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

Saturday, August 31, 2019

AOC’s Most HILARIOUS Lie: Millennials ‘Most INFORMED,’ Historically-LITERATE Generation ... EVER!

Brad Polumbo

For conservative commentators, upstart socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving. The New York Democrat’s social media feed offers up a constant stream of clueless left-wing commentary that’s ripe for debunking.

The latest instance is a recent Instagram live video, in which she claims that “young people are more informed and dynamic than their predecessors.” The social media starlet goes on to say “this new generation is very profound ... They actually take time to read and understand our history.”

This, frankly, is absurd to the point of hilarity. Nothing could be further from the truth: The millennial generation and Generation Z behind them, of which I am part, is uniquely disengaged from history and woefully uninformed. Which she went on to prove, naturally. In praising the new generation as the first "wiling to go to the streets" and protest, she appears to have forgotten about the 1960s. Oops!

But she disproves her own point in more ways than one. Young people increasingly identify as socialist, which on its own shows that they are woefully ignorant of history. That ideology of failure and oppression has a very dark past of which few are aware. And only 16% of millennialsare even able to define socialism in the first place.

As far as broader historical literacy goes, two of three millennials, the same generation that Ocasio-Cortez deems “informed and dynamic,” do not even know what Auschwitz is. Ignorance of the Nazi death camp is bad enough, but 1 in 5 millennials aren’t even aware of the Holocaust at all.

This isn’t exactly a surprise, when you look at young peoples’ habits. According to Business Insider, “Millennials spend far less time consuming news overall than older adults, and the time they do spend is concentrated on digital consumption. Millennials ages 21-37 consume only about 30% of the amount of news as adults age 38 and older.”

Plus, many young people don’t read books. At all.

Per Forbes, “38% of students at public and private four-year colleges reported that ‘Books have never gotten me very excited.’ And 45% said ‘I don’t enjoy reading serious books and articles, and I only do it when I have to.’”

These statistics come as little surprise. Take it from someone on the border of both Generation Z and the millennial generation: Today’s young people are not the “most-informed” generation, or anywhere close. If they were, Ocasio-Cortez wouldn’t have a mass social media following in the first place.


Trump Officials RIP Reporters for MISINFORMATION on CITIZENSHIP Story

Photo by: Evan Vucci

Stephen Dinan

Department of Homeland Security officials chided reporters Thursday for bungling a story on changes to the definition of residence in citizenship guidelines, leaving many Americans wrongly convinced the Trump administration was tweaking birthright citizenship.
The new guidance, issued Wednesday, applies to an estimated 20 to 25 cases a year of children born outside the U.S. whose parents aren’t citizens at the time, and therefore aren’t automatic citizens. It applies to cases in which the children later end up with a citizen parent — possibly through the children’s adoption or naturalization of the parents.
Those children used to be deemed citizens through one part of immigration law. Now they’ll have to certify citizenship through another part of the law, which officials said requires different paperwork — though they insisted nobody is being stripped of rights.
“This update does not affect birthright citizenship to the military or to anyone else,” an official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told reporters Thursday, a day after the guidance caused a stir.
News reports on Wednesday suggested the change was much broader, denying automatic citizenship to children born to U.S. troops stationed abroad.
That’s just not true, the USCIS official said.
“A former Marine myself, I know the sacrifices our military service members endure,” said the official, whom the agency insisted not be named as he briefed reporters on the changes. “The idea this policy negatively impacts or takes anything away from them is incorrect.”
Another USCIS official chided those who got it wrong.
“It’s easy to distort what’s actually happening here, which I think has happened in the last day or so,” he said.
The officials acknowledged the 11-page policy was complicated, and USCIS was slow to explain the intricacies of the change, leaving a media industry already skeptical of the Trump administration’s motives to overstate what was happening.
One reporter tweeted out a key quote from the USCIS announcement but cut it off before the critical portion where the agency detailed the alternate route available to obtain citizenship for the couple dozen children a year who might be affected.
That reporter’s tweet ignited a fury of follow-ups from other reporters who also misconstrued matters.
Many of them later clarified or deleted their tweets, and story headlines were changed — but the misinterpretation had already traveled halfway around the globe while the accurate information was still putting on its shoes.
The hashtag #TRUMPHATESMILITARYFAMILIES trended on some websites and on, which bills itself at the front page of the internet, speculation on the administration’s decision-making ran wild after someone posted a story headlined “Children of U.S. troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship.”
“I hope Trump voters are happy. As a service member this is APPALLING,” wrote one poster.
“I don’t understand what his purpose is here, or who he’s trying to appeal to,” another wrote.
The USCIS officials said they had no choice.
They said the State Department has long held the other interpretation of which section of law must be used — and it was refusing to issue passports in those cases.
USCIS said also it concluded the State Department’s interpretation was more correct, so the agency had to switch.
One of the USCIS officials who briefed reporters said he would have preferred to keep their version, but that wouldn’t withstand scrutiny.
“If I could change the law to our interpretation I would happily do so. The fact of the matter is it’s just not what the statute says,” he said.
The changes could apply in a few cases, such as when a child is born to non-citizen parents overseas, then adopted by U.S. citizen government employees. Another case could involve parents who are legal permanent residents working for the U.S. government at the time of a child’s birth, but they naturalize after the child was born or they had naturalized beforehand but hadn’t accrued enough residency.
Officials could not say how many of the 20-25 cases a year that may fall under the new guidelines applied to each case.
Reporters who changed their stories to correct their misinterpretations seemed to blame the government agency for their confusion, saying the administration needed to clarify its guidance after the erroneous news reports came out.
“The firestorm was created by the confusion you all created,” CNN anchor Dana Bash told USCIS acting chief Ken Cuccinelli as she interviewed him Thursday.
Mr. Cuccinelli acknowledged the situation is complicated, but said that’s the nature of immigration law in this area, and the confusion was born out of reporting, not the policy.
“Congress set these rules, we didn’t set the rules. We’ve been breaking the rules to make it easier for people, and then they couldn’t get their passport,” he said.

