The Republican Party in Congress has shown with the passing of the Omnibus Spending Bill that they have spent too much time in "Farmer Jones' House". Maybe it is time to replace the lumbering elephant with the upright walking pig from Animal Farm. What excuses are they planning on giving us when they abandon their support of the 2nd Amendment?
All Posts (29750)
Barry Donadio Wants Law Enforcement Officers In Every School
.
.
{ judicialwatch.org } ~ In this edition of “Inside Judicial Watch,” Jerry Dunleavy sits down with JW Senior Attorney Ramona Cotca to discuss Judicial Watch’s legal battle... to find out what top-DOJ official Bruce Ohr was up to regarding any connection to Fusion GPS. The opposition research firm was responsible for producing the infamous Trump dossier, which was used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump Team. Bruce was in contact with Christopher Steele, the author of the Trump dossier. In fall 2016, the FBI cut ties with Steele. At the time, Bruce’s wife, Nellie, was an employee for Fusion GPS. This information was not disclosed to the DOJ. Judicial Watch filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Justice Department for records about Bruce and Nellie Ohr’s involvement in the Trump dossier... https://www.judicialwatch.org/video-update/inside-judicial-watch-bruce-ohr-fusion-gps-dnc-funded-trump-dossier/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=action+alert&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180323192249.
by Ann Coulter
{ freedomsback.com } ~ Does anyone know why President Trump loves “Dreamers” — i.e.: illegal aliens allegedly brought here before the age of 12 which no federal judge will ever check by their parents which no federal judge will ever check, “through no fault of their own” which no federal judge will ever check?
We’ve been lectured by Mark Zuckerberg about how much better “Dreamers” are than you lazy Americans — especially African-Americans, whose jobs are disproportionately taken by illegals. As former Mexican President Vicente Fox once charmingly put it, illegal immigrants “are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.”
So why aren’t we being bombarded with television interviews and profiles of these amazing human beings?
Liberals can’t make an argument without producing a victim. Attack the media — they bleat about journalists getting shot in the face while reporting abroad. Complain about FBI corruption — they choke up over G-men putting their lives on the line EVERY DAY! Denounce the Deep State — they moan that CIA officers have been killed in the line of duty.
Isn’t this the moment for our hearts to be breaking over the millions of wonderful “Dreamers” who will suffer unless we amnesty them immediately?
Let’s see ’em! Surely they’ve got a few Einsteins! After all, the media are capable of turning a gang-admiring thug who forcibly robbed a convenience store and assaulted a cop into “Gentle giant, Mike Brown.” They turned jewelry-stealing juvenile delinquent Trayvon Martin into an altar boy.
But even MSNBC dare not show us Trump’s beloved “Dreamers.” The snarling Muslim showcased by the Democrats at their 2016 convention has gotten more airtime than any “Dreamer.”
There are plenty of vague descriptions of “Dreamers,” all of whom seem to be valedictorians. But can anyone identify precisely what they have contributed to our country — other than lots of police work, welfare and protests?
The best “Dreamers” always sound like the “honor student” in Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities: “somebody who attends class, isn’t disruptive, tries to learn, and does all right at reading and arithmetic.”
How about MSNBC interview five new “Dreamers” every night? Five non-hateful ones are probably the most they could get.
As long as Trump is going to keep babbling about these “absolutely incredible kids” — “I love these kids!” — and obstinately refuse to deport them, he must have met thousands of them. He plans to amnesty millions.
Why doesn’t Trump showcase his favorite two dozen “Dreamers”? Let the rest of us decide how “incredible” they are.
But no Glamour magazine profiles, please! We want to know everything, e.g.: How much have they cost the taxpayers in free school lunches and medical care? How many anchor babies have they had? What percentage have been convicted of a felony or killed someone in a drunk driving accident? How many have been admitted to college by taking affirmative action spots intended for the descendants of American slaves?
In 2009, The New York Times’ Lawrence Downes gushed over illegal alien Benita Veliz. Three years later, liberals still hadn’t come up with a better one: In 2012, she was the featured illegal alien at the Democratic National Convention. It only seems like the Democrats have an illegal alien speak at all their conventions. Veliz was the first.
Downes ticked off Veliz’s “impressive” accomplishments: “She was valedictorian at Jefferson High School” — naturally! — “graduating at age 16. She went to St. Mary’s University in San Antonio on a full scholarship.” A scholarship, I note, that otherwise might have gone to a yucky American.
I gather Veliz is the left’s designated baby seal of “Dreamers.”
Veliz is probably a nice lady, but she was valedictorian at a school that Downes would never send his kids to. Jefferson High School is 98 percent minority, less than half the students are “English proficient,” and only 16 percent are ready for college.
HOW DID AMERICA EVER GET BY WITHOUT HER?
Or to use Downes’ more-relaxed standard: “How will this country be a better place once we force Benita Veliz to leave it?”
Off the top of my head: There would be less strain on education budgets, hospital emergency rooms, roads and bridges, and that college scholarship Veliz got would be open to an American kid.
This is a country built by Western Europeans. Immigrants arrived after it was already set up and running well. The idea that any immigrant who hasn’t committed a felony is someone we can’t live without is absurd.
If you’re a yuppie in a rich white area and don’t like cleaning your toilets, the Trump administration has been great for you. But if you’re a Trump voter, you’re scratching your head wondering what happened to those campaign promises that set him apart from every other Republican.
{ freedomsback.com } ~ Does anyone know why President Trump loves “Dreamers” — i.e.: illegal aliens allegedly brought here before the age of 12 which no federal judge will ever check by their parents which no federal judge will ever check, “through no fault of their own” which no federal judge will ever check?
We’ve been lectured by Mark Zuckerberg about how much better “Dreamers” are than you lazy Americans — especially African-Americans, whose jobs are disproportionately taken by illegals. As former Mexican President Vicente Fox once charmingly put it, illegal immigrants “are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.”
So why aren’t we being bombarded with television interviews and profiles of these amazing human beings?
Liberals can’t make an argument without producing a victim. Attack the media — they bleat about journalists getting shot in the face while reporting abroad. Complain about FBI corruption — they choke up over G-men putting their lives on the line EVERY DAY! Denounce the Deep State — they moan that CIA officers have been killed in the line of duty.
Isn’t this the moment for our hearts to be breaking over the millions of wonderful “Dreamers” who will suffer unless we amnesty them immediately?
Let’s see ’em! Surely they’ve got a few Einsteins! After all, the media are capable of turning a gang-admiring thug who forcibly robbed a convenience store and assaulted a cop into “Gentle giant, Mike Brown.” They turned jewelry-stealing juvenile delinquent Trayvon Martin into an altar boy.
But even MSNBC dare not show us Trump’s beloved “Dreamers.” The snarling Muslim showcased by the Democrats at their 2016 convention has gotten more airtime than any “Dreamer.”
There are plenty of vague descriptions of “Dreamers,” all of whom seem to be valedictorians. But can anyone identify precisely what they have contributed to our country — other than lots of police work, welfare and protests?
The best “Dreamers” always sound like the “honor student” in Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities: “somebody who attends class, isn’t disruptive, tries to learn, and does all right at reading and arithmetic.”
How about MSNBC interview five new “Dreamers” every night? Five non-hateful ones are probably the most they could get.
As long as Trump is going to keep babbling about these “absolutely incredible kids” — “I love these kids!” — and obstinately refuse to deport them, he must have met thousands of them. He plans to amnesty millions.
Why doesn’t Trump showcase his favorite two dozen “Dreamers”? Let the rest of us decide how “incredible” they are.
But no Glamour magazine profiles, please! We want to know everything, e.g.: How much have they cost the taxpayers in free school lunches and medical care? How many anchor babies have they had? What percentage have been convicted of a felony or killed someone in a drunk driving accident? How many have been admitted to college by taking affirmative action spots intended for the descendants of American slaves?
In 2009, The New York Times’ Lawrence Downes gushed over illegal alien Benita Veliz. Three years later, liberals still hadn’t come up with a better one: In 2012, she was the featured illegal alien at the Democratic National Convention. It only seems like the Democrats have an illegal alien speak at all their conventions. Veliz was the first.
Downes ticked off Veliz’s “impressive” accomplishments: “She was valedictorian at Jefferson High School” — naturally! — “graduating at age 16. She went to St. Mary’s University in San Antonio on a full scholarship.” A scholarship, I note, that otherwise might have gone to a yucky American.
I gather Veliz is the left’s designated baby seal of “Dreamers.”
Veliz is probably a nice lady, but she was valedictorian at a school that Downes would never send his kids to. Jefferson High School is 98 percent minority, less than half the students are “English proficient,” and only 16 percent are ready for college.
HOW DID AMERICA EVER GET BY WITHOUT HER?
Or to use Downes’ more-relaxed standard: “How will this country be a better place once we force Benita Veliz to leave it?”
Off the top of my head: There would be less strain on education budgets, hospital emergency rooms, roads and bridges, and that college scholarship Veliz got would be open to an American kid.
This is a country built by Western Europeans. Immigrants arrived after it was already set up and running well. The idea that any immigrant who hasn’t committed a felony is someone we can’t live without is absurd.
If you’re a yuppie in a rich white area and don’t like cleaning your toilets, the Trump administration has been great for you. But if you’re a Trump voter, you’re scratching your head wondering what happened to those campaign promises that set him apart from every other Republican.
.
{ thehill.com } ~ A Pennsylvania state representative has introduced resolutions to impeach four of the five state Supreme Court justices... who voted to override congressional district maps they said were unfairly gerrymandered on partisan lines. The resolutions, introduced by state Rep. Cris Dush (R), accuse Justices Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue, Debra McClosky Todd and David Wecht of misbehavior in office. In a memo to fellow House members, Dush said the ruling overriding Pennsylvania’s U.S. House district lines amounted to an overstep of judicial authority under the state Constitution, which lays out the path by which a bill becomes a law — in this case, a bill to delineate the district lines after the decennial Census and reapportionment process... http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/379359-pennsylvania-gop-moves-to-oust-judges-over-gerrymandering-decision.
Focusing on the Bigger Threat — Bureaucracy
But when he is wrong, he can be tragically so. In 2009, he supported the liar-nObama administration’s successful effort to end F-22 production. With a resurgent Russia, it would be nice to have more than 187 Raptors on hand. In this case, his resignation and decision to blast Fox News as a propaganda outlet over the concerns being aired about Robert Mueller investigation could prove to be very mistaken in the future.
When it comes to worries about the Deep State, there are reasons to be worried. Forget, for a moment, the FBI. Look at the IRS scandal and Lois Lerner. Lerner was the apparent point person who ran the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups — and she retired with a six-figure pension and wants her deposition permanently sealed. This is just the most egregious.
The Justice Department has had its share of problems, not least of which was Fast and Furious, where hundreds of semiautomatic firearms were allowed to fall into the hands of drug cartels. Former Attorney General scum-Eric Holder got a contempt of Congress citation, but has walked free, and is even considering a presidential run.
These pre-date the 2016 campaign, including the FBI essentially whitewashing liar-Hillary Clinton’s use of a bathroom server for classified information, which Barackliar-nObama apparently knew about according to illicit lovebirds Linda Page and Peter Strzok (unless they lied in their text messages). Oh, and Page and Strzok mentioned an insurance policy in case of a Trump win in the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired last Friday for lying about media leaks. Oh, did anyone mention that McCabe’s wife got over a half million bucks in fund-raising help from Terry McAuliffe, a very close political ally of the liar-Clintons? Well, we did.
We’ve learned that the Christopher Steele dossier, a salacious document that is a low-budget version of the Penthouse Forum, was opposition research paid for by liar-Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the DNC — a fact that those FBI officials applying for FISA warrants didn’t mention.
And Ralph Peters is appalled that there is speculation about elements of the government trying to carry out a soft coup.
The fact is, doubt about the trustworthiness of bureaucrats is increasing — and not just on these issues. NOAA has recently been busted for “adjusting” data to push a climate change agenda. Guess that’s why Democrat AGs and senators wanted to use RICO against “deniers” who were really calling out BS numbers. Keep in mind, stopping global warning was why the Luftwaffe went to biofuels… and ended up having to ground their Tornados.
Nobody is denying Russia is a threat. In fact, we need to re-think staying in New START, and to keep increasing energy production to lower oil prices to hit Vladimir Putin’s wallet and improve our strategic position. But Russia’s threat to us is not as immediate as the threat from “civil servants” who seem to be overstepping their bounds — Ralph Peters’ vehement objections notwithstanding. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54885-focusing-on-the-bigger-threat-bureaucracy
.
.
.
.
America's Cloward-Piven Approach to Illegal Immigration
How does one foment a revolution? First, give its foot soldiers a veneer of legitimacy. In 2013, the Associated Press decided to drop the term “illegal immigrant” from its news coverage. Others soon followed suit, and now the majority of the media use terms like “undocumented immigrant” or “migrant” to describe illegals.
Second, reward those who broke the law. Twelve states and the District of Columbia give illegals drivers’ licenses. The Mexican government issues them Consular ID cards allowing them to open U.S. bank accounts. Five states grant illegals in-state college tuition. Nearly 500 hundred municipalities now define themselves as sanctuary cities, shielding illegal immigrants from the law. Moreover, California has not only declared itself a sanctuary state, but has enacted laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and prohibiting employers from providing voluntary cooperation with ICE agents, absent a warrant or court order. And in a first for the nation, the state’s Senate Rules Committee has appointed an illegal immigrant to a statewide government job.
This is nothing less than nullification. And nothing made that clearer than a 2010 lawsuit filed by the liar-nObama administration against Arizona, when it attempted to enforce immigration law the administration was conspicuously ignoring. In a 5-3 decision two years later, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Arizona law and in the process, “reinforced the federal government’s primacy in immigration policy,” as The Washington Post crowed at the time.
To his credit, current Attorney General Jeff Sessions has filed a lawsuit against the state based on that premise, but it remains to be seen if this signals a paradigm shift, or merely a long-winded legal fight awaiting a future Democrat administration — one that will undoubtedly withdraw the suit.
In the meantime, Congress is doing absolutely nothing to hold law-defying politicians accountable.
Third, accuse those who would resist the revolution of being small-minded, nativist bigots. The same year the AP changed its stylebook, New York Times editor Lawrence Downes made sure those who resisted would castigated, insisting that “illegal” is often “a code word for racial and ethnic hatred.” Currently, Nation columnist Suman Raghunathan characterizes resistance to illegal immigration as an “ethos of exclusion.” Root columnist Michael Harriot asserts that white people simply hate immigrants. And, Huffington Post contributor Dr. Alvaro Huerta asserts, the Trump administration’s effort to enforce the law is “a racist political platform based on anti-Mexicanism — a long-standing American tradition embraced mostly by millions of white citizens/voters.”
Fourth, institute a disinformation campaign. Americans have been told approximately 11 million illegals reside in the U.S. — for more than a decade. This means we’re supposed to believe just as many illegals have died, or repatriated themselves, as have snuck into the nation or overstayed their visas in that same time period. We are assured that illegals commit fewer crimes than native Americans, or are less likely to be incarcerated, even as the reality that these are wholly avoidable crimes is conspicuously absent from such “analyses.” We are told illegally crossing the border is an “act of love”, that a border wall will be completely impractical, and that mass deportation is impossible, even as the reality of self-deportation, which could be engendered by genuine law enforcement efforts, is no longer part of the conversation.
Fifth, secure federal government collaboration in the effort to advance wholesale lawbreaking. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration and Reform Act that granted unambiguous amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. It was supposed to be a one-and-done amnesty, accompanied by promises to seal the border and crack down on businesses who hired illegals. The latter two promises were ignored, and thus we have at minimum a four-fold increase in the number of illegals now demanding amnesty. Moreover, Barack liar-nObama’s unconstitutional granting of temporary legal status to a newly protected subgroup of illegals euphemistically referred to as Dreamers is a direct consequence of that failure.
What about visa over-stayers who outnumber border crashers? Despite the explosion of technology, the Department of Homeland Security cannot track visa overstayers.
Cracking down on businesses that hire illegals also remains a farce. As columnist Theodore Kupfer reveals, an E-Verfiy system that would be the most effective tool by far for combating further illegal immigration, and incentivizing many illegals already here to return home “is not mandatory — and nobody, even among the most restrictionist Republicans, is demanding that it become so,” he writes.
Orchestrated corruption is also part of the mix. A CNS News investigation reveals “more than 1.3 million cases of identity theft were documented by the IRS involving illegal aliens who had been issued Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers” in a five year period between 2011 and 2016. In addition, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) discovered around 1.2 million cases in 2017 alone where illegal aliens filed tax forms using Social Security Numbers that belonged to someone else, or were fabricated.
Both crimes are felonies — yet the IRS couldn’t say whether even a single case had been referred for criminal prosecution.
In the meantime, Congress is doing its best to maintain the odious status quo: the latest gargantuan spending bill will fund sanctuary cities, but unless the GOP capitulates to Democrat demands for a “pathway to citizenship” for the 1.8 million illegals no longer covered by DACA, funding for a border wall will not be part of the package.
Sixth, get the media to continually advance a pro-illegal immigration narrative, or completely ignore the issue when an uncomfortable counter-narrative emerges. For at least four days, Americans were inundated with stories about the bridge collapse in Miami that killed six people, replete with investigative reports regarding why it happened. Yet in 2014, when the EV-D68 enterovirus killed nine children and afflicted over 50 more with full or partial paralysis — likely engendered by “liar-nObama’s decision to allow tens of thousands of Central Americans across the Texas border, according to a growing body of genetic and statistical evidence,” as The Daily Caller put it — the mainstream media’s silence, coupled with their calculated lack of interest, was nothing short of appalling.
In 1993, Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined the term “defining deviancy down.” In today’s America, nothing is more deviant than the ongoing attempt to foster the idea that the Rule of Law can be ignored when it doesn’t accrue to one’s political interests or ideological sensibilities — and that doing so constitutes “compassion.”
That mindset is the driving force behind the revolution envisioned by Cloward and Piven, and those who embrace it must be seen as the cancerous anarchists they truly are.
Our national sovereignty is at stake.
.
{ freedomoutpost.com } ~ Las Vegas, NV — It’s been close to six months since Stephen Paddock allegedly rented a room inside the Mandalay Bay Casino Resort in Las Vegas and then opened fire on on thousands of innocent people, killing 58 or them and injuring hundreds of others. Since that tragic day, victims, media, activists, and citizens have been calling for the release of surveillance footage that shows Paddock inside the hotel and, until now, these demands have fallen on deaf ears.
In spite of the dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests by local media and lawsuits demanding the release the surveillance footage, somehow the New York Times was able to obtain the exclusive footage allegedly showing Paddock inside the hotel.
In the chilling video, we see Paddock alone and blending in, never looking suspicious and even raising his hands in delight when he won $1,000 while gambling and eating sushi.
However, behind the scenes, Paddock was filling his room with dozens of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
“Over and over in the clips, Mr. Paddock is seen leaving the Mandalay Bay for his home in Mesquite, returning with a dark minivan loaded with suitcases,” the Times reported. “Over and over, valets take his keys; over and over, bellhops stack his luggage on gold carts, helping him transport at least 21 bags over the course of seven days. As they take the service elevator upstairs, Mr. Paddock chats with them. He cracks a joke. He tips.”
The questions as to how Paddock was able to get this small arsenal in his room now appear to be answered thanks to the video—Paddock had the hotel staff load them up for him.
However, upon the release of this video, another question remains. How, exactly, did hotel staff not find bags with hundreds of rounds of ammunition—that would be far heavier than any clothing bags—suspicious?
Also, how, exactly Paddock managed to conceal the small arsenal of weapons from housekeeping is just as big of a mystery as to how he got them in the room in the first place without the staff noticing the weight of the bags.
“Toward the end of the footage, two guests carrying shiny plastic inner tubes get off the elevator, padding out in flip-flops. Mr. Paddock pauses to let them off, then gets on,” the Times reported. “It is the afternoon of Sept. 30. They seem to be on their way to the pool. He is on his way upstairs, where his guns await.”
What the video from the NY Times also reveals is that during the same time he was staying at the Mandalay Bay, he also rented a room at the Ogden just down the street. Internet records show that he researched the artists and setlists of another music festival which would occur just down the road from the Ogden.
This video provides some much-needed insight that the victims and their families—as well as all Americans—deserve to know.
However, it does not explain why he allegedly began shooting into a crowd of country music concert goers. It also does not explain why local police and the FBI have been covering up evidence and contradicting themselves repeatedly. Also a mystery is how the New York Times managed to obtain all this footage from MGM resorts and where is the rest of it. If they possess footage outside of Paddock’s room, surely they have the video of Jesus Campos being the ‘hero’ that police made him out to be. Where is it?
While the release of this footage is certainly a step in the right direction, this case remains shrouded in secrecy and deceit and until all the footage and evidence is publicly released, we all need to constantly keep asking these questions.
.
The consulate employee, identified as Romain Franck, is alleged to have smuggled weapons from Hamas-controlled Gaza to the occupied West Bank on five occasions in recent months, the security agency Shin Bet said in a statement.
He used a diplomatic vehicle belonging to the French consulate which are subject to less stringent security checks, it claimed.
Franck, identified by French media as 24 years old, is suspected of having transferred around 70 pistols and two assault rifles.
"The investigation clearly shows that the employee of the French consulate acted for financial gain, on his own initiative and without the knowledge of his superiors," said the Shin Bet statement. "This is a very grave incident in which the immunity and privileges granted to foreign missions in Israel was cynically exploited."
The Shin Bet said Franck had received the weapons from a Palestinian resident of the Gaza Strip employed at the French Cultural Center there. They said he then transferred the weapons to a Palestinian unit in the West Bank. The weapons were later sold them on to arms dealers, the agency said.
"We take this case very seriously and are in very close contact with the Israeli authorities on this case," said a spokesman for the French Embassy in Tel Aviv, adding that Frank was due to appear in court on Monday when the exact charges would become clear. "They are serious."
Israel also said it had also arrested a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem, who works as a security guard at the French Consulate in Jerusalem, as well as several Palestinians from Gaza living illegally - under Israeli law - in the West Bank in connection with the smuggling ring. Six of the individuals will be indicted by the Southern District Court, the Shin Bet statement said.
Some of the suspects were also involved in smuggling money from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, the Shin Bet alleged.
Tensions between Israel and Hamas have increased in recent weeks, with Israel accusing the militant groups of sending civilians to protest along its border fence. Gaza residents have held regular protests near the barrier since President Trump declared Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with several shot dead by Israeli security forces.
Rocket fire from Gaza also increased following the announcement, though has died down in recent months.
On Sunday, the Israeli military said it had destroyed a Hamas tunnel built to infiltrate into Israeli territory. On Thursday, the Israeli military said two explosive devices were detonated toward troops on a routine patrol. Last month, four soldiers were injured when an IED went off next to the fence.
"We are seeing Hamas instigate riots, calling on its civilians to march toward fence and engage with our troops," said Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, an army spokesman in a briefing with journalists on Thursday. "We are seeing a pattern here and we will not allow it to become standard operating procedure."
Barry Donadio, a Candidate for Queen Anne’s County Commissioner in Maryland, says he will push for having a Police Officer in every school.
A Maryland Republican Politician is pushing for having a Police Officer in every school in his county. Barry Donadio is a former member of the U.S. Secret Service and now is President of a private security firm in Maryland.
Donadio said, “I have two beautiful daughters currently attending Queen Anne’s County Schools. I support our schools and applaud the steps already taken to keep our children safe, but more must be done, now. I want Police Officers in every one of our schools (including the elementary schools).”
“When I am elected, I am also going increase and improve physical security integrated with information technology security systems. This will allow law enforcement to be notified in real-time in order to decrease response time and mitigate injuries to our school staff and children.”
While other Politicians scramble to make new gun laws to limit the access of firearms (which may take years to take effect), Donadio says his idea to have Police in every school addresses the school safety issue now and not later.
“ With a Police Officer already there in the school, we have a very good chance at denying a target of opportunity to an assailant.” said Donadio.
Donadio is encouraging residents of the local community to not accept a lower standard of school safety than what he has suggested.
#barrydonadio
(Photo credit: Matthew Abbott)
.
.
by Michael Birnbaum & Quentin Ariees
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ The Belgian government has decided to terminate the long-term lease of the country's largest and oldest mosque to the Saudi royal family, as part of what officials say is an effort to combat radicalization.
The move caps a long-running discussion about what to do about the Grand Mosque of Brussels, a sprawling complex in the heart of the city where worshipers mix with bureaucrats and diplomats headed to the nearby glassy office buildings of the European Union. The mosque, administered by Saudi-backed imams, has been a target of Belgian security services for years. But after radicalized Belgians emerged as key players in terrorist attacks in France and Brussels in 2015 and 2016, policymakers felt new urgency to take action.
Belgian King Baudouin signed over the mosque for 99 years, rent-free, to Saudi King Faisal in 1969 as a goodwill gesture, which also secured cheaper oil for the European nation.
A parliamentary commission set up to make Belgium safer after the March 22, 2016, Brussels attacks recommended in October that the lease be broken.
The Belgian government said in a statement Friday that it is seeking "to put an end to foreign interference in the way Islam is taught in Belgium."
"With this, we end Salafist, violent extremist influences," Belgian Interior Minister Jan Jambon wrote on Twitter.
Leaders of the Mecca-based World Muslim League, which runs the Grand Mosque, deny that they espouse the ultraconservative Wahhabi version of Islam that was long embraced by the Saudi royal family and instead say they preach an inclusive vision to their flock. The league is largely but not exclusively supported by the Saudi government. According to the announcement, the group will have to vacate the mosque within a year.
The decison puts the Belgian government in the position of picking ideological winners and losers among strains of Islam, and national authorities will likely have to offer financial backing to whomever next takes over the mosque, as they do for churches, synagogues and other mosques in the country.
Belgian security officials acknowledge they have never heard anything illegal preached at the mosque. And there is no any evidence that anyone connected to the attacks worshiped at the mosque. But authorities say they believe imams there preach a vision of religion that leads members of the community to close themselves off from mainstream Belgian society.
Lawmakers want the mosque "to be managed by Belgian Muslims, in a transparent manner, not by a foreign power," said Gilles Vanden Burre, a member of the commission that recommended breaking the lease.
"From now on, the mosque should establish a sustainable relationship with Belgian authorities, while respecting the law and the traditions of our country, which convey a tolerant vision of Islam," said Justice Minister Koen Geens in a statement.
In practical terms, the mosque's leaders have not always been able to connect to Belgian society. The main imam, Abdelhadi Sewif, an Egyptian citizen with ties to Cairo's conservative powerhouse Al-Azhar University, does not speak French or Dutch, Belgium's two main languages.
Still, when Belgian authorities tried last year to test some of their concerns about the mosque in the courts by trying to deport Sewif, a judge struck the effort down, saying there was no evidence the imam threatened Belgian society. He was allowed to remain in the country, where he has lived 13 years.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who will meet Tuesday with President Donald Trump on a two-and-a-half-week visit to the United States, has said he wanted to fight extremist interpretations of Islam and to scale back the Saudi government's backing for conservative mosques around the world.
The Belgian government's decision to terminate the lease came after months of negotiation with the Saudi government. The Belgians did not say whether they were paying a settlement to the Saudis, and a spokesman did not reply to a request for comment. The Saudi Embassy in Brussels also did not reply to a request for comment.
Ahead of the announcement, a Belgian official said the Saudi government was not fighting the effort to sever its ties to the mosque. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the ongoing talks.
Belgian leaders plan to hand management of the mosque over to the Muslim Executive, the official government-backed umbrella group for Belgium's Muslims, many of whose families emigrated in the 1960s from Morocco and Turkey. The group will have a year to come up with a new structure for the mosque.
.
.
.
Under existing protocol, the EPA is not required to make public the literature from which regulations are fabricated. But Administrator Scott Pruitt has told The Daily Caller that a policy shift will ban “secret science” and make future regulations contingent on the evidence that backs them being viewable by the public.
According to Pruitt, “We need to make sure [the] data and methodology are published as part of the record. Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.” He also noted, “When we do contract that science out, sometimes the findings are published; we make that part of our rule-making processes, but then we don’t publish the methodology and data that went into those findings because the third party who did the study won’t give it to us.”
Pruitt’s right: “You and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of … rules that were adopted by this agency.” Frankly, it’s a shame this measure hasn’t been a mainstay from the beginning.
Without accountability and transparency, career officials at the EPA have extreme leeway in deciding what is and is not a legitimate scientific finding. It creates the perfect environment for regulatory abuse. A devious person is basically free to contrive anything he or she desires.
Like polling, science can be engineered to reflect grievances or bias. It’s natural and healthy to assume that people or agencies that want to hide their methodologies when such massive economic tolls are at stake have far more than just privacy concerns in mind. It’s far likelier they are protecting an agenda.
We’ll never know how many billions of dollars have been wasted through years of faux scientific justification, but kudos to Pruitt for rectifying the problem. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54853-the-epa-gets-much-needed-transparency-reform
{ foxnews.com } ~ President Trump signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill Friday despite... an earlier threat to veto the legislation due to the lack of border wall funding and a fix for DACA. Trump signed the mammoth legislation reluctantly, saying in a press availability with other members of the administration that, in order to secure a necessary increase in military spending, he had to give money to Democratic projects that he derided as a "wasted sum of money." "It's not right and it's very bad for our country," he said...You disappointed our country but also to the America people. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/23/trump-signs-1-3-trillion-spending-bill-despite-earlier-threat-to-veto.html
by Michelle Malkin
{ townhall.com } ~ A sickening act of youth violence in Florida glinted across the news headlines last week, and then disappeared from view.
There will be no CNN town halls or student walkouts over the lost life and preventable tragedy, because there are no guns to blame. Only dropped balls.
As the exploiters of crisis know full well, bureaucratic screw-ups don't make good fodder for partisan fundraisers and hipster T-shirts.
According to a probable cause affidavit filed by the Palm Beach County police, 17-year-old Corey Johnson bought a knife last Sunday and brought it with him to a sleepover at longtime friend Kyle Bancroft's house. At 4 a.m., he decided to kill Kyle's mother, Elaine, his brother, Dane, and Dane's friend, Jovanni Sierra Brand.
Johnson repeatedly stabbed Jovanni in his bed and slit his throat. Then he attempted to murder Elaine as she approached the boys' bedrooms in response to Jio's last gasps. Dane rescued his mom and sustained 32 stab wounds. Both were hospitalized and survived. Jio was buried last Friday -- less than a week after celebrating his 13th birthday at a pizza party attended by Johnson.
The accused killer told police he "stabbed the victims because of his Muslim faith," watched videos of "Muslim jihadists" on his cellphone, and "was reading the Quran from his phone just prior to the attack to give him courage to carry out his intentions."
Perhaps he read the Sword Verses for inspiration? Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan quoted from them in his presentation to classmates and superiors at Walter Reed Medical Center: "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah."
Or maybe it was Surah 9:5: "Fight and slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush."
Johnson's brutal attack was no bolt out of the blue, no unexpected incidence of sudden jihad syndrome. Local school officials and police in Palm Beach County, along with federal and international law enforcement authorities, had encountered more red flags in their years of dealing with Johnson than at a Communist May Day parade in Havana.
In middle school, Johnson had reportedly stalked a student and sexually harassed her. She told school police. Nothing happened. He dabbled in white supremacy, anti-Semitism and gay-bashing, and then immersed himself in radical Islam -- rising at 5 a.m. daily to pray and revere the Syrian flag. Johnson's online jihad agitation, physical abuse and addiction to ISIS beheading videos prompted his sister in 2016 to confide in a school therapist, who contacted the local sheriff's office.
Johnson's mom, the sister told school officials, was in denial. The sister so feared for her life she slept with a knife under her bed.
Law enforcement officers at the Jupiter Police Department and Palm Beach County Sheriff's office convened at Johnson's high school last January to investigate the self-radicalized teen's contact with ISIS as he sought to join the terror group. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force became involved after European intelligence counterparts told them Johnson had used Instagram to issue security threats to a Catholic high school in England. The threats "were so severe in nature," local officials discovered, "that up to 100 students were removed from the school fearing some kind of attack."
One of the messages threatened: "By Allah, we will kill every single Infidel student at this school." Johnson told FBI agents he "was supportive of known terrorist Anwar al Awlaki" -- the spiritual patron of lone-wolf jihadists.
The FBI's plan of action? Inaction. The agency watched and waited and wanly admonished Johnson to knock it off because authorities "believed a redirection approach would be the most beneficial regarding his conduct."
"Redirection" is akin to the alternative social justice strategies school officials and police used in Parkland, Florida, before 17 innocent students and teachers died at the hands of teen shooter who was a walking neon sign for a mental health catastrophe.
No referrals, no charges, no records, no problems.
Except for the fact that Johnson ignored the FBI and continued his Islamic instigation online. After nearly a year of foot-dragging, the FBI gathered enough evidence to bring federal charges against Johnson for his social media terror threats. According to records released by the Jupiter Police Department, local officials were told the charges would be brought in the summer of 2017. But on the early morning of the jihad stabbings at Palm Beach Gardens last week, the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office had yet to take action on a known radicalized threat who had menaced his family, his schoolmates and innocents abroad.
It's a familiar narrative for the FBI -- from the Boston Marathon bombers to the Orlando nightclub shooter to the Fort Lauderdale airport jihadist to the San Bernardino terrorists. Family members, teachers, neighbors and co-workers saw something and said something. Investigators investigated. But nobody did nuttin' till it was too bloody late.
Nothing to see here; move along.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54942-friday-top-headlines
{ foxnews.com } ~ Mark Anthony Conditt, the man linked to the deadly bombings that rocked Austin, Texas... and surrounding areas over the past month, recorded a 25-minute-long "confession" to his crimes, police said late Wednesday. Officers located the recording, in which Conditt, 23, described creating seven devices, including one he blew up to kill himself, Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said at a news conference. The recording was made on a phone, which was found in the suspect's possession following the confrontation with police. Conditt described the bombs "with a level of specificity," including their differences, Manley said. In the recording, the suspect did not mention "anything about terrorism, nor does he mention anything about hate," the police chief said. The message is rather "the outcry of a very challenged young man talking about challenges in his personal life."... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/21/austin-bomber-recorded-25-minute-confession-to-his-deadly-crimes-police-say.html.
.
{ whitehousedossier.com } ~ President Trump will not achieve his most high-profile promise, a wall on the Mexican border... because Congress is finalizing a $1.3 trillion spending package that includes no money for it. The president should keep his promise and veto the bill. It’s an insult not just to him, but to the millions of people who voted for him. I don’t know whether an actual wall is the best solution to the problem. But it is what was promised. Unless it was just for laughs. And votes. Trump sought $25 billion for the wall and is getting $1.6 billion instead to put something on the border. But it won’t be a wall. Maybe some “Do Not Trespass” or “Beware of the Dog” signs... http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2018/03/21/trump-funding-wall/?awt_l=PF._r&awt_m=3fOtHEy7ODTM1Od
It’s natural to want to know what motivated this murderer, and there’s speculation over a ideological or political rationale — especially since the two dead men were black. Yet other packages were rigged to detonate at random. Investigators may uncover some underlying motive. But the bottom line is that he was a sociopath, and, over the last 50 years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of these individuals. A huge reason for that is the disintegration of the family, often caused by statist welfare policies. Until we fix our culture, these sorts of things will continue to be a horrific part of American life. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54874-sociopath-austin-bomber-a-self-solver
America Must Act Now to Thwart Putin's Aggression
To be sure, the election was rigged from top to bottom — even if the Trump administration won’t quite admit it. Reports abound of stuffed ballot boxes, forced voting, bribes and obstruction of poll watchers. Putin also jailed the only opposition candidate with a chance of defeating him, leaving him to run against a motley assortment of clowns and radicals that only accentuated the image of Putin as a strong, stable leader.
Yet the reality is that Putin is immensely popular with the Russian people; even his critics often see no better alternative. Criticism of Putin’s dictatorial methods are often rebutted by his supporters by asking, “If not Vladimir, then who?”
Putin’s popularity among the Russian people is psychological. They crave a strong leader who will defy the world and restore Russian greatness. President Ronald Reagan declared the Russian-led Soviet Union to be an “Evil Empire,” and then methodically bankrupted the USSR by engaging in a military build-up that their communist economy could not match. Russia had been thoroughly defeated and humiliated by the American-led West.
After the fall of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin rose to power in 1991 as president of the Russian Federation, and by the time he left in 1999, the Russian economy was in shambles, plagued by rampant inflation and corruption. The Russian “capitalists” (high-ranking political and military leaders — oligarchs — who seized state assets for themselves) became fabulously wealthy even as the average Russian struggled just to eat.
On New Year’s Eve 1999, Putin took power as president of Russia, and began consolidating power in an attempt to restore Russian glory. Putin famously claimed that the fall of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. The Russian people agreed, and Putin cemented his power every time he defied the West.
Putin began maneuvering to restore Russian prestige. That effort became immensely easier when Barack liar-nObama became president. One of liar-nObama’s very first acts was to betray U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic by canceling an agreement to provide anti-missile defense systems to both as a conciliatory move in the face of Russian aggression. He followed that with virtual silence as Russia invaded Crimea and armed and supported insurgents in pro-Western Ukraine.
liar-nObama mocked 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for declaring Russia to be America’s greatest geopolitical threat, taunting, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Then liar-nObama was caught on an open mic with Putin puppet Dmitry Medvedev, pleading for Medvedev to convince Putin to “give [ liar-nObama] space,” promising that after the election, when liar-nObama would no longer have to answer to voters, he would have “more flexibility.”
It’s predictable that, with President Donald Trump now in the White House, Democrats suddenly see Russia as the enemy again. Democrats have become a gaggle of conspiracy theorists, searching high and low for evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, only discovering their own Democrat/ Russia collusion in the process. Never mind that liar-nObama gave Russia free rein for eight years, allowing it to gain power.
Regardless, the U.S. must act now to undermine Putin and keep him in check. Putin has become brazen is his threats and his aggression. Though Putin of course denies it, it’s all but certain that the Kremlin was behind the recent attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal — a former Russia spy under asylum in Great Britain — and his daughter, Yulia, using the banned nerve agent Novichok. Putin also recently announced Russia’s development of advanced nuclear weapons capable of penetrating U.S. missile defenses.
Putin’s willingness to authorize assassinations on foreign soil shows he believes the world will not stop him; a logical assumption, considering his aggression against sovereign nations, and murders and imprisonment of Russian dissidents, have been met with little more than weak chiding by the West.
Some argue Russia has become too powerful for America and Europe to take more forceful actions in reprisal. Over a third of Europe’s energy supplies come from Russia, but that’s a two-edged sword. More than half of Russia’s government revenue comes from its export of oil and gas. That makes it particularly vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices.
Just like Reagan did with the U.S. military build-up, President Trump can significantly weaken Russia, which has an economy already struggling to provide for the basic needs of its people, by further expanding U.S. energy exploration and increasing energy exports on the global market, driving down oil prices and starving Russia of revenue.
The U.S. can also increase sanctions, and provide greater economic and military support to Ukraine, enhancing its ability to defend itself and be a thorn in Russia’s side. We can freeze the nearly $1 trillion in assets placed in U.S. and Western banks by Putin-supporting Russian oligarchs, and limit their travel in the West.
Trump called Putin Tuesday to acknowledge his “election,” later saying it was a “very good call” and, “We’ll probably be meeting in the not-too-distant future.” Leftmedia talkingheads are, predictably, claiming the call was the latest evidence of their Trump/Putin collusion charade, which is now on life support. But the call was typical of Trump’s “art of the deal” strategy with Putin — all part of the negotiations game.
Whatever course is taken, it is imperative that the U.S. and its allies act decisively now to rein in Putin before his power grows any more. Otherwise the Russian menace grows ever stronger, until one day we realize the truth of Sir Winston Churchill’s axiom: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last.”
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54856-america-must-act-now-to-thwart-putins-aggression
by Lewis Morris
.
.
{ amilysecuritymatters.org } ~ Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced that he has tasked the Department of Justice's Inspector General (DOJ IG) to investigate alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)... by some DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials. His action was prompted by allegations that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) orders - which allowed U.S. intelligence agencies to surveil and/or served as the impetus for others to publicly unmask through leaks some American citizens associated with the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency - was obtained under false pretenses and may have served as a basis for Robert Mueller's special counsel appointment. The probe of these allegations should be done by a special counsel, not the DOJ IG, and here is why. If DOJ seeks to determine whether FISA may have been improperly and/or illegally used by U.S. government officials, it will need to expand the scope of the investigation far beyond the DOJ and FBI boundary established by the attorney general. For example, the person assigned to lead this investigation should be tasked with interviewing and obtaining and analyzing information from certain officials who worked or work at the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies, liar-Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee (DNC), Perkins-Coie law firm, British ex-spy Christopher Steele and his Russian sources and others believed to have played varying roles in paying for, developing, and disseminating questionable information used by DOJ and FBI to obtain FISC orders. The IG Act of 1978, as amended, does not give the DOJ IG the authority to perform such an expansive investigation. It mostly allows that office only to investigate matters concerning DOJ and FBI persons including contractors and grantees and programs. For example, the DOJ IG can't: convene a grand jury to compel witness testimony from inside and outside government, prosecute crimes, interview people who have left DOJ and FBI, and independently investigate matters deemed by the attorney general or deputy attorney general as preserving national security interests or protecting ongoing criminal investigations... http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/attorney-general-sessions-now-needs-to-appoint-a-special-counsel?f=must_reads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Bp0MGY6Rs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpTlYHL4zBk
http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/5752435435001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JABhSrMESu4
.
This Just In: Facebook Collects Data About Users
by Lewis Morris: The latest data privacy scandal brewing at Facebook should remind everyone who uses that or any social media site of one simple truth: If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product.
What you like, who your friends are, what you buy, your political views, religious affiliation and much more is all commerce to the social media giants. Facebook has made a fortune selling the data it collects from its users to third parties. Now, the dust-up between Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is calling into question what happens with that data and whether the tech giant is acting inappropriately with its users’ information.
In 2014, a company called Global Science Research (GSR) distributed a personality quiz on Facebook that it claimed was for academic research purposes. The quiz was downloaded by 270,000 users and, with their permission, collected data on them and their Facebook friends — expanding the total to some 50 million people. GSR sold the data it collected to consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which then used the information for one of its clients, Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
One item of note that will probably not be widely reported is that the Trump team only used the Cambridge Analytica data during the primaries. During the general election, the campaign found that data provided by the Republican National Committee was much more reliable.
Former Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie went public with the details about how the data-mining took place. Initially, he wanted to work with Facebook to go over what happened, but Facebook had other plans. “We were going to work on this in a cooperative manner. There’s obviously a lot of issues that need to be discussed. But, you know, I didn’t set out to crusade against Facebook. Suddenly they issue this press release and ban me.”
Facebook also suspended Cambridge Analytica last week. Lawmakers and privacy experts, however, are looking for answers from Facebook about its privacy policies. Facebook “goes into this endless hairsplitting that people should have known,” said Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. “No one could have known that their friends were disclosing their personal data on their behalf. It’s entirely illogical, and it breaks the consent law.”
Facebook claims that its policies are clear and that the company takes its users’ privacy very seriously. Or at least it takes privacy seriously depending on who is using the data.
In 2012, Barack liar=-Obama’s campaign used Facebook to gather data on voters. Over one million people downloaded an liar-nObama 2012 Facebook app that gave the campaign access to users and their friends, totaling upwards of 190 million people — nearly four times the Cambridge Analytica haul. Facebook, which was billing itself at the time as a resource for political candidates looking to reach voters, had no problem with this use of its users’ data. liar-nObama was “the man,” after all. And theliar-nObama campaign’s use of the social media giant was considered a game-changer and lauded for its ingenuity. But the Trump campaign’s use is being called conspiratorial and exploitative.
The double standard is too obvious to ignore. Facebook is no friend to Republican or conservative causes. Its supposed campaign against fake news has amounted to little more than a campaign to scrub users’ feeds of information that Facebook’s thought police deem inappropriate. Its competitors do the same thing. Twitter, YouTube and Google all routinely game their algorithms so that you see only the content they want you to see. And they sometimes will ban “offenders” outright, a large majority of whom happen to share conservative viewpoints. Not only conservatives but other “undesirables,” too — YouTube just updated its terms to ban huge swaths of videos on gun-making.
How to get real news that can be trusted is not an easy question to answer (other than subscribing to The Patriot Post, of course). But what can be done in the short term is for people who use these social media sites to do their best to protect themselves and their privacy and stay away from third-party apps that will collect and sell your information. Again, however, if you’re using a free product like Facebook, you are the product. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54869-this-just-in-facebook-collects-data-about-users
.
{ thepoliticalinsider.com } ~ Red flags shot up yesterday at the White House following a leak revealing that President Trump decided against the advice of his aides... and gave a congratulatory phone call to Russian President Vladimir Putin following his election win. His aides urged Trump not to congratulate Putin. It’s particularly concerning that this information was leaked because it means there’s a leaker close to Trump. Only a small circle of staff members would have had access to such sensitive briefing documents, meaning the leak may have come from somebody close to the president. While it’s unclear whether the White House has launched a formal investigation into the incident yet, according to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a conservative leader and foreign policy expert, expressed outrage at the leak and suggested that it and others thought to come from the national security council are crimes. Whoever did leak this classified information should be fired immediately... https://thepoliticalinsider.com/white-house-leaks/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_3_22_2018&utm_content=4b4ea4948726422aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI
{ americanthinker.com } ~ Former attorney general scum-Eric Holder scolded Jeff Sessions for the "rushed" firing of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe under pressure from the White House... scum-Holder said Sessions needs "to have the guts" to stand up to President Donald Trump. This is the same scum-Eric Holder who on June 28, 2012 became the first U.S. attorney general in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255-67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure the rest of the Democrats walked out of the House, refusing to vote. Peculiarly enough, in the first part of his claim, Mr. scum-Holder may be not too far from the truth. Jeff Sessions really does "need to have the guts"...to consider starting a DOJ investigation of scum-Holder's activity in 2009-2015, when he "served" our country as the U.S. attorney general. And Sessions knows it as well as anyone. It was Republican Senator Jeff Sessions who gave a well deserved objurgation to Mr. scum-Holder on June 17, 2009, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Back at that time, Sessions was of the opinion that after spending only five months on the job, scum-Holder put into question the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice....
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ While the public debate rages over President Donald Trump's threat to pull the United States out of the Iran deal, actors both inside and outside the U.S. government are planning for what happens the day after the United States exits - a scenario that looks increasingly likely.
Officials and lawmakers are nearly unanimous in their prediction that, if the United States and European partners are unable to agree on changes to the Iran nuclear deal, Trump will make good on his promise to scuttle U.S. participation in the deal. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said so Sunday. The president's next opportunity will come on May 12. If he declines to waive sanctions, the United States will be in breach of the agreement. Trump would likely announce America's exit then, prompting a series of responses and counter-responses around the world.
State Department policy planning director Brian Hook traveled to Europe last week and met with British, French and German officials to find a "fix" that meets Trump's standards. Expectations for success are low. If Trump does cancel the deal, experts say, the United States needs to be prepared in order to minimize the negative effects and optimize the U.S. negotiating position for the months and years ahead.
"It's possible that we will sign a supplemental agreement with Britain, France and Germany, but we need to plan for the possibility that we won't reach an agreement, and that's the purpose of contingency planning," a senior administration official told me.
The State Department and the National Security Council have begun developing a diplomatic, economic and strategic communications strategy for pulling out of the deal, reimposing sanctions and dealing with potential responses from Europe, China, Russia and Iran. The work is not meant to influence Trump's decision, officials said, but to give the president the options he requested with responsible planning to back up each course of action.
The Trump administration laid out its terms for a supplemental agreement on Jan. 12. The list includes new restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program, more intrusive inspections of its nuclear program and elimination of sunsets on restrictions on Iranian activities. Officials are making progress on the first two; Europeans are less amenable to extending the length of the deal.
The working assumption is that if the negotiations with Europe succeed, Iran will reluctantly accept the new constraints. "Iran has enormous economic incentives to stay in the deal and our assessment is they will stay in the deal if the E3 and the United States come to agreement on a supplement," the official said.
But if there's no agreement between the United States and Europe - and if Trump does not waive sanctions under the deal - things get very complicated, very quickly. The Treasury Department is working on the logistics of "snapping back" various sanctions, including restoring liar-nObama-era executive orders that the deal rescinded. A treasury official told me the department will be prepared to implement any decision made by the president.
After that, there's no certainty how other powers will react. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a think tank that enjoys unique influence with the Trump administration, recently convened a group of about 20 senior Iran and non-proliferation experts to game out scenarios, the results of which were compiled in a memo. Half the experts favored a "fix" for the deal; half the experts favored a "nix."
Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the FDD, told me he favors fixing the deal, but having a real plan to nix it shows the Europeans that Trump is serious, making it more likely that he can persuade them to consider a supplemental agreement.
"Contingency planning on fall-back options is essential for increasing U.S. negotiating leverage to get a real fix to the Iran nuclear deal," he said.
The memo the FDD prepared, which has been shared with State, NSC and Treasury, argues that, regardless of the outcome, the Trump administration must begin preparing now in case the president pulls out of the deal.
"Without a plan in place, the administration and our key allies will be playing catch-up, which provides an advantage to Iran and Russia and greatly increases risks to U.S. national security," the memo states.
Assuming Trump does declare America's exit, the FDD memo identifies "most likely" and "worst case" scenarios on a range of issues. It argues that Iran is most likely to stay in the deal, encourage other countries not to comply with U.S. sanctions, gradually increase its nuclear and missile activity, escalate activity of its regional proxy forces and pressure American to return to the deal. The worst-case scenario is Iran drastically ramps up its uranium enrichment and regional aggression, raising tensions and increasing the risk of a crisis.
The memo also maps out probable responses from the Europeans, Russians and Chinese. The Europeans are likely to go along with new sanctions out of economic pragmatism, the memo argues, but they could opt to join with Iran to resist the sanctions and diplomatically condemn the United States. The memo calls for regional preparation with Gulf allies and Israel, to provide alternatives for Iranian oil and to prepare for increased Iranian mischief around the Middle East.
The Defense Department must prepare to respond to any Iranian responses that may target U.S. or allied forces in the region. There should also be a plan to de-escalate if Iran decides it wants to negotiate after the United States withdraws from the deal.
FDD senior adviser Rich Goldberg, a longtime critic of the Iran deal, worked with Dubowitz to compile the memo. He said that preparing for the day after the United States exits the deal is the best way to prevent what deal supporters warn will happen: war with Iran.
"There is a viable and responsible path to nixing the Iran deal that uses a whole-of-government approach to increase leverage over Iran while containing the most likely negative responses," he said. "To be effective, planning for a potential nix strategy needs to be a high priority now."
Of course, Trump could avoid all of this by simply waiving the sanctions, as he has already done thrice, giving negotiators more time. But Trump is signaling that won't happen. So whether you like the Iran deal or not - whether you want to fix it or nix it - it's time to confront the reality that the United States might soon back out. In that case, all concerned would be well-advised to focus on preventing the worst-case outcomes.
.
.
by Jonathan Rosenblum
{ jewishworldreview.com } ~ Recently I stumbled across a eulogy in Mother Jones, a reliably left-wing magazine, of a Tea Party activist whom the author had gotten to know while covering the rise of that movement. Later, the two had bonded further when both were diagnosed with cancer within a short period of time.
In addition to the sadness occasioned by anyone's passing from the world, the piece left me further saddened that tales of friendship across political lines are at present in the class of "man bites dog" stories.
Why so much bitterness? It was not always so.
Today, postmodernism denies the validity of dialogue of any kind. Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto explains how that happened in a recent book, 12 Rules for Living; An Antidote to Chaos.Peterson himself has run afoul of the guardians of political correctness for his refusal to employ newly minted gender pronouns. As a happy consequence, this major thinker has been brought to the attention of hundreds of thousands of new readers and listeners.
The original postmodernists, led by the French intellectual Jacques Derrida, were Marxists. But by the 1970s, even French intellectuals had to acknowledge that all Marxist regimes were "evil empires." So instead of dividing humanity according to economic classes, the postmodernists divided humanity into identity groups, and interpreted all social phenomenon in terms of power relations between different identity groups --- i.e., between oppressed and oppressors.
Starting with the observation that there are a variety of ways to interpret a text -- or the world for that matter -- the postmodernists concluded that all ideas and interpretations are chosen as means of acquiring power.
Based on the assumption that all social phenomenon are "constructed" to gain power, there is no point in engaging in dialogue. Once human beings are reduced to "identities," the possibility of discovering a common humanity is denied, since all relationships across "identity" lines involve some inequality of power. To even engage in dialogue with the "oppressors" is to validate their power and privilege. The perennials of Western philosophy -- What is the good life? How should one live it? -- are no longer topics of discussion.
Professor Jonathan Haidt, founder of the Heterodox Academy, an organization devoted to promoting intellectual diversity in university faculties, describes in his 2017 Wriston Lecture, "The Age of Outrage," delivered at the Manhattan Institute, how, as a Yale undergraduate in the '80s, he was provided with multiple lenses for viewing the world. Today there is only one: power relations. Good people versus wicked oppressors.
The American founders were particularly concerned with how to avoid the ruinous religious wars of Europe and escape the human tendency to revert to tribal warfare. By contrast, the radical professorate today seeks to maximize suspicion between groups. They speak not of reconciliation and the search for points of agreement, but of warfare.
This jargon has filtered from the elite campuses to the hinterlands. Professor Scott Yenor detailed in the Weekly Standard recently some of the hijinks committed by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion at Boise State University. That office exists not primarily to find students from underrepresented groups and assist them on campus, but rather to instruct them and their "privileged" peers in the former's victimhood. Students are encouraged to stroll through a "Tunnel of Oppression."
The message of too many professors today, says Haidt, is that all of America is one giant instrument of oppression. And all the oppressed must gather to fight the white male, cisgendered, able-bodied oppressors. Like the anarchists of Dostoyevsky's The Possessed, the postmodernists' primary goal is destruction. First, according to Peterson, they wish to destroy the substrate of Western society: the religious, ethical underpinnings built up over millennia. Then, the achievements of the Enlightenment: empiricism, the idea of the individual, rational discourse.
Admittedly few Americans consciously think of themselves as postmodernists. But even among those who have never heard of Derrida, the value of free speech and open debate is no longer a given. Students speak instead of the spurious "right not to be offended," at least if one is the member of a favored minority group. Jews, by the way, do not qualify, and may be freely insulted.
THE RELUCTANCE TO ASSUME the basic humanity and decency of those of different political viewpoints, however, goes far beyond campus radicals. In today's intensely polarized America, it is increasingly common to have a circle of friends limited to only those who share one's political views. That is tragic on many levels. First, echo chambers are a poor environment for refining and developing one's own views. Only those who have defended their views in the marketplace of ideas are generally worth paying attention to.
Second, it destroys all social cohesion and turns us into truncated human beings. Conservatives are somewhat more protected from this tendency. For one thing, if they have attended elite institutions, they know that not all intelligent people think like them. Liberals on elite campuses may never have to confront that possibility. Second, conservatives place a higher value on the private, non-state side of life, and as such are less focused on politics.
But partisanship and self-selection for only like-minded friends cross the political spectrum. How can we get beyond this state of affairs that impoverishes all of us?
George Will's invaluable distinction between values and virtues -- values are easily proclaimed, virtues with difficulty attained -- strikes me as a good place to start. To paraphrase Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., try to judge others by their character, not their professed political views.
If we keep our eyes open, we should have noticed long ago that political views and character have little to do with one another. For me, the eureka moment came while I still inhabited the left-end of the political spectrum. On a long drive from Chicago to the East Coast, I observed that those sporting the liberal bumper sticker proclaiming "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts," meaning, for those too young to remember, "I'm from the only state to have voted for McGovern over Nixon" were no less likely to cut you off in traffic or exhibit other forms of boorish driving. Many women have discovered to their dismay that just because a man wears all the requisite feminist pins does not mean that he will treat them in a respectful fashion.
In choosing with whom to associate, virtues such as trustworthiness, humility, discretion, faithfulness, diligence, and unselfishness should trump political opinions. Different virtues may take on greater and lesser importance depending on the nature of the relationship. Those that you look for in the guy next to you in the foxhole are not necessarily the same as those one searches out in a business partner. Nor are values irrelevant. No matter how much we respect another's many virtues, no Torah Jew would marry someone who did not share his or her religious commitments. In the context of building a family, shared values are crucial.
Common experiences are crucial to the ability to recognize the virtues in those unlike ourselves. And in contemporary America, such experiences are increasingly rare. People on the coasts and a handful of urban enclaves may not know anyone living in flyover country and vice versa. Military service is perhaps the most effective way of bringing people from diverse backgrounds together. A Yale Law School mailing recently featured two members of the YLS Veterans Association, not a big group. One, Tian Tian Xin, was born in China and raised in Texas; the other, Aaron Haviland, traveled around the world growing up in the various countries to which his diplomat father was posted.
They inhabit opposite ends of the political spectrum: He is active in the Federalist Society and she, I gather, far to the left. But the common experience of having attended the service academies and having seen combat close up makes it easier to ignore those differences and to appreciate one another's virtues. Interestingly, one of the qualities that both appreciate in the other is the ability to make friends with those who do not share their politics. I wonder if the far greater national unity I remember from my childhood doesn't owe in part to the fact that so many of our fathers had seen service together in World War II or the Korean conflict.
Sometimes shared pain brings people together from divergent backgrounds. A close friend of mine once spent an intensive month with others suffering from chronic, debilitating pain. At the outset, she wondered what she, an Emmy-award winning documentary maker and Orthodox Jew, could have in common with the others in the group. By the end, the group had bonded closely.
Emily Esfahani Smith describes in The Power of Meaning an organization called the Dinner Club, which brings together those who have suffered the early and sudden loss of a parent. Over dinners together, they work through their pain. I doubt that politics plays a large role in those conversations. All this is not to say that politics is irrelevant or to deny that we are drawn to others who share our political or religious views. But even political and religious discussions across lines of affiliation need not be bitter. The key is to avoid the assumption that anyone who disagrees must either be a cretin or evil. Avoid eye-rolls.
Instead, listen to opposing arguments and try to understand where the other person is coming from. Be prepared to fulfill writer Conor Cruise O'Brien's definition of an intellectual as one who can admit when another has made a point in a debate.
The Heterodox Academy has put together liberal and conservative academics to work together fruitfully on papers analyzing means to alleviate poverty. In Israel, scientists and talmidei chachamim have addressed together various ethical dilemmas from their respective perspectives. I have witnessed personally how much more powerful meetings with nonobservant Jews are when we start with the assumption that they too possess something about them from which we can learn.
Perhaps then we can take to heart Lincoln's invocation of the cherished Union in his first Inaugural: "We are friends, not enemies. We must not be enemies." If we follow that advice, our horizons will be widened and our lives enriched.
.
That became even more clear Monday when Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panther Party and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network led a lobbying effort on Capitol Hill not about denouncing Farrakhan’s racism but to block Rokita’s resolution condemning it. Instead, these rabble rousers want a resolution condemning President Donald Trump for his perceived racism.
Gary Bauer noted the sad truth in the form of some questions: “Did they lobby for criminal justice reform? Better school safety measures in the inner cities? Expanding enterprise zones to boost economic opportunity in black communities? Sadly, their presence on Capitol Hill had nothing to do with any of those causes.” Instead, they’re defending a reprehensible man.
Several Democrats have met with Farrakhan, including perhaps most prominently DNC Deputy Chair Rep. scum-Keith Ellison, but also Representatives mad-Maxine Waters (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Danny Davis (IL), Andre Carson (IN), Gregory Meeks (NY) and and Al Green (TX). scum-Ellison in particular has sought to dismiss those connections, but he’s been caught in the lie. Even The Washington Post gave him “Four Pinocchios.” In a blog post this past Sunday, scum-Ellison continued to protest too much, and Davis recently defended Farrakhan as “an outstanding human being.”
Also recently, a 2005 photo surfaced of an up-and-coming Barack liar-nObama smiling next to Farrakhan. If only he had been vetted sooner.
To sum it up, the fundamental problem is that elected Democrats are either unconvincingly distancing themselves from a racist reprobate or they’re utterly embracing him and calling him good. And they want us to trust them with governing. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54843-dems-defend-rather-than-denounce-farrakhan
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54910-thursday-top-headlines
.
No Fourth Amendment Rights at the Border?
In her dissenting opinion, Judge Jill Pryor (no relation) agreed that the government has an interest in protecting the nation’s borders, but she argued that significant privacy protections were raised by the ruling. Pryor wrote, “The privacy interests implicated in forensic searches are even greater than those involved in the manual searches at issue in Riley [v. California].” Furthermore, “a forensic search of a cell phone at the border [should require] a warrant supported by probable cause.”
This ruling will clearly not be the end of the story as it sets up a collision course with the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling that specifically extended Fourth Amendment protections to include cell phones. Indeed, Vergara’s challenge relied on that case. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote at the time, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Roberts concluded, “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54825-no-fourth-amendment-rights-at-the-border
{ renewamerica.com } ~ With regards to the Mueller 'investigation' of President Trump, I have been asking the title's question from many for quite awhile: "How is conducting an investigation based upon fake evidence legal?" Thus far, I haven't received even a mediocre reply or one that resembles a modicum of logic. Others merely try to change the subject. As a Special Counsel was assigned to the Trump case although there doesn't seem to be a factual let alone truthful case against him, in checking the requirements for the USAG assigning a Special Counsel – § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel – states: "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and – (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."
Hmmm. Weren't we told at the beginning of this whole process that it wasn't a criminal investigation but, it was a counterintelligence investigation? It seemed to switch very quickly from a faux 'counterintelligence' mode to criminal...didn't it? I strongly suspect – as do many other US citizens – that the original investigation was a huge ruse, as a counterintelligence investigation does not require nor even investigate a crime. It also appears to neither require nor allow the appointment of any "Special Counsel"...a counsel who is only to address criminal investigations. Furthermore – and despite this sleight of hand delivered by Deputy USAG Rosenstein to switch from counterintelligence to criminal – even if Special Counsel Mueller is now addressing a criminal investigation, under the law a crime must be identified before the investigation may proceed. To date, no original crime to begin a criminal investigation has ever been identified. Quiz question: How many apparent illegalities can you count that have been engaged in by Deputy AG Rosenstein and Special Counsel and former FBI head Robert Mueller...thus far?
Then, on top of these "irregularities," Mr. Mueller and his crew of at least one of whom is as unsavory character as may exist attorneys are now on a full-fledged leaping and diving fishing expedition in search of a crime against Trump and everyone who works for him. Of note is that on 29 April 2015, the US Supreme Court adopted proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that new text to 26(b)(1) "Removes two prior loopholes that allowed for vast fishing expeditions": Obtaining discovery about "the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identify and location of any persons who know of any discoverable matter" has been taken away. The removal of this language aims to eliminate gamesmanship in "discovery about discovery. In addition, removal of the following sentences aims to focus discovery on the evidence that is central and requests that are proportional to the case: "For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
So...now we have the ruse of an investigation that began as counterintelligence to avoid having to name a crime and almost immediately switched to a criminal investigation... which requires the identification of a crime. Gee...did Rosenstein and Mueller just forget? Very doubtful. Were we-the-people not supposed to notice the man behind the curtain and all of his tricks, machinations and misdirections? I think we were! Oh...and what about Mueller using the fake created-out-of-whole-cloth 'dossier' to both help the DNC and liar-Hillary Clinton win the US presidency and...as the central product to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil candidate and now President Trump and his team? We still don't know whether or not FISC Judge Contreras knew the dossier was false or not. However, we do know that he was courted by FBI employees Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page; both of whom – along with their other 7th floor colleagues – hold a deep-seated hated for candidate and now President Trump.
So...we have a Special Counsel who was appointed to investigate 'counterintelligence' – which is not an SC's purview – so that a crime would not be identified, we have the SC along with the Deputy US AG changing the investigation to criminal – but never identifying the crime – and basing the counterintelligence-turned-criminal on a "fishing expedition' to find a crime – which SCOTUS has said is a "no-no" – and the FBI, DOJ and liar-Hillary Clinton campaign conspiring together to have liar-Hillary elected and to destroy Donald J. Trump. Oh! And one additional item – and there are many...many more with new ones cropping up almost daily. We even have a former FBI Director Andrew McCabe demoted then fired for lying under oath having put together an "insurance policy" with Strzok and Page to destroy Trump should he win the US presidency! Wow! These are your tax $Dollars at work.
This saga seems to have no end and there seem to be almost too many felonies and misdemeanors than one can track. But, maybe one of you can help. My question is still: "How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence Legal?" I don't think it is. And if it isn't, it's a crime to have begun an investigation at all. Fake "evidence" to "get" someone you hate is 3rd world "justice." In my humble opinion, Mueller has been working illegally on this since its inception and appears to be dragging it out to influence the 2018 election in the DNC's favor. Therefore, none of his findings are – legally – likely admissible in any court in the USA. So, "How is Conducting an Investigation Based upon Fake Evidence Legal?" If you have the answer, please let me know. Thanks!
"They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved" – 2 Peter 2:19
"For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" – Galatians 6:8
Russian election meddling probe now a criminal investigation:https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/robert-mueller-takes-russia-case-as-criminal-inves/
28 CFR 600.1 – Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.1
New Federal Rules Aim to Promote Proportionality in Discovery: https://www.hunton.com/images/content/2/6/v2/2645/new-federal-rules-aim-to-promote-proportionality-in-discovery.pdf
Trump lawyer says Mueller obtained transition emails illegally: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365278-trump-lawyer-says-mueller-obtained-transition-emails-illegally
-and-
Trump transition lawyer: Mueller improperly obtained documents in Russia probe: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/16/trump-lawyer-mueller-improperly-obtained-transition-documents-in-russia-probe.html
Memo: FBI Used Tainted Steele Dossier, Paid For By liar-Hillary Clinton, As Reason To Spy On Trump: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/memo-fbi-used-tainted-steele-dossier-paid-for-by-hillary-clinton-as-reason-to-spy-on-trump/
.
.
{ townhall.com } ~ On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether pro-life pregnancy help centers in California should be required to post notices informing women of the availability of abortions elsewhere. The pregnancy help centers are contesting the law, disingenuously named the California Reproductive FACT Act, claiming it violates their free speech rights, as well as undercuts the reason for their existence.
Some might ask in the interest of fairness and equality two buzzwords the left likes to use in other situations whether abortion clinics are required to post notices with information about alternatives to the procedure.
According to Ingrid Duran, state legislation director for National Right to Life, the nation's oldest and largest pro-life organization, "There is no provision in the California so-called Fact Act that would require abortion facilities to inform women about the resources available from pregnancy resource centers." She adds, "It is not surprising that the pro-abortion lobby would threaten pregnancy resource centers that offer life-affirming alternatives, since this is in contradiction to their mission of the unfettered right to abort innocent unborn children."
In defending the law, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, says, "Everyone is entitled to accurate information about their health care, and that's simply what the FACT Act says. There is nothing coercive, nothing intrusive in the requirements of the law that infringe upon someone's First Amendment rights. It's about making sure women have accurate information about their health care."
I have some personal experience with this issue, having spoken over several decades for fundraising events at nonprofit pregnancy help centers. I have listened to the stories of hundreds of women, some of whom wanted an abortion until they received alternative information, then chose to give birth. I have heard from other women who had abortions and later regretted their decision. These women told me they would have chosen to give birth had they received information about alternatives and seen a sonogram of their unborn child.
It is the abortion industry, which makes money off these vulnerable women, that fears information, otherwise they would be posting signs in their facilities about alternatives and the kind of help available during pregnancy and after birth. The pregnancy help centers, unlike the abortionists, do not charge for their services, raising the question of who cares more about women?
There are federal laws requiring that certain information be placed on packaged foods. It's called truth in labeling. Women and men are required to have detailed information when applying for a bank loan or buying a house or car.
I once debated a liberal feminist about this. She said I was implying women aren't smart enough to know what their choices are. I replied, "Fine, then let's remove the labels from packaged products because women should be smart enough to figure out whether they contain corn or green beans."
If information is power, then we who are pro-life should favor more information, not less, so that the choices women make will be fully informed. This would include, in addition to information about pregnancy help centers, sonograms so that a woman seeking an abortion could see what she is about to terminate.
I have heard stories of women who have viewed sonograms of their babies deciding against abortion. Many more view the sonograms and go through with the procedure. But if a sonogram will save even one life, shouldn't we make them mandatory before abortions can be performed?
That is a law that should be passed. By providing a full spectrum of information, such a law would empower women to make fully informed choices. It would be far better than the California FACT Act, which undermines the compassionate and free work of that state's pregnancy help centers.
.
But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knows who ordered the hit.
“We think it overwhelmingly likely that it was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K.”
“Unforgivable,” says Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov of the charge, which also defies “common sense.” On Sunday, Putin echoed Peskov: “It is just sheer nonsense, complete rubbish, to think that anyone in Russia could do anything like that in the run-up to the presidential election and the World Cup. … It’s simply unthinkable.”
Putin repeated Russia’s offer to assist in the investigation.
But Johnson is not backing down; he is doubling down.
“We gave the Russians every opportunity to come up with an alternative hypothesis … and they haven’t,” said Johnson. “We actually have evidence … that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination but has also been creating and stockpiling Novichok,” the poison used in Salisbury.
Why Russia is the prime suspect is understandable. Novichok was created by Russia’s military decades ago, and Skripal, a former Russian intel officer, betrayed Russian spies to MI6.
But what is missing here is the Kremlin’s motive for the crime.
Skripal was convicted of betraying Russian spies in 2006. He spent four years in prison and was exchanged in 2010 for Russian spies in the U.S. If Putin wanted Skripal dead as an example to all potential traitors, why didn’t he execute him while he was in Kremlin custody?
Why wait until eight years after Skripal had been sent to England? And how would this murder on British soil advance any Russian interest?
Putin is no fool. A veteran intelligence agent, he knows that no rival intel agency such as the CIA or MI6 would trade spies with Russia if the Kremlin were to go about killing them after they have been traded.
“Cui bono?” runs the always relevant Ciceronian question. “Who benefits” from this criminal atrocity?
Certainly, in this case, not Russia, not the Kremlin, not Putin.
All have taken a ceaseless beating in world opinion and Western media since the Skripals were found comatose, near death, on that bench outside a mall in Salisbury.
Predictably, Britain’s reaction has been rage, revulsion and retaliation. Twenty-three Russian diplomats, intelligence agents in their London embassy, have been expelled. The Brits have been treating Putin as a pariah and depicting Russia as outside the circle of civilized nations.
Russia is “ripping up the international rulebook,” roared Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson. Asked how Moscow might respond to the expulsions, Williamson retorted: Russia should “go away and shut up.”
Putin sympathizers, including Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, have been silenced or savaged as appeasers for resisting the rush to judgment.
The Americans naturally came down on the side of their oldest ally, with President Donald Trump imposing new sanctions.
We are daily admonished that Putin tried to tip the 2016 election to Trump. But if so, why would Putin order a public assassination that would almost compel Trump to postpone his efforts at a rapprochement?
Who, then, are the beneficiaries of this atrocity?
Is it not the coalition – principally in our own capital city – that bears an endemic hostility to Russia and envisions America’s future role as a continuance of its Cold War role of containing and corralling Russia until we can achieve regime change in Moscow?
What should Trump’s posture be? Stand by our British ally but insist privately on a full investigation and convincing proof before taking any irreversible action.
Was this act really ordered by Putin and the Kremlin, who have not only denied it but condemned it?
Or was it the work of rogue agents who desired the consequences that they knew the murder of Skripal would produce – a deeper and more permanent split between Russia and the West?
Only a moron could not have known what the political ramifications of such an atrocity as this would be on U.S.-British-Russian relations.
And before we act on Boris Johnson’s verdict – that Putin ordered it – let us recall:
The Spanish, we learned, did not actually blow up the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898, which ignited the Spanish-American War.
The story of North Vietnamese gunboats attacking U.S. destroyers, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam, proved not to be entirely accurate.
We went to war in Iraq in 2003 to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction we later discovered Saddam Hussein did not really have.
Some 4,500 U.S. dead and tens of thousands of wounded paid for that rush to judgment. And some of those clamoring for war then are visible in the vanguard of those clamoring for confronting Russia.
Before we set off on Cold War II with Russia – leading perhaps to the shooting war we avoided in Cold War I – let’s try to get this one right.