https://www.liveleak.com/view?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The current head of The FBI is digging a hole for himself by resisting allowing the public to decide for themselves. The FBI needs to be cleaned from the top. Why is the current director fighting so hard to keep the memo from being released? Something is rotten in Denmark and we will soon be allowed to take a whiff of the stench.
The series of alleged activities are complex, so contrived and convoluted it could be hard for some to connect the dots. In essence, the FBI, other intelligence senior operatives, along with the Clinton's, the DNC etc.were engaged in the effort to destroy a president who was duly elected. The memo, soon to be released, is simply one part of the draining of the swamp that needs to take place and the complete fabrication by Hillary, The FBI etc. will be denied and attacked because so many, for political reasons, including the mass media, had to convinced themselves Trump was involved in a Russian Collusion.
Mueller will eventually get some convictions of low hanging fruit, from Trump's vineyard, for matters unrelated to what he was charged to do and that, in itself, is outrageous but it will also be denied and disbelieved because those who were engaged in this orchestrated entrapment are above the law.
Were Trump to lose The House the market would collapse and the economy would sink for reasons that:
a) The Democrats would seek to bring Obama's bankrupt policies back.
b) They would seek to impeach Trump on specious charges relying upon radical anger.
c) The signal it would send to N Korea, Iran, China and Russia that America was back to retrenching and returning to a feckless foreign policy would become evident.
d) The current investigations by Congress of wrong doing by Obama's FBI and Justice Department and Hillary and the DNC would end and the truth would never be know.
e) Finally, illegal immigration would soar once again. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Memo to be released today or soon. Republicans, unlike Democrats, trust Americans and support a more open government. That is the way it should be but Democrats seem to reject the concept of rule of law. Nunes followed all the proper procedures while "Shifty" Schiff engages in stonewalling and obfuscation. (See 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have been blessed to have met some wonderful and accomplished people in my life. Many are just plain ordinary wonderful people and some have extraordinary talent.
Living at The Landings has expanded my horizons of exceptional people as well.
These are some link to some special friends who have extraordinary talent;
Minister Jim Giddens, my very dear friend, allowed and assisted me in bringing them to The Landings, to perform at his church, several years ago.
I am working with another dear friend to see if we can get them back to play for us. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Below are several clips and programs to give you an idea!
https://digitalcommons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inbreeding. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, what I have been telling you for years has come out in an op ed. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inbreeding. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, what I have been telling you for years has come out in an op ed. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Can Trump Hold the House?
Nancy Pelosi could still be sitting on her hands at next year’s State of the Union speech.
It was impossible not to notice that Nancy Pelosi spent President Trump’s 70-minute State of the Union speech grimly chewing her cheek. She was thinking: “What I know, and he doesn’t know, is that history says a year from now I will be speaker of the House, and he’ll be on the brink of impeachment.”
Odds are, she’s right.
Mr. Trump gave a skillfully designed speech. He adroitly wove his conservative policies inside an attractive tapestry of generally self-evident American truths, while extending a fist of compromise to his opponents. But history records that the party of first-term U.S. presidents loses House seats in the midterm elections. If Republicans suffer a net loss of 24 seats, Mr. Trump will fall into the hands of Mrs. Pelosi’s Madame Defarge (keyword: guillotine).
In his State of the Union, Mr. Trump loaded up his presidency on the strong economy, jobs and low unemployment. “It’s the economy, stupid” is a good political bet, but it isn’t decisive.
Lyndon B. Johnson’s midterm election, in 1966, came amid a 3.8% unemployment rate delivered by the 1964 tax cuts. LBJ lost 47 House seats. George W. Bush had an unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2006 and lost 30 seats. For both LBJ and W, the effects of prolonged war—Vietnam and Iraq—undermined a strong economy. The absence of a big war is a plus for Mr. Trump.
Barack Obama is the modern champ of first-term losses. He absorbed a 63-seat meltdown in 2010, with Great Recession unemployment that spiked to 9.6%. Control of the House gone, Mr. Obama resorted to rule by monarchical decree. It suited him, if not the country.
Some say Mr. Trump needs a stronger public-approval rating. It wouldn’t hurt, but it doesn’t guarantee off-year success.
Though Franklin D. Roosevelt gained nine seats in 1934, that presumably popular president coughed up an astonishing 117 seats in the midterms of 1938 and 1942. Likable Harry S. Truman continued the dive, losing 54 seats in 1946 and 28 four years later.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the victorious Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, was one of the country’s most beloved presidents. In his first midterm election, Ike lost 18 House seats, and the Republicans never regained control of the lower chamber for 40 years.
An optimistic view of this rejection would be that most Americans, instinctively wary of Washington, want the brake of divided government, no matter the boilerplate about “bipartisanship”—unless the president and his party are demonstrably producing economic well-being.
The press worshiped John F. Kennedy as much as it loathed Richard Nixon. So what? JFK, with a 5.5% unemployment rate in 1962, lost only four House seats. Nixon’s 4.9% unemployment in 1970 kept his midterm loss to 12 seats, followed by a historic 1972 presidential demolition of progressive George McGovern.
Now comes the most intriguing midterm presidential exhibit: Bill Clinton.
Mr. Clinton got wiped out in his first midterms, in 1994, losing 54 seats and House control amid political failure and the Gingrich/Republican revolution. But explain this: In the 1998 midterm, awash in scandal, Mr. Clinton gained five House seats and held his Senate losses to zero.
Arguably the economy broke Mr. Clinton’s fall. The unemployment rate, at 7.5% when he was elected in ’92, fell steadily to 4.5% in ’98. Economic contentment was spreading across the U.S.
As to political risk from the Trump Russian-collusion narrative, if there is anything in common between that and the Clinton run-up to impeachment, it is that neither event involved the nation’s primary business. Mr. Clinton’s abuses of the institutions of government were multiple and manifest. But voters didn’t punish his party. The Trump obstruction turns mainly on a conversation with James Comey.
Here’s the frosting on midterm optimism: Reagan’s unemployment rate in 1986 was still about 7%, but his economic policies—tax cuts and deregulation, as now—had clearly healed the economy. In that year’s midterm, House Republicans lost just five seats. George H.W. Bush, with unemployment down to 5.6% in 1990, lost only eight House seats.
Potential downdrafts abound—North Korea, the right getting ugly on immigration, a Mueller-made political crisis amplified by an irredeemably hostile press, more GOP incumbents like Rep. Trey Gowdy bailing out, or the possibility that economic contentment will suppress turnout. Plus, Mr. Trump might make history by tanking a successful presidency with tweets.
The record suggests, however, that riding a significantly strong economy at midterm—JFK, Reagan, Clinton—could have Nancy Pelosi sitting on her hands again during next year’s State of the Union.
1a) Memo Reading for Nonpartisans
Ignore the spin. When the document goes public, here’s what to look for.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
The White House looks set to release the House Intelligence Committee memo on 2016 government surveillance abuses, which means the attacks on the document by Democrats, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the media are going to get wilder. To help navigate through the spin, here’s a handy guide for what to look for, and what to ignore:
• Rationale. Did the FBI have cause to open a full-blown counterintelligence probe into an active presidential campaign? That’s a breathtakingly consequential and unprecedented action and surely could not be justified without much more than an overheard drunken conversation or an unsourced dossier. What hard evidence did the FBI have?
• Tools and evidence. Government possesses few counterintelligence tools more powerful or frightening than the ability to spy on American citizens. If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in itself is a monumental scandal. It means the FBI used a document commissioned by one presidential campaign as a justification to spy on another. Ignore any arguments that the dossier was not a “basis” for the warrant or only used “in part.” If the FBI had to use it in its application, it means it didn’t have enough other evidence to justify surveillance.
Look to see what else the FBI presented to the court as a justification for monitoring, and whether it was manufactured. Mr. Steele and his client, Fusion GPS, ginned up breathless news stories about the dossier’s unverified accusations in September 2016 in order to influence the election. The FBI sometimes presents news articles to the court, but primarily for corroboration of other facts. If the FBI used the conspiracy stories Mr. Steele was spinning as actual justification—evidence—to the court, that’s out of bounds.
• Omissions and misdirection. What else did the FBI tell the court? One would presume the bureau did its due diligence and knew Mr. Steele ultimately worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The FISA court puts considerable emphasis on the credibility of sources. Did the FBI inform the court of the Clinton connection? Or did it lean on the claim that the Fusion project was originally funded by Republicans? Such a claim might diminish the partisan stench. But it would also be a falsehood, since the dossier portion of the project was purely funded by Clinton allies. And if the FBI didn’t bother to ask who hired Mr. Steele or Fusion, that’s a scandal all its own.
Also, look to see whether the FBI informed the court that Mr. Steele was blabbing to the press. When he first approached the bureau in July, he hadn’t yet briefed the media. But by September he and Fusion were publicly spinning the dossier for their Democratic client, and the FBI would have known who was generating the stories. Did the FBI continue to attest something that clearly was no longer true?
• Duration of surveillance. The FBI may argue it had good cause to look into Mr. Page. But if months of wiretaps didn’t turn up anything (and surely we’d have heard if they did), the FBI also had a duty to cease such a liberty-busting intrusion. Ask how long this probe went on and whether it was justified, or if the FBI was simply giving itself an open-ended license to spy on a campaign.
Expect Trump critics to renew their effort to turn Mr. Page into a Manchurian aide, seizing on his every action or word while ignoring the small role he played in the campaign, not to mention his obvious oddness. This will be designed to make people forget that for all the focus on Mr. Page, he was and remains a private citizen, who apparently was subject to months of government monitoring based on what may prove nothing more than the gossip of a rival campaign.
• Team Obama. Somewhat lost in this narrative is what role if any the broader Obama administration might have played with regard to the dossier. What actions were taken by former CIA Director John Brennan, or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ? Also don’t forget Bruce Ohr, the Justice Department official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, and who himself met with Fusion cofounder Glenn Simpson. Or the Justice Department officials who approved court filings. If there was surveillance abuse, accountability shouldn’t stop with the FBI.
Mostly, ignore what is certain to be a nonstop shriek that this memo is out of context, that it omits facts or cherry-picks data or makes unfair allegations. You know, sort of like what Democrats and the media did this past year in their “Russia investigation.” The difference here is that the memo only needs to provide a few facts for the country to understand if there was FISA abuse.
The rest is noise.
1b) An Unaccountable FBI
The bureau tries to tarnish a House memo before it’s released.
By The Editorial Board
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is making a last-ditch effort to block the release of a House Intelligence Committee memo detailing the bureau’s behavior during the 2016 election. This is all the more reason to let Americans see it.
In an unusual public statement Wednesday, the bureau objected that it had only “a limited opportunity to review” the memo the day before the House voted Monday to release it. The statement added that the FBI had “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”
This is really something. The FBI knows what’s in the memo because it has long known what the House committee was seeking to examine. For months it refused to provide access to those documents until director Christopher Wray and the Justice Department faced a contempt of Congress vote. If they now object to the way the House construes the facts, they should have been more cooperative from the start.
Note the FBI’s language about “material omissions” rather than errors of fact. Until this statement the FBI was pleading damage to “national security.” Now that rationale has given way to the claim that the House is omitting key details to reach judgments that the FBI apparently disagrees with. If Mr. Wray wants to fill in those omissions, he can always ask President Trump to declassify more documents to provide a more complete record. We’d love to see them, and Mr. Trump should give that transparency a boost even if Mr. Wray doesn’t request it.
The FBI’s public statement appears to be an act of insubordination after Mr. Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tried and failed to get the White House to block the memo’s release. Their public protest appears intended to tarnish in advance whatever information the memo contains. The public is getting to see amid this brawl how the FBI plays politics, and it isn’t a good look.
Neither Congress nor the White House can afford to back down on the memo amid this kind of political hardball. To do so would make the FBI an agency accountable only to itself, as it was in the days of J. Edgar Hoover.
In response to the FBI broadside, Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes disclosed that “it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign.” Perhaps this is what the FBI really doesn’t want the public to see, but Americans need to know if the country’s premier law enforcement agency abused its power to influence a presidential election.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)1400 years of inbreeding
We asked several Muslims in Saudi Arabia why they marry their first cousins. All of them told us it's to keep the wealth within the family and that the Prophet allows them to do this. There is one town in Saudi Arabia where there are only TWO last names listed for all its citizens.
"During the pilot transition program with the KV-107 and C-130 with Lockheed, we found that most Saudi pilot trainees had very limited night vision, even on the brightest of moonlit nights. Their training retention rate was minimal including maintenance personnel.
Some had dim memories and had to be constantly reminded of things that were told to them the day before. An American, British or any other western instructor is burned out pretty quick. It actually took Muslim C-130 pilots years before they could fly in the dark safely and then would be reluctant to leave the lights of a city. Ask any Marine, Air Force or Army guy who’s been trying to train Iraqis, and especially Afghans.
Islam is not only a religion; it's a way of life all the way around. Yet another set of revealing facts about Muslim beliefs and traditions and ways of life are 1400 years of inbreeding. I found this to be interesting. Didn't know whether to believe it or not. To research I went to Wikipedia, "Cousin Marriage," and far down in the article "Genetics" it seems there is a lot of truth here. A huge Muslim problem: Inbreeding."
Nikolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world: the disastrous results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of first cousins.
This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world. This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world, since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage.
The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health.
According to Sennels, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred. In Pakistan, the numbers approach 70%. Even in England, more than half of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins, and in Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%. The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim countries: 67% in Saudi Arabia, 64% in Jordan, and Kuwait, 63% in Sudan, 60% in Iraq, and 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar
According to the BBC, this Pakistani, Muslim-inspired inbreeding is thought to explain the probability that a British Pakistani family is more than 13 times as likely to have children with recessive genetic disorders. While Pakistanis are responsible for three percent of the births in the UK, they account for 33% of children with genetic birth defects.
The risks of what are called autosomal recessive disorders such as cystic fibrosis, spinal muscular atrophy is 18 times higher, and the risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher. Other negative consequences of inbreeding include a 100 percent increase in the risk of stillbirths and a 50% increase in the possibility that a child will die during labor.
Lowered intellectual capacity is another devastating consequence of Muslim marriage patterns. According to Sennels, research shows that children of consanguineous marriages lose 10-16 points off their IQ and that social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for being classified as "retarded," increases by an astonishing 400 percent among children of cousin marriages. (Similar effects were seen in the Paranoiac dynasties in ancient Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for a significant period of time.)
In Denmark, non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the intelligence test required for entrance into the Danish Army. Sennels says, "The ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking is simply lower in the Islamic world." He points out that the Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does.
In the last 1,200 years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year. Seven out of 10 Turks have never even read a book. Sennels points out the difficulties this creates for Muslims seeking to succeed in the West.
"A lower IQ, together with a religion that denounces critical thinking, surely makes it harder for many Muslims to have success in our high-tech knowledge societies." Only nine Muslims have ever won the Nobel Prize, and five of those were for the "Peace Prize." According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10 percent of the world average when it comes to scientific research measured by articles per million inhabitants.
In Denmark, Sennels' native country, Muslim children are grossly over represented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education, and anywhere from 51% to 70% of retarded children with physical handicaps in Copenhagen have an immigrant background. Learning ability is severely affected as well. Studies indicated that 64% of school children with Arabic parents are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant dropout rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.
Mental illness is also a product. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness. The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of patients in Denmark’s biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant background. The U.S. is not immune. According to Sennels, "One study based on 300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population as a whole."
Sennels concludes: There is no doubt that the wide-spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims' religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. This has produced overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences.
Bottom line: Islam is not simply a benign and morally equivalent alternative to the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sennels points out, the first and biggest victims of Islam are Muslims. These stark realities must be taken into account when we establish public policies dealing with immigration from Muslim countries and the building of mosques in the U.S.
For those who would like to read more on this subject, Google Nikolai Sennels. There are other academics who have done similar research and have arrived at similar conclusions
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Something else for you to read:
2) The Real Gender Gap: Family Breakdown and Black Males
Over 50 years have passed since then Secretary of Labor Daniel Moynihan was raked over the coals for raising awareness on the alarming rise of illegitimacy in black communities. Now that the percentage of single mothers has almost tripled, even leading members of the NAACP regard the breakdown of the family as the single largest barrier to black achievement. Nevertheless, how much of the general public knows the extent of the black gender gap?
According to the Moynihan Report, black females usually outperformed their male counterparts in school and almost always greatly outnumbered black men in white-collar jobs. Data from Maryland’s 2016 PARCC exam concurs with Moynihan’s observations.
Based on these scores the gender gap in blacks is 69%. This far exceeds the 47% difference between black girls and their white counterparts.
Moynihan characterized this as a “matriarchal society” where men were devalued for their inability to provide for the family. He speculated that since men are poorly suited to this “reversal of roles,” some black males react with “aggression… self-hatred, or crime.” Data from the state of Virginia shows a strong association between single parent households and violent crime
Since the Appalachian cities of Galax and Bristol are 87-90% white, this correlation applies to both races.
Moynihan blamed the trend on past injustices that had “emasculated” black men and rendered them more vulnerable to downturns in the economy. Many conservatives dispute this, but in all fairness, the illegitimacy rate in blacks was already much higher than that of whites as early as the 1930s (about 15% versus 2%). Nevertheless, by exclusively focusing on past injustices, Moynihan overlooked the unintended consequences of governmental regulations that made it harder for black men to access the first rungs of the economic ladder. Ultimately, Moynihan was a liberal Democrat who did not see government as the problem. True to form, he reported that the federal minimum wage was “well below the poverty line” for people supporting families. There are two problems with this perspective: First, most minimum wage jobs are held by teens and young adults. Second, wage restrictions deprived poor blacks of the main leverage they had for competing against whites.
Ironically, the Moynihan Report started out as an internal memo written as an advisory to President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”; a social program that is now widely credited for hastening the breakdown of the family. According to the Heritage Foundation, black illegitimacy rose exponentially halfway through the 1960s. This is precisely when the perverse incentives of Johnson’s “War on Poverty” were being implemented.
The report still has many detractors: Ibram Kendi, the founding director of the “Antiracist” Research and Policy Center at American University resented Moynihan’s use of the term “tangle of pathology” and believes it contributed to the narrative of “black inferiority.” The activist-professor also condemns the Christian right for wanting to impose their “civilizing theology” to the “wayward behavior” of blacks.
Dr. Kendi asserts that “the heartbeat of racism is denial” and for Black History Month he will be shuttling across the nation to share his expertise with fawning members of the academic community who are eager to display their antiracist credentials. As for those who see through this charade, almost none of them deny that racism exists, but when young black men are murdering one another at almost 15 times the rate of their white counterparts, you need not be black to see why the problem of racial discrimination is not high on everyone’s agenda.
Moynihan offered no solutions, but predicted that unless this trend was reversed “all the effort to end discrimination and poverty and injustice will come to little.” This prophecy came true for large portions of the black community, but who could have predicted how this ongoing achievement gap would so greatly empower a grievance industry that would hijack America’s colleges and universities? With the rejection of patriarchy and biological gender now all the rage, do not look to higher education to find answers.
Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science.
________________________________________________________
Moynihan offered no solutions, but predicted that unless this trend was reversed “all the effort to end discrimination and poverty and injustice will come to little.” This prophecy came true for large portions of the black community, but who could have predicted how this ongoing achievement gap would so greatly empower a grievance industry that would hijack America’s colleges and universities? With the rejection of patriarchy and biological gender now all the rage, do not look to higher education to find answers.
Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science.
________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment