tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:/posts The Patriots 2019-02-13T19:42:58Z Patriots News tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1373860 2019-02-13T19:42:00Z 2019-02-13T19:42:58Z Rutherford Institute Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Rein in Aggressive, Coercive, Potentially Violent Knock-and-Talk Practices by Militarized Police

by Rutherford Institute


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Warning of the danger to the public from the increasing use of “knock and talk” tactics by police, The Rutherford Institute has asked the United States Supreme Court to rein in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless attempts by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

In asking the Court to review the case of Young v. Borders, Rutherford Institute attorneys denounced a lower court ruling that failed to hold police accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

n an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Institute attorneys argue that the police violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting the “knock and talk” because the late-night raid at Scott’s home was an abuse of society’s norms and a trespass on Scott’s property. The Institute has also issued constitutional guidelines to educate the public about what they can do to preserve their constitutional rights against the coercive use of “knock and talks” by police as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless, unreasonable searches.

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus curiae brief in Young v. Borders is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester pursued a speeding motorcyclist, which he later had cause to believe might be armed and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors in the apartment complex in the vicinity of the parked motorcycle, starting with Apt. 114, which was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity. The deputies assumed tactical positions, guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.”



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1371975 2019-02-08T18:13:00Z 2019-02-08T18:12:57Z Don’t Buy The Carbon Dioxide Tax Myth – It Just Means More Government Control

By H. Sterling Burnett


The carbon dioxide tax is like the Hydra of myth. Every time some hero cut one of the Hydra’s heads off, two more sprang up in its place. The same is true for the carbon dioxide tax. Every time a version of the carbon dioxide tax is proposed, economists and other analysts deftly cut its head off, showing its promises of climate salvation and economic prosperity to be false, myths like the Hydra itself, yet two more versions of the tax arise.

Progressives and socialists embrace the carbon dioxide tax myth to promote more government control, their control, over the economy and peoples’ lives.

Sadly, a number of old mossback, Rockefeller Republicans have also embraced the myth of the carbon dioxide tax. The main attraction for them seems to be their belief they can create a revenue-neutral carbon dioxide tax. For them, it’s just a matter of political engineering. The problem is, the idea a carbon dioxide tax can be revenue neutral is just as much of a myth as that it will save the earth from climate doom (as if the earth needed saving, which the best science shows it doesn’t), or that it will increase jobs and boost the economy.

As my colleague James Taylor has persuasively written, no carbon dioxide tax is revenue neutral for the households being taxed. A carbon dioxide tax raises the price of coal, natural gas, and gasoline in an attempt to force consumers to purchase more expensive wind power, solar power, and electric vehicles. Although consumers will spend substantially more money on energy and energy-related bills, the wind and solar industries will pay no carbon dioxide taxes.

As Taylor points out, the tax revenue generated by a “successful” carbon dioxide tax — one that significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions — will decline sharply over time, leaving little money to return to the people. Thus, although the government would not receive much revenue to return to consumers from the tax, people, now paying substantially more for their energy bills, will face a dramatic decline in their discretionary household incomes.

Nor will the tax be revenue neutral for households with workers in the fossil fuel industry or related fields. The idea that all the oil field workers, coal miners, coal and natural gas power plant operators, and those working in chemical and plastics manufacturing will be able to smoothly transition to other jobs without a hitch is a myth as well: their household incomes will fall sharply in the short-term if not permanently. And even if they could simply snap their fingers and magically switch jobs, the jobs they would be taking installing and servicing solar panels and wind turbines simply don’t pay as well as the jobs they will be forced out of by the carbon dioxide tax.

Nor, in truth, could any carbon dioxide tax be truly neutral in terms of government revenue.

Even if Congress and the president keep their hands out of the till, not finding creative ways to spend whatever new revenue a carbon dioxide tax generates, and returns it through some scheme to the people being taxed, it’s simply a fact a good portion of the revenue generated by the tax will be diverted to the bureaucracies involved in collecting it and disbursing the tax checks. No government program is cost-free.

Just as with every other government program, there will be huge transaction costs for collecting, tracking, auditing and archiving taxes paid and revenues paid out. New employees will have to be hired, or existing federal government workers will have to divert their time from other responsibilities, to account for the carbon dioxide taxes to be paid, assure that they are paid, to police the program, and to send out the revenue checks and handle complaints when disputes arise.

These and other costs will eat up billions of dollars each year. Unless these costs are paid directly out of the carbon dioxide tax revenues — in which case all the revenues will not be returned to taxpayers as promised — then the government will have to impose other taxes or take on additional debt to pay for the program. So much for revenue neutrality.

Anyone who tells you paying a new tax will be good for you, especially a tax on fossil fuels that serve to power the economic prosperity we currently enjoy, is lying. In the meantime, hang onto your wallets and when the time comes, vote any and all policymakers who support carbon taxes out of office.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1370156 2019-02-04T05:40:41Z 2019-02-06T18:37:23Z The Wrap Up Smear

                            

 

                                                                                

The Wrap Up Smear

This is the Democratic party at it’s best. Lie,smear,slander and then publish it.                 

       Brought to you by the leaders in communist propaganda and fake news

                        Meet the face of the Democratic party.

 
 
                                                                                
                                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMJdDwQlcc8

                       
                                                                              
                                                                                  
 
                                                                             
]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1369582 2019-02-02T17:40:35Z 2019-02-03T18:42:40Z Movie of the year?
    This is going to be the pillow fight of the year. A pro-life movie that’s partially financed by MyPillow CEO Michael Lindell. For many this will be what is known as a “significant social event.”
 
                   

                                      “Unplanned”

 
                                                            
]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1368753 2019-01-31T02:56:06Z 2019-02-03T18:39:41Z A woman's right

Abortion doctor explains a woman’s right to choose what she does ‘with her own body’.

 
 

       And this ladies and gentlemen reveals the character of today's liberals,

   it's not murder, it's just a woman's right to rip her unborn child into pieces

   small enough that it won't clog the toilet when she flushes.

      This is the platform that the democratic politicians promote to get elected. We are supposed to vote for them....

                                       

“Because they care about the ‘little’ people’’.

 
 


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1368644 2019-01-30T21:30:00Z 2019-01-30T21:29:47Z Acid Rain - Monitoring SO2 in a Flue Gas Desulfurization Unit

by Applied Analytics


From the 1970s through the 1990s, acid rain was the main environmental concern. Lakes1, vegetation2 and animals3 were affected.

The New York Times reported in 1979:“The rapid rate at which rainfall is growing more acidic in more areas has led many scientists and governmental officials to conclude that acid rain is developing into one of the most serious worldwide environmental problems of the coming decades.”4

What is acid rain?
 
Acid rain simply refers to rain or other precipitants that have uncommonly high acidity. This is a result of SO2 in the air that dissolves in water creating sulfuric acid. The source of this SO2 is largely power plants that burn fossil fuels.
 
EPA
 
The EPA, under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, created the Acid Rain Program (ARP). The aim was to reduce the amount of NO2 and SO2 emissions, while allowing for the industry to employ cost-effective technology to achieve this goal. As the following graph shows, the program was a remarkable success.

Figure 1. SO2 Emissions from CSAPR and ARP Sources, 1980–2016 (ARP- The Acid Rain Program; CSAPR -Cross-State Air Pollution Rule)5

The EPA reports concluded that experience with the Clean Air Act since 1970 has shown that protecting public health and building the economy can go hand in hand.6 Furthermore, “The emissions reductions have led to dramatic improvements in the quality of the air that we breathe. Between 1990 and 2017, national concentrations of air pollutants improved... 88 percent for sulfur dioxide”7


Figure 2. Note. Data for SO2 concentration from SO2 Air Quality, 1980-2017 (Annual 99th percentile of Daily Max 1-hour Average) National Trend based on 42 sites. 90% decrease in national average8

The Technology
 
Flue gas desulfurization units are used to remove SO2 from flue gas; the process is also called scrubbing. The most common type is limestone scrubbing, in which the flue gas is stripped by dissolution into water. The stripped gas reacts with the limestone (CaCO3) resulting in solid residue, in this case calcium sulfite (CaSO3). The scrubbing efficiency is usually higher than 90%. To achieve this level of efficiency, the concentration of SO2 must be monitored both before and after the process.
 
The Analysis
 
The OMA-300 measures a full, high-resolution spectrum. This allows for both applications to be monitored continuously by the same analyzer, from 4000 ppm to 10 ppm full scale. Hence, it provides an indication of the process’ effectiveness by measuring the SO2 before and after the flue gas desulfurization unit.


Figure 3: Absorbance spectra of SO2 40 ppm and 4000 ppm, demonstrating that one analyzer can be used for both applications simultaneously. The absorbances at different wavelengths are correlated to the SO2 concentration.

The Future
 
While controlling industrial SO2 emission in North America and Western Europe has been largely successful, acid rain is still a problem in rapidly growing economies such as China and India. Even the famous Taj Mahal in Agra is facing corrosion of its marble9. Hopefully, in the very near future, these burgeoning regions will implement the same technology and regulations that worked so well in more established countries.
 
References
 
1. WILLIAM K. STEVENSJAN , ‘Study of Acid Rain Uncovers a Threat To Far Wider Area’, New York times, 16, 1990.
2. WILLIAM K. STEVENSAPRIL, ‘The Forest That Stopped Growing: Trail Is Traced to Acid Rain’ New York Times, 16, 1996 .
3. LES LINEMARCH ‘Acid Rain Leading to Moose Deaths’ , New York Times, 12, 1996.
4. (BAYARD WEBSTERNOV. “Acid Rain: An Increasing Threat” New York Times 6,11, 1979).
9. Henry Fountain and John Schwartz ‘Have We Passed the Acid Test?’ New York Times May 2, 2018


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1366134 2019-01-23T01:11:01Z 2019-02-08T18:07:59Z Get Ready-- they're coming for your money
I really wish this article wasn’t so dead on but I’m afraid it is. It seems that the propaganda wing of the ‘educators’ today left out the part about Marxism. It always ends up with a 100% Tax and “"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" ”
 

 
 

Throughout history, whenever the wealth gap gets large enough, it gets corrected.

If you are having trouble viewing this email, or you'd like to share this article, please click here.

Please enable images for the best reading experience


January 22, 2019
Dorado, Puerto Rico

Every so often throughout history, the peasants grab their pitchforks and come for the elite. It happens when the wealth gap grows too extreme… when people feel like they are getting left behind, with no opportunity to advance.

Central banks around the world have printed trillions of dollars over last decade, and pushed interest rates to zero, and sometimes below. And all of that stimulus went directly into the pockets of the wealthy.

Since 2009, the world’s billionaires more than DOUBLED their combined wealth. All the billionaires in the world had $3.4 trillion in 2009. By 2017, they amassed $8.9 trillion.

Mark Zuckerberg multiplied his wealth almost 20 times over, from $3 billion in 2009, to over $58 billion in 2019.

$8.9 trillion is a massive, almost incomprehensible amount of wealth.

But it really shouldn’t be that surprising if you think about it… these people are wealthy for a reason. Typically, they are pretty good at making money. And with the snowball effect, if you give them more time, they will probably make even more.

For the last ten years, we’ve seen a huge asset price inflation in everything from the stock market, to bonds and real estate, and even fine art and wine.

But if you’re a wage earner without assets, you’ve been left out. Wages and median household wealth have stagnated.

And this is a global issue…

The combined wealth of the poorest half of the world--3.8 billion people--fell by 11% just last year, according to Oxfam, a group working to alleviate poverty.

The New York Times claims the richest 8 people on the planet have more wealth than the poorest 3.8 billion.

And Forbes says the 3 richest Americans have as much wealth as the poorest half of the country’s population.

