Tyson Foods is recalling more than 36,000 pounds of chicken nuggets because they may be contaminated with rubber
NBC News
January 30, 2019
The U.S. Agriculture Department says there were consumer complaints about extraneous rubber material in 5-pound packages of Tyson White Meat Panko Chicken Nuggets. There are no confirmed reports of adverse reactions.
The packages have a best if used by date of Nov. 26, 2019, and the case code 3308SDL03. The establishment core P-13556 is inside the USDA inspection mark.
The nuggets should be thrown out or returned to the place of purchase.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
THAT GLOBAL WARMING SURE IS A BITCH
by Bob Walsh
Yesterday the Cleveland Zoo moved their penguins inside. It was too cold outside. Too cold for penguins. The live on ice shelves. Too cold.
Yesterday the Cleveland Zoo moved their penguins inside. It was too cold outside. Too cold for penguins. The live on ice shelves. Too cold.
A $17 BILLION MYSTERY......THAT CALIFORNIANS ARE PAYING FOR
by Bob Walsh
It seems that a mysterious "surcharge" started appearing in gasoline costs in the formerly great state of California a few years ago. It was "discovered" recently when somebody decided to wring out every microscopic piece of cost in the price of a gallon of gas in CA., which is typically the second highest in the nation.
It seems that a few years back a surcharge managed to creep into the cost of gasoline that has varied from 2 cents per gallon way back when to as high as 24 cents per gallon. It is now about 20 cents per gallon.
The members of the legislature who are looking into this seem to think it may have crept in a few years back when a major refinery fire cut into supply. Nobody seems to know for sure, know who authorized it, for how much or how long. It has however ended up with the average CA family paying $1,700 dollars that they maybe shouldn't have had to.
Presumably this was going into the coffers of the state so nobody looked to closely at it but now that the secret is up a bunch of greedy bastards will pretend to be outraged and pretend they want to get to the bottom of it.
And we keep re-electing this rapacious asswipes year after year after year. I don't believe we get the government we deserve, but we sure as hell get the government we tolerate.
It seems that a mysterious "surcharge" started appearing in gasoline costs in the formerly great state of California a few years ago. It was "discovered" recently when somebody decided to wring out every microscopic piece of cost in the price of a gallon of gas in CA., which is typically the second highest in the nation.
It seems that a few years back a surcharge managed to creep into the cost of gasoline that has varied from 2 cents per gallon way back when to as high as 24 cents per gallon. It is now about 20 cents per gallon.
The members of the legislature who are looking into this seem to think it may have crept in a few years back when a major refinery fire cut into supply. Nobody seems to know for sure, know who authorized it, for how much or how long. It has however ended up with the average CA family paying $1,700 dollars that they maybe shouldn't have had to.
Presumably this was going into the coffers of the state so nobody looked to closely at it but now that the secret is up a bunch of greedy bastards will pretend to be outraged and pretend they want to get to the bottom of it.
And we keep re-electing this rapacious asswipes year after year after year. I don't believe we get the government we deserve, but we sure as hell get the government we tolerate.
HATE CRIMES BLAMED ON TRUMP
Empire TV series star Jussie Smollett says he was beaten up in Chicago by two masked white men who called him a faggot and nigger and tied a noose around his neck ….. but was it all just a publicity stunt?
BarkGrowlBite
January 31, 2019
Jussie Smollett is a star on the Empire TV series. He is a gay man. His mother is black and his father is a Jew – the poor bastard is doubly cursed – and he is an outspoken critic of President Trump.
Late Monday night, Jussie was beaten up on a Chicago street near his home. He described his attackers as two white men wearing ski masks. Jussie says the two men approached him and shouted “Aren't you that faggot Empire nigger?” and proceeded to beat him in the face with their fists. They also poured some kind of chemical substance, possibly bleach, over him. At some point they tied a noose around his neck. Jussie says the men also shouted “MAGA country.”
Jussie still had the noose around his neck when the cops arrived. He checked himself into a hospital.
Chicago police are investigating the beating as a possible hate crime and if it occurred as Jussie tells it, it sure as hell is a hate crime. After reviewing hundreds of hours of surveillance video footage, police investigators did not find any signs of the purported beating. I hope I'm wrong, but I have this gut feeling that the reported attack did not take place and that Jussie’s injuries were self-inflicted as a publicity stunt.
In any event, reaction on social media was swift. Many blamed Trump for the attack on Jussie, accusing the President of dividing the country and inciting racial hatred.
Now that’s absolutely absurd. There were plenty of hate crimes during the Obama administration as there were during the administrations of both Bushes and Bill Clinton. If they’re going to blame Trump for hate crimes, then Obama, the Bushes and Clinton will have to be blamed as well.
BarkGrowlBite
January 31, 2019
Jussie Smollett is a star on the Empire TV series. He is a gay man. His mother is black and his father is a Jew – the poor bastard is doubly cursed – and he is an outspoken critic of President Trump.
Late Monday night, Jussie was beaten up on a Chicago street near his home. He described his attackers as two white men wearing ski masks. Jussie says the two men approached him and shouted “Aren't you that faggot Empire nigger?” and proceeded to beat him in the face with their fists. They also poured some kind of chemical substance, possibly bleach, over him. At some point they tied a noose around his neck. Jussie says the men also shouted “MAGA country.”
Jussie still had the noose around his neck when the cops arrived. He checked himself into a hospital.
Chicago police are investigating the beating as a possible hate crime and if it occurred as Jussie tells it, it sure as hell is a hate crime. After reviewing hundreds of hours of surveillance video footage, police investigators did not find any signs of the purported beating. I hope I'm wrong, but I have this gut feeling that the reported attack did not take place and that Jussie’s injuries were self-inflicted as a publicity stunt.
In any event, reaction on social media was swift. Many blamed Trump for the attack on Jussie, accusing the President of dividing the country and inciting racial hatred.
Now that’s absolutely absurd. There were plenty of hate crimes during the Obama administration as there were during the administrations of both Bushes and Bill Clinton. If they’re going to blame Trump for hate crimes, then Obama, the Bushes and Clinton will have to be blamed as well.
KIND-HEARTED TEXAS JUDGE PISSES OFF POLICE CHIEF
Police chief outraged after teen robbery suspect released from jail
KTRK
January 29, 2019
PASADENA, Texas -- Jakouri Jones, 18, was able to exchange jail time for his signature after posting bond for allegedly robbing four pharmacies with a weapon in a matter of weeks.
This past month, Pasadena police released surveillance video showing officers running over Jones after he pointed a gun at them while trying to run away.
Pasadena's police chief sounded off after Jones was released on bond, despite multiple violent felonies.
Authorities say Jones is the one who wore a mask and held up five pharmacies in Pasadena and Southside Place, shot at a man and his children and ran from police with a gun in hand.
When Pasadena Police Chief Josh Bruegger went public with his disappointment and called out 230th Criminal Court Judge Chris Morton, he said, "This is the first time it's come to my attention. It's been so egregious. The public should be concerned."
According to court records, Jones was first charged on Jan. 6 for gun possession and released on a personal bond, which is basically his signature for the promise to show up court.
On Jan. 16, he picked up four aggravated robbery charges and one aggravated assault charge. The personal bond remained.
Monday, another aggravated robbery was added and Judge Morton denied the state's second request for a high bond.
Twice the Harris County District Attorney's Office has asked for a high bond. Twice it was denied.
The judge has placed restrictions on Jones' movements and required him to wear a GPS monitor.
KTRK
January 29, 2019
PASADENA, Texas -- Jakouri Jones, 18, was able to exchange jail time for his signature after posting bond for allegedly robbing four pharmacies with a weapon in a matter of weeks.
This past month, Pasadena police released surveillance video showing officers running over Jones after he pointed a gun at them while trying to run away.
Pasadena's police chief sounded off after Jones was released on bond, despite multiple violent felonies.
Authorities say Jones is the one who wore a mask and held up five pharmacies in Pasadena and Southside Place, shot at a man and his children and ran from police with a gun in hand.
When Pasadena Police Chief Josh Bruegger went public with his disappointment and called out 230th Criminal Court Judge Chris Morton, he said, "This is the first time it's come to my attention. It's been so egregious. The public should be concerned."
According to court records, Jones was first charged on Jan. 6 for gun possession and released on a personal bond, which is basically his signature for the promise to show up court.
On Jan. 16, he picked up four aggravated robbery charges and one aggravated assault charge. The personal bond remained.
Monday, another aggravated robbery was added and Judge Morton denied the state's second request for a high bond.
Twice the Harris County District Attorney's Office has asked for a high bond. Twice it was denied.
The judge has placed restrictions on Jones' movements and required him to wear a GPS monitor.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
THE POLITICALLY CORRECT COP
Cops are no longer free to kill black men who attack them
BarkGrowlBite
January 30, 2019
Today’s politically correct cop carries four shooting weapons on his duty belt, three of which are non-lethal. He will carry a pepper spray, a Taser, a gun that fires rubber bullets and a regular firearm.
Because cops are no longer free to kill black men, they are trained to use their weapons in a strict sequence when assaulted by these victims of racism.
First the officer will have to try pepper spraying his black assailant. If that does not work he should taser the man. If that fails to stop the assailant, he should fire a rubber bullet at the man.
If the rubber bullet doe not work, the officer will then take his regular firearm out of its holster and blow his brains out.
While there will still be some loud complaints that a black man suffered police brutality from the use of pepper spray, the Taser, or the rubber bullet, there will be no demonstrations in the streets by Black Lives Matter and no rioting since the cop blew his brains out.
Likewise, Al Sharpton will remain in New York. And in Houston there will be no camera appearance for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee standing next to the police chief or the sheriff during a press briefing on the shooting.
Cops are still free to use their firearm on white men without first trying the non-lethal weapons.
BarkGrowlBite
January 30, 2019
Today’s politically correct cop carries four shooting weapons on his duty belt, three of which are non-lethal. He will carry a pepper spray, a Taser, a gun that fires rubber bullets and a regular firearm.
Because cops are no longer free to kill black men, they are trained to use their weapons in a strict sequence when assaulted by these victims of racism.
First the officer will have to try pepper spraying his black assailant. If that does not work he should taser the man. If that fails to stop the assailant, he should fire a rubber bullet at the man.
If the rubber bullet doe not work, the officer will then take his regular firearm out of its holster and blow his brains out.
While there will still be some loud complaints that a black man suffered police brutality from the use of pepper spray, the Taser, or the rubber bullet, there will be no demonstrations in the streets by Black Lives Matter and no rioting since the cop blew his brains out.
Likewise, Al Sharpton will remain in New York. And in Houston there will be no camera appearance for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee standing next to the police chief or the sheriff during a press briefing on the shooting.
Cops are still free to use their firearm on white men without first trying the non-lethal weapons.
SOUNDS OK TO ME
by Bob Walsh
It seems like there is this very rich guy named Schultz who used to be the HFMIC at Starbucks. He has more money than god and is thinking seriously about running for El Presidente as an independent, because he thinks that is a good thing and besides he hates Donald Trump. OK, I have no problem with that.
So, the liberal assholes think (probably correctly) that he would simply dilute the liberal asshole vote, kind of like Perot cut into Bush, and want to shut him down. So they are trying to arrange a liberal asshole boycott of Starbucks. It does not matter that Schultz has no connection whatsoever with Starbucks any more, except possibly as a shareholder. He sold out quite some time back and is kicking back enjoying his truck full of money. That's cool. He probably gets his coffee now at Peets or Dunkin Donuts anyway.
Personally I had some DANERYS TARGAREYEN FOR PRESIDENT bumper stickers printed up. Black on red. Looks good on my red pickup truck. I doubt that she will actually run, considering she is a fictional character, but what the hell. I have already had people ask me where they can get a bumper sticker like that.
It seems like there is this very rich guy named Schultz who used to be the HFMIC at Starbucks. He has more money than god and is thinking seriously about running for El Presidente as an independent, because he thinks that is a good thing and besides he hates Donald Trump. OK, I have no problem with that.
So, the liberal assholes think (probably correctly) that he would simply dilute the liberal asshole vote, kind of like Perot cut into Bush, and want to shut him down. So they are trying to arrange a liberal asshole boycott of Starbucks. It does not matter that Schultz has no connection whatsoever with Starbucks any more, except possibly as a shareholder. He sold out quite some time back and is kicking back enjoying his truck full of money. That's cool. He probably gets his coffee now at Peets or Dunkin Donuts anyway.
Personally I had some DANERYS TARGAREYEN FOR PRESIDENT bumper stickers printed up. Black on red. Looks good on my red pickup truck. I doubt that she will actually run, considering she is a fictional character, but what the hell. I have already had people ask me where they can get a bumper sticker like that.
WORLD CHANGING.......IF TRUE
by Bob Walsh
A team of Israeli scientists have announced a cure, not a treatment but a cure, for cancer that could be available in one year. It is alleged to be effective on all cancers on all people, be relatively cheap, have no side effects and be fully effective in a matter of weeks, not unlike an antibiotic for cancer.
The company, Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies Ltd. (AEFi) asserts this is the real deal. Skeptics are not so sure, and point out that even antibiotics, which are now well developed, do not work with this level of effectiveness for all patients and all infections.
If true, this would be really nice. If true. I am not holding my breath.
A team of Israeli scientists have announced a cure, not a treatment but a cure, for cancer that could be available in one year. It is alleged to be effective on all cancers on all people, be relatively cheap, have no side effects and be fully effective in a matter of weeks, not unlike an antibiotic for cancer.
The company, Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies Ltd. (AEFi) asserts this is the real deal. Skeptics are not so sure, and point out that even antibiotics, which are now well developed, do not work with this level of effectiveness for all patients and all infections.
If true, this would be really nice. If true. I am not holding my breath.
CAMEL HARRIS: OUR NEXT PRESIDENT?
Kamala's national health service: Harris says America should ABOLISH private health insurance and 'move on' to government-run 'Medicare for all'
By David Martosko
Daily Mail
January 29, 2019
California Sen. Kamala Harris carved out a liberal position on medical insurance on Monday night, telling an audience of Iowa Democrats that the United States should 'eliminate' all private plans and move everyone to a single-payer system.
'We need to have Medicare for all. That's just the bottom line,' Harris said during a CNN town hall event, declaring that she feels 'very strongly' about it.
'The idea is that everyone gets access to medical care, and you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require,' she explained, concluding that private insurers should not be part of the system.
'Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on,' said Harris.
Republicans were quick to mock what they typically call socialized medicine, something that has become more mainstream in the Democratic party since the early part of the 2016 presidential campaign cycle.
GOP spokesman Michael Ahrens tweeted a dig at Harris that also doubled as a jab at former president Barack Obama's frequent promises about his namesake health law.
'Dems in 2009: If you like your plan, you can keep it,' Ahrens mocked. 'Dems in 2019: If you like your plan, we're eliminating it.'
Harris also defended other positions she took as California's attorney general that are unpopular with some Democrats, saying at the Drake University event in Des Moines that they reflected her duty as the state's top law enforcement officer.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked her about prosecuting death penalty cases, and about legislation requiring her office to investigate all fatal police-related shootings.
Harris, who was attorney general from 2011 until she became a U.S. senator in 2017, said she enforced the death penalty despite opposing it.
'It's a flawed system. It is applied unequally based on race and based on income,' she said in reply to one student questioner.
Harris said she chose not to take a public position on the fatal shootings legislation in 2015 because her office would write the law and enforce it. She did say at the time, however, that she did not support the notion of superseding local prosecutors.
Fatal shootings by police of unarmed black men have become a rallying point among a swath of Democratic-leaning voters.
Harris has faced scrutiny of her background as a prosecutor early in the 2020 presidential discussion. The town hall Monday night was her first public event in Iowa - the state will host the first presidential caucuses of the primary season - since she declared her candidacy.
Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who have taken steps toward presidential bids of their own, also have been confronted with questions about their political liabilities during appearances in Iowa this month.
The 'Medicare for all' concept has caught fire this year thanks to unabashed advocacy from New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a delf-described democratic socialist.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was the plan's loudest proponent in 2016 but lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton who was seen as more centrist and electable.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I wonder what our doctors would do if Camel’s plan came to pass? The can’t up and leave for Canada because the Canadians already have socialized medicine. And for the same reason they can’t go to Europe.
And Camel’s plan would force big pharma to lower the price of drugs to where they will cost the same as in Canada and Mexico.
By David Martosko
Daily Mail
January 29, 2019
California Sen. Kamala Harris carved out a liberal position on medical insurance on Monday night, telling an audience of Iowa Democrats that the United States should 'eliminate' all private plans and move everyone to a single-payer system.
'We need to have Medicare for all. That's just the bottom line,' Harris said during a CNN town hall event, declaring that she feels 'very strongly' about it.
'The idea is that everyone gets access to medical care, and you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require,' she explained, concluding that private insurers should not be part of the system.
'Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on,' said Harris.
Republicans were quick to mock what they typically call socialized medicine, something that has become more mainstream in the Democratic party since the early part of the 2016 presidential campaign cycle.
GOP spokesman Michael Ahrens tweeted a dig at Harris that also doubled as a jab at former president Barack Obama's frequent promises about his namesake health law.
'Dems in 2009: If you like your plan, you can keep it,' Ahrens mocked. 'Dems in 2019: If you like your plan, we're eliminating it.'
Harris also defended other positions she took as California's attorney general that are unpopular with some Democrats, saying at the Drake University event in Des Moines that they reflected her duty as the state's top law enforcement officer.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked her about prosecuting death penalty cases, and about legislation requiring her office to investigate all fatal police-related shootings.
Harris, who was attorney general from 2011 until she became a U.S. senator in 2017, said she enforced the death penalty despite opposing it.
'It's a flawed system. It is applied unequally based on race and based on income,' she said in reply to one student questioner.
Harris said she chose not to take a public position on the fatal shootings legislation in 2015 because her office would write the law and enforce it. She did say at the time, however, that she did not support the notion of superseding local prosecutors.
Fatal shootings by police of unarmed black men have become a rallying point among a swath of Democratic-leaning voters.
Harris has faced scrutiny of her background as a prosecutor early in the 2020 presidential discussion. The town hall Monday night was her first public event in Iowa - the state will host the first presidential caucuses of the primary season - since she declared her candidacy.
Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who have taken steps toward presidential bids of their own, also have been confronted with questions about their political liabilities during appearances in Iowa this month.
The 'Medicare for all' concept has caught fire this year thanks to unabashed advocacy from New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a delf-described democratic socialist.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was the plan's loudest proponent in 2016 but lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton who was seen as more centrist and electable.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I wonder what our doctors would do if Camel’s plan came to pass? The can’t up and leave for Canada because the Canadians already have socialized medicine. And for the same reason they can’t go to Europe.
And Camel’s plan would force big pharma to lower the price of drugs to where they will cost the same as in Canada and Mexico.
NEW DEMOCRATS AND BERNIE SANDERS ABHOR ISRAEL
US Democrats Try to Retain Pro-Israel Credentials, But Is It Already Too Late?
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
January 29, 2019
American support for Israel used to very much be a bipartisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats could credibly point to genuine concern for and backing of the Jewish state.
But in recent decades, the Democrats' pro-Israel credentials have been called into question, especially with Israel itself routinely criticizing former-US President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, as antagonists who were jeopardizing its national security.
Current-US President Donald Trump has played on this theme, big time, to use one of his favorite phrases, by positioning himself as the most pro-Israel American leader ever. And that's an assessment with which most Israelis will agree after Trump bucked decades of US foreign policy, to say nothing of regional Arab sensitivities, by moving the American embassy to Israel's chosen (and eternal) capital, Jerusalem.
The Democrats are now hoping to reverse this trend with the establishment of a new group called the Democratic Majority for Israel.
The group's leader, Democratic Party pollster Mark Mellman, told The New York Times:
"Most Democrats are strongly pro-Israel and we want to keep it that way. There are a few discordant voices, but we want to make sure that what’s a very small problem doesn’t metastasize into a bigger problem."
Many would argue that it's already too late.
The Democratic Party's old guard might be pro-Israel, or at least not anti-Israel, but it's no longer their voices that are animating a new generation of Democratic voters. Rather, it's those "few discordant voices" that Mellman spoke of that seem to be having the biggest impact today.
This was seen in the last midterm election, when young Democratic voters put the likes of Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez into Congress. Both Tlaib and Omar are brazenly anti-Israel, the former being a supporter of the BDS movement, and the latter on record as calling the Jewish state an "apartheid regime." Ocasio-Cortez accused Israel of committing a "massacre" last summer when it was battling Hamas-led mass infiltration attempts along the Gaza border.
Trump has called these newcomers and others like them "radical socialists," which is true, and they don't deny it. But it's a trait that seems to go hand-in-hand with anti-Israel sentiment. Take, for instance, socialist poster-boy Bernie Sanders, who, despite being Jewish, seems to harbor absolutely no love for the nation-state of his people. It's a bit of an irony given that Israel itself is much more socialist than America, particularly when it comes to some of the Democrats' pet agendas like healthcare.
Really, the only Democrats that the newly-formed Democratic Majority for Israel can reasonably hope to sway in any significant numbers are Jewish voters. That used to be enough. A majority of Jewish Americans are registered Democrats, and form a rather influential voting bloc. But they have long since been eclipsed in their devotion to Israel and enacting of pro-Israel legislation by Evangelical Christians and their representatives in Congress.
A lot of that has to do with the fact that, pseudo-socialist though it be, Israel is far more resistant to the progressive liberal trend sweeping America. Polls and election results routinely show that a very firm majority of Israelis fall on what would be the Republican side of US foreign policy debates vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle East. As such, it's going to be a serious uphill battle, to say the least, to get more Democrats, and especially the ascendant progressive millennials, to suddenly start singing a pro-Israel tune.
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
January 29, 2019
American support for Israel used to very much be a bipartisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats could credibly point to genuine concern for and backing of the Jewish state.
But in recent decades, the Democrats' pro-Israel credentials have been called into question, especially with Israel itself routinely criticizing former-US President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, as antagonists who were jeopardizing its national security.
Current-US President Donald Trump has played on this theme, big time, to use one of his favorite phrases, by positioning himself as the most pro-Israel American leader ever. And that's an assessment with which most Israelis will agree after Trump bucked decades of US foreign policy, to say nothing of regional Arab sensitivities, by moving the American embassy to Israel's chosen (and eternal) capital, Jerusalem.
The Democrats are now hoping to reverse this trend with the establishment of a new group called the Democratic Majority for Israel.
The group's leader, Democratic Party pollster Mark Mellman, told The New York Times:
"Most Democrats are strongly pro-Israel and we want to keep it that way. There are a few discordant voices, but we want to make sure that what’s a very small problem doesn’t metastasize into a bigger problem."
Many would argue that it's already too late.
The Democratic Party's old guard might be pro-Israel, or at least not anti-Israel, but it's no longer their voices that are animating a new generation of Democratic voters. Rather, it's those "few discordant voices" that Mellman spoke of that seem to be having the biggest impact today.
This was seen in the last midterm election, when young Democratic voters put the likes of Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez into Congress. Both Tlaib and Omar are brazenly anti-Israel, the former being a supporter of the BDS movement, and the latter on record as calling the Jewish state an "apartheid regime." Ocasio-Cortez accused Israel of committing a "massacre" last summer when it was battling Hamas-led mass infiltration attempts along the Gaza border.
Trump has called these newcomers and others like them "radical socialists," which is true, and they don't deny it. But it's a trait that seems to go hand-in-hand with anti-Israel sentiment. Take, for instance, socialist poster-boy Bernie Sanders, who, despite being Jewish, seems to harbor absolutely no love for the nation-state of his people. It's a bit of an irony given that Israel itself is much more socialist than America, particularly when it comes to some of the Democrats' pet agendas like healthcare.
Really, the only Democrats that the newly-formed Democratic Majority for Israel can reasonably hope to sway in any significant numbers are Jewish voters. That used to be enough. A majority of Jewish Americans are registered Democrats, and form a rather influential voting bloc. But they have long since been eclipsed in their devotion to Israel and enacting of pro-Israel legislation by Evangelical Christians and their representatives in Congress.
A lot of that has to do with the fact that, pseudo-socialist though it be, Israel is far more resistant to the progressive liberal trend sweeping America. Polls and election results routinely show that a very firm majority of Israelis fall on what would be the Republican side of US foreign policy debates vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle East. As such, it's going to be a serious uphill battle, to say the least, to get more Democrats, and especially the ascendant progressive millennials, to suddenly start singing a pro-Israel tune.
UNSHACKLE OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND PUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ASIDE
Our Police Officers are Dying Based on a Lie
By Trey Rusk
Running Code 3
January 29, 2019
Over the past decade the biased liberal media, false narratives and political police administrators have contributed to police assaults and deaths. This was caused by a wave of anti-police sentiment beginning at the very top of our government. It started with the Trayvon Martin case and has evolved into an open season on police officers.
Yesterday, several Houston Police Officers were shot and wounded while attempting to serve a drug warrant. These officers were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Arresting criminals.
Something happened in our social and moral structure that has emboldened criminals to attempt to kill police officers on a daily basis. Never before have we had so many direct assaults on officers as we have had in recent weeks. It is time to correct the situation.
People bought into the lie that police officers were killing black citizens after the Ferguson, Missouri incident. The lie spread far and wide to the point that politicians were attempting to further their careers based on this false notion. Police officers were targeted for prosecution and worse, murder.
Cities rioted and political shills were appointed as Chief's of Police. Disengagement training was implemented and officers were instructed to stand down in the face of rampant crime. Penalties were reduced in order to placate blacks who in return continued to rob, burglarize, rape, deal drugs and murder.
In 2016 a study conducted at Harvard showed that there were no racial biases found to show police officers were more likely to shoot black people over other races. When it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. Roland G. Fryer Jr. is also black. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.
People believe what they want to believe. I believe that based on statistical data from Harvard University that race has played a major role in the killing of our police officers.
The lie was planted, then cultivated, then distributed by race baiters who in fact knew the truth but the truth was not convenient for their agenda.
It's time to stop the de-escalation training and disengagement programs. That means our legislature needs to address the problem through laws that would eliminate this type of training. Unshackled our police officers by letting them fight crime again and put political correctness aside. Our officers need our visible and unwavering support.
That's the way I see it.
Statistical data from The New York Times
By Trey Rusk
Running Code 3
January 29, 2019
Over the past decade the biased liberal media, false narratives and political police administrators have contributed to police assaults and deaths. This was caused by a wave of anti-police sentiment beginning at the very top of our government. It started with the Trayvon Martin case and has evolved into an open season on police officers.
Yesterday, several Houston Police Officers were shot and wounded while attempting to serve a drug warrant. These officers were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Arresting criminals.
Something happened in our social and moral structure that has emboldened criminals to attempt to kill police officers on a daily basis. Never before have we had so many direct assaults on officers as we have had in recent weeks. It is time to correct the situation.
People bought into the lie that police officers were killing black citizens after the Ferguson, Missouri incident. The lie spread far and wide to the point that politicians were attempting to further their careers based on this false notion. Police officers were targeted for prosecution and worse, murder.
Cities rioted and political shills were appointed as Chief's of Police. Disengagement training was implemented and officers were instructed to stand down in the face of rampant crime. Penalties were reduced in order to placate blacks who in return continued to rob, burglarize, rape, deal drugs and murder.
In 2016 a study conducted at Harvard showed that there were no racial biases found to show police officers were more likely to shoot black people over other races. When it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. Roland G. Fryer Jr. is also black. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.
People believe what they want to believe. I believe that based on statistical data from Harvard University that race has played a major role in the killing of our police officers.
The lie was planted, then cultivated, then distributed by race baiters who in fact knew the truth but the truth was not convenient for their agenda.
It's time to stop the de-escalation training and disengagement programs. That means our legislature needs to address the problem through laws that would eliminate this type of training. Unshackled our police officers by letting them fight crime again and put political correctness aside. Our officers need our visible and unwavering support.
That's the way I see it.
Statistical data from The New York Times
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
TRULY A NATIONAL EMERGENCY OF EPIC PROPORTIONS
We need a 1,900-mile long 30 ft. high and 6 ft. wide concrete wall with crenellations manned by National Guard troops
BarkGrowlBite
January 29, 2019
Here is how Bill Daniels commented on BJT in response to my “What National Emergency?” post:
“…. if Mexico fired rockets and floated incendiary balloons at the United States like Hamas does to Israel….”
They are firing ECONOMIC rockets into the US. Each and every illegal that sneaks across costs the US lots of money. If they get caught or surrender, that’s probably tens of thousands of dollars catching them, detaining them, checking their identity and background, then going through the legal process to deport them. But hey, let’s say one stays, like the pregnant Honduran caravan member who crossed our rickety ass fence while pregnant, then gave birth to her anchor baby two days later. Boom. You just added a $ 15,000 hospital delivery to her cost to the US taxpayer, and we haven’t even begun to talk about the 18 year long joy it will be for taxpayers to pay for her little nino or nina…..Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, ESL classes at school, with free breakfast and lunch included. That’s ONE rocket. There are hundreds of thousands of rockets that are fired. Even the ones we deport cost money. Wouldn’t it be better if we spent that money on new roads, bridges, libraries, flood control, schools, fire stations, etc.?
What Mexico is doing is firing human rockets and waging economic terrorism against the US.
Emergency? Hell yeah it’s an emergency. We have to do something to stop the constant barrage of economic rockets.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Bill, thank you so much for setting me straight. You have lit a bright light in my dim brain. Living this far from the border, I was not aware that Mexico is firing thousands of economic rockets at us. And aren’t also MS-13 rockets fired at us by Honduras and Guatemala? This is far worse than Hamas firing explosive rockets at Israel.
This is truly a national emergency of epic proportions and calls for us to retaliate with all our might. Only President Trump has the guts to nuke Mexico and he will do it when the weather conditions will carry the resulting nuclear cloud south. That way Honduras and Guatemala will get a taste of what is in store for them if they don’t stop firing their MS-13 rockets at us as well. If that wimp Obama had nuked Mexico, Trump would not have found it necessary to shut the government down.
Oops, something just occurred to me. On second thought, nuking Mexico may not be such a good idea. It would lead the surviving Mexicans to flee to this country. Our hospitals would be overwhelmed by patients seeking treatment for radiation sickness and burns. There will be far, far more Mexicans getting government aid than now. And we will end up spending billions rebuilding Mexico like we did with Germany and Japan after WW2.
A wall seems to be the best solution, but not the wall President Trump is calling for. We need a 1,900-mile long 30 ft. high and 6 ft. wide concrete wall with crenellations manned by National Guard troops. That will protect us from those economic and MS-13 rockets and cost far less than the aftermath of a nuclear bombing.
And a thousand years from now, archeologists will rank the Great Wall of America as one of the ‘Seven Wonders of the World’ along with the Great Wall of China.
BarkGrowlBite
January 29, 2019
Here is how Bill Daniels commented on BJT in response to my “What National Emergency?” post:
“…. if Mexico fired rockets and floated incendiary balloons at the United States like Hamas does to Israel….”
They are firing ECONOMIC rockets into the US. Each and every illegal that sneaks across costs the US lots of money. If they get caught or surrender, that’s probably tens of thousands of dollars catching them, detaining them, checking their identity and background, then going through the legal process to deport them. But hey, let’s say one stays, like the pregnant Honduran caravan member who crossed our rickety ass fence while pregnant, then gave birth to her anchor baby two days later. Boom. You just added a $ 15,000 hospital delivery to her cost to the US taxpayer, and we haven’t even begun to talk about the 18 year long joy it will be for taxpayers to pay for her little nino or nina…..Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, ESL classes at school, with free breakfast and lunch included. That’s ONE rocket. There are hundreds of thousands of rockets that are fired. Even the ones we deport cost money. Wouldn’t it be better if we spent that money on new roads, bridges, libraries, flood control, schools, fire stations, etc.?
What Mexico is doing is firing human rockets and waging economic terrorism against the US.
Emergency? Hell yeah it’s an emergency. We have to do something to stop the constant barrage of economic rockets.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Bill, thank you so much for setting me straight. You have lit a bright light in my dim brain. Living this far from the border, I was not aware that Mexico is firing thousands of economic rockets at us. And aren’t also MS-13 rockets fired at us by Honduras and Guatemala? This is far worse than Hamas firing explosive rockets at Israel.
This is truly a national emergency of epic proportions and calls for us to retaliate with all our might. Only President Trump has the guts to nuke Mexico and he will do it when the weather conditions will carry the resulting nuclear cloud south. That way Honduras and Guatemala will get a taste of what is in store for them if they don’t stop firing their MS-13 rockets at us as well. If that wimp Obama had nuked Mexico, Trump would not have found it necessary to shut the government down.
Oops, something just occurred to me. On second thought, nuking Mexico may not be such a good idea. It would lead the surviving Mexicans to flee to this country. Our hospitals would be overwhelmed by patients seeking treatment for radiation sickness and burns. There will be far, far more Mexicans getting government aid than now. And we will end up spending billions rebuilding Mexico like we did with Germany and Japan after WW2.
A wall seems to be the best solution, but not the wall President Trump is calling for. We need a 1,900-mile long 30 ft. high and 6 ft. wide concrete wall with crenellations manned by National Guard troops. That will protect us from those economic and MS-13 rockets and cost far less than the aftermath of a nuclear bombing.
And a thousand years from now, archeologists will rank the Great Wall of America as one of the ‘Seven Wonders of the World’ along with the Great Wall of China.
PELOSI’S PLAYED YOU FOR A CHUMP, PRESIDENT TRUMP
It’s time to do a deal on your Wall that can make you a champion, or you can kiss goodbye to getting re-elected in 2020
By Piers Morgan
Daily Mail
January 28, 2019
Let’s be blunt, Mr President: you lost.
All your indignant huffing and puffing on Twitter can’t change the cold, hard, undeniable fact that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played you like a chump last week and forced you into a humiliating climb-down over the government shutdown.
She kept saying she wasn’t going to give you any money for your Wall, you kept saying you weren’t going to re-open the government unless she did – and she won: you re-opened it with no Wall money.
So stop with the phony protestations.
When even ferocious media allies like Fox News hosts, the Drudge Report and Breitbart all say you took a drubbing, just admit you took a drubbing.
There’s an important reason for doing this: you’ve only lost a battle, not the war.
And if you play your next cards right, or should I say ‘better’, you can still end up with a big win – for you, and America.
But play them wrong again, and you risk betraying your base, making yourself an impotent slave to the Democrats, and getting an irreparable beating in the forthcoming 2020 election.
Make no mistake - this is your defining moment in office since you won the White House.
The Wall is your signature policy; it was the central plank of your entire 2016 election campaign, the thing you mentioned most, the thing that resonated strongest with your voters, and the thing, more than any other, that got you elected.
You have to deliver on The Wall, or all your bold boasts about being a President who does what he promised will crash and burn.
Already, conservative media pundit Ann Coulter, formally one of your biggest supporters, has lacerated you for what she says is a gutless surrender.
‘Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush, she scathingly tweeted, when news of your climb-down broke. ‘As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States.’
Ouch!
Mike Cernovich, another hitherto hugely supportive right-wing personality, went even harder, saying: ‘Trump is a broken man, it’s over for him.’
Wow.
You’ve proven yourself extraordinarily capable of surviving almost anything thrown at you, Donald, but to be perceived as a weak, broken wimp by your own fans is surely the worst possible slur for a President whose whole image is based around being a strong, tough, unbending leader?
However, I don’t think you’re broken.
Battered, yes. Bruised, definitely. But not broken.
As Republican talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh rightly observed: ‘We’ll just have to see what happens in the next three weeks.’
It may well turn out to be the 21 days that define your presidency.
Right now, you’re dangling over a cliff, clinging on for dear life, and Ms Pelosi is champing at the bit to trample on your fingers and make you fall into the political abyss.
Your poll numbers have taken a massive hit in the past five weeks - as low as 37% - as many more Americans blamed you more than the Democrats for a 35-day shutdown that led to you winning absolutely nothing.
Be under no illusion what the real narrative is here: you caved.
Indeed, New York magazine revealed reporters have used the word ‘cave’ so often about your actions that Merriam-Webster dictionary reported a 1500% increase in searches for the word!
A second lengthy shutdown starting in three weeks would be even more disastrous for you – especially if it ended in more failure.
So the big question now is how do you avoid Nancy Pelosi’s high heels slicing into your cliff-dangling hands?
You may not want to hear my answer, but it’s the right one.
The best leaders understand the power of a carrot and stick strategy when it comes to getting what they want.
You, as the whole world knows, want your Wall – about which there is so much hypocrisy.
There is already 700 miles of border fencing and security along the southern border, erected in the past 15 years with full support of most of your most vociferous Wall opponents.
For all intents and purposes, it’s a wall. You just want to extend it, and make it even more secure. And the money you’ve asked for - $5.7 billion - is a relative pittance.
But the political significance of getting the Wall funded is now enormous, and from the moment you lost control of the House in the mid-terms last November, you lost your real power to drive through that funding.
Therefore, you have to give the Democrats something they badly want too, or you can kiss goodbye to the most famous and divisive election pledge in history – and quite possibly your chances of re-election too.
What the Democrats want in return is permanent legal status for those undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children – known as Dreamers - and an eventual path to citizenship.
You know how passionately Pelosi feels about this because she recently spent a staggering eight hours on the floor of the House talking about it.
You also know that Pelosi is not as ideologically opposed to the Wall as she now claims to be.
Indeed, she’s on the record as saying: ‘All of us agree that we need to have comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform. That can only begin with strong border control. We must have that. We must control our borders.’
So there’s actually a relatively easy deal to be done if you can both park your bitter partisan enmity to one side and put America’s national interest first.
It’s not that contentious, even within your own party.
Most Americans – 87% in a CBS poll - support the idea of permanent legal status for Dreamers. And most Americans – 76% of voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, including 63% of Republicans - support the idea of giving the Dreamers a path to full citizenship.
In short most Americans have a heart about this issue.
They don’t like the idea of illegal immigrants pouring over the border into America, but nor do they like the idea of deporting or stigmatising people who were brought illegally into America as kids through no fault or choice of their own, and have made their homes and lives in the U.S.
The vast majority of Americans (82%) also believe immigration has generally been a good and not bad thing for America.
I believe that in YOUR heart, Mr President, you agree with most Americans.
I don’t believe you have any beef with legal immigrants – you’re married to one! - or with those who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children.
I believe your beef is with those who still seek to enter America illegally, some of whom want to cause terrible harm to the country with drugs, terrorism or gang violence.
When you enforced a brutal child separation policy on the border last year, it was the lowest moment of your tenure.
Now you have a chance to repair some of the damage of that heartless fiasco and do the right thing with a move that could be the highest moment of your tenure.
You can do a deal that protects those undocumented immigrants already in the US who deserve protection, and that helps those Dreamers become fully-fledged Americans. And at the same time, a deal that protects all Americans, with enhanced security across a border that is still being illegally crossed way too often for nefarious reasons.
Mr President, you once told me your life philosophy was this: ‘You’ve gotta win. That’s what it’s all about. Muhammad Ali used to talk and talk, but he won. If you talk and talk, but you lose, the act doesn’t play.’
Ali didn’t just win in the ring, but in people’s hearts and minds too.
This is your chance to go from chump to champion.
Save the Dreamers in exchange for The Wall.
By Piers Morgan
Daily Mail
January 28, 2019
Let’s be blunt, Mr President: you lost.
All your indignant huffing and puffing on Twitter can’t change the cold, hard, undeniable fact that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi played you like a chump last week and forced you into a humiliating climb-down over the government shutdown.
She kept saying she wasn’t going to give you any money for your Wall, you kept saying you weren’t going to re-open the government unless she did – and she won: you re-opened it with no Wall money.
So stop with the phony protestations.
When even ferocious media allies like Fox News hosts, the Drudge Report and Breitbart all say you took a drubbing, just admit you took a drubbing.
There’s an important reason for doing this: you’ve only lost a battle, not the war.
And if you play your next cards right, or should I say ‘better’, you can still end up with a big win – for you, and America.
But play them wrong again, and you risk betraying your base, making yourself an impotent slave to the Democrats, and getting an irreparable beating in the forthcoming 2020 election.
Make no mistake - this is your defining moment in office since you won the White House.
The Wall is your signature policy; it was the central plank of your entire 2016 election campaign, the thing you mentioned most, the thing that resonated strongest with your voters, and the thing, more than any other, that got you elected.
You have to deliver on The Wall, or all your bold boasts about being a President who does what he promised will crash and burn.
Already, conservative media pundit Ann Coulter, formally one of your biggest supporters, has lacerated you for what she says is a gutless surrender.
‘Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush, she scathingly tweeted, when news of your climb-down broke. ‘As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States.’
Ouch!
Mike Cernovich, another hitherto hugely supportive right-wing personality, went even harder, saying: ‘Trump is a broken man, it’s over for him.’
Wow.
You’ve proven yourself extraordinarily capable of surviving almost anything thrown at you, Donald, but to be perceived as a weak, broken wimp by your own fans is surely the worst possible slur for a President whose whole image is based around being a strong, tough, unbending leader?
However, I don’t think you’re broken.
Battered, yes. Bruised, definitely. But not broken.
As Republican talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh rightly observed: ‘We’ll just have to see what happens in the next three weeks.’
It may well turn out to be the 21 days that define your presidency.
Right now, you’re dangling over a cliff, clinging on for dear life, and Ms Pelosi is champing at the bit to trample on your fingers and make you fall into the political abyss.
Your poll numbers have taken a massive hit in the past five weeks - as low as 37% - as many more Americans blamed you more than the Democrats for a 35-day shutdown that led to you winning absolutely nothing.
Be under no illusion what the real narrative is here: you caved.
Indeed, New York magazine revealed reporters have used the word ‘cave’ so often about your actions that Merriam-Webster dictionary reported a 1500% increase in searches for the word!
A second lengthy shutdown starting in three weeks would be even more disastrous for you – especially if it ended in more failure.
So the big question now is how do you avoid Nancy Pelosi’s high heels slicing into your cliff-dangling hands?
You may not want to hear my answer, but it’s the right one.
The best leaders understand the power of a carrot and stick strategy when it comes to getting what they want.
You, as the whole world knows, want your Wall – about which there is so much hypocrisy.
There is already 700 miles of border fencing and security along the southern border, erected in the past 15 years with full support of most of your most vociferous Wall opponents.
For all intents and purposes, it’s a wall. You just want to extend it, and make it even more secure. And the money you’ve asked for - $5.7 billion - is a relative pittance.
But the political significance of getting the Wall funded is now enormous, and from the moment you lost control of the House in the mid-terms last November, you lost your real power to drive through that funding.
Therefore, you have to give the Democrats something they badly want too, or you can kiss goodbye to the most famous and divisive election pledge in history – and quite possibly your chances of re-election too.
What the Democrats want in return is permanent legal status for those undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children – known as Dreamers - and an eventual path to citizenship.
You know how passionately Pelosi feels about this because she recently spent a staggering eight hours on the floor of the House talking about it.
You also know that Pelosi is not as ideologically opposed to the Wall as she now claims to be.
Indeed, she’s on the record as saying: ‘All of us agree that we need to have comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform. That can only begin with strong border control. We must have that. We must control our borders.’
So there’s actually a relatively easy deal to be done if you can both park your bitter partisan enmity to one side and put America’s national interest first.
It’s not that contentious, even within your own party.
Most Americans – 87% in a CBS poll - support the idea of permanent legal status for Dreamers. And most Americans – 76% of voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, including 63% of Republicans - support the idea of giving the Dreamers a path to full citizenship.
In short most Americans have a heart about this issue.
They don’t like the idea of illegal immigrants pouring over the border into America, but nor do they like the idea of deporting or stigmatising people who were brought illegally into America as kids through no fault or choice of their own, and have made their homes and lives in the U.S.
The vast majority of Americans (82%) also believe immigration has generally been a good and not bad thing for America.
I believe that in YOUR heart, Mr President, you agree with most Americans.
I don’t believe you have any beef with legal immigrants – you’re married to one! - or with those who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children.
I believe your beef is with those who still seek to enter America illegally, some of whom want to cause terrible harm to the country with drugs, terrorism or gang violence.
When you enforced a brutal child separation policy on the border last year, it was the lowest moment of your tenure.
Now you have a chance to repair some of the damage of that heartless fiasco and do the right thing with a move that could be the highest moment of your tenure.
You can do a deal that protects those undocumented immigrants already in the US who deserve protection, and that helps those Dreamers become fully-fledged Americans. And at the same time, a deal that protects all Americans, with enhanced security across a border that is still being illegally crossed way too often for nefarious reasons.
Mr President, you once told me your life philosophy was this: ‘You’ve gotta win. That’s what it’s all about. Muhammad Ali used to talk and talk, but he won. If you talk and talk, but you lose, the act doesn’t play.’
Ali didn’t just win in the ring, but in people’s hearts and minds too.
This is your chance to go from chump to champion.
Save the Dreamers in exchange for The Wall.
OOPS: BROOKLYN WOMAN KILLED SOMEBODY SHE DIDN’T EVEN KNOW
Doctors said brain-dead man was my brother — he wasn’t: suit
By Priscilla DeGregory and Georgett Roberts
New York Post
January 27. 2019
They were switched at death.
A horrific hospital mix-up left a Brooklyn woman grieving for nine days at the bedside of a brain-damaged man who doctors insisted was her brother — but who was actually a stranger with the same name, a new lawsuit charges.
But only after she gave consent to have her “brother” taken off life support at St. Barnabas Hospital did Shirell Powell learn the shocking truth: Her real sibling was in jail — and she had just sent a stranger to his death, her Bronx Supreme Court lawsuit says.
“I nearly fainted because I killed somebody that I didn’t even know. I gave consent,” said Powell, 48, of Crown Heights.
“I was like, ‘Where is my brother? What is going on?’ I was devastated.”
The saga began July 15, when Freddy Clarence Williams, 40, was admitted to the Bronx hospital, unconscious from an apparent drug overdose, according to Powell’s lawsuit.
Williams had his Social Security card on him, and it identified him by that name, the court papers say.
But the hospital phoned Powell anyway, telling her that her brother, Frederick Williams, who also is 40 but has no middle name, had been admitted and was near death.
She rushed to the man’s bedside.
“He had tubes in his mouth, a neck brace,’’ Powell told The Post. “He was a little swollen . . . [But] he resembled my brother so much.
“He couldn’t speak from the time they brought him in the hospital. They just assumed it was my brother.”
After two days of tests, St. Barnabas doctors told her that her “brother” was brain-dead, she said.
“That is my baby brother, so it was really hurtful,” she said. “I was worried, hurt, crying, screaming, calling everybody. It was a horrible feeling.”
With no cause to hope for his recovery, she contacted relatives down South, telling them to come and say their goodbyes.
Powell acknowledged that the first time her sister saw the ailing man in the hospital, she questioned whether he was their sibling.
“She walked up into the room and said, ‘That is not my brother,’ ” Powell recalled. “I said, ‘What do you mean?’ ”
“The guy was much bigger,’’ Powell explained.
But he appeared swollen, and “the eyebrows, the nose, the structure — it looked like [our] brother,” Powell said. “My sister, she walked up closer, and you could see the resemblance, and she was like, ‘Oh, OK.’ ”
So on July 29, with her uncle and sister at her side, Powell “authorized [the hospital] to withdraw life support from Frederick Williams,” the lawsuit says.
“It was very devastating,” she recalled. “I was crying.”
Frederick Williams’ “death” was even harder on his two daughters — Brooklyn, 17, and Star, 18, their aunt said.
The teens live in Virginia, and Brooklyn came to the city to say goodbye to her father before he was taken off life support, Powell said.
“She was hysterical,” Powell recalled. “She was holding his hand, kissing him, crying.”
Only after an autopsy did the city Medical Examiner’s Office reveal the truth: The dead man was Freddy Clarence Williams.
Powell said they got a call from a worker at the agency as they were making funeral arrangements.
“She called us just in time,” Powell said. “We would have been burying someone else.”
Meanwhile, it turned out Powell’s actual brother was in jail on a July 1 assault arrest in lower Manhattan.
Powell went to Manhattan Supreme Court for her sibling’s next hearing a few weeks later — just to lay eyes on him.
“I saw my brother,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it. I was very relieved.”
She also called him on the phone at Rikers Island. They had quite a conversation about her decision to pull his plug.
“He was saying, ‘You were going to kill me?’ I explained to him, once you’re brain-dead, there is nothing to do.”
Interviewed at Rikers, Powell’s brother said he had forgiven his sister for pulling the plug on the man she thought was him.
“The doctors told her they couldn’t do anything,” he said. “I’m not mad at her.”
Still, he raged, “How could the hospital do something like that? Look what they put my family through.”
Powell’s lawyer, Alexander M. Dudelson, told The Post that he tried to get information about Freddy Clarence Williams, the stranger who died surrounded by Powell’s sobbing family.
“The representatives [at St. Barnabas] basically spit in my face,” he said. “This is beyond reckless conduct. I requested an investigation. Nothing more. An apology would have been nice.”
Asked about the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, hospital spokesman Steven Clark responded, “We don’t feel there is any merit to this claim.”
Powell also asked the ME’s Office for the dead man’s family information so she could send condolences, but it denied the request, citing privacy concerns.
Now, Powell says, she remains haunted by questions: The man she had grieved for at the hospital — who was he? Does he have family?
“I barely sleep thinking about this all the time,’’ she said.
“To actually stand over him and watch this man take his last breath — sometimes I can’t even talk about it because I get upset and start crying.
“On the one hand, I’m thankful that it wasn’t [my brother]. On the other hand, I killed somebody that was a dad or a brother.”
By Priscilla DeGregory and Georgett Roberts
New York Post
January 27. 2019
They were switched at death.
A horrific hospital mix-up left a Brooklyn woman grieving for nine days at the bedside of a brain-damaged man who doctors insisted was her brother — but who was actually a stranger with the same name, a new lawsuit charges.
But only after she gave consent to have her “brother” taken off life support at St. Barnabas Hospital did Shirell Powell learn the shocking truth: Her real sibling was in jail — and she had just sent a stranger to his death, her Bronx Supreme Court lawsuit says.
“I nearly fainted because I killed somebody that I didn’t even know. I gave consent,” said Powell, 48, of Crown Heights.
“I was like, ‘Where is my brother? What is going on?’ I was devastated.”
The saga began July 15, when Freddy Clarence Williams, 40, was admitted to the Bronx hospital, unconscious from an apparent drug overdose, according to Powell’s lawsuit.
Williams had his Social Security card on him, and it identified him by that name, the court papers say.
But the hospital phoned Powell anyway, telling her that her brother, Frederick Williams, who also is 40 but has no middle name, had been admitted and was near death.
She rushed to the man’s bedside.
“He had tubes in his mouth, a neck brace,’’ Powell told The Post. “He was a little swollen . . . [But] he resembled my brother so much.
“He couldn’t speak from the time they brought him in the hospital. They just assumed it was my brother.”
After two days of tests, St. Barnabas doctors told her that her “brother” was brain-dead, she said.
“That is my baby brother, so it was really hurtful,” she said. “I was worried, hurt, crying, screaming, calling everybody. It was a horrible feeling.”
With no cause to hope for his recovery, she contacted relatives down South, telling them to come and say their goodbyes.
Powell acknowledged that the first time her sister saw the ailing man in the hospital, she questioned whether he was their sibling.
“She walked up into the room and said, ‘That is not my brother,’ ” Powell recalled. “I said, ‘What do you mean?’ ”
“The guy was much bigger,’’ Powell explained.
But he appeared swollen, and “the eyebrows, the nose, the structure — it looked like [our] brother,” Powell said. “My sister, she walked up closer, and you could see the resemblance, and she was like, ‘Oh, OK.’ ”
So on July 29, with her uncle and sister at her side, Powell “authorized [the hospital] to withdraw life support from Frederick Williams,” the lawsuit says.
“It was very devastating,” she recalled. “I was crying.”
Frederick Williams’ “death” was even harder on his two daughters — Brooklyn, 17, and Star, 18, their aunt said.
The teens live in Virginia, and Brooklyn came to the city to say goodbye to her father before he was taken off life support, Powell said.
“She was hysterical,” Powell recalled. “She was holding his hand, kissing him, crying.”
Only after an autopsy did the city Medical Examiner’s Office reveal the truth: The dead man was Freddy Clarence Williams.
Powell said they got a call from a worker at the agency as they were making funeral arrangements.
“She called us just in time,” Powell said. “We would have been burying someone else.”
Meanwhile, it turned out Powell’s actual brother was in jail on a July 1 assault arrest in lower Manhattan.
Powell went to Manhattan Supreme Court for her sibling’s next hearing a few weeks later — just to lay eyes on him.
“I saw my brother,” she said. “I couldn’t believe it. I was very relieved.”
She also called him on the phone at Rikers Island. They had quite a conversation about her decision to pull his plug.
“He was saying, ‘You were going to kill me?’ I explained to him, once you’re brain-dead, there is nothing to do.”
Interviewed at Rikers, Powell’s brother said he had forgiven his sister for pulling the plug on the man she thought was him.
“The doctors told her they couldn’t do anything,” he said. “I’m not mad at her.”
Still, he raged, “How could the hospital do something like that? Look what they put my family through.”
Powell’s lawyer, Alexander M. Dudelson, told The Post that he tried to get information about Freddy Clarence Williams, the stranger who died surrounded by Powell’s sobbing family.
“The representatives [at St. Barnabas] basically spit in my face,” he said. “This is beyond reckless conduct. I requested an investigation. Nothing more. An apology would have been nice.”
Asked about the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, hospital spokesman Steven Clark responded, “We don’t feel there is any merit to this claim.”
Powell also asked the ME’s Office for the dead man’s family information so she could send condolences, but it denied the request, citing privacy concerns.
Now, Powell says, she remains haunted by questions: The man she had grieved for at the hospital — who was he? Does he have family?
“I barely sleep thinking about this all the time,’’ she said.
“To actually stand over him and watch this man take his last breath — sometimes I can’t even talk about it because I get upset and start crying.
“On the one hand, I’m thankful that it wasn’t [my brother]. On the other hand, I killed somebody that was a dad or a brother.”
Monday, January 28, 2019
WHAT NATIONAL EMERGENCY?
President Trump says he will declare a national emergency to build his wall if the Democrats refuse to fund it
By Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 27, 2019
The longest government shutdown in history is over. The Democrats claimed that President Trump held 800,000 government employees hostage for his border wall. Polls show that the president’s approval rating plunged to 34 percent. That’s probably why Trump agreed to reopen the government for three weeks.
Trump says that if Congress doesn’t come to an agreement by February 15 that includes funding for his wall, he will declare a national emergency to build it.
A national emergency? Illegal immigration as a national emergency is a real stretch. It would be a national emergency if Mexico fired rockets and floated incendiary balloons at the United States like Hamas does to Israel. A national emergency would occur if our electric grid system were to be compromised. It would be a national emergency if Russia attacked one of our NATO allies or if North Korea attacked South Korea. If all of our big banks were to fail, that would constitute a national emergency. It would be a national emergency if a catastrophic earthquake caused California to disappear in the Pacific Ocean. But illegal immigration … that hardly qualifies.
The only emergency here is the emergency Trump created for himself with his campaign promises to build a wall that Mexico would pay for. Whatever gave him the idea that Mexico, which benefits economically from the illegal immigration, would pay for his wall? By making the wall a cornerstone of his campaign, Trump has boxed himself into the mess he now finds himself in. in.
The Democrats are united in their resolute opposition to build that wall. They believe the majority of Americans do not favor building the wall. The Democratic opposition leaves Trump with only two choices. He can either shut the government down again on February 15, or he can declare a national emergency and take the $5.5 billion he wants out of the military’s construction funds.
And Trump faces another problem. If he declares a national emergency, he will probably be shot down by the courts.
Do we really need that wall? InSight Crime notes that since October, criminal organizations have smuggled more than two dozen Central American migrant groups - each numbering in the hundreds - to remote stretches of the US-Mexico border. This would indicate the need for a border wall. But while a wall would reduce the number of illegals crossing the border, large numbers of them would still be able to climb over it or burrow underneath it. A better solution would be for Trump to double or even triple the size of the Border Patrol. And the Democrats are more likely to go for that.
And what about the American people. Most are only too happy to have illegals, take care of their lawns, clean their houses, pick up the garbage, fix their roofs, fill the potholes in their streets, etc. Many businesses hire illegals, knowing that their green cards are forgeries. And you can bet cities, including Houston, employ illegals with obviously forged green cards. Even some of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration are using illegals to mow their yards and keep their homes clean.
In 2016, after celebrating Mass on the Mexican side of the U.S. border, reporters asked Pope Francis what he thought about Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall. He said: “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.” And in Panama on Wednesday, Francis said about the wall: “It is the fear that makes us crazy,” a subtle hint that Trump is a nutjob.
Trump, if he makes it that far, cannot win reelection with only his base - which is estimated at around 35 percent of the voters – supporting him. But Trump’s dilemma is also the Republican Party’s dilemma. That damn wall can not only bring Trump down, but it could also bring down the GOP in 2020.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Tom, a Houston attorney and Republican, always takes a reasoned approach when commenting on BJT. Here is his comment on this post:
Howie: I think most people have overlooked the importance of Trump’s background and experience. He’s always run a family owned and operated business where he got everything he wanted and no one could question him. Add that to his practice of stiffing contractors after they did the work so he could negotiate a lower price and what do you have?
A president who doesn’t understand that his word isn’t law and who doesn’t understand that in politics if he’s ever going to make deals, he has to live up to his word.
It’s not just declaring a national emergency to fund a wall even though the constitution says all government expenditures have to be based on congressional appropriations. He’s threatened to issue an executive order essentially amend the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizenship. And, he thinks he can do it.
His entire life experience is that he got what he wanted because he wanted it. He’s never had to answer to anyone except his father.
There is nothing wrong with the head of a family business running it like a dictator. I bet most family owned businesses are that way. But that experience doesn’t translate well into a political job like president of the United States.
He fired a secretary of state who had run a public company so big that the Trump Organization would have been a rounding error in its annual report. One of the reasons is that the secretary kept telling the president that he couldn’t do things simply because he wanted to.
And, the president has never had to look at the downstream consequences of decisions. Take his idea of using $5 billion in military construction funds to build his wall.
The military has a long history of making do. It’s only been the last few years that the World War II temporary buildings (which had a life span of five years) have disappeared from Army posts.
Part of that $5 billion might be for housing for troops and their families. Decent housing is necessary to attract and keep people in the military. Or it might be for a new high-tech logistical facility to support military operations. Or it might be a new runway at an air force base whose main runway if in terrible shape.
Military construction projects over a few hundred thousand dollars are specifically authorized by congress and subject to specific appropriations. That means that the military had to convince the civilians in the department of defense a project was necessary, then DOD had to convince congress that it was necessary and high enough on the military’s wish list to be funded. The projects to be built with that $5 billion have been in the pipeline for years. They’re probably needed badly.
During the Obama Administration, Sen. Mitch McConnell kept talking about “regular order.” The wall should be subject to regular order. Administration studies should be prepared to see if building a physical barrier is the best way to stop illegal immigration or whether the money might be better spent on something else. Then, the administration could make its case to the appropriate congressional committees which could in turn make policy judgments as to the way to proceed. That’s regular order.
One thought on immigration. Everyone should go to Youtube and watch Ann Coulter on the Bill Maher show last Friday. She made a couple of important points. Her basic premise is that the Koch brothers (and she used that phrase) and the chambers of commerce want illegal immigration for a cheap work force. And, she’s right.
It’s a whole lot cheaper to hire an illegal alien carpenter to build houses than it is to hire a journeyman American carpenter. That’s why the Trump Organization has hired illegal alien workers for some of its projects.
By Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 27, 2019
The longest government shutdown in history is over. The Democrats claimed that President Trump held 800,000 government employees hostage for his border wall. Polls show that the president’s approval rating plunged to 34 percent. That’s probably why Trump agreed to reopen the government for three weeks.
Trump says that if Congress doesn’t come to an agreement by February 15 that includes funding for his wall, he will declare a national emergency to build it.
A national emergency? Illegal immigration as a national emergency is a real stretch. It would be a national emergency if Mexico fired rockets and floated incendiary balloons at the United States like Hamas does to Israel. A national emergency would occur if our electric grid system were to be compromised. It would be a national emergency if Russia attacked one of our NATO allies or if North Korea attacked South Korea. If all of our big banks were to fail, that would constitute a national emergency. It would be a national emergency if a catastrophic earthquake caused California to disappear in the Pacific Ocean. But illegal immigration … that hardly qualifies.
The only emergency here is the emergency Trump created for himself with his campaign promises to build a wall that Mexico would pay for. Whatever gave him the idea that Mexico, which benefits economically from the illegal immigration, would pay for his wall? By making the wall a cornerstone of his campaign, Trump has boxed himself into the mess he now finds himself in. in.
The Democrats are united in their resolute opposition to build that wall. They believe the majority of Americans do not favor building the wall. The Democratic opposition leaves Trump with only two choices. He can either shut the government down again on February 15, or he can declare a national emergency and take the $5.5 billion he wants out of the military’s construction funds.
And Trump faces another problem. If he declares a national emergency, he will probably be shot down by the courts.
Do we really need that wall? InSight Crime notes that since October, criminal organizations have smuggled more than two dozen Central American migrant groups - each numbering in the hundreds - to remote stretches of the US-Mexico border. This would indicate the need for a border wall. But while a wall would reduce the number of illegals crossing the border, large numbers of them would still be able to climb over it or burrow underneath it. A better solution would be for Trump to double or even triple the size of the Border Patrol. And the Democrats are more likely to go for that.
And what about the American people. Most are only too happy to have illegals, take care of their lawns, clean their houses, pick up the garbage, fix their roofs, fill the potholes in their streets, etc. Many businesses hire illegals, knowing that their green cards are forgeries. And you can bet cities, including Houston, employ illegals with obviously forged green cards. Even some of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration are using illegals to mow their yards and keep their homes clean.
In 2016, after celebrating Mass on the Mexican side of the U.S. border, reporters asked Pope Francis what he thought about Trump’s campaign promise to build a border wall. He said: “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.” And in Panama on Wednesday, Francis said about the wall: “It is the fear that makes us crazy,” a subtle hint that Trump is a nutjob.
Trump, if he makes it that far, cannot win reelection with only his base - which is estimated at around 35 percent of the voters – supporting him. But Trump’s dilemma is also the Republican Party’s dilemma. That damn wall can not only bring Trump down, but it could also bring down the GOP in 2020.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Tom, a Houston attorney and Republican, always takes a reasoned approach when commenting on BJT. Here is his comment on this post:
Howie: I think most people have overlooked the importance of Trump’s background and experience. He’s always run a family owned and operated business where he got everything he wanted and no one could question him. Add that to his practice of stiffing contractors after they did the work so he could negotiate a lower price and what do you have?
A president who doesn’t understand that his word isn’t law and who doesn’t understand that in politics if he’s ever going to make deals, he has to live up to his word.
It’s not just declaring a national emergency to fund a wall even though the constitution says all government expenditures have to be based on congressional appropriations. He’s threatened to issue an executive order essentially amend the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizenship. And, he thinks he can do it.
His entire life experience is that he got what he wanted because he wanted it. He’s never had to answer to anyone except his father.
There is nothing wrong with the head of a family business running it like a dictator. I bet most family owned businesses are that way. But that experience doesn’t translate well into a political job like president of the United States.
He fired a secretary of state who had run a public company so big that the Trump Organization would have been a rounding error in its annual report. One of the reasons is that the secretary kept telling the president that he couldn’t do things simply because he wanted to.
And, the president has never had to look at the downstream consequences of decisions. Take his idea of using $5 billion in military construction funds to build his wall.
The military has a long history of making do. It’s only been the last few years that the World War II temporary buildings (which had a life span of five years) have disappeared from Army posts.
Part of that $5 billion might be for housing for troops and their families. Decent housing is necessary to attract and keep people in the military. Or it might be for a new high-tech logistical facility to support military operations. Or it might be a new runway at an air force base whose main runway if in terrible shape.
Military construction projects over a few hundred thousand dollars are specifically authorized by congress and subject to specific appropriations. That means that the military had to convince the civilians in the department of defense a project was necessary, then DOD had to convince congress that it was necessary and high enough on the military’s wish list to be funded. The projects to be built with that $5 billion have been in the pipeline for years. They’re probably needed badly.
During the Obama Administration, Sen. Mitch McConnell kept talking about “regular order.” The wall should be subject to regular order. Administration studies should be prepared to see if building a physical barrier is the best way to stop illegal immigration or whether the money might be better spent on something else. Then, the administration could make its case to the appropriate congressional committees which could in turn make policy judgments as to the way to proceed. That’s regular order.
One thought on immigration. Everyone should go to Youtube and watch Ann Coulter on the Bill Maher show last Friday. She made a couple of important points. Her basic premise is that the Koch brothers (and she used that phrase) and the chambers of commerce want illegal immigration for a cheap work force. And, she’s right.
It’s a whole lot cheaper to hire an illegal alien carpenter to build houses than it is to hire a journeyman American carpenter. That’s why the Trump Organization has hired illegal alien workers for some of its projects.
SOMETIMES IT IS JUST THE WAY THINGS SHAKE OUT
by Bob Walsh
Regular readers will remember a while back I wrote about Victor Mow, a local politician, and a tragic probable DUI incident he was involved in that resulted in a death. Some of the locals are crying foul. While I am usually very happy to at least tentatively accept accusations of favoritism I am unsure about this one.
Victor Mow is 77 years old and has ZERO criminal history. He has strong ties to the local community and has been on the Stockton City Council and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. He is currently on the Stockton Port Commission.
About eight weeks go he was driving home from a dinner at about 8 p.m. (after dark) on a main residential road (Country Club) in Stockton and hit and killed Muhammad Ashraf Butt, 82. He was using a walker, moving slow, and NOT in a crosswalk. Mow stopped and cooperated with the cops. He blew a 0.10 on the breathalyzer and turned in a blood sample later that night. That blood sample, taken about 3 1/2 hours after the fact, was 0.79. Presumptive DUI in CA is 0.08.
Mow was not charged until Thursday. He was charged with both vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and DUI causing injury.
Butts' family was unhappy with the time lag. The D.A. responded, saying that Mow was not a flight risk and that definitive blood tests (rather than preliminary results) often take weeks. In addition they point out that the charge does NOT include gross negligence. Mow was not speeding or otherwise driving recklessly. The charge is, though, a felony.
I am inclined to believe the D.A. on this one. Other than the fact that the family is pissed there is no reason to believe that Mow received any preferential treatment on this. Sometimes that is just the way things shake out.
Regular readers will remember a while back I wrote about Victor Mow, a local politician, and a tragic probable DUI incident he was involved in that resulted in a death. Some of the locals are crying foul. While I am usually very happy to at least tentatively accept accusations of favoritism I am unsure about this one.
Victor Mow is 77 years old and has ZERO criminal history. He has strong ties to the local community and has been on the Stockton City Council and the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. He is currently on the Stockton Port Commission.
About eight weeks go he was driving home from a dinner at about 8 p.m. (after dark) on a main residential road (Country Club) in Stockton and hit and killed Muhammad Ashraf Butt, 82. He was using a walker, moving slow, and NOT in a crosswalk. Mow stopped and cooperated with the cops. He blew a 0.10 on the breathalyzer and turned in a blood sample later that night. That blood sample, taken about 3 1/2 hours after the fact, was 0.79. Presumptive DUI in CA is 0.08.
Mow was not charged until Thursday. He was charged with both vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and DUI causing injury.
Butts' family was unhappy with the time lag. The D.A. responded, saying that Mow was not a flight risk and that definitive blood tests (rather than preliminary results) often take weeks. In addition they point out that the charge does NOT include gross negligence. Mow was not speeding or otherwise driving recklessly. The charge is, though, a felony.
I am inclined to believe the D.A. on this one. Other than the fact that the family is pissed there is no reason to believe that Mow received any preferential treatment on this. Sometimes that is just the way things shake out.
SERIAL CHILD MOLESTER FINALLY GETS HIS DUE
'You’ll never listen to Michael Jackson the same way again': Critics praise explosive documentary Leaving Neverland as a 'devastatingly convincing' portrayal of the King of Pop as a serial predator
By Megan Sheets
Daily Mail
January 27, 2019
Leaving Neverland, the explosive documentary detailing allegations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson, has been described by stunned critics as a 'devastatingly powerful' and convincing portrayal of a serial predator.
The four-hour film centered around testimony from two accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, left audiences sick to their stomach's after its Friday debut at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
A number of critics took to Twitter during and after the premiere to express their genuine shock at the disturbing revelations laid out in the film, which will be released by HBO this spring.
Summing up the general sentiment the following morning, Indiewire's David Ehrlich wrote: 'You’ll never listen to Michael Jackson the same way again. In fact, you may never listen to Michael Jackson again at all.'
The film debuted despite strong pushback from Jackson's estate, which has firmly denied all allegations against the late singer.
Robson, 36, and Safechuck, 40, have long claimed that to have been raped and molested by Jackson at his Neverland Ranch after meeting the singer when they were seven and ten, respectively.
Leaving Neverland galvanizes their stories with through extensive research and concrete evidence, according to critics.
In his review of the film, veteran critic Ehrlich writes: 'It may not be much of a secret that Michael Jackson acted inappropriately with a number of young boys, but there’s no way to prepare yourself for the sickening forensic details presented in Dan Reed’s four-hour exposé.
'It’s one thing to be vaguely aware of the various allegations that were made against the King of Pop; the asterisks that will always be next to the late mega-star’s name. It’s quite another to hear the horrifyingly lucid testimony that stretches across the entire duration of "Leaving Neverland" as two of Jackson’s most repeat victims bravely lay bare how a universal icon seduced them away from their realities, splintered their families beyond all recognition, and leveraged their love for him into a disturbing litany of sexual acts.'
Ehrlich boldly states that Leaving Neverland has erased all doubts surrounding Robson and Safechuck's allegations.
'Not only do the documentary’s two main subjects perfectly corroborate their separate accounts in all of the most tragic of ways, but they do so with a degree of vulnerability that denies any room for skepticism,' he writes before laying out the graphic details revealed in the film.
Variety's Owen Glieberman expresses similar awe at the power of the men's testimony, writing: 'The sexual activities are described with unnerving candor, and one’s inevitable response is to recoil in horror at Michael Jackson’s predatory sickness.
'He was a serial pedophile who came on as a protector of children.
'At the center of the movie, though, is a fact that will remain (for some) controversial: that both Robson and Safechuck testified, during Jackson’s first criminal trial for child sexual abuse, that he was innocent — that he’d never done a thing to them that was inappropriate.
'The movie explains, quite believably, how this happened.'
Daniel Fienberg with The Hollywood Reporter isn't so convinced of that.
He began his review with an admission that Leaving Neverland is 'a perilously complicated project to review', writing that the two-part documentary 'shows why sometimes it takes four hours, many years and some missteps to finally tell your truth'.
Fienberg praises director Dan Reed for giving Robson and Safechuck a forum to share their stories without hiding from the fact that they had both given sworn statements denying the abuse when Jackson was alive.
'Reed knows that Leaving Neverland isn't going to "win." Jackson is dead. His supporters remain fanatical. What Reed wants to do is give Robson and Safechuck a safe place to share their experience as they want to and if that required four hours of screen time, so be it,' Fienberg writes.
He concluded: 'It's all complicated and heartbreaking .... It's doubtful you'll feel exactly the same after watching four hours of Leaving Neverland whether you came in having already shredded your Thriller albums or prepared to picket a Sundance premiere to protect Jackson's memory.'
Screen Daily critic Tim Grierson similarly praised Reed's direction, specifically noting how the filmmaker provided context to Robson and Safechuck's alarming claims.
He writes: 'It would be easy for audiences to be judgmental as Safechuck and Robson explain what a big deal it was as aspiring young artists to be taken under Jackson’s wing — to be made to feel special and even loved.
'But among Leaving Neverland’s remarkable achievements is Reed’s empathetic skill at providing the proper context (usually through archival footage) so that we see the world from the perspective of those boys who were so trusting that they didn’t realise (sic) what was allegedly happening to them.'
Grierson goes on to call the film 'a fascinating study of human psychology' and the world's obsession with celebrity.
'Both of these men, as well as their mothers, plausibly reconstruct their thought process, which left them convinced that they could put their faith in Michael Jackson because he was a beloved pop star,' he writes.
'But as their tales grow darker, and the accusations more upsetting, what remains riveting is that, on some level, none of these individuals could fully believe that Jackson was capable of such terrible deeds — no matter the legal trouble concerning molestation charges that swirled around him in later years.'
Grierson also gives nods to composer Chad Hobson for the 'mournful but not hyperbolic musical backing to these shocking accusations' and editor Jules Cornell, who he says 'dexterously weaves between different talking heads so that Leaving Neverland boasts a calm, focused precision that gives weight to the men’s claims'.
He concluded: 'It’s hard to think of a film about abuse, denial, acceptance and recovery more affecting than this one.'
Gregory Ellwood of The Playlist makes several similar points about how compelling the film is, but notes in his review: 'Considering Jackson’s legal cases, the sexual abuse itself isn’t surprising even if the details are.
'The power of "Leaving Neverland," however, may be defined in its own legacy. It will be hard pressed to convince diehard fans to even consider this truth. That being said, these are the sort of heartbreaking accounts that not only could prompt other Jackson victims to come forward but, other victims of sexual abuse.'
Robson and Safechuck both received a standing ovation from the audience after the film before tearfully answering questions about the documentary.
Both men go into graphic and specific detail about what allegedly happened in Jackson's bedroom when they were just children, with both men claiming they were abused from approximately the age of seven until they were 14.
Robson is known to many as the man who reportedly came between Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake, and inspired Timberlake to write the break-up anthem Cry Me A River.
The Australian-born dancer, 36, previously filed a lawsuit against Jackson's estate in 2016 asking for $1.62 billion in damages.
In his complaint, Robson claimed that he was raped by the King of Pop for seven years, starting when he was seven and ending when he was 14.
That suit was eventually tossed, with the judge ruling that the singer's estate could not be held responsible for the allegations being made by Robson.
The court made no comments in the validity of the lawsuit, but Jackson's family was very vocal about the fact that Robson had testified on the singer's behalf at his 2005 trial.
Robson said in his court filing that the alleged abuse he suffered at the hands of Jackson included: 'kissing and french kissing; Michael Jackson rubbing [Robson's] penis and having [Robson] rub his; Michael Jackson masturbating while watching [Robson] from behind on all fours, naked, with his knees and palms extended like a dog on all fours; Michael Jackson spreading [Robon's] buttocks and sticking his tongue into and licking [Robson's] anus while he masturbated using lotion; the mutual fondling of genitals with their hands and mouth; mutual fellatio' and more.
He also alleged in his suit that Jackson lost interest in him when he turned 14, but prior to that had told the young boy: 'We can never tell anyone what we are doing. People are ignorant and they would never understand that we love each other and this is how we show it. If anyone were to ever find out our lives and career would be over.'
Fans of Jackson and his family were shocked when they learned about the filing given that Robson had been a crucial witness in Jackson's acquittal on similar charges back in 2005.
At that trial he testified under oath that Jackson had never once touched him inappropriately or abused him during their time together.
Robson responded to the criticism by stating: 'I did not believe that I was forced. I believed that I was a consenting participant in the sexual acts.'
According to critics, Robson's account, and the eerily similar one from Safechuck, is easily believable through the lens of Leaving Neverland.
Details about the film first emerged on Twitter as critics took to the social media platform during and after the screening.
Patrick Ryan of USA Today wrote: 'Among the many, many disturbing revelations of #LeavingNeverland: MJ gave one of his young male victims jewelry in exchange for sexual acts, and even staged a mock wedding complete with vows and diamond ring.
'Many common parallels in victims' stories: MJ grooming them to hate their parents and women in general, saying God brought them together, eventually 'casting them out' for younger boys. 'There was a lot of jealousy and hurt. You were no longer special.''
Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere tweeted: 'Leaving Neverland is a horror film - an intimate, obviously believable, sometimes sexually explicit story of two boys who became Michael Jackson's special 'friends' - i.e., lovers - while their oblivious parents went along. Jackson was a fiend - a smooth predator, a monster.'
'Feel sick to my stomach after watching Part 1 of #LeavingNeverland doc. Michael Jackson witnesses/sex abuse victims coming off very credible. It's so sexually explicit that counselors are in the lobby,' wrote Mara Reinstein of US Weekly.
'Shaking. Wow. We were all wrong when we cheered for Michael Jackson. He was a pedophile.'
Eugene Hernandez, the Deputy Director at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, also provided some details, writing: 'Halfway thru the doc, which in its 1st half graphically details Michael Jackson sexual abuse of Robson & Safechuck, I wondered why it needed 2 more hours... but in its 2nd half it reveals the journey of the victims to be able to talk about it.'
He weighed in after the film as well, writing: 'This is deeply moving exploration of abuse from perspective of its victims/families. Overall well-shaped & constructed. Raises so many difficult questions abt parental roles, celebrity, secrets, fame, enabling behavior & abuse. Topics that could fill a 4 hour follow-up.'
As critics posted their thoughts, an army of Michael Jackson fans latched on to attack and refute the claims made in the film, despite the fact it was played for the first time in Utah on Friday.
It did not impact those who saw the film however, who were almost unanimous in their belief that this film presented damning evidence to support the allegations made by Robson and Safechuck.
The men took time to address their critics and naysayers after the screening, while making it clear they were not paid in any way for their participation in the film.
'I don't feel like there's anything I need to say to them except that I understand that it's really hard for them to believe,' said Robson.
'We can only accept and understand something when we're ready, maybe we'll never be ready, maybe we will. That's their journey.'
Even at intermission many were left shocked by what they had seen halfway through the film.
'On a 10-min break halfway through Sundance's 4-hour Michael Jackson child sex abuse documentary. Whatever you thought you knew or were aware of, the content of this is more disturbing than you could imagine. And again, we're only halfway through, ' wrote Kevin Fallon of The Daily Beast.
Amy Kaufman of the Los Angeles Times said that before the movie screened, a warning was issued to guests by the festival director.
'John Cooper warns the #LeavingNeverland audience that the docuseries contains explicit descriptions of sexual abuse involving minors and there are Healthcare professionals from the state of Utah in the lobby should filmgoers need to talk' wrote Kaufman.
Matt Donnelly of Variety noted this too, tweeting: '#Sundance has provided health care professionals in the theater for audience members potentially upset by #LeavingNeverland's explicit descriptions of sexual abuse against underage boys. They are in the wings ready with counsel.'
Kaufman also revealed that the film resonated with one man in particular, writing: 'Incredibly emotional reaction from the audience after #LeavingNeverland. One audience member says he was molested as a child and that Robson and Safechuck 'are going to do a lot more f--king good in the world than Michael f--king Jackson.''
Multiple critics were far more brief in their assessment of he film, but all used the same phrase.
'Absolutely devastating,' noted Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast and Hollywood Reporter writer Tatiana Siegel.
The word disgust also came up in a number of tweets responding to the film.
'You should have seen the faces of the audience members during the ten-minute intermission of 'Leaving Neverland.' at the Egyptian. They had that look of hollowed-out nausea, submerged disgust…trying to hide their revulsion. The Jackson guilt denialists are finished. Jig's up,' wrote Wells.
'Leaving Neverland is also, of course, a very sad story. Damage & dysfunction is passed on. You're only as healthy or sick as the amount of ugly secrets you're carrying around. Oh, and the two complicit mothers of the victims are dealt tough cards by their trying-to-heal sons.'
Reacting to the documentary on Friday night, the late singer's estate branded it 'the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death.'
In a statement, it also accused Robson and Safechuck, of being 'two perjurers', in reference to sworn statements they gave while Jackson was alive stating he had not molested them.
Jackson's nephew Taj, whose father is Tito, voiced his disgust on Twitter.
'To all the sponsors of @Sundance. I suggest you do your own homework on Wade Robson and James Safechuck,' read one of the tweets.
'By supporting their lies, you are now part of this and we will remember that when everything implodes. You can't plead ignorance anymore.'
He also wrote: 'I'm sure there are some incredible films that will be premiering and shown at the festival. Films that people put their hard earned money and life into. But @Sundance is jeopardizing these films to accommodate, promote, and showcase a film that stars two proven scam artists.'
Jackson's official account also shared a tweet aimed at shaming HBO which read: 'In 1992, Michael gave HBO their highest rated special ever. Now, to repay him they give a voice to admitted liars. #StopLeavingNeverlandNOW.'
That was a reference to Jackson's first ever televised concert, which aired on the network in October of 1992 after being filmed in Bucharest.
The special smashed the pay cable provider's previews record, scoring a 21.4 rating and 34 share in the approximately 17.5 million homes with subscriptions.
By Megan Sheets
Daily Mail
January 27, 2019
Leaving Neverland, the explosive documentary detailing allegations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson, has been described by stunned critics as a 'devastatingly powerful' and convincing portrayal of a serial predator.
The four-hour film centered around testimony from two accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, left audiences sick to their stomach's after its Friday debut at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
A number of critics took to Twitter during and after the premiere to express their genuine shock at the disturbing revelations laid out in the film, which will be released by HBO this spring.
Summing up the general sentiment the following morning, Indiewire's David Ehrlich wrote: 'You’ll never listen to Michael Jackson the same way again. In fact, you may never listen to Michael Jackson again at all.'
The film debuted despite strong pushback from Jackson's estate, which has firmly denied all allegations against the late singer.
Robson, 36, and Safechuck, 40, have long claimed that to have been raped and molested by Jackson at his Neverland Ranch after meeting the singer when they were seven and ten, respectively.
Leaving Neverland galvanizes their stories with through extensive research and concrete evidence, according to critics.
In his review of the film, veteran critic Ehrlich writes: 'It may not be much of a secret that Michael Jackson acted inappropriately with a number of young boys, but there’s no way to prepare yourself for the sickening forensic details presented in Dan Reed’s four-hour exposé.
'It’s one thing to be vaguely aware of the various allegations that were made against the King of Pop; the asterisks that will always be next to the late mega-star’s name. It’s quite another to hear the horrifyingly lucid testimony that stretches across the entire duration of "Leaving Neverland" as two of Jackson’s most repeat victims bravely lay bare how a universal icon seduced them away from their realities, splintered their families beyond all recognition, and leveraged their love for him into a disturbing litany of sexual acts.'
Ehrlich boldly states that Leaving Neverland has erased all doubts surrounding Robson and Safechuck's allegations.
'Not only do the documentary’s two main subjects perfectly corroborate their separate accounts in all of the most tragic of ways, but they do so with a degree of vulnerability that denies any room for skepticism,' he writes before laying out the graphic details revealed in the film.
Variety's Owen Glieberman expresses similar awe at the power of the men's testimony, writing: 'The sexual activities are described with unnerving candor, and one’s inevitable response is to recoil in horror at Michael Jackson’s predatory sickness.
'He was a serial pedophile who came on as a protector of children.
'At the center of the movie, though, is a fact that will remain (for some) controversial: that both Robson and Safechuck testified, during Jackson’s first criminal trial for child sexual abuse, that he was innocent — that he’d never done a thing to them that was inappropriate.
'The movie explains, quite believably, how this happened.'
Daniel Fienberg with The Hollywood Reporter isn't so convinced of that.
He began his review with an admission that Leaving Neverland is 'a perilously complicated project to review', writing that the two-part documentary 'shows why sometimes it takes four hours, many years and some missteps to finally tell your truth'.
Fienberg praises director Dan Reed for giving Robson and Safechuck a forum to share their stories without hiding from the fact that they had both given sworn statements denying the abuse when Jackson was alive.
'Reed knows that Leaving Neverland isn't going to "win." Jackson is dead. His supporters remain fanatical. What Reed wants to do is give Robson and Safechuck a safe place to share their experience as they want to and if that required four hours of screen time, so be it,' Fienberg writes.
He concluded: 'It's all complicated and heartbreaking .... It's doubtful you'll feel exactly the same after watching four hours of Leaving Neverland whether you came in having already shredded your Thriller albums or prepared to picket a Sundance premiere to protect Jackson's memory.'
Screen Daily critic Tim Grierson similarly praised Reed's direction, specifically noting how the filmmaker provided context to Robson and Safechuck's alarming claims.
He writes: 'It would be easy for audiences to be judgmental as Safechuck and Robson explain what a big deal it was as aspiring young artists to be taken under Jackson’s wing — to be made to feel special and even loved.
'But among Leaving Neverland’s remarkable achievements is Reed’s empathetic skill at providing the proper context (usually through archival footage) so that we see the world from the perspective of those boys who were so trusting that they didn’t realise (sic) what was allegedly happening to them.'
Grierson goes on to call the film 'a fascinating study of human psychology' and the world's obsession with celebrity.
'Both of these men, as well as their mothers, plausibly reconstruct their thought process, which left them convinced that they could put their faith in Michael Jackson because he was a beloved pop star,' he writes.
'But as their tales grow darker, and the accusations more upsetting, what remains riveting is that, on some level, none of these individuals could fully believe that Jackson was capable of such terrible deeds — no matter the legal trouble concerning molestation charges that swirled around him in later years.'
Grierson also gives nods to composer Chad Hobson for the 'mournful but not hyperbolic musical backing to these shocking accusations' and editor Jules Cornell, who he says 'dexterously weaves between different talking heads so that Leaving Neverland boasts a calm, focused precision that gives weight to the men’s claims'.
He concluded: 'It’s hard to think of a film about abuse, denial, acceptance and recovery more affecting than this one.'
Gregory Ellwood of The Playlist makes several similar points about how compelling the film is, but notes in his review: 'Considering Jackson’s legal cases, the sexual abuse itself isn’t surprising even if the details are.
'The power of "Leaving Neverland," however, may be defined in its own legacy. It will be hard pressed to convince diehard fans to even consider this truth. That being said, these are the sort of heartbreaking accounts that not only could prompt other Jackson victims to come forward but, other victims of sexual abuse.'
Robson and Safechuck both received a standing ovation from the audience after the film before tearfully answering questions about the documentary.
Both men go into graphic and specific detail about what allegedly happened in Jackson's bedroom when they were just children, with both men claiming they were abused from approximately the age of seven until they were 14.
Robson is known to many as the man who reportedly came between Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake, and inspired Timberlake to write the break-up anthem Cry Me A River.
The Australian-born dancer, 36, previously filed a lawsuit against Jackson's estate in 2016 asking for $1.62 billion in damages.
In his complaint, Robson claimed that he was raped by the King of Pop for seven years, starting when he was seven and ending when he was 14.
That suit was eventually tossed, with the judge ruling that the singer's estate could not be held responsible for the allegations being made by Robson.
The court made no comments in the validity of the lawsuit, but Jackson's family was very vocal about the fact that Robson had testified on the singer's behalf at his 2005 trial.
Robson said in his court filing that the alleged abuse he suffered at the hands of Jackson included: 'kissing and french kissing; Michael Jackson rubbing [Robson's] penis and having [Robson] rub his; Michael Jackson masturbating while watching [Robson] from behind on all fours, naked, with his knees and palms extended like a dog on all fours; Michael Jackson spreading [Robon's] buttocks and sticking his tongue into and licking [Robson's] anus while he masturbated using lotion; the mutual fondling of genitals with their hands and mouth; mutual fellatio' and more.
He also alleged in his suit that Jackson lost interest in him when he turned 14, but prior to that had told the young boy: 'We can never tell anyone what we are doing. People are ignorant and they would never understand that we love each other and this is how we show it. If anyone were to ever find out our lives and career would be over.'
Fans of Jackson and his family were shocked when they learned about the filing given that Robson had been a crucial witness in Jackson's acquittal on similar charges back in 2005.
At that trial he testified under oath that Jackson had never once touched him inappropriately or abused him during their time together.
Robson responded to the criticism by stating: 'I did not believe that I was forced. I believed that I was a consenting participant in the sexual acts.'
According to critics, Robson's account, and the eerily similar one from Safechuck, is easily believable through the lens of Leaving Neverland.
Details about the film first emerged on Twitter as critics took to the social media platform during and after the screening.
Patrick Ryan of USA Today wrote: 'Among the many, many disturbing revelations of #LeavingNeverland: MJ gave one of his young male victims jewelry in exchange for sexual acts, and even staged a mock wedding complete with vows and diamond ring.
'Many common parallels in victims' stories: MJ grooming them to hate their parents and women in general, saying God brought them together, eventually 'casting them out' for younger boys. 'There was a lot of jealousy and hurt. You were no longer special.''
Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere tweeted: 'Leaving Neverland is a horror film - an intimate, obviously believable, sometimes sexually explicit story of two boys who became Michael Jackson's special 'friends' - i.e., lovers - while their oblivious parents went along. Jackson was a fiend - a smooth predator, a monster.'
'Feel sick to my stomach after watching Part 1 of #LeavingNeverland doc. Michael Jackson witnesses/sex abuse victims coming off very credible. It's so sexually explicit that counselors are in the lobby,' wrote Mara Reinstein of US Weekly.
'Shaking. Wow. We were all wrong when we cheered for Michael Jackson. He was a pedophile.'
Eugene Hernandez, the Deputy Director at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, also provided some details, writing: 'Halfway thru the doc, which in its 1st half graphically details Michael Jackson sexual abuse of Robson & Safechuck, I wondered why it needed 2 more hours... but in its 2nd half it reveals the journey of the victims to be able to talk about it.'
He weighed in after the film as well, writing: 'This is deeply moving exploration of abuse from perspective of its victims/families. Overall well-shaped & constructed. Raises so many difficult questions abt parental roles, celebrity, secrets, fame, enabling behavior & abuse. Topics that could fill a 4 hour follow-up.'
As critics posted their thoughts, an army of Michael Jackson fans latched on to attack and refute the claims made in the film, despite the fact it was played for the first time in Utah on Friday.
It did not impact those who saw the film however, who were almost unanimous in their belief that this film presented damning evidence to support the allegations made by Robson and Safechuck.
The men took time to address their critics and naysayers after the screening, while making it clear they were not paid in any way for their participation in the film.
'I don't feel like there's anything I need to say to them except that I understand that it's really hard for them to believe,' said Robson.
'We can only accept and understand something when we're ready, maybe we'll never be ready, maybe we will. That's their journey.'
Even at intermission many were left shocked by what they had seen halfway through the film.
'On a 10-min break halfway through Sundance's 4-hour Michael Jackson child sex abuse documentary. Whatever you thought you knew or were aware of, the content of this is more disturbing than you could imagine. And again, we're only halfway through, ' wrote Kevin Fallon of The Daily Beast.
Amy Kaufman of the Los Angeles Times said that before the movie screened, a warning was issued to guests by the festival director.
'John Cooper warns the #LeavingNeverland audience that the docuseries contains explicit descriptions of sexual abuse involving minors and there are Healthcare professionals from the state of Utah in the lobby should filmgoers need to talk' wrote Kaufman.
Matt Donnelly of Variety noted this too, tweeting: '#Sundance has provided health care professionals in the theater for audience members potentially upset by #LeavingNeverland's explicit descriptions of sexual abuse against underage boys. They are in the wings ready with counsel.'
Kaufman also revealed that the film resonated with one man in particular, writing: 'Incredibly emotional reaction from the audience after #LeavingNeverland. One audience member says he was molested as a child and that Robson and Safechuck 'are going to do a lot more f--king good in the world than Michael f--king Jackson.''
Multiple critics were far more brief in their assessment of he film, but all used the same phrase.
'Absolutely devastating,' noted Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast and Hollywood Reporter writer Tatiana Siegel.
The word disgust also came up in a number of tweets responding to the film.
'You should have seen the faces of the audience members during the ten-minute intermission of 'Leaving Neverland.' at the Egyptian. They had that look of hollowed-out nausea, submerged disgust…trying to hide their revulsion. The Jackson guilt denialists are finished. Jig's up,' wrote Wells.
'Leaving Neverland is also, of course, a very sad story. Damage & dysfunction is passed on. You're only as healthy or sick as the amount of ugly secrets you're carrying around. Oh, and the two complicit mothers of the victims are dealt tough cards by their trying-to-heal sons.'
Reacting to the documentary on Friday night, the late singer's estate branded it 'the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death.'
In a statement, it also accused Robson and Safechuck, of being 'two perjurers', in reference to sworn statements they gave while Jackson was alive stating he had not molested them.
Jackson's nephew Taj, whose father is Tito, voiced his disgust on Twitter.
'To all the sponsors of @Sundance. I suggest you do your own homework on Wade Robson and James Safechuck,' read one of the tweets.
'By supporting their lies, you are now part of this and we will remember that when everything implodes. You can't plead ignorance anymore.'
He also wrote: 'I'm sure there are some incredible films that will be premiering and shown at the festival. Films that people put their hard earned money and life into. But @Sundance is jeopardizing these films to accommodate, promote, and showcase a film that stars two proven scam artists.'
Jackson's official account also shared a tweet aimed at shaming HBO which read: 'In 1992, Michael gave HBO their highest rated special ever. Now, to repay him they give a voice to admitted liars. #StopLeavingNeverlandNOW.'
That was a reference to Jackson's first ever televised concert, which aired on the network in October of 1992 after being filmed in Bucharest.
The special smashed the pay cable provider's previews record, scoring a 21.4 rating and 34 share in the approximately 17.5 million homes with subscriptions.
EUROPEAN JEWS LIVING ON BORROWED TIME ….. AGAIN!
In Europe, anti-Semitism is back with a vengeance
By Eldad Beck
Israel Hayom
January 27, 2019
Hugo Bettauer's book "The City Without Jews" was published in Vienna in 1922. In it, Bettauer, a Jew who converted to evangelical Christianity, depicted a socially, economically and politically destitute Vienna that attributed all of its troubles to the Jews and expelled them from the city in cattle cars. Upon emptying the city of Jews, the Viennese discovered they had been left with nothing. The disappearance of the Jews led to the city's final collapse. The expellers demanded the Jews be brought back and upon their return, welcomed them with great appreciation.
"The City Without Jews" was an immediate bestseller and in 1924, it was adapted into a silent movie. But reality frowned upon Bettauer's happy ending. In 1925, at the age of 52, he was murdered by a Nazi activist. In 1933, the Nazis took control of the German government. Austria was later annexed by the Third Reich and 1942, 20 years after his book was printed, almost all of Vienna's Jews were transported to concentration camps and death camps from which they would never return. Europe's Jews were deported and murdered. A majority of the world's Jews once lived on the continent; only 3 million remain. And they are now reliving history.
Seventy-four years after the Holocaust came to an end, and almost 100 years to the publication of "The City Without Jews," Jewish lives are once again at risk. This is no longer just anti-Semitic incitement; the desecration of cemeteries, synagogues and gravestones or the graffiti spraypainted on Jewish institutions, stores, schools or private homes. In recent years, Jews have been murdered simply for being Jewish in France, Belgium and Denmark. And the number of the anti-Semitic attacks – both physical and verbal – is once again on the rise.
Political parties on both the Right and the Left that foster anti-Semitism are growing more and more popular. In liberal Great Britain, the Labour Party, which finds it difficult to admit that anti-Semites have taken over its leadership and party lines, could soon control the government. According to a poll on anti-Semitism in the European Union, 45% of European Jews consider anti-Semitism to be a major problem in their country of residence. Sixty-two percent believe anti-Semitism has significantly increased in their country of residence, and 38% are contemplating immigrating because of anti-Semitism. In Britain, the percentage of Jews who say they would consider emigration should Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn take power is even higher. Many Jews have already left France for Israel and other places, while others sit and wait, their suitcases already packed. It seems that Europe could soon become "the continent without Jews."
Never again?
Europe, which for too long refused to take responsibility for the Holocaust, still today finds it difficult to admit it suffers from chronic anti-Semitism. And when a disease isn't treated, it tends to break out all over again. If in the past it was the radical neo-Nazi Right that presented the greatest threat to Jews, today that threat is also from the "new Europeans," Arab and Muslim immigrants who are allies of the Left. And if in the past, blatant anti-Semitism was voiced on the fringes of European society, today it has become mainstream. If Europeans were once ashamed to make their anti-Semitic views known, now they espouse them with pride. Once a stated vow, "never again" has become something of a question. Despite their situation, Jews in Europe may still feel comfortable, relatively speaking. But when anti-Semitism – and anti-Zionism disguised as anti-Israel sentiment – becomes a legitimate part of the discourse, it is clear to Europe's Jews, including those determined to fight for their right to remain in the "Old World," that they are living on borrowed time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is why I am such a strong supporter of Israel. The Jewish state is the last place on earth where Jews can live that are not wanted elsewhere. And the fucking Palestinians and Iranians want to obliterate it.
By Eldad Beck
Israel Hayom
January 27, 2019
Hugo Bettauer's book "The City Without Jews" was published in Vienna in 1922. In it, Bettauer, a Jew who converted to evangelical Christianity, depicted a socially, economically and politically destitute Vienna that attributed all of its troubles to the Jews and expelled them from the city in cattle cars. Upon emptying the city of Jews, the Viennese discovered they had been left with nothing. The disappearance of the Jews led to the city's final collapse. The expellers demanded the Jews be brought back and upon their return, welcomed them with great appreciation.
"The City Without Jews" was an immediate bestseller and in 1924, it was adapted into a silent movie. But reality frowned upon Bettauer's happy ending. In 1925, at the age of 52, he was murdered by a Nazi activist. In 1933, the Nazis took control of the German government. Austria was later annexed by the Third Reich and 1942, 20 years after his book was printed, almost all of Vienna's Jews were transported to concentration camps and death camps from which they would never return. Europe's Jews were deported and murdered. A majority of the world's Jews once lived on the continent; only 3 million remain. And they are now reliving history.
Seventy-four years after the Holocaust came to an end, and almost 100 years to the publication of "The City Without Jews," Jewish lives are once again at risk. This is no longer just anti-Semitic incitement; the desecration of cemeteries, synagogues and gravestones or the graffiti spraypainted on Jewish institutions, stores, schools or private homes. In recent years, Jews have been murdered simply for being Jewish in France, Belgium and Denmark. And the number of the anti-Semitic attacks – both physical and verbal – is once again on the rise.
Political parties on both the Right and the Left that foster anti-Semitism are growing more and more popular. In liberal Great Britain, the Labour Party, which finds it difficult to admit that anti-Semites have taken over its leadership and party lines, could soon control the government. According to a poll on anti-Semitism in the European Union, 45% of European Jews consider anti-Semitism to be a major problem in their country of residence. Sixty-two percent believe anti-Semitism has significantly increased in their country of residence, and 38% are contemplating immigrating because of anti-Semitism. In Britain, the percentage of Jews who say they would consider emigration should Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn take power is even higher. Many Jews have already left France for Israel and other places, while others sit and wait, their suitcases already packed. It seems that Europe could soon become "the continent without Jews."
Never again?
Europe, which for too long refused to take responsibility for the Holocaust, still today finds it difficult to admit it suffers from chronic anti-Semitism. And when a disease isn't treated, it tends to break out all over again. If in the past it was the radical neo-Nazi Right that presented the greatest threat to Jews, today that threat is also from the "new Europeans," Arab and Muslim immigrants who are allies of the Left. And if in the past, blatant anti-Semitism was voiced on the fringes of European society, today it has become mainstream. If Europeans were once ashamed to make their anti-Semitic views known, now they espouse them with pride. Once a stated vow, "never again" has become something of a question. Despite their situation, Jews in Europe may still feel comfortable, relatively speaking. But when anti-Semitism – and anti-Zionism disguised as anti-Israel sentiment – becomes a legitimate part of the discourse, it is clear to Europe's Jews, including those determined to fight for their right to remain in the "Old World," that they are living on borrowed time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is why I am such a strong supporter of Israel. The Jewish state is the last place on earth where Jews can live that are not wanted elsewhere. And the fucking Palestinians and Iranians want to obliterate it.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
F I F O
by Bob Walsh
FIFO is an inventory control system. It stands for "first in, first out." As opposed to LIFO, last in, first out.
In this case the reference is to Richard Ojeda, senator from West Virginia. He was the first dog into the fight, he jumped into the Democrap presidential race on November 19 of 2018. Now, about 9 weeks later, he is jumping out.
Can't get any traction, can't get any money. Life is hard, especially if you are a non-entity in a game where recognition is 85% of the battle.
FIFO is an inventory control system. It stands for "first in, first out." As opposed to LIFO, last in, first out.
In this case the reference is to Richard Ojeda, senator from West Virginia. He was the first dog into the fight, he jumped into the Democrap presidential race on November 19 of 2018. Now, about 9 weeks later, he is jumping out.
Can't get any traction, can't get any money. Life is hard, especially if you are a non-entity in a game where recognition is 85% of the battle.
FOLD OR STRATEGIC REPOSITIONING ?
We Will Know In Three Weeks
by Bob Walsh
So, which did Trump do? Did he overplay his hand, realize he overplayed his hand and back away? Or did he dance sideways, allow the government to reopen with the reasonable (?) expectation that the Democraps would bargain in good faith to move both sides to what they really want? Damned if I know.
I do know that Nancy Pelosi is DEAD SET against giving Trump ANY KIND of a win. It's in her DNA. If Trump wants a win on this he is going to have to be ready to put it all on the line, to risk dying on that hill because if he ins't, she will know it and will stall and stall and stall.
It is an unfortunate face of life that the Democraps are better at lying than the Republicans are at telling the truth. That is a big issue. I am not sure that Trump has sold it yet. One thing for sure, in about three weeks we will find out.
by Bob Walsh
So, which did Trump do? Did he overplay his hand, realize he overplayed his hand and back away? Or did he dance sideways, allow the government to reopen with the reasonable (?) expectation that the Democraps would bargain in good faith to move both sides to what they really want? Damned if I know.
I do know that Nancy Pelosi is DEAD SET against giving Trump ANY KIND of a win. It's in her DNA. If Trump wants a win on this he is going to have to be ready to put it all on the line, to risk dying on that hill because if he ins't, she will know it and will stall and stall and stall.
It is an unfortunate face of life that the Democraps are better at lying than the Republicans are at telling the truth. That is a big issue. I am not sure that Trump has sold it yet. One thing for sure, in about three weeks we will find out.
ANN COULTER AGAIN SUFFERING FROM DIARRHEA OF THE MOUTH
'Good news for George HW Bush': Ann Coulter says Trump is now 'the biggest wimp ever to serve as President' after he caves on wall funding demand and reopens government for three weeks
Daily Mail
January 26, 2019
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, an immigration hawk and early Trump supporter, reacted with swift fury to Trump's announcement on Friday that he would reopen the government for three weeks without any commitment from Congress to fund a southern border wall.
'Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States,' Coulter wrote on Twitter.
Bush, who died in November aged 94, was widely ridiculed in office for going back on his 'read my lips' vow not to raise taxes.
Many have speculated that Coulter's December column calling Trump 'gutless,' which appeared to prompt him to unfollow her on Twitter, helped spur the President into undertaking the shutdown standoff in the first place.
'Yeah, crazy that I expect the President to keep the promise that he made every day for 18 months,' Coulter scoffed during a Friday appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.
Daily Mail
January 26, 2019
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, an immigration hawk and early Trump supporter, reacted with swift fury to Trump's announcement on Friday that he would reopen the government for three weeks without any commitment from Congress to fund a southern border wall.
'Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States,' Coulter wrote on Twitter.
Bush, who died in November aged 94, was widely ridiculed in office for going back on his 'read my lips' vow not to raise taxes.
Many have speculated that Coulter's December column calling Trump 'gutless,' which appeared to prompt him to unfollow her on Twitter, helped spur the President into undertaking the shutdown standoff in the first place.
'Yeah, crazy that I expect the President to keep the promise that he made every day for 18 months,' Coulter scoffed during a Friday appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.
DID THE SECRET SERVICE PROTECT OUR PRESIDENTS FROM MONKEYS WHEN THEY VISITED THE TAJ MAHAL?
Guards arm themselves with catapults after spate of attacks on tourists by MONKEYS at the Taj Mahal
By Miranda Aldersley
Daily Mail
January 25, 2019
Security guards at the Taj Mahal have armed themselves with catapults after a spate of incidents in which tourists were bitten by monkeys.
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel will carry 'gulels' - a type of slingshot - while patrolling the East and West gates of India's most famous landmark.
The measure is intended to protect tourists, who are often attacked by the macaque monkeys that roam freely there.
Rhesus macaques are also renowned for stealing food and other items from visitors, as well as causing damage to the historic mausoleum, built in the 17th century by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan for his favourite wife.
CISF Commandant Brij Bhushan told the Times of India that guards may not even need to use the catapults, as the mere sight of them can frighten the simians away.
The monkey menace at the Taj Mahal in the northern city of Agra has worsened in recent years, as their numbers have multiplied.
Bhushan said tourists dumping food in dustbins rather than leaving it lockers is a contributing factor to the recent increase in attacks.
Security guards do not allow visitors to take food inside the monument and many people simply throw it away, causing the monkeys to gather there.
In May last year, two French tourists were bitten while walking to the monument's main mausoleum and in July an Australian woman was also attacked by a monkey on the premises.
In September, after a monkey pounced on another French female tourist, a local district official told Xinhua that such incidents occur every other day.
Questions were raised about the abilities of the authorities and the heritage site's management to find a lasting solution which would secure the area and keep both monkeys and tourists safe.
Agra Tourist Welfare Chamber's president Prahlad Agarwal told Xinhua in September that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the government agency responsible for the upkeep of the monument, had failed to tackle the problem.
'Tourists, including the foreigners, are attacked by apes every other day,' he said.
'This is a matter of grave concern and a concrete action plan to check the menace is the need of the hour.'
Other officials worried that the reputation of the Taj Mahal could suffer and hit tourism revenues.
But under India's Wildlife Act the monkeys cannot be rounded up without strict safeguards to make sure they are not harmed.
A senior official at the Archaeological Survey of India, a government agency, told the Times of India that plans to move the monkeys to other areas fell through because no district wants to take them.
Secretary of Tourism Guild Association Rajiv Saxena said that the authorities 'only want the tourists' safety while they are enjoying the beauty of Taj Mahal.'
The white marble 'monument of love' attracts around eight million visitors every year and is considered one of the seven wonders of the modern world.
India has an estimated monkey population of 50 million and roughly 15,000 are believed to roam Agra, all of them macaques, a common species with reddish-pink faces.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Speaking of monkeys, when I was there, the Zoo in Leticia, Colombia let its collection of spider monkeys run loose. Those monkeys jumped onto visitors, not to attack them, but to steal their cigarettes, watches, and anything they could snatch out of shirt pockets and ladies’ purses. I couldn’t tell where the critters deposited their loot. It really amused me, but there were a number of angry visitors that left the zoo.
By Miranda Aldersley
Daily Mail
January 25, 2019
Security guards at the Taj Mahal have armed themselves with catapults after a spate of incidents in which tourists were bitten by monkeys.
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel will carry 'gulels' - a type of slingshot - while patrolling the East and West gates of India's most famous landmark.
The measure is intended to protect tourists, who are often attacked by the macaque monkeys that roam freely there.
Rhesus macaques are also renowned for stealing food and other items from visitors, as well as causing damage to the historic mausoleum, built in the 17th century by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan for his favourite wife.
CISF Commandant Brij Bhushan told the Times of India that guards may not even need to use the catapults, as the mere sight of them can frighten the simians away.
The monkey menace at the Taj Mahal in the northern city of Agra has worsened in recent years, as their numbers have multiplied.
Bhushan said tourists dumping food in dustbins rather than leaving it lockers is a contributing factor to the recent increase in attacks.
Security guards do not allow visitors to take food inside the monument and many people simply throw it away, causing the monkeys to gather there.
In May last year, two French tourists were bitten while walking to the monument's main mausoleum and in July an Australian woman was also attacked by a monkey on the premises.
In September, after a monkey pounced on another French female tourist, a local district official told Xinhua that such incidents occur every other day.
Questions were raised about the abilities of the authorities and the heritage site's management to find a lasting solution which would secure the area and keep both monkeys and tourists safe.
Agra Tourist Welfare Chamber's president Prahlad Agarwal told Xinhua in September that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the government agency responsible for the upkeep of the monument, had failed to tackle the problem.
'Tourists, including the foreigners, are attacked by apes every other day,' he said.
'This is a matter of grave concern and a concrete action plan to check the menace is the need of the hour.'
Other officials worried that the reputation of the Taj Mahal could suffer and hit tourism revenues.
But under India's Wildlife Act the monkeys cannot be rounded up without strict safeguards to make sure they are not harmed.
A senior official at the Archaeological Survey of India, a government agency, told the Times of India that plans to move the monkeys to other areas fell through because no district wants to take them.
Secretary of Tourism Guild Association Rajiv Saxena said that the authorities 'only want the tourists' safety while they are enjoying the beauty of Taj Mahal.'
The white marble 'monument of love' attracts around eight million visitors every year and is considered one of the seven wonders of the modern world.
India has an estimated monkey population of 50 million and roughly 15,000 are believed to roam Agra, all of them macaques, a common species with reddish-pink faces.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Speaking of monkeys, when I was there, the Zoo in Leticia, Colombia let its collection of spider monkeys run loose. Those monkeys jumped onto visitors, not to attack them, but to steal their cigarettes, watches, and anything they could snatch out of shirt pockets and ladies’ purses. I couldn’t tell where the critters deposited their loot. It really amused me, but there were a number of angry visitors that left the zoo.
CARTELS REOPEN OLD MIGRANT ROUTES THROUGH ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO
Since October, criminal organizations have smuggled more than two dozen Central American migrant groups - each numbering in the hundreds - to remote stretches of the US-Mexico border
By Seth Robbins
InSight Crime
January 23, 2019
Border Patrol agents have found several large Central American migrant groups crossing the US-Mexico border along remote stretches of desert — a smuggling tactic that requires the buy-in of larger criminal groups.
Since October, criminal organizations have smuggled more than two dozen migrant groups to the desolate region near the Antelope Wells port of entry in southwest New Mexico, US Border Patrol officials said in a news release. The groups — each numbering in the hundreds — have all surrendered to authorities upon entering.
Last Wednesday, a group of 274 migrants — composed mostly of Central American families and children seeking asylum — crossed just after midnight. Border Patrol officials later said that the crossing was used as a distraction while two suspected drug mules moved 265 pounds of marijuana across the border. A group of 115 migrants surrendered the next night in the same region.
“Unscrupulous organized smugglers are exploiting the area,” the Border Patrol said in its statement.
Smugglers were also accused of aiding a group of 376 migrants who tunneled under a border fence near the southwest tip of Arizona on Jan. 14. The group — with the help of the smugglers — dug seven short, shallow holes under the steel barrier ten miles east of the border crossing in San Luis, and then turned themselves in to authorities, ABC News reported.
A Guatemalan man told the news outlet that he had paid a coyote $5,000 to get him and his 12-year-old daughter to the border with that group.
InSight Crime Analysis
The sudden movement of large groups of Central American migrants to remote stretches of the US-Mexico border is a sign that smugglers are profiting from this tactic, which requires coordination with Mexico’s larger criminal organizations.
Smuggling these migrants is a large revenue stream for organized crime groups. Payments first must be made to several so-called “coyotes,” or “polleros,” traffickers who shepherd migrants to the US. These traffickers make protection payments to Mexico’s drug cartels, which control migrant and drug smuggling routes in border regions. The cartels profit from these payoffs and through other criminal enterprises, such as the kidnapping and extortion of migrants.
The last time large groups illegally crossed the border in New Mexico and Arizona was in the early to mid-2000s when criminal groups used them as a diversion to smuggle loads of marijuana, said Jeremy Slack, a professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, who has written about the relationship of coyotes and drug trafficking organizations.
Thousands of migrants fleeing crime and poverty have recently reached the US border in caravans, but they have largely been stopped at ports of entry in places like Tijuana, California.
The bottleneck of asylum seekers from President Donald Trump’s crackdown on the border is responsible for the smugglers’ return to moving large groups, Slack told InSight Crime. And their prices are likely increasing.
“This is going to be a bonanza for them,” he said.
Such large operations, however, cannot be carried out without the aid and approval of criminal organizations.
“I guarantee that whoever the smugglers are with these big groups,” he said, “they are paying off the cartels.”
By Seth Robbins
InSight Crime
January 23, 2019
Border Patrol agents have found several large Central American migrant groups crossing the US-Mexico border along remote stretches of desert — a smuggling tactic that requires the buy-in of larger criminal groups.
Since October, criminal organizations have smuggled more than two dozen migrant groups to the desolate region near the Antelope Wells port of entry in southwest New Mexico, US Border Patrol officials said in a news release. The groups — each numbering in the hundreds — have all surrendered to authorities upon entering.
Last Wednesday, a group of 274 migrants — composed mostly of Central American families and children seeking asylum — crossed just after midnight. Border Patrol officials later said that the crossing was used as a distraction while two suspected drug mules moved 265 pounds of marijuana across the border. A group of 115 migrants surrendered the next night in the same region.
“Unscrupulous organized smugglers are exploiting the area,” the Border Patrol said in its statement.
Smugglers were also accused of aiding a group of 376 migrants who tunneled under a border fence near the southwest tip of Arizona on Jan. 14. The group — with the help of the smugglers — dug seven short, shallow holes under the steel barrier ten miles east of the border crossing in San Luis, and then turned themselves in to authorities, ABC News reported.
A Guatemalan man told the news outlet that he had paid a coyote $5,000 to get him and his 12-year-old daughter to the border with that group.
InSight Crime Analysis
The sudden movement of large groups of Central American migrants to remote stretches of the US-Mexico border is a sign that smugglers are profiting from this tactic, which requires coordination with Mexico’s larger criminal organizations.
Smuggling these migrants is a large revenue stream for organized crime groups. Payments first must be made to several so-called “coyotes,” or “polleros,” traffickers who shepherd migrants to the US. These traffickers make protection payments to Mexico’s drug cartels, which control migrant and drug smuggling routes in border regions. The cartels profit from these payoffs and through other criminal enterprises, such as the kidnapping and extortion of migrants.
The last time large groups illegally crossed the border in New Mexico and Arizona was in the early to mid-2000s when criminal groups used them as a diversion to smuggle loads of marijuana, said Jeremy Slack, a professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, who has written about the relationship of coyotes and drug trafficking organizations.
Thousands of migrants fleeing crime and poverty have recently reached the US border in caravans, but they have largely been stopped at ports of entry in places like Tijuana, California.
The bottleneck of asylum seekers from President Donald Trump’s crackdown on the border is responsible for the smugglers’ return to moving large groups, Slack told InSight Crime. And their prices are likely increasing.
“This is going to be a bonanza for them,” he said.
Such large operations, however, cannot be carried out without the aid and approval of criminal organizations.
“I guarantee that whoever the smugglers are with these big groups,” he said, “they are paying off the cartels.”
RUSSIA TELLS ISRAEL TO STOP BOMBING SYRIA
Foreign ministry warns about the possible consequences of provoking a new round of chaos in the Middle East
Israel Today
January 24, 2019
Moscow on Wednesday cautioned Israel to halt its "arbitrary" airstrikes against targets in Syria, lest the Jewish state spark wider conflict in the region.
"The practice of arbitrarily launching strikes on the territory of a sovereign state, in this case Syria, should be simply excluded," said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. "We urge everyone to think about the possible consequences of provoking a new round of chaos in the Middle East."
Zakharova was addressing a press briefing following a rare daytime Israeli aerial assault on Iranian military targets near Damascus. Iranian forces responded by firing a surface-to-surface missile at Israel, which was promptly intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile shield.
The Russian statement failed to address the Iranian military build-up in Syria, which Tehran has acknowledged serves to further threaten the Jewish state, which Iran's leaders have in turn openly admitted they wish to annihilate.
Israel Today
January 24, 2019
Moscow on Wednesday cautioned Israel to halt its "arbitrary" airstrikes against targets in Syria, lest the Jewish state spark wider conflict in the region.
"The practice of arbitrarily launching strikes on the territory of a sovereign state, in this case Syria, should be simply excluded," said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. "We urge everyone to think about the possible consequences of provoking a new round of chaos in the Middle East."
Zakharova was addressing a press briefing following a rare daytime Israeli aerial assault on Iranian military targets near Damascus. Iranian forces responded by firing a surface-to-surface missile at Israel, which was promptly intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile shield.
The Russian statement failed to address the Iranian military build-up in Syria, which Tehran has acknowledged serves to further threaten the Jewish state, which Iran's leaders have in turn openly admitted they wish to annihilate.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
FBI GONE BONKERS
SWAT-like FBI team with assault rifles at the ready arrests Roger Stone in pre-dawn raid
BarkGrowlBite
January 26, 2019
At one time I had the utmost respect for the FBI. That was in the J. Edgar Hoover era. I even had a couple of FBI buddies who sponsored me for membership in the Elks Lodge. That respect began to wane with every passing day after Hoover’s death. On Friday, I lost what little respect I had left for the FBI.
Roger Stone was a former longtime confidant of President Trump. Special Counsel Robert Mueller obtained a multi-count federal indictment against Stone related to the Wikileaks matter. One would expect a couple of FBI agents or U.S. Marshals, or even a couple of sheriff’s deputies to serve the arrest warrant at Stone’s Florida home some time during the daylight or early evening hours.. But that is not what happened.
In the predawn hours on Friday, a SWAT-like FBI team wearing full-body armor with assault rifles at the ready, raided the Florida home of the 66-year-old Stone. An agent pounded on the door and shouted, “FBI! Open the door! We have a warrant!” Stone opened the door, and with a bunch of flashlights beaming up his face, admitted who he was. He was led away in custody, the arrest having been made without a whimper.
The FBI appears to have gone bonkers. Stone was not an armed fugitive. He was not one of drug lord El Chapo’s henchmen. He was not a dangerous Mafia mobster. He was simply a political operative.
If Stone goes to prison, he will not serve time at the supermax prison in Colorado where Islamic terrorists, Mexican drug cartel members, ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski and other dangerous criminals are doing time. Stone will serve his time at a minimum-security prison along with millionaire white collar lawbreakers.
I cannot fathom what possessed the FBI to conduct such an atrocious raid.
BarkGrowlBite
January 26, 2019
At one time I had the utmost respect for the FBI. That was in the J. Edgar Hoover era. I even had a couple of FBI buddies who sponsored me for membership in the Elks Lodge. That respect began to wane with every passing day after Hoover’s death. On Friday, I lost what little respect I had left for the FBI.
Roger Stone was a former longtime confidant of President Trump. Special Counsel Robert Mueller obtained a multi-count federal indictment against Stone related to the Wikileaks matter. One would expect a couple of FBI agents or U.S. Marshals, or even a couple of sheriff’s deputies to serve the arrest warrant at Stone’s Florida home some time during the daylight or early evening hours.. But that is not what happened.
In the predawn hours on Friday, a SWAT-like FBI team wearing full-body armor with assault rifles at the ready, raided the Florida home of the 66-year-old Stone. An agent pounded on the door and shouted, “FBI! Open the door! We have a warrant!” Stone opened the door, and with a bunch of flashlights beaming up his face, admitted who he was. He was led away in custody, the arrest having been made without a whimper.
The FBI appears to have gone bonkers. Stone was not an armed fugitive. He was not one of drug lord El Chapo’s henchmen. He was not a dangerous Mafia mobster. He was simply a political operative.
If Stone goes to prison, he will not serve time at the supermax prison in Colorado where Islamic terrorists, Mexican drug cartel members, ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski and other dangerous criminals are doing time. Stone will serve his time at a minimum-security prison along with millionaire white collar lawbreakers.
I cannot fathom what possessed the FBI to conduct such an atrocious raid.
WILL HER CONSTITUENTS EVER DUMP SHEILA JACKSON LEE?
Sheila Jackson Lee has been an embarrassment to both the city of Houston and the state of Texas
By Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 25, 2019
Like the two poverty pimps, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee never fails to pop up for a photo-op. The most recent example was her appearance next to Sherriff Ed Gonzales during his briefing on the murder of 7-year-old Jasmine Barnes. Jackson Lee’s remarks were longer than those of the sheriff.
The latest news about Jackson Lee is not to her liking and you do not see her talking about it before a camera. A former staffer has accused the congresswoman of firing her for reporting that she had been raped several years before by a supervisor of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, of which Jackson Lee was the chairwoman.
Jackson Lee denies the former staffer’s allegations, but she resigned Wednesday as chairwoman of the caucus. The New York Times reports that she has also decided to temporarily step aside from her position on the House Judiciary subcommittee.
The allegation that she fired a staffer for reporting a rape flies in the face of a congresswoman who has declared herself to be a champion of women’s rights.
But one would have to ask why would the staffer lie about Jackson Lee firing her? Considering the large turnover of her aides and the stories they’ve told, the rape victim is most likely telling the truth.
Over the years there have been many complaints by Jackson Lee’s aides about her erratic behavior which caused them to quit or be fired. You can check out some of her erratic behavior by googling up “Congressional Bosses From Hell: Sheila Jackson Lee,” published by The Daily Caller on March 2, 2011. In 2014 and again in 2017, The Washingtonian gave Jackson Lee the dubious award of meanest Congress member among Democrats.
Jackson Lee has been an embarrassment to both the city of Houston and the state of Texas.
When Congressman Al Green, another embarrassment to Houston, introduced his Articles of Impeachment against President Trump last December, there were only three Texas House members who supported him, and Jackson Lee was one of them.
Will her constituents ever dump Jackson Lee? In Houston there are only three things for certain – death, taxation and the reelection of Sheila Jackson Lee.
By Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 25, 2019
Like the two poverty pimps, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee never fails to pop up for a photo-op. The most recent example was her appearance next to Sherriff Ed Gonzales during his briefing on the murder of 7-year-old Jasmine Barnes. Jackson Lee’s remarks were longer than those of the sheriff.
The latest news about Jackson Lee is not to her liking and you do not see her talking about it before a camera. A former staffer has accused the congresswoman of firing her for reporting that she had been raped several years before by a supervisor of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, of which Jackson Lee was the chairwoman.
Jackson Lee denies the former staffer’s allegations, but she resigned Wednesday as chairwoman of the caucus. The New York Times reports that she has also decided to temporarily step aside from her position on the House Judiciary subcommittee.
The allegation that she fired a staffer for reporting a rape flies in the face of a congresswoman who has declared herself to be a champion of women’s rights.
But one would have to ask why would the staffer lie about Jackson Lee firing her? Considering the large turnover of her aides and the stories they’ve told, the rape victim is most likely telling the truth.
Over the years there have been many complaints by Jackson Lee’s aides about her erratic behavior which caused them to quit or be fired. You can check out some of her erratic behavior by googling up “Congressional Bosses From Hell: Sheila Jackson Lee,” published by The Daily Caller on March 2, 2011. In 2014 and again in 2017, The Washingtonian gave Jackson Lee the dubious award of meanest Congress member among Democrats.
Jackson Lee has been an embarrassment to both the city of Houston and the state of Texas.
When Congressman Al Green, another embarrassment to Houston, introduced his Articles of Impeachment against President Trump last December, there were only three Texas House members who supported him, and Jackson Lee was one of them.
Will her constituents ever dump Jackson Lee? In Houston there are only three things for certain – death, taxation and the reelection of Sheila Jackson Lee.
CANNIBAL ATE EX-GIRLFRIEND’S BRAIN, HEART AND LUNGS
Man accused of killing woman, eating body parts was insane, attorneys say
By Matthew Glowicki
Louisville Courier Journal
January 24, 2019
Defense attorneys for Joseph Oberhansley, the man accused of killing his estranged girlfriend and consuming parts of her body in 2014, plan to argue at trial that their client was insane at the time of the murder.
Newly filed court documents in the four-year-old case show two psychiatrists from LifeSpring, a mental health service provider in Jeffersonville, Indiana, will examine Oberhansley to determine if he was legally insane at the time of the killing.
The same psychiatrists are required to testify at trial, which is set for Aug. 19 before Clark Circuit Court Judge Vicki Carmichael.
Oberhansley, 37, was arrested in September 2014 after police found his ex-girlfriend Tammy Jo Blanton dead in her Jeffersonville home.
A grisly police affidavit filed in court alleges the estranged ex-boyfriend broke into Blanton's home, stabbed her and eventually ate parts of her body.
Oberhansley, charged with murder, burglary and rape, faces up to the death penalty if convicted.
Under Indiana state law, a person isn't responsible for the crime if "as a result of mental disease or defect" — defined as "a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impairs a person's perception" — they were unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions at the time.
Indiana state law states that besides guilty or not guilty, a defendant can be found not responsible by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill.
The issue of competency has dominated the case in recent years, with Oberhansley undergoing a number of evaluations to see if he was fit for trial.
Oberhansley was found incompetent to stand trial in October 2017 and was committed to a state mental health facility with the aim of bringing him to competency.
The following summer, a psychiatrist at Logansport State Hospital decided Oberhansley was legally competent.
Still, his attorneys, Brent Westerfeld, Bart Betteau, told the judge in court papers their client was still expressing "bizarre and irrational beliefs" including that they were working for the devil and were trying to control his thoughts.
Again, Oberhansley was evaluated by medical professionals, and in November 2018, Judge Carmichael ruled he was fit for trial.
By Matthew Glowicki
Louisville Courier Journal
January 24, 2019
Defense attorneys for Joseph Oberhansley, the man accused of killing his estranged girlfriend and consuming parts of her body in 2014, plan to argue at trial that their client was insane at the time of the murder.
Newly filed court documents in the four-year-old case show two psychiatrists from LifeSpring, a mental health service provider in Jeffersonville, Indiana, will examine Oberhansley to determine if he was legally insane at the time of the killing.
The same psychiatrists are required to testify at trial, which is set for Aug. 19 before Clark Circuit Court Judge Vicki Carmichael.
Oberhansley, 37, was arrested in September 2014 after police found his ex-girlfriend Tammy Jo Blanton dead in her Jeffersonville home.
A grisly police affidavit filed in court alleges the estranged ex-boyfriend broke into Blanton's home, stabbed her and eventually ate parts of her body.
Oberhansley, charged with murder, burglary and rape, faces up to the death penalty if convicted.
Under Indiana state law, a person isn't responsible for the crime if "as a result of mental disease or defect" — defined as "a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impairs a person's perception" — they were unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions at the time.
Indiana state law states that besides guilty or not guilty, a defendant can be found not responsible by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill.
The issue of competency has dominated the case in recent years, with Oberhansley undergoing a number of evaluations to see if he was fit for trial.
Oberhansley was found incompetent to stand trial in October 2017 and was committed to a state mental health facility with the aim of bringing him to competency.
The following summer, a psychiatrist at Logansport State Hospital decided Oberhansley was legally competent.
Still, his attorneys, Brent Westerfeld, Bart Betteau, told the judge in court papers their client was still expressing "bizarre and irrational beliefs" including that they were working for the devil and were trying to control his thoughts.
Again, Oberhansley was evaluated by medical professionals, and in November 2018, Judge Carmichael ruled he was fit for trial.
THE MUELLER SQUIRREL CAGE
Round and round the investigation goes. Where it stops…
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
January 22, 2019
Special Counsel Robert Mueller recently indicted yet another peripheral character in his Trump probe, Russian attorney Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, for alleged money laundering in a matter quite separate from Trump.
Like almost all of Mueller’s indictments of the past 20 months, the charges against Veselnitskaya had nothing to do with his original mandate of finding any possible Trump–Russia collusion. No matter; within minutes, Veselnitskaya’s name was injected into the media cycle as if the fact that she was Russian and connected to the name Mueller were de facto proof that Trump was guilty of something — if not collusion, something worse.
If Mueller was not a special counsel, and if he was not looking for anyone deemed useful to flip to find dirt on Donald Trump, then Veselnitskaya would have been just another daily Washington foreign influence-peddler being courted with impunity by her American influence-peddling and often equally suspect counterparts.
To date, in almost every one of his indictments of Americans, Mueller has gone after Trump staffers, often quite minor, for alleged crimes that either were committed well before Mueller began his investigations, or came as a result of plea bargaining in exchange for providing expected dirt on Trump, or were the result of government surveillance or the use of government informants, or all of that and more. And all that sensationalism, through leaks and insinuations, was packaged by the media as “bombshells” and “watersheds” and “turning points” ad nauseam for 20 months.
When Mueller indicted and obtained a confession from Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national-security adviser, it followed from an elaborate perjury ambush set up by the now fired, ethically conflicted, disgraced, and perhaps soon to be indicted deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. McCabe sent the now fired, ethically conflicted, and disgraced agent Peter Strzok to interview Flynn — a process overseen by the now fired, ethically conflicted, and disgraced James Comey.
And even then, Mueller seemed to be the beneficiary of leaks from someone in the Department of Justice who sent to the media elements of surveillance transcripts of Flynn’s conversations.
We sometimes forget that Mueller would not now exist if Hillary had just done what she was supposed to do — win the Electoral College vote. Nor would it exist if she had not paid Christopher Steele to author a hit piece, hide her handprints, and then salt it among officials at the Obama DOJ and FBI to spawn a media frenzy, first to ensure Trump’s defeat in 2016 and then, after his victory, to explain the supposedly inexplicable blown election.
The Mueller team’s modus operandi starts with the assumption that President Donald J. Trump is responsible for Russian collusion. Or he must at least be found guilty of something or other from his past decades as a wheeler-dealer, high-profile Manhattan provocateur.
Given that starting point, the special counsel then tries to prove his particular charge by rounding up those who have worked for Trump, examining in detail their personal history, discovering that they were imperfect, and threatening to ruin them (or their family members) with long prison sentences or crippling legal bills unless they aid what are becoming his Captain Ahab–like obsessions.
Far worse, Mueller has overlooked dozens of likely tangential felonies related to his investigations — they are not deemed useful to his zealous pursuit of Donald Trump.
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe probably lied to federal investigators. He faces no charges.
James Comey, the former FBI director, probably misled a FISA court and likely lied under oath to a congressional committee by claiming 245 times that he did not know or did not remember various important facts. It’s also likely that Comey broke the law by deliberately leaking secret and confidential FBI memos to friends and the press for his own particular agendas. Comey’s FBI team knew as early as July 31, 2016, that the Steele dossier was an unverified, biased product of Hillary Clinton’s opposition research, and yet he helped to send it to the FISA court as the primary evidence used to justify surveillance of Carter Page — in order to look for something on Trump.
Comey earlier had warped the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server and emails by his own admission that he assumed she was going to be president and therefore deserved special treatment rather than a process that followed the letter of the law. He apparently faces no criminal liability on any of these issues.
Comey — and later, after his firing, his lieutenants — apparently conducted a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump. The likely illegal move was based on the ridiculous notion that Trump had colluded with Russia, either as a dupe and fool or as a canny and treasonous Russian operative. These fantasies were the pretext for using Clinton opposition research to prompt their investigations.
Worse still, the FBI later was apparently terrified that a President Trump would eventually demand the release of documents disproving the FBI canard that it was generically investigating “collusion” rather than Trump himself. Recall that Comey, according to his sworn testimony, assured Trump three times that he was not the object of a FBI official investigation.
Yet just such an investigation of the president of the United States was under way. It occurred in a landscape in which Comey himself, later Mueller team members Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and recently journalists as diverse as Michael Isikoff and Jonathan Karl have admitted either that there is likely to be no proof of collusion, or that the Mueller team will not find any evidence of collusion, or that the Steele dossier was mostly inaccurate and made up — or all that and more.
Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s blue-chip prosecutor, was briefed in August 2016 by Bruce Ohr, the fourth-ranking official in the Obama Department of Justice, that the Steele dossier was unverified, that it was a campaign opposition hit piece paid for by Hillary Clinton, and that Ohr’s own wife worked with Steele on it.
Those facts about the prior role of Weissmann seemed of no interest to Mueller. Nor did Mueller seem bothered by the fact that the DOJ and the FBI went to a FISA court on four occasions to use that very dossier to obtain surveillance on Carter Page, who was to become a subject of Mueller’s own investigation.
One would have thought that at some point Mueller might have gone down the hall and asked, “Hey, Andy, did you guys at DOJ ever hear anything worrisome about that dossier before you used it to get wiretaps and intercepts on an American citizen?”
In sum, one result of the entire Mueller inquest is that we are now witnessing one of the greatest political scandals in U.S. history, given that:
1) the FBI conducted a secret investigation of the sitting president of the United States and kept it from all oversight, based on nothing other than unfounded accusations from untrustworthy sources and the FBI’s policy differences with candidate and later President Trump;
2) presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the middle of the 2016 campaign hired a foreign national, British subject Christopher Steele, to conduct opposition research on her rival Donald Trump, and she hid her use of campaign funds to pay for the ensuing dossier by funneling the payments as “legal fees” through both a law firm and an opposition-research firm;
3) members of Obama’s Department of Justice and FBI deliberately and repeatedly misled FISA courts by presenting a dossier as evidence without disclosing that it was unverifiable, paid for by Hillary Clinton, used circularly for “corroborating” news accounts, and authored by a fired FBI informant — all of which was previously known to the top echelon of the FBI and DOJ;
4) key members of the U.S. government in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Department took great pains in the midst of a presidential campaign to spread knowledge of the unverified dossier among top government officials and to ensure leaks of the dossier to the media;
5) few involved in any of these felonious acts are currently under investigation, and fewer are apt to be subject to criminal prosecution, given the hysteria over the supposed Trump collusion;
6) Mueller’s top lieutenant, Andrew Weissmann, by intent or default, probably had a role in the deception of a federal FISA court that was deliberately misled by fellow DOJ attorneys who withheld information that they knew would impugn their own evidence.
Again, the reason Mueller is not interested in such lawbreaking seems to be that it does not serve his interests. He shows little concern that both former FBI director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper — figures who have popped in and out of his investigation — have lied under oath to Congress and probably have also lied about their knowledge of the Fusion GPS dossier compiled by Steele and the leaking of its contents. These lies of the nation’s three top intelligence officials — Brennan, Clapper, and Comey — are of far more importance to the sanctity of the republic than whether George Papadopoulos got his stories straight.
Finally, Mueller’s own team has been at times as mendacious as those they have hounded.
When FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page were let go from the Mueller team for bias and unethical behavior, Mueller’s staff for weeks hid the real reason for their departures. Their firings were staggered to suggest that they were unconnected, again misleading the media and the public.
When these two fired FBI employees turned in their government phones, on which they had sent each other thousands of relevant personal texts, the Inspector General belatedly discovered that months of messages had “disappeared” — according to the Mueller team due to bureaucratic sloppiness, technical glitches, or determinations that the messages were irrelevant and thus destroyed.
Had any of Mueller’s own targets lost key communications on their phones or pads and then claimed such extenuating circumstances, they likely would have been indicted. Had they, under oath, pled poor memories or no knowledge on 245 occasions, they would have been indicted. Had they misled a federal court with inexact or fraudulent evidence, they would have been indicted. Had they destroyed evidence under subpoena, they would have been indicted. Had they leaked confidential information, they would have been indicted.
In sum, Robert Mueller’s investigation has turned American jurisprudence upside down . In this country, we investigate crimes to see who committed them. We do not start by assuming the guilt of a person and then search for his necessary wrongdoing, although the perverse notion of “guilty until proven innocent” has now permeated throughout a frenzied American culture.
The latest BuzzFeed scandal is a good example. The online news magazine alleged that it had documentary evidence from the special counsel’s office proving that Trump ordered his consigliere Michael Cohen to lie about the Trump organization’s business dealings with Russians.
For an entire news cycle, that yarn prompted journalists and Democratic congressional members to call for Trump’s immediate impeachment — until Mueller himself issued a denial of the BuzzFeedstory. (One wonders why he had not done so immediately, whether he was worried that some of his own staffers were the sources for the BuzzFeed pseudo-news story, and why in the past he has not stepped up to discredit earlier false stories supposedly leaked from his team about his impending actions. Perhaps because other fake news did not so endanger the reputation of his investigation?)
But stranger still was the attitude of supposed journalists calling for impeachment: They believed that Trump was capable of ordering Cohen to lie; it was therefore excusable to assume that Trump had in fact done so, even in the absence of any evidence that he had.
In other words, we have abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty and instead appropriated a number of Bolshevik protocols: Find the person first, the crime second; if a suspect in theory could commit a crime, then he most likely did; waiting to pass judgement until all the facts are in is telling proof of pro-Trump bias.
In America, there is still an idea of equality under the law. But Mueller has taught us that whether you go to jail for perjury, illegal leaking, lying to federal investigators, destroying key evidence, obstructing a federal court, or trying, as a foreign citizen, to warp the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, all depend entirely on the particular agendas of a particular prosecutor, not the law per se.
Mueller’s legacy will likely be that he has now institutionalized the idea of inequality under the law — seeking out bothersome outsider minnows while establishment sharks devoured the Constitution.
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
January 22, 2019
Special Counsel Robert Mueller recently indicted yet another peripheral character in his Trump probe, Russian attorney Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, for alleged money laundering in a matter quite separate from Trump.
Like almost all of Mueller’s indictments of the past 20 months, the charges against Veselnitskaya had nothing to do with his original mandate of finding any possible Trump–Russia collusion. No matter; within minutes, Veselnitskaya’s name was injected into the media cycle as if the fact that she was Russian and connected to the name Mueller were de facto proof that Trump was guilty of something — if not collusion, something worse.
If Mueller was not a special counsel, and if he was not looking for anyone deemed useful to flip to find dirt on Donald Trump, then Veselnitskaya would have been just another daily Washington foreign influence-peddler being courted with impunity by her American influence-peddling and often equally suspect counterparts.
To date, in almost every one of his indictments of Americans, Mueller has gone after Trump staffers, often quite minor, for alleged crimes that either were committed well before Mueller began his investigations, or came as a result of plea bargaining in exchange for providing expected dirt on Trump, or were the result of government surveillance or the use of government informants, or all of that and more. And all that sensationalism, through leaks and insinuations, was packaged by the media as “bombshells” and “watersheds” and “turning points” ad nauseam for 20 months.
When Mueller indicted and obtained a confession from Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national-security adviser, it followed from an elaborate perjury ambush set up by the now fired, ethically conflicted, disgraced, and perhaps soon to be indicted deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. McCabe sent the now fired, ethically conflicted, and disgraced agent Peter Strzok to interview Flynn — a process overseen by the now fired, ethically conflicted, and disgraced James Comey.
And even then, Mueller seemed to be the beneficiary of leaks from someone in the Department of Justice who sent to the media elements of surveillance transcripts of Flynn’s conversations.
We sometimes forget that Mueller would not now exist if Hillary had just done what she was supposed to do — win the Electoral College vote. Nor would it exist if she had not paid Christopher Steele to author a hit piece, hide her handprints, and then salt it among officials at the Obama DOJ and FBI to spawn a media frenzy, first to ensure Trump’s defeat in 2016 and then, after his victory, to explain the supposedly inexplicable blown election.
The Mueller team’s modus operandi starts with the assumption that President Donald J. Trump is responsible for Russian collusion. Or he must at least be found guilty of something or other from his past decades as a wheeler-dealer, high-profile Manhattan provocateur.
Given that starting point, the special counsel then tries to prove his particular charge by rounding up those who have worked for Trump, examining in detail their personal history, discovering that they were imperfect, and threatening to ruin them (or their family members) with long prison sentences or crippling legal bills unless they aid what are becoming his Captain Ahab–like obsessions.
Far worse, Mueller has overlooked dozens of likely tangential felonies related to his investigations — they are not deemed useful to his zealous pursuit of Donald Trump.
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe probably lied to federal investigators. He faces no charges.
James Comey, the former FBI director, probably misled a FISA court and likely lied under oath to a congressional committee by claiming 245 times that he did not know or did not remember various important facts. It’s also likely that Comey broke the law by deliberately leaking secret and confidential FBI memos to friends and the press for his own particular agendas. Comey’s FBI team knew as early as July 31, 2016, that the Steele dossier was an unverified, biased product of Hillary Clinton’s opposition research, and yet he helped to send it to the FISA court as the primary evidence used to justify surveillance of Carter Page — in order to look for something on Trump.
Comey earlier had warped the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server and emails by his own admission that he assumed she was going to be president and therefore deserved special treatment rather than a process that followed the letter of the law. He apparently faces no criminal liability on any of these issues.
Comey — and later, after his firing, his lieutenants — apparently conducted a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump. The likely illegal move was based on the ridiculous notion that Trump had colluded with Russia, either as a dupe and fool or as a canny and treasonous Russian operative. These fantasies were the pretext for using Clinton opposition research to prompt their investigations.
Worse still, the FBI later was apparently terrified that a President Trump would eventually demand the release of documents disproving the FBI canard that it was generically investigating “collusion” rather than Trump himself. Recall that Comey, according to his sworn testimony, assured Trump three times that he was not the object of a FBI official investigation.
Yet just such an investigation of the president of the United States was under way. It occurred in a landscape in which Comey himself, later Mueller team members Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and recently journalists as diverse as Michael Isikoff and Jonathan Karl have admitted either that there is likely to be no proof of collusion, or that the Mueller team will not find any evidence of collusion, or that the Steele dossier was mostly inaccurate and made up — or all that and more.
Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s blue-chip prosecutor, was briefed in August 2016 by Bruce Ohr, the fourth-ranking official in the Obama Department of Justice, that the Steele dossier was unverified, that it was a campaign opposition hit piece paid for by Hillary Clinton, and that Ohr’s own wife worked with Steele on it.
Those facts about the prior role of Weissmann seemed of no interest to Mueller. Nor did Mueller seem bothered by the fact that the DOJ and the FBI went to a FISA court on four occasions to use that very dossier to obtain surveillance on Carter Page, who was to become a subject of Mueller’s own investigation.
One would have thought that at some point Mueller might have gone down the hall and asked, “Hey, Andy, did you guys at DOJ ever hear anything worrisome about that dossier before you used it to get wiretaps and intercepts on an American citizen?”
In sum, one result of the entire Mueller inquest is that we are now witnessing one of the greatest political scandals in U.S. history, given that:
1) the FBI conducted a secret investigation of the sitting president of the United States and kept it from all oversight, based on nothing other than unfounded accusations from untrustworthy sources and the FBI’s policy differences with candidate and later President Trump;
2) presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the middle of the 2016 campaign hired a foreign national, British subject Christopher Steele, to conduct opposition research on her rival Donald Trump, and she hid her use of campaign funds to pay for the ensuing dossier by funneling the payments as “legal fees” through both a law firm and an opposition-research firm;
3) members of Obama’s Department of Justice and FBI deliberately and repeatedly misled FISA courts by presenting a dossier as evidence without disclosing that it was unverifiable, paid for by Hillary Clinton, used circularly for “corroborating” news accounts, and authored by a fired FBI informant — all of which was previously known to the top echelon of the FBI and DOJ;
4) key members of the U.S. government in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Department took great pains in the midst of a presidential campaign to spread knowledge of the unverified dossier among top government officials and to ensure leaks of the dossier to the media;
5) few involved in any of these felonious acts are currently under investigation, and fewer are apt to be subject to criminal prosecution, given the hysteria over the supposed Trump collusion;
6) Mueller’s top lieutenant, Andrew Weissmann, by intent or default, probably had a role in the deception of a federal FISA court that was deliberately misled by fellow DOJ attorneys who withheld information that they knew would impugn their own evidence.
Again, the reason Mueller is not interested in such lawbreaking seems to be that it does not serve his interests. He shows little concern that both former FBI director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper — figures who have popped in and out of his investigation — have lied under oath to Congress and probably have also lied about their knowledge of the Fusion GPS dossier compiled by Steele and the leaking of its contents. These lies of the nation’s three top intelligence officials — Brennan, Clapper, and Comey — are of far more importance to the sanctity of the republic than whether George Papadopoulos got his stories straight.
Finally, Mueller’s own team has been at times as mendacious as those they have hounded.
When FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page were let go from the Mueller team for bias and unethical behavior, Mueller’s staff for weeks hid the real reason for their departures. Their firings were staggered to suggest that they were unconnected, again misleading the media and the public.
When these two fired FBI employees turned in their government phones, on which they had sent each other thousands of relevant personal texts, the Inspector General belatedly discovered that months of messages had “disappeared” — according to the Mueller team due to bureaucratic sloppiness, technical glitches, or determinations that the messages were irrelevant and thus destroyed.
Had any of Mueller’s own targets lost key communications on their phones or pads and then claimed such extenuating circumstances, they likely would have been indicted. Had they, under oath, pled poor memories or no knowledge on 245 occasions, they would have been indicted. Had they misled a federal court with inexact or fraudulent evidence, they would have been indicted. Had they destroyed evidence under subpoena, they would have been indicted. Had they leaked confidential information, they would have been indicted.
In sum, Robert Mueller’s investigation has turned American jurisprudence upside down . In this country, we investigate crimes to see who committed them. We do not start by assuming the guilt of a person and then search for his necessary wrongdoing, although the perverse notion of “guilty until proven innocent” has now permeated throughout a frenzied American culture.
The latest BuzzFeed scandal is a good example. The online news magazine alleged that it had documentary evidence from the special counsel’s office proving that Trump ordered his consigliere Michael Cohen to lie about the Trump organization’s business dealings with Russians.
For an entire news cycle, that yarn prompted journalists and Democratic congressional members to call for Trump’s immediate impeachment — until Mueller himself issued a denial of the BuzzFeedstory. (One wonders why he had not done so immediately, whether he was worried that some of his own staffers were the sources for the BuzzFeed pseudo-news story, and why in the past he has not stepped up to discredit earlier false stories supposedly leaked from his team about his impending actions. Perhaps because other fake news did not so endanger the reputation of his investigation?)
But stranger still was the attitude of supposed journalists calling for impeachment: They believed that Trump was capable of ordering Cohen to lie; it was therefore excusable to assume that Trump had in fact done so, even in the absence of any evidence that he had.
In other words, we have abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty and instead appropriated a number of Bolshevik protocols: Find the person first, the crime second; if a suspect in theory could commit a crime, then he most likely did; waiting to pass judgement until all the facts are in is telling proof of pro-Trump bias.
In America, there is still an idea of equality under the law. But Mueller has taught us that whether you go to jail for perjury, illegal leaking, lying to federal investigators, destroying key evidence, obstructing a federal court, or trying, as a foreign citizen, to warp the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, all depend entirely on the particular agendas of a particular prosecutor, not the law per se.
Mueller’s legacy will likely be that he has now institutionalized the idea of inequality under the law — seeking out bothersome outsider minnows while establishment sharks devoured the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)