PERHAPS THE CONGRESS AND VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATURES SHOULD REVIEW "TRUTH IN SOURCE AND LABELING" OF PHAMA AS A PUBLIC/CONSUMER PROTECTION INITIATIVE. PASSING A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE DRUG AND ITS PHARMACOLOGIC COMPOSITION SHOULD BE PUBLISHED ON THE LABEL OF THE DRUG. TRUTH IN PERSCRIPTION LAW.
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/american-chinese-medicine-association/
https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofglobalregulatoryoperationsandpolicy/officeofinternationalprograms/ucm453840.htm
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
GO TO YOUR SAFE ROOM AND STAY THERE ... WE PAID HOW MUCH FOR WHAT?
UVa professors resign over the hiring of Trump 'foot soldier' Marc Short
Two history professors at the University of Virginia have resigned from their positions at a school-affiliated public policy center in protest of its recent hiring of former Trump official Marc Short.
William I. Hitchcock and Melvyn P. Leffler penned an op-ed for The Washington Post published Tuesday morning that explained their decision to step down from the university’s Miller Center after it appointed Marc Short, the former White House legislative director, to a paid senior fellowship position.
“The Trump presidency has taken the country into uncharted waters, and it has presented an especially tough challenge for scholars,” he wrote. “By breaking the norms of presidential behavior, by upending the rules of civil discourse, by casting doubt on the meaning of truth and by embracing the rhetoric of racism and white supremacy, Trump has departed sharply from recent historical precedents.The professors slammed Mr. Short as a “loyal mouthpiece” to Mr. Trump and a “foot soldier in this destructive presidency,” deeming him untrustworthy in an academic position.
The resignations come on the heels of a petition in the U.Va. community, signed by more than 3,000 as of Tuesday morning, that called on the Miller Center to reverse Mr. Short’s appointment.
William Antholis, the center’s director, defended the appointment in a statement, saying service in the Trump administration “should not be a bar to service” at the university or the Miller Center.
He told ABC News that he “understands the frustrations people feel” about the Trump administration, but hopes to give Mr. Short the “opportunity to help us understand the presidency better.”
“I made a judgment on [Mr. Short]. His beliefs fall within the legitimate bounds of political discourse. I would hate to judge someone based on prior service in a presidential administration,” he said, noting that he himself previously served in the Clinton administration and would “hate to be judged for it,” ABC News reported.
Mr. Shorttold The Washington Post that he was disappointed in the opposition to his hiring.
“There is an irony at Thomas Jefferson’s university that professors are seeking to silence debate instead of fostering civil conversation,” he said.
Two history professors at the University of Virginia have resigned from their positions at a school-affiliated public policy center in protest of its recent hiring of former Trump official Marc Short.
William I. Hitchcock and Melvyn P. Leffler penned an op-ed for The Washington Post published Tuesday morning that explained their decision to step down from the university’s Miller Center after it appointed Marc Short, the former White House legislative director, to a paid senior fellowship position.
They argued that hiring Mr. Short to help students understand the Trump presidency “is like welcoming H.R. Haldeman into your university at the height of Watergate and asking him for insights into Nixon. Sure, he knows a thing or two. But is he a trustworthy guide?”The professors said that while they’ve been committed to nonpartisanship over the years and have always been willing to engage with policymakers with whom they disagree, President Trump and his administration don’t deserve that same respect.
“The Trump presidency has taken the country into uncharted waters, and it has presented an especially tough challenge for scholars,” he wrote. “By breaking the norms of presidential behavior, by upending the rules of civil discourse, by casting doubt on the meaning of truth and by embracing the rhetoric of racism and white supremacy, Trump has departed sharply from recent historical precedents.The professors slammed Mr. Short as a “loyal mouthpiece” to Mr. Trump and a “foot soldier in this destructive presidency,” deeming him untrustworthy in an academic position.
The resignations come on the heels of a petition in the U.Va. community, signed by more than 3,000 as of Tuesday morning, that called on the Miller Center to reverse Mr. Short’s appointment.
William Antholis, the center’s director, defended the appointment in a statement, saying service in the Trump administration “should not be a bar to service” at the university or the Miller Center.
He told ABC News that he “understands the frustrations people feel” about the Trump administration, but hopes to give Mr. Short the “opportunity to help us understand the presidency better.”
“I made a judgment on [Mr. Short]. His beliefs fall within the legitimate bounds of political discourse. I would hate to judge someone based on prior service in a presidential administration,” he said, noting that he himself previously served in the Clinton administration and would “hate to be judged for it,” ABC News reported.
Mr. Shorttold The Washington Post that he was disappointed in the opposition to his hiring.
“There is an irony at Thomas Jefferson’s university that professors are seeking to silence debate instead of fostering civil conversation,” he said.
Monday, July 30, 2018
A WOMAN SCORNED IS WELL ... A WOMAN SCORNED ... BUT A LAWYER IS A DIFFERENT STORY
Trump accuses Mueller of having a conflict of interest due to a 'nasty' business relationship
President Trump suggested Sunday special counsel Robert Mueller has a conflict of interest and shouldn’t be investigating the Trump campaign and whether it colluded with Russians during the 2016 election.
The president said he turned Mr. Mueller down to head the FBI following the firing of former FBI Director James B. Comey last year.
Mr. Trump also said Mr. Comey is a close friend of Mr. Mueller.
“Is Robert Mueller ever going to release his conflicts of interest with respect to President Trump, including the fact that we had a very nasty & contentious business relationship, I turned him down to head the FBI (one day before appointment as Mr. Magoo ( S.C.)) & Comey is his close friend,” the president tweeted.
In a subsequent tweet, the president questioned why Mr. Mueller isn’t investigating Hillary Clinton’s campaign and its work with former British spy Christopher Steele, who authored the infamous Trump dossier.
Also, why is Mueller only appointing Angry Dems, some of whom have worked for Crooked Hillary, others, including himself, have worked for Obama …
White House Official Confirms Trump Interviewed Mueller For FBI Director Job
4:57 PM 06/13/2017
Donald Trump interviewed Robert Mueller for the position of FBI director, a senior administration official has confirmed.
The confirmation comes one day after Trump friend and Newsmax Media CEO Chris Ruddy appeared on “PBS Newshour” Monday and said the president had interviewed Mueller for the position just days before he was appointed to be special counsel.
“The president did talk with him in the days before he was named special counsel,” Ruddy said. “I think there’s a conflict there.”
Ruddy said he thought Trump was “considering terminating the special counsel.”
“I think he’s weighing that option,” he said. “I think it’s pretty clear by what one of his lawyers said on television recently. I personally think it would be a very significant mistake, even though I don’t think there’s a justification.”
Press Secretary Sean Spicer later dismissed Ruddy’s claim: “Mr. Ruddy never spoke to the President regarding this issue. With respect to this subject, only the President or his attorneys are authorized to comment.”
The administration official did not immediately specify when Trump interviewed Mueller. NPR reported that Mueller had interviewed with Justice Department leaders and White House officials about the position, but it has not been confirmed until now that Trump interviewed him.
The Justice Department appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel and handle the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election on May 17. He was the FBI director from 2001 to 2013.
Trump also interviewed acting director Andrew McCabe, former Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, former FBI official Richard McFeely and John Pistole before eventually nominating Christopher Wray nearly one month after he fired James Comey.
Saturday, July 28, 2018
THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT ... EVER WONDER WHY "MAPS APPS" TAKE YOU OUT OF YOUR WAY SOMETIMES?
Twitter’s Statement About How They Don’t Shadow Ban Kinda Sounds Like They Shadow Ban ...
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged Twitter.
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged Twitter.
DOES THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PAY TO HAVE MAPS APP TO DIRECT TRAFFIC THRU COMMERICAL AREAS OR UNDERSERVED AREAS ... SORTA, KINDA THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT TO SHADOW BANNING?
July 27, 2018, 1:49 pm
While others are distracted by recent news that the U.S. economy grew by 4.1% this quarter, or that Donald Trump's once-loyal lawyer now claims, without evidence, that the then-presidential candidate was aware his son was meeting with Russians for dirt on Hillary Clinton (which Trump continues to deny), or that Russian hackers appear to have targeted the first candidate in the 2018 cycle, it's easy to miss the most important question of the day: Is Twitter being unfair to conservatives???
RUSSIAN COLLUSION IS A NON-EVENT COMPARED TO TWITTER SHADOW BANNING
 |
| USED TWITTER FOOD |
RUSSIAN COLLUSION IS A NON-EVENT COMPARED TO TWITTER SHADOW BANNING
VICE News first noticed that several prominent Republicans. such as RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and congressmen like Matt Gaetz and Mark Meadows, were not appearing in Twitter's search box even when their full names were typed out. That effectively lumped in Republican politicians with figures like far-right provocateurs Richard Spencer, Laura Loomer, and Mike Cernovich. By contrast, none of their Democratic counterparts were affected.
After the story went up, several conservative journalists noticed their accounts were also affected.
Lol. Apparently, I am also shadow banned despite being the only verified "Saagar" on twitter pic.twitter.com/0W3UC7P6e4
— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) July 25, 2018
According to some Twitter friends, I am also shadow banned from the Twitter search bar.
I’d be very grateful if @twitter could point me to any instances where I violated terms of service.
— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) July 25, 2018
The issue was fixed, but Twitter soon after put out a statement denying that it was "shadow banning" users, the phrase VICE used. "People are asking us if we shadowban. We do not…" the tech company writes. "And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology."
But then the statement contains this admission of something Twitter has long been accused of. "We do not shadowban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile)." [Emphasis added]
LIKE RED-LINING IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS ...
Uh, call me crazy, but that parenthetical sounds a lot like an admission that Twitter effectively shadow bans users.
The problem is that both sides of the conversation are talking past each other because no one can agree on what "shadow ban" means. In the early days of Internet forums, "shadow ban" was a term that meant a user could still post and see other people's posts, but secretly other users could not see their activity. They weren't banned from the forum, but as far as the other users were concerned, the "shadow banned" user simply didn't exist at all.
Based on that definition, there have been a series of tut-tut pieces about how of course Twitter doesn't "shadow ban" and conservatives are freaking out over nothing. It's also the definition Twitter uses. "The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster," they write.
That strict definition was useful in the days when post visibility was basically the only way users engaged with each other. If you wanted to talk about a subject, you had to navigate through a forum, click on a post, and browse through the replies to see what people were saying. In those days, making someone's posts completely undiscoverable was the only way to "shadow ban" someone.
But social media is used so much differently. The bulk of Twitter users don't seek out individual accounts and scroll through their tweets. The entire point of Twitter is that by tweeting and retweeting, you place yourself and others on your followers' newsfeeds. By tagging or replying to someone, you place yourself in their mentions. By using a hashtag, you make your tweet visible to people who are interested in searching for that subject.
DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION (PERIOD)!
After the story went up, several conservative journalists noticed their accounts were also affected.
Lol. Apparently, I am also shadow banned despite being the only verified "Saagar" on twitter pic.twitter.com/0W3UC7P6e4
— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) July 25, 2018
According to some Twitter friends, I am also shadow banned from the Twitter search bar.
I’d be very grateful if @twitter could point me to any instances where I violated terms of service.
— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) July 25, 2018
But then the statement contains this admission of something Twitter has long been accused of. "We do not shadowban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile)." [Emphasis added]
LIKE RED-LINING IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS ...
Uh, call me crazy, but that parenthetical sounds a lot like an admission that Twitter effectively shadow bans users.
The problem is that both sides of the conversation are talking past each other because no one can agree on what "shadow ban" means. In the early days of Internet forums, "shadow ban" was a term that meant a user could still post and see other people's posts, but secretly other users could not see their activity. They weren't banned from the forum, but as far as the other users were concerned, the "shadow banned" user simply didn't exist at all.
Based on that definition, there have been a series of tut-tut pieces about how of course Twitter doesn't "shadow ban" and conservatives are freaking out over nothing. It's also the definition Twitter uses. "The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster," they write.
That strict definition was useful in the days when post visibility was basically the only way users engaged with each other. If you wanted to talk about a subject, you had to navigate through a forum, click on a post, and browse through the replies to see what people were saying. In those days, making someone's posts completely undiscoverable was the only way to "shadow ban" someone.
But social media is used so much differently. The bulk of Twitter users don't seek out individual accounts and scroll through their tweets. The entire point of Twitter is that by tweeting and retweeting, you place yourself and others on your followers' newsfeeds. By tagging or replying to someone, you place yourself in their mentions. By using a hashtag, you make your tweet visible to people who are interested in searching for that subject.
DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION (PERIOD)!
If, as Twitter admits, I can willingly choose to follow someone and not see any of their tweets unless I actively seek out their profile (and after their name not showing up in the search recommendations), then for all intents and purposes they have been banned from participating in Twitter the way 99.9% of users use the platform. Call it a florp, call it a bifworz, call it what you please. If a person is de facto banned from joining the conversation and isn't informed of that fact, "shadow ban" seems like a perfectly fine shorthand to me, prescriptivism and pedantry be damned.
TWITTER IS LIKE A TOWN SQUARE SOAPBOX ... BUT DIFFERENT REGARDING THE AUDIENCE ... PERHAPS A "NEW TWITTER" IS NECESSARY MUCH LIKE CONSERVATIVE RADIO!
TWITTER IS LIKE A TOWN SQUARE SOAPBOX ... BUT DIFFERENT REGARDING THE AUDIENCE ... PERHAPS A "NEW TWITTER" IS NECESSARY MUCH LIKE CONSERVATIVE RADIO!
Twitter is of course at perfect liberty to shadowban, or ban for that matter, anyone they please. And for what it's worth, I'm inclined to believe that the search bug disproportionately affecting conservatives was probably unintentional. But the explanation for how it came about is a bit vague.
CLOISTERING
CLOISTERING
For the most part, we believe the issue had more to do with how other people were interacting with these representatives’ accounts than the accounts themselves… There are communities that try to boost each other’s presence on the platform through coordinated engagement. We believe these types of actors engaged with the representatives’ accounts– the impact of this coordinated behavior, in combination with our implementation of search auto-suggestions, caused the representatives’ accounts to not show up in auto-suggestions. In addition to fixing search yesterday, we’re continuing to improve our system so it can better detect these situations and correct for them.
If Twitter was disfavoring certain accounts based on how other accounts interact with them, that isn't ideal. Speaking for myself, I've had tweets go viral on the alt-right simply because they were critical of campus liberals. I've also been placed on mass blocklists that users can subscribe to and preemptively block anyone who expresses a thoughtcrime.
I'm sure you can tell from my opening paragraph that I recognize that this ranks pretty low in matters of importance. But millions of people use Twitter every day, and the platform sometimes rivals television and traditional news outlets in its cultural power. If Twitter wants to hold onto that power, alienating half of Americans and lame excuses doesn't seem like a great way of going about it.
Update: This post has been updated to more accurately describe the far-right individuals shadow-banned by Twitter.
If Twitter was disfavoring certain accounts based on how other accounts interact with them, that isn't ideal. Speaking for myself, I've had tweets go viral on the alt-right simply because they were critical of campus liberals. I've also been placed on mass blocklists that users can subscribe to and preemptively block anyone who expresses a thoughtcrime.
I'm sure you can tell from my opening paragraph that I recognize that this ranks pretty low in matters of importance. But millions of people use Twitter every day, and the platform sometimes rivals television and traditional news outlets in its cultural power. If Twitter wants to hold onto that power, alienating half of Americans and lame excuses doesn't seem like a great way of going about it.
Update: This post has been updated to more accurately describe the far-right individuals shadow-banned by Twitter.
SOMEONE HAD THEIR HEAD-UP THEIR ASS OR WAS JUST A BOY SCOUT ... MR. MAGOO!?!
DICK MORRIS – ROSENSTEIN’S DEM ATTY WIFE WORKED FOR MUELLER, OBAMA, CLINTON
Rick Wells
Another conflict of interest for Rod Rosenstein has emerged. His wife is a lawyer specializing in keeping Dem info hidden from FOIAs, who worked for Mueller, Obama, Clinton and…
Dick Morris points out other conflicts of interest in the Mueller-Rosenstein coup that should immediately end the witch hunt and have the participants under criminal investigation, and would if we had an impartial government by the people rather than a taxpayer-funded criminal enterprise running this nation.
Morris points out that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, the orchestrator of the witch hunt, is married to a top Democrat insider with connections to the Obama-Clinton-Soros Mafia. His wife, Lisa Barsoomian, “Is a Freedom of Information Act lawyer, who largely defends against suits brought by groups such as Judicial Watch and other conservative groups to produce documents from the Clinton and then the Obama administrations.
“Her firm, headed by R. Craig Lawrence, works for Democrats only,” says Morris, “and it’s incredible. They’ve represented Obama 40 times, Bill Clinton about as often, Hillary Clinton 17 times, Kathleen Sebelius 16 times, even represented Mueller himself on three occasions.”
Morris notes, “And yet her husband is the one that appointed Mueller and supervises him. The tentacles of the deep state run all over the place and this one really is surprising.”
THE SWAMP ANDMR. ROGERS MR. MAGOOS' NEIGHBORHOOD
But what Morris doesn’t point out is that none of this charade of justice and political action under the color of law would be possible were it not for the complicity of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate who are standing idly by, along with their fellow turncoats, allowing this distortion of justice and abuse of power to continue.
There’s no reason why they have to go along with an obvious frame-up like this beyond that fact that the people they work for, the establishment special interests and the globalist anti-Americans are telling them to. They are every bit as corrupt as Rosenstein, his wife, Mueller and the rest of the coup participants.
If you’re also fed up with Facebook censorship targeting patriots and America, look for me on GAB at https://gab.ai/RickRWells, and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US to receive my posts directly by email, safely beyond the censorship of little comrade Zuckerberg. Thanks for reading my work.
Rick Wells
Another conflict of interest for Rod Rosenstein has emerged. His wife is a lawyer specializing in keeping Dem info hidden from FOIAs, who worked for Mueller, Obama, Clinton and…
 |
| TRUMP CERTAINLY IS THE LATTER ... WHEN ONE CONSIDERS FROM WHERE HE STANDS |
Morris points out that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, the orchestrator of the witch hunt, is married to a top Democrat insider with connections to the Obama-Clinton-Soros Mafia. His wife, Lisa Barsoomian, “Is a Freedom of Information Act lawyer, who largely defends against suits brought by groups such as Judicial Watch and other conservative groups to produce documents from the Clinton and then the Obama administrations.
“Her firm, headed by R. Craig Lawrence, works for Democrats only,” says Morris, “and it’s incredible. They’ve represented Obama 40 times, Bill Clinton about as often, Hillary Clinton 17 times, Kathleen Sebelius 16 times, even represented Mueller himself on three occasions.”
Morris notes, “And yet her husband is the one that appointed Mueller and supervises him. The tentacles of the deep state run all over the place and this one really is surprising.”
THE SWAMP AND
 |
| SESSIONS ... AKA MR. MAGOO! |
There’s no reason why they have to go along with an obvious frame-up like this beyond that fact that the people they work for, the establishment special interests and the globalist anti-Americans are telling them to. They are every bit as corrupt as Rosenstein, his wife, Mueller and the rest of the coup participants.
THE WASHINGTON D.C. BATTLE CRY ... "I'VE GOT MINE AND THE HELL WITH YOU!"
If you’re also fed up with Facebook censorship targeting patriots and America, look for me on GAB at https://gab.ai/RickRWells, and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US to receive my posts directly by email, safely beyond the censorship of little comrade Zuckerberg. Thanks for reading my work.
Friday, July 27, 2018
WHAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT ROD ROSENSTEIN
Rod Rosenstein Has Major Conflicts of Interest in Trump Collusion Case – Signature on FISA App Only The Latest
By Elizabeth Vaughn - on July 27, 2018
How the Left Destroys the Nation
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, famously and unwisely, recused himself from the Trump/Russia Collusion case in March 2017 because he had met twice during the 2016 presidential campaign with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. There are, however, far more compelling reasons why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have recused himself.
Last weekend, in response to a Judicial Watch FOIA request, the DOJ released documents relating to the FBI’s FISA court applications for a warrant (and subsequent renewals) to surveil low-level Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Although heavily redacted, these documents revealed that Rosenstein had signed off on the last one. This development is serious, but it is only the latest of his many conflicts of interests. And up until now, there’s been scant attention paid to them.
Wednesday night’s news that House Republicans have filed articles of impeachment against him, has thrust Rosenstein and his highly partisan history back into the spotlight.
His wife, Lisa Barsoomian, is a Washington Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) attorney. She is a protégée of R. Craig Lawrence, whose law firm defends clients, all Democrats, against FOIA requests. Dick Morris, journalist and former advisor to Bill Clinton, reported that Lawrence, Barsoomian or both have represented Hillary Clinton 17 times, Bill Clinton 40 times, Barack Obama 45 times, Robert Mueller three times and on five occasions, the FBI.
In May 2017, Rosenstein wrote the memo outlining the case for firing FBI Director James Comey. Shortly after Trump fired Comey, Rosenstein appointed his mentor and friend, Robert Mueller, to head the investigation of Trump’s Russia collusion.
Rush Limbaugh reminds us that Rod Rosenstein was on the prosecution team that fully exonerated Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal (and both Clintons in the Travelgate and Filegate scandals). Shortly after Rod Rosenstein cleared Hillary, his wife represented Bill Clinton in a 1998-99 civil case in federal court.
Limbaugh also points out that Rosenstein gave Mueller “free rein” in his investigation of Trump, which is not allowed under DOJ regulations.
DOJ regulations require that a crime be named and that is what the special counsel shall pursue and, if during said investigation, the special counsel encounters something else that is not within the purview of the crime being investigated, he’s got to go back to the person who appointed him and seek permission to add this newly discovered crime to the investigation. None of that has happened.
Rosenstein signed off on the raid of President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen’s office, home and hotel room in April. This was a calculated move intended to provoke Trump into firing Mueller.
The Deputy AG has major conflicts of interest and should have recused himself from the beginning. He refers to requests from Congress, who has legal oversight over the DOJ, as “extortion.” He is the keeper of the secrets who knows where all the bodies are buried.
Mueller is not investigating possible Trump-Russia collusion, because he knows it doesn’t exist. Instead, he is searching for evidence of any possible criminal act that can be used to impeach Trump. Rosenstein knows this because he is in on it.
On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama told supporters, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
And indeed, he was true to his word. The Obama years changed America. As he filled every government institution with liberal appointees, they became weaponized. Now these institutions have Trump in their crosshairs.
The DOJ, the FBI, the State Department and the mainstream media all have their claws out for President Trump. All of these institutions are riddled with Obama and Clinton supporters.
Trump should have been advised early on that a major sweep of these staffers was necessary.
Has America reached a place where elections and the rule of law no longer have meaning? “If the law is to apply to one party and not the other, then there is no law.” And if there is no law, then America is moving toward tyranny.
President Trump is held to account over meaningless affairs that took place twelve years ago, while Hillary Clinton is given a pass for deleting, then trying to destroy, 32,000 subpoenaed emails from the private server she used during her tenure as Secretary of State.
If the crimes of Hillary Clinton, the DOJ, the FBI and their enablers/cheerleaders, the mainstream media, are not proven by the midterm elections, the opportunity may be lost. And America, as we’ve known her, will be lost. The clock is ticking.
By Elizabeth Vaughn - on July 27, 2018
How the Left Destroys the Nation
Last weekend, in response to a Judicial Watch FOIA request, the DOJ released documents relating to the FBI’s FISA court applications for a warrant (and subsequent renewals) to surveil low-level Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Although heavily redacted, these documents revealed that Rosenstein had signed off on the last one. This development is serious, but it is only the latest of his many conflicts of interests. And up until now, there’s been scant attention paid to them.
Wednesday night’s news that House Republicans have filed articles of impeachment against him, has thrust Rosenstein and his highly partisan history back into the spotlight.
In May 2017, Rosenstein wrote the memo outlining the case for firing FBI Director James Comey. Shortly after Trump fired Comey, Rosenstein appointed his mentor and friend, Robert Mueller, to head the investigation of Trump’s Russia collusion.
Rush Limbaugh reminds us that Rod Rosenstein was on the prosecution team that fully exonerated Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal (and both Clintons in the Travelgate and Filegate scandals). Shortly after Rod Rosenstein cleared Hillary, his wife represented Bill Clinton in a 1998-99 civil case in federal court.
Limbaugh also points out that Rosenstein gave Mueller “free rein” in his investigation of Trump, which is not allowed under DOJ regulations.
DOJ regulations require that a crime be named and that is what the special counsel shall pursue and, if during said investigation, the special counsel encounters something else that is not within the purview of the crime being investigated, he’s got to go back to the person who appointed him and seek permission to add this newly discovered crime to the investigation. None of that has happened.
Rosenstein signed off on the raid of President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen’s office, home and hotel room in April. This was a calculated move intended to provoke Trump into firing Mueller.
The Deputy AG has major conflicts of interest and should have recused himself from the beginning. He refers to requests from Congress, who has legal oversight over the DOJ, as “extortion.” He is the keeper of the secrets who knows where all the bodies are buried.
Mueller is not investigating possible Trump-Russia collusion, because he knows it doesn’t exist. Instead, he is searching for evidence of any possible criminal act that can be used to impeach Trump. Rosenstein knows this because he is in on it.
On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama told supporters, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
And indeed, he was true to his word. The Obama years changed America. As he filled every government institution with liberal appointees, they became weaponized. Now these institutions have Trump in their crosshairs.
The DOJ, the FBI, the State Department and the mainstream media all have their claws out for President Trump. All of these institutions are riddled with Obama and Clinton supporters.
Trump should have been advised early on that a major sweep of these staffers was necessary.
Has America reached a place where elections and the rule of law no longer have meaning? “If the law is to apply to one party and not the other, then there is no law.” And if there is no law, then America is moving toward tyranny.
President Trump is held to account over meaningless affairs that took place twelve years ago, while Hillary Clinton is given a pass for deleting, then trying to destroy, 32,000 subpoenaed emails from the private server she used during her tenure as Secretary of State.
If the crimes of Hillary Clinton, the DOJ, the FBI and their enablers/cheerleaders, the mainstream media, are not proven by the midterm elections, the opportunity may be lost. And America, as we’ve known her, will be lost. The clock is ticking.
GOT POPCORN ... LET'S SIT BACK AND ENJOY THE NEW LOW
And you lost your freaking minds.
I knew you would take the loss hard—and personally—since all of you were super jacked-up to elect the first woman president. But I did not imagine you would become totally deranged, attacking anyone who voted for Trump or supported his presidency as a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic Nazi-sympathizer.
The weirdness started on social media late on Election Night, as it became clear Hillary was going to lose. A few of you actually admitted that you were cradling your sleeping children, weeping, wondering what to tell your kindergartner the next morning about Trump’s victory. It continued over the next several days. Some of you seriously expressed fear about modern-day concentration camps. Despite living a privileged lifestyle, you were suddenly a casualty of the white patriarchy. Your daughters were future victims; your sons were predators-in-waiting. You threatened to leave Facebook because you could no longer enjoy the family photos or vacation posts from people who, once friends, became Literal Hitlers to you on November 8 because they voted for Donald Trump.
I admit I was a little hurt at first. The attacks against us Trump voters were so personal and so vicious that I did not think it could be sustained. I thought maybe you would regain your sanity after some turkey and egg nog.
But you did not. You got worse. And I went from sad to angry to where I am today: Amused.
As the whole charade you have been suckered into over the last 18 months starts to fall apart—that Trump would not survive his presidency; he would be betrayed by his own staff, family, and/or political party; he would destroy the Republican Party; he would be declared mentally ill and removed from office; he would be handcuffed and dragged out of the White House by Robert Mueller for “colluding” with Russia—let me remind you what complete fools you have made of yourselves. Not to mention how you’ve been fooled by the media, the Democratic Party, and your new heroes on the NeverTrump Right.
On November 9, you awoke from a self-induced, eight-year-long political coma to find that White House press secretaries shade the truth and top presidential advisors run political cover for their boss. You were shocked to discover that presidents exaggerate, even lie, on occasion. You became interested for the first time about the travel accommodations, office expenses, and lobbyist pals of administration officials. You started counting how many rounds of golf the president played. You suddenly thought it was fine to mock the first lady now that she wasn’t Michelle Obama. Once you removed your pussy hat after attending the Women’s March, you made fun of Kellyanne Conway’s hair, Sarah Sanders’ weight, Melania Trump’s shoes, Hope Hicks’ death stare; you helped fuel a rumor started by a bottom-feeding author that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley slept with Donald Trump. You thought it was A-OK that Betsy DeVos was nearly physically assaulted and routinely heckled. You glorified a woman who has sex on camera for a paycheck.
You have learned all kinds of new things that those of us who didn’t willfully ignore politics for the past eight years already knew. For example, we already knew that illegal immigrants were being deported and families were being separated.
Some of your behavior has been kinda cute. It was endearing to watch you become experts on the Logan Act, the Hatch Act, the Second Amendment, the 25th Amendment, and the Emoluments Clause. You developed a new crush on Mitt Romney after calling him a “sexist” for having “binders full of women.” You longed for a redux of the presidency of George W. Bush, a man you once wanted imprisoned for war crimes. Ditto for John McCain. You embraced people like Bill Kristol and David Frum without knowing anything about their histories of shotgunning the Iraq War.
Classified emails shared by Hillary Clinton? Who cares! Devin Nunes wanting to declassify crucial information of the public interest? Traitor!
But your newfound admiration and fealty to law enforcement really has been a fascinating transformation. Wasn’t it just last fall that I saw you loudly supporting professional athletes who were protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem? Remember how you fanboyed a mediocre quarterback for wearing socks that depicted cops as pigs?
But now you sound like paid spokesmen for the Fraternal Order of Police. You insist that any legitimate criticism of the misconduct and possibile criminality that occured at the Justice Department and FBI is an “attack on law enforcement.” While you once opposed the Patriot Act because it might have allowed the federal government to spy on terrorists who were using the local library to learn how to make suitcase bombs, you now fully support the unchecked power of a secret court to look into the phone calls, text messages and emails of an American citizen because he volunteered for the Trump campaign for a few months.
Spying on terrorists, circa 2002: Bad. Spying on Carter Page, circa 2017: The highest form of patriotism.
And that white, male patriarchy that you were convinced would strip away basic rights and silence any opposition after Trump won? That fear has apparently been washed away as you hang on every word uttered by James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper. This triumvirate is exhibit “A” of the old-boy network, and represents how the insularity, arrogance, and cover-your-tracks mentality of the white-male power structure still prevails. Yet, instead of rising up against it, you are buying their books, retweeting their Twitter rants and blasting anyone who dares to question their testicular authority. Your pussy hat must be very sad.
But your daily meltdowns about Trump-Russia election collusion have been the most entertaining to observe. After Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel, you were absolutely convinced it would result in Trump’s arrest and/or impeachment. Some of you insisted that Trump wouldn’t last beyond 2017. You quickly swallowed any chum tossed at you by the Trump-hating media on MSNBC, CNN, ABC,NBC, CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post about who was going down next, or who would flip on the president.
For the past year, I have watched you obsess over a rotating cast of characters: Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Carter Page, Reince Priebus, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Sam Nunberg, and Hope Hicks are just a few of the people you thought would turn on Trump or hasten his political demise. But when those fantasies didn’t come true, you turned to Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels for hope and inspiration. It will always be your low point.
Well, I think it will be. Each time I believe you’ve hit bottom, you come up with a new baseline. Perhaps defending the unprecedented use of federal power to spy on political foes then lie about it will the next nail in your credibility coffin.
The next several weeks will be tough for you. I think Americans will learn some very hard truths about what happened in the previous administration and how we purposely have been misled by powerful leaders and the news media. I wish I could see you as a victim here, but you are not. I know you are smart; you chose to support this insurgency with your eyes wide open.
Now, I shall sit back and enjoy your pain.
NO HOLDS BARRED ... THE NEW CONFIRMATION PROCESS GOING FORWARD
New York Times Targets Kavanaugh’s Wife
I wouldn’t have thought my opinion of the New York Times could get any lower, but it just did. NTK Network reports that the Times, as well as the Associated Press, has requested emails sent or received by Ashley Kavanaugh in her capacity as town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland:
The New York Times and Associated Press both filed requests under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) seeking e-mails that Ashley Kavanaugh, the wife of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sent as town manager of The Village of Chevy Chase Section 5, according to documents obtained by America Rising Squared (AR2) and shared exclusively with the NTK Network.
The two news organizations took different approaches to obtain the e-mails. According to the documents, the AP made a sweeping request for “all emails sent or received” by Ashley Kavanaugh’s Village of Chevy Chase email address.
By contrast, The New York Times is currently requesting that The Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 hand over “any emails to or from Ms. Kavanaugh that contain any of the keywords or terms listed below.”
Here is the email from Steve Eder of the Times. The paper says: “Steve Eder is an investigative reporter for The Times, where he writes about the federal government under President Trump, as well as his personal businesses.” I have no idea why two items appear to be blacked out:
The Times’s request obviously tracks left-wing concerns and talking points, e.g. regarding the dreaded Federalist Society and Leonard Leo. Not to mention guns, gays, and abortion.
They won’t find anything, of course. But this is what I want to know: When Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed to the Court, did the Times, or the Associated Press, try to investigate documents sent or received by their family members?
I wouldn’t have thought my opinion of the New York Times could get any lower, but it just did. NTK Network reports that the Times, as well as the Associated Press, has requested emails sent or received by Ashley Kavanaugh in her capacity as town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland:
The New York Times and Associated Press both filed requests under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) seeking e-mails that Ashley Kavanaugh, the wife of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sent as town manager of The Village of Chevy Chase Section 5, according to documents obtained by America Rising Squared (AR2) and shared exclusively with the NTK Network.
The two news organizations took different approaches to obtain the e-mails. According to the documents, the AP made a sweeping request for “all emails sent or received” by Ashley Kavanaugh’s Village of Chevy Chase email address.
By contrast, The New York Times is currently requesting that The Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 hand over “any emails to or from Ms. Kavanaugh that contain any of the keywords or terms listed below.”
Here is the email from Steve Eder of the Times. The paper says: “Steve Eder is an investigative reporter for The Times, where he writes about the federal government under President Trump, as well as his personal businesses.” I have no idea why two items appear to be blacked out:
The Times’s request obviously tracks left-wing concerns and talking points, e.g. regarding the dreaded Federalist Society and Leonard Leo. Not to mention guns, gays, and abortion.
They won’t find anything, of course. But this is what I want to know: When Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed to the Court, did the Times, or the Associated Press, try to investigate documents sent or received by their family members?
CLOiSTERING, MIRRORING, OR SHADOW BANNING
Is what's happening on Twitter shadow banning?
No. Maybe ... perhaps ... could be ... not sure. What difference does it make? If your twitter post has been cloistered or mirrored it simply means your post is not reaching its potential within the "social media universe" ... duh!
You can still see posts from the Republicans named in the Vice News article, including Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida.
The White House, McDaniel and Gaetz didn't respond to requests for comment.
Your Twitter account may not autopopulate in searches, but that doesn't mean you've been shadow banned.
Kevin Lee, a trust and safety architect at Sift Science, an online fraud and abuse detection company, said Thursday's misunderstanding highlights how lawmakers need to do a better job at understanding technology.
The search results bug involves an error with Twitter's algorithm, the social network's head of product, Kayvon Beykpour, said in a series of tweets Wednesday.
Twitter's behavior signals caused the mistakes with autosuggestions, Beykpour explained.
WELL THERE'S THE PROBLEM .. AI INHERITANCE (DNA) OR PERHAPS AI'S INSTINCTS IS FLAWED!
As part of Twitter's push to create healthy conversations, its AI will favor accounts that have had more positive experiences. Well how does the AI determine feeling associated with "positive experiences" ...?
No. Maybe ... perhaps ... could be ... not sure. What difference does it make? If your twitter post has been cloistered or mirrored it simply means your post is not reaching its potential within the "social media universe" ... duh!
THERE IS NOTHING
SOCIAL MEDIA
CAN PROVIDE
THAT IT HAS'NT
ALREADY TAKEN
FROM YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE
You can still see posts from the Republicans named in the Vice News article, including Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida.
The White House, McDaniel and Gaetz didn't respond to requests for comment.
Your Twitter account may not autopopulate in searches, but that doesn't mean you've been shadow banned.
Kevin Lee, a trust and safety architect at Sift Science, an online fraud and abuse detection company, said Thursday's misunderstanding highlights how lawmakers need to do a better job at understanding technology.
"Our leaders need to identify how technology works to make informed decisions (or public-facing commentary), especially when their work can have such an impact on how such technologies are used and regulated," Lee said.Twitter's moderators aren't actively taking measures against accounts and blocking them so that only these users can see their own tweets, the company says.
The search results bug involves an error with Twitter's algorithm, the social network's head of product, Kayvon Beykpour, said in a series of tweets Wednesday.
Twitter's behavior signals caused the mistakes with autosuggestions, Beykpour explained.
"Our usage of the behavior signals within search was causing this to happen & making search results seem inaccurate," he said in a tweet Wednesday. "We're making a change today that will improve this."Twitter's product manager for health, David Gasca, talked to CNET about these signals earlier in July. They could include how often an account is muted, blocked, reported, retweeted, liked and replied to. Twitter's algorithm takes interactions into consideration, and its artificial intelligence classifies them as either positive or negative experiences.
WELL THERE'S THE PROBLEM .. AI INHERITANCE (DNA) OR PERHAPS AI'S INSTINCTS IS FLAWED!
As part of Twitter's push to create healthy conversations, its AI will favor accounts that have had more positive experiences. Well how does the AI determine feeling associated with "positive experiences" ...?
LIBERALS ESCAPE TO SANITY OF THE GOP ...
Maxine Waters calls for street ‘screaming’ over Trump, says Democrat Party is not socialist
July 26, 2018
Congresswoman Maxine Waters assured CNBC’s John Harwood on Wednesday that the Democratic Party has very few members who are “to the left of the left.”
One of President Trump’s staunchest critics says the rise of Democratic Socialists within the party should be of no concern to midterm voters this November. The California lawmaker touted her capitalist credentials while downplaying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent victory over New York Rep. Joe Crowley.
“The Democratic Party isnot a socialist party,” she said during CNBC’s Capital Exchange event in Washington. “I just don’t think our party should be identified because we have a few people who seem to be to the left of the left.”
Ms. Waters was also asked if she was a capitalist.
“Of course,” she responded.
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded the same way when asked by Mr. Harwood on Tuesday.
“I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft,” Ms. Warren said. “What I don’t believe in is cheating. That’s where the difference is. I love what markets can do. I love what functioning economies can do. … Markets without rules is about the rich take it all. It’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.”
July 26, 2018
Congresswoman Maxine Waters assured CNBC’s John Harwood on Wednesday that the Democratic Party has very few members who are “to the left of the left.”
One of President Trump’s staunchest critics says the rise of Democratic Socialists within the party should be of no concern to midterm voters this November. The California lawmaker touted her capitalist credentials while downplaying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent victory over New York Rep. Joe Crowley.
“The Democratic Party is
Ms. Waters was also asked if she was a capitalist.
“Of course,” she responded.
THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded the same way when asked by Mr. Harwood on Tuesday.
“I believe in markets. What I don’t believe in is theft,” Ms. Warren said. “What I don’t believe in is cheating. That’s where the difference is. I love what markets can do. I love what functioning economies can do. … Markets without rules is about the rich take it all. It’s about the powerful get all of it. And that’s what’s gone wrong in America.”
Thursday, July 26, 2018
TIMING, TIMING, TIMING ... THE ESSENCE OF NEGOITATION
DRAW A LINE AND EXPECT TO HONOR THAT COMMITMENT ...
THE RUSSIA HOAX ... SUBTITLED CAN'T SCRAP IT OFF YOUR SHOES
Gregg Jarrett July 23, 2018
We know that on or about May 2, 2016, Comey composed a statement summarizing Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents, concluding that she was “grossly negligent.” Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner.
Comey used the exact phrase not once, but twice.
Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server. Other people had been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law. Yet, Comey – despite characterizing Clinton’s actions with the clear language denoting violation of the law - saw to it that no charges were ever brought against Clinton.
Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server.
Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term 'gross negligence,' and did not recall discussions about that issue.”
Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.
The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement.
Just as Comey, Strzok, Page and company conspired to clear Hillary Clinton, they likewise concocted their “insurance policy,” a scam investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump.
Metadata shows that on June 6, the FBI’s lead investigator on the case, Peter Strzok, sat down at his office computer to cleanse his boss’s statement of the vexing term, “gross negligence.” With the help of his paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the words “extremely careless” were substituted to make Clinton appear less criminally culpable. Page told the IG that “to use a term that actually has a legal definition would be confusing.”
It most certainly would. After all, how could Clinton be exonerated under the “gross negligence” law if that very phrase was used to describe her behavior? The phrases mean the same thing, but only one appears in the statute.
Strozk and Page also expunged from Comey’s statement his reference to another statute that Clinton had plainly violated. She should have been charged under the statute’s “intent” provisions. With Comey’s consent and encouragement, the pair sanitized his findings of fact and contorted his conclusions of law. Clinton, who had not even been interviewed by the FBI yet, was free and clear. The investigation was a sham.
Comey may not have remembered writing the words that should have indicted Clinton, but he had complete recall of his inability to read the law. He told the IG he thought “Congress intended for there to be some level of willfulness present even to prove a ‘gross negligence’ violation.” If Comey had ever read the legislative history, he would have known that in 1948, Congress amended the original Espionage Act of 1917 to add a “gross negligence” provision that did not require intent or willfulness.
Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.
“Ultimately, he (Comey) made the decision to change that wording,” said Strzok.
But wait, how could Comey order a change in the words he doesn’t remember writing? Their stories don’t jibe. At least one of them is lying.
Strzok’s memory repression must be acute. He also informed Congress he does “not recall writing” the infamous text message to his lover, Page, vowing to “stop” Trump from being elected president.
“What I can tell you is that text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy,” Strzok insisted.
That is a remarkably dexterous explanation for something he does not remember doing. When confronted with a myriad of other messages extoling Clinton and disparaging Trump, Strzok had the temerity to say, “I do not have bias.” Later, “Those text messages are not indicative of bias.”
No one with an ounce of intelligence could possibly buy the self-serving rubbish that Strzok was peddling. This includes the inspector general who, after an exhaustive investigation, concluded that the Strzok-Page communications “are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral process.”
Just as Comey, Strzok, Page and company conspired to clear Hillary Clinton, they likewise concocted their “insurance policy,” a scam investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump. The FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation into Trump and his campaign. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted or ignored. The law enforcers became the law breakers. Comey’s scheme to leak pilfered presidential memos in order to trigger the appointment of his friend, Robert Mueller, as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an unscrupulous man. Comey’s insinuation that the president obstructed justice was another canard designed to inflame the liberal media. Sure enough, they became his witting accessories.
Compare all of this – that there was never any credible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency – with the fact that there was ample evidence that Clinton had broken the law.
This is the story of “The Russia Hoax.”
Editor's note: This article is partly adapted from the author's new book "The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump." (Broadside Books -- an imprint of HarperCollins, July 24, 2018).
PROOF POSITIVE ... SOCIAL DEMOCRATS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS
Occupy ICE PDX Protesters Leave Heaps Of Trash, Human Waste For City To Clean At Taxpayers’ Expense
City leaders say they found “human waste piling up inside” the protesters’ camp
Chris Menahan | Information Liberation - July 26, 2018
Left-wing Occupy ICE PDX protesters left massive amounts of garbage and “human waste piling up” for the city to clean at taxpayers’ expense outside Southwest Portland’s US Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters.
From KPTV:
Cleanup has begun at what, for five weeks, was the Occupy ICE PDX camp. Portland Police Bureau officers limited access to the site earlier [Wednesday], calling it a biohazard.
The mayor’s office confirmed to FOX 12, the city will pay for a portion of the cleanup bill, as will TriMet. Both are part of the consortium that owns the land on which protesters set up their camp.
Frank Savage, who lives across the street from the site, says, “It was pretty disgusting that that’s how they were living back there.”
Where protesters once stood, now trash litters the ground. But Savage says he’s relieved for things to go back to normal.
“Getting tired of waking up to the bullhorn and the sounds and the cussing,” he said.
Portland police let the squatters go without any repercussions:
Even after receiving orders from Mayor Ted Wheeler to leave on Monday, Occupy ICE PDX leaders affirmed they would not.
But, at around 4:15 a.m. Wednesday, Portland police entered the camp, clearing protesters. Chief Danielle Outlaw says they did so without issuing any tickets or making any arrests.
Though the occupiers didn’t manage to permanently shut down ICE, they did succeed in shutting down a family’s food cart which they used to help feed the homeless:
This is what Democrats want for every city in America. They already have it in San Francisco and L.A. ...
The city has hired private contractors to clean up the mess left behind at the #OccupyICEPDX camp. They’re calling this site a biohazard. pic.twitter.com/Py2Zx9zjIZ
GROSS… a look at the massive amount if ‘items’ left behind by #OccupyICEPDX protestors after @PortlandPolice cleared the camp early this morning. It’s pretty disgusting down here. Stay with @KATUNews for the latest info #LiveOnK2 pic.twitter.com/XuOtZSTXB6
— Mike Warner (@MikeKATU) July 25, 2018
Here’s a closer look at some of the things left behind at what was the #occupyicepdx camp. More info on @fox12oregon pic.twitter.com/bNIdWMEHLt
— Marja Martinez (@MarjaKPTV) July 26, 2018
Cleanup crews moving quickly through field where occupiers once were. The biohazards are one of the reasons the police chief/Mayor agreed to shut the camp down.#LiveOnK2#OccupyICEPDX pic.twitter.com/wBACDsg0TN
— Genevieve Reaume (@GenevieveReaume) July 25, 2018
NOW: A look inside what remains at the #OccupyICEPDX camp after Portland Police forced the last protesters out. #KOIN6News pic.twitter.com/CYwZkNPJnK
— Elise Haas (@EliseKOIN) July 25, 2018
When the police cleared out the camp the Occupy ICE protesters called them “Nazis” and “killers” and shouted, “f**k you,” adding, “you’re a f**king traitor!”
Protesters calling police Nazis and killers as they face arrest. #OccupyICEPDX#fox12oregon pic.twitter.com/jvb1v1xFOU
— Marilyn Deutsch (@marilyndeutsch) July 25, 2018
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS SHOULD LOOK INTO A MIRROR TO IDENTIFY THE REAL "FASCIST" AND "NAZI" TRAITORS ...
City leaders say they found “human waste piling up inside” the protesters’ camp
Chris Menahan | Information Liberation - July 26, 2018
From KPTV:
Cleanup has begun at what, for five weeks, was the Occupy ICE PDX camp. Portland Police Bureau officers limited access to the site earlier [Wednesday], calling it a biohazard.
The mayor’s office confirmed to FOX 12, the city will pay for a portion of the cleanup bill, as will TriMet. Both are part of the consortium that owns the land on which protesters set up their camp.
Frank Savage, who lives across the street from the site, says, “It was pretty disgusting that that’s how they were living back there.”
Where protesters once stood, now trash litters the ground. But Savage says he’s relieved for things to go back to normal.
“Getting tired of waking up to the bullhorn and the sounds and the cussing,” he said.
Portland police let the squatters go without any repercussions:
Even after receiving orders from Mayor Ted Wheeler to leave on Monday, Occupy ICE PDX leaders affirmed they would not.
But, at around 4:15 a.m. Wednesday, Portland police entered the camp, clearing protesters. Chief Danielle Outlaw says they did so without issuing any tickets or making any arrests.
Though the occupiers didn’t manage to permanently shut down ICE, they did succeed in shutting down a family’s food cart which they used to help feed the homeless:
This is what Democrats want for every city in America. They already have it in San Francisco and L.A. ...
The city has hired private contractors to clean up the mess left behind at the #OccupyICEPDX camp. They’re calling this site a biohazard. pic.twitter.com/Py2Zx9zjIZ
GROSS… a look at the massive amount if ‘items’ left behind by #OccupyICEPDX protestors after @PortlandPolice cleared the camp early this morning. It’s pretty disgusting down here. Stay with @KATUNews for the latest info #LiveOnK2 pic.twitter.com/XuOtZSTXB6
— Mike Warner (@MikeKATU) July 25, 2018
Here’s a closer look at some of the things left behind at what was the #occupyicepdx camp. More info on @fox12oregon pic.twitter.com/bNIdWMEHLt
— Marja Martinez (@MarjaKPTV) July 26, 2018
Cleanup crews moving quickly through field where occupiers once were. The biohazards are one of the reasons the police chief/Mayor agreed to shut the camp down.#LiveOnK2#OccupyICEPDX pic.twitter.com/wBACDsg0TN
— Genevieve Reaume (@GenevieveReaume) July 25, 2018
NOW: A look inside what remains at the #OccupyICEPDX camp after Portland Police forced the last protesters out. #KOIN6News pic.twitter.com/CYwZkNPJnK
— Elise Haas (@EliseKOIN) July 25, 2018
When the police cleared out the camp the Occupy ICE protesters called them “Nazis” and “killers” and shouted, “f**k you,” adding, “you’re a f**king traitor!”
Protesters calling police Nazis and killers as they face arrest. #OccupyICEPDX#fox12oregon pic.twitter.com/jvb1v1xFOU
— Marilyn Deutsch (@marilyndeutsch) July 25, 2018
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS SHOULD LOOK INTO A MIRROR TO IDENTIFY THE REAL "FASCIST" AND "NAZI" TRAITORS ...
According to the modern left, anyone who doesn’t want to live in a third world s***hole is a “fascist” and a “Nazi.”
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
WORDS MATTER, ACTIONS MATTER ... AND ABOVE ALL IT IS THE LAW
Justice Department prefers 'illegal alien,' not 'undocumented': No more “undocumented” immigrants, just “illegal aliens.”
CNN reported Tuesday evening that the Justice Department has told its attorneys that the term “undocumented” is inaccurate according to U.S. immigration law and that they should start using the legally correct term.
“Illegal alien” is the accurate term used in the U.S. Code, the email reportedly says.
The use of the term “illegal” in the nation’s immigration debate has come under increasing attack from immigrant-rights activists, who can frequently be seen holding signs saying “no person is illegal.”
The term “undocumented” has gained increasing currency in both their rhetoric and in the stylebooks of U.S. media outlets as a substitute.
Conservatives have generally dismissed the term as a politically correct euphemism designed to distort public debate.
The Justice Department reminded its lawyers Tuesday that there must be uniformity in their usage, implying that “undocumented” usage had been bleeding over.
The email sought “to clear up some confusion and to be consistent in the way we draft our releases,” CNN quoted it as saying.
CNN reported Tuesday evening that the Justice Department has told its attorneys that the term “undocumented” is inaccurate according to U.S. immigration law and that they should start using the legally correct term.
“Illegal alien” is the accurate term used in the U.S. Code, the email reportedly says.
The use of the term “illegal” in the nation’s immigration debate has come under increasing attack from immigrant-rights activists, who can frequently be seen holding signs saying “no person is illegal.”
The term “undocumented” has gained increasing currency in both their rhetoric and in the stylebooks of U.S. media outlets as a substitute.
Conservatives have generally dismissed the term as a politically correct euphemism designed to distort public debate.
The Justice Department reminded its lawyers Tuesday that there must be uniformity in their usage, implying that “undocumented” usage had been bleeding over.
The email sought “to clear up some confusion and to be consistent in the way we draft our releases,” CNN quoted it as saying.
THEY'RE NOT UNDOCUMENTED RATHER ILLEGAL ALIENS
We should Disqualify Votes from Sanctuary States and Sanctuary Cities
We now have officially, 7 states who consider themselves sanctuary states, more than that when states have sanctuary policies, but have yet to announce they are such as Hawaii, for example. The list increases drastically when local city and county jurisdictions are included in the overall picture of sanctuary given to those who are here illegally. Thus, when states who do not consider themselves as officially sanctuary states, but have various local jurisdictions who are, they should also be considered as official sanctuary states based on them allowing small jurisdictions within their state to be spots harboring criminals. In this case, we have over 24 states that are in some way offering refuge to people here illegally.
On top of this, we have entire states permitting people here illegally to vote in elections, both on a local, state, and Federal level. The state of California is a prime example of this when they issue drivers licenses to millions of illegals under their Motor Voter law which automatically registers those who obtain a DL to vote as well. Some local jurisdictions also are registering illegal aliens to vote, and a large number of these sanctuary cities and counties are not in states who are officially sanctuary states.
Since it is against Federal law for someone who is not a US citizen to vote in any national election, all states who either consider themselves sanctuary states, or have jurisdictions who are areas offering sanctuary to illegal aliens within their state must have their votes disqualified from all elections involving candidates and policies who make laws for all of us, on a Federal level.
We must have an across the board disqualification of any votes from these states, this includes all votes made for their local representatives who also write laws and make policies that involve all of us on a national level. For instance, all votes made in California for Senator Dianne Feinstein and those cast for Representative Maxine Waters must be disqualified since millions of these votes are made by noncitizens under the Motor Voter law and disguised as local votes. However, since both Dianne Feinstein and Maxine Waters influence the laws of the land on a Federal level, all votes for them and others who effect us on a national level must be tossed out because they are illegal votes for candidates who influence law nationwide.
Since states like Louisiana, Kansas, Texas, and a host of others have local jurisdictions within them that are sanctuaries for Illegal alien criminals, all votes cast in these states must also be disqualified based on them being made illegally. This goes especially for states who allow illegals to vote and those who issue DLs to them.
We can no longer allow the US election system to be compromised in any way, shape, or form by those who, by law are not allowed to vote. In reality, with the states who offer sanctuary and or have local jurisdictions offering sanctuary, along with the right to vote to those here illegally must not be allowed to have their votes counted as legitimate.
Therefore, we must only consider votes made by states who do not offer sanctuary to anyone here illegally, this would amount to around 12 states where votes would be considered legitimate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)