I'm convening a public hearing on the Afghanistan withdrawal deaths. For almost two years, the Gold Star Families of the fallen in Afghanistan have waited for answers and accountability for the loss of their loved ones – and they have waited long enough.https://t.co/6bHa5CGYY0
Wow! Watching the Gold Star Families on @FoxNews at the hearing @DarrellIssa is holding in California is absolutely heart-wrenching and disturbing. One of the most disturbing is this mother revealing the bold faced & heartless lie President Biden said to her as… pic.twitter.com/XpN7K5iAu3
This is hard to watch, but it’s important to hear directly from the loved ones of the 13 brave servicemembers murdered during the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal b/c the Biden admin wanted a talking point ahead of the 20th anniversary of 9/11. https://t.co/m8gJtXzyls
Gold Star families making impassioned, historic statements about the horrendous leadership decisions…beginning with the commander in chief…that led to the preventable deaths of their children. CNN has a segment on about World Cup soccer. That says it all. pic.twitter.com/92nyycSZFg
Her testimony was shocking, revealing that the FBI deliberately withheld critical information from social media companies about Hunter Biden’s laptop the day that the @nypost story broke.
When Twitter asked if the laptop was real, an FBI agent said “yes.” But a second FBI agent—a lawyer—jumped in, cut him off, and said, “no further comment.”
The Committee has recently obtained an internal Facebook document PROVING that Agent Chan had a secret “follow up” call with Facebook about the Hunter Biden laptop story on October 15, just one day after the @nypost story and the first Facebook meeting! pic.twitter.com/fPkUQzDIy4
But the Facebook employee, an ex-FBI agent, wrote—the day after the story broke—that “Chan advised that he was up to speed on the current state of the matter within the FBI.”
Chan also told FB that “there was no current evidence to suggest any foreign connection…of the leaks.” pic.twitter.com/LTJ28OhFwy
The president stood on a debate stage and not only lied about his role in his son’s business dealings, but accused a nuclear armed power of making it up. pic.twitter.com/lNF6hLd9ZQ
The entire media now knows Biden's answer here is a lie, and not a single WH journalist will challenge Pierre or him on it. The laptop is not Russia. They know it, and they ignore it. https://t.co/fJpGfO5kcR
"The Biden family has made its choices out of love. But strictly from a political standpoint, the pattern is dangerous…" @JillDLawrence lays out the worrying facts. https://t.co/GhAQgvTOju
This is incredible. It’s nothing but how to spin Joe Biden’s clear involvement, knowingly or not, in Hunter’s influence peddling. And the Bulwark wants us to believe they are “principled.” Stop it. https://t.co/rh6h9v0eHX
“Donald Trump is now under indictment in the federal capital on charges alleging that he tried to obstruct the 2020 election. The trial will take place in Washington, D.C. Is that reasonable? From a partisan perspective, of course, the District leans heavily Democrat, and Trump is a Republican. That cannot help the former president’s case. But there is another concern that might apply more generally to trials on charges relating to the working of the federal government.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution secures the right to a jury trial. In criminal cases, “The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Note the language. “State and district.” It does not say “state or district.” That means that in Washington, D.C., the requirement that a trial be in the place where the alleged crime took place need not apply. To be sure, it ought to apply in common criminal cases – murder, theft, assault, and the like in cases relating to the daily lives of people in the district and businesses in the district. But that logic would not necessarily apply in cases relating to the operation of the government.
Article III of the Constitution, which creates the judicial branch, notes that if an alleged crime is “not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” In other words, Congress has discretion to set the venue for trials relating to alleged crimes in the federal district.
There is a good argument that in a case in which a high public official is charged, and/or in cases in which the regular operation of the federal government is at issue, Congress ought to use its discretion to set the trial outside of Washington, D.C., among the American people, as opposed to under the eyes and influence of the government that is alleging it has been attacked.
This is the case for two reasons. Normally, the argument for a trial “in the vicinage” (aka in the vicinity of the crime) applies to both prosecutor and prosecuted. The crime is against the peace of the jurisdiction, and, as such, the jurisdiction has the right to punish the crime, if proven. And, on the other side, a local trial makes it more likely that the accused can find witnesses and evidence that will help his side. In colonial British history, local juries were also a protection against overweening British officials.
That logic does not really apply to charges relating to obstructing the workings of the federal government, and other like cases. Why? The federal district is a city insofar as it is a place where people live full time. Hence, we citizens of Washington D.C. (my place of residence) have the right to try people who break the peace of the city, insofar as it is a jurisdiction like others in the U.S. But Washington, D.C. is also the seat of the federal government. As such, it is the representative of all the states and localities of the United States. In that sense, it is not like any other jurisdiction in the nation. It is a composite quilted out of the nation as a whole. And it is also true that, as great historians like Jack P. Greene have noted, our federal government assumed from the start most of the prerogatives that the king had before the American Revolution. That is precisely why the federal district is a location set apart in the Constitution. In a high profile political trial, too many judges and potential jurors are, in essence, likely to be interested parties.
Among the charges against the king in the Declaration of Independence are charges attacking the king “For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses.” More largely, the king and Parliament had passed bills (acts of “pretended legislation” according to the Declaration, for we Americans denied that Parliament had the right to pass such bills) that took colonists away from their colonies and transported them to jurisdictions in which the king’s courts were more likely to convict them. In other words, the king violated the right to have a speedy and local trial. That would seem to indicate that the trial always ought to be in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime took place. But note that this is the opposite case of the one we are discussing here.
To put it in the framework of the American Revolution, this is more like the situation of a colonist charged with a crime against the workings of Parliament, with the trial to take place in London. It is not the case of a colonist transported to London, or another venue outside his colony, for trial. In other words, it is not the kind of case where the logic of the need for a local trial would apply. To be sure, the king would want a trial in sight of his palace, but for that very reason, it would be reasonable to have the trial elsewhere.
As Washington has grown from a political village to what is now an imperial center, the danger of Washington behaving like a national court has grown. That the people of Washington, D.C. approved the team name “Commanders” for the local football team (the team’s president says that they chose the name because it “broadly resonated with our fans”) says much about the self-image of today’s Washington, D.C. And it is for that very reason that in cases relating to the national political process, the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C. cannot be regarded as a neutral venue for a trial. The judges and jurors are too likely to be interested parties in the case.”
“Not long ago, I stood before the Vermont Senate and testified about my experience as a human trafficking survivor who became the first black female pregnancy center director in the state.
I had been asked to testify against a bill targeting pro-life pregnancy help centers, falsely claiming that we “mislead” the public about our services.
But my story puts the lie to this narrative and proves the beautiful truth of our work — that pregnancy centers love, serve and commit ourselves to the men, women and children of our communities who need our help. We know firsthand how our assistance can transform someone’s life.
From age 2 to 29, I was trafficked in 33 states. I suffered serial abuse, rape and even murder attempts by various pimps. I was heavily addicted to hard drugs such as crystal meth and cocaine. I eventually reached a point where I intentionally sought to end my life by overdosing.
Even though I was losing weight from the drugs, my belly kept growing, and I soon discovered the pregnancy that would ultimately save my life.
Shrugging off the news with disgust, my pimp demanded money and then attempted to shoot me when I told him I was done being his slave. Pregnant, terrified and with nowhere to go, I literally ran away from the only life I had ever known.
Fighting despair, and with only $1.38 to my name, I had very few places to turn. After endless phone calls, I finally reached a woman at a domestic violence shelter in New Hampshire who agreed to help. She flew me there and connected me with a local pregnancy center, where a woman named Phyllis changed everything. She calmed me with a single kind touch and the words, “I know a man named Jesus who can help you.” The warmth of her hands filled me with an encouragement and hope that I’d never known before. In that moment, despite my hardened heart, I abandoned my former life forever.
The pregnancy center provided me with free resources and support to take care of my son. I was also able to realize and pursue dreams I had never imagined, such as earning a college degree. I worked with families at the pregnancy center and secured a job at a local hospital.
Years later, I applied for the executive director position of a pregnancy center in Vermont — Branches Pregnancy Resource Center — the position in which I have served since last December.
I have worked in this role to raise awareness of the services we provide to the local community. I developed a strong relationship with our town manager to help address a severe homeless problem in the area. Now, Branches helps to care for and connect those who are homeless with the resources they need.
The CEO of one of the largest hospitals in Vermont recently requested to collaborate with us. We are also training the local police department, as well as local schools, to learn how to identify human trafficking and save victims of the industry. My job is incredibly fulfilling.
f it hadn’t been for Phyllis and the pregnancy center, I would be dead. They saved my life. My son saved my life. Now, it’s my turn to defend the very cause that saved me. “
Shortly after he started taking credit for “Bidenomics” and how it’s “benefiting” the country, the United States got a credit rating downgrade.
It’s only the second time that confidence in the federal government’s ability to manage its debt has been officially reduced. So it’s a big deal.
It turns out Democrats’ unlimited appetite for spending and their refusal to address growing deficits isn’t sitting well with close watchers of our economy, and this should serve as a warning that inaction is no longer acceptable.
Biden is trying to sell ‘Bidenomics.’Americans can’t afford the president’s agenda
Despite the left’s attempt to dump all of the credit downgrade blame on Republicans (who worked to trim spending) for the debt ceiling showdown earlier this year, the report from Fitch Ratings spells out much bigger concerns about the U.S. fiscal outlook and the need for a spending overhaul.
If anything, the downgrade indicates that lawmakers didn’t do nearly enough in their negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
The agency downgraded the nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. Although still a good rating, the lost confidence is noteworthy.
As Fitch states: “The rating downgrade of the United States reflects the expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years, a high and growing general government debt burden, and the erosion of governance relative to ‘AA’ and ‘AAA’ rated peers over the last two decades that has manifested in repeated debt limit standoffs and last-minute resolutions.”
—-
The Senate R’s who voted for the 3 trillion in spending on BS are responsible as well.
“Banking is just about the most regulated industry in America. Yet, as we saw with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and others in recent months, lenders are not invulnerable to failure due to bad management or unexpected changes in economic conditions.
The inevitable response is for more regulation on all banks. But sometimes regulators can make conditions worse for healthy banks. The most famous example in recent times was when financial regulators urged banks to issue inordinate amounts of new “safe” mortgages leading up to the great financial crisis of 2008, ultimately flooding the financial system with toxic debt.
Now with some banks under financial stress because of higher interest rates, Congress and the Federal Reserve want to raise bank capital reserve requirements. Presumably, this means holding more government bonds, many of which dropped precipitously in value last year as interest rates spiked higher.
Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr recently proposed raising these capital standards, as have several Senate Democrats.
No one wants to see bank runs. But these rules don’t distinguish between financially healthy banks and poorly operated banks with risky loan portfolios and bad management. It’s like trying to fight obesity by asking physically fit people to go on a diet.
Given that taxpayers backstop bank deposits through FDIC insurance, reasonable capital requirements are prudent. But by definition, higher capital reserves mean less money available to make loans. Access to credit for business and family borrowers gets squeezed.
A recent study from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association finds that for every 1 percentage point increase in additional risk-weighted capital required by federal regulators, the amount available for lending decreased by $16 billion. Some of the capital requirement proposals would thus shrink the pool of available capital by as much as $136 billion.
Will tomorrow’s Bernie Marcus (co-founder of Home Depot) or Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) be the odd man out under these new regulations? If there is one thing economists agree on, it is the dire need for improved economic growth — which requires more, not less, capital investment.
All of this is unnecessary. The banking sector in general is already well-protected against an economic downturn or a sudden rash of loan defaults. The banks now hold nearly $3 trillion in high-quality liquid assets (or four times the levels before the 2008 meltdown).
The Federal Reserve itself acknowledges this in its recent Financial Stability Report, which concludes: “As of the fourth quarter of 2022, banks in the aggregate were well capitalized, especially U.S. global systemically important banks.”
Much like the Dodd-Frank law and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after 2008, this is a measure that won’t address the risk problem banks are facing. They have been victims of a reckless zero interest rate monetary policy that took a trillion dollars out of the lending base of banks as depositors have rushed to the higher yield environment of money market mutual funds.”
“An LGBT festival that runs from August 19-20 in Charlotte, North Carolina, has conferred a top award to a convicted sex offender.
Charlotte Pride, which is sponsored by Bank of America, McDonald’s, Bud Light, Lowe’s, NASCAR, and a host of other ESG-captive corporations, has given its 2023 Harvey Milk Award to Chad Sevearance-Turner.
According to the event’s site, this award is given annually “to an individual to honor exceptional leadership, service to the community, and those who champion LGBTQ causes that impact the Charlotte community and beyond.”
Sevearance-Turner was apparently awarded for his work as president of the Carolinas LGBT+ Chamber of Commerce — a role in which he has overseen the chamber secure “valuable partnerships with prominent organizations like Fifth Third Bank, NASCAR, Duke Energy, Wells Fargo, Sonoco, and Novant Health.”
WBTV-TV reported that Sevearance-Turner had previously served as the president of Charlotte’s LGBT Chamber of Commerce but resigned after his track record with young boys had been flagged as a possible discredit to any future work conducted by the group. At the time of Sevearance-Turner’s resignation, the group had been pushing to allow transvestites to use women’s bathrooms.
The North Carolina Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry lists Charlotte Pride’s new awardee as a registrant, noting he committed the offense for which he was convicted in July 1998.
Reduxx highlighted that Sevearance-Turner only served two years out of a 10-year sentence for molesting an adolescent under the age of 16 and was then released on parole.
Sevearance-Turner, formerly the music director at the New Harvest Church of God in Gaffney, South Carolina, had been found guilty by a jury in Cherokee County, South Carolina, of molesting a 15-year-old parishioner while the boy slept.
GoUpState.com reported in 2000 that Sevearance-Turner had been charged with three counts of lewd act on a minor but that two of the three cases would be tried separately.”
“Schwerin was the founding partner and managing director of Hunter Biden’s now-dissolved firm Rosemont Seneca Partners when he was appointed by then-President Obama to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, an independent U.S. government agency, in early 2015. Obama reappointed him to the commission in January 2017.
“Eric asked for one of these the day after the election in 2008,” Hunter Biden revealed about Schwerin’s initial appointment in an email on March 13, 2015.
The news means the House Republicans will likely ask Schwerin to testify as part of their investigation.
The Obama administration’s archived website said it would “not release access records related to purely personal guests of the first and second families (i.e., visits that do not involve any official or political business).”
Interesting:
One of Schwerin’s visits – in November 2010 – was a sit-down with Joe Biden in the West Wing. Schwerin also visited Joe Biden’s residence at least 15 times for various holiday receptions, including the Dec. 12 holiday reception in 2015 that came a couple of days after then-Vice President Biden’s infamous trip to Ukraine, where he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if the country’s leaders did not fire their top prosecutor.
According to White House visitor logs, Schwerin attended the reception along with Rosemont Seneca co-founder Devon Archer, Hunter Biden and Sebastian Momtazi, an associate who worked with Archer in Rosemont Seneca’s New York City office. Archer, who was also on the Burisma board with Hunter Biden, and Momtazi both had Burisma.com email addresses, according to emails previously reviewed by Fox News Digital.
An April 15, 2015, visit might raise eyebrows because it took place one day after the meeting at Cafe Milano, where Biden just happened to show up and dined with Hunter and his associates. A guest included “Vadym P. from Burisma.”
The thing about politics is that everything is so…woven together. Everybody is with everybody:
Schwerin also met with Anne Marie Person, who served as a general assistant at Rosemont Seneca until 2014 before joining Biden’s office, at least three times between February and June 2016, a Fox News Digital review found.
According to White House visitor logs, Schwerin met person in Biden’s “West Wi[ng]” office on Feb. 24, April 8, and June 9. It is unclear if Biden was present for the meetings. She was also the point person for a West Wing tour Schwerin took in August 2015.
In addition to Person and Ricchetti, Schwerin made three other visits with staffers from Vice President Biden’s office in 2016. Schwerin met with John McGrail, who was a counselor to Biden, on July 15 and Sept. 9 at the White House.
He also met with Kaitlyn Demers, who was serving as an associate counsel in Biden’s office in 2016, on June 28. She was serving as a special assistant to President Biden and then-chief of staff Ron Klain until last August.”
—-
Rosemont-Seneca is one of the companies Hunter used to money launder his bribes thru before forwarding 10% to “The Big Guy”….
The Afghan withdrawal was a failure of intelligence. The army completely misread the Afghan army’s willingness to fight. Based on faulty assumptions, they devised a plan for withdrawal. The plan, btw, was devised during the Trump administration but was approved by the Biden. In any case, neither Trump nor Biden bear responsibility here – but army intelligence should have done at least a internal inquiry. Issa is exploiting family grief by holding unofficial “hearings”.
It’s interesting to hear/see the phrase “Gold Star” repeating over and over. Years ago, the right mocked a “Gold Star” mother when politics went the other way.
“In June, the board of trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the SBC’s flagship schools, announced that its leaders had run up a $140 million deficit over 20 years, a pattern of financial mismanagement that has left the school’s future in jeopardy. The school’s accreditor has issued a warning, giving the seminary two years to make improvements.”
A former FBI agent pled guilty to money laundering and violating sanctions. The same agent who investigated the Russian collusion case. Yet Republicans claim the DOJ and FBI are weaponized. If that was true, this case would have been buried and no charges would have been filed. Apparently the system works and is non-biased.
“No comment” is the proper police response for any on-going investigation. Nothing nefarious there. The fact Republicans keep grabbing at any hint or morsel of scandal reveal they have nothing. And even if something was said about the laptop prior to the election, it would not have affected the outcome. Four years prior, the lock her up and what about her emails swayed a few people, but since nothing came of it, most people weren’t going to buy a second round of similar nonsense. And right now, Republicans are once again searching for something to hang Biden on. Since the laptop is proving to be a dud; Issa is now trying the Afghan withdrawal. Here’s an idea – why don’t the Republicans run on a platform instead of being the party of grievances, real or imagined.
2024 is shaping up to have two slogans 1) He’s a crook vs 2) I’m better than the other guy. With that choice, #2 will probably win.
The NewsBusters comparing the coverage of Archer to Trump’s indictment is amsuing. A former president getting indicted for the third time for trying to change the results of an election is far bigger news than a business partner of the president’s son testifying the president said hello during a meeting.
Comparing a sex crime sentence to police murder accessory charge isn’t a comparison. In my opinion both are woefully short. I find sex crime sentences vary widely in the US and often have to do with context but it seems pretty clear cut here. As for the cop; in many states I know you can be charged with manslaughter or murder even if you weren’t who actually did the crime. If that’s the case in Minnesota, the cop got off lightly.
Looked into the Charlotte Pride guy. Apparently the conviction is from 25 years ago when he was 20 and working as a youth pastor. The victim was 15 years old. There have been no charges since that time. The age gap is significant at that stage of life but it does not indicate a penchant for young boys. Immoral and illegal yes but not child molestation nor paedophilia.
I also found it strange he was a youth pastor at 20. The churches I’m familiar with, the youth pastor is a regularly trained pastor. The amount of schooling needed then means the youngest he or she can be is 25. Assigning a 20 year old, straight or gay, the responsibility of being a youth pastor seems to be a recipe for disaster. Do we blame his age? his occupation? or his orientation?
Of course change of venue is on the top of Trump’s lawyer’s list. I’ve heard West Virginia floating around as a preferred choice. The argument given in the article can be applied to any criminal trial. The distinction the author tries to make so other criminal trials stay in DC is ambiguous and not very convincing. Comparing DC to an outside imperial area is ridiculous and citing the change in the NFL’s team name is laughable. If a judge approves a change of venue based on the constitutional grounds, any good criminal lawyer will do the same for his client. He does however make yet another argument for DC statehood – there’s a constitutional gap here.
The credit agency was explicit. The change in credit rating was due to the debt ceiling crisis. The debt ceiling is a horrible mechanism which makes no sense and creates unnecessary political risks. No other country does this. Again, the credit agency was insistent – they lowered the rating due to the debt ceiling. Constantly arguing over the debt and having last minute compromises indicates poor governance and inability to administer debt.
The deregulation that occurred during the Clinton administration created the instability in the US banking sector. Bring back the prior regulations and stability will increase. The problem is a lack of regulation not too many regulations.
“Liberals and some moderate Republicans are pushing for a tax cut for blue states and liberal elites—no, really. Conservatives are pushing back, but not in defense of higher taxes. A far better approach would be to cut tax rates for everyone—not just increase a deduction for a select few wealthy persons.
That targeted tax cut, called the “state and local tax (SALT) deduction,” is now at the center of the tax bill being debated in D.C.
Here’s how it works. For years, the federal tax code put states such as Texas and Florida—which don’t levy state income taxes—at a disadvantage. While state income taxes were deductible from federal income taxes, sales taxes and fees weren’t.
That targeted tax cut, called the “state and local tax (SALT) deduction,” is now at the center of the tax bill being debated in D.C.
Here’s how it works. For years, the federal tax code put states such as Texas and Florida—which don’t levy state income taxes—at a disadvantage. While state income taxes were deductible from federal income taxes, sales taxes and fees weren’t.
In other words, the federal government cushioned the blow from high-tax states like New York and California, while penalizing citizens from states with lower tax burdens, by letting some (but not all) taxpayers deduct their state taxes. Over the years, conservative lawmakers sought to get a state and local taxes (SALT) deduction added to the equation, which would include sales taxes and property taxes. It worked—within limits. But because it was based on itemized deductions on a taxpayer’s return, it mostly benefited high-income earners—and not just where you’d expect.
“Before the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017], 91 percent of the benefit of the SALT deduction was claimed by those with income above $100,000 and concentrated in six states: California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania,” the Tax Foundation explains.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, put a limit on how much can be deducted each year. By capping the SALT deduction at $10,000, the new law leveled the playing field for red states and blue states. It’s time to make the deduction permanent.
Instead, a vocal group of lawmakers from blue states like New York and New Jersey want to lift the cap altogether.
“Prior to President Trump’s 2017 tax law that placed a $10,000 cap on the deduction of state and local taxes, my constituents claimed a $63,083 deduction on their federal taxes on average,” said U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, in a press release. “Since then, 200,000 families in my Congressional District have paid higher taxes. This cap is an assault on the middle class…”
Even in pricey California, “middle class” families aren’t claiming more than $63,000 in deductions as they hunt-and-peck their way through TurboTax. The true beneficiaries of lifting the cap would be the wealthy, and you can guess who would pick up the tab.
But even some Republican members of Congress are on board with this gift to Democratic strongholds.
“Southern Californians shouldn’t have to pay more federal taxes on top of their already high state taxes and rising costs of living and housing,” said U.S. Rep. Young Kim, a Republican from California. “We must act to right this wrong, which is why I am fighting to repeal the current cap on SALT deductions and lower taxes for my constituents.”
Yet that leaves everyone else on the hook for California’s budgetary tax-and-spend ways. Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma says that lifting the SALT cap would cost the nation about $91 billion; “That’s sort of the opposite direction where we want to go,” he added.”
“The New York Times printed a story that captures the environmental movement to a T.
For years we have been exposed to unrelenting propaganda about the ocean being inundated with plastic pollution. Headlines screamed, campaigns were launched, and the government pumped out regulations and propaganda in remarkable quantities rivaling the mountains of plastic supposedly invading our ocean.
According to “experts” (there are always “experts” involved, aren’t there?) over 8 million tons of plastic were finding their way to the ocean every year, and something had to be done RIGHT NOW or all turtles will be doomed or something.
I think we can all agree that plastic trash (or other trash) finding its way into the ecosystem is not something to be desired and despite my inclination to distrust anything an environmentalist says I am more than sympathetic to concerns about plastic getting into our food chain.
One can simultaneously think a problem is exaggerated and that there is a problem.
Yet the plastic in the ocean story captures the essential dishonesty of Leftist propaganda. Rather than having a rational, honest discussion of the costs and benefits of various policies (plastic is essential to the functioning of the modern world, and plastic has some environmental impacts we should mitigate), the enviros catastrophize everything in order to shut down all brain function in people.
As the Times reports, a previous claim which has been repeated ad nauseam that 8 million tons of plastic has been revised down a little bit.
To 500,000 tons, or 1/16th as much as has been claimed.”
“Throughout the Trump presidency, the mainstream media constantly suggested that Russia had so-called “kompromat” on the president—embarrassing materials used as a weapon of influence through blackmail. We all remember the daily deluge: “Does Russia have Kompromat on Trump?” CNN asked. “A Russian Word Americans Need To Know: ‘Kompromat,'” Greg Myre wrote at NPR, concluding that “Russia may have compromising material on President-elect Donald Trump.” The Guardian agreed, writing there was “apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on Trump… that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow.” Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that Russia had “secret leverage over Trump,” and “a great deal of incriminating information was confirmed,” a claim reiterated by the BBC in an article called “Russia and the art of ‘kompromat’.” The Washington Post was obsessed with the conspiracy theory, publishing numerous articles about it, as did the Daily Beast with a steady stream of articles. Even the New York Times promoted the conspiracy theory that Russia had kompromat on the President, based on a brief meeting attended by one of Trump’s sons in Trump Tower. Entire books were written on all the kompromat that the Kremlin supposedly had on President Trump, which were eagerly cited across mainstream media.
And what was this kompromat that Russia had over Trump, per our august media institutions? Putin apparently had sex tapes of Trump with prostitutes peeing on him.
It seems so ridiculous that anyone—let alone our most august media institutions—believed this in hindsight. We now know that the pee tape stemmed from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But the kompromat conspiracy theory was essential for the Democrats’ narrative that Russia possessed boundless influence over the president.
For the Washington Post, the (made-up) kompromat meant Trump was “an agent of Russia.” For CNN, it meant Trump was a “Russian asset.” The exact same talking point was repeated ad nauseam across the media in places like The Atlantic, The New Republic, Slate, Wired, and nightly on MSNBC. The specific nature of the kompromat or how Trump was a Russian agent or asset was never fixed or established, and depended upon the creativity of journalist imagination. Max Boot perfectly captured the zeitgeist in an article for the Washington Post entitled, “Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset.”
All the kompromat talk swiftly ended the moment Joe Biden became president because surely no foreign government could have any dirt on him. This left no one to ask the obvious question: Could Ukrainian officials have kompromat on Joe, given all the allegations of his corruption in Ukraine?
It’s a much more reasonable question about Joe Biden than it ever was when posed as a certainty about Trump. After all, Hunter Biden was paid many millions of dollars by the shady Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, despite having no qualifications for the job that anyone could point to beyond being the son of the Vice President at the time—which proved fortunate when his father fired the general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, who had begun an investigation into the Burisma-Hunter gravy train.
And yet, in obvious contrast with their obsession with Russia’s kompromat on Trump, the mainstream media has lined up to dismiss the corruption allegations against Biden as a nothingburger. This has been no easy feat, and yet the media has valiantly obliged, arguing repeatedly that Hunter Biden was paid by Burisma for reasons that had nothing to do with the fact that his father was the Vice President at the time overseeing U.S. relations with Ukraine—and that Joe did not have any knowledge of his son’s highly lucrative business dealings. And they would have you believe Vice President Biden fired Shokin because Shokin was corrupt.
The latest evidence exposes the media’s talking points as pure propaganda. On July 31, 2023, Devon Archer testified to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability about both Joe’s relationship to Burisma and why he fired Shokin. Archer was Hunter Biden’s close friend who served alongside him on the board of Burisma. Under oath, Archer testified that Burisma paid Hunter millions of dollars solely because his father was Vice President. Burisma would have gone out of business without “the brand” and the brand was Joe, Archer testified. Per Archer, Joe Biden was involved in the racket; he was put on speakerphone in business meetings at least 20 times.
Archer also testified that Shokin was fired by Joe not for being a corrupt prosecutor but for investigating the millions of dollars Burisma was paying Hunter, whom the company owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, said was stupider than his dog. In subsequent interviews, Archer has even more clearly confirmed that Shokin was fired for pursuing Burisma’s enormous payoffs to the Biden family.
All of this is well-known to Ukrainian officials. Shokin himself released a video directly rebutting Biden loyalists in the American media, in which he explains in detail why Vice President Biden threatened Ukraine’s president with holding back critical American aid if Shokin was not immediately replaced with a dud.”
This is Viktor Shokin. He is the Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden accused of being corrupt and had removed.
In this video he responds to accusations that his investigation into Burisma was dormant or that he was corrupt. He tells the truth about why he was removed as prosecutor.… pic.twitter.com/4kmXexBsmL
“”The depiction of these investigations as dormant has nothing to do with reality of the facts,” Shokin said. “Mr. Biden was told that we were going to start questioning his son and others, Archer and others, all involved in the Burisma case. And everyone understood very well that this fight was going to end badly for them… Biden had understood what was looming… We were about to reach the outcome of this case. Having understood all this, Biden used all the unofficial means at his disposal… Biden was acting on behalf of his own interests, for his family… Joe Biden had reason to fear that all this would eventually fall on his son.”
For his pains, Biden replaced Shokin with a new prosecutor, who promptly closed the Burisma investigation.
Nothing that has emerged recently has the shock value of a pee tape. But perhaps that’s because it’s all true. It is also consistent with the materials found on Hunter’s notorious laptop, which contains emails from Burisma executives pleading with Biden to use his influence to stop the pressure on them by Ukrainian officials.
Unlike the pee tape and other unsubstantiated charges of Russian kompromat against Trump, the evidence is robust that Joe Biden abused his power as Vice President to massively enrich his family through influence peddling. The Vice President successfully threatened to withhold financial aid if the Ukrainian president did not immediately put to bed an investigation exposing the Biden racket.
Despite the evidence of Biden’s corruption in Ukraine, the Zelensky government has not outed Joe for his sordid history in his country. But why would Zelensky need to expose Biden? At tremendous American cost, Biden is leading the largest war since World War II to help Ukraine.”
AJ – I prefer Orange Crush (In Canada Conservatives are blue, Liberals are red and NDP are orange) An NDP leader once ran on a slogan “Pepsi (Cons) or Coke (Lib) whats the difference vote Orange Crush”. However, I prefer Irish whiskey with a hint of Canada Dry ginger ale.
In any survey of givers and takers of federal money among states, it’s fairly well known that the highest takers with the exception of New Mexico are Republican leaning. And the highest givers with the exception of Texas are Democratic leaning. When the cap was introduced, it only increased the difference. No Republican leaning state (with the exception of Texas) is on the hook for liberal state spending.
For those states with no (or little) state taxes who complain about the state tax deduction, implement your own state tax. Without a state tax, these states are reliant on property taxes which penalises the suburban middle class. Non-residential properties usually have a lower tax rate so farmers and industry pay less than the middle class.
Measuring the amount of plastic in the ocean is a fool’s game especially since most of it’s micro-plastic which makes its way up the food chain. 8 million or 500,000 tons – its still too much. btw the true number will never be know as micro-plastic can’t be counted.
Shokin was corrupt. Everyone wanted him gone – the EU, IMF, World Bank, and most of Ukraine. Instead of investigating oligarchs he investigated non-profit anti corruption groups and western businesses. Yes, the Obama admin wanted him gone but they weren’t the only ones and probably not a deciding factor – keeping Ukraine in the good graces of the EU would be more important than Obama and Biden.
Archer’s testimony was a nothing burger. He stated that Biden wasn’t present for any business decisions. To paraphrase mean girls – stop trying to make Hunter happen
Wandering Views 
The media sucks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nope, no fraud here….
She’s under oath as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What a farce.
The corruption and lies from the FBI runs deep.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Speaking of corrupt liars…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yay justice.
Not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clowns gotta clown….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Can Donald Trump Get a Fair Trial in Washington, D.C.?”
No. And everyone knows it.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/08/08/can_donald_trump_get_a_fair_trial_in_washington_dc_149589.html
“Donald Trump is now under indictment in the federal capital on charges alleging that he tried to obstruct the 2020 election. The trial will take place in Washington, D.C. Is that reasonable? From a partisan perspective, of course, the District leans heavily Democrat, and Trump is a Republican. That cannot help the former president’s case. But there is another concern that might apply more generally to trials on charges relating to the working of the federal government.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution secures the right to a jury trial. In criminal cases, “The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Note the language. “State and district.” It does not say “state or district.” That means that in Washington, D.C., the requirement that a trial be in the place where the alleged crime took place need not apply. To be sure, it ought to apply in common criminal cases – murder, theft, assault, and the like in cases relating to the daily lives of people in the district and businesses in the district. But that logic would not necessarily apply in cases relating to the operation of the government.
Article III of the Constitution, which creates the judicial branch, notes that if an alleged crime is “not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” In other words, Congress has discretion to set the venue for trials relating to alleged crimes in the federal district.
There is a good argument that in a case in which a high public official is charged, and/or in cases in which the regular operation of the federal government is at issue, Congress ought to use its discretion to set the trial outside of Washington, D.C., among the American people, as opposed to under the eyes and influence of the government that is alleging it has been attacked.
This is the case for two reasons. Normally, the argument for a trial “in the vicinage” (aka in the vicinity of the crime) applies to both prosecutor and prosecuted. The crime is against the peace of the jurisdiction, and, as such, the jurisdiction has the right to punish the crime, if proven. And, on the other side, a local trial makes it more likely that the accused can find witnesses and evidence that will help his side. In colonial British history, local juries were also a protection against overweening British officials.
That logic does not really apply to charges relating to obstructing the workings of the federal government, and other like cases. Why? The federal district is a city insofar as it is a place where people live full time. Hence, we citizens of Washington D.C. (my place of residence) have the right to try people who break the peace of the city, insofar as it is a jurisdiction like others in the U.S. But Washington, D.C. is also the seat of the federal government. As such, it is the representative of all the states and localities of the United States. In that sense, it is not like any other jurisdiction in the nation. It is a composite quilted out of the nation as a whole. And it is also true that, as great historians like Jack P. Greene have noted, our federal government assumed from the start most of the prerogatives that the king had before the American Revolution. That is precisely why the federal district is a location set apart in the Constitution. In a high profile political trial, too many judges and potential jurors are, in essence, likely to be interested parties.
Among the charges against the king in the Declaration of Independence are charges attacking the king “For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses.” More largely, the king and Parliament had passed bills (acts of “pretended legislation” according to the Declaration, for we Americans denied that Parliament had the right to pass such bills) that took colonists away from their colonies and transported them to jurisdictions in which the king’s courts were more likely to convict them. In other words, the king violated the right to have a speedy and local trial. That would seem to indicate that the trial always ought to be in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime took place. But note that this is the opposite case of the one we are discussing here.
To put it in the framework of the American Revolution, this is more like the situation of a colonist charged with a crime against the workings of Parliament, with the trial to take place in London. It is not the case of a colonist transported to London, or another venue outside his colony, for trial. In other words, it is not the kind of case where the logic of the need for a local trial would apply. To be sure, the king would want a trial in sight of his palace, but for that very reason, it would be reasonable to have the trial elsewhere.
As Washington has grown from a political village to what is now an imperial center, the danger of Washington behaving like a national court has grown. That the people of Washington, D.C. approved the team name “Commanders” for the local football team (the team’s president says that they chose the name because it “broadly resonated with our fans”) says much about the self-image of today’s Washington, D.C. And it is for that very reason that in cases relating to the national political process, the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C. cannot be regarded as a neutral venue for a trial. The judges and jurors are too likely to be interested parties in the case.”
LikeLike
“A pro-life pregnancy center saved me from a life of human trafficking”
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4137894-a-pro-life-pregnancy-help-center-saved-me-from-a-life-of-human-trafficking/
“Not long ago, I stood before the Vermont Senate and testified about my experience as a human trafficking survivor who became the first black female pregnancy center director in the state.
I had been asked to testify against a bill targeting pro-life pregnancy help centers, falsely claiming that we “mislead” the public about our services.
But my story puts the lie to this narrative and proves the beautiful truth of our work — that pregnancy centers love, serve and commit ourselves to the men, women and children of our communities who need our help. We know firsthand how our assistance can transform someone’s life.
From age 2 to 29, I was trafficked in 33 states. I suffered serial abuse, rape and even murder attempts by various pimps. I was heavily addicted to hard drugs such as crystal meth and cocaine. I eventually reached a point where I intentionally sought to end my life by overdosing.
Even though I was losing weight from the drugs, my belly kept growing, and I soon discovered the pregnancy that would ultimately save my life.
Shrugging off the news with disgust, my pimp demanded money and then attempted to shoot me when I told him I was done being his slave. Pregnant, terrified and with nowhere to go, I literally ran away from the only life I had ever known.
Fighting despair, and with only $1.38 to my name, I had very few places to turn. After endless phone calls, I finally reached a woman at a domestic violence shelter in New Hampshire who agreed to help. She flew me there and connected me with a local pregnancy center, where a woman named Phyllis changed everything. She calmed me with a single kind touch and the words, “I know a man named Jesus who can help you.” The warmth of her hands filled me with an encouragement and hope that I’d never known before. In that moment, despite my hardened heart, I abandoned my former life forever.
The pregnancy center provided me with free resources and support to take care of my son. I was also able to realize and pursue dreams I had never imagined, such as earning a college degree. I worked with families at the pregnancy center and secured a job at a local hospital.
Years later, I applied for the executive director position of a pregnancy center in Vermont — Branches Pregnancy Resource Center — the position in which I have served since last December.
I have worked in this role to raise awareness of the services we provide to the local community. I developed a strong relationship with our town manager to help address a severe homeless problem in the area. Now, Branches helps to care for and connect those who are homeless with the resources they need.
The CEO of one of the largest hospitals in Vermont recently requested to collaborate with us. We are also training the local police department, as well as local schools, to learn how to identify human trafficking and save victims of the industry. My job is incredibly fulfilling.
f it hadn’t been for Phyllis and the pregnancy center, I would be dead. They saved my life. My son saved my life. Now, it’s my turn to defend the very cause that saved me. “
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Joe and Democrats.
“‘Bidenomics’ in action: Democrats’ excessive spending, mounting debt earn US credit downgrade”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/08/07/biden-economy-national-debt-result-us-credit-rating-downgrade/70520159007/
“This must be awkward for President Joe Biden.
Shortly after he started taking credit for “Bidenomics” and how it’s “benefiting” the country, the United States got a credit rating downgrade.
It’s only the second time that confidence in the federal government’s ability to manage its debt has been officially reduced. So it’s a big deal.
It turns out Democrats’ unlimited appetite for spending and their refusal to address growing deficits isn’t sitting well with close watchers of our economy, and this should serve as a warning that inaction is no longer acceptable.
Biden is trying to sell ‘Bidenomics.’Americans can’t afford the president’s agenda
Despite the left’s attempt to dump all of the credit downgrade blame on Republicans (who worked to trim spending) for the debt ceiling showdown earlier this year, the report from Fitch Ratings spells out much bigger concerns about the U.S. fiscal outlook and the need for a spending overhaul.
If anything, the downgrade indicates that lawmakers didn’t do nearly enough in their negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
The agency downgraded the nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. Although still a good rating, the lost confidence is noteworthy.
As Fitch states: “The rating downgrade of the United States reflects the expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years, a high and growing general government debt burden, and the erosion of governance relative to ‘AA’ and ‘AAA’ rated peers over the last two decades that has manifested in repeated debt limit standoffs and last-minute resolutions.”
—-
The Senate R’s who voted for the 3 trillion in spending on BS are responsible as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Dems next move in the game of Get Trump. 🙂
“Trump Indicted For Mocking US Women’s Soccer”
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-indicted-for-us-womens-soccer-defeat/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“New Banking Regulations Could Sink the Economy”
https://hotair.com/stephen-moore/2023/08/08/new-banking-regulations-could-sink-the-economy-n569689
“Banking is just about the most regulated industry in America. Yet, as we saw with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and others in recent months, lenders are not invulnerable to failure due to bad management or unexpected changes in economic conditions.
The inevitable response is for more regulation on all banks. But sometimes regulators can make conditions worse for healthy banks. The most famous example in recent times was when financial regulators urged banks to issue inordinate amounts of new “safe” mortgages leading up to the great financial crisis of 2008, ultimately flooding the financial system with toxic debt.
Now with some banks under financial stress because of higher interest rates, Congress and the Federal Reserve want to raise bank capital reserve requirements. Presumably, this means holding more government bonds, many of which dropped precipitously in value last year as interest rates spiked higher.
Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr recently proposed raising these capital standards, as have several Senate Democrats.
No one wants to see bank runs. But these rules don’t distinguish between financially healthy banks and poorly operated banks with risky loan portfolios and bad management. It’s like trying to fight obesity by asking physically fit people to go on a diet.
Given that taxpayers backstop bank deposits through FDIC insurance, reasonable capital requirements are prudent. But by definition, higher capital reserves mean less money available to make loans. Access to credit for business and family borrowers gets squeezed.
A recent study from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association finds that for every 1 percentage point increase in additional risk-weighted capital required by federal regulators, the amount available for lending decreased by $16 billion. Some of the capital requirement proposals would thus shrink the pool of available capital by as much as $136 billion.
Will tomorrow’s Bernie Marcus (co-founder of Home Depot) or Steve Jobs (founder of Apple) be the odd man out under these new regulations? If there is one thing economists agree on, it is the dire need for improved economic growth — which requires more, not less, capital investment.
All of this is unnecessary. The banking sector in general is already well-protected against an economic downturn or a sudden rash of loan defaults. The banks now hold nearly $3 trillion in high-quality liquid assets (or four times the levels before the 2008 meltdown).
The Federal Reserve itself acknowledges this in its recent Financial Stability Report, which concludes: “As of the fourth quarter of 2022, banks in the aggregate were well capitalized, especially U.S. global systemically important banks.”
Much like the Dodd-Frank law and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after 2008, this is a measure that won’t address the risk problem banks are facing. They have been victims of a reckless zero interest rate monetary policy that took a trillion dollars out of the lending base of banks as depositors have rushed to the higher yield environment of money market mutual funds.”
LikeLike
Outrageous, yet fitting given that the award is named for a man with a penchant for young boys.
“Charlotte Pride gives 2023 Harvey Milk award to convicted sex offender”
https://www.theblaze.com/news/charlotte-pride-gives-2023-harvey-milk-award-to-convicted-sex-offender
“An LGBT festival that runs from August 19-20 in Charlotte, North Carolina, has conferred a top award to a convicted sex offender.
Charlotte Pride, which is sponsored by Bank of America, McDonald’s, Bud Light, Lowe’s, NASCAR, and a host of other ESG-captive corporations, has given its 2023 Harvey Milk Award to Chad Sevearance-Turner.
According to the event’s site, this award is given annually “to an individual to honor exceptional leadership, service to the community, and those who champion LGBTQ causes that impact the Charlotte community and beyond.”
Sevearance-Turner was apparently awarded for his work as president of the Carolinas LGBT+ Chamber of Commerce — a role in which he has overseen the chamber secure “valuable partnerships with prominent organizations like Fifth Third Bank, NASCAR, Duke Energy, Wells Fargo, Sonoco, and Novant Health.”
WBTV-TV reported that Sevearance-Turner had previously served as the president of Charlotte’s LGBT Chamber of Commerce but resigned after his track record with young boys had been flagged as a possible discredit to any future work conducted by the group. At the time of Sevearance-Turner’s resignation, the group had been pushing to allow transvestites to use women’s bathrooms.
The North Carolina Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry lists Charlotte Pride’s new awardee as a registrant, noting he committed the offense for which he was convicted in July 1998.
Reduxx highlighted that Sevearance-Turner only served two years out of a 10-year sentence for molesting an adolescent under the age of 16 and was then released on parole.
Sevearance-Turner, formerly the music director at the New Harvest Church of God in Gaffney, South Carolina, had been found guilty by a jury in Cherokee County, South Carolina, of molesting a 15-year-old parishioner while the boy slept.
GoUpState.com reported in 2000 that Sevearance-Turner had been charged with three counts of lewd act on a minor but that two of the three cases would be tried separately.”
LikeLike
Remember kids, Joe never had any knowledge about Hunter’s business dealings…..
Must be more of the Russian disinfo….
“Hunter’s Former Associate Visited Obama White House, Then-VP Biden Residence at Least 36 Times”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/08/hunters-former-associate-visited-obama-white-house-then-vp-biden-residence-at-least-36-times/
“Schwerin was the founding partner and managing director of Hunter Biden’s now-dissolved firm Rosemont Seneca Partners when he was appointed by then-President Obama to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad, an independent U.S. government agency, in early 2015. Obama reappointed him to the commission in January 2017.
“Eric asked for one of these the day after the election in 2008,” Hunter Biden revealed about Schwerin’s initial appointment in an email on March 13, 2015.
The news means the House Republicans will likely ask Schwerin to testify as part of their investigation.
The Obama administration’s archived website said it would “not release access records related to purely personal guests of the first and second families (i.e., visits that do not involve any official or political business).”
Interesting:
One of Schwerin’s visits – in November 2010 – was a sit-down with Joe Biden in the West Wing. Schwerin also visited Joe Biden’s residence at least 15 times for various holiday receptions, including the Dec. 12 holiday reception in 2015 that came a couple of days after then-Vice President Biden’s infamous trip to Ukraine, where he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if the country’s leaders did not fire their top prosecutor.
According to White House visitor logs, Schwerin attended the reception along with Rosemont Seneca co-founder Devon Archer, Hunter Biden and Sebastian Momtazi, an associate who worked with Archer in Rosemont Seneca’s New York City office. Archer, who was also on the Burisma board with Hunter Biden, and Momtazi both had Burisma.com email addresses, according to emails previously reviewed by Fox News Digital.
An April 15, 2015, visit might raise eyebrows because it took place one day after the meeting at Cafe Milano, where Biden just happened to show up and dined with Hunter and his associates. A guest included “Vadym P. from Burisma.”
The thing about politics is that everything is so…woven together. Everybody is with everybody:
Schwerin also met with Anne Marie Person, who served as a general assistant at Rosemont Seneca until 2014 before joining Biden’s office, at least three times between February and June 2016, a Fox News Digital review found.
According to White House visitor logs, Schwerin met person in Biden’s “West Wi[ng]” office on Feb. 24, April 8, and June 9. It is unclear if Biden was present for the meetings. She was also the point person for a West Wing tour Schwerin took in August 2015.
In addition to Person and Ricchetti, Schwerin made three other visits with staffers from Vice President Biden’s office in 2016. Schwerin met with John McGrail, who was a counselor to Biden, on July 15 and Sept. 9 at the White House.
He also met with Kaitlyn Demers, who was serving as an associate counsel in Biden’s office in 2016, on June 28. She was serving as a special assistant to President Biden and then-chief of staff Ron Klain until last August.”
—-
Rosemont-Seneca is one of the companies Hunter used to money launder his bribes thru before forwarding 10% to “The Big Guy”….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Afghan withdrawal was a failure of intelligence. The army completely misread the Afghan army’s willingness to fight. Based on faulty assumptions, they devised a plan for withdrawal. The plan, btw, was devised during the Trump administration but was approved by the Biden. In any case, neither Trump nor Biden bear responsibility here – but army intelligence should have done at least a internal inquiry. Issa is exploiting family grief by holding unofficial “hearings”.
It’s interesting to hear/see the phrase “Gold Star” repeating over and over. Years ago, the right mocked a “Gold Star” mother when politics went the other way.
LikeLike
Not encouraging to read about this…
https://religionnews.com/2023/08/04/former-southwestern-seminary-trustee-calls-for-forensic-audit-of-troubled-school/
“In June, the board of trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the SBC’s flagship schools, announced that its leaders had run up a $140 million deficit over 20 years, a pattern of financial mismanagement that has left the school’s future in jeopardy. The school’s accreditor has issued a warning, giving the seminary two years to make improvements.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
A former FBI agent pled guilty to money laundering and violating sanctions. The same agent who investigated the Russian collusion case. Yet Republicans claim the DOJ and FBI are weaponized. If that was true, this case would have been buried and no charges would have been filed. Apparently the system works and is non-biased.
“No comment” is the proper police response for any on-going investigation. Nothing nefarious there. The fact Republicans keep grabbing at any hint or morsel of scandal reveal they have nothing. And even if something was said about the laptop prior to the election, it would not have affected the outcome. Four years prior, the lock her up and what about her emails swayed a few people, but since nothing came of it, most people weren’t going to buy a second round of similar nonsense. And right now, Republicans are once again searching for something to hang Biden on. Since the laptop is proving to be a dud; Issa is now trying the Afghan withdrawal. Here’s an idea – why don’t the Republicans run on a platform instead of being the party of grievances, real or imagined.
2024 is shaping up to have two slogans 1) He’s a crook vs 2) I’m better than the other guy. With that choice, #2 will probably win.
The NewsBusters comparing the coverage of Archer to Trump’s indictment is amsuing. A former president getting indicted for the third time for trying to change the results of an election is far bigger news than a business partner of the president’s son testifying the president said hello during a meeting.
LikeLike
Comparing a sex crime sentence to police murder accessory charge isn’t a comparison. In my opinion both are woefully short. I find sex crime sentences vary widely in the US and often have to do with context but it seems pretty clear cut here. As for the cop; in many states I know you can be charged with manslaughter or murder even if you weren’t who actually did the crime. If that’s the case in Minnesota, the cop got off lightly.
Looked into the Charlotte Pride guy. Apparently the conviction is from 25 years ago when he was 20 and working as a youth pastor. The victim was 15 years old. There have been no charges since that time. The age gap is significant at that stage of life but it does not indicate a penchant for young boys. Immoral and illegal yes but not child molestation nor paedophilia.
I also found it strange he was a youth pastor at 20. The churches I’m familiar with, the youth pastor is a regularly trained pastor. The amount of schooling needed then means the youngest he or she can be is 25. Assigning a 20 year old, straight or gay, the responsibility of being a youth pastor seems to be a recipe for disaster. Do we blame his age? his occupation? or his orientation?
LikeLike
Of course change of venue is on the top of Trump’s lawyer’s list. I’ve heard West Virginia floating around as a preferred choice. The argument given in the article can be applied to any criminal trial. The distinction the author tries to make so other criminal trials stay in DC is ambiguous and not very convincing. Comparing DC to an outside imperial area is ridiculous and citing the change in the NFL’s team name is laughable. If a judge approves a change of venue based on the constitutional grounds, any good criminal lawyer will do the same for his client. He does however make yet another argument for DC statehood – there’s a constitutional gap here.
The credit agency was explicit. The change in credit rating was due to the debt ceiling crisis. The debt ceiling is a horrible mechanism which makes no sense and creates unnecessary political risks. No other country does this. Again, the credit agency was insistent – they lowered the rating due to the debt ceiling. Constantly arguing over the debt and having last minute compromises indicates poor governance and inability to administer debt.
The deregulation that occurred during the Clinton administration created the instability in the US banking sector. Bring back the prior regulations and stability will increase. The problem is a lack of regulation not too many regulations.
LikeLike
Coke or Pepsi
https://www.ft.com/content/f43f0e63-0fa4-4771-8eb4-b5d61f87ada4
LikeLike
Neither.
Spring water please.
LikeLike
Let’s have blue staters live with the results of their voting choices, instead of screwing the rest of us for their bad choices.
“HENNEKE: The Bipartisan Proposal To Put Americans On The Hook For High Blue State Taxes”
https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/08/henneke-the-bipartisan-proposal-to-put-americans-on-the-hook-for-high-blue-state-taxes/
“Liberals and some moderate Republicans are pushing for a tax cut for blue states and liberal elites—no, really. Conservatives are pushing back, but not in defense of higher taxes. A far better approach would be to cut tax rates for everyone—not just increase a deduction for a select few wealthy persons.
That targeted tax cut, called the “state and local tax (SALT) deduction,” is now at the center of the tax bill being debated in D.C.
Here’s how it works. For years, the federal tax code put states such as Texas and Florida—which don’t levy state income taxes—at a disadvantage. While state income taxes were deductible from federal income taxes, sales taxes and fees weren’t.
That targeted tax cut, called the “state and local tax (SALT) deduction,” is now at the center of the tax bill being debated in D.C.
Here’s how it works. For years, the federal tax code put states such as Texas and Florida—which don’t levy state income taxes—at a disadvantage. While state income taxes were deductible from federal income taxes, sales taxes and fees weren’t.
In other words, the federal government cushioned the blow from high-tax states like New York and California, while penalizing citizens from states with lower tax burdens, by letting some (but not all) taxpayers deduct their state taxes. Over the years, conservative lawmakers sought to get a state and local taxes (SALT) deduction added to the equation, which would include sales taxes and property taxes. It worked—within limits. But because it was based on itemized deductions on a taxpayer’s return, it mostly benefited high-income earners—and not just where you’d expect.
“Before the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017], 91 percent of the benefit of the SALT deduction was claimed by those with income above $100,000 and concentrated in six states: California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania,” the Tax Foundation explains.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, put a limit on how much can be deducted each year. By capping the SALT deduction at $10,000, the new law leveled the playing field for red states and blue states. It’s time to make the deduction permanent.
Instead, a vocal group of lawmakers from blue states like New York and New Jersey want to lift the cap altogether.
“Prior to President Trump’s 2017 tax law that placed a $10,000 cap on the deduction of state and local taxes, my constituents claimed a $63,083 deduction on their federal taxes on average,” said U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, in a press release. “Since then, 200,000 families in my Congressional District have paid higher taxes. This cap is an assault on the middle class…”
Even in pricey California, “middle class” families aren’t claiming more than $63,000 in deductions as they hunt-and-peck their way through TurboTax. The true beneficiaries of lifting the cap would be the wealthy, and you can guess who would pick up the tab.
But even some Republican members of Congress are on board with this gift to Democratic strongholds.
“Southern Californians shouldn’t have to pay more federal taxes on top of their already high state taxes and rising costs of living and housing,” said U.S. Rep. Young Kim, a Republican from California. “We must act to right this wrong, which is why I am fighting to repeal the current cap on SALT deductions and lower taxes for my constituents.”
Yet that leaves everyone else on the hook for California’s budgetary tax-and-spend ways. Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma says that lifting the SALT cap would cost the nation about $91 billion; “That’s sort of the opposite direction where we want to go,” he added.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
So the environuts have been lying….?
Of course.
https://twitter.com/MattHennessey/status/1688874360927363072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1688874360927363072%7Ctwgr%5E39456be30e31b72d4b84ff117a1ac8646097a1d8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fdavid-strom%2F2023%2F08%2F08%2Fanother-leftist-lie-exposed-but-no-biggie-n569857
—
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/08/08/another-leftist-lie-exposed-but-no-biggie-n569857
“The New York Times printed a story that captures the environmental movement to a T.
For years we have been exposed to unrelenting propaganda about the ocean being inundated with plastic pollution. Headlines screamed, campaigns were launched, and the government pumped out regulations and propaganda in remarkable quantities rivaling the mountains of plastic supposedly invading our ocean.
According to “experts” (there are always “experts” involved, aren’t there?) over 8 million tons of plastic were finding their way to the ocean every year, and something had to be done RIGHT NOW or all turtles will be doomed or something.
I think we can all agree that plastic trash (or other trash) finding its way into the ecosystem is not something to be desired and despite my inclination to distrust anything an environmentalist says I am more than sympathetic to concerns about plastic getting into our food chain.
One can simultaneously think a problem is exaggerated and that there is a problem.
Yet the plastic in the ocean story captures the essential dishonesty of Leftist propaganda. Rather than having a rational, honest discussion of the costs and benefits of various policies (plastic is essential to the functioning of the modern world, and plastic has some environmental impacts we should mitigate), the enviros catastrophize everything in order to shut down all brain function in people.
As the Times reports, a previous claim which has been repeated ad nauseam that 8 million tons of plastic has been revised down a little bit.
To 500,000 tons, or 1/16th as much as has been claimed.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, that’s why Biden keeps sending them billions.
https://www.newsweek.com/does-ukraine-have-kompromat-joe-biden-opinion-1818052
“Throughout the Trump presidency, the mainstream media constantly suggested that Russia had so-called “kompromat” on the president—embarrassing materials used as a weapon of influence through blackmail. We all remember the daily deluge: “Does Russia have Kompromat on Trump?” CNN asked. “A Russian Word Americans Need To Know: ‘Kompromat,'” Greg Myre wrote at NPR, concluding that “Russia may have compromising material on President-elect Donald Trump.” The Guardian agreed, writing there was “apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on Trump… that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow.” Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that Russia had “secret leverage over Trump,” and “a great deal of incriminating information was confirmed,” a claim reiterated by the BBC in an article called “Russia and the art of ‘kompromat’.” The Washington Post was obsessed with the conspiracy theory, publishing numerous articles about it, as did the Daily Beast with a steady stream of articles. Even the New York Times promoted the conspiracy theory that Russia had kompromat on the President, based on a brief meeting attended by one of Trump’s sons in Trump Tower. Entire books were written on all the kompromat that the Kremlin supposedly had on President Trump, which were eagerly cited across mainstream media.
And what was this kompromat that Russia had over Trump, per our august media institutions? Putin apparently had sex tapes of Trump with prostitutes peeing on him.
It seems so ridiculous that anyone—let alone our most august media institutions—believed this in hindsight. We now know that the pee tape stemmed from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But the kompromat conspiracy theory was essential for the Democrats’ narrative that Russia possessed boundless influence over the president.
For the Washington Post, the (made-up) kompromat meant Trump was “an agent of Russia.” For CNN, it meant Trump was a “Russian asset.” The exact same talking point was repeated ad nauseam across the media in places like The Atlantic, The New Republic, Slate, Wired, and nightly on MSNBC. The specific nature of the kompromat or how Trump was a Russian agent or asset was never fixed or established, and depended upon the creativity of journalist imagination. Max Boot perfectly captured the zeitgeist in an article for the Washington Post entitled, “Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset.”
All the kompromat talk swiftly ended the moment Joe Biden became president because surely no foreign government could have any dirt on him. This left no one to ask the obvious question: Could Ukrainian officials have kompromat on Joe, given all the allegations of his corruption in Ukraine?
It’s a much more reasonable question about Joe Biden than it ever was when posed as a certainty about Trump. After all, Hunter Biden was paid many millions of dollars by the shady Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, despite having no qualifications for the job that anyone could point to beyond being the son of the Vice President at the time—which proved fortunate when his father fired the general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, who had begun an investigation into the Burisma-Hunter gravy train.
And yet, in obvious contrast with their obsession with Russia’s kompromat on Trump, the mainstream media has lined up to dismiss the corruption allegations against Biden as a nothingburger. This has been no easy feat, and yet the media has valiantly obliged, arguing repeatedly that Hunter Biden was paid by Burisma for reasons that had nothing to do with the fact that his father was the Vice President at the time overseeing U.S. relations with Ukraine—and that Joe did not have any knowledge of his son’s highly lucrative business dealings. And they would have you believe Vice President Biden fired Shokin because Shokin was corrupt.
The latest evidence exposes the media’s talking points as pure propaganda. On July 31, 2023, Devon Archer testified to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability about both Joe’s relationship to Burisma and why he fired Shokin. Archer was Hunter Biden’s close friend who served alongside him on the board of Burisma. Under oath, Archer testified that Burisma paid Hunter millions of dollars solely because his father was Vice President. Burisma would have gone out of business without “the brand” and the brand was Joe, Archer testified. Per Archer, Joe Biden was involved in the racket; he was put on speakerphone in business meetings at least 20 times.
Archer also testified that Shokin was fired by Joe not for being a corrupt prosecutor but for investigating the millions of dollars Burisma was paying Hunter, whom the company owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, said was stupider than his dog. In subsequent interviews, Archer has even more clearly confirmed that Shokin was fired for pursuing Burisma’s enormous payoffs to the Biden family.
All of this is well-known to Ukrainian officials. Shokin himself released a video directly rebutting Biden loyalists in the American media, in which he explains in detail why Vice President Biden threatened Ukraine’s president with holding back critical American aid if Shokin was not immediately replaced with a dud.”
“”The depiction of these investigations as dormant has nothing to do with reality of the facts,” Shokin said. “Mr. Biden was told that we were going to start questioning his son and others, Archer and others, all involved in the Burisma case. And everyone understood very well that this fight was going to end badly for them… Biden had understood what was looming… We were about to reach the outcome of this case. Having understood all this, Biden used all the unofficial means at his disposal… Biden was acting on behalf of his own interests, for his family… Joe Biden had reason to fear that all this would eventually fall on his son.”
For his pains, Biden replaced Shokin with a new prosecutor, who promptly closed the Burisma investigation.
Nothing that has emerged recently has the shock value of a pee tape. But perhaps that’s because it’s all true. It is also consistent with the materials found on Hunter’s notorious laptop, which contains emails from Burisma executives pleading with Biden to use his influence to stop the pressure on them by Ukrainian officials.
Unlike the pee tape and other unsubstantiated charges of Russian kompromat against Trump, the evidence is robust that Joe Biden abused his power as Vice President to massively enrich his family through influence peddling. The Vice President successfully threatened to withhold financial aid if the Ukrainian president did not immediately put to bed an investigation exposing the Biden racket.
Despite the evidence of Biden’s corruption in Ukraine, the Zelensky government has not outed Joe for his sordid history in his country. But why would Zelensky need to expose Biden? At tremendous American cost, Biden is leading the largest war since World War II to help Ukraine.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ – I prefer Orange Crush (In Canada Conservatives are blue, Liberals are red and NDP are orange) An NDP leader once ran on a slogan “Pepsi (Cons) or Coke (Lib) whats the difference vote Orange Crush”. However, I prefer Irish whiskey with a hint of Canada Dry ginger ale.
In any survey of givers and takers of federal money among states, it’s fairly well known that the highest takers with the exception of New Mexico are Republican leaning. And the highest givers with the exception of Texas are Democratic leaning. When the cap was introduced, it only increased the difference. No Republican leaning state (with the exception of Texas) is on the hook for liberal state spending.
For those states with no (or little) state taxes who complain about the state tax deduction, implement your own state tax. Without a state tax, these states are reliant on property taxes which penalises the suburban middle class. Non-residential properties usually have a lower tax rate so farmers and industry pay less than the middle class.
LikeLike
Measuring the amount of plastic in the ocean is a fool’s game especially since most of it’s micro-plastic which makes its way up the food chain. 8 million or 500,000 tons – its still too much. btw the true number will never be know as micro-plastic can’t be counted.
Shokin was corrupt. Everyone wanted him gone – the EU, IMF, World Bank, and most of Ukraine. Instead of investigating oligarchs he investigated non-profit anti corruption groups and western businesses. Yes, the Obama admin wanted him gone but they weren’t the only ones and probably not a deciding factor – keeping Ukraine in the good graces of the EU would be more important than Obama and Biden.
Archer’s testimony was a nothing burger. He stated that Biden wasn’t present for any business decisions. To paraphrase mean girls – stop trying to make Hunter happen
LikeLike
In the old days….
I was known to partake in the occasional highball, with Jim Beam and ginger ale. Irish whiskey would work too.
LikeLike