.jpg)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| OPEN THE PRIVATE MEMO |
Monroe says we need to declare war and attack Cuba now because if we delay we will not attack the Chinese in Cuba and it will be a more dangerous scene. Bribben will do nothing so we will have Chinese military and missiles 100 miles from our country.
+++
This from a dear and very bright friend and fellow memo reader:
+++
Taxation and Representation
As non-taxpayers grow in proportion to total voters, taxpayer representation is usurped. Just as our
founding fathers fought for “no taxation without representation”, so it is time to fight again for taxpayer
representation. It is a false claim that taxpayers do not pay their fair share. It is a ridiculous claim. The
tax tables are so skewed that the rich, the top 1%, pay 41% of all taxes! 1 How is that not a fair share!?!
72% of taxpayers pay 100% which means 28% of “taxpayers” pay nothing. Yes, the tax tables are so
skewed that 28% of taxpayers pay 0%.
It is even worse than that. Presently, taxpayers get to report government transfer payments as earned
income. But should they? Many transfer payments, specifically Social Security and Medicare, contain a
combination of earned income and welfare. Although recipients think their benefits are earned, often,
that is false. A halftruth at best. That is because Social Security and Medicare are not actuarily based.
Any analysis quickly reveals them for what they are, wealth transfer engines. They collect tax
contributions progressively and charge premiums through means testing! But the government could
easily separate which portion of such benefits are actuarially earned versus which portion is welfare.
And were the welfare portion of these benefits subtracted from earned income and tax paid, we would
know true “taxes paid”. Likewise, direct transfer payments (such as Supplemental Security Income,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Child's Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families, Housing Assistance, and others), should be treated the same way. So, were welfare
amounts subtracted from earned income and taxes paid, “taxes paid” would give us a better, nay
correct, measure of who is paying taxes.
And if we believe in “no taxation without representation and use a correct measure of “taxes paid”, then
only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Durham: Feds Had No Real Evidence To Investigate Russian Collusion
Former Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice John Durham testified Wednesday that the federal government had no substantive basis to begin its 2016 probe into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
John Durham is testifying TODAY for the FIRST time to Congress and you, the American People.
We have one FINAL update about Durham’s BOMBSHELL report for you right here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Blood disease and marriage:
+++
I’m betting nine out of ten people reading this were never aware of the information you are about to discover! Read to the very end
GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN USED TO WORK FOR GEORGE SOROS. ADAM SCHIFF’S SISTER IS MARRIED TO ONE OF GEORGE SOROS’S SONS. HILLARY'S DAUGHTER CHELSEA IS MARRIED TO GEORGE SOROS'S NEPHEW.
CALIF GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM IS NANCY PELOSI'S NEPHEW
JOHN KERRY'S DAUGHTER IS MARRIED TO A MULLAH'S SON IN IRAN.
ABC NEWS EXECUTIVE PRODUCER IAN CAMERON IS MARRIED TO SUSAN RICE, OBAMA'S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.
CBS PRESIDENT DAVID RHODES IS THE BROTHER OF BEN RHODES, OBAMA'S DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS.
ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT CLAIRE SHIPMAN IS MARRIED TO JAY CARNEY, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY.
ABC NEWS AND UNIVISION REPORTER MATTHEW JAFFE IS MARRIED TO KATIE HOGAN, OBAMA'S FORMER DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY
ABC PRESIDENT BEN SHERWOOD IS THE BROTHER OF ELIZABETH SHERWOOD, OBAMA'S FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER.
CNN VP VIRGINIA MOSELEY IS MARRIED TO TOM NIDES, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON'S DEPUTY SECRETARY.
THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL A "STACKED DECK". IF YOU HAD A HUNCH THE NEWS MEDIA WAS SOMEWHAT RIGGED AND YOU COULDN'T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT, THIS MIGHT HELP YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE.
Now you know why no one is investigated. They all have their hands in the cookie jar! You might remember James Comey who investigated the Clinton email scandal and the Clinton Foundation and made the final decision to not recommend prosecution by the DOJ.
It turns out that the Clinton Foundation was audited by the law firm DLA Piper. One of the executives there was in charge of the Clinton Foundation audit. Who was it? Peter Comey, James Comey’s brother. Peter Comey held an executive position with the Washington law firm that did the audit of the Clinton foundation in 2015. Peter Comey was officially DLA Piper “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas,” in 2015 when the Clinton Foundation scandals first broke and Hillary was preparing for her Presidential campaign. Not only was DLA Piper, the firm where Comey’s brother worked involved in the audit of the Clinton Foundation, but according to the foundation’s donor records, DLA Piper has given between $50 - 100k to the Foundation. It gets even cozier. DLA Piper executive Douglas Emhoff is taking an extended leave of absence from the firm. Who is Douglas Emhoff? He is the husband of KAMALA HARRIS! Just a coincidence. Amazing if it is. You can't make this stuff up.
And it only gets worse. This "Family Tree" will make your head spin. THE SWAMP IS DEEP!
Dominion (voting machine provider) serves 40% of the US market. It is in 30 states - - The state of Texas rejected the machines.
Admiral Peter Neffenger is on Biden's transition team. Neffenger was the President of the board of Smartmatic. Smartmatic (another voting machine supplier) entered into an agreement with Dominion in 2009. Smartmatic counted votes in Venezuela. Smartmatic is connected to Philippine voter fraud. Smartmatic is run by Lord Mark Malloch Brown who works for George Soros (He and Brown are life-long friends)
Brown chairs the Boards of a number of non-profit boards including the Open Society Foundation. Brown chairs the Centre for Global Development. Open society is owned by George Soros.
Smartmatic partnered with DLA Piper Global. Douglas C. Emhoff works at DLA Piper Global and is Kamala Harris's husband. Guess who owns Dominion? Blum Capital Partners, L.P. Guess who is on the board for the company? Richard C. Blum. Richard C. Blum is Dianne Feinstein's husband.
Nancy Pelosi's husband is also a major investor. An aide to Nancy Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, was hired by Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion Voting Systems is listed on the Clinton Foundation website. Dominion Voting is listed as a $25,000 -$50,000 donor to the Clinton Foundation in 2014 by The Washington Post. Georgia Governor Kemp used Dominion Voting after Texas and Florida rejected them.
Dominion has a lobbyist named Jared Thomas. Jared Thomas was Governor Brian Kemp’s chief of staff and press secretary from 2012 to 2015. You must remember the Feinstein-Kavanaugh-Soros connections to understand this next information
Debra Katz (Christine Ford's lawyer) worked for George-Soros at the Open Society Foundation. Also worked at Project on Government Oversight (POGO). POGO is funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundation. POGO is the co-signer of the letter Diane Feinstein presented against Kavanaugh's nomination.
Kamala Harris did not prosecute One West Bank for their fraud when she had the authority. Soros owned One West Bank.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another Obama appointment?
+++
+++
Terrorist lawyer who attacked Israel, defended 9/11, now sets Biden immigration policy
Sent by Dov Peretz Elkins
“This is not a battle of good versus evil,” Ramzi Kassem wrote in an op-ed that appeared on September 17, 2001. “The perpetrators were probably not driven to their actions by some intrinsic evil or inherent hatred of the good United States.”
He went on to argue that the Al Qaeda attack a week earlier was the result of the “resentment these terrorists felt towards the United States” as a result of “our country’s policies.”
Two decades later, Kassem, now a CUNY law professor and prominent terror lawyer, claimed in a Washington Post op-ed that, “since 9/11, the government has consistently used the law to enable, operationalize and justify the violence it has deployed against Muslims.”
And that, “the legacy of 9/11 ought to be recounted primarily through the stories of Muslims the world over who have largely paid the price of American power and prosperity.”
Next year, Ramzi Kassem was named by the Biden administration as a Senior Policy Advisor for Immigration at the White House Domestic Policy Council.
A Syrian national who grew up in Lebanon, Iraq and other Islamic terror states, arriving in this country to attend college and spread terrorist propaganda before becoming a terror lawyer, Kassem seems like a national security risk rather than a White House Policy Council adviser.
Ramzi Kassem had boasted of having “held the record for the longest delayed security clearance in the Guantánamo setting”, but even that does not seem to have dissuaded the Biden administration from bringing him on board.
While some leave behind the extremist views of their college years, Ramzi Kassem instead built a career around them, becoming a noted terrorist lawyer whose Gitmo inmate clients included .
Ahmed al-Darbi, an Al Qaeda terrorist and the brother-in-law of one of the hijackers who flew a plane into the Pentagon, and who was himself a key figure in the bombing of an oil tanker.
Some lawyers represent paying clients, but Kassem, like many terror lawyers, worked pro-bono, and his advocacy echoed his pre-existing support for Islamic terrorism.
In his columns, as in his activism, Ramzi Kassem repeatedly justified terrorism as a reaction to its victims. “Terrorism is but one of many reactions to oppression and dispossession and not their cause.”
While at Columbia University, Kassem co-founded Turath, an association of Muslim students, and then Qanun at Columbia Law. A fellow student described these hateful groups as having brought “under the guidance of Mr. Kassem… speakers to this campus that support violence against American and Israeli civilians… defended the genocidal program of Hamas.”
The Columbia letter noted that, “one speaker, disavowed by many of America’s pro-Palestinian activists, prior to being invited to Columbia, had said that Jews exist only to ‘dip their matzahs in the blood of Palestinian children.’”
This antisemitic blood libel didn’t seem to have interfered with Kassem’s career prospects.
Kassem’s college obsession with Jews extended even to condemning Columbia’s dining hall for serving “Israeli Wrap” sandwiches and demanding that the name be changed to the “more inclusive” Middle-Eastern Wrap. But not all of Kassem’s hostility to Jews was non-violent.
In his own columns for the university paper, Kassem boasted of throwing stones at Israel.
“On a sunny day in early August, I headed down to the Lebanese-Israeli border at Fatima’s Gate with busloads of Palestinian adolescents from the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and we threw some stones,” he described. “Lebanese civilians, young and old, were playfully going through the motions… Having lived through my fair share of Israeli bombardments, raids, and sieges, I figured I might as well partake in the festivities.”
Even more violent acts of antisemitic murder found a ready defense.
“Some Palestinians resort to terrorism for many of the same reasons that people from various backgrounds have in the past: namely, despair and much endured suffering,” Kassem argued. “One must ask oneself how and why a human being was pushed to the limit and saw no way out of a situation short of blowing himself or herself up.”
These defenses of Islamic terrorism came within the larger context of calls to eliminate Israel and accusations of ethnic cleansing, while blaming Islamic violence against Jews, even before the creation of Israel, on its Jewish victims.
Kassem was named a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, a project of a foundation by Soros’ brother, notorious for its cultivation of political extremists hostile to America and its values, and worked with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a former Communist organization.
After law school, Ramzi Kassem founded Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) at CUNY to provide free legal aid to Muslims accused of terrorism.
The City University of New York had become notorious for its antisemitic atmosphere and Kassem signed on to a letter in defense of antisemitic Islamist activism alongside known hate groups and terrorist support organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine, Al-Awda, Within Our Lifetime, and Samidoun: designated by Israel as a terrorist organization.
The letter accused Jews of using antisemitism to “repress activism and harass and threaten Palestinian students and Muslim students”.
Across the decades, Kassem’s college advocacy against Jews had come full circle from student to professor. And his war against this country has taken him from Gitmo to Washington D.C.
The Biden administration chose to elevate a vocal advocate for Islamic terrorists as a Senior Policy Advisor for Immigration at the White House Domestic Policy Council at a time when there are grave concerns about the penetration of terrorists through the unguarded southern border.
The Biden administration claims that it wants to protect the homeland and that it supports Israel. Putting Ramzi Kassem on its Domestic Policy Council shows those assertions to be lies. Its Policy Council includes a man who advocated for Gitmo terrorists and threw rocks at Israel.
Ramzi Kassem’s presence on driving the immigration agenda at the White House Domestic Policy Council is hard evidence that the Biden administration is putting the rights of Muslim terrorists ahead of the safety and welfare of Americans.
The White House Domestic Policy Council coordinates and develops the Biden agenda. Including a vocal activist against national security will have consequences. And the Biden administration will not be able to play innocent when one of the Islamic terrorists it allows into the country kills Americans.
And:
The Talented Mr. Obama
The former president should be leading a discussion about race. Instead, he attacks Sen. Tim Scott.
By Daniel Henninger
Republican presidential candidate Tim Scott is always worth listening to, and never more so than his remarks this week in response to critical comments made about him by former U.S. President Barack Obama.
“Whenever the Democrats feel threatened,” Sen. Scott said, “they pull out—drag out—the former president, have him make some negative comments about someone running, hoping that their numbers go down.”
Mr. Obama hasn’t appeared much in public during Joe Biden’s presidency, so the fact that he made it a point to derogate a black Republican explicitly on a racial basis deserves wide attention. An editorial on the Obama statement appeared in these pages several days ago, and my colleague Jason Riley commented Wednesday. This in part is what Mr. Obama said about Tim Scott: “I think there’s a long history of African-American or other minority candidates within the Republican Party who will validate America and say, ‘Everything’s great, and we can all make it.’ ”
I would say that Mr. Obama’s remarks about Sen. Scott are on a par for political incivility with Donald Trump’s that John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he was captured. As with Mr. Trump’s preposterous logic, Mr. Obama is saying that Sen. Scott lacks legitimacy and credibility as a black man because he is a member of the Republican Party.
For starters, there is that matter of “a long history.” President Lyndon Johnson announced the War on Poverty in his 1964 State of the Union speech. Worth noting are the causes Johnson gave for the persistence of poverty in U.S. cities. He said it was rooted “in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.” Today, in the summer of 2023, every one of those issues remains as a problem of inner-city life.
California has spent $17 billion on homelessness the past four years to little effect. Public housing projects built in the 1960s are deteriorating. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams have made the creation of affordable housing a priority, to minimal effect. Over the past holiday weekend, there were mass shootings in Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco and Milwaukee. In the Chicago area alone, some 60 people were shot.
As to education and training, the reason for the rise of the charter-school movement and school-choice programs more than 20 years ago in cities like New York, Milwaukee and Cleveland is that the public schools were manifestly failing black and Hispanic children. This Wednesday the federal report card called the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed a striking 13-point decline in reading scores for black students since just before the pandemic. Parents want alternatives, and in the past two years charters and choice have won significant legislative expansions, but only in Republican-controlled states. Democratic legislatures won’t do it
This week, the Journal ran a canary-in-the-mineshaft story about the future of big U.S. cities under the headline “Wall Street Sours on America’s Downtowns.” It described how investment capital is shifting to the suburbs, away from city centers like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. The Catholic Archdiocese of New York has just gone through another catastrophic round of neighborhood school closings for lack of financial resources.
Race in America is running perilously off the rails following George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis in May 2020. The language around race has become intense, escalating to charges of irresolvable systemic racism or white supremacy. The indictment of subway rider Daniel Penny in New York over a fatal chokehold has become a racial incident. California, a nonslave state, is engulfed in a debate over racial reparation payments of up to $1.2 million per person.
If after nearly 60 years of directed federal outlays some of America’s poorest neighborhoods remain almost as economically and socially impoverished as they were then, it is reasonable to have a discussion and debate on the way forward. Mr. Obama in his Scott remarks called this status quo “crippling generational poverty,” but blamed it on “hundreds of years of racism in this society.”
There is a school of thought among Mr. Obama’s partisan detractors that he remains stuck in his roots as a politicized community organizer in Chicago. But Mr. Obama stands as the first black American voted into the presidency, and no one is better placed than he to lead a productive conversation about race.
That, essentially, is what Sen. Scott is proposing in his own candidacy. Instead, Mr. Obama reduced Mr. Scott’s side of the argument to a few tossed-off lines of moral condescension.
I’m not sure if racial mockery of Republicans is a winning political tactic right now. And if Joe Biden’s recent speeches are any indication, such as the one he gave to the unions that endorsed him this week, opposition derision is about all he’ll bring to this debate.
Whatever his presidential prospects, Tim Scott has the rest of the year to talk about race in America. I suspect most voters are willing to meet him halfway, even if Barack Obama is not.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
FBI has developed the crime they just need a convenient victim.
+++
Dems hold their ears as Durham exposes FBI’s partisan corruption
By Eddie Scarry
John DurhamSpecial Counsel John Durham's revelation Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing that the FBI is a corrupt organization with politically biased leadership sparked universal, massive bipartisan shock and horror. Getty Images
Special Counsel John Durham’s revelation Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing that the FBI is a corrupt organization with politically biased leadership sparked universal, massive bipartisan shock and horror.
Republicans and Democrats screamed for strict accountability for those guilty of wrongdoing, particularly in the Russia hoax, and demanded sweeping, immediate action to set the powerful law-enforcement agency back on course.
OK, just kidding.
The truth?
Democrats did exactly what the national media did when Durham first made those findings public in his report last month: They skirted over the appalling news — that Durham uncovered proof of obscene political prejudice within the FBI — and pretended any shortcomings within the agency had already been addressed.
The FBI, they insist, is doing an impeccable job, just as it always has done.
What a case of denial.
Christopher WrayRepublicans and Democrats screamed for strict accountability for those guilty of wrongdoing, particularly in the Russia hoax.AFP via Getty Images
Indeed, they simply ignored Durham’s scathing message.
“The problems identified in the report are not susceptible to overnight fixes,” the special counsel stressed.
“As we said in the report, they cannot be addressed solely by enhancing training or additional policy requirements.
“Rather, what is required is accountability, both in terms of the standards through which our law enforcement personnel hold themselves and in the consequences they face for violation of laws and policies of relevance.”
In other words, the system as it currently operates isn’t working, and the only way to fix it is with a thorough overhaul.
Durham called the findings of his years’ long investigation “sobering”; if unaddressed, “these issues could result in significant national-security risks and further erode the public’s faith and confidence in our justice system.”
Dems’ answer? We can’t hear you — as they all but held their hands over their ears.
Yet the most urgent parts of Durham’s testimony are beyond shocking:
The FBI failed to corroborate any of the scandalous allegations from the Steele Dossier but nonetheless carried on its Russia collusion probe for months nonetheless.
Top agents willfully relied on smears spread by the Clinton 2016 campaign against Trump to justify their investigation.
The agency had equal reason to initiate an identical probe of Clinton but never did.
In short, partisan agents created a de facto partnership between the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee and the world’s most powerful law-enforcement agency to take down the political opposition.
That is arguably one of the biggest scandals in American history.
Of course, Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler couldn’t see what the fuss was all about.
John DurhamDurham called the findings of his years’ long investigation “sobering”; if unaddressed, “these issues could result in significant national-security risks and further erode the public’s faith and confidence in our justice system.”AP
He was more interested in knowing why the FBI didn’t harass Trump with more investigating.
“The FBI apparently never even looked at a thumb drive of key evidence related to allegations of contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government via a Russian cellphone,” whined Nadler.
He also wanted to know why the FBI didn’t check Trump’s private business bank records for some Russia connections.
After four years of investigations by the FBI, congressional Democrats, a special counsel and every major news organization, none of which were able to substantively link Trump to the Kremlin, Nadler seriously wanted to know why more wasn’t done.
That is pathological partisanship if there ever was such a thing.
(Then again, Nadler, who chaired the Judiciary Committee, so fully embarrassed himself with such displays during the Robert Mueller hearings that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi sidelined him in the Trump impeachment charade, choosing Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to lead the effort instead. Cringe.)
Other Democrats at Wednesday’s hearing, like Ted Lieu (Calif.), tried to distract, such as by pointing out that of the criminal prosecutions that resulted from Durham’s probe, none led to convictions, while several criminal prosecutions against Donald Trump’s associates did.
It’s pure rubbish: Prosecutions against Trump’s team have always been a matter of venue-shopping.
Try an accused Trump friend in the Washington area and you are all but certain to get a conviction.
Try a person accused of doing something to harm Trump, no matter how outrageously criminal, and you’re staring at an acquittal.
The jury pool is what matters, and in DC, it’s all rabid anti-Trump voters.
Democrats and the media will pretend there’s nothing to what Durham’s saying because they know FBI leadership is on their side.
But make no mistake: He produced a smoking gun, proving compellingly that America’s justice system is badly broken.
Normal Americans should be absolutely furious — and demand the housecleaning Durham recommends.
Eddie Scarry is a columnist for The Federalist.
+++++++++++++++++
A response to my "solution" for the homeless" from a dear friend and fellow memo reader.
A response to my "solution" for the homeless" from a dear friend and fellow memo reader.
+++
"should be legally removed from that society and placed in a facility that offers them safe protection, all necessities of life including medical care with the ultimate goal of being reunited back into that society. However, until such time as this can be individually accomplished they are legally to remain incarcerated."
"Dear Dick,
This basic idea has long been one of my ideas for handling welfare. The exception is that welfare recipients should be given free choice to use the services of a facility and free choice to depart. It is based on the notion that the indigent are indigent because they can't manage themselves. You point to "drug addiction or for mental reasons". I point to my favorite example, uneducated, unemployed, out of wedlock mothers. But the reason for people's inability to manage themselves doesn't matter. They need help regardless. The catch is that the facility would only give help in kind (food, shelter, medical care, counciling, education - everything) NOT cash. If food for instance is their only challenge, then they could come just for meals. Since they have proven incapable of managing themselves, why do we think they can (and will) responsibly manage welfare cash? If and when they want to (and hopefully can) meet their needs elsewhere, they may do so, and do so freely. If and when they manage without the welfare, they have succeeded. Great! A success all round for the individual and society! If they fail again or want partial aid again, they may re-enter the facility or receive partial services without question or penalty. My bet is that such a system would operate more efficiently (at less cost) than the multiple welfare programs we administer at present AND produce better results. At present welfare recipients enjoy their freedom and get to mismanage welfare cash. But with welfare administered in kind I assume the incentive for freedom would provide a great incentive for achieving greater personal responsibility. I assume these are poor souls, down and out, who don't really want to depend on a poor house.
With best regards, S-----"
+++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment