$3.7 billion tax increase set up by courts and schools

{The Kansas school funding issue comes back again and again to punish citizens because of the illegal 2005 Montoy v Kansas  decision which forever enshrined the lawless Kansas Supreme Court as the 'ultimate authority' (not the people)  dictating the amount of money that must be spent to satisfy a clause in the Kansas Constitution defining "a suitable education.' There is no school funding formula that can ever be devised to prevent the endless lawsuits against the state legislature from Alan L. Rupe and company which will eventually bankrupt Kansas citizens thanks to the worthless Kansas Legislature who has failed to prevent the Court's usurpation of power. -  ED}

by Kansas Policy Institute

This calculation is produced by the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) and presents a long-term picture of the tax revenue needed to pay for the increased school funding.

Aug. 2 - Wichita - Kansas taxpayers are being set up for a $3.7 billion tax increase over the next four years unless the majority of elected officials reduce costs and stop taking orders from a runaway judiciary.  That’s what it would take to have a structurally balanced budget, with each year’s spending not exceeding that year’s tax collections.  

The calculation is based on having a legally-required ending balance[i] without transfers from the highway fund and making all scheduled KPERS pension payments through FY 2023.  The only spending increases included are those related to approved school funding, the Department of Education’s (KSDE) calculation of complying with the latest Supreme Court ruling and KLRD’s caseload estimate for existing Medicaid coverage.

About $624 million of the tax increase is already in place, noted as ‘Federal Tax Adjustment’ in the table linked here.  Federal tax reform eliminates personal exemptions, caps itemized deductions for some people and imposes higher taxes on many businesses.  The Kansas Senate voted to prevent this backdoor state income tax hike but too many House members wanted more money to spend.

Paying for approved school funding without gimmicks (transfers, KPERS delays, ignoring the ending balance law, etc.) will cost another $2.1 billion and if elected officials decide to meet KSDE’s $365 million estimate of the latest court demand, another $940 million tax hike will be needed.

The tax impact of paying for the new school funding is much greater than the simple total of the funding approved because of the cumulative impact of adding more money each year.  The estimate of meeting the court’s latest demand is a good example.

KSDE says funding would have to increase a little over $91 million each year and would, therefore, be $365 million higher in the fourth year; but that amounts to $912.3 million more being spent over the four-year period.

KSDE calculates the total amount approved thus far for FY 2018 through FY 2023 at just over $1 billion dollars.  Total aid as calculated by KSDE would slightly exceed $8 billion in FY 2023 even if federal aid remains flat and local revenue is only nominally increased.  If legislators provide the additional aid KSDE says is needed to satisfy the court with enrollment increases as KSDE anticipates, per-pupil funding would be $16,520 in FY 2023.
__________________
[i] State law requires an ending balance equal to 7.5 percent of expenditures.  Legislators and governors have often ignored that legal requirement over the last couple of decades by periodically changing the law to effectively say, ‘except this year.’





The Real “Fake News” from Government Media

By Scott Lazarowitz



Image credit: Pixabay

Facebook has announced its campaign against “fake news.” But, according to some workers’ own admission, conservatives are being censored.

And Google also wants to censor “fake news.” But Google also was shown to treat conservative websites, but not liberal ones, as “fake news.”

The same thing seems to be going on with Twitter. And again, conservatives are complaining.

But who is to decide what is “fake news”? Who will be Facebook and Google’s sources for real news?

In 2013 the U.S. Senate considered a new shield law to protect journalists. In the lawmakers’ attempts to narrow the definition of a journalist, some Senators including Sen. Dianne Feinstein only wanted to include reporters with “professional qualifications.”

“Professional” publications such as the New York Times, the “Paper of Record,” would apparently be protected.

So one can conclude that the New York Times can be a source of “real” news for Facebook or Google, despite all the Times‘ errors, screw-ups, and corrections, right?  According to one NYT former reporter, the Times has been a “propaganda megaphone” for war. Also a partner with the CIA to promote Obama’s reelection bid.

Or CNN, “The Most Trusted Name in News” which wins its own “fake news” awards with its errors, screw-ups and corrections.  During the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, there were collusion s between then-CNN contributor and DNC operative Donna Brazile, who was outed by WikiLeaks in her giving candidate Hillary Clinton questions in advance for a CNN Town Hall.

Other emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks informed us that reporters obediently followed instructions from the Hillary Clinton campaign on how to cover the campaign. These include reporters from the New York Times such as Maggie Haberman who said the campaign would “tee up stories for us,” and Mark Leibovich, who would email Clinton flunky Jennifer Palmieri for editing recommendations.

And Politico reporter Glenn Thrush asked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta for approval of stories on Clinton. Thrush was then hired by the New York Times. After Thrush was then suspended from NYT over allegations of sexual misconduct, the Times ended the suspension, stating that while Thrush had “acted offensively,” he would be trained to behave himself. Hmm.

But all this from the 2016 campaign reminded me of the “JournoLists,” the group of news journalists who participated in a private forum online from 2007-2010. The forum was to enable news reporters to discuss news reporting and political issues in private and with candor, but also, it was revealed, to discuss ways to suppress negative news on then-2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama.

For instance, according to the Daily Caller, some members of the group discussed their criticism of a 2008 debate in which Obama was questioned on his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Nation‘s Richard Kim wrote that George Stephanopoulos was “being a disgusting little rat snake.” The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky wrote that “we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy.”

Spencer Ackerman, then with the Washington Independent and now of the Daily Beast, wrote, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

The Nation‘s Chris Hayes wrote, “Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor.”(But has Hayes criticized Obama’s assassination program, or Obama’s bombings or the blood on Obama’s hands? Just askin’)

In an open letter, according to the Daily Caller, several of the JournoList members called the ABC debate a “revolting descent into tabloid journalism,” because of the moderators’ legitimate questions on Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So, in today’s Bizarro World, objectively questioning a candidate on a controversial issue is now “tabloid journalism,” but making things up like “Trump-Russia collusion” and repeating the propaganda over and over – that’s not “tabloid journalism.”

The JournoLists also included reporters from Time, the Baltimore Sun, the New Republic, Politico, and Huffington Post.

Now, are those the sources of “real news” that Facebook, Google and Twitter want to rely upon to combat “fake news”?

And who exactly were the “JournoLists” promoting? Obama?

Regarding Obama’s own crackdown on actual journalism, Fox News reporter James Rosen was accused by the feds of being a “co-conspirator” with State Department leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim in violating the Espionage Act.  Rosen’s correspondences with Kim were seized by Obama’s FBI, along with Rosen’s personal email and phone records. The FBI also used records to track Rosen’s visits to the State Department.

Apparently, then-attorney general Eric Holder went “judge-shopping” to find a judge who would approve subpoenaing Rosen’s private records, after two judges rejected the request.

Commenting on James Rosen and the FBI’s abuse of powers, Judge Andrew Napolitano observed that “this is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior.”

And there was the Obama administration’s going after then-CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, possibly for her reporting on Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Attkisson finally resigned from CBS news out of frustration with the company’s alleged pro-Obama bias and with CBS’s apparently not airing her subsequent reports.

In 2013 CBS News confirmed that Attkisson’s computers had been “accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions.” In 2015 Attkisson sued the Obama administration, claiming to have evidence which proves the computer intrusions were connected to the Obama DOJ.

In Attkisson’s latest lawsuit update, after her computer was returned to her following the DOJ Inspector General’s investigation, her forensics team now believes her computer’s hard drive was replaced by a different one.

Now back to “fake news.”

After Donald Trump locked up the Republican Presidential nomination in May, 2016, there were significant events in the next two months. Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele colluded to get opposition research on behalf of Hillary Clinton, the FBI applied for FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign associates, and Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner had a possibly set-up meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.

Also within that same period, the DNC claimed that its computers were hacked but the DNC wouldn’t let FBI investigate. The Washington Post published an article claiming, with no evidence presented, that “Russian government hackers” took DNC opposition research on Trump.

It was very shortly after the November, 2016 Presidential election that the Washington Post published an article on a “Russian propaganda effort to spread ‘fake news’ during the election.” To escalate the media’s censorship campaign perhaps?

The campaign against “fake news” coincided with Obama minions at FBI, DOJ and CIA apparently panicking over a possible Trump presidency and allegedly abusing their powers to attempt to take down Trump.

So the news media seem to be on a crusade to fabricate “Trump-Russia collusion” and repeat it over and over, and to vilify, ignore and squash actual investigative research and reporting on what exactly the FBI and DOJ bureaucrats have been doing. Call such real investigative reporting “fake news,” “conspiracy theory,” and so forth.

In the end, Facebook, Twitter and Google might want to reconsider relying on the mainstream news media led by the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, and instead include citizen journalists and non-government-sycophant media to provide news and information.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has noted that the Founders generally viewed the freedom of the Press to apply to every citizen to print, publish or express accounts of events. We really need to highlight that kind of old-fashioned, honest journalism.

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog.




Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog. The article is republished under a 2018 Creative Commons License. 









Inmates Deliver Brutal Prison Justice to Jihadist Inmate Wanting To Murder Children

by Ben Marquis


Though it may sound odd, there is something of an informal hierarchy and honor code among criminals and prison inmates, and those who prey upon young children are generally held in low regard or flatly despised by other criminals who are at least honorable enough to leave children alone.

As such, it was no great surprise to learn that a convicted terrorist who had threatened violence against the young royal prince in the United Kingdom received a bit of “prison justice” from unknown assailants who were incarcerated with him.

According to The U.K. Sun, a 32-year-old self-proclaimed follower of the Islamic State group was allegedly assaulted in prison and slashed with a makeshift knife by at least one other inmate who has yet to be identified by authorities.

That terrorist’s name is Husnain Rashid and he is currently serving three concurrent life sentences after he confessed to three counts of “engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts,” as well as a four-and-a-half year sentence for “encouraging terrorism” among jihadists, according to the Sun.

Rashid initially ran into trouble after he shared images online of the 4-year-old Prince George of the British royal family family next to an anonymous jihadist fighter with a message that read: “Even the royal family will not be left alone.”

The terrorist had also urged other jihadists to inject poison into ice cream containers and called for vehicle attacks on pedestrians attending the recent World Cup tournament soccer matches in Russia. He also sharedother disturbing and inflammatory images online, including advice on obtaining and using various weapons to commit terrorist acts.

According to the U.K. Daily Star, Rashid was attacked on Wednesday, June 25, by at least one other inmate at the Manchester Strangeways prison who used a toothbrush with a blade attached to it to slash a huge gash on or near Rashid’s right ear, likely due to his threats against the young prince.

“There was blood all over his cell and the landing,” explained an anonymous source at the prison. “Nobody likes him or what he did, like threatening that young royal lad and all the ice cream stuff.”

“We don’t tolerate that kind of thing in Strangeways,” the source added.

Rashid was reportedly taken to a hospital for treatment while the prison attempted to identify his unknown assailant.

“A prisoner received hospital treatment for minor injuries following an incident at HMP Manchester on Wednesday 25 June,” said a Prison Services spokesperson in a brief statement, according to The Sun.

“An investigation is taking place.”

To be sure, we don’t condone “prison justice” or think it is a good thing when vigilantes take matters into their own hands. It’s the job of the proper authorities to mete out justice in accordance with established law.

That said, we have a hard time feeling much pity for someone like this admitted terrorist receiving such unorthodox justice at the hands of another prisoner — particularly given his terrorist threats against children — and don’t feel particularly compelled to vehemently condemn the jihadist’s attacker.

In other words, don’t call for violence against innocent children unless you are prepared to defend yourself from others — even convicted criminals — who instinctively understand that innocent children must be protected.

As radical Islamic terrorism continues to fester around the globe and true justice for criminal jihadists seems spotty at best, this would-be murderous militant will not only spend the rest of his life behind bars, but will also likely spend the rest of his days in fear of what his fellow convicts may do to him in response to his atrocious calls for violent jihad against children.



Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

What You Need to Know About EPA’s New Boss Andrew Wheeler

by H Sterling Burnett


Former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s resignation from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) marked the end of a productive but tumultuous period for the agency. The good news? Pruitt’s replacement, Andrew Wheeler, will likely continue the needed reforms Pruitt began. In the immortal words of The Who, “Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.”

However history judges Pruitt’s tenure at EPA, critics and supporters can agree he initiated a series of efforts to fundamentally transform the antiquated agency. He ended sue-and-settle agreements; reshaped its science advisory committees; reduced graft; and rolled back myriad regulatory actions, including the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, the massive increase in the Corporate Fuel Economy Standard (CAFE), and various energy efficiency mandates for appliances. Thanks to Pruitt, EPA is finally changing how it conducts business.

You might be concerned that Pruitt’s absence could result in a complete change in course, but fear not! President Donald Trump’s energy and environment agenda will not substantively change with Wheeler’s ascension to the agency’s top post.

Sadly, and not surprisingly, environmental zealots treated Wheeler’s appointment as though it is the end of the world. A Huffington Post headline stated, “Scott Pruitt’s Replacement Is Even Worse.” In the article, Frank O’Donnell, president of the left-wing group Clean Air Watch, stated, “This is like rearranging deck chairs on the environmental Titanic.”

The Left’s histrionic response to Wheeler mirrors its response to Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of an appointee’s qualifications, anyone Trump nominates to lead the EPA will inevitably be tarred and feathered by the Left and braded a climate-change-denying polluter. 

Environmentalists dread Wheeler for the same reason small-government advocates applaud him: Wheeler could be even more effective than Pruitt at rolling back onerous regulations. EPA’s new chief has significant experience working within and outside of the agency. In fact, Wheeler won awards for his work at the agency between 1991 through 1995. Subsequently, Wheeler worked as majority staff director and chief counsel at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, with EPA oversight. Wheeler will be more than capable to rein in EPA overreach.

The regulatory rollback at EPA started under Pruitt is expected to increase with Wheeler at the helm. EPA is currently working on overhauling CPP, WOTUS, and CAFE to improve transparency and ease compliance with commonsense guidelines.

In his short time as the agency’s acting administrator, there has been no shortage of statements supporting Wheeler as a more disciplined, less scandal prone replacement for Pruitt.

“We have full confidence in Andrew both from his past experience and the job he has done at EPA,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Washington Examiner. “We think he will carry on the Trump reform agenda in a really competent way.”

“For the top people at the EPA, the various Pruitt accusations have been a real challenge and a distraction,” Ebell continued. “Once Pruitt is gone, and Andrew is in charge, people will get back to doing their jobs everyday rather than accusations.”

“With Andy Wheeler stepping in to replace Pruitt, I think we’ll see a change in style but not in substance,” Jeff Holmstead, a former deputy administrator of the EPA in the George W. Bush administration, told the Washington Examiner. “Andy probably is the ideal person to lead EPA at this point.

“Pruitt got a lot of regulatory reforms started, but he’s never worked a regulatory agency and didn’t fully understand the administrative process and what it would take to get them finalized. Andy certainly does,” Holmstead said. “He’s worked on these issues for years and may actually be more effective than Pruitt when it comes to carrying out the reforms that Pruitt started.”

No one knows exactly what Wheeler’s tenure might mean for EPA climate policy. Driven by the endangerment finding, EPA has begun the process of drafting a replacement of CPP. However, if Wheeler’s past statements are any indication of EPA’s future actions, it seems like sound science will replace climate alarmism.

The Huffington Post notes in 2010, while working for the Senate, Wheeler “accused the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of blurring ‘the lines between science and advocacy’ and functioning ‘more as a political body than a scientific body,’ suggesting EPA could ‘reconsider its endangerment finding without almost exclusively relying upon the IPCC.’”

All Trump administration officials operate under an intense (and biased) media spotlight. It is difficult, if not impossible, for any Trump appointee to stay below the radar, but if anyone can remain effective and ethical, Andrew Wheeler certainly can. With his knowledge of the inner-workings of EPA’s regulatory processes and his low-key, non-confrontational style, Wheeler can complete the job Pruitt started and restore the EPA back to its mission:protect human health and the environment.



Obama Admin Busted for Approving $200k Grant to Terror-Connected Organization

By Cillian Zeal


Few nations have felt the sting of Islamism as acutely as Sudan. When the Second Sudanese Civil War started in 1983 (just 11 years removed from the First Sudanese Civil War), the east African nation was already one of the more despairing corners on God’s green earth.

Yet, the regime in Khartoum felt that what its citizens really needed — instead of economic development or jobs or anything of that ilk — was the imposition of Shariah law. And when the mostly-Christian south didn’t resign themselves to the legally codified strictures of the Quran and Hadith, among other non-religious issues of exploitation that were deeply unpopular in that region of the world, the government decided to embark on a conflict that lasted over 20 years and resulted in the highest death count of any war since World War II.

The war ended in 2005 and South Sudan later became its own nation, although one still suffering from war-induced privations. In other words, given all this, one would think any government would be somewhat sensitive to religious extremism in the region, either emanating from officialdom or an extra-governmental source.

Alas, not so much — at least where the Obama administration is concerned.

“The Middle East Forum has discovered that the Obama administration approved a grant of $200,000 of taxpayer money to an al-Qaeda affiliate in Sudan — a decade after the U.S. Treasury designated it as a terrorist-financing organization,” Sam Westrop of the Middle East Forum wrote in a piece for National Review this week. “More stunningly, government officials specifically authorized the release of at least $115,000 of this grant even after learning that it was a designated terror organization.”

The funds in question were distributed by an interlocutor to the Islamic Relief Agency or ISRA — a Khartoum-based organization also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency that had links to Osama bin Laden and Maktab al-Khidamat.

Maktab al-Khidamat was an Afghani fundraising organization that was the progenitor of al-Qaida. ISRA had raised more than $5 million for Maktab al-Khidamat by 2000, in addition to helping “to secure safe harbor for” bin Laden when things went awry.

In October 2004, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control designated ISRA a terrorist finance group, meaning (obviously) it shouldn’t be receiving any aid from any American, much less their government. However, a July 2014 award of $723,405 to evangelical group World Vision Inc. to “improve water, sanitation and hygiene and to increase food security in Sudan’s Blue Nile state” included $200,000 for ISRA.

When the U.S. Agency for International Development had been alerted to the fact that ISRA was probably on the terror list by World Vision, they started an assessment of the situation and warned the group to “suspend all activities with ISRA.” However, World Vision was apparently unhappy with this, saying that the assessment was taking too much time and that ISRA “had performed excellent work” for the evangelical group and that the assessment was “putting contractual relationships in limbo for such a long period is putting a significant strain” with their relationship with officialdom in Khartoum, since ISRA also has close contacts with the Sudanese government.

“World Vision’s statement stunned USAID officials, who complained that World Vision’s behavior ‘doesn’t make sense,’” Westrop writes. “USAID official Daniel Holmberg emailed a colleague: ‘If they actually said that they wanted to resume work with ISRA, while knowing that it was 99% likely that ISRA was on the list then I am concerned about our partnership with them, and whether it should continue.’”

By January 2015, the Treasury Department’s OFAC had ruled that ISRA was indeed a terrorist organization, meaning World Vision would have to cut ties with them. Instead of realizing they were in bed with an organization that had helped create al-Qaida and backing away, World Vision wrote to Obama administration USAID official Jeremy Konyndyk, imploring him for a new contract to pay ISRA for “monies owed for work performed” and said that “their whole program will be jeopardized.”

There’s a lot of machinations behind the scenes here, but here’s the condensed version: the Obama administration eventually approved a new contract for ISRA after “close collaboration and consultations with the Department of State,” which World Vision said came as a “great relief as ISRA had become restive and had threatened legal action, which would have damaged our reputation and standing in Sudan.”

In other words, the Obama administration acted on behalf of an organization which in turn was willing to act on behalf of an organization with close ties to al-Qaida and the mephitic Sudanese regime.

The Obama administration has a long and storied history of ignoring extremism, from the Islamic State group to Afghanistan to Africa, where groups like Boko Haram barely made the administration’s radar. Now, we discover that the administration was giving money to a group that actively fundraised for al-Qaida in a country that’s already been devastated by Islamism.

Nineteen months on, we’re still dealing with that ugly legacy — and so, unfortunately, is the rest of the world.



Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.









Amazon.com Abusive and Invasive Customer service

by Allen Williams


Recently, I was in the market for some new R-12 hoses to refurbish an older AC gauge set when I happened on an advertisement from Amazon featuring all three replacement hoses for about $17+ bucks.  It seemed like a good deal except for the long delay in shipping the goods but I wasn’t in any hurry so I thought I’d sign up.

Unfortunately, I quickly discovered that Amazon.com doesn’t allow ‘guest purchases’ as does EBAY, its ‘members only’ at Amazon and your order is conditional upon membership acceptance.  I received the following confirmation memo Jan 16, sent to me at our sites email address.

 Amazon

Order Confirmation

Hello Allen Williams,


Thank you for shopping with us. You ordered "Atoplee 3pcs (2500~500)PSI...". We’ll send a confirmation when your item ships.

Details Order #105-5734003-9497812

Arriving:
Monday, February 6 -
Tuesday, February 28

Amazon.com

 

 

 

This was the typical automated response however, the next day I received a follow-up email which I expected to be an actual ship date but instead my ‘account’ was frozen!

Subject: Re: Your Amazon.com order cannot be shipped
On 1/16/  12:24 PM, address-verification@amazon.com wrote:

There was a problem processing your order. You will not be able to access your account or place orders with us until we confirm your information.

You can help us resolve this issue by replying to this message with the billing name, address, and phone number registered to your card. Please reply from the email address registered to your Amazon.com account.

If needed, update your information with the card issuer.

For your security, we restrict access to your billing details to a team of account specialists. Our Customer Service team cannot access these details or provide you with more information on this issue. They can only verify that we sent this request.

We ask that you not open new accounts as any order you place may be delayed.

Amazon.com


This makes no sense unless the real purpose of being an Amazon member is to open all of your transactions to government phishers. All the personal 'verification' needed was to PING the card in amount of $1.00 to confirm its validity otherwise the card would be rejected outright. What Amazon is really saying here is that we don't trust you to be who you claim to be without outside confirmation. That's not membership, it's abuse.

Apparently Amazon no longer limits abuse to its employees but is now including customers as Salon reports: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers. “You might find your Prime membership morally indefensible after reading these stories about worker mistreatment.“ Don’t be overly shocked, this is simply globalism and its New World Order business practices. It’s the future of American business. Oh that’s just sour grapes. Really? Well how about Amazon used ‘neo-Nazi’ guards to control workers in German factory? Oh, too harsh, still? How about the Orwellian work environment at Amazon as in Forbes’ assessment, “What Amazon's Work Culture Tells Us About Employee Disengagement

But what disturbs me most is the Huff Post Blog reporting a $600 million dollar deal Amazon struck with the CIA for cloud services which likely means the CIA has access to all purchases made by Amazon customers. The Blog further reports: ”.. a signer in Cincinnati wrote: "If Amazon chooses to sell out their customers to the CIA, I will never visit their site again. Betrayal shouldn't be the price of convenience.” This certainly goes a long way towards explaining why Amazon would be so interested in ‘confirming’ mine and others customer information.

On Jan 17th, I called the company and spoke to a representative who was to ‘look into the problem.’  I told them what had happened and the lady I spoke with indicated that I had to respond with the email address that I opened the account with.  Well, duh.. I DID that and they acknowledged it by responding to the ORIGINAL email address that I opened the account with!!.  (Actually, I responded with both my email addresses and still received the same mind numbing response.)

So, now we know what they’re saying here is NOT the real issue.  Note that I DIDN’T GIVE permission by FAX or in my telephone conversation with the AMAZON rep to verify anything with my card issuer for ANY REASON.  They simply took it upon themselves to contact the bank anyway.  That’s uncalled for as Amazon already had the information and acknowledged it with their reply but here’s their moronic response.

Hello,
We encountered an issue with your account, and have removed your access to this account because 
the card issuer has refused to confirm your name and billing address for your Visa ending in 56. 
You will not be able to access your account or place orders with us until we verify your information.
To resolve this issue, please allow the card issuer to grant our request, or send the information 
below to our secure fax line:
-- A copy of your statement for the payment card used, including the billing address
-- The last two digits of the payment card
-- Your name, phone number, and email address  
You can find our fax number on the Amazon.com Help page:
https://www.amazon.com/help/addressverification
We will convert your fax to a secure electronic image. To protect your information, 
we restrict access to your billing details to a team of account specialists.
Our Customer Service team can confirm that we sent this email, but they cannot view 
your fax or share more information about this issue.
You can expect a response from us within 24 hours of sending your fax.
If you would like us to confirm your information with the card issuer, reply to this email 
after you have arranged for them to grant our request.
In the meantime, please do not open new accounts because any new order that you place may be 
delayed. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. 
 
Amazon.com
 
Yes, secure like YAHOO and FACEBOOK which had millions of their ‘secure’ customer records 
hacked. And might they also be passing my business information along to the NSA or FBI as
BEST BUY technical people are currently doing for the FBI?  

The customer rep never addressed my reply or indicated why my bank had to confirm my identity.
A few days later I got another email asking why I discontinued my account. Interestingly enough, 
Amazon’s BEZOS owns the Washington Post and since I have been a written critic of that 
intellectual rag, the Amazon episode begins to make a bit more sense. 
Trump may be on to something in Donald Trump's war on Jeff Bezos, Amazon and the Washington Post  Looks like Amazon.com has been getting a pretty cushy tax break in their rise to economic fame.

And of course, we all know the ‘journalistic integrity’ of WAPO as in After the WaPost’s Latest Shot, It’s Time to Call ‘Fake News’ By Its Real Name ‘Weaponized Journalism’ My observation to the WAPO editor on instructions from Jeff Bezos for their news coverage is that company policy (written or otherwise) dictates news coverage just as it would with any other firm subsidiary.  Don’t think for a moment that WAPO isn’t looking out for the Amazon billionaire’s interests. 

Amazon’s request for my credit card statement is clearly ‘over the top’ and BS pure and simple.  
If you can't believe I who I say I am; we can not have any meaningful business relationship.  I've 
purchased many things online from EBAY and other suppliers and have never experienced such a request.

There is another possibility, the company is advertising the sale of an item they don't have and won't 
have available unless a sufficient number of people express interest before they order from their
China supplier. In that case you might want a verifiable customer base to motivate the Chinese.

If you’re an Amazon customer get prepared for more invasive scrutiny of your account information, and if you’re not, don’t JOIN!.









This was too good not to share

Submitted by LeRoy C


“Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got 53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as “Putin’s Child”?

Oh wait, that wasn’t Trump it was John Podesta.

Remember when Donald Trump received 500 thousand for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies?

Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.

Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation?

Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.

Remember when Donald Trump lied about that and said he wasn’t a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 1/5 of our uranium, but then his emails were leaked showing he did lie about it?

Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Remember when Donald Trump got 145 million dollars from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians?

Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that’s part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Putin’s?

Oh wait, that was the Clinton Foundation.

Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only found out when a journalist went through Canadian tax records?

Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.

Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the 80s called and it wanted its Russian policy back. The Cold War is over?

Oh wait, that was President Obama.

Remember when Trump got caught on a hot mic telling the Russian ambassador he’d have much more flexibility after the elections, and the ambassador said he’d pass it on to Putin?

Oh wait, that was Obama.”

Emails, IG, server. They have it all.


http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/deep_state_-_shadow_gov_-_ses/news.php?q=1532108423

http://www.stage2omega.com/this-was-too-good-not-to-share/






The Clinton Cabal aka: The Clinton Foundation An Incestuous Club

by Buster Hyde USMC/Ret


If this is HALF true it is already more scandalous than I had imagined. Funny, I never read much about this in the mainstream corporate media.

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled.
Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity” known as the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation


Yet, from 2001 to 2003 NOT EVEN 1 of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

hmm, you think an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.  Guess who took over this investigation in 2002?  Bet you can’t guess.

None other than James “Wassup Homey?” Comey.  Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it? 

FBI Director Comey was board member of HSBC – Clinton Foundation & Drug Cartel ‘bank of choice’  21stcenturywire.com/2016/07/13/fbi…


What many are not aware of is the political and organizational links between Hillary Clinton and James Comey behind the curtain of international high finance.  Many are unaware that Comey served on the board of banking giant HSBC (aka ‘international drugs & terrorism money laundering clearing house’) before parachuting softly into the head of the FBI in 2013.

That’s only the beginning…

It appears that James Comey (who is actually a lawyer by trade) also has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons, including the case of Sandy Berger, a former Clinton Administration aid.


During the Berger probe, Comey said publicly that ‘we take issues of classified information very seriously’, all the while seeming to undermine the scope of the investigation   – presumably to protect the Clintons:


2004, Comey, then deputy atty general in Justice Dept, apparently limited the scope of criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out fmr Clinton admn officials who may have coordinated w/Berger in his removal &destruction of classified records from the National Archives.

The documents were relevant to "accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.”

“Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson,

..which prepared tax returns for the Clintons & did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary used when she was secretary of state.”

Hogan & Hartson in Va filed a patent trademark request on May 19, 2004, for Denver-based MX Logic Inc., the computer software firm that developed the email encryption system used to manage Clinton’s private email server beginning in July 2013.
washingtonian.com/2011/12/12/how…

1999, Bill Clinton nominated Loretta Lynch for 1st of her 2 terms as US attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until she joined "Hogan & Hartson" in March 2002 to become "a partner" in the firm’s Litigation Practice Group.” opensecrets.org/revolving/sear…Many are unaware b4 Comey was installed by Obama as FBI Dir, he was on the board at HSBC Bank – a bank implicated in international money laundering, incl laundering of billions on behalf of international drugs & narcotics trafficking cartels.

Many are unaware b4 Comey was installed by Obama as FBI Dir, he was on the board at HSBC Bank – a bank implicated in international money laundering, incl laundering of billions on behalf of international drugs & narcotics trafficking cartels.  
Also Forbes points out Comey was at the key choke-point during the case involving dodgy auditor KPMG which followed on by the HSBC criminal case:

Auditor KPMG which followed on by the HSBC criminal case:

If Comey, & his boss Atty Gen Alberto Gonzalez, had made a different decision about KPMG back in 2005, KPMG would not have been around to miss all the illegal acts HSBC & Standard Chartered SCBFF +% were committing on its watch.

Bloomberg reported in 2007 that back in June of 2005, "Comey was the man thrust into the position of deciding whether KPMG would live or die for its criminal tax shelter violations.”

So according to the establishment narrative, Comey was the one who will “keep an eye on the banks” & “help stamp out corruption,” while the opposite seemed to happen.

Comey was he put in place to stop corruption, or to enable it?  His record certainly warrants some study on this point.
It seems that our beloved Leaking & Lying former FBI Director was also a director & board member of HSBC, which is "tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation."

Check out some of these links:  hsbc.com/news-and-insig…

“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial 3-yr term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting.”

 
“Clinton foundation received up to $81,000,000.00 million dollars from clients of controversial HSBC bank” (where James Comey was sitting on their board - "weird" I Know right..!?)

It’s like a revolving door of ca$h and "special projects" that the "bank" & the "charity" known as the Clinton Foundation are involved in.This is the same HSBC accused of laundering drug cartel money, was heavily involved in the LIBOR scandal, and who knows what else, and all while our esteemed FBI Director James “she didn’t intend it” Comey was part of the senior leadership.

But...I Digress.

BTW,Guess who was transferred in to the IRS to run the "Tax Exemption Branch" of the IRS? (You know like for "non-profit charity organizations" like oh...say The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation)

Your friend and mine,..our favorite person in the whole world (HINT: if you are aTea Party mbr, Pro-Life or a 'True the Vote' supporter)……. ding, ding, ding, ding via @YouTube

None Other Than
Lois -I -Plead -The -5th Lerner. 

Hauled b4 Congress, Lerner said:  “I have NOT done anything wrong, I have NOT broken ANY laws, I have NOT violated ANY IRS rules &res, & I have NOT provided false info to this or any other congressional committee.”  She then invoked her 5th Amendment & refused 2 answer ANY questions

Obama had the audacity to pre-judge the outcome of a DOJ (fake) "investigation" of IRS abuses against conservative groups, proclaiming "there's not a smidgen of corruption" – by which he seems to mean not a "scintilla of criminality." 

This "family" however, is not done growing.

So, Comey is at the bank, Lynch is at the law firm, Lerner is at the IRS and Obama was at the wheelhouse sharing the "wheel" w/Hillary herself....But Wait! That's Not All....

It gets better, well not really "better" in a good way, but I am sure this is all just a series of strange "coincidences", ...right? or....no?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?  No, really....take a guess...

None other than our favorite Lawyer (abt to get burned) the Assistant Attorney General of the United States,  Rod Rosenstein.
justice.gov/tax/criminal-t…
Now, THAT IS interesting, ....isn’t it? 

And now that this incestuous, slobbering lust for power & money affair is nearly a "family"...it's not quite there yet.  "Will the next family member step forward please?"

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this exact same time-frame?  I know, it’s "a miracle"
just "a coincidence",  just "an anomaly" in statistics and chances,

Why it's none other than James Comey's "Mentor" and Herman Muenster-Wannabe: "Robert Mueller."
Yes "WAY!" 
 
OK Quick Quiz On What We Learned (hopefully)

~What do all casting characters have in common?

Answer:  They were ALL briefed and/or were front line investigators re: the Clinton Foundation Investigation.  Now that’s a YUUGE coincidence.....right?

 Fast forward to 2009:
~James "I don't Leak" Comey leaves the Justice Department to go & cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
~Hillary's running the State Dept, on her own personal email server out of a bathroom closet in her home.
~The Uranium1 “issue” comes to HRCs attention .

Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America’s best interest, Hillary decides to support the decision to approve sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, those rascally Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal...except it wasn’t, the People got absolutely nothing out of it.
However, b4to the sale approval, an Arkansas former Gov "Cigar-Stuffin-Slick-Willy"  aka: Former US President & Hubby 2 Hillary (& Head of Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) goes to Moscow, is paid 500K for a 30min speech then meets w/Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Yup.That "Putin"

Same Putin that was helping @realDonaldTrump become the 45th @POTUS destroying Crooked Hillary by "spying" and "Colluding" and anything else that CNN & the DNC & Hillary can think of. (even Russian chicks peeing on ea othr just 4fun) thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/photos…

Here's a question/answer that will make you want to punch a liberal in the pie-hole. You ready for this one?
Alright then: Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame?  Mueller!

Yep, THAT Robert Mueller. Oh, but I am far, far from the MEAT of this one:  Robert "Special Prosecutor" Who Is Telling US To: "Sssshhhhh, Be Vewy Vaaawy Qwuit..I'm Hunting Wusshins!"

HE HAND DELIVERED a Uranium Sample FROM HILLARY to Moscow in 2009.

(Yes, Moscow IS IN RUSSIA)

If he had 1/4 ounce of integrity he would have recused himself before taking this post based on overwhelming conflicts of interest … But so too would :
~James Comey
~Rod Rosenstein
~Andrew McCabe
~Loretta Lynch
and on...and on...and on...

They ARE ONE BIG INCESTUOUS FAMILY!

The ARTICLE continues HERE


Lisa Page Admits Her Texts ‘Mean Exactly What They Say’

by Randy DeSoto


Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe told reporters this week that former FBI attorney Lisa Page testified behind closed doors that the anti-Trump text messages between herself and FBI agent Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say.”

“In many cases she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks we’ve all misinterpreted his own words on any message that might be negative,” said Ratcliffe, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ratcliffe further stated in an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that Page gave the members of Congress attending the hearing “new information that Strzok wouldn’t or couldn’t that confirmed some of the concerns we have about these investigations and about the people running them.” {Like the Obama White House as new information reveals by Zero Hedge - ED]

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report released last month concerning the Hillary Clinton email investigation found Strzok’s anti-Trump texts with his then-mistress Page “deeply” troubling.

“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the report stated.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Strzok testified before the combined House Oversight and Judiciary committees last week that he did not remember writing the text, but he meant the “American people” would stop Trump by not voting for him.

“What I can tell you is that text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy,” Strzok stated.

In texts released by the inspector general in December, Strzok described Trump during the campaign as a “loathsome human” and an “idiot,” and found the prospect of him being president “terrifying.”

Page wrote Strzok in August 2016, “There is no way (Trump) gets elected.”

Strzok responded, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office …that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

“Andy” apparently referred to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who stepped down from the position in January to go on administrative leave. He was fired in March, two days before he was due to retire.



Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


Sportsmen Benefit from Interior Sec. Zinke’s Leadership

by H Sterling Burnett


The Department of the Interior (DOI), under the leadership of Secretary Ryan Zinke, has reversed Obama administration policies that hindered state wildlife management, harming hunters and anglers in the process. Consequently, sportsmen are now able to hunt and fish without undue restrictions, and nature-lovers are able to enjoy the great outdoors more fully.

On his last day in office, Dan Ashe, President Barack Obama’s director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), imposed a directive to phase-out the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on the 307 million acres of federal land controlled by the agency.

Some FWS wildlife managers and their partners in state agencies expressed objections about the order. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), which represents the 50 states’ fish and wildlife agencies, issued a press statement saying, “the Association views this Order as a breach of trust and deeply disappointing given that it was a complete surprise and there was no current dialogue or input from state fish and wildlife agencies prior to issuance.”  Not surprisingly, Ashe’s directive did not last long. As one of his first official acts, Zinke rescinded Ashe’s lead ban.

According to John Jackson III, president of Conservation Force, “this directive skipped the normal regulatory process, including scientific and public input—with good reason, because there is no sound conservation basis for the order. This was clearly a payoff by the outgoing Obama administration to radical environmental allies.”

With the support of the Trump administration, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to rescind an Obama-era takeover of wildlife management on public lands in Alaska. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which designated 157 million acres for national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, and national forests. As a compromise for seizing so much land, the federal government recognized Alaska’s authority to manage various natural resources, including fish and wildlife, on the vast majority of the lands appropriated by the federal government.

Contrary to ANILCA, the Obama administration took management of more than 78 million acres of Alaskan land, halting the Last Frontier’s management of predators on these lands. With President Donald Trump and Zinke’s encouragement, Congress reversed this action, returning wildlife management back to its rightful place: state officials.

Obama designated an unprecedented amount of federal land as national monuments, banning hunting and fishing across millions of acres of land and water, which undermined sound wildlife management. Trump requested Zinke review all the national monuments declared in the past 27 years to determine if they were sound decisions. Zinke recommended cutting the size or changing the management of 10 monuments. So far, Trump has followed Zinke’s advice on two monuments: reducing the size of the Bears Ears National Monument from 1.5 million acres to 220,000 acres and cutting the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument from two million acres to one million acres, reopening millions of acres for outdoor recreation.

In November 2017, Zinke acknowledged the critical role hunters and anglers have played in wildlife and habitat protection and improvement with the establishment of the International Wildlife Conservation Council (IWCC). Under the American wildlife conservation model, taxes on guns, ammunition, fishing tackle, and other hunting and fishing equipment, combined with state and federal license sales, fund the vast majority of wildlife and habitat recovery, protection, and management efforts.

Zinke selected experienced members of the hunting, fishing, and wildlife management community to serve on the council, which will advise DOI concerning how to improve wildlife conservation abroad and expand the public’s awareness of hunters’ contributions to wildlife conservation and in helping wildlife law enforcement.

In his statement announcing the formation of IWCC, Zinke said, “built on the backs of hunters and anglers, the American conservation model proves to be the example for all nations to follow for wildlife and habitat conservation.”

As one of its first acts, to combat poaching, IWCC recommended DOI allow the importation of the heads and hides of African elephants and lions taken on trophy hunts. IWCC said the species would go extinct without anti-poaching programs funded in large part by the fees paid by trophy hunters to take them.

FWS agreed with the decision to reverse the Obama administration ban on trophy hunting and importation. FWS determined revenue from permits to hunt elephants and lions, among other species, aids long-term conservation of the species by providing additional resources to anti-poaching and other conservation efforts.

More recently, in mid-May, Wyoming announced it would hold the first grizzly bear hunt in the lower 48 states in more than 30 years. This only happened because DOI announced it would not reinstate protections for the bears in and around Yellowstone National Park. Grizzly bears had been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1975.

The population of grizzly bears now exceeds 700, well greater than FWS’s population goal for the region. Accordingly, FWS concluded the bears were no longer endangered and delisted them, leaving it to the states to develop management plans to maintain bear populations at sustainable levels.

As a result, limited public hunts for grizzly bears should begin soon. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department voted to approve a limited grizzly bear hunt in the fall of 2018. Wyoming’s proposal would allow, at most, 22 grizzly bears to be killed by licensed hunters.

Idaho, with a much smaller population of grizzly bears, would allow just one bear to be taken this fall, while Montana has decided not to permit grizzly bear hunting yet.

Zinke has also opened hunting and fishing on hundreds of thousands of additional acres of the nation’s wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges are bought and paid for with fees from hunters and fishers. In November 2017, FWS finalized regulations opening or expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on 132,000 acres on 10 national wildlife refuges located across eight states.

On May 31, FWS issued proposed rules to open an additional 248,000 acres in the national wildlife refuge system to new and expanded hunting and fishing opportunities. FWS has proposed to open three new refuges to hunting and increasing hunting and fishing activities on 26 refuges. If the rule is finalized, there would be 377 hunting and 322 fishing wildlife refuges in total.

Thus far, Trump and Zinke have been allies and advocates for hunters, anglers, and anyone who thinks wildlife and wildlands are best managed by local professionals—not politicians. As an outdoorsman myself, I can only hope they continue their efforts on behalf of the sports and wildlife I love.



H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hburnett@heartland.org) is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.