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Bill De Blasio: Merit Is RACIST, So We Won’t ALLOW IT In NYC Public Schools

Merit is now racist, as far as Bill de Blasio’s School Diversity Advisory Group is concerned. His new plans are just the next step in active discrimination against hardworking students, for the sake of equal outcomes.
college students with backpacks, discrimination and adversity score

Sumantra Maitra

Merit is now considered racist, as New York City Mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Bill de Blasio’s new education advisory committee suggests. A panel de Blasio appointed recently recommended ending selective merit-based programs in city public schools, even when no evidence supports the accusation of racial discrimination simply because people of some racial backgrounds fail to achieve as much as others do.

As Christine Rosen writes in Commentary, “The advisory panel describes merit-based testing and other screening procedures used in New York City’s public schools as ‘exclusionary admissions practices,’ not because they found any evidence of racial bias in the screening procedures but simply because the outcome of screening does not perfectly reflect the demographic make-up of the city.” The recommendation is therefore to “stop using academic criteria to screen applicants for admission to public middle schools, and to phase out elementary gifted-and-talented programs that now require a test.”

This is just the next step in active discrimination against hardworking students, for the sake of equal outcome. De Blasio and his schools’ chancellor, Richard Carranza, previously pushed to cut Asian enrollments. An absolute mindless discrimination is going on against selective “specialized high schools,” which are dominated by working-class Asian American students. The city’s Independent Budget Office conducted a study, finding that de Blasio’s plan would increase black and Hispanic enrollment from 10 percent to about 50 percent at these schools, while cutting Asian and white enrollment in half.

This Isn’t Limited to Crazy Blue NYC

Previously, the U.S. College Board decided that it will calculate an “adversity score” for every student who take the SAT. Apparently, it is supposed to measure students’ “socio-economic” position so colleges can consider measures other than their academic performance when admitting applicants. Colleges would be able, then, to keep the score in mind so otherwise “disadvantaged” students do not get discriminated against.

College Board CEO David Coleman, the same man behind Common Core, said this is meant to raise the profile of low-income students who do well. In an interview on Fox, he said, “If you distinguish yourself by performing extraordinarily well in demanding circumstances, we can see you — you’re not counted out from the beginning.” The “adversity score” would use 15 factors to determine the level of difficulty a student faced throughout his life and high school career, and affect that student’s eligibility for college admission.

Behind the benevolent facade, this is a deeply sinister move to change the American education system and its competitive advantage, forcing it onto the quasi-religious altar of “diversity.” This was also inevitable. Race-conscious quota systems have been stealthily infesting universities — based on sexuality and race, for example, instead of the only hard metric that should be countable: merit.

The new adversity score would not reveal the 15 metrics used for assessing a student’s history and background, nor reveal the scores to students or their parents, but only to colleges. In short, it’s a secret test, with arbitrary judging criteria, and absolutely zero accountability. Essentially, some random, unelected people get to put their fingers on the scale of college admittance, based on what they consider to be socially and ideologically just. If that doesn’t sound discriminatory to a section of people, the word has lost all meaning.

This Has Distorted Society Where It’s Already Been Tried

In India during the late 1980s, education and job quotas swept in during the final days of the leftist central governments. India had a caste system before the British Raj, which divided people into higher and lower castes by birth, with the lower castes often facing discrimination. The British-designed penal code made discrimination punishable in the mid-19th century, and systemic casteism slowly disappeared from civilized society, especially since the drafting of the Indian Constitution in the 1950s, modeled on the American Bill of Rights.

In the late ’80s, however, the socialist central government designed national quotas in a last attempt to keep power for erstwhile lower castes in national jobs and education. The quotas effectively killed Indian higher education and its formerly superior technology and medical colleges, led to a massive brain drain to the West from which India never recovered and which continues to this day, and divided the country socially, which still affects national unity and social cohesion, and is a potent political issue.

There’s a timeless lesson here. In this case, it applies to a system that incentivizes social victimhood for colleges to score points instead of making education an actual level playing field. It is easy to overlook the race aspect, but there is merit (no pun) to that argument. As noted, hardworking Asians and whites often get discriminated against, especially with racial quota systems like these. Case in point: Harvard University’s discrimination against Asians, a lawsuit Harvard is surely losing.

Indoctrination Chambers Are Scamming Taxpayers

Universities are supposed to form a social contract with society — society pays them to be just gatekeepers for future leaders. But universities are increasingly, in the words of Sir Roger Scruton, ideological indoctrination chambers; utter scams that digest a large amount of taxpayer money, propagate unscientific self-hating theories to a mass of gullible minds, and churn out activists who then infest different institutions and organizations.

Not just that, but they are now directly trying to interfere and socially engineer a new ruling class within the country, based not on merit but on things about them that people can’t change. Next time anyone lectures about how tough, neutral, and meritocratic the American education system is, remind them of the discrimination of the SAT adversity score.

So why are Republicans silent on this treatment of what is essentially their core support group? These new efforts to make education “egalitarian” incentivize a failed system of affirmative action and offer a collectivist answer to what is essentially supposed to be an individualistic problem. If Republicans let this discrimination pass without a fight — and it is discrimination, because there is no other word to describe it — they deserve to lose the support of their core electorate and, over time, surrender the nation’s institutions to a rampaging leftist ruling class.


DOJ Inspector General Says Ex-FBI Director Comey VIOLATED Policies With MEMOS Of PRIVATE Trump Talks


James Comey violated FBI policies with memos on Trump discussions, IG report says

DOJ inspector general says ex-FBI Director Comey violated policies with memos of private Trump talks

 Gregg Re

A scathing inspector general report released Thursday said that fired FBI Director James Comey violated bureau policies by drafting, leaking and retaining memos documenting discussions with President Trump.
The Justice Department's official watchdog concluded that the memos Comey kept were in fact "official FBI records," and said Comey set a "dangerous example" with his actions.
The office said he "violated applicable policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by providing one of the unclassified memos that contained official FBI information, including sensitive investigative information, to his friend with instructions for the friend to share the contents of the memo with a reporter."
Further, the IG determined that Comey kept copies of four memos (out of the total seven he drafted) in a personal safe at home after his removal as director -- and in doing so also "violated FBI policies and his FBI Employment Agreement by failing to notify the FBI that he had retained them, or to seek authorization to retain them." And the IG said Comey again violated the rules "by providing copies ... of the four memos he had kept in his home to his three private attorneys without FBI authorization."
While the findings of the probe were forwarded to the DOJ, the department has declined prosecution. But for Comey, who has cultivated the image of a by-the-book and irreproachable leader since his termination in 2017, the review shined a harsh light on his decisionmaking in the final, beleaguered weeks of his tenure at the head of the nation's top law enforcement agency.
In a pointed passage, the report faulted Comey for disclosing sensitive information.
"[E]ven when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information. Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility," the report said. "By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information."
For his part, Comey zeroed in on a section that said he didn't leak classified material directly to the media -- and urged his critics to tell him "sorry we lied about you."
The inspector general's separate, broader review of potential intelligence community surveillance abuses remains ongoing. Earlier this month, it emerged that IG Michael Horowitz had referred Comey's case to the DOJ for a possible criminal prosecution, but that lawyers opted against bringing charges -- with one source telling Fox News it "wasn't a close call."
Comey admitted to Congress in June 2017 that, after he was fired, he purposefully leaked several memos through an intermediary to ensure that a special counsel would be appointed. The media firestorm that followed the leak proved a watershed moment that led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment.
Public outrage centered on the news that Comey wrote in one of his memos that Trump had told him, "I hope you can let this go," amid reports that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had lied to the FBI and senior White House officials about his contacts with Russia's government.
'Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees.'
— IG report, on Comey's actions
Flynn later pleaded guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents in the White House.
Although Comey said he wrote the memos so that they would not contain classified information, two of Comey's memos were later determined by the FBI to contain information classified at the "sensitive" level.
And Comey's memos included a slew of other secretive information, including the "code name and true identity" of a confidential source, according to a court-ordered filing by the Justice Department earlier this year.
Comey meticulously outlined "foreign intelligence information obtained from and through" the key human source, "information about whether the FBI initiated coverage through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on a particular individual," relevant "sources and methods" used in the FBI's investigation, as well as "information concerning the President's foreign policy decisionmaking," according to the DOJ.
All of that information is "currently and properly classified," the DOJ said.
Horowitz first publicly confirmed last year that his office was investigating Comey for his handling of classified information related to the memos.
“I didn’t consider it part of an FBI file,” Comey told Fox News' Bret Baier last year, referring to the memos. “It was my personal aide-memoire…I always thought of it as mine."
Comey added that he expected Horowitz to issue a report about the memos, "not on the handling of classified information, because that's frivolous, but on: Did I comply with policy? Did I comply with my employment agreement?"

10 Declassified Russia Collusion REVELATIONS That Could Rock Washington This Fall

Image result for 10 declassified Russia collusion revelations that could rock Washington this fall


Behind the scenes, some major events were set in motion last autumn that could soon change the tenor in Washington, at least as it relates to the debunked Russia collusion narrative that distracted America for nearly three years.
It was in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe.
About the same time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, under then-Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), voted unanimously to send 53 nonpublic transcripts of witnesses in its Russia review to the director of national intelligence (DNI) for declassification. The transcripts were officially delivered in November.
Now, nearly a year later, neither release has happened.
To put that into perspective, it took just a couple of months in 2004 to declassify the final report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks after a presidential commission finished its work, which contained some of the nation’s most secretive intelligence revelations.
But the long wait for transparency may soon end.
The foot-dragging inside the intelligence community (IC) that occurred under now-departed DNI Dan Coats and his deputy, Sue Gordon, could halt abruptly. That’s particularly true if Trump appoints a new IC sheriff, such as former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the current ambassador to the Netherlands, or longtime national security expert Fred Fleitz.
Likewise, the president has an opportunity to speed up and organize the release of declassified information by simply creating an Office of Transparency and Accountability inside his own White House, run by a staffer empowered at the level of a formal assistant to the president. That would prevent intelligence agencies from continuing their game of public keep-away.
Nunes, who helped to unravel the Russia collusion farce, has identified five buckets of information he’d like to see released. One of those buckets, the FBI's interview reports on Bruce Ohr’s cooperation, was released last week — not through a Trump declassification order but, rather, through litigation brought by Judicial Watch, and with heavy redactions.
My reporting, including interviews with four dozen U.S. officials over the last several months, actually identifies a much larger collection of documents — about a dozen all together — that, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.
Here are the documents that have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:
1.)   Christopher Steele’s confidential human source reports at the FBI. These documents, known in bureau parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.
2.)   The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I’m told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA. 
3.)   The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources. We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government’s Russia probe.
4.)   The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele’s dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren’t shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions.
5.)   Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes’s five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.
6.)   The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren’t initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.
7.)   The Steele spreadsheet. I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. Given Steele’s own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI’s final analysis of his credibility. A document I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele’s information as only “minimally corroborated” and the bureau’s confidence in him as “medium.”
8.)   The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton’s opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump, had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media. If he told that to the FBI and it wasn’t disclosed to the FISA court, there could be serious repercussions.
9.)   The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe had started and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I’m told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump’s orbit.
10.)  Records of allies’ assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas — possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy — were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence. My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General William Barr’s recent comments that “the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.”

CNN Took Quote OUT Of CONTEXT For Own 'PARTISAN Political Agenda'

Image result for stephanie grisham

Danielle Wallace

 White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham slammed CNN as “so biased & dishonest” late Wednesday, claiming the network took a quote of hers out of context for its own “partisan political agenda.”
The incident in question occurred during a segment accusing President Trump of being a "serial liar."
“@CNN is so biased & dishonest! They just used one of my quotes out of context from another story to try & further their own partisan political agenda,” Grisham wrote. “Weaponizing journalism in an effort to undermine this President & those who work for the Administration (and country) must stop!”

CNN first teased the segment -- led by anchor John Berman --- on Twitter, writing: "Was White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham kidding when she asserted President Trump doesn't lie? #KeepingThemHonest"

Berman then interviewed the Washington Post reporter behind Tuesday’s story that Trump allegedly promised to pardon aides who might need to break the law in order to fast-track construction on 500 miles worth of border wall before Election Day 2020. The story cited anonymous current and former White House officials.
President Trump slammed the report on Twitter Wednesday, calling the claim he’d pardon officials for breaking the law “FAKE NEWS!”

At the end of the segment, CNN aired a graphic with a quote from a separate Washington Post storypublished this week that profiled Grisham. The story discusses how Grisham manages to stay out of the spotlight and does her work from behind the scenes since Trump first appointed her in June to succeed Sarah Sanders.

“I don’t think they’re lies. ... I think the president communicates in a way that some people, especially the media, aren’t necessarily comfortable with,” Grisham told The Washington Post in the profile piece. “A lot of the times they take him so literally. I know people will roll their eyes if I say he was kidding or was speaking in hypotheticals, but sometimes he is.”