People feel trapped, like they have no path to prosperity. They see money thrown around by the government, and the rich. They see stocks and real estate boom… but where is theirs?

It’s this lack of MOBILITY that really gets the masses worked up.

3.4 billion people got poorer last year. How many more stayed exactly where they were, or barely budged? The vast majority of the global population is the same or worse off than they were 12 months ago.

Meanwhile a tiny group got embarrassingly rich.

I’m not trying to sound like some radical, left-wing, social justice warrior. I just know that throughout history, whenever the wealth gap gets large enough, it corrects.

Sometimes that happens through legislation and sometimes it happens through violence. People demand that their politicians forcefully redistribute the wealth. And the politicians, always hungry for more power, are happy to step up to the plate.

We’re starting to see this in America today.

Last week we talked about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s speech in which he said: “Brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. There’s plenty of money in this city. It’s just in the wrong hands.”

What he meant was that the people who earned the money shouldn’t get to keep it.

Then there’s the new star of Congress, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. She supports hiking income taxes up to 70%, providing free medical care, free college, a chicken in every pot and a unicorn in every garage.

And, of course, she blames capitalism for everything wrong with the United States… and says “it will not always exist in the world.”

Ray Dalio, manager of Bridgewater, the world’s largest hedge fund, is hobnobbing with the global elite at a Swiss ski resort in Davos. He says that among the attendees, the ideas of this 29-year-old freshman Congresswoman are actually taking root.

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman thinks AOC’s 70% is too low.

Somewhere between 73% and 80% is the optimal tax rate he says. Under his plan, the government will graciously let you keep up to 27% of what you earn.

Unfortunately, the public likes what it hears.

According to Gallup, 51% of 18-29 year olds view socialism favorably.

Only 45% view capitalism positively. That’s down from 68% in the same age group just a few years ago.

And membership in the Democratic Socialists of America has swelled 7x just in the last two years.

Their candidates are certainly crowding the 2020 primary.

There’s Elizabeth “you didn’t build that” Warren. Bernie Sanders and his tens of trillions of dollars worth of promises for free-stuff.

Former Obama cabinet secretary Julian Castro is one Presidential contender who wants “free” two-year college. Like Bernie, he has also endorses Medicare for all, a government run socialized healthcare scheme.

Other likely contenders, Senator Corey Booker and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, want a federal guaranteed jobs program to hand out cushy government job with benefits to anyone who wants one.

And now Kamala Harris is officially in the race.

Harris is a Senator from California who will undoubtedly appeal to the socialist uprising. Already she endorsed AOC’s call for a 70% tax rate, and won’t rule out BANNING private car ownership to address climate change.

Her campaign slogan is “For the people.” And the campaign colors are red and yellow… just missing the hammer and sickle.

image

All of these candidates want to take your money and redistribute it to the people who keep them in power. It is SO obvious what is going to happen next.

There will be more government spending that they can’t afford. More bureaucracy, more central planning…

As de Blasio said, he thinks people have a socialistic impulse which makes them want the government “to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.”

And unfortunately the statistics are supporting this view.

These are the new socialist candidates for the presidency who all promise to take your money and do with it what they see fit.

But here’s the thing, none of this stuff works. Central planning doesn't work. Bureaucracy doesn't work.

It drags everyone down, and lifts up only the politically connected. We’ve seen it a million times before, across the world, throughout history.

Unfortunately, it seems like the trend of American socialism is picking up steam.

These Presidential candidates (along with a large chunk of American voters) are determined to turn America into yet another failed experiment in socialism.

To your freedom,

Signature

Simon Black,
Founder, SovereignMan.com

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1363018 2019-01-13T22:26:20Z 2019-01-14T18:26:18Z How they do it


Fake News    The Communist News Networks 
 
 

 

 

Examples of the Media Manipulating Events

 

There's no denying that the media often isn't wholly objective and truthful in its coverage of news events. The photos you're going to see below show just how easy it is to manipulate people's perceptions of an event that's being covered for the sake of whatever agenda that the powers-that-be at a given news network might have. Take a look: An angle makes a world of difference.

 

 

 

 

Creating the impression of strength in numbers for Hillary Clinton!

 

 

 

 

This soldier looks like he was threatening the boy in the first image.

It turns out he wasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

Not many people turned out for the launch of UK PM Theresa May's campaign bus...

 

 

 

This photo was staged between photographers and a young Palestinian.

 

 

 

 

The kid in this infamous photo was participating in a pro-immigration demonstration.

He wasn't even a detained illegal immigrant.

 

 

The camera was used to create the illusion of more people.

 

 

 

 

Not quite as many people there as was made out...

 

 

 
 
]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1361379 2019-01-08T15:53:00Z 2019-01-08T15:54:22Z The 16 Year Plan to Destroy America

by Allen Williams


The globalist chart below pretty well sums up the Obama administration as well as Hillary's presidential plans if she had won the 2016 election.


Glancing at the chart above may appear conspiratorial at first but a great number of these tag items have already been done or are in progress. For example, rogue operators have been operating in government as in FBI agents Strzok and Page.

ISIS funding has been traced to NATO and hence Obama. There's no question that the Iran deal was the epitome of funding America's enemies. And Obama did a number of purges in the US military to weaken the command structure.

Conservatives have been under attack by the media for some time and attacks heightened in social media censorship in recent years.

There's little doubt that Obama's selection of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor were intended to move the court to the progressive left.  And US immigration experienced an unprecedented flood of illegals including violent criminals under his watch.

Hillary Clinton has already called for the end of the electoral college during her 2016 loss. The Clinton foundation has pocketed millions in their supposed philanthropic endeavors in Haiti.  And Hillary made millions more in the Uranium One sale to the Russians.

Get the full report here: https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/opinion-conservative/2019/3423493.html

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1358016 2018-12-28T22:44:00Z 2019-01-24T05:37:34Z Spectrum - a Rip off Internet Service Provider

by Allen Williams


I acquired Time-Warner’s Everyday Low Price internet plan about six years ago as I’m not a gamer and I don’t stream movies from NetFlix. I just enjoy reading the news and making occasional online purchases.  So I didn’t feel the need to pay for Hi speed internet.  Time Warner was a pretty good plan with decent service.

About 5 years ago Time-Warner was bought out by AT &T who sold off the cable service to Charter Communication’s Spectrum.  

Right from the start I began getting calls from their representatives for me to upgrade my service, add phone, TV and what not which I declined.  I have my own broadband phone installation which works fine so I didn’t need another.  At the same time I was receiving saturated mailings from Spectrum informing me of what extra service packages I could order.  The phrase ‘not interested’ has absolutely no meaning to the company.

In December of 2018, I opened my Spectrum bill and found that it had jumped 25 percent, down slightly from the 33 percent increase of 2017.  I promptly called them to discover the reason for the latest increase.

The Representative I talked with either wasn’t very knowledgeable of Spectrum plans or was deliberately misleading me on the various options.  It’s likely a corollary of the axiom “Tell customer anything to get the job or keep the service.

The Time-Warner Everyday Low Price (ELP) Internet plan is no longer offered on the Spectrum Website and the company will not let customers sign up for that plan even though my monthly bill continues to show the ELP selection.  http://concerningconsumers.bangordailynews.com/2017/03/16/home/spectrum-discontinues-time-warners-14-99-everyday-low-price-internet/ After informing me several times that Time-Warner no longer exists and that essentially I didn’t have a right to the ELP service at Spectrum, she continued to evade my questions on the reason for the price increases.  After much persistence on my part she finally told me that Spectrum initiated a company wide price increase.  

However, despite the representative’s assertions, the pricing increases appear to be some sort of punitive measure to force the consumer on to a plan of the company’s choosing rather than honoring the user’s preference. There’s also nothing like subsidizing Spectrum’s acquisition costs for Time Warner.

Today’s business strategies concentrate on forcing customer’s to buy services they don’t need or want at outrageous prices in a captive market created by government regulations and other federal enablers.  Remember Net Neutrality..a half baked government plan to equalize broadband speeds, no blocking access or throttling traffic, etc?

Broadband competition is intentionally muted to force prices upward and holdovers from less expensive plans are targeted for forced upgrades:  https://eu.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2017/06/08/spectrum-customers-not-happy-in-time-warner-cable-changeover/376695001/

I’m not alone in experiencing Spectrum’s abusive rate hikes; Charter Communications has lost roughly 100,000 subscribers during the switch from Time -Warner Cable to Spectrum.  Here are more customer’s thoughts:

“After being a customer for 18 years they are trying to increase prices well above their ongoing advertised prices of TV Service, Internet Service.” 

“When Spectrum purchased Time Warner I kept getting a letters in the mail from Spectrum stating save $10 to switch to Spectrum, reading the fine details, year two would increase by $10, year 3 would be what ever going rate is.  I just hit year 2 and price went up $20.  I called and spoke to 5 people. All said I am getting the correct rate.  If anyone has a copy of the letter to prove me right or wrong would be appreciated”   Read more Spectrum complaints at: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/spectrum/internet/spectrum-spectrum-internet-service-took-over-time-warner-cable-industry-california-1338932

Spectrum offerings differ from locale to locale usually pushing phone, Internet and TV services at three to four times the cost of internet alone. The cheapest Internet offering I saw was a promotional at $44 per month soon to become $65 a month.   And Spectrum only offers two speed tiers – 60 Mbps and 100 Mbps, “with no data caps, usage-based pricing or additional modem fees,” according to a recent company press release.  

  • 60 Mbps = $64.99 ($53.99 for customers who also have Spectrum TV)*
  • 100 Mbps = $104.99 ($93.99 for customers who also have Spectrum TV)*

I asked the Rep if there were any changes to my broadband speed.  Spectrum responded that I’m getting 3.5 MB service but clocking the Internet speed with Speedtest shows 2.3Mbps.  http://www.speedtest.net/#, Download at 3.02 Mbps; Upload 0.25 Mbps

Spectrum’s own speed test is pretty comparable with a slightly higher Upload speed at 0.5 Mbps but these will vary from day to day based on traffic load, etc.  https://www.spectrum.com/internet/speed-test.html 

Both tests confirm that I’m getting less than 3.5 Mbps service so either the Rep doesn’t know what speed is supposed to come with Time-Warner’s old ELP service or one gets whatever the company feels like providing.

I would rate Spectrum at zero if the Sitejabber system would allow me for Spectrum’s deceptive business practices, disingenuous advertising, credit billing irregularities, minimal plan choices and unwillingness to allow people to keep their current plan and an endless solicitation harassment to upgrade services.

Spectrum is a dud. Best to avoid it.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1357262 2018-12-26T18:50:00Z 2018-12-26T18:51:57Z Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

by Ed Condon


Washington D.C., Dec 21, 2018 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- A judicial nominee faced questions from Senators this month about whether membership in the Knights of Columbus might impede his ability to judge federal cases fairly. The Knights of Columbus say that no candidate for public office should have to defend his membership in a Catholic service organization.

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”

In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.

“If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification,” he said.

Kathleen Blomquist, spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, told CNA that the senators’ questions echoed the kind of anti-Catholicism seen in previous generations of American history.

“Our country’s sad history of anti-Catholic bigotry contributed to the founding of the Knights of Columbus, and we are proud of the many Catholics who overcame this hurdle to contribute so greatly to our country,” Blomquist told CNA

“We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus—a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings—would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age.”

President Trump nominated Buescher to serve on the U.S. District Court on Nov. 3. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Buescher’s nomination Nov. 28, sending written questions to him on Dec. 5. 

The Knights of Columbus is active in 17 countries worldwide. In 2017, members carried out more than 75 million hours of volunteer work and raised more than $185 million for charitable purposes. Successive popes, including Pope Francis, have praisied the group for their charitable work and the manner in which they articulate Catholic faith and values.

In her questions to the nominee, Sen. Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society” and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined.

Responding to the senator’s questions, Buescher confirmed that he has been a member of the Knights since he was 18 years old, noting that his membership “has involved participation in charitable and community events in local Catholic parishes.”

“I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of 18,” he wrote in response.

Harris raised a statement from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who said that abortion constituted “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with Anderson.

Buescher said he was not responsible for drafting statements or policies made by the Knights and that, as a federal judge, he would consider himself bound by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

“I did not draft this language. If confirmed, I would be bound by precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and would not be guided by statements made by others,” Buescher told the senator.

Blomquist told CNA that asking a judicial nominee to defend his membership of a major Catholic charitable organization is disturbing.

“We believe that membership in the Knights of Columbus, which helps everyday men put their Catholic faith into action, is worthy of commendation and not something a nominee for public office should be asked to defend," she said.

In 2014, Buescher ran as a candidate in the Republican primary election for Nebraska attorney general. During that campaign he described himself as “avidly pro-life” and said that opposition to abortion was part of his “moral fabric.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) noted the nominee’s previously outspoken opposition to abortion and asked “why should a litigant in your courtroom expect to get a fair hearing from an impartial judge in a case involving abortion rights?”

Buescher responded that “as a candidate for Nebraska Attorney General in 2014, I did what candidates for any major state or federal office do, which is to take political positions on a variety of issues of the day.” 

“However, there is a difference between taking political positions as a candidate for elective office and serving as a federal judge. I believe a judge’s role and obligation is to apply the law without regard to any personal beliefs regarding the law,” Buescher wrote.

“If confirmed, I will faithfully apply all United States Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent on all issues, including Roe v. Wade."

Buescher also fielded questions from senators about Trump administration policy on Title X funding for clinics providing abortions and referrals, as well as on the application of anti-discrimination law to questions related to gender identity or sexual orientation.

The nominee underscored that, as a judge, it was not for him to advance personal or political opinions but to make fair and impartial rulings based on the law and judicial precedent. 

If confirmed by the Senate, Buescher will fill the vacancy left by Judge Laurie Smith Camp, who assumed senior status - a kind of judicial semi-retirement - on Dec. 1.

This story has been updated.






]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1354784 2018-12-18T18:55:00Z 2018-12-18T18:54:44Z EPA restores common sense to overaggressive water regulations

by Tim Huelskamp and James Taylor


The Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday it is rolling back some of the excessive, and possibly illegal, water regulations imposed by the Obama administration. EPA’s announcement is a welcome relief for homeowners and property owners impacted by overly aggressive EPA officials.

As a federal executive agency, EPA can only enforce laws that have been passed by Congress. While EPA has some rule making authority, it cannot make up laws of its own and then decide to enforce them. This is a very important check against a dictatorial presidency or executive branch. Regarding water regulations, Congress, via the Clean Water Act, has given the executive branch authority to regulate only those bodies of water that are “navigable waters of the United States.”

EPA has always asserted a broad definition for navigable waters. Dating back to the 1980s, EPA has asserted it can regulate smaller, streams and tributaries that cannot be navigated but that flow into navigable waters. EPA has also asserted it can regulate wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters.

The Obama administration attempted in 2015 to further expand the definition of navigable waters to include such entities as isolated ponds, dormant stream beds that are dry most of the year, and minor depressions in the land that hold water only in the immediate aftermath of significant rainfall.

The consequences of the 2015 regulatory overreach can, and have been, devastating. Overly aggressive EPA officials tell farmers they cannot manage or cultivate farmlands that hold isolated puddles merely a few days of the year. Homeowners are told they cannot landscape or fill in nuisance depressions in their property that hold water briefly after a heavy rain. Federal bureaucrats have stripped homeowners and families of practical ownership rights to property they have purchased and managed for generations. Property owners who defy the EPA and other federal bureaucrats face steep penalties and fines.

Citizen lawsuits have been moderately successful challenging the Obama administration’s overreach. Courts have blocked enforcement of the Obama administration’s 2015 regulations in 28 states. Still, homeowners and landowners in the remaining 22 states remain subject to the oppressive 2015 regulations. The issue has been a likely candidate for eventual Supreme Court review, but in the meantime, people remain subject to the unfair policy.

The Trump EPA is thankfully proposing to restore common sense to EPA regulatory authority. The agency proposes to walk back the Obama administration’s asserted authority to regulate stream beds and land depressions that are usually dry. EPA will no longer regulate wetlands unless they are “physically and meaningfully connected” to waters under EPA jurisdiction. EPA will also eliminate subjective criteria for determining whether land or water features qualify under navigable waters jurisdiction, granting individuals more certainty about how they can use their property. These corrections are long overdue, and represent another example of President Trump keeping campaign promises to reduce environmental and regulatory overreach.

Environmental activists are sounding an alarm about potential environmental harms, but their arguments are weak. EPA will still regulate all navigable waters, as well as meaningful permanent and intermittent tributaries to navigable waters. Also, very importantly, all 50 states have their own environmental laws and regulations, allowing regulation above and beyond navigable waters as defined by EPA. For normally dry streambeds, isolated depressions that only occasionally hold water, and other land features that the Obama administration sought to regulate, regulations will once again come from state and local governments that are more responsive and accountable to the people and communities being regulated.

EPA’s proposed rule will continue to provide strong environmental protection for the waterways Congress authorized EPA to regulate. At the same time, the proposed rule will roll back executive branch overreach and protect the rights of homeowners and landowners.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1354005 2018-12-16T07:27:31Z 2018-12-17T18:08:59Z Real education
 
This is pure education with the political correctness stripped from it. Islam, the religion of peace.  A history of Islam and a window into our future.

What future do the people with open arms welcoming the Muslim influx face? 
                
]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1351136 2018-12-07T17:31:00Z 2018-12-07T17:30:48Z The great Christmas night raid

by W. Thomas Smith, Jr

 

Continental Army General George Washington's celebrated Crossing of the Delaware has been dubbed in some military circles,  America's first special operation. Though there were certainly many small-unit actions, raids, and Ranger operations during the Colonial Wars and there was a special Marine landing in Nassau in the early months of the American Revolution, no special mission by America's first army has been more heralded than that which took place on Christmas night exactly 230 years ago.

Certainly the mission had all the components of a modern special operation (though without all the modern battlefield technologies we take for granted in the 21st century): "A secret expedition is how John Greenwood, a soldier with the 15th Massachusetts, described it, as quoted in Bruce Chadwick's The First American Army.

If nothing else, all the elements for potential disaster were with Washington and his men as they crossed the Delaware River from the icy Pennsylvania shoreline to the equally frozen banks of New Jersey, followed by an eight-mile march to the objective the town of Trenton.

The river, swollen and swift moving, was full of wide, thick sheets of solid ice. And unlike the romanticized portrayal of the operation in the famous painting by Emanuel Leutze (the one with Washington standing in his dramatic, martial pose; his determined face turned toward the far side of the river), the actual crossing was made in the dead of night, in a gale-like wind and a blinding sleet and snowstorm. Odds are, Washington would have been hunkered down in one of the 66-ft-long wooden boats, draped in his cloak, stoically enduring the bitter cold with his soldiers, some of whom were rowing or poling the boats against the ice and the current.


WASHINGTON'S STRATEGIC CONCERNS


The decision for the crossing and the subsequent raid on Trenton was based on Washington's belief that he had to do something. Otherwise, as he penned in a private letter,the game will be pretty near up.

To the easily disheartened and the cut-and-runners, it might have seemed "the game" was indeed already 'up'. After all, many of Washington's Continental Army were wounded, sick, and demoralized. Recent losses to the British had been severe. Desertion numbers were rising, and enlistment terms were almost up. Reinforcements were poorly trained and ill-equipped. Ammunition was in short supply. The soldiers were not properly outfitted for extreme winter conditions: Clothing was spare. Many men were in rags, some naked, according to Washington' own account. Most had broken shoes or no shoes at all.


THE PLAN


The mission itself, though a huge gamble, was tactically simple.  Washington, personally leading a force of just under 2,500 men, would cross the river undetected, march toward Trenton, and attack the enemy garrisoned in the town at dawn.

 Two of Washington's other commanders, Generals John Cadwalader and James Ewing, were also directed to cross: Cadwalader's force was to cross and attack a second garrison near Bordentown. Ewing's force was to cross and block the enemy's escape at Trenton. Both commanders, discouraged by the weather and the river, aborted their own operations. But according to Maurice Matloff's American Military History (the U.S. Army's official history), Driven by Washington's indomitable will, the main force did cross as planned.

 Speed of movement, surprise, maneuver, violence of action, and the plan's simplicity were all key. And fortunately, the elements all came together.

The factors in Washington's favor were clear: The weather was so bad that no one believed the Continentals would attempt a river crossing followed by a forced march, much less at night. The Continentals were numerically and perceived to be qualitatively inferior to the British Army. The Hessians, mercenaries allied to the British and who were garrisoned in Trenton, had a battlefield reputation that far exceeded their actual combat prowess. And no one believed the weary Americans would want to attempt anything with anyone on Christmas.

 

THE CROSSING


Hours before kickoff, Washington had his officers read to the men excerpts of Thomas Paine's The American Crisis, a portion of which reads:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.”

By 4:00 p.m. the force was gathered at McKonkey's Ferry, the launching point for the mission. The watchword, “Victory or death,” was given. When darkness set in, the men climbed into the boats and began easing out into the black river.

Back and forth throughout the night and into the wee hours of the 26th, the boat crews ferried the little army, a few horses, and 18 cannon across the Delaware. The crossing was complete by 4 a.m., but two hours behind schedule, and the temperatures were plummeting. At least two men, exhausted and falling asleep in the snow, froze to death.

 

ATTACKING TRENTON

 

The next obstacle was the march toward Trenton in blinding snow, sleet, even hail; and on bloody frostbitten feet. Keep going men, keep up with your officers, Washington, now on horseback, urged as he rode alongside his advancing infantry.

Just before 8:00 a.m., the advance elements of the American army were spotted on the outskirts of town by a Hessian lieutenant. But by the time he was able to sound the alarm, all hell was breaking loose. Americans were rushing into Trenton with fixed bayonets. The Hessians , some still in their underwear, and nearly all with hangovers from too much Christmas Day celebrating, were attempting to form ranks, but were quickly overrun. Many fled in a panic. Hundreds surrendered. Those who resisted were shot down or run through with the bayonet. The Hessian commander, Col. Johann Rall, was desperately trying to rally his men. But he was shot from his horse, and died later that day.

One of Washington's junior officers, Lieutenant James Monroe was leading a charge against a Hessian position in the town, when he took a musket ball in the chest and collapsed. Amazingly he survived, and would ultimately become the fifth president of the United States.

The fighting lasted about an hour. Four Americans had been killed and ten-times as many Hessians lay dead in the snow. Some 900 enemy prisoners were rounded up, along with weapons, ammunition, and other desperately needed stores. And Washington's victorious army was soon marching back along the river road to the waiting boats and the return crossing.

 

WHAT IT MEANT FOR AMERICA

 

Days later when many enlistments were up, Washington ordered his commanders to form ranks. He then rode out before the troops, and appealed to their sense of duty as well as the criticality of their fight:

"My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than could be reasonably expected, but your country is at stake. The present is emphatically the crisis which is to decide our destiny. " Indeed it was in December of 1776, just as it is in December of 2018.

Washington held his little army together. Many of the continentals renewed their enlistments. They then capitalized on their Trenton victory with wins over the British at Trenton (the second go around) on January 2, and Princeton on January 3.

The initial Delaware crossing and the raid on Trenton was the bold, high-risk shot-in-the-arm the nearly disintegrated American army needed in late 1776. The fighting was far from over, and there would be many setbacks for the Americans before the Treaty of Paris was signed formally ending the war in 1783. But the great Christmas night raid in 1776 would forever serve as a model of how a special operation or a conventional mission, for that matter might be successfully conducted. There are never any guarantees for success on the battlefield; but with a little initiative and a handful of good Americans, the dynamics of war can be altered in a single night. {Not to mention the providential hand of the Almighty - ED}


 


W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor and co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pirates. Be the first to read W. Thomas Smith Jr's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!

{A 2015 article updated from the Webnode site and republished here in honor of God,and remembrance of the marvelous victory he provided for America to be an independent self governing nation. .- ED}





]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1349064 2018-11-30T18:42:00Z 2018-11-30T18:42:11Z Brig. Gen.: Trump’s Right, Ex-Communist Brennan Is Threat, Needed to Be Stripped


There was a great outcry among Democrats and their liberal media allies on Wednesday when it was announced that President Donald Trump had revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Brennan, who now works as a paid analyst for NBC and MSNBC, has been a harsh critic of the president and has even accused him of committing “treason” against America. That’s an ironic accusation, given the strong suspicion that Brennan was thoroughly involved in what appears to be a “treasonous” scheme by the Obama administration to spy on, undermine and ultimately overthrow the Trump campaign-turned-presidency.

Nevertheless, while the left wails about Brennan’s loss of a security clearance — which has absolutely nothing to do with his “freedom of speech,” and only affects his freedom to leak classified materials — there are plenty who support the move that strips Brennan of his access to sensitive information.

The Independent Journal Review noted that one individual who supported the move was author and retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata, who explained why Brennan was a “clear and present danger” who never should have been granted a security clearance to begin with.

“I think it’s the right move by the president. Communist John Brennan never should’ve had a security clearance,” Tata stated on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday.

Co-host Brian Kilmeade interjected that Brennan had admitted in the past that he voted for a Communist Party USA candidate in the 1976 presidential election.

“And he supported that way of life,” Tata stated. “And the president made the right decision in revoking his security clearance.”

But Tata wasn’t just talking about Brennan’s politics from decades ago.

“You look at what he did in his official capacity … he oversaw the Iran deal and all of the intelligence, he manipulated (Islamic State group) intelligence for President Obama, he was part of the Russian hacking, he was standing down the cyber team to allow the Russia hacking in 2016,” Tata said.

“He had a secret meeting in March of 2016 with Russia. He flew to Moscow, and so there is a lot of evidence here. He met with Harry Reid and gave him parts of the unverified, Clinton paid-for dossier,” he continued.

Kilmeade interjected again to point out that Reid had stated the impression he received along with the dossier was “go and announce this,” implying that Brennan had utilized Reid to get the unverified dossier out into the public domain.

“And then he spied on American citizens and lied in front of Congress about that spying. And question 29 on the security clearance form says ‘have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government’ — all you gotta do is look at Brennan’s tweets and he supports the removal of this president, and right there that’s enough evidence to get rid of his clearance,” Tata declared.

IJR reported that Tata added, “I think that John Brennan is a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation.”

The general made a rather compelling case for why Brennan should have been stripped of his security clearance, a case echoed by the official White House statement read by press secretary Sarah Sanders about the matter, in which she stated that Brennan “has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”

While Brennan’s loss of security clearance may indeed be “unprecdented,” as the media made abundantly clear in their lamentations, that is true only insofar as he appears to be the first former CIA director to have involved himself in an equally “unprecedented” conspiracy to undermine and overthrow a duly elected president.

As was also made clear by the White House on Wednesday, Brennan may be the first high-level former Obama official to be stripped of his security clearance, but he likely won’t be the last.

Sanders included a list of other Obama administration officials who still retain security clearances, but whose credentials are “under review.”

That means they’re also at risk of being stripped of their clearances soon. And good riddance, truth be told. It’s about time.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1347707 2018-11-26T19:23:00Z 2018-11-26T19:22:50Z Judges Shut Down Professors’ Attack on the Second Amendment

By Kara Pendleton


An effort to stop Texans from legally carrying handguns on university campuses has failed. What some would call a twisted interpretation of the Constitution by three University of Texas at Austin professors was soundly shut down Thursday by a panel of three federal judges.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges determined the professors’ claim that the campus carry law infringes upon their First, Second and 14th Amendment rights was invalid.

The claims made by the professors in their lawsuit filed two years ago may leave some people scratching their heads. The reason may be found in a review of the facts. The full ruling of the judges may be viewed online. Here is the basic breakdown, one amendment at a time:

How does campus carry infringe upon the First Amendment? According to professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass and Lisa Moore, students and professors might be too afraid to discuss controversial topics in the classroom when someone in the room might be armed without their knowledge.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit said, according to The Texas Tribune.

The appeals court panel affirmed the dismissal of all claims by a district court judge. In the matter of the First Amendment, the district court judge had ruled that the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing by self-censoring her speech based on what she alleges to be a reasonable probability that concealed-carry license holders will intimidate professors and students in the classroom.”

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the campus carry law did not meet the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment. The judges called that spin on the amendment “admittedly fresh” but “invalid.”

This brings us to the 14th Amendment, which is not part of the Bill of Rights, as the prior two are. This amendment deals with citizenship and the rights of American citizens:

So how on earth does a student opting to carry a means of self-defense on campus infringe upon someone else’s citizenship or rights under the 14th Amendment? Hand on tight. It’s a doozy of an explanation.

The professors claimed in their lawsuit that campus carry violated the amendment because “the university lacks a rational basis for determining where students can or cannot concealed-carry handguns on campus.”

The federal judges shot that down as well, saying that Glass “ultimately fails to address Texas’s arguments concerning rational basis. Instead she simply argues that the prohibited concealed-carry zones are an ‘inexplicable hodge-podge.'”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision in a statement Thursday.

“The lawsuit was filed because the professors disagreed with the law, not because they had any legal substance to their claim,” Paxton said. “The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed for all Americans, including college students, and the 5th Circuit’s decision prevents that right from being stripped away by three individuals who oppose the law enacted by the Legislature.”

The case might not be over, yet. The professors can fight this ruling by asking for a “full appeals court” hearing or, within 90 days, opt to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their attorney, Renea Hicks, told The Dallas Morning News he doesn’t expect they’ll ask the appeals court to rehear their case.

“I’m doubtful that there’ll be a request for en banc review,” Hicks said. “As to asking for [Supreme Court] review, that’s something we’ll just have to discuss amongst ourselves when we all can coordinate schedules and sit down and meet.”


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1345841 2018-11-20T19:45:00Z 2018-11-20T18:12:00Z CNN and Other Leftist Outlets Accused of Planning to Smear Manafort Jury

by Cillian Zeal


The Paul Manafort case is now in the hands of the jury — and, if the people at CNN and other leftist news outlets have anything to do with it, that jury could be facing some serious intimidation.

According to Breitbart, CNN and six other news outlets have sued to obtain the personal details of the individuals who will judge the merits of the government’s case against the former Trump campaign manager.

Along with CNN, BuzzFeed, Politico, The New York Times, NBC and The Associated Press have filed a suit requesting the details of the jurors, including their names and home addresses.

Breitbart described the suit as “a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.”

Writing at The Federalist, Bre Payton noted that the request by CNN and other left-leaning outfits suggested there was more going on that simple journalistic pursuit of information.

“Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press,” Bre Payton noted at The Federalist.

This is doubly troubling when you take into account the fact that the judge in the case says he’s received threats due to his role in adjudicating the matter.

In rejecting the motion put forth by the news organizations, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said that he’s currently being trailed by U.S. Marshals because of the threats made against him, according to Fox News.

“I can tell you there have been (threats), Ellis said, adding that “The Marshals go where I go.”

“I don’t feel right if I release (the jurors) names,” he concluded. That would be bad enough, but CNN in particular has a long history of intimidating people that cross them. Last year, they threatened to dox an individual who created an anti-CNN .gif meme.  According to Breitbart, the network also doxxed an elderly Trump supporter who had promoted a pro-Trump event that may have been set up by Russians, leading to harassment and threatening.  And then there’s the time, as RealClear Politics reported, that the network gave out George Zimmerman’s Social Security number. We could go on and on.

With that kind of history in mind, CNN’s request to the court looks less like an act of journalists seeking information than it does the groundwork of a plan to attack the Manafort jury if it comes back with a verdict the media doesn’t like.

And then there’s the time, as RealClear Politics reported, that the network gave out George Zimmerman’s Social Security number. We could go on and on.

With that kind of history in mind, CNN’s request to the court looks less like an act of journalists seeking information than it does the groundwork of a plan to attack the Manafort jury if it comes back with a verdict the media doesn’t like.

This is an absolutely farcical request that serves no legitimate journalistic purposes. It’s doxxing, plain and simple.

These jurors don’t deserve this. CNN shouldn’t be putting their thumbs on the scales of justice.,



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1345534 2018-11-19T19:27:48Z 2018-11-19T20:10:30Z Complicating Conception: The Desires of Parents and the Rights of Children

A 2013 article about Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous sperm donation as the solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, the difficulties faced by donor-conceived children are just beginning...[emphasis added]

by  Christopher White

 

In the new film Delivery Man, Vince Vaughn plays David Wozniak, a man who discovers that he’s the biological father of 533 children—all conceived through his anonymous sperm donations. Now, almost two decades after his “donations” (from which he netted over $20,000), 142 of those children have filed a lawsuit against the sperm bank to reveal his identity. They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.

The film is fictional—but it’s not far from reality. In 2011, the New York Times reported the story of one donor with 150 confirmed offspring. There have only been a handful of major studies following children who were conceived via anonymous gamete donation, yet certain key trends are emerging as they reach adulthood. Although these adult children have mixed opinions about the means in which they were conceived and the limits of such technologies, they’re almost all united in one belief:  anonymity should be removed from the equation.

[Note:  “They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.  ... for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.”

Readers of Public Discourse are already familiar with Alana S. Newman, founder of the Anonymous Us Project and, most recently, editor of Anonymous Us: A Story Collective on 3rd Party ReproductionIn this volume, Newman compiles over one hundred stories of donor-conceived individuals who, like the kids in Delivery Man, long to know their biological parents.

“While anonymity in reproduction hides the truth,” writes Newman, “anonymity in storytelling helps reveal it.” Accordingly, these stories offer a glimpse into the reality faced by many donor-conceived children. Some contributions are angry, others are conflicted. All, however, reveal a deep loss. Consider just a few of the sentiments shared within the volume:

Who are you to deny me half of my family tree—branches rich and strong with stories I may never be told? Who are you to give away my heritage, knowing it will be replaced with something false?

I am a human being, yet I was conceived with a technique that had its origins in animal husbandry. Worst of all, farmers kept better records of their cattle’s genealogy than assisted reproductive clinics … how could the doctors, sworn to ‘first do no harm’ create a system where I now face the pain and loss of my own identity and heritage.”

“As a donor-conceived person, I have a sense of being part of an underclass … Having a child is a privilege not a right.

There’s also the story of a young donor-conceived adult who was raised by a single mother.

After her mother’s early death, she’s since been desperately searching for her donor father and potential other siblings in hopes that she might have some remnants of a family to piece together.

Another young woman tells of her own struggle with infertility when she and her husband were trying to conceive. After telling her mom of their difficulties, her mom casually suggests artificial insemination—informing her for the very first time in her life that this was the means in which she was brought into the world. Countless other stories capture the experience of donor-conceived children finding out their origins after their social father is diagnosed with a major medical condition—only to be told not to worry because it won’t affect them, since they’re not actually biologically related. The grief stemming from the medical difficulties is then compounded by an unexpected family identity crisis.

The entries included in the Anonymous Us collective aren’t just limited to the testimonials from donor-conceived children. Stories from medical providers, sperm and egg donors, and parents who chose to conceive via this method fill the pages of these raw and emotional testimonials.

While some entries are an effort to justify past decisions, others speak with great candor about the regrettable outcomes of such a practice.

One Italian sperm donor reflects on the experience of his own family life and laments that the children whom he helped bring into this world won’t be able to have similar memories:

“I have only a sister, but many, many cousins … and every time I meet them and all the relatives, we love to talk about similarities in the features, the body, the way we talk and move, because this gives us a stronger sense of identity and it is beautiful to have such a 'big family' … I hope this little story can help people in learning from the mistakes of the past.”

In another entry, a former egg donor regrets the fact that she’ll never be able to meet her son or daughter, admitting that she only participated in the practice because of the lucrative financial incentives attached to selling her eggs: “I don’t even remember what I spent the money on,” she writes. “Debt, dresses, and dinners probably. I’d give you $10,000 this very second to meet my kid. Biggest oops of my life.

In the United States, there’s an open and unregulated market for gamete donation. Unlike Canada and most European countries, which limit the number of times a man can sell his sperm and have mandatory database registries where donor children can access their biological parents' medical histories, the United States enforces no such regulations. This lack of regulation is due, in large part, to legislators’ failure to listen to the voices of donor-conceived children. “How can we as a nation make wise decisions about family structure, third-party reproduction, and gamete donation,” asks Newman, “without the participation of and insights from those who have been most directly affected by these practices?”

Just how many donor-conceived children are born each year is anyone’s guess, due to negligible tracking and regulation. At a recent conference for fertility-industry attorneys, I listened to a prominent children’s psychologist (who favors the practice of third-party reproduction) speak about the potential psychological issues donor-conceived children might face. In a moment of candor, she admitted, “We never thought about the future families. We only set out to fix the infertility.

And this is precisely the problem with donor conception: the desires of the parents always trump the needs of the children.

The stories in the Anonymous Us Project and Delivery Man demonstrate the real suffering and loss felt by donor-conceived children. Yet, in considering the problem of infertility, we also encounter countless couples who experience great distress and grief as a result of their inability to conceive. Infertility is a deeply painful and often isolating experience for millions of couples.

The CDC estimates that 10 percent of women trying to conceive are infertile; hence the increasingly common decision to pursue assisted reproduction. This drive to have children is understandable; social science research reveals that the presence of children in a marriage leads to greater happiness, increased financial security, and a lower likelihood of divorce.

We must acknowledge the painful truth that, as infertile couples seek to remedy their suffering through third-party reproduction, they are unwittingly inflicting pain on their future children.

Eventually, those children must wrestle with the circumstances surrounding their conception. In aiming to satisfy their very natural desire for offspring, infertile couples go to great lengths to create children who are destined to experience complex crises of identity and purpose.

This transgenerational suffering precipitated by the experience of infertility is one that must be met with compassion, to be sure. Yet we must also offer a corrective that acknowledges the limits of desire and love.

Rather than supporting an inward focus on one’s own pain and loss from infertility, we ought to encourage infertile couples to give deep consideration to the suffering that children conceived from these technologies may face. Moreover, rather than privileging one’s own desire for a child as the ultimate goal, we must encourage a preemptive compassion and empathy that should motivate infertile couples to refrain from pursuing such means.

 In one of the most revealing entries of the Anonymous Us collective, a former sperm donor criticizes the industry he profited from: “I now realize I was wrong. This whole system is wrong. Please forgive me, but I am not your father, nor did I ever intend to be.” Similarly, in one of the scenes from Delivery Man, when one of the donor children discovers that Wozniak is his biological father, the son seeks to spend time with him. Annoyed by this prospect, Wozniak brushes the kid off, telling him that he has a real family to attend to.

Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous egg or sperm donation as an imperfect, though still acceptable, solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.




[Note:  “They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.  ... for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.”

Indeed, their difficulties are just beginning.  We’ve been told for decades that “the” Human Genome Project (HGP) had decoded all the genes of “the” human chromosome, only to learn recently that they missed over half of them -- not to mention that there is no such thing as “the” human genome (every human being’s genome is unique), their sample was a pool of samples from people all over the world, that they admit that they only decoded the “extrons” (about 15-2-% of the total number of genes), that they skipped the “junk DNA” genes in the “intron” (about 85% of the genes), that they only decoded a nuclear chromosome -- yet the human genome is defined as all the DNA in a human cell, both nuclear and extra-nuclear, e.g., mitochondrial, etc.  So how could “the” HGP data -- which is now admitted to be erroneous -- be used as the “blueprint” for any genetic research experiments or as the source of knowing/understanding any human genes, including those that donor-conceived children are seeking?  Can’t. (See:  http://www.designntrend.com/articles/9627/20131214/never-seen-before-secret-dna-code-unusual-meaning-scientists-find.htm).

And more genes than simply those from a man’s sperm or a woman’s “egg” could be involved.  Consider, simply, the epidemic rise in the use of genetic engineering and the desire for “designer babies” (genetically designed to “prevent diseases”, even down through the generations, e.g., the recent concerns about “3-parent” embryos -- or genetically designed to produce children with certain hair and eye color, etc.), eugenics agendas of many types, etc.  Simply put, “genes” are “genes”, and will act as genes wherever they are injected;  any “foreign” genes injected into the “infertility” or “disease” pictures complicate the donor-conceived children’s future pain. 

What foreign genes?  Producing :desired” genetic traits for their children would require genetically engineering the sperm, the “eggs”, both, or the embryo resulting from fertilization.  Where do those genes come from that supposedly would express the desired traits in the children?  Usually from early human embryos reproduced by couples who already express those traits.  Those foreign genes must then be inserted into the sperm, the “egg” or the “embryo” by means of a vector -- usually a virus or a bacteria -- both of which have their own genes.  If iPS stem cells are used -- i.e., iPS cells can be coated with a tetraploid coating, and then implanted, and the iPS embryo can be allowed to develop up to the formation of germ line cells (primitive sperm and “eggs”) in the embryo, then those germ line cells are used in fertilization to reproduce a new embryo (which embryo would retain the foreign genes used during the iPS deprogramming process, as well as retain those from the tetraploid coating derived by fusing two embryos together to make the “coating”).  This technique requires foreign genes, in addition to the ones already mentioned, called “transcription factors” -- pieces of foreign genes derived from early human embryos.  Few if any records are kept concerning the various sources of these genes.  And many of these “splices” of genes are already known to cause tumors.  No one is quite sure where any of these genes land once injected;  no one knows for sure what products any of these genes make, or if all of this manipulation causes serious mutations in any of the genes involved, etc., etc.  How could donor-conceived children ever find out about any diseases they are genetically predisposed to now?   No one knows what serious diseases these genes could cause.  Very few if any serious records are kept concerning the “sources” of all these genes.  So who’s the “biological donor” now?  The man whose sperm was used and genetically modified?  The woman whose “egg” was used and genetically modified?   The embryo who was genetically modified?  The embryos from whom the “desired” foreign genes are derived that are injected into the sperm, “egg” or embryo?  The foreign genes from the viruses or bacteria vectors used?  The foreign genes that produce the transcription factors used?  The embryos fused to make the tetraploid coating, or the iPS embryo produced.  How many “biological” fathers and mothers could such donor-conceived children end up with?!

And why was the research that should be required to answer these critical questions never performed before experimenting with vulnerable infertile patients?  ...  And why are so many women (and men) infertile now?  Questions, questions, questions -- with no one giving answers. The article first appeared here. --  DNI]


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1344602 2018-11-16T17:20:00Z 2018-11-16T17:19:35Z Google Caught Misleading Users About Tracking Location Data

by Jack Davis


Google can always find you.

Contrary to claims Google was making to consumers, The Associated Press reported that some Google apps “automatically store time-stamped location data without asking.”

According to the AP, when a user simply opens the Maps app, that user’s location is stored.  Asking for weather updates means that a phone will note where the user was when the request was made.

But the AP also found random searches for subjects such as  “chocolate chip cookies,” or “kids science kits,” resulted in the phone tracking a user’s latitude and longitude.

Jonathan Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist, had his lab test and verify the AP’s findings. The AP reported that whether the apps were installed on iPhones of Android phones, the results were the same. Mayer said that’s a problem.

“If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” Mayer said. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”

The company said users are informed of what their phones are up to.

“Location History is a Google product that is entirely opt in, and users have the controls to edit, delete, or turn it off at any time,” the company said in a statement, Bloomberg News reported.

.“… we make sure Location History users know that when they disable the product, we continue to use location to improve the Google experience when they do things like perform a Google search or use Google for driving directions.”

Google needs to know where users are, one commentator said.

“They build advertising information out of data,” said Peter Lenz, the senior geospatial analyst at Dstillery, an advertising technology company. “More data for them presumably means more profit.”

After the report revealed Google’s practices, the Electronic Privacy Information Center wrote to the Federal Trade Commission saying that Google’s action “clearly violates” a 2011 settlement with the government over Google’s privacy practices, the AP reported.

12:04 PM - 15 Aug 2018
WIRED‏Verified account @WIRED

If you use Google Maps, Google is tracking you right now. Even if you turned off Location History, the search giant still tracks and stores your location. There's a way to stop it—but it takes a lot of digging. Here’s a handy step-by-step guide Here

Google also responded to the report by making a change in what it told consumers, according to a follow-up AP report

Google formerly told users that “with Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.”

Google now says, “This setting does not affect other location services on your device.” It adds that “some location data may be saved as part of your activity on other services, like Search and Maps.”

Google is owned by Alphabet Inc.

cience



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1344237 2018-11-15T17:32:29Z 2018-11-15T17:33:45Z Time is a River Lost that Cannot be Touched Again

by Anonymous


I love this story. Lay down what's bothering you, breathe in the fresh air and read to this story.

Time is like a river. You cannot touch the water twice, because the flow that has passed will never pass again. Enjoy every moment of life. As a bagpiper, I play many gigs. Recently I was asked by a funeral director to play at a graveside service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper's cemetery in the Nova Scotia back country. As I was not familiar with the backwoods, I got lost and, being a typical man, I didn't stop for directions.

I finally arrived an hour late and saw the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight. There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late.

I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn't know what else to do, so I started to play.

The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no family and friends. I played like I've never played before for this homeless man. And as I played "Amazing Grace", the workers began to weep. They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished, I packed up my bagpipes and started for my car. Though my head was hung low, my heart was full.

As I opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, "I never seen anything like that before, and I've been putting in septic tanks for twenty years."

Apparently, I'm still lost....it's a man thing.

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1343881 2018-11-14T17:01:00Z 2018-11-14T17:01:11Z Illegal Immigrant Arrested While Driving Wife to Hospital Is Wanted for Murder in Mexico

by Will Racke


An illegal alien who was arrested in southern California while taking his pregnant wife to the hospital is wanted for murder in Mexico, immigration authorities said Saturday.

Joel Arrona Lara, 36, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on Wednesday at a gas station in San Bernardino, California. At the time, Arrona was taking his wife, Maria del Carmen Venegas, to the hospital for a scheduled cesarean section, CBS 2 Los Angeles reported.

News of Arrona Lara’s arrest quickly spread nationally, with several media outlets characterizing it as an example of the Trump administration’s heavy-handed crackdown on illegal immigration.

Venegas told CBS 2 in Spanish that Arrona Lara had never been stopped by police and didn’t have a criminal record of any kind, including traffic violations.

But immigration authorities say Arrona Lara is not just an otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrant.

He is also wanted by Mexican authorities for murder.

“Mr. Arrona-Lara was brought to ICE’s attention due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges,” ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Security footage from the gas station shows Arrona Lara getting out of his car and being intercepted by ICE officers. A visibly distraught Venegas is then seen using a phone shortly after Arrona Lara is taken away.

Arrona Lara’s lawyer, Emilio Amaya Garcia, accused ICE officers of endangering Venegas and her unborn baby.

“In this case, not only did they put the life of the mother in danger, but also that of the child, who is a citizen of this country,” he told Univision on Thursday.

Arrona Lara has reportedly been living illegally in the U.S. for 12 years. ICE released the following statement about his arrest on Friday:

“Mr. Arrona-Lara, a citizen of Mexico illegally residing in the United States, was taken into custody Wednesday by ICE Fugitive Operations Team officers in San Bernardino, Calif. Mr. Arrona-Lara is currently in ICE custody pending removal proceedings with the Executive Office for Immigration Review.”

“ICE continues to focus its enforcement resources on individuals who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security. ICE conducts targeted immigration enforcement in compliance with federal law and agency policy. However, ICE will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States.”


A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.
]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1343553 2018-11-13T17:42:00Z 2018-11-13T17:42:13Z Voters Consider Energy Price Hikes in Arizona, Nevada, Washington

by H. Sterling Burnett


Voters in Arizona, Nevada and Washington state will soon decide if they want to pay more for less reliable electricity.

Progressive California billionaire Tom Steyer is trying to take California’s energy policies on the road. California energy prices are among the highest in the country, and Golden State residents suffer more non-disaster-related blackouts and brownouts than any other state. In a vain effort to control the weather 100 years into the future, California has adopted policies that restrict fossil-fuel use and severely limit residents’ energy choices. The result: high energy prices and unreliable electricity that works only when the sun and wind cooperate.

At a time when residents and businesses are fleeing California to seek more affordable energy and homes, California is now trying to export its misguided energy policies beyond its borders.

This November, voters in Arizona and Nevada will consider ballot proposals that would mandate an increase in the proportion of electricity generated from renewable power sources to 50 percent by 2030. Both measures are bankrolled by Steyer.

Additionally, Washington state voters, for the second time in three years, will consider a ballot initiative to impose the nation’s first tax on carbon-dioxide emissions.

The plain truth is, if voters approve these initiatives they will be paying higher prices for energy with little or no environmental benefit. Numerous studies have revealed that states with renewable energy mandates have experienced increased energy prices. The Brookings Institution found replacing conventional power with wind power raises electricity prices by 50 percent. Even worse, replacing conventional power with solar power triples electricity costs. In short, the higher the mandate, the higher the costs.

Europe is further along the renewable energy path than the United States, and the results are telling. Despite a 25 percent increase in wind power and 6 percent growth in solar over the past decade, carbon emissions actually increased in 2017, by 1.8 percent, due to the fact that “idling fossil fuel plants must be quickly brought online when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and, just like cars in traffic, idling engines produce more carbon emissions,” as reported by Nevada’s Sparks Tribune. Meanwhile, electricity costs across the European Union have increased by 23 percent during the past decade.

The same is true in the United States. Under its current renewable power mandate, Arizona produces 7 percent of its energy from wind and solar, an amount required to increase to 15 percent by 2025. The Energy Information Administration reports that meeting the current 7 percent requirement has already added $304 a year to the average Arizonan’s electric bill — meeting the 50 percent standard proposed in Steyer’s ballot initiative could cost Arizona residents an additional $2,100 annually.

The results are the same for Nevada. Over the last five years, the average Nevadan saw his or her electric bill rise by 11 percent, despite that nationally rates fell on average by 1 percent — and declined even more in states without green-energy mandates. This is due in part to Nevada’s existing renewable energy mandate.

A 2013 study commissioned by the Nevada Policy Research Institute showed that simply meeting the current requirement (utilities get 25 percent of the electric power they supply by 2025) would likely raise power prices by an additional 11 percent. This would also cost the state more than 3,000 jobs. Requiring 50 percent renewable energy just five years later, after the low hanging “inexpensive” power switching as already been accomplished, will make rates and job losses skyrocket even further.

Washington state’s carbon-dioxide tax would impose a penalty of $15 per metric ton on carbon-dioxide emissions, rising $2 per ton annually until the state meets its goal of reducing emissions 50 percent below 1990 levels. Evergreen State auditors found residents would pay approximately $2.2 billion more in taxes during its first five years of implementation, with gasoline prices likely to rise by 13 cents per gallon and the costs of home-heating oil likely to rise by 15 cents per gallon in 2020, the year the tax would take effect.

The higher energy prices and increased energy instability will be for naught with regards to preventing global warming. The United States is already reducing its emissions without such draconian policies, but even if it weren’t, nothing done in the United States can prevent a global rise in emissions because developing countries are adding huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as they industrialize.

Only the IRS, politicians and climate fanatics could love these high-cost, no-return ballot initiatives. Let’s hope Arizona, Nevada and Washington state residents see through the green smokescreen the ballot initiatives’ advocates are emitting.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1343233 2018-11-12T18:00:00Z 2018-11-12T18:00:04Z Greens Call for Clear Out of Climate Deniers

by Ross Hawkins


{A 2014 article with a disturbing message, truth is subservient to an ideological agenda - ED}


The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Published 14 February of 2014.

Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said.

Party leader Natalie Bennett said the rule must apply to all senior advisers, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues.

David Cameron says he suspects recent storms are linked to climate change.

Speaking recently, the prime minister said that while a single weather pattern could not be attributed to climate change, many scientists were talking of a link between the two and the UK should be prepared for more extreme weather.

But some Tory MPs and peers, Lord Lawson being the most prominent, have cast doubt on scientific theories on climate change which argue human activity is predominately responsible for recent rises in global temperatures. 

‘Emergency’

The Greens are now insisting the government gets rid of any cabinet minister who takes a different view on climate change.

Ms Bennett said: "We need the whole government behind this. This is an emergency situation we're facing now. We need to take action. We need everyone signed up behind that."  Pressed on the issue, she agreed that even the chief veterinary officer should be removed if he didn't sign up to the view on climate change also taken by the Green Party.

A policy document released by the party said: "Get rid of any cabinet ministers or senior governmental advisers who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or who won't take the risks to the UK seriously."

Ms Bennett added: "It's an insult to flood victims that we have an Environment Secretary (Owen Paterson) who is a denier of the reality of climate change and we also can't have anyone in the cabinet who is denying the realities that we're facing with climate change."

She said her party took the consensus view shared by many other organisations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In September, the UN-backed body said it was 95% certain that humans were the "dominant cause" of global warming since the 1950s.

The party also wants to see staff cuts at the Environment Agency reversed, a bigger budget for the Agency and tougher rules to prevent development on flood plains.

It says money spent supporting fossil fuels should be redirected to help victims of flooding.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1342098 2018-11-09T17:30:00Z 2018-11-09T17:29:50Z NY Post Bombshell Report Means Rosenstein Massively Rigged Cohen Trial

by Lisa Payne-Naeger


Sometimes I wonder if Donald Trump knew what he was really getting himself into when he decided to run for president and drain the swamp.

Everywhere he’s turned he has met roadblocks, opposition and betrayal as he tries to infuse policy he thinks will make America great again.

And ever since he was accused of colluding with Russia to sway the 2016 election, the constant turn of events have played out like a bad daytime drama. The latest twist in the plot centers around Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and if reports are true, he could be in a heap of trouble.

On Saturday, Michael Goodwin wrote in the New York Post that Rosenstein ordered United States Attorney Geoffrey Berman to recuse himself from the investigation into the Michael Cohen case, which in turn would leave his office staffed with Obama administration holdovers from Preet Bharara’s tenure as Berman’s predecessor.

Berman was appointed to the Southern District of New York position by President Trump after he fired Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee.

Since his firing, Preet has made his feelings known that he is not a Trump supporter. The bias is clear. Looks like the president made a good call on that one.

Preet Bharara‏Verified account @PreetBharara

Preet Bharara Retweeted Henry J. Gomez

Some people hate this president BECAUSE they love this country

Preet Bharara added,

Henry J. GomezVerified account @HenryJGomez
Ronna Romney McDaniel, addressing the RNC at its winter meeting: Democrats "hate this president more than they love this country."
8:20 AM - 2 Feb 2018

Preet Bharara‏Verified account @PreetBharara

So Trump can unilaterally pardon anyone, absolutely pardon himself, impose his will on DOJ, ban all Muslims, levy any tarrif, and start any war but he CANNOT tell Sessions, whom he slaps down daily, to ease up on separating infants from parents at the border? Ok

Chris Strohm of Bloomberg reports the significance of this move as they allege the strings of this case are being pulled not by the Justice Department, but by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

“Cohen’s guilty plea was secured as part of an investigation led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, not by Special Counsel Mueller or Justice Department headquarters, another frequent target of the president’s derision. Instead, the deal was made by Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the New York office,” he wrote.

“But neither Rosenstein nor Mueller is calling the shots for the investigation in New York, according to two people familiar with the matter. The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, commonly known as SDNY, has the independence to take investigative steps and charge people without approval from Rosenstein, one of the people said.

So while Rosenstein was consulted about Cohen’s plea, which implicated Trump in campaign finance crimes, he didn’t sign off on it or approve it, the person said. It’s not clear whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from Mueller’s probe extends to the investigation in Manhattan.”

To sum up the significance of this move, let’s just say that the SDNY is now driving the bus on any developing investigation into the Cohen case. While the Justice Department still holds oversight as all U.S attorneys still answer to Rosenstein, previously the SDNY has enjoyed independence of operation outside the U.S. Attorney’s office.

And the lines of communication are open and free between SDNY prosecutors and investigators in Robert Mueller’s office.

Bloomberg also states: “Rosenstein made the decision to give the Cohen case to SDNY following a referral from Mueller. That also ensured the investigation could continue even if Trump somehow managed to fire the special counsel, a politically dangerous move that many Republicans have warned the president to avoid.”

So, if it is true that Rosenstein intentionally moved the trial to SDNY, it might be more than a suspicious coincidence that a Trump-appointed attorney was ordered to recuse himself from the case leaving it to less-unbiased attorneys general.

What a mess and an endless saga of betrayal. Trump appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General in February of 2017, only to have Sessions recuse himself from the Russia investigations in the beginning of March of that year.

This left Rod Rosenstein in charge of overseeing the Russia investigations and he appointed Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor in May of 2017. Since that time there has been no evidence of Russian collusion, but the Mueller team has bull dogged members of Trumps inner circle and charged them with various unrelated crimes.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. These latest allegations are almost a kin to jumping the shark for television sweeps week.

I guess we will see who wins in the ratings race in November.







]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1341722 2018-11-08T18:45:00Z 2018-11-08T18:45:00Z Entire Plane Quarantined in New York City After Mysterious Illness Breaks Out Among Passengers

by Chris Agee


John F. Kennedy International Airport was the site of a quarantined commercial jet Back in Sept 2018 according to news reports.

The Airbus A388, operated by Emirates and arriving in New York from Dubai, had about 500 passengers on board.  An airline statement suggested about 10 individuals became ill while in the air. Some early reports suggested the number of affected passengers might have been 10 times higher.

“Emirates can confirm that about 10 passengers on board flight EK203 from Dubai to New York were taken ill,” said a company spokesperson.

She described the resulting quarantine as a precautionary measure, adding that passengers “were immediately checked by local health authorities and those needing medical attention will be attended to.”

WNBC reported that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was spotted at the airport along with Port Authority police officers. Authorities declined the news station’s requests for comment.

NYC Scanner‏ @NYScanner

Queens: JFK Airport, Emirates flight 203 from Dubai was heading towards NY landed after 100 passengers feeling sick aboard the plane, FDNY & hazmat on scene investigating.

6:49 AM - 5 Sep 2018
Though all passengers remained aboard at the time of the Emirates spokesperson’s statement, she indicated that those not affected by the as-yet unidentified illness would be able to deplane shortly.

One man who told Reuters reporters that he was among the passengers on the quarantined craft said they have little more information than those watching the situation develop from the outside.

“All we have been told is that there are some sick passengers and that we need to remain on board,” Larry Cohen wrote in a statement to the news organization.

About two hours after the landing, a statement from the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio revealed that about half of the passengers remained on the plane.

CameliaEntekhabifard‏Verified account @CameliaFard Sep 5
Replying to @tgoudsouzian

Survived!!! So scary. Told many many people including the crew members in Econ get very ill all taken to hospital and many remained in the plane quarantined! #JFK evacuated for our arrival. All customs having mask except us!

One passenger told local reporters that apparent symptoms of the illnesses began before the plane boarded in Dubai.

“When they were standing in line to board, people were coughing,” said Erin Sykes.

She added that many of the passengers “were not covering their mouths” when the coughed, leading her to take whatever precautions she could during the flight.

“I proceeded to put my jacket and the blanket over my head for the entirety of the flight because so many people were coughing, and so dramatically,” she said.

She described the resulting quarantine as a precautionary measure, adding that passengers “were immediately checked by local health authorities and those needing medical attention will be attended to.”

According to Sykes, passengers also complained of stomach maladies.
]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1341256 2018-11-07T17:45:00Z 2018-11-08T21:54:52Z What Sort of Energy Do You Want For Your Future?

by H. Sterling Burnett


The world is facing a stark choice. Should governments restrict energy use by dramatically raising the price of fossil fuels to fight purported human-caused climate change? Or should they permit the continued use of comparatively cheap, entirely reliable fossil fuels by rejecting carbon cap-and-trade schemes, carbon taxes, and mandates restricting the use of fossil fuels?

Put simply: People need to ask themselves whether they want to pay more for the energy they already get.

Advance reports of a new U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study indicate those who believe humans are causing allegedly dangerous climate change are in for some bad news, as The Hill recently reported: “[g]overnments across the globe are ‘nowhere near on track’ to meet their goal of preventing global warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial period.”

According to the IPCC report, only a massive, worldwide transformation of electric power, transportation, and agricultural systems can prevent the global temperature from rising the 2 degrees Celsius or less nations committed to as part of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Commenting on the report, Ola Elvestuen, Norway’s environment minister, said,“We are moving way too slowly. We have to do more of everything, faster. To reach the goals of the Paris agreement we need large structural changes.

There is a big problem, though: Governments are having a hard time convincing the people in their nations the radical restrictions on fossil fuels many climate alarmists are calling for are worth the minimal climate change benefits that might flow from the living-standard sacrifices they will be forced to make. Worse still, IPCC’s own calculations show these radical policies would be insufficient to prevent the targeted temperature rise.

Even the minimal actions taken or proposed by governments so far carry a steep price tag. For instance, in 2016 and 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted resolutions rejecting a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions based on research showing a modest tax of $28 per ton would result in decreased economic activity, eliminating as many as 21 million job equivalents over the next four decades while potentially reducing workers’ wages by 8.5 percent. A separate study indicates a carbon tax of $37 per ton would incur a loss of more than $2.5 trillion in aggregate gross domestic product by 2030—more than $21,000 in income loss per family—and lead by 2030 to the destruction of more than 500,000 jobs in manufacturing and more than one million jobs overall.

Canada’s Financial Post reports Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s $50-per-ton carbon tax would cost households in Nova Scotia $1,120 per year. In Alberta, the tax would cost $1,111 annually. Even in Manitoba and Quebec, the two provinces where energy prices are projected to increase the least as a result of the tax, households will still pay an additional $683 and $662, respectively, for their electric power each year.

There’s more bad news for Canadians: Many climate alarmists say to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to the degree necessary to avert catastrophe, carbon prices must increase to $100 per ton or more. Under such a scenario, “households in Alberta will pony up $2,223, in Saskatchewan they’ll pay $2,065 and in Nova Scotia, $2,240. In fact, at $100 a ton, the average price for households in all provinces is well north of $1,000 per year,” says theFinancial Post.

In response to rising energy prices, the premiers of four of Canada’s provinces have decided to scrap provincial taxes, programs, and fees imposed to implement Trudeau’s carbon tax.

Canada isn’t alone, either. A report by IHS Markit says the average price per ton of carbon emissions in G20 nations that have established a carbon trading market to reduce emissions is just $16 per metric ton, but the price needed to meet the minimal targets of the Paris Climate Agreement should be closer to $80 per ton, according to those who believe such measures are necessary to fight climate change.

A recent article published by Vox cites research indicating even a $50-per-ton carbon tax in the United States would be too low to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050—a stated goal of the Obama administration.

The Rhodium Group estimates to reach “80 percent (or more appropriately, 100 percent) reductions, carbon prices would likely need to exceed $100/ton by mid-century.”

Politicians, faced with the punishment of losing support from voters unwilling to pay more for less-reliable energy, are proving increasingly unwilling to impose the high price on carbon they themselves state is necessary to avert climate catastrophe. As evidence, leaders in Australia, Brazil, and Canada are publicly eschewing their commitments to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, although they remain unwilling to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement as the United States has done.

Elsewhere, in China, Europe, and Japan, for instance, leaders publicly proclaim their fealty to the Paris agreement while missing mid-term emissions-reduction goals, quietly approving new coal and natural gas power plants, and selling more fossil-fuel-powered vehicles.

I have good news. Since the best evidence suggests humans aren’t causing a climate apocalypse, Paris’s failure is nothing to be concerned about. In fact, its failure means it’s more likely there will be abundant energy for all.






]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1340832 2018-11-06T17:09:00Z 2018-11-06T17:08:35Z Arizona Foster Mother Found Guilty of Child Abuse after Scalding Young Devani

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff


The Arizona woman accused of scalding her adoptive child causing third degree burns to 80% of her body resulting in the amputation of all 10 toes has been found guilty of 2 of the 3 charges brought against her.

Samantha Osteraas was found guilty by a jury in Tucson Arizona for child abuse. Image source.

Samantha Osteraas of Tucson, Arizona, faces between 10 and 24 years in prison for hurting Devani, the little girl that the Arizona Department of Child Services placed into her care after removing her from a foster home where she was being abused in a pedophilia pornography ring.

A Pima County jury of 9 women and 3 men deliberated for 8 hours before reaching their verdict on Friday afternoon, October 19, 2018. According to News 4 Tucson, Osteraas:

…was found not guilty for the first count of child abuse. However, the jury did find her guilty for the lesser charge of reckless child abuse.

For the second child abuse count, she was found guilty.

One of the court watchers who was present for the emotional trial said that the jury decided that she was not guilty of “negligent child abuse,” which was the first count of abuse. They stopped short of saying that she burned Devani intentionally.

They did, however, find that Samantha Osteraas was guilty of delaying treatment after the burns occurred.

Samantha Osteraas during her trial for scalding the child she adopted. Source – KOLD 13 News.

See Devani’s heartbreaking story of being taken from innocent parents who had never harmed her, then placed into one abusive situation after another:

Arizona Child Removed from Loving Family and Placed into Foster Care Where She was Repeatedly Raped – then 80% of Body Burned

Arizona Places 2 Year Old Child in Foster Pornographic Pedophile Ring – Foster Mom Burns 80% of Her Body


Advocates – Devani Is Beautiful!

Seven-year-old Devani appeared in court on Friday, October 12, to tell the judge and jury what happened to her. Court watchers told Health Impact News that they didn’t know what to expect when they saw her. None of them had seen her since before the incident.

They knew that she had suffered severe burns to most of her body and had undergone numerous surgeries and skin grafts. She had been placed into a medically-induced coma at one point, and her organs had been shutting down.

Devani has undergone 29 surgeries since being burned just after Christmas of 2016.  All 10 of her toes had to be amputated. Advocates had no idea if the little girl would be able to walk again.

They were happy to see her walk into court on her own:

She looked so beautiful! She is so strong.

Two different advocates told us that it was clear from Devani’s demeanor that she refused to wear the label of “victim,” even though she has suffered more abuse than most people can imagine.

Devani has a different legal name after being adopted by Samantha and Justin Osteraas, but her advocates say that they will always call her by her real name, Devani Rose.

Devani, before the abuse that left her with a lifetime of physical scars and pain. Source – Justice for Devani Rose Facebook page.

See our coverage of Devani’s testimony here: Trial Begins for Little Arizona Girl Placed with Pedophiles in Foster Care and Burned by Adoptive Mom

Real Parents Not Allowed to See Devani in Court

Devani’s parents and grandmother, who are still fighting and praying that, somehow, their little girl will be returned to her family, were not allowed to see her testify.

They simply wanted to see her with their own eyes, something they have not been allowed to do since she was so brutally injured under state supervision. A simple request to be permitted to see her through a crack in the door or from behind a 1-way glass window was denied.

According to one witness, Guardian ad Litem Thea Gilbert brought in a psychologist to court to argue that seeing her birth parents would be “traumatizing” to the child. However, no mention was made of the potential trauma of seeing the woman who has scarred her for life.

Devani testified that Samantha Osteraas held her down in the bathtub with a pink towel. She named Osteraas and pointed her out to the jury.

Court watchers told us that they saw the trauma on the child’s face when she looked at Osteraas and their eyes met. They reported that their hearts broke as Devani “froze up” for about a half a minute.

Abuser – She Did This to Herself

Tucson.com reports that Osteraas denied holding her down. Her version of the story was that the 5-year-old child did this to herself:

Osteraas testified the child got into the hot water on her own and then stayed there until Osteraas found her in a dazed state.

There were “so many inconsistencies in Samantha’s story,” according to one of the court watchers we talked to.

The prosecuting attorney did not buy her story, either. Tucson.com reports:

Deputy Pima County Attorney Alan Goodwin had urged jurors to use common sense in deciding whether a child would sit in scalding water as the burns deepened, and whether a mother who claimed to care would wait hours to get help. The girl was “on death’s door” before Osteraas sought help, he said.

Devani – before she was burned over 80% of her body by Samantha Osteraas, the woman permitted to adopt her by DCS. Source – Justice for Devani Rose Facebook page.

17 Calls Made Over 5-Hour Period Before 911 Called

He pointed out that the burns were so severe that she lost her toes. Yet, the accused waited for possibly 5 hours before making the phone call that should have been her first response. Phone records cited in court showed that Osteraas made 17 phone calls to various people before calling 911.

She said repeatedly that she was “in shock” and that was why she made 17 phone calls to a paramedic neighbor and his wife as well as to her husband before finally calling 911.

If that were true and she was in shock, wouldn’t it have been easier to call 911 than a neighbor?

Defense attorney Jeff Rogers suggested to jurors in closing arguments Thursday that the child may have been in such a confused state that she mistook her mother helping her out of the bath for holding her down. (Source).

He argued that the delay in calling for help was not intentional. Rogers was reportedly disappointed that the jury did not agree, and he says they plan to file an appeal. This is standard in criminal cases.


Sentencing – Aggravating Circumstances or Leniency Due to Abuser’s Own History in Foster Care?

Tucson.com reports that Samantha Osteraas will be sentenced on December 3. There are several factors involved in determining the length of her prison sentence, which could range from a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years up to a maximum of 24 years.

The jury believes that there were factors present that increase the severity of the crimes committed against Devani:

After the verdicts were read, the jurors returned to the deliberation room to decide whether prosecutors had proven three so-called aggravating factors in the case:
  • that the child had suffered emotionally,
  • that she was 5 years old when the crime occurred, and
  • that she was harmed by someone in a position of trust.

The jury found all of these factors were proven, which will allow the judge to consider them when determining Osteraas’ sentence.

Samantha Osteraas during her trial for abusing Devani. Photo source: Tucson 4 News.

Samantha Osteraas herself was adopted as a child. Her defense attorney pointed to her “very rough childhood,” which included abuse and foster care. Based on those factors, Jeff Rogers intends to request leniency in her sentencing.

The irony is that these same factors – being a victim of childhood abuse (or domestic violence as an adult), and growing up in foster care or being adopted – are frequently used by Child Protective Services agencies and social workers all across the United States to argue against leniency on birth parents.

Many loving parents who are falsely accused in the system hear in court that, because they have a history of being in foster care themselves, they cannot possibly know how to adequately parent.

These criteria do not actually determine the ability or suitability of anyone to parent, but social workers and attorneys pick and choose how to use facts such as these to twist to fit whatever agenda suits them in the moment.

The reality is that some children who grow up in the system, or who face any other challenge, are able to work through their pain and overcome the difficulties, while some grow up to repeat the patterns of abuse they experienced.

There was no leniency on Devani’s mother Michelle Tremor-Calderon when the state of Arizona terminated her parental rights and placed her child into horrific situations that she never would have faced in her mother’s care.

Now that the trial is over, Devani is still not with any of her family. Her legal name remains one assigned to her by her adopters, Samantha and Justin Osteraas. As far as we can determine, Devani is in yet another foster home.


Why Is GAL Thea Gilbert Still Allowed on the Case?

Shockingly, her Guardian ad Litem, Thea Gilbert, remains on her case. The attorney who is supposed to represent the child’s best interest has been with Devani’s case since the beginning.

Thea Gilbert – court-appointed attorney for Devani. Photo source.

Gilbert approved her placement with the now-imprisoned David Frodsham. Even after Devani’s mother Michelle Tremor-Calderon and transporter Beth Breen told Thea Gilbert that the child was terrified and showed clear signs of being sexually molested, Gilbert ignored them.

She and other Pima County social workers ignored the stories of other foster and adopted children in the home telling that they were being repeatedly raped and trafficked. One of the children has now aged out and is suing the state for millions of dollars for placing him and his brothers in such harm.

See: Arizona Foster Care System Revealed as Pedophile Ring: Former Foster Child Tortured for Years Sues for $15 Million

Despite being informed of the harm to Devani, Thea Gilbert recommended to the court that the Frodshams be allowed to adopt Devani.

According to KOLD News 13:

In November 2015, DCS investigated reports of sexual and physical abuse [by David Frodsham]. Those allegations were unsubstantiated.

Yet, they report:

DCS removed the child from the home of her biological parents in April 2013 when neglect allegations were substantiated.

[Note: these allegations against the parents were investigated by Health Impact News as well. We examined the DCS documents as well as the exonerating evidence, which clearly proved that the allegations were false from the very beginning. Source.]

After the pornography pedophile ring was busted by ICE, Gilbert approved Devani’s placement and subsequent adoption by Samantha and Justin Osteraas, despite clear warnings that the woman was prone to violence.

Two of the foster parent placements approved by Thea Gilbert and the Pima County DCS face at least a decade in prison each for heinous crimes committed against children.

Still, Thea Gilbert not only remains involved in the case, but she also refuses to so much as recuse herself.

When will those responsible for placing this child into harm’s way be held accountable? Are we truly to believe that they are above the law?

Why are the standards for non-biological fosters and adoptors consistently far more lenient than those to which biological parents are held?

There is a Facebook page established by supporters to continue to fight for “Justice for Devani Rose.”


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1340446 2018-11-05T17:23:00Z 2018-11-05T17:23:14Z Republicans Win No Friends by Joining Climate Caucus

by James Taylor


RINOs who apparently weren't much to begin with.

Unfortunately, a handful of congressional Republicans foolishly joined with Democrats to form a group known as the Climate Solutions Caucus. The Caucus claims to support “economically viable” options to restrict carbon-dioxide emissions.

Apparently, the Republicans in the Caucus believe they can walk a tightrope by calling for both severe restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions and “affordable” energy options — even though these two competing goals are incompatible. Any means of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions would be economically punitive. Rather than trying to appeal to both sides of the political fence, Republicans who join the Caucus are shooting themselves in the foot with liberals and conservatives alike.

Liberal Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo (FL) co-founded the Caucus at the urging of the leftist Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL). The CCL advocates for carbon-dioxide taxes that would immediately raise the cost of all traditional energy sources. Within a decade, the CCL taxes would add more than a dollar per gallon to the price of gasoline, with similar and higher price hikes imposed on other forms of energy. CCL trumpets a social-justice-warrior agenda and routinely advocates for left-wing policies. Why in the world would Republicans sign on to these radical ideas by joining forces with CCL?

Caucus members should know economically viable carbon-dioxide restrictions are a fallacy. Conventional energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas dominate because they are substantially more concentrated, affordable, and reliable than wind and solar power. Whether accomplished through government mandates or taxes, transforming our economy from one running on affordable energy sources to one that’s dependent on expensive and unreliable energy would severely punish all consumers and industries.

Some global warming activists attempt to argue a carbon-dioxide tax could be revenue-neutral and thus economy-friendly. However, there’s no credibility to this claim. The whole point of a carbon-dioxide tax is to drive up conventional energy prices so high that consumers won’t purchase them anymore and will instead buy already-expensive wind and solar power. When this occurs, consumers pay higher prices directly to energy providers rather than in government taxes — thus, there is little or no direct government tax revenue collected or returned to consumers to compensate for their higher energy bills. Even worse, energy bills skyrocket and disposable income falls. Even if a carbon dioxide tax were crafted to be “revenue-neutral,” it could never be crafted to be “pocketbook-neutral” or “household budget-neutral.”

So, if these policies are surely doomed to fail, what is motivating Republicans to join the Caucus? For most members, the answer appears to be virtue-signaling and political calculation. Some Republicans believe that expressing concern about global warming will soften their appeal to liberal and moderate voters.

However, polls consistently show voters rank global warming among their least-important concerns. Thus, virtue-signaling on global warming will win over very few, if any, liberal or moderate voters. On the other hand, Republicans joining the Caucus will ostracize their conservative base, encouraging them to stay at home or vote for a third party. These naive GOP members also face a greater risk of drawing a strong challenge from the right in their next Republican primary.

Fortunately, very few Republicans side with Al Gore and the United Nations. The vast majority of GOP congressmen do not believe in a global warming crisis and continue to reject the drumbeat of government intervention promoted by environmental zealots.

The few Republicans on the Caucus represent the liberal fringe of the party. In fact, these Republicans have voted for liberal positions more than conservative positions, according to the Heritage Action “Congressional Scorecard.” By contrast, 84 percent of Republicans who are not part of the Caucus have voted in favor of the conservative position more often than the liberal position. Thus, a good way to determine whether your Republican congressional representative is a RINO — a “Republican in name only” — is to check if he or she is a member of the Caucus.

Republicans should think long and hard before joining the Climate Solutions Caucus. Simply put, the Climate Solutions Caucus is a lose-lose-lose proposition.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1339309 2018-11-02T15:57:00Z 2018-11-05T18:52:03Z Levi Strauss Announces Massive Gun Control Campaign, Turns Employees into Political Activists

by Lisa Payne-Naeger


Levi Strauss & Co. has expanded their original mission beyond the manufacture of blue jeans. This “values driven company” now feels a responsibility to “the communities where we live and work” and will now engage with other gun control groups to fight for “gun violence prevention.”

Chip Berg, CEO of Levi Strauss, wrote an open letter to his customers asking them not to bring firearms onto the premises of their stores, offices or other facilities. For him, it was a matter of safety. Of course, law enforcement was exempt from that request.

“It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.”

So, it’s clear Berg doesn’t subscribe to the theory that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Berg took it a step farther today with an op-ed in Fortune. He explained that as a leader in business “with power in the public and political arenas” he felt the responsibility to break the silence that threatens “the very fabric of the communities where we live and work.”

“So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas.”

The company has developed a site that outlines its gun violence prevention strategy complete with mission statements and donation match programs.

“So today, on top of our previous actions, Levi Strauss & Co. is lending its support for gun violence prevention in three new areas.”

The company has developed a site that outlines its gun violence prevention strategy complete with mission statements and donation match programs.

This coalition of like minded executives “has a critical role to play in and a moral obligation to do something about the gun violence epidemic in this country. I encourage every CEO and business leader reading this to consider the impact we could make if we stood together alongside the broad coalition of concerned parents, youth, elders, veterans, and community and faith leaders who are committed to shaping a safer path forward.”

He doesn’t explain any particular plan of action for the Every Town organization other than to infer there may be some think-tank like discussions on how to end gun violence.

And the third leg of the stool involves employee participation. Levi Strauss is doubling its employee donation match to any organizations aligned with its own Safer Tomorrow Fund.

In addition to encouraging employee donations to their own foundation, they are offering to compensate any employee who wishes to volunteer time up to five hours a month. Not only can employees volunteer in their own foundations but political activism is also compensated as well.

Levi Strauss considers this compensation an encouragement to employees “to use their time to make an impact.”

Berg notes that Levi Strauss has always been on the cutting edge of progressivism ideals in company policy and some not so progressive. But he thinks this one will prove to be the right stand in history.

“As a company, we have never been afraid to take an unpopular stand to support a greater good. We integrated our factories in the American South years before the Civil Rights Act was passed. We offered benefits to same-sex partners in the 1990s, long before most companies did. We pulled our financial support for the Boy Scouts of America when it banned gay troop leaders.

“While each one of these stands may have been controversial at the time, history proved the company right in the long run. And I’m convinced that while some will disagree with our stand to end gun violence, history will prove this position right too.”

Mr. Berg, no one disagrees with your stand to end gun violence. Gun violence is a terrible thing.

We just don’t want anyone to eliminate our constitutional right to bear arms at a time when law enforcement officers can’t get to your offices, stores or factories in time to stop mass shooters who would attack innocents in a gun free zone — hypothetically of course.

Has anyone ever asked these social justice warrior business leaders why they can’t coalesce around decreasing the national debt, lowering taxes, returning to state sovereignty, or any number of other things that also “threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work?”



Lisa Payne-Naeger - Contributor, Commentary

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.




]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1338852 2018-11-01T16:38:00Z 2018-11-01T16:37:47Z Trump is right on anchor babies

by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ


On Oct 30, 2018 President Trump announced that he will issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship. He states that he can do it by executive action and he might be right.

The 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Now, an important point in it is the fact that people, who are foreign citizens, are subject to the jurisdiction of their own nations, not US. Their children automatically inherit the citizenship of the countries of their parents, not US, and they automatically are under the jurisdiction of those foreign nations.

One wrinkle is a decision of the Supreme Court over 100 year ago.

A 1898 Supreme Court decision held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents residing in the United States, was a citizen because of his birth on American soil.

There can be 2 rebuttals to Wong Kim Ark.

1.Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal residents, the ruling should not be read as an affirmation of the status of children of undocumented immigrants.

2. The Supreme Court might disavow, overturn this precedent as it was done by overturning 1857 decision in Dred Scott v Sandford. Supreme Court might decide that the decision in Wong Kim Ark needs to be clarified in that a child follows the legal immigration status of his parents. If the parents are legal residents, the child gets status of a legal resident, if the parent is a foreign citizen illegally residing in the US, the child is a foreign resident illegally residing in the US.  Supreme Court might decide that this clarification is needed as birthright citizenship is a magnet that led to an invasion of millions of illegal aliens with the hope of having anchor babies.

According to the US government we have 12 million illegals. According to the Center for immigration studies and the former ambassador of Mexico, we have over 30 million illegals, which is an enormous burden on our welfare system and which causes wages to stagnate.


]]>