Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Sat. July 1, 2017
McAutomated
Trump stops chemical attack (media won’t touch this)
President Donald Trump proved he will not be weak on terror and was credited for saving thousands of lives, but of course, the mainstream media is silent.
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, credited Trump’s warning to Syria not to commit another chemical attack for stopping the Assad regime from carrying another one out.
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, credited Trump’s warning to Syria not to commit another chemical attack for stopping the Assad regime from carrying another one out.
“I can tell you that due the president’s actions, we did not see an incident,” Haley said at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.
“What we did see before was all the same activity we had seen prior, for the April 4 chemical weapons attacks. And so I think that by the president calling out Assad, I think by us continuing to remind Iran and Russia that while they choose to back Assad, that this was something we were not going to put up with. So I would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children.”
Defense Secretary James Mattis backed up her claims, saying, “it appears that they took the warning seriously. They didn’t do it.”
Syria’s government and its ally Russia accused Washington on Thursday of concocting a “provocation” in Syria, which would then be blamed on President Bashar Assad’s government as alleged use of chemical weapons to justify an attack.
But previous identical preparations followed by mass carnage of Syrian civilians at the hands of Assad quickly debunk their “provocation” claim.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, said the U.S. had seen “activity” at Shayrat airfield that “indicated active preparations for chemical weapons use.”
That is the same base from which the Syria air force launched an attack in April that the U.S. and others said used lethal chemicals to kill civilians. Syria denied the charge.
A Monday evening statement by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the U.S. had “identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
House GOP pushes bills to crack down on illegal immigration
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-led House is moving forward with legislation to crack down on illegal immigration, a priority for President Donald Trump.
A bill known as "Kate's Law" would impose harsher prison sentences on deportees who re-enter the United States.
The bill is named after 32-year old Kathryn Steinle, who was shot and killed in California in 2015 by a man who was in the U.S. illegally.
A second bill would strip federal dollars from self-proclaimed "sanctuary" cities that shield residents from federal immigration authorities.
Trump often railed against illegal immigration during his presidential campaign. He met at the White House on Wednesday with more than a
dozen people whose family members were killed by people who were in the country illegally.
Testimony: Planned Parenthood Doctor Said She Would “Break the Neck” of Baby Born Alive
By Peter Heck
A former patient at the Planned Parenthood butchery in St. Paul, Minnesota has come forward with shocking (but is it really at this point?) testimony that staff abortionists informed her that should her baby be born alive, somehow surviving the abortion attempt, they would “break the baby’s neck.”
This isn’t a hidden camera sting operation like those conducted by the Center for Medical Progress that have exposed the abortion giant for some ghastly, horrific practices beyond just murdering viable infants. Instead, this video released by Pro-Life Action Ministries is conducted as a testimonial of a former patient. The patient, whose identity is not disclosed in the video apparently visited the St. Paul clinic when her baby was 22 weeks and a day along in the gestation process.
This would be a clear violation of Minnesota’s “Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” which, similar to federal law, requires that, “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice . . . shall be taken . . . . to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”
That would be the same Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that Barack Obama vehemently opposed when he was a state senator in Illinois. The Illinois law was a near carbon copy of federal legislation that not one U.S. Senator (Democrat or Republican) voted against. When called on this horror, Obama lied claiming he opposed the law because it didn’t contain language that guaranteed it would not infringe on the right to abortion. The law did contain that language.
Not even the radicals at NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) opposed the Born Alive acts.
Barack Obama was a different breed of abortion radical, and if the testimony in this video is to be believed, it seems Planned Parenthood is right there with him. To be fair to both, perhaps they are being more intellectually honest than their fellow leftists. Precisely what is different about the human being one second before it emerges from the birth canal and one second after?
If you can legally snap her neck the moment before she is delivered, why couldn’t you do the same the moment after? When you’re Constitutionally oblivious, scientifically impaired, and morally absent, apparently you feel you can. Pure evil.
Trump Crushes MSNBC Hosts With Fiery Tweet
True Daily Staff
President Trump ripped into MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough Thursday morning for their criticism of his administration.
I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..
...to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!
Trump’s strong criticism of the media hosts came shortly after his social media director Dan Scavino also blasted the MSNBC personalities on his Twitter account.
Follow
Dan Scavino Jr.✔@DanScavino
#DumbAsARockMika and lover #JealousJoe are lost, confused & saddened since @POTUS @realDonaldTrump stopped returning their calls! Unhinged.
Senator Mitch McConnell's inability to cobble together a bill that 50 Republicans can support replacing ObamaCare reflects the diversity of health care needs, demographics, economic levels, and opinions on government's role in the nation itself. One size does not fit all, particularly where health care is concerned.
The key to making this work is to let each state tailor the program to its own needs.
President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Senator McConnell should unite on a four-part solution to the current imbroglio:
1. Leave it up to each state to decide its level of participation in the new health care system. Use the federal legislation to create a menu of options. Then pay the states the cash equivalent of the services and subsidies it is opting not to take under the federal program.
The need for a state-by-state approach is evidenced by how about half of the country opted to participate in the Medicaid expansion while the other stayed out (even with no federal payment of the cash equivalent).
2. Curb Medicaid Spending Through Co-Payments
The Medicaid program was conceived for poor people and any question of copayments or deductibles was ruled out at the outset because of the poverty of the population being served. But now as Obama has expanded it into a lower- middle class entitlement (with people with incomes up to $85,000 eligible in some states), co-payments become feasible.
The use of emergency rooms has swelled under the Medicaid expansion, often rising by 50 percent or more. The ER has become the new community center where people can congregate out of the rain. Charging a $10 copayment at the door should reduce the utilization significantly, lowering the cost substantially with no social injustice.
3. Delete the List of Required Services
The reason CBO thinks so many people will be unable to afford insurance under the new bill is that it keeps the list of required services that must be offered under insurance plans to qualify for subsidy. 60-year-old men will still have to have maternity benefits. We will all have to have addiction treatment and mental health coverage. Again, one size has to fit all. Get rid of this requirement and let the states design individual packages that they feel best suit the needs of their citizens.
4. Expand the Number of Doctors
The fundamental problem with health care is that we are seeking to expand the utilization of medical and health services with no concomitant rise in the number of professionals who must deliver them. In fact, legal limits on the number of residencies nationally hold down the number of doctors at a time when we face a looming shortage of primary care physicians that will only get worse.
In short, use the Tenth Amendment to deal with this problem, like the Founders intended.
The key to making this work is to let each state tailor the program to its own needs.
President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Senator McConnell should unite on a four-part solution to the current imbroglio:
1. Leave it up to each state to decide its level of participation in the new health care system. Use the federal legislation to create a menu of options. Then pay the states the cash equivalent of the services and subsidies it is opting not to take under the federal program.
The need for a state-by-state approach is evidenced by how about half of the country opted to participate in the Medicaid expansion while the other stayed out (even with no federal payment of the cash equivalent).
2. Curb Medicaid Spending Through Co-Payments
The Medicaid program was conceived for poor people and any question of copayments or deductibles was ruled out at the outset because of the poverty of the population being served. But now as Obama has expanded it into a lower- middle class entitlement (with people with incomes up to $85,000 eligible in some states), co-payments become feasible.
The use of emergency rooms has swelled under the Medicaid expansion, often rising by 50 percent or more. The ER has become the new community center where people can congregate out of the rain. Charging a $10 copayment at the door should reduce the utilization significantly, lowering the cost substantially with no social injustice.
3. Delete the List of Required Services
The reason CBO thinks so many people will be unable to afford insurance under the new bill is that it keeps the list of required services that must be offered under insurance plans to qualify for subsidy. 60-year-old men will still have to have maternity benefits. We will all have to have addiction treatment and mental health coverage. Again, one size has to fit all. Get rid of this requirement and let the states design individual packages that they feel best suit the needs of their citizens.
4. Expand the Number of Doctors
The fundamental problem with health care is that we are seeking to expand the utilization of medical and health services with no concomitant rise in the number of professionals who must deliver them. In fact, legal limits on the number of residencies nationally hold down the number of doctors at a time when we face a looming shortage of primary care physicians that will only get worse.
In short, use the Tenth Amendment to deal with this problem, like the Founders intended.
Did Bernie Sanders And Wife Fleece A College For Personal Profit?
"Where was the finance committee when these decisions were being made?”
By Floyd Brown
When Sen. Bernie Sanders’ wife, Jane Sanders, approached People’s United Bank for a loan to help Burlington College purchase 33 lakefront acres, she likely had no idea her husband would challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
At that time, she was a president herself. On top of the world, she had snagged a job for which she clearly wasn’t qualified. She was president of Burlington College, and she was on the hunt for a loan to expand the tiny institution.
The loan she secured is a complicated affair. In addition to approaching the bank, she had to win the approval of the Vermont Educational and Health Buildings Finance Agency. The loan was approved. The land was bought. In hindsight, the board of trustees of Burlington College alleged the transaction tipped the school into insolvency.
To many it sounds like a bad loan, poorly underwritten, which soured into foreclosure. Why an FBI investigation? There are two reasons why this loan merits investigation.
Everyone admits the school was struggling at the time of the loan. What investigators want to know is, why didn’t People’s United Bank properly scrutinize the loan? Did they cut corners because the application was signed by the wife of arguably Vermont’s most famous political leader? Furthermore, did the senator or his staff encourage that the loan be given, even though it wasn’t up to proper underwriting standards?
Soon after the transaction, the board of trustees began a protracted battle to push Jane Sanders out as BC’s president. She finally left when the board agreed to pay her a $200,000 golden parachute. Her replacement was Carol Moore.
Moore has been extremely critical of the real estate scheme, writing as follows:
“BC’s fate was set when its former board members hired an inexperienced president and, six years later, approved the imprudent purchase of a $10 million piece of property for campus expansion. Enrollment that year was about 195 and the budget just over $4 million, less than half of this ill-advised investment. What were they thinking? Where was the finance committee when these decisions were being made?”
Almost anyone with a modicum of experience would not lend a school with these problems over $10 million for an expanded campus.
Secondly, as the investigation has unfolded, it has become clear that Jane Sanders misled the bank during underwriting. This is a crime. She told People’s United Bank in the loan process that she had secured over $2 million in gift pledges to the college to pay it back. We now know she had no such thing.
According to Vermont’s watchdog website VTDigger.com: “Sanders told People’s United Bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase of the former Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington property on North Avenue.”
However, BC records show a much smaller amount — only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014, according to figures provided by Burlington College to VTDigger.
Jill Sanders didn’t just fudge a little to the bank, she lied and inflated the donations by millions of dollars.
“That’s far less than the $5 million Sanders listed as likely pledges in the loan agreement,” VTDigger reported in September of 2015, “and less than a third of the $2.14 million Sanders had promised People’s Bank the college would collect in cash during the four-year period.”
It is a mess, but most damaging of all it shows how proud socialist Bernie Sanders and his wife profited off of a poor small college and an unsuspecting bank. Socialists always tell us they aren’t motivated by money, only by helping others. In this case, these socialists were helping THEMSELVES to at least 200 grand.
A postscript:
After Bernie’s loss to Hillary Clinton, the Sanders's bought their third home, a marvelous $600,000 beauty on the shores of Lake Champlain. Ironically, the lakefront property Jane Sanders bought for Burlington College ended the school’s ability to educate future generations, and the school closed — but she still got the lakefront digs to enjoy this summer.
Consensus vs. Confirmation And Scientism vs. Science
By James Wilson
The old joke says a guy was wearing garlic-scented wristbands. When his friend asked why he wore something so stinky, he replied that it was to repel vampires. His friend laughed and said it was a myth about garlic keeping vampires away. Our man swept his garlic-laden arms in an arc and asked, “Do you see any vampires around?”
The difference between science and scientism is not in the premise that garlic may repel vampires, but in the way we test it. In this case, a scientist might gather a few vampires in one place, introduce garlic into the environment, and record results. Whether the hypothesis is proven or not, the researcher would need to repeat the process enough times to rule out extraneous factors that might have influenced the outcome. Only then would he be entitled to claim an evidence-based (i.e., scientific) conclusion.
