Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDA
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Mon. July 31, 2017
Report: 594,000 and 5.7 million Non Citizens Voted in 2008. But How About 2016?
Trump: We Will Find, Arrest, Jail, and Deport ‘Every Gang Member and Criminal Alien’
Written by Washington Free Beacon
President Donald Trump promised to find, arrest, jail, and deport “every gang member and criminal alien” during a speech on Friday.
Pres. Trump to "every gang member and criminal alien": "We will find you, we will arrest you, we will jail you and we will deport you.
Trump spoke at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island, addressing the challenges posed by the violent MS-13 transnational gang. The group, which the Justice Department says has more than 10,000 members nationwide, is responsible for 17 killings in New York’s Suffolk County in the last year.
“I have a simple message today for every gang member and criminal alien that are threatening so violently our people. We will find you, we will arrest you, we will jail you, and we will deport you,” Trump said.
Ambassador Nikki Haley Slams U.N. for ‘Obsession’ Over Israel, and Weakness on Iran
Warner Todd HustonU.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley just slammed the U.N. Security Council for being “obsessed” over Israel and for ignoring the terrorist outrages of Iran and other terrorist groups.
Haley made her comments at a Security Council session on the situation in the Middle East, Breitbart News reported.
At a Security Council session on the situation in the Middle East, and in the wake of a controversy over heightened security measures at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Haley accused the Council of making the situation more complicated by obsessing over Israel while ignoring Hezbollah.
“But truth be told, the Security Council often makes the Middle East more complicated than it actually is. It obsesses over Israel,” she said, “and it refuses to acknowledge one of the chief sources of conflict and killing in the Middle East – that is, Iran and its partner militia, Lebanese Hezbollah.”
Mincing no words, Haley described Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization” that is not only seeking the destruction of Israel but has “the blood of hundreds of Americans and thousands of others on its hands.”
She called the idea that there are “two wings,” a political and a terrorist wing, to the Iran-backed group a “dangerous fiction.”
“Just because a terrorist group also promotes political candidates for office doesn’t make it any less a terrorist group,” she said.
Haley went on to point out that Hezbollah has been sending terror forces into Syria to disrupt that nation and is responsible for “some of the bloodiest campaigns of a very bloody war.”
Our U.N. ambassador has been a nearly lone voice of sanity in the despot-loving U.N.
But she hasn’t just slammed Iran and terror groups like Hezbollah.
She also recently took out after China and North Korea after the “Hermit Nation” has repeatedly flexed its muscles with missile tests.
Haley said the United States “is prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies.”
She also called on China to reign in the tinpot dictator it supports in North Korea.
In June she also warned that the U.S.A. doesn’t need the U.N.’s help in managing our environment and told the U.N.’s to stuff its demands on global warming.
Here’s How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been
In 1970, award-winning biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that "all important animal life in the sea will be extinct" by the year 1980. Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Each year, Earth Day is accompanied by predictions of doom.
Let’s take a look at past predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.
In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.
In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”
He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”
Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.
In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.
In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:
The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.
Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.
The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.
Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.
The Obamacare Facts That Liberals Don’t Want You to Know
Let’s take a look at past predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.
In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.
In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”
He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”
Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.
In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.
In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:
The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.
Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.
The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.
Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies.
The Obamacare Facts That Liberals Don’t Want You to Know
Sen. Elizabeth Warren says efforts to reform Obamacare would "rip away" healthcare from 22 million Americans. However, the statement doesn't conform with the facts. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)
By Jarrett Stepman@JarrettStepman
Perhaps too often, Americans take the findings of independent government agencies—whether executive or congressional—as fact.
The Congressional Budget Office, which has impacted the health care debate, has consistently said that repealing Obamacare would lead to around 22 to 23 million Americans losing their insurance by 2026.
This has been a frequent talking point for those that would like to keep President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
But a recent commentary by health care expert Avik Roy pointed out how this number may be misleading at best.
Roy wrote in Forbes that according to leaked information he received from a congressional staffer, this 22 million number is in fact mostly coming from the projection of a repeal of the individual mandate.
The individual mandate is one of the most controversial parts of Obamacare that essentially forces Americans to buy health insurance, or receive a fine. Republican-backed repeal proposals to repeal universally aim to eliminate this regulation.
Roy wrote that “of the 22 million fewer people who will have health insurance in 2026 under the Senate [health care] bill, 16 million will voluntarily drop out of the market because they will no longer face a financial penalty for doing so: 73 percent of the total.”
Unlike the progressive narrative that repealing Obamacare will lead to tens of millions of Americans getting booted from their plans, it shows that nearly three-quarters of those leaving their plans will voluntarily withdraw from the ones they have.
An enormous 73 percent of the 22 million number will simply stop buying the product they are forced to purchase under current law.
This important fact has been mostly left out of the debate, as the CBO has not been entirely transparent with how its numbers are calculated. So far, the CBO has essentially refused to explain the primary reason so many Americans will go uninsured.
The CBO has been consistently praised for its purportedly unbiased analysis. A recent commentary for Wired said that “since its inception four decades ago, the CBO has occupied a rarified space in which the objectivity of data reigns.”
Americans are simply given a presumably nonpartisan number that pours out of the inner sanctums of a tight-knit agency as they debate the merits of policy that impacts all Americans and generations to come.
But in the messy space of politics, opaqueness of methodology can return skewed or incomplete results.
Drew Gonshorowski, a health care expert for The Heritage Foundation, wroteabout the CBO’s transparency problem in The Hill. He wrote:
The CBO could better serve legislators, media and researchers if their models and methods were made public. Lifting this veil would allow more discussion around the effects of various proposals without having to wait for an explicit CBO score … [And] maybe one of the most important aspects of such a change, this would allow legislators to have real conversations about the effects of their legislation, publicly, with less delay.
Reps. Mark Walker, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a commentary for the Washington Examiner how often CBO projections have been wrong and why it’s wrong for Congress to “blindly follow” its estimates.
For instance, they noted how the original 2010 CBO projections for Obamacare claimed that “21 million Americans would enroll in the insurance exchanges by 2016.”
The real number ended up being around 10 million and is one of the reasons the market is so unstable.
The American people deserve an open debate on one of the most important policy issues of our generation.
It is a debate over the priorities and outcomes of a health care system that favors the individual and the family over the collective—one that throws vast decision-making power to government and bureaucracies, or is limited and placed closest to the hands of the people.
This is why transparency over potential policy outcomes is so essential.
This article has been corrected to note that the Washington Examiner commentary criticizing CBO predictions was co-authored by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
Reps. Mark Walker, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a commentary for the Washington Examiner how often CBO projections have been wrong and why it’s wrong for Congress to “blindly follow” its estimates.
For instance, they noted how the original 2010 CBO projections for Obamacare claimed that “21 million Americans would enroll in the insurance exchanges by 2016.”
The real number ended up being around 10 million and is one of the reasons the market is so unstable.
The American people deserve an open debate on one of the most important policy issues of our generation.
It is a debate over the priorities and outcomes of a health care system that favors the individual and the family over the collective—one that throws vast decision-making power to government and bureaucracies, or is limited and placed closest to the hands of the people.
This is why transparency over potential policy outcomes is so essential.
This article has been corrected to note that the Washington Examiner commentary criticizing CBO predictions was co-authored by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.
Planned Parenthood is Now Pushing its Sex Agenda on Pre-Schoolers
MICAIAH BILGER
The abortion business Planned Parenthood now is targeting the youngest school children of all with its sex agenda.
The Blaze reports the abortion business published new points for talking to pre-schoolers (children as young as 3 and 4) about sex and “gender identity.”
Planned Parenthood teaches it sex education programs to students in public schools across the country. Some pro-lifers say Planned Parenthood uses its sex ed program to gain students’ trust and sell more abortions. Most of its programs target high school and junior high students, but some even target the youngest students of all – pre-schoolers.
According to the report:
The organization also said that the old “birds and bees” adage should be phased out, and that children as young as preschoolers should be taught how women become pregnant — via penetration.
About sex and masturbation, Planned Parenthood recommends that a parent take a completely straightforward approach to the discussion.
“Conversations about sex and masturbation not only give you an opportunity to share accurate information with your kid, they’re also an opportunity to talk about your values. Your values influence how you talk about it, so think ahead of time about what messages you want to send.”
Planned Parenthood is absolutely right that talking with children about sex is directly connected to values. Yet, few parents are comfortable with the “values” that the abortion chain teaches. It promotes risky sexual behavior and fight against laws that require parents to be involved in a minor’s abortion decision.
The abortion chain also has been caught in numerous scandals involving potential Medicaid fraud and failures to report suspected sex trafficking and sexual abuse of minors. Earlier this year, a Congressional investigation into the abortion business involving its sales of aborted baby parts concluded with lawmakers recommended that Congress defund it.
The abortion giant publishes multiple “resources” for children and teenagers concerning sexual activity. These materials claim to provide “age appropriate” sex education to children starting at age 4. Planned Parenthood justifies starting sex education at such a young age by stating, “Ideally, medically accurate sexuality education would be taught each year in our schools from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade.”
Here’s more from The Blaze:
According to the new “rules,” Planned Parenthood said that parents should tell preschoolers that “everybody has nipples,” regardless of gender. Additionally, they want parents to explain to their children that “boy, girl, man, and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities ‘boy’ or ‘man’ have vulvas, and some with the gender identity ‘girl’ or ‘woman’ have penises/testicles.”
“Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl,” Planned Parenthood’s website reads.
Previously, undercover investigations revealed even more troubling sex education talking points by the abortion chain.
In 2014, Live Action release an undercover video series showing Planned Parenthood employees encouraging young teens to participate in sado-masochistic sexual activities, including gagging, whipping, asphyxiation, shopping at sex stores and viewing pornography.
LifeNews also reported that Planned Parenthood’s booklet for HIV-positive youth, “Healthy, Happy and Hot,” tells young people that it is their “human right” to not tell their partner that they have HIV.
Want Cheaper Drugs? Take a Small Bite of This Health Care Reform Elephant
(Chuck Muth) – In light of the latest epic fail by the GOP to repeal ObamaCare, I think it’s safe to suggest that these Senate Republicans could screw up a one-car funeral.
This shouldn’t be that tough. Congressional Republicans have been clamoring for repeal for years now. In fact, they introduced, I think, over 40 different pieces of legislation to either repeal, replace or repair ObamaCare while President Obama was still in the White House.
You would think that with control of the House, the Senate AND the White House now, this is the GOP’s golden opportunity to, you know, do what they said they were going to do. But that’s to overlook the historical pattern of Republicans seemingly never blowing an opportunity to blow an opportunity.
So what now?
Since the Republican Party’s mascot is the elephant, perhaps they should consider the age-old wisdom about the ginormous challenge of how to eat an elephant: “One bite at a time.”
If they can’t get the whole ObamaCare repeal enchilada with just Republican votes, it would seem a strategically wise idea to shift to smaller, piece-by-piece health care reforms that make sense, would make a difference in lowering health care costs, and make peace between Democrats and Republicans.
Mission impossible? Hardly.
What if I told you there was a bill on the Hill that would dramatically reduce the cost of prescription drugs by the BILLIONS that is co-sponsored by staunch conservatives such as Republican Sen. Mike Lee and uber-liberals such as Sen. Patrick Leahy?
No, no. This isn’t “unicorn” legislation. It’s real. It’s the CREATES (Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples) Act of 2017 (S.974), introduced in the Senate back in April. Here’s the deal…
In order to encourage the ridiculously expensive research necessary to bring new prescription “miracle” drugs to the market – made ridiculously expensive in large part by ridiculously extensive government regulations in the approval process – Congress grants drug makers monopoly control over the sale of new drugs through the patent system.
But those patents for new drugs don’t last forever. They have a shelf life. Long enough for the drug maker to recoup its investment in developing the drug and taking it to market. And once that limited period of monopoly time expires, competition enters the picture in the form of lower-cost generic alternatives.
The problem is, for a lower cost generic company to bring a lower-cost alternative to a brand-name drug to market, they, too, must go through a similarly long, expensive approval process. And that process includes conducting a blizzard of clinical tests and submitting the results to the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) demonstrating that the lower-cost generic alternative is safe and “bioequivalently” similar to the original.
Have I mentioned that generics cost less? A lot less? Didn’t want to leave that part out.
Of course, the only way to test the generics against the original brand for the application process is to obtain large sample quantities of the original brand to use in the tests which, by law, the brand manufacturers are required to provide. Without those samples, the lower cost generic firms are unable to complete their FDA applications.
As such, guess what? Some brand drug manufacturers are either slow-walking requests for samples from lower cost generic manufactures or outright refusing to do so.
As Robin Feldman, Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at the University of California, testified a year ago, “even a few months of monopoly profits can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars more” to the brand drug company, which encourages the brand drug companies “to expend tremendous energy blocking generic entry by any means possible.”
Exhibit A: Martin Shkreli and Turing Pharmaceuticals.
As you’ll recall, after 62 years of monopoly control, Turing’s patent on Daraprim expired. So to keep the gravy train chugging along, Shkreli skyrocketed the cost of the anti-infection drug from $13.50 per pill to a whopping $750 per pill!
At about the same time, Turing invoked a loophole in the law by establishing a “controlled distribution system” that effectively blocked generic competitors from obtaining the samples they needed for the required clinical tests to apply for approval of a lower cost generic alternative.
Lower. Cost.
And they weren’t even subtle about it. As Pharmalot.com reported in 2015, Jon Haas, director of patient access at Turing, came right out and admitted to thumbing his nose at the law…
“If someone calls and asks for 50 bottles of Daraprim, they would have to come to me for approval. . . . Most likely I would block that purchase. We spent a lot of money for this drug. We would like to do our best to avoid generic competition. It’s inevitable. They seem to figure out a way [to make generics], no matter what. But I’m certainly not going to make it easier for them.”
In other words: Up yours, Congress. Drop dead consumers.
Alas, the penalty for failing to provide such samples is roughly equivalent to issuing a parking ticket that everyone knows will be routinely dismissed in court anyway. As David Olson of Boston College Law School testified last September, “While the law’s requirements are clear, there is no effective penalty for refusing to comply.”
And that’s what the CREATES Act is all about. Putting some teeth in existing law. It provides for very narrow, but firm, civil penalties for the most egregious violations of the legal requirement to provide, without delay, testing samples to lower-cost generic manufacturers by brand drug offenders.
The CREATES Act fosters competition and would save taxpayers and consumers BILLIONS of dollars in health care costs. It is supported by Democrats and Republicans; conservatives and liberals. It could be passed before the summer recess. It should be a no-brainer. A one-car legislative funeral.
Only Senate Republicans could screw this one up. Only Senate Republicans could blow this opportunity to take just a small bite of the health care reform elephant. #sad.
Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and publisher of Nevada News & Views
This Democrat Instantly Regretted Attacking Trey Gowdy
California Democrat Adam Schiff has been one of the ringleaders in the “collusion with Russia” fake news.
That led him to cross paths with Trey Gowdy.
And it was a decision he instantly regretted.
Recently, White House advisor – and Trump son-in-law – Jared Kushner testified behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee.
He was brought in after reports had surfaced that he attended a meeting set up by a Russian lawyer who promised information which proved illegal collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Kremlin.
It became apparent minutes into the meeting that the real purpose was to lobby about ending the Magnitsky Act and a ban on Russian adoptions.
Kushner quickly left the meeting, but Democrats latched on to the gathering as “evidence” of collusion.
When Kushner appeared before the House Intelligence Committee he repeated his story and then made a public statement declaring he did not collude with Russia.
Trey Gowdy said Kushner’s testimony provided no new information nor revealed anything that was previously unknown.
California Democrat Adam Schiff was furious that his push to prove a Russia collusion quickly came up empty and lashed out at Trey Gowdy about his conduct during the closed door session.
He accused Gowdy of acting like Kushner’s attorney.
Bloomberg reports:
“REPUBLICAN TREY GOWDY ACTED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS LIKE A LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S SON-IN-LAW, JARED KUSHNER, DURING QUESTIONING TUESDAY BY THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, SAID THE TOP DEMOCRAT ON THE PANEL.
“MR. GOWDY TOOK THE ROLE AS A SECOND ATTORNEY FOR MR. KUSHNER,” ADAM SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA TOLD REPORTERS.”
Gowdy fired back and blasted Schiff for using the Russia story to boost a possible run for Senate and how Kushner’s testimony ruined Schiff’s fake news narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
The Washington Examiner reports:
“REP. TREY GOWDY DEFENDED HIMSELF WEDNESDAY AGAINST ACCUSATIONS THAT HE ACTED AS AN EXTRA LAWYER FOR JARED KUSHNER WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER PRIVATELY INTERVIEWED WITH THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN ITS RUSSIA PROBE.
GOWDY, R-S.C., SUGGESTED THAT REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF., THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WHO LEVELED THE ACCUSATIONS, IS USING THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION TO BOOST HIS OWN POLITICAL PROFILE.
“ADAM’S FRUSTRATION [WAS] THAT JARED KUSHNER DID NOT TELL HIM WHAT HE WANTED TO HEAR FROM A POLITICAL AMBITION STANDPOINT,” GOWDY SAID ON CNN. “THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN VERY GOOD FOR THE ADAM SCHIFF FOR SENATE CAMPAIGN. BUT YESTERDAY WAS NOT GOOD FOR HIM.”
Gowdy’s criticism of Schiff being a publicity hound matched that of Donald Trump.
Trump ripped Schiff on Twitter for the amount of time he’s spent on television pushing the Russian collusion hoax.
Sleazy Adam Schiff, the totally biased Congressman looking into "Russia," spends all of his time on television pushing the Dem loss excuse!
Trump’s tweet was correct.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
“DEMOCRATIC REP. ADAM SCHIFF (CALIF.) HAS DONE 123 NATIONAL TELEVISION INTERVIEWS TOTALING MORE THAN 14 HOURS OF AIR TIME SINCE JANUARY, ACCORDING TO A TRACKING REPORT PROVIDED TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE REPORT COMES ON THE HEELS OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ATTACKING SCHIFF ON MONDAY FOR HIS FREQUENT TV APPEARANCES. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN ON CABLE NETWORKS CNN AND MSNBC, ALTHOUGH SCHIFF HAS ALSO DONE INTERVIEWS ON FOX NEWS, ABC, CBS, NBC, COMEDY CENTRAL, AND HBO.”
The media has tried to portray Schiff as a nonpartisan fact finder.
But the truth is he is an ambitious partisan who latched onto a conspiracy theory in order to build a profile to run for higher office.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Scandal Is Now Implicating More Democrats
by: Remington Strelivo
The media has, for the most part, dismissed the shocking scandal that’s engulfing Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office as bank fraud committed by one of her staff members. But it’s quickly growing into a story that could be about foreign attempts to undermine American national security.
Wasserman Schultz’s IT guy, Imran Awan, was caught trying to flee the United States for Pakistan. His wife, Tina Alvi, had already fled to Pakistan with their three daughters. The spouses had also wired $283,000 in cash to Pakistan, including a fraudulent $165,000 loan from the Congressional Federal Credit Union.
But bank fraud, while salacious, isn’t the real story: it’s become clear Awan was attempting to undermine national security. For years, Awan had access for years to the emails and electronic files of members of the House’s Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees, which Wasserman Schultz’s serves on. He also had likely had access to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s iPad, though it’s not clear why.
Awan and his family members not only accessed these emails and devises as part of their job, but also logged onto other members of Congress’s computers without their knowledge. They transferred files to remote servers and also stole congressional computer equipment, including hard drives that Awan smashed shortly before attempting to flee the country.
As the FBI continues to investigate, it’s already clear that there’s still more to come on this scandal.
Awan was paid more than $160,000 a year for his efforts—a shocking amount, considering the low salaries on Capitol Hill and the fact that most congressional IT people would be paid about $40,000. Awan also managed to get his wife, Alvi, on the House payroll—followed by two of his brother and one of their wives.
All in all, the Awan family received about $4 million in taxpayer dollars in salaries alone since 2009—in addition to money that was stolen.
Awan’s family members were fired in February, but Awan himself continued to work for Wasserman Schultz until the day he was arrested.
Wasserman Schultz’s IT guy, Imran Awan, was caught trying to flee the United States for Pakistan. His wife, Tina Alvi, had already fled to Pakistan with their three daughters. The spouses had also wired $283,000 in cash to Pakistan, including a fraudulent $165,000 loan from the Congressional Federal Credit Union.
But bank fraud, while salacious, isn’t the real story: it’s become clear Awan was attempting to undermine national security. For years, Awan had access for years to the emails and electronic files of members of the House’s Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees, which Wasserman Schultz’s serves on. He also had likely had access to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s iPad, though it’s not clear why.
Awan and his family members not only accessed these emails and devises as part of their job, but also logged onto other members of Congress’s computers without their knowledge. They transferred files to remote servers and also stole congressional computer equipment, including hard drives that Awan smashed shortly before attempting to flee the country.
As the FBI continues to investigate, it’s already clear that there’s still more to come on this scandal.
Awan was paid more than $160,000 a year for his efforts—a shocking amount, considering the low salaries on Capitol Hill and the fact that most congressional IT people would be paid about $40,000. Awan also managed to get his wife, Alvi, on the House payroll—followed by two of his brother and one of their wives.
All in all, the Awan family received about $4 million in taxpayer dollars in salaries alone since 2009—in addition to money that was stolen.
Awan’s family members were fired in February, but Awan himself continued to work for Wasserman Schultz until the day he was arrested.
Poll: Kid Rock Takes Massive Lead over Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, GOP Primary Rivals
1
Kid Rock is currently a huge favorite among Michigan voters, according to a new poll showing the rock star has a massive double digit lead over his would-be Republican primary rivals, as well as incumbent Sen. Debbie Stabenow.
Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, leads Sen. Stabenow 48.6 percent to 46.1 percent, according to a survey of 1,078 likely voters released Friday by the Trafalgar Group. The rocker also leads potential Republican candidates in a hypothetical matchup 49.62 percent to 28.10 percent, the survey says.
The Trafalgar Group, coincidently, predicted President Trump’s upset victory in Michigan over Hillary Clinton last November.
Last week, a Delphi Analytica poll showed that the Trump-supporting singer would beat incumbent Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in a head-to-head. Some 44 percent of the poll’s respondents declined to pick a candidate. But of those who did specify support for a candidate, Kid Rock led Stabenow 54-46 percent.
While his decision to enter the Michigan U.S. Senate race looms, the 46-year-old rocker appears to be running a shadow Senate campaign. Kid Rock announced plans Wednesday for a new get-out-the-vote initiative, where he will register voters during his concerts, in a lengthy blog post that also included details about his political future.
When my name was thrown out there for US Senate … I was beyond overwhelmed with the response I received from community leaders, D.C. pundits, and blue-collar folks that are just simply tired of the extreme left and right bullsh*t. As part of the excitement surrounding this possible campaign, I decided to take a hard look to see if there was real support for me as a candidate and my message or if it was just because it was a fresh new news story.
He continued:
The one thing I’ve seen over and over is that although people are unhappy with the government, too few are even registered to vote or do anything about it. We have over a year left until an actual election, so my first order of business is to get people engaged and registered to vote while continuing to put out my ideas on ways to help working class people in Michigan and America all while still calling out these jackass lawyers who call themselves politicians.
Kid Rock first floated his potential Senate run this month, launching the kidrockforsenate.com campaign website.
The site offered fans the option to purchase campaign gear, yard signs, and stickers, but it lacked policy platforms.
“One thing is for sure though,” Kid Rock wrote Wednesday, “The Democrats are ‘sh*ttin’ in their pantaloons’ right now … and rightfully so!”
A proud Republican, Kid Rock has been a hit-maker since the late 1990s and has used his fame and fortune for philanthropy. He has also played shows for U.S. military troops in the Middle East.
Never shy about his political positions, the rocker told the Guardian in 2015, “I am definitely a Republican on fiscal issues and the military, but I lean to the middle on social issues.”
“I am no fan of abortion, but it’s not up to a man to tell a woman what to do. As an ordained minister I don’t look forward to marrying gay people, but I’m not opposed to it,” he added.
Five Facts About New White House Chief of Staff John Kelly
4
by KRISTINA WONG
President Donald Trump announced on Friday he was naming his Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly to be the next White House Chief of Staff, replacing Reince Priebus.
Here are five facts you should know about Kelly:
#1: John Kelly is a retired four-star Marine general who last served as the commander of U.S. Southern Command, which oversees U.S. operations in Central and South America and the Caribbean. He became President Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20.
#2: Kelly served three tours in Iraq, commanding as a two-star general from 2008 to 2009. He commanded a Marine task force as a one-star general during the initial assault into Iraq. Asked then by a Los Angeles Times reporter if he was concerned about Saddam Hussein’s forces, he reportedly said, “Hell these are Marines. Men like them held Guadalcanal and took Iwo Jima. Baghdad ain’t sh-t.”
#3: Kelly’s eldest son, Marine First Lieutenant Robert Kelly, was killed in action in Sangin, Afghanistan, while leading a platoon of Marines on a patrol. Kelly is the highest ranking military officer to lose a child in Iraq or Afghanistan. He has another son serving in the Marine Corps.
#4: As a Marine general during the Obama administration, he opposed opening combat jobs to women in the Marine Corps, and closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. He rejected the argument that the prison served as terrorist recruitment propaganda as nonsense. He told Defense One: “Bombing the living sh-t out of ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, that would maybe irritate them more than the fact we have Guantanamo open.”
#5: He is 67-years-old, and was born in Boston. Kelly enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970, and became an officer in 1975. He retired in 2016, after serving 40 years in the Marine Corps. He’s a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and received a Master’s degree from Georgetown.
Trump Honors First Responders Who Saved Rep. Scalise’s Life
American heroes...By Martin Walsh
President Donald Trump awarded the Medal of Valor Thursday to five first responders who were injured in a June 14 attack on House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and other Republicans during a practice for the congressional baseball game.
Capitol Police special agents David Bailey and Crystal Griner, as well as Alexandria police officers Nicole Battaglia, Kevin Jobe and Alexander Jensen were all honored.
“These officers saved the lives of every innocent person on the field that day,” Trump said. “They are American heroes and we salute them.”
“Most people instinctively run from danger, but these officers did not hesitate to put their own lives on the line,” the president said.
“Everyone who was at the ballpark that morning owes their lives to the selfless and brave actions of these heroes, and I cannot thank them enough,” Trump added.
Trump also thanked the fire, park police and medical personnel who assisted and responded to the attack.
“The assault on June 14th reminded us that evil exists in this world, but it also reminded us that heroes walk in our midst, that love triumphs over tragedy, and that our resolve is stronger than ever,” Trump said.
Scalise was shot by James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter who targeted Republicans when he opened fire on members of the congressional baseball team.
After over a month in the hospital, Scalise was finally released Tuesday.
“Congressman Steve Scalise has made excellent progress in his recovery from a life-threatening gunshot wound six weeks ago. Yesterday, he was discharged from MedStar Washington Hospital Center and is now beginning a period of intensive inpatient rehabilitation,” the hospital said in a statement.
“He is in good spirits and is looking forward to his return to work once he completes rehabilitation. He and his family are grateful for the care he received from the trauma team as well as the other doctors, nurses, and staff of MedStar Washington Hospital Center. The family also appreciates the outpouring of prayers and support during this time,” the statement read.
In a written statement, Scalise thanked the five officers for their heroic actions that day to stop the shooter.
“David, Crystal, Nicole, Kevin, and Alexander all have families of their own, yet they courageously confronted and stopped the shooter. Everyone who was at the ballpark that morning owes their lives to the selfless and brave actions of these heroes, and I cannot thank them enough,” Scalise said.
Griner and Bailey attended the baseball practice that day as members of Scalise’s security detail. Scalise receives protective services from the Capitol Police because he is a member of the House leadership.
“I am especially grateful to Crystal and David, who I have been blessed to have by my side day in and day out in my job as Majority Whip. I would not be here today without the bravery of Crystal and David. They saved my life, and are my heroes,” Scalise said.
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/2017/07/www_30.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment