at least for this term, that they are on their own.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56634?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended enforcing immigration law by citing the Bible’s book of Romans. “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.” Without going into full Biblical exegesis, Sessions was both right and wrong. He was specifically responding to both conservative and liberal evangelical critics of the administration, but we’d prefer for him to leave this Biblical defense for others to make besides the one in power.
               Enter liar-Hillary. “This is not happening because of the ‘Democrats’ law,‘ as the White House has claimed,”liar-Clinton insisted. “Separating families is not mandated by law at all. That is an outright lie. And it is incumbent on all of us, journalists and citizens alike, to call it just that.” Actually, she’s the one lying, as we explained yesterday. In fact, it was her husband’s policy. But liar-Clinton only lies on days that end in “y.”
               She wasn’t done. “Nor are these policies rooted in religion,” she lectured. “In fact, those who selectively use the Bible to justify this cruelty are ignoring a central tenet of Christianity. I went to a lot of years of Sunday School — I even taught it from time to time. I’ve studied the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament, and what is being done using the name of religion is contrary to everything I was ever taught. Jesus said, 'Suffer the little children unto me.’ He did not say, ‘Let the children suffer.’”
               That’s rich coming from a rabid pro-abortionist like   liar- Hillary, who has even defended partial-birth abortion — the practice of literally collapsing a partially born baby’s skull to terminate his or her life. But then again, Democrats only care about children when they can exploit them for political gain. That’s true of abortion, gun control, education, welfare programs, immigration and so on.
               While liar-Hillary may throw out a vague Biblical reference to make her point, she and her party have utterly rejected God’s Word, preferring to make government their god. And it is their policies on each of the aforementioned issues that hurt children the most. Welfare and abortion have destroyed families. Education has ruined kids’ minds and indoctrinated them in leftist causes. And open borders and sanctuary cities have invited the flood of illegals across the border — including illegal smugglers who grotesquely exploit children for entry to the U.S. So, again, spare us the outrage.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56636?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Cruz’s bill would end the practice of separating families by authorizing new temporary shelters to house families together until their asylum requests are processed. He also proposes that the number of federal immigration judges be doubled to a total of 750 and that an expedited review and processing of asylum cases within 14 days be implemented. Those families who do not meet the asylum requirements would be immediately returned to their home countries.
               Cruz’s proposal does offer at least a temporary solution to a problem that has been years in the making. It would essentially end the bad optics of separated families, while not returning to the flawed policy of Barack liar-nObama’s “catch and release.” It offers Trump and Republicans a bill that doesn’t compromise the commitment to fighting against illegal immigration and securing the U.S. border, while avoiding the biggest objection for Democrats — funding the border wall.
               Since the implementation of Trump’s zero-tolerance policy in April, almost 2,000 children have been separated from their parents at the border. However, the vast majority of children currently housed in Health and Human Services detention centers — 10,000 of them — are children who illegally crossed the border without their parents. At least some of these children were teens who came here to abort their children. That’s a family separation policy that Democrats don’t care about.
               When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, he noted that it was both a return to enforcing our nation’s laws and would serve as a deterrent to others who may consider crossing the border illegally. Ultimately, who is to blame for children being separated from their parents? It is parents who choose to cross the border illegally. In some cases, it’s not parents, but other adults exploiting children for entry. The outrage over Trump’s policy to enforce the law is entirely misplaced. And enforcing the law does appear to be working to deter some from illegally crossing, as CBS News laments that fear has spread along the Mexican border over family separations.
               So while Cruz’s legislative fix might mitigate the immediate ugly optics of enforcing the law, an interesting side effect is that in the long run it may also remove a disincentive for illegal immigration.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56635?mailing_id=3553&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3553&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD) is conducting an investigation after what Fox News Sacramento  called an “anti-abortion” video was included as part of a sex-education lecture at Sutter Middle School. What the series of videos actually depicted was animations of how abortions are carried out during various stages of pregnancy. They were  presented by a pro-life organization called Live Action, and narrated by Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist turned pro-life activist.
               During the presentation, Levantino urges viewers to “protect the pre-born.”
               SCUSD spokesman Alex Barrios insisted the videos are “completely inappropriate for the classroom” and fail to “meet the district’s approved family life and sexuality curriculum.”
               What curriculum? “California state law, the California Healthy Youth Act, requires that comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education be provided to students at least once in middle school and once in high school, starting in 7th grade,” the district’s website states. “Instruction must encourage students to communicate with parents, guardians or other trusted adults about human sexuality.”
               The instruction encouraging students to communicate with parents, guardians or other trusted adults about human sexuality is a bit rich when one considers that California is a state where children under the age of 18 who want an abortion are under no legal obligation to seek their parents’ permission to get it. In fact, they don’t even have to let their parents know they are having what amounts to a surgical procedure.
               One is hard-pressed to think of a single other surgical procedure a minor can have without parental consent or notification.
               Unfortunately, such twisted ideological priorities should surprise no one. Few things upset leftists who champion the “right to choose” — along with the right to usurp parental guidance and authority — more than the notion that one should be making an informed choice about terminating a pregnancy. Thus, any video that shows students exactly how abortions are performed is off limits.
               Why? It might have something to do with a four-minute-long video released by Levantino in 2016 that went viral. “One-third of women who said they hold ‘pro-choice’ views on abortion had a more negative view of abortion after watching even part of the video, and nearly as many called for abortion to be more strictly regulated,” reportedLife Site News. More compelling? “Even more pro-choice women, 46 percent, felt the videos should be shown in high school sex education classes,” it added.
               “We all know that the subject of abortion is sensitive, complex and controversial, and I personally don’t think it belongs as a topic to go into in any depth in a seventh-grade class,” said a parent of one student who viewed the video. The parent further bemoaned the fact that what the children saw “cannot be unseen.”
               It would be illuminating to know what this parent and others think of that same seventh-grade curriculum including a lesson entitled “Blue is for Boys, Pink is for Girls.” It is a lesson that “engages students in a discussion surrounding gender stereotypes and their origin,” and “connections around non-heterosexual orientations.” It’s followed by a lesson called “Sexual Orientation, Behavior and Gender Identity” that discusses “different types of sexual orientation and distinguishes between orientation, behavior and identity.”
               In short, while the pro-life agenda is anathema, the LGBT agenda is an integral part of the curriculum.
               And these are the “older” students. California is poised to launch a sex-ed program that makes an utter mockery of the indignation surrounding anti-abortion videos. As part of the state’s “Welcoming Schools” agenda, suggested reading for students at grade levels kindergarten through fifth grade will include “I AM JAZZ: READING A CHILDREN’S BOOK TO HELP UNDERSTAND TRANSGENDER TOPICS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.” It will be accompanied by another publication entitled “Sexual Health Guide,” subtitled “An Adolescent Provider Toolkit.”
               That toolkit describes topics such as “anal intercourse,” “phone sex,” and other “common sexual behaviors.”
               During a May 29 meeting at San Diego Unified School District’s offices, dozens of parents chanting “too much, too soon,” and “protect our kids,” made it clear to school officials — for the third time in two years — they were less than enchanted with the district’s Sexual Health Education Program (SHEP). “It’s not about sex education, it’s not about biological science, it’s about promulgating and pushing a world view upon them,” one parent rightly told the board, adding that “gender confusion, gender dysphoria is what you’re trying to promote.”
               District officials insisted the curriculum was in compliance with the new California Healthy Youth Act and state mandates. Dean Broyles, an attorney with the National Center for the Law and Policy, disagrees, asserting, “There are only recommended curriculum, there are no mandated curriculum under the California Healthy Youth Act because it’s too new and a framework has not even been developed yet.”
               In stark contrast, the abortion videos are a bridge too far and spokesman Barrios promises the district “will address this matter with the seriousness it demands.” That would be the same district that gives children access to graphic cartoons  featuring characters named “Julie Melons” and “Miles Long,” naked in bed together. Seriously.
               Jenny Thomas is the science teacher who presented the videos. It’s her job to teach students about family life and human sexuality. She has apologized for the presentation.
               California public schools are hardly outliers in pushing the progressive sexual agenda. At UC Santa Barbara, a student-operated sex information website addresses a variety of topics, including “Childhood Sexuality,” and “Talking To Your Child About Sex.” The former focuses on prepubescent children and urges parents to “keep their reactions to children’s consensual sexual activity and play positive.” Even when children are “touching each others genitals” parents should remain sanguine because “children are just exploring.” The latter topic in part urges parents to teach their children that watching pornography “is a normal habit, and that they do not need to be ashamed of it,” provided it is viewed in moderation.
               Enough. America needs congressional hearings on the state of public school education, and one of the primary topics that must be addressed is why, in the overwhelming majority of cases, promoting progressive dogma is the default agenda.
               In California, it’s a sexual agenda epitomized by the  website “CALIFORNIA MINOR CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS,” which details just how extensive the usurpation of parental rights has become in the Golden State. By law, the “health care provider is not permitted to inform a parent or legal guardian without the minor’s consent” — with regard to pregnancy, abortion, STDs and rape services for minors 12 years of age and older.
               What undergirds this usurpation is a lowest-common-denominator presumption that a parent or guardian might be the child’s impregnator, disease transmitter or rapist. That presumption alludes to the greater discussion of cultural degradation — which alludes to the anything-goes “morality” that constitutes an integral part of the progressive agenda that contributed mightily to that degradation.
               The same progressive agenda promulgated in public schools where a pro-life video warrants an investigation. Go figure.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/56601?mailing_id=3551&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3551&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body