Astrophysicist Brad Taylor was interviewed for the March 1 issue of the Canberra (Australia) Times. His first quoted words were that there is now a scientific consensus on the existence of extraterrestrial life. It is a question not of if but of when we will discover we are not alone in the universe, to paraphrase him. My question would be, “What is your evidence? Do you assume that because we have found planets of roughly such size and of such distance from their suns that they resemble Earth, it is inevitable life will be found on them?” This inevitability obtains only if evolution is a reality; so far it is only a theory beloved by those who need there to be no God holding them accountable for the way they treat Him and one another. Since we do not know what might cause life to ignite – if it is not a loving and intentional God – there can be no other reason for the confident consensus of Taylor and his colleagues.
To be clear, we do know the building blocks of life. We know a number of them exist on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. That is not identifying the igniter. I stand by my statement.
The certainty of extraterrestrial life is not the only example of the religion of scientism out shouting authentic science. Take the mania to medicate children with Attention Deficit (Hyperactive) Disorder, known as AD(H)D. The dogma of scientism is that this is an affliction; we must bring wandering attention and poor impulse control into line with conventional social expectations. Real science knows the medications we use do not enhance and likely inhibit academic and creative activity. The only known benefit is that most who receive them become less annoying to parents and teachers. But what do we lose in exchange?
History is shot through with famous contributors to civilization who coped with and compensated for their AD(H)D – learning to manage instead of inhibit it. Creative geniuses like Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo and Mozart would have been suppressed and their contributions lost or diminished if we could have medicated them. American presidents Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy would have been less than God made them, without the added challenge of ADD. Winston Churchill – heart and soul of World War II Britain – and inventors Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell would have had their imaginations and will to persevere domesticated. Cultural icons Walt Disney and John Lennon would have been tamed, not to mention film stars like Steve McQueen and Will Smith, and athletes like Olympian Michael Phelps, football’s Terry Bradshaw and baseball’s Pete Rose.
Corporation founders David Needleman (Jet Blue) and Richard Branson (Virgin Airlines) say their ADD literally enabled their creativity and vision. Yet Pete Rose claims his ADD fueled his gambling addiction as much as it enabled him to become the all-time hits leader for Major League Baseball. The reality is that ADD is not a disease, nor is it a disability. It is an alternative way of processing information and motivating human behavior. It carries gifts and challenges – both of which need to be channeled with effort and determination. Applying a little science – rather than leaping to suppress the condition before it is understood – helps too.
There is a cost when scientism trumps science. In the case of AD(H)D the cost is the suppression of personality in millions of irresponsibly diagnosed and medicated children – mostly little boys. Studies are beginning to emerge indicating that allowing children to engage in limited high-risk behavior is what allows them to learn good and creative decision-making. If so, the cost of medicating them is the inhibition of this human essential.
The blessing – of science over scientism – would be a few more like Walt Disney, Michael Phelps and Richard Branson. And no vampires.
Veteran Journalist Explains how Big Money is Manipulating our News Media
By Onan Coca
Trust your cognitive dissonance. Try to be aware you’re being manipulated or at least someone may be trying. — Sharyl Attkisson to America
Sharyl Attkisson has always been a respected and well-regarded journalist, and her recent work is only building her reputation. After spending years holding Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama accountable to the American people, Attkisson left CBS to strike out on her own. Even though she faced tremendous pressure from the Obama administration (and may have even been spied on by the administration), Attkisson persevered.
Now she’s one of the leading voices teaching the American people about what is really going on behind closed doors at the mainstream media outlets.
Attkisson recently appeared on Fox News with Shannon Bream to explain how the modern news media works and to implore Americans everywhere to be wary of what they hear on the news. Bream calls the sense of skepticism that you get when hearing a story, your “cognitive dissonance,” and she wants Americans to trust their gut more. If you hear a story that seems unlikely, it may well be.
“In general the journalists who have decided to take a stand against this president and announced in some instances that they’re suspending the normal rules and procedures of journalism because they think this president is such a threat and in many instances they really believe that. They are committed in some cases partisans, but just committed people who think they’re doing the right thing. So I think you’re going to get that sort of feeling from them. Also, they are also being cheered on by the people around them almost like a feeding frenzy with sharks. The people surrounding them are patting themselves on the back and saying, ‘good jobs.’
If you listen to the players I interviewed in this book that operate in the smear universe they themselves will tell you — this is kind of scary when you think about it — virtually every image you run across whether it is in the news or social media or elsewhere and even the comedy shows, it’s being put there, they say, for a purpose by somebody who wants you to think something that may not necessarily be a consensus at all or may not even be true. And there are well-funded actors that use fake accounts on social media or powers of persuasion and a ton of money to try to manipulate what you think. So when you see the common narratives circulating on news outlet after news outlet and social media that everybody thinks this or that and you’re thinking, ‘Really, because I don’t think that.’ Trust your cognitive dissonance. Try to be aware you’re being manipulated or at least someone may be trying.”
Cecile Richards: Fund Planned Parenthood If You Want to Stop Abortion
NATIONAL KATIE YODER
Funding America’s largest abortion provider will reduce abortions, according to its president. Never mind that, as Planned Parenthood receives more funding, its own abortion rate increases.
On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards appeared as a guest on Morning Joe to discuss the GOP health care bill that proposes to halt federal funding (Medicaid money) from going towards her organization.
During the interview, Richards took every opportunity to advertise her organization.
“We’re actually now at an historic low for teen pregnancy in the United States of America,” she touted. “We’re actually at the lowest rate of abortion since Roe vs. Wade was decided.”
But what Richards didn’t say is that, while the U.S. abortion rate has decreased, Planned Parenthood’s abortion rate has increased. According to Planned Parenthood’s most recently published annual report, the organization performed 328,348 abortions from 2015 to 2016. That’s 4,349 more abortions than the previous year.
As with abortion, Planned Parenthood saw a rise in government funding. It received $554.6 million in “government health services, reimbursements & grants” from 2015 to 2016 versus $553.7 million the year before.
Referencing the Congressional Budget Office and “every other medical journal,” Richards warned that blocking funds for Planned Parenthood would translate into more unintended pregnancies.
“[I]f you actually block access to Planned Parenthood, unintended pregnancy will go up, as will the rate of abortion,” she warned, “which just seems crazy to us.”
She’s right. More abortions are “crazy.” Not to mention one abortion. That’s why the pro-life movement is so adamantly against taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.
Republicans, she continued, were “making a big mistake” placing “politics ahead of women’s healthcare.” (As if Planned Parenthood isn’t political. Its action arm just dumpedhundreds of thousands in the recent Georgia special election, never mind the presidential election.)
Referencing President Donald Trump, co-host Willie Geist asked Richards about a solution to Planned Parenthood’s funding.
“He said more recently that, if you stop performing at abortions at Planned Parenthood, you could keep all your federal funding,” Geist pointed out. “Is that something you ever would consider?”
“No, I think it’s really important, Willie,” Richards said before later adding, “It doesn’t make any sense. It’s a legal right women have.”
The key to reducing abortion, Richards argued, is funding Planned Parenthood.
“The thing I don’t really understand and I would challenge any member of the United States Senate or Congress is,” she said, “if you really want to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate and the need for abortion, you should be funding groups like Planned Parenthood that actually every single day do more than all this political wrangling do to provide women basic access to healthcare, detect cancer early, you know, give – give birth control to folks who need it to prevent an unintended pregnancy.”
To top it off, the chyron on the screen read, “Data: Only 3% of Planned Parenthood Services Go to Abortion Services.” Po-life groups, such as Students for Life of America and Live Action, have long debunked that statistic. Even the liberal Washington Post called the number deceptive.
While the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision approved annually by Congress, bars federal funding (aka taxpayer funding) for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, pro-life leaders argue that the government money is fungible. The argument that money is fungible, or that Planned Parenthood could offset costs with public funds to free up other resources for abortion, is a point frequently highlighted by pro-life groups.
Sarah Sanders: Trump didn't go too far with Mika Brzezinski 'face-lift' tweet
by Alex Pappas
Trump: Mika Brzezinski was 'bleeding badly from a face-lift' during Mar-a-Lago meeting
White House deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders on Thursday rejected the idea that President Trump's tweets about MSNBC's "Morning Joe" hosts crossed the line.
"I don't think so," Sanders said when asked if Trump went too far. "I mean, I think that the president has been attacked mercilessly on personal accounts by members on that program. He's been very clear that when he gets attacked, he's gonna hit back. I think the American people elected somebody who's tough, who's smart and who's a fighter. And that's Donald Trump. And I don't think that it's a surprise to anybody that he fights fire with fire."
In a pair of tweets Thursday morning, Trump responded to criticism from the show's co-hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, by referring to "low I.Q. Crazy Mika" and "Psycho Joe." He then claimed Brzezinski was "bleeding badly from a face-lift" on New Year's Eve.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have spoken out against Trump's tweets, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Rep. Lynn Jenkins of Kansas.
During Thursday's White House briefing, Sanders said the outrage over his comments makes it feels "like we're living in the twilight zone" because the show often attacks the president and White House staff.
"They do this day after day after day, and then the president responds and defends himself and everybody is appalled and blown away," she said.
Sanders added: "He's not gonna sit back and be attacked by the liberal media Hollywood elites. And when they hit him, he's gonna hit back."
The FBI Director’s Dirty Secret Just Blew Up In His Face
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is accused of sitting at the heart of the Deep State conspiracy against Donald Trump.
But there is a secret from his past.
And it just exploded the entire Russia investigation.
Many observers have been puzzled by the FBI investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
He isn’t accused of colluding with the Russians during the 2016 election.
And he broke no laws with his phone calls to the Russian Ambassador.
But the FBI has him squarely in their sights.
Why are they going so hard after a decorated General and American hero?
The answer could be good old fashioned revenge.
In 2015, Flynn offered to testify on behalf of a female FBI agent who accused McCabe and other FBI officials of sexual discrimination.
Circa reports:
“THE FBI LAUNCHED A CRIMINAL PROBE AGAINST FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MICHAEL FLYNN TWO YEARS AFTER THE RETIRED ARMY GENERAL ROILED THE BUREAU’S LEADERSHIP BY INTERVENING ON BEHALF OF A DECORATED COUNTERTERRORISM AGENT WHO ACCUSED NOW-DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE AND OTHER TOP OFFICIALS OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION, ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS AND INTERVIEWS.
FLYNN’S INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT ROBYN GRITZ WAS HIGHLY UNUSUAL, AND INCLUDED A LETTER IN 2014 ON HIS OFFICIAL PENTAGON STATIONARY, A PUBLIC INTERVIEW IN 2015 SUPPORTING GRITZ’S CASE AND AN OFFER TO TESTIFY ON HER BEHALF. HIS OFFER PUT HIM AS A HOSTILE WITNESS IN A CASE AGAINST MCCABE, WHO WAS SOARING THROUGH THE BUREAU’S LEADERSHIP RANKS.”
The filings in this case indicate McCabe is not above using his position to exact revenge.
Circa also reports:
“THE FBI SOUGHT TO BLOCK FLYNN’S SUPPORT FOR THE AGENT, ASKING A FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN MAY 2014 TO KEEP FLYNN AND OTHERS FROM BECOMING A WITNESS IN HER EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) CASE, MEMOS OBTAINED BY CIRCA SHOW. TWO YEARS LATER, THE FBI OPENED ITS INQUIRY OF FLYNN.
THE EEOC CASE, WHICH IS STILL PENDING, WAS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE MCCABE TO SUBMIT TO A SWORN STATEMENT TO INVESTIGATORS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOW.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR’S TESTIMONY PROVIDED SOME OF THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE IN THE CASE OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION, BECAUSE HE ADMITTED THE FBI OPENED AN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION INTO GRITZ’S PERSONAL CONDUCT AFTER LEARNING THE AGENT “HAD FILED OR INTENDED TO FILE” A SEX DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT AGAINST HER SUPERVISORS.”
In addition, FBI sources told Circa the leaks of classified information that eventually forced Trump to fire Flynn were political:
“FBI AGENTS’ CONCERNS BECAME MORE PRONOUNCED WHEN A HIGHLY-CLASSIFIED PIECE OF EVIDENCE — AN INTERCEPTED CONVERSATION BETWEEN FLYNN AND RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR SERGEY KISLYAK — SUDDENLY LEAKED TO THE NEWS MEDIA AND PROMPTED FLYNN’S RESIGNATION AS TRUMP’S TOP SECURITY ADVISER.
“THE FLYNN LEAKS WERE NOTHING SHORT OF POLITICAL,” ONE FBI EMPLOYEE SAID, NOTING THE SPECIFIC CONTENTS OF THE CONVERSATION WERE KNOWN BY ONLY A HANDFUL OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHEN THEY LEAKED. “THE LEAKS APPEARED TO BE TARGETED TO TAKE FLYNN OUT.”
EVENTUALLY THE PROBE ON FLYNN MOVED BEYOND RUSSIA TO QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE PROPERLY DISCLOSED FOREIGN PAYMENTS AFFECTING HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE.”
Is the investigation into Flynn a serious inquiry?
Or is it Deep State payback?
‘Death Panel’: European Court Says Terminal Baby Must Die Despite Parents Funding Extra Care
27
by LIAM DEACON
A European court has ruled that the parents of a critically ill baby cannot privately pay for him to go to the United States for “experimental treatment”, and the child must stay in a British hospital to “die with dignity”.
The parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard are reported to be “utterly distraught” after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) denied them a final effort to save their dying son.
After losing a battle in the UK’s Supreme Court, they had appealed to the court in France to fight the decision of British doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, who argued the baby could not be saved in the U.S. and must “die with dignity”.
Connie Yates, Chris Gard, and their son Charlie (Credit: gofundme.com)Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, had raised more than £1.3 million to take Charlie to the U.S. for partially untested, “experimental” treatment, which they claim could save his life.
Britain has a socialised healthcare system, and despite the fact his parents raised private funds for treatment, the courts could have acted as what some in U.S. politicians call a “death panel”, decided who is and who is not worth saving.
“We strongly feel as his parents that Charlie should get a chance to try these medications. He literally has nothing to lose but potentially a healthier, happier life to gain,” the mother wrote on a crowdfunding page.
Some on social media agreed with the parents and expressed anger at the court.
European Court of Human Rights? Odd name for a death panel. Look out America. Single payer coming.http://ift.tt/2tSCN7c …
@standardnews very evil people.....$entencing a child to death! What an anti-child pagan $ociety we are. I pray for #CharlieGard!
Charlie was born healthy, but suffers from a rare genetic condition, called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, and has serious brain damage.
The ECHR ruled Tuesday that the British hospital was correct and the treatment in the U.S. could not help Charlie. The court said the application by the parents was “inadmissible” and added that their decision was “final”.
They acknowledged “sensitive moral and ethical issues” had been raised in the case and said they respected the “domestic legal framework” of the UK which had come to the same judgement.
Charlie Gard in hospital (Credit: gofundme.com)A spokesman for Great Ormond Street Hospital said in a statement: “Our thoughts are with Charlie’s parents on receipt of this news which we know will be very distressing for them.
“Today’s decision by the [ECHR] marks the end of what has been a very difficult process and our priority is to provide every possible support to Charlie’s parents as we prepare for the next steps.
“There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie’s care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”
However, Charlie’s mother argued: “We just CAN’T let our baby die when there is something that might help him! We won’t give up on him because he has a rare disease.
“He deserves a chance and he deserves a life as much as anyone else. We understand that rare diseases don’t get enough funding for research but why should that be a reason for a child to die?! He’s here now and this could help our baby.”
G’day…Ciao…….Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/06/httpift_30.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment