theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Monday, April 30, 2018

Israeli PM presents DEVASTATING Array of EVIDENCE Iran is CHEATING on Nuke Deal

Netanyahu says Iran 'brazenly lying' after signing nuclear deal, moved documents to a secret location

Travis Fedschun

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed new "dramatic" intelligence Monday which he claimed shows Iran is "brazenly lying" about its nuclear weapons program and shows the country is not complying with the vaunted nuclear deal it signed in 2015.


The information was obtained within the past 10 days, Israeli officials told Fox News. Netanyahu said the 'half a ton" of files were moved to a "highly secret" location in Tehran after the deal was signed, and contained materials spread over 55,000 pages and 55,000 files on 183 CD's.

"These files conclusively prove that Iran is brazenly lying when it says it never had a nuclear weapons program," he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shows where Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a location in Tehran after signing the nuclear deal. (AP)

Netanyahu displayed what he said was "an exact copy" fo the original materials, which are now in "very safe place" and include incriminating documents, charts, presentations, blueprints, and photos.

Speaking a nationally televised address, Israel's prime minister said the material is filled with incriminating evidence showing the Iranian program, called "Project Amad," was to develop a weapon.

Netanyahu briefed President Trump about the intelligence on Saturday and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday. European counterparts were made aware Monday prior to the speech, officials said.

Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to exit the Iran nuke deal, which was signed during the Obama administration. And though he has yet to end it, a crucial deadline for re-certifying the deal is on the horizon.

Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference at the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv, Israel April 30, 2018. (REUTERS/ Amir Cohen)

"In a few days’ time, President Trump… will make a decision on what to do with the nuclear deal," he said. "I’m sure he’ll do the right thing, the right thing for the United States, the right thing for Israel, the right thing for the peace of the world.”

In a question and answer period at the White House Rose Garden with Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari on Monday, Trump said he'll make a decision "on or before" May 12.

"That doesn't mean I won't negotiate a new agreement," the president said, adding that "we'll see what happens."

Netanyahu's statement also came on the heels of a missile attack in northern Syria that killed nearly 26-pro-government fighters, mostly Iranians, according to a Syria war monitoring group. Israel had no comment on the strike, but there was widespread speculation that Israel was responsible. Tehran has sent thousands of Iran-backed fighters to help President Bashar Assad's forces in Syria's seven-year civil war.


Israel sends a warning to Iran following airstrikes in Syria

Israel and Iran are arch-enemies, and Israel has said repeatedly it would not allow Iran to establish a permanent military presence in Syria. Iran has already accused Israel of carrying out another airstrike in Syria this month that killed seven Iranian military advisers and vowed revenge.
Pompeo on Sunday ratcheted up the Trump administration's rhetoric against Iran and offered warm support to Israel, and Saudi Arabia, in the standoff with Tehran.

In this Sunday, April 29, 2018 file photo, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. left. is greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of a 
press conference at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv. (Thomas Coex, AFP via AP)

"The United States is with Israel in this fight," Pompeo said.

The 2015 nuke deal gave Iran relief from crippling sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Netanyahu has been a leading critic of the agreement, saying it fails to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability and welcoming Trump's pledges to withdraw from the deal if it is not changed.

"The nuclear deal gives Iran a clear path to producing an atomic arsenal," he said Monday.

Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference at the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv, Israel April 30, 2018. (REUTERS/ Amir Cohen)

On Monday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the time when Iran's enemies can "hit and run" is over.

"They know if they enter military conflict with Iran, they will be hit multiple times," he said, according to his website. He did not specifically refer to the latest attack in Syria.

Michael Oren, a senior Israeli official, had no comment on the airstrike in Syria, but warned both Syria and Iran against trying to attack.

"If someone shoots at us, we shoot back and we will shoot back either at the Syrian army or the Iranians, at the origin of the aggression," Oren said.

Fox News' Yonat Friling in Jerusalem and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Saudi Crowned Prince to Palestinians: Negotiate or SHUT UP!


Saudi prince slams Palestinians for constant complaining, bad faith in peace talks with Israel

 Greg Norman

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly has a message for Palestinian leadership: “agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.”
The blunt comment from the next-in-line to the Saudi throne, made during a meeting with Jewish organizations in New York in March, comes as the Trump administration works to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
"In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given,” the crown prince said, according to a Channel 10 News report citing Israeli and American sources briefed about the meeting. “It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining."
Bin Salman’s criticism of Palestinian leadership was corroborated by an Israeli foreign ministry cable sent by one of their diplomats in New York. “People literally fell off their chairs” after the crown prince made the reported remarks, a source told Channel 10 News.
Bin Salman was also quoted as saying the Palestinian issue is not at the top of the Saudi government’s list of concerns, and the Gulf state “has much more urgent and important issues to deal with,” such as Iran’s growing influence in the region. He added, however, much work still needs to be done on the peace process in order for Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, according to Channel 10 News.
Saudi Arabia currently doesn’t officially recognize Israel -- although the two powers have a common interest in combating Iran. The Times of Israel has reported that rumors of clandestine ties between the two countries have been denied by Saudi officials, even though dignitaries from the kingdom have met with Israeli lawmakers and officials on numerous occasions.
An official statement from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., on the March 27 meeting offered a less fiery recap.
“The meeting emphasized the common bond among all people, particularly people of faith, which stresses the importance of tolerance, coexistence, and working together for a better future for all of humanity,” the embassy said. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always, and will continue to champion expanding dialogue; building a better understanding among the faiths, and focusing on the shared humanity of all peoples.”
Palestinian leadership has been boycotting the White House since Dec. 6, when President Trump announced the U.S. will move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Bin Salman previously said in an interview with The Atlantic in early April he believes “each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation."
He added: “I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land."

What Life In COMMUNIST China TAUGHT ME About Bernie Sanders’ GUARANTEED Jobs

No government can equitably divide what it does not first control. And controlling the economy also requires controlling the rest of society.

What Life In Communist China Taught Me About Bernie Sanders’ Guaranteed Jobs

 Jeremiah Keenan

When I was about 14 I overheard a close family friend comment on another woman’s hair. “Such long hair! Quite expensive in terms of shampoo.” The involuntary exclamation illustrates a part of the world I grew up in. Some women really did view their hair from the standpoint of incurred expenses in shampoo, and kept it short as a result.
My family was better off than that, but we still lived along the U.S. poverty line. We didn’t own a house, car, or TV. My parents rented a three-bedroom apartment in a ramshackle compound, made us kids a big bookshelf out of plywood, and taught us how to type on a used Mac with a 1995 facing-smile logo that spent a lot of time looking at me above progress bars on the screen.
That life wasn’t bad. Or, at least, most of the bad parts weren’t caused by “poverty.” You see, we lived in a socialist country where the government allowed enough free enterprise to fuel economic growth but maintained firm control to ensure economic equality. President Xi Jinping described our government’s strategy: “We want to continuously enlarge the pie, while also making sure we divide the pie correctly. Chinese society has long held the value of ‘Don’t worry about the amount, worry that all have the same amount.’”
Previous instantiations of this long-held value meant pretty much everybody (except powerful Communist Party members) did not have enough to eat. But 1980s reforms aimed at enlarging the pie had improved matters a great deal, so the common people lived better every day. Kids of my generation had soft little jaws and even chubby tummies. We did not eat the leaves off trees. We lived in apartments with electricity and, in the cities, running water.
The bad part of life was that the government maintained such a firm control of everything. This meant no freedom of speech or of religion. A couple million innocents were ground through the labor camps while I grew up, and one or two family acquaintances subjected to physical torture, but it was the only way government could firmly control everything. Without this control, they could not ensure that the pie, instead of simply growing larger, would be correctly divided. No government can equitably divide what it does not first control.

From Poverty to People’s Ideas of Poverty

From this environment, I was grafted, at the age of 18, into the American Ivy League. I became interested in U.S. politics: wrote for the newspaper, attended debates, tickled my brain with honors classes and the popular books of the American elites.
Young American elites love to talk about income inequality. Last spring, a great lecture hall was filled with them, debating a proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy to fight poverty in America. The Left side of the room gave impassioned speeches on the moral necessity of fighting poverty.
One had a relative who earned only $10 an hour. This relative suffered greatly from her wage, and the speaker doubted she could survive if she weren’t living with her parents. There was a tremor in the speaker’s voice: “It’s immoral; it’s ridiculous,” she said, to have such immiseration in a country of so much wealth. We have a moral obligation to raise taxes on corporations and the top 10 percent.
These arguments are mainstream leftist. If you do not want the government to take rich people’s money for the poor, you are very selfish. The New York Times says Jesus rebukes you if you don’t. Now, the members of my team opposing tax hikes were eager to not be selfish, so they did not dare contradict the notion that $10 an hour was an immoral wage.
On the contrary, they agreed society must fight poverty. But they warned against high taxation’s dangers to the economy and deplored the ineffectiveness of simple income redistribution. The pie must be big, they argued. Jobs are what ultimately save people from poverty.
This debate reflected the perennial economic squabbles in Washington. This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced a plan for made-work guaranteed by the government that pays $15 per hour. Predictably, the center and right have argued it will make the economic pie shrink, which hurts the poor. But they do so without examining the moral framework that undergirds leftist economic policies like this. So let’s do that.

Expanding the Economy Won’t Fully Solve Poverty

I don’t believe that making a bigger pie will save people from “poverty.” Some people will always produce—and so earn—less than others do. If you really believe it’s immoral for one person to live on $400 a week while another lives on $4,000, then the obvious solution is to let pie-growth suffer a little, if need be, and start dividing people’s incomes among everyone.
Now, nobody really thinks herself morally obligated to give every poor person she meets half the value of their difference in income. This argument assumes morality is intrinsically a personal matter, and leftists do not believe this—at least, in China they don’t. In China it is generally understood that income inequality is wrong not because God or conscience declares you must give to those with less, but because utopia cannot be achieved when one person owns what another does not.
American leftist elites express things a little differently. They like the term “social justice” instead of “social morality,” but they adhere to the same premise that individual morals are the product of social organization, not the other way around. In other words, people do not do right or wrong things with respect to their income; they simply reflect the rightness or wrongness of the social structures that control them. Therefore, the path to being better people is to organize and vote for a better system.
Most of the leftists sitting on three sides of me at the Ivy League debate would have agreed that any notion of universal personal moral absolutes—a God-given obligation to be chaste, charitable, truthful, temperate, or virtuous in any way—was a dangerous fiction. They were devotees of socialized morality—“our” obligations to follow expert opinion in organizing our society, not “my” obligation to follow God or conscience regardless of society.
Within this framework of socialized morality, voting for the rich to give money to the poor really does make you “good.” So I had to start at square one when it was my turn to speak, with the very concept of individual morality. I had to advocate directly for private virtue and true charity.
Most of the people I was facing had no bonds of deep friendship or love with “poor” individuals. They could scarcely be expected to know that a great life can be started on $400 a week, or to understand that it doesn’t really help truly impoverished Americans—most of whom are paralyzed with laziness, loneliness, hurt, or depression—to send them off to a faceless federal bureaucracy that gives them little chunks of wealthy people’s income.

So We Talked about the Morality Underlying Poverty Relief

So I gave a lecture on charity to my leftist colleagues. I have never seen a room full of them more stunned or bedraggled. I talked about inviting homeless folks back to my place for dinner, which would not have been considered impressive at my West Philadelphia church.
Socialized morality isn’t just the smart person’s version of real morality, but a self-serving rejection of it.
See, the University of Pennsylvania perches on the edge of a big ghetto. There are always folks walking around begging for money, trying to make eye contact, saying they’re hungry. No conservative Christian conscience could always ignore them. So I asked the room a simple question: how many of them, who cared so much about poverty, had ever, even once, shared their time and a meal with one of those who asked?
I confirmed by show of hands that only three of four of them had. The status quo among the leftist elites does not include paying attention to someone who is not facilitating your interests or career. I was appealing to their conscience, giving them a little peek into the possibility that socialized morality isn’t just the smart person’s version of real morality, but a self-serving rejection of it.
Had I had time, I could have gone on to point out that the religious right consistently engage in much higher rates of charitable activity than the secular left does. They fully 100 times as much money in total, and 50 times as much to secular causes. They volunteer more of their time to help those in need. They give more blood. They visit more prisoners. They establish more hospitals. They adopt more children, and help foster youngsters stuck in awful, government-run orphanages.

Leftists Want to Mandate Their Personal Stinginess

I can put up with leftists being stingy. As long as Americans who do believe in personal virtue are allowed to freely associate, raise their own children, control their own earnings, and spread their own ideas, there will always be plenty of charity in our land.
Leftism does not simply negate personal morals, it replaces them with socialized ones.
But the problem is that leftists aren’t just stingy. Leftism does not simply negate personal morals, it replaces them with socialized ones. Income inequality, remember, is immoral. Since socialized morality is intrinsically, well, social, it cannot simply live and let live.
The Christian can give his own money to the poor, but the socialist must have the wealth of the rich. The Christian can preach in his own church, but the socialist must decide whether it is appropriate for anyone to maintain so extravagant a thing as a house to worship God. The Christian thinks it a duty and a right to school his own children, but the socialist must prepare every child to think and act in the interests of society as he understands them.
In China, this is frankly understood, and the consequences frankly implemented. Communist Party members are required to profess atheism in order to rule. Otherwise, as Central Committee member Zhu Weiqun put it in 2011, the party would be “divided ideologically and theoretically” between “idealism and materialism” and “theism and atheism.”
Notice the terms used: idealism is the belief that something is right or wrong inherently (usually because God said so); materialism teaches that right and wrong depend on social outcomes, such as standard of living. Everybody knows these two worldviews are not compatible, so in China, where leftists rule, religion is simply not allowed to exist in the government.
“All this is a lot of theory,” you may say. “A lot of talk about ‘isms’ and morality. What does it mean for the average person?”

What This Means for People in Need

Well, let me tell you. When I was little and went to the hospital it was not uncommon to see folks lying beside the hospital steps begging. I used to wonder why they picked that spot to beg. As I grew older, I learned the answer.
JinShui was 17 when I was 15, and I met her with her parents in a tiny one-bedroom apartment. She sat propped up on a low bed with a board for a mattress, her left leg swollen to three times its natural size. A month or so before, a member of our church had sat down next to her on the street to learn her needs. She needed money for hospital bills.
People who want to help the needy will help the needy. People who want ‘society’ to redistribute money to the ‘poor’ won’t.
Our church, though poor, pulled together money within hours. But help had come late. The cancer had been curable early on, you see, but JinShui was from the countryside where the people are as poor as the good earth. Only party members could pay for cancer treatment there. And Chinese hospitals don’t give treatment to save your life, not if they know you can’t pay.
I remember sitting in a cold conference room a few weeks later, where we secretly gathered for JinShui’s makeshift memorial service. Her younger brother was sitting in front of me. His black “leather” jacket was draped over his trembling shoulders, the arms sticking out stiff and empty on each side. He kept rubbing his face with his hands and blowing tissues about his nose.
The police did not break up our meeting that evening, but they could have if they wanted to. We sang and prayed, and though the Chinese Communist Party does not forbid religious practice, it demands that all religions develop their ideas about God in accord with the “needs of society” first, and scriptures or conscience second.
Our little church just followed the Bible, which Chinese authorities, like some American authorities, think does not serve the needs of society. So people from the only widespread local organizations in the country, like us, whose members would sit down next to a dying girl on the street, were all law-breakers. We were poor, underground, always dodging the police, always excluded from the public square.
We could not publically open a church hospital or charity the way Christians do in America. We could not even walk out onto the street and preach Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan. We did our best under the circumstances. JinShui died, but many others lived. We tried. But under socialism with Chinese characteristics, how much really could we do?
You see, it’s all very simple in the end. People who want to help the needy will help the needy. People who want “society” to redistribute money to the “poor” won’t. People who want to help the poor aren’t going to divert their resources to jailing the innocent. But the folks who need to make others help the poor? Well, that’s a very different story.

A VICIOUS Wolf Gives Trump the LAST LAUGH

‘She had some great one-liners,’ Douglas Brinkley said on CNN. He changed his mind.


Peter Funt

No matter how you feel about Donald Trump or the Washington-based journalists who cover him, you should be angered by what was offered Saturday as entertainment at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Michelle Wolf, recently of Comedy Central and soon to have her own series on Netflix , was foul-mouthed about Mr. Trump and downright cruel about members of his administration, several of whom were in the room. Worse, though it proved to be beside the point, she wasn’t funny.

“Trump is so broke,” she quipped, that “Southwest used him as one of their engines.”

She called Vice President Mike Pence a “weirdo”: “He thinks abortion is murder, which, first of all, don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you got to get that baby out of there.”

Ms. Wolf’s material—most of which was laced with too much profanity to print here—wasn’t about the First Amendment, as some suggested. Nor was it about the #MeToo movement, which she attempted at one point to hide behind. It was simply a Saturday Night Massacre of dignity and common sense.

It helped prove two unfortunate truths: First, the notion of having working journalists dress up for “nerd prom,” as they call it, and fawn over celebrity guests while listening to a hired comic roast the officials they cover each day was never a good idea. Now, in the freewheeling age of social media, it’s completely bankrupt.

Second, Mr. Trump was right to skip the event. No reasonable person, even among his harshest critics, would have expected him to sit through this.

On Twitter the next morning, Mr. Trump called it a “big, boring bust.” He was too kind. The event has given Mr. Trump’s supporters more ammunition to use in what is essentially an unreasonable attack on “fake news” and “mainstream media.”

Many pundits were as conflicted about Ms. Wolf’s act as they are about how to cover the Trump administration, as CNN’s instant analysis following the event proved. Historian Douglas Brinkley immediately said, “She had some great one-liners.”

About 20 minutes later, he retreated to: “She has the right to say what she did.” After an hour’s reflection, Mr. Brinkley concluded: “The dinner is broken. I think it needs to be reimagined next year.”

Through this misguided event, the Correspondents’ Association has given Donald Trump what he wants most: the last laugh.


Comey Investigation Raises SERIOUS Questions Over His LEAKING Of FBI Material

Image result for james comey

Jonathan Turley

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reported investigation of former FBI Director James Comey for his removal and leaking of memos related to the Russian investigation. The release of the memos already contradicts critical aspects of Comey’s explanation for his leaking of the information. What is troubling is that many have worked mightily to avoid the clearly unprofessional aspects of Comey’s conduct. Comey could well be accurate in his account of Trump and justified in his concerns over Trump’s conduct but that does not excuse the actions that he has exhibited in both the leaking of the memos and the timing of his book. Comey’s best-selling book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, could prove tragically ironic if Comey showed a higher loyalty to himself in responding to his own firing rather than the investigation that he once headed. In the very least, there remains a serious question of Comey’s priorities in these matters.

Here is the column:

One day after the disclosure that the Justice Department inspector general has recommended criminal charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, it has been confirmed that fired FBI director James Comey is under investigation by the same office for leaking information to the media. This disclosure followed the release of the Comey memos, which seriously undermined both Comey and his cadre of defenders. Four claims by Comey are now clearly refuted, and the memos reaffirm earlier allegations of serious misconduct.

James Comey was a leaker

For more than a year, various media experts have advanced dubious defenses for Comey, including the obvious problem that the man charged with investigating leaks became a leaker himself when as it suited him. Clearly, Comey removed the memos and did not allow for a predisclosure review of the material. Moreover, the memos were withheld by Comey’s surrogate, a Columbia University law professor, who reportedly read the information to the media.

If taking and disclosing memos were perfectly proper, why the surrogate and subterfuge? More importantly, Comey did not disclose the memos to Congress or hold copies for investigators. If Comey was not a leaker, then any fired FBI agent could do the same with nonpublic investigatory material. If the inspector general agreed with that position, then federal laws governing FBI material would become entirely discretionary and meaningless.

The memos were FBI material

Various media experts and journalists also defended Comey by portraying the memos as essentially diary entries. When I argued that the memos clearly were FBI material subject to limits on removal and disclosure, the response was disbelief. Legal expert and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa said that these constituted “personal recollections,” and CNN legal expert and Brookings Institution fellow Susan Hennessey wrote, “It’s hard to even understand the argument for how Jim Comey’s memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.”

The plain fact, then and now, is that it’s hard to understand that it would be anything other than a record under federal rules. These were memos prepared on an FBI computer, in the course of an FBI investigation. All FBI agents sign a statement affirming that “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America” and that an agent “will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”

The memos themselves now confirm their obvious status. These were not memos “to the file” or to Comey himself. He wrote them to the FBI as part of the investigation, specifically addressing the disclosures to McCabe, FBI general counsel James Baker and chief of staff James Rybicki. FBI director Christopher Wray has confirmed these were FBI documents. While Comey continues to maintain these were personal papers, it is demonstrably untrue on the face of the memos themselves.

There was no need to leak

In past columns, I have questioned Comey’s claim that he had to remove and leak the memos in the public interest. When Comey took the memos, he knew he was certain to be called before Congress within weeks. He simply could have told Congress about the memos, or even given copies to one of the intelligence committees. More importantly, he knew copies already were in the hands of other FBI officials and were certain to be reviewed by investigators.

Instead, Comey removed seven memos and gave four to his friend, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman, to leak information to the media. If the memos already were in the hands of other FBI officials, including McCabe, then why leak them? It would not assist the investigation. To the contrary, by disclosing the information, Comey alerted President Trump to the record of their conversations, making it less likely that Trump would contradict such a record.

Why? The reason is obvious: It benefitted Comey. He was able to control the media narrative after his firing and shifted the focus to Trump’s conduct rather than his own. The inspector general recently concluded McCabe leaked information for his personal interest, not that of the public. It’s difficult to envision how the inspector general could come to any other conclusion about Comey’s leak.

The memos were classified

The memos clearly reveal that Comey was aware they likely contained classified information. Comey wrote in a Jan. 7, 2017, memo that “I am unsure of the proper classification so I have chosen secret.” He then left it to his staff to correct that classification. As director, Comey had authority to determine what was classified, although he leaked the FBI documents after he was fired. It turns out that four memos, including two given to his friend to leak to the media, were later found to be classified.

So Comey was no longer director when he removed the memos from the FBI without review. He then gave four memos, including classified ones, to an uncleared individual specifically to leak to the media. Among other people prosecuted for such conduct, former FBI agent Terry Albury is now looking at a sentence of four to five years in prison in an unrelated case.

In his new book, Comey writes, “Ethical leaders choose a higher loyalty … over their own personal gain.” Yet, he opted for personal advantage in the leaking of his memos. He also rushed his book to print, even though the investigation he once headed is ongoing and he is a key witness. Even more remarkably, he never conferred with special counsel Robert Mueller, if nothing else as a courtesy, and especially since Comey’s public references to both disclosed and undisclosed evidence is obviously not beneficial to that investigation.

Comey insists he wrote his book because he believes the country desperately needs “ethical leadership” — his, apparently — and that ethical leaders “don’t hide from uncomfortable questions.” If true, Comey will be a busy man when the inspector general comes calling.


The Unreliable ‘FACTS’ of a Fact-Checking Site plays fast and loose with the First Amendment and makes Christianity a target

Illustration on by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
Illustration on by Alexander Hunter

ANALYSIS/OPINION: is handy at times.

The “fact check” site is useful when vetting a news story that favors a progressive take. If even the left-leaning Snopes finds it false or mostly false, that’s pretty persuasive. But not so much when it comes to something involving conservatives or conservative causes.
This past week, Snopes jumped the shark. In a post about California Assembly Bill 2943, a frightening piece of pure-grade totalitarianism, Snopes belittled a conservative opponent and misrepresented the legislation.
The anti-“conversion therapy” bill sponsored by San Jose Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low basically forbids provision of counseling, books, advice, referrals, etc. aimed at helping someone overcome same-sex desires or transgender identification. In other words, it criminalizes the sexual morality code of every major religion and especially Christianity — the real target.
It should chill every freedom-loving American that this spectacular violation of the First Amendment passed the California House by a vote of 50-18 on April 19 and is now before the state Senate.
Snopes focused on a response by Republican Assembly member Travis Allen to One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler, who asked, ” if this bill were to pass, would this prohibit the sale of the Bible, that teaches these things about sexual morality?”
Mr. Allen replied, “Well, literally, according to how this law is written, yes, it would. This is, you know, PC culture, politically correct culture, gone horribly awry.”
Snopes smugly informs us that, “California Assembly Bill 2943 does not mention the Bible, Christianity, or religion at all, so when Allen claimed that the legislation would ‘literally’ prohibit the sale of the Bible, he was stating something that is demonstrably and clearly false.”
In a brilliant takedown in The Federalist, author and academic Robert Gagnon explains why Snopes — not Mr. Allen — is dead wrong.
“That the bill doesn’t explicitly mention these things is irrelevant if the wording of the bill is broad enough to encompass them,” Mr. Gagnon writes. “Sure, it is virtually impossible that California will immediately attempt to ban the sale of the Bible itself. Not even the hard left in California has that kind of chutzpah. But citations of Bible verses in the context of declaring homosexual practice and transgenderism to be morally debased could indeed get one into serious trouble with the law if it comes in the context of selling or advertising a product or service .
“Snopes,” he continues, “heavily shades the truth: ‘What is clear is that [Assembly member Evan] Low’s bill does not seek to outlaw all religious or moral instruction regarding sexuality and sexual orientation.’”
Mr. Gagnon: “Read the bill. There is no religious exemption. There is no restriction to mental health professionals. This is not simply a ‘gay conversion ban.’” Which would be bad enough.
I read the bill. It is sweeping in its breadth. Mr. Low’s legislation follows a current California law barring parents from procuring pro-heterosexual licensed counseling for minors, even those who have been molested. Pro-homosexual counseling is OK, of course. Opponents accurately call it the “must stay gay” law.
Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver says the Low bill is “a dramatic infringement on First Amendment rights and is a classic viewpoint discrimination. It declares certain kinds of speech as consumer fraud.”
He notes that, “The Bible specifically refers to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Then verse 11 states, ‘And such were some of you,’ thus clearly stating that through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, people with same-sex attractions or who engaged in same-sex behavior can change. Advertising this passage or quoting it in a brochure would be considered fraudulent business practices under this bill.”
Meanwhile, Snopes is doing its best to persuade Christians not to worry enough to band together to stop these egregious violations.
The fact-checking site was originally founded in 1995 by David and Barbara Mikkelson, who divorced in 2015. In December 2017, Forbes ran a piece that concluded Snopes, not the Daily Mail, has major credibility problems such as: David Mikkelson’s “responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings.”
By the way, did you know that in December 2016, Facebook began relying on Snopes to weed out “fake news?”
On the Snopes website, the “About Us” section lists David Mikkelson solely as founder, with no mention whatever of co-founder Barbara Mikkelson, who has been tossed down the memory hole. One of many inconvenient facts omitted by the “fact checker.”

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Caravan Asylum-Seekers Heading Toward SHOWDOWN at US BORDER

Members of illegal-immigrant caravan arriving at border scale fence in protest

William La Jeunesse, Travis Fedschun

A caravan of hundreds of Central Americans that has traveled through Mexico over the past month will arrive on the southern U.S. border on Sunday, setting up a showdown at the nation's busiest border crossing as the group turns themselves over to border inspectors seeking asylum.

The group of roughly 200 people, including women and young children, is expected to turn themselves over to border inspectors at San Diego's San Ysidro border crossing around 4 p.m. ET after arriving in Tijuana last week, claiming they have a credible fear of persecution at home. Demonstrators gathered along the border to hold a rally in the hours before crossing over, with some people scaling the fence.

"The only thing I would tell Mr. Trump is to have a conscious and to look at all the people and the way they suffer. Because the people, they are coming from those countries, they are not doing it for pleasure," Osman Salvador Ulla Castro, who is from Honduras, told Fox News. "They face danger and extortions and they are looking for a better life."

Migrant caravan prepares to cross into the United States

The Border Patrol said Saturday that several groups of families from the caravan tried to enter the U.S. illegally by scaling parts of the "dilapidated scrap metal border fence" near San Ysidro.

"In several of these incidents, children as young as 4 years old, and in one case a pregnant female, were detected entering the United States illegally through a dark, treacherous canyon that is notorious for human and drug smuggling," U.S. Customs and Border Protection San Diego Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott said. "As a father myself, I find it unconscionable that anyone would expose a child to these dangerous conditions."

The Trump administration has been tracking the caravan since it started March 25 near the Guatemala border, calling it a threat to the U.S., in addition to promising a swift response.

A demonstration on the border in Tijuana, Mexico, as a caravan of Central Americans prepares for their border crossing. (AP )

The administration has also claimed the caravan is a deliberate attempt to overwhelm U.S. legal system and the courts.


Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said last week that asylum claims will be resolved "efficiently and expeditiously," but the asylum-seekers should seek it in the first safe country they reach, including Mexico.

Asylum-seekers are typically separated from their children and held up to three days at the border before being turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If they pass an asylum officer's initial screening, they may be detained for several months until their court hearing or released with ankle monitors.

People climb the border wall fence as a caravan of migrants and supporters reached the United States-Mexico border near San Diego, California, U.S., April 29, 2018. (REUTERS/Mike Blake)

Nearly 80 percent of asylum-seekers passed the initial screening from October through December, according to the latest numbers available, but few are likely to eventually win asylum.

Any asylum seekers making false claims to U.S. authorities could be prosecuted, as could anyone who assists or coaches immigrants on making false claims, according to Nielsen.

Administration officials and their allies claim asylum fraud is growing and that many who seek it are coached on how to do so.

Border Patrol agent talks migrant caravan, asylum claims
U.S. immigration lawyers who went to Tijuana have denied coaching people in the caravan, but have said they have been providing one-on-one counseling to assess the merits of their cases and how asylum works in the U.S.


"Like how to defend myself with immigration, how to carry myself," a 16-year-old unaccompanied minor from Honduras told Fox News on Saturday regarding the meetings he's had with lawyers.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called the caravan "a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system," pledging to send more immigration judges to the border to resolve cases if needed.

Members of a caravan from Central America walk next to the border fence between Mexico and the U.S., before a gathering in a park and prior to preparations for an asylum request in the U.S., in Tijuana, Mexico April 29, 2018. (REUTERS/Edgard Garrido)

The San Ysidro crossing, which admits about 75,000 people a day into the country, may be unable to take asylum-seekers if it faces too many at once, forcing people to wait in Mexico until it has more room, Pete Flores, U.S. Customs and Border Protection's San Diego field office director, told the Associated Press.

Flores said earlier this month that the port can hold about 300 people temporarily.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


OpEd: Progressive Democrats W/O BORDERS

theodore  M I R A L D I.

If there's one issue Progressive Democrats have taken too far, It's Borders. Not just the physical ones, but the physiological behaviors that's are necessary for living a healthy life. The anything goes mentality that initially renders one incapable of understanding the old axioms of, two sides to every story, and extremism will always make you enemies.

Unfortunately the left has been insulated from consequences far too long.

The so-called Champions of Desegregation, but openly practice it far beyond race alone. Not able to conjure up phrases that titillate the masses, they concentrate on one segment of the population and sow the seeds of contempt for those who disagree. 

It's time they are subject to Consequences.

Democrats literally can find something wrong with everything and everyone except themselves. This bunch of Ideologues are the product of Propaganda that sells discontent. It's core belief that the failure of others is something to profit by and exploit.

There is no balance if some-one must lose to lift others. Evening the score, and picking winners is solely the business of the individual and a basic instinctual need to succeed.

This Chaotic Mentality creates greater divisions between inter-group relations leading to fear the linchpin to hatred. 

The Borders of acceptable human behaviors are definitive for good reason ...  Organic Communities that rely on a symbiotic relationships demand one do no harm. 

These boundaries have long determined the success of some Cultures over others. Going native destroys the social evolution that has painstakingly proven its value throughout time in-spite of our failures.

Attacking Norms doesn't make one a Genius, just a Malcontent who wishes to create an atmosphere where they are not alone in their sorrow. 

The vitriol in itself should prove beyond any doubt that hating others has been deemed acceptable. Unfortunately for its practitioners, the wave will eventually drown them as well. The blow-back has begun, and the oppressors may very well become the oppressed. 

It has never been chic to live a life of double standards, nor should it. What's in the air can be felt without uttering a word. Something foul has invaded our common purpose, our sense of community.

We now know the antagonists...

They have no BORDERS!

Friday, April 27, 2018

House Panel’s Russia Report Finds 'NO EVIDENCE' of Collusion

House Intel Committee’s heavily redacted Russia report finds no Trump-Russia tie

Brooke Singman, Judson Berger

The House Intelligence Committee on Friday declared that it found “no evidence” of collusion between the Russian government and Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election, releasing a heavily redacted final report on its yearlong Russia investigation.
The Republican-authored report -- released over Democratic objections -- stated the committee “found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.” The committee did, however, “find poor judgment and ill-considered actions by the Trump and Clinton campaign.” 
President Trump, reacting to the report moments after its release, hailed its findings and said the Russia "Witch Hunt" must end, in an apparent swipe at Special Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation. 
“Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. ‘No evidence’ that the Trump Campaign “colluded, coordinated or conspired with Russia.’ Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia-Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW!” Trump tweeted.
The more than 250-page report was heavily blacked out, however, and the leader of the committee investigation slammed the intelligence community for their “overzealous redactions.”
Fox Business contributor Michael Goodwin and former Reagan Political Director Ed Rollins on the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit against the Trump campaign.
“I am extremely disappointed with the overzealous redactions made by the IC. Many of the redactions include information that is publicly available, such as witness names and information previously declassified,” Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, complained in a statement Friday.
“I will continue to challenge the IC’s many unnecessary redactions with the hopes of releasing more of the report in the coming months.”
The committee’s investigation focused on several topics: Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, the U.S. government’s response to the attack, links between Russians and the Trump and Clinton campaigns, and purported leaks of classified information.
The investigation found that Russia's "increasingly aggressive cyber operations" would "continue to present a profound threat," while noting that Russian state actors were responsible for the "dissemination of documents and communications stolen from U.S. political organizations." 
The report said the Russian government used media company "RT to advance its malign influence campaign" during the 2016 election, along with social media platforms to "sow social discord and to undermine the electoral process." 
But the committee found “no evidence that Trump campaign associates were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails, although Trump associates had numerous ill-advised contacts with WikiLeaks.”
Fla. Rep. Matt Gaetz is introducing a bill in Congress that would increase oversight of FISA courts by making judges subject to presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Schiff introduced the same bill five years ago and now won't support it. What changed? #Tucker
The report also criticized the executive branch's "post-election response," calling it "insufficient." 
The committee outlined “poor judgment” practiced by both campaigns, citing the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between members of the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya “who falsely purported to have damaging information on the Clinton campaign demonstrated poor judgment.”
“The Committee also found that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, using a series of cutouts and intermediaries to obscure their roles, paid for opposition research on Trump obtained from Russian sources, including a litany of claims by high-ranking current and former Russian government officials,” the report read. “Some of this opposition research was used to produce sixteen memos, which comprise what has become known as the Steele dossier.”
The committee also focused on leaks of classified information, noting that the number of leaks regarding Russian intentions to "help elect candidate Trump increased dramatically after the election day." 
"Continued leaks of classified information have damaged national security and potentially endangered lives," the report read. 
The committee also found that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided "inconsistent testimony to the committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN." Clapper is now a CNN national security analyst. It is unclear at this point what information Clapper discussed with media outlets. 
The report includes more than 25 recommendations for Congress and the executive branch to improve election security, U.S. government response to cyberattacks, campaign finance transparency, and counterintelligence practices related to political campaigns and unauthorized disclosures. 
The release of the full report comes after committee leaders announced key findings last month, prompting a war of words between Republican and Democratic members. The GOP majority at the time reported finding no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign associates. They also said that based on the investigation, the controversial anti-Trump dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele “formed an essential part of an application” to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain electronic surveillance on Trump adviser Carter Page.
Conaway took over the probe when House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., stepped down in April 2017 after he was accused of making “unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, law regulations, or other standards of conduct.”
But the top committee Democrat blasted Republicans last month for “prematurely” shutting down the panel’s Russia probe and renewed that criticism on Friday. 
“Notwithstanding the decision by the Majority to end its work and turn its attention to counter-investigations designed to serve the President’s interests, the Minority’s work on the Russia investigation continues,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement Friday. “We will continue our investigation using every means at our disposal; to do otherwise would ignore our responsibility to conduct meaningful oversight and insure that the Russians do not possess leverage over the President of the United States.”
Schiff and committee Democrats released their minority view report Friday, where Schiff said they "correct the record on a raft of misleading conclusions, insinuations, attempts to explain away inconvenient facts, and arguments meant to protect the President and his campaign found in the Republican report." 
Schiff also is seeking to publicly release the transcripts of interviews so the public can see the "evidence for themselves and judge accordingly," noting that sharing the transcripts with Special Counsel Robert Mueller could "assist their efforts." 
Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.