Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Just how bad was the FBI’s Russia FISA? 51 violations and 9 false statements

Just how bad was the FBI’s Russia FISA? 51 violations and 9 false statements

To understand just how shoddy the FBI’s work was in securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant targeting the Trump campaign, you only need to read an obscure attachment to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report.
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: “Supporting document shows that the factual assertion is
For those who don’t speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official file.
To put that in perspective, former Trump aides Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos were convicted of making single false statements to the bureau. One went to jail already, and the other awaits sentencing.
The FBI made nine false statements to the court. 
And the appendix shows the FBI made another nine factual assertions that did not match the supporting evidence in the file. In another words, the bureau was misleading on nine other occasions.
The vast majority of remaining Woods violations — 33 in total — involved failing to provide any evidence in the Woods procedure backing up assertion in the FISA warrant application. 
That’s serious too since the sole purpose of the Wood procedures is to ensure all evidence cited in a FISA application is documented as accurate and reliable so it can be trusted by the courts.

Socialism's Unbroken Trail of Failure

Socialism's Unbroken Trail of Failure

Evidence that socialism is doomed to fail wherever it is tried occurred long before America became a nation.  In 1607, inhabitants of Jamestown, Virginia were on the verge of starvation, largely because the settlement's communal living arrangement failed to produce enough food.  Among the steps that saved Jamestown from oblivion was doing away with communal sharing in favor of incentive-based farming that rewarded personal initiative.

YouTube screen grab: The Hippies Movement 1960s.
Three and a half centuries later, the same lesson repeated itself in San Francisco and elsewhere, when the utopian "free food" communes of the hip generation went the way of the dinosaurs.  The hippies who provided the food got tired of feeding those whose only contribution was a hearty appetite.  Earlier this year, socialism's empty promise of a honeyed existence for all struck again, this time in Scandinavia, where Finland's socialist government collapsed over the unsustainable cost of passing out free stuff as if it grew on trees.
Having left an unbroken trail of failure in its wake, socialism is doomed to fail wherever it's tried, because it is in eternal mortal conflict with the basic human instinct that those who work hard, pursue advanced education, employ their ingenuity, or risk their capital have an inborn expectation to do significantly better than those who don't.  As 18th century Scottish economist Adam Smith put it, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest."  Stated differently, every socialist who works for a living does so not out of altruistic instincts, but to feather his own financial nest.  That, too, will never change.
Socialism: An ideology based on lies
Socialists attempt to subvert free societies via stealth and deceit.  Here are four of the most outlandish lies they tell:
● "We're not socialists.  We're democratic socialists."
There is no difference in the two.  The word "democratic" is inserted as a Trojan horse to cloak the socialist soldier.
● "Socialism is about sharing."
This lie projects the absurd notion that socialists are morally superior people worthy of being emulated.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Sharing is a voluntary act based on love; socialism is forced sharing.
● "Socialism creates fairness and equality for all."
One of the most chilling commands in The Communist Manifesto is this: "The theory of communism can be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."  In socialist countries, the only people who own high-value assets are the socialist rulers and their loyal cronies.  Because there is little upward mobility under socialism, socialist societies are characterized by two economic levels: a small, immensely wealthy ruling elite at the top, and at the bottom, the low-income masses forced to obey the dictates of their socialist masters.  A large and prosperous middle class like what we have in America does not exist in countries with single-party socialist rule.  Those who doubt that need only ask people who have lived in such places.
● "Socialism will work if the right people are in charge."
This fallacious assertion is an attempt to explain away socialism's unbroken trail of failure.  The scourge of socialism has never created a single free and prosperous society, but has destroyed every functioning society where it was allowed to metastasize.  One hundred percent of those who think socialism will work if the "right people" are in charge are referred to as useful idiots, a class of gullible citizens duped to believe that the universally failed theories of Marx and Lenin are the answer to wealth and income disparity.
How socialists seize control of free societies
In one of his most revealing quotes, Lenin said, "The goal of socialism is communism."  The idea that creeping socialism should precede communism is an acknowledgment that totalitarian rule is so frightening to people in free nations that it must be quietly slipped into those societies in bits and pieces.  It is through that incremental process that socialism serves as an under-the-radar, transitional gateway to the unrelenting oppression of full-blown communism.

Image courtesy of Stockio.com.
The EAT THE RICH class warfare image above illustrates that gradual subversion -- from capitalism (knife and fork) to creeping socialism (fork and sickle) to outright communism (hammer and sickle).  If done via stealth and deception, free societies can be overthrown from within in a way that goes virtually unnoticed until it's too late.  The means through which that sub rosa conversion is accomplished is called Cultural Marxism.
The Father of Cultural Marxism
One of the leading Marxist thinkers of the 20th century, the late Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, is known as the Father of Cultural Marxism.  Disillusioned that he and his communist fellow travelers failed to incite a Bolshevik-style revolution in their capitalist country, Gramsci developed a stratagem to peacefully overturn capitalism in Western societies from within.  That stratagem is known as Cultural Marxism, the process of gradually infusing communist doctrine into a society via its culture
Gramsci theorized that what holds a capitalist society together are the pillars of its culture, the structures and institutions of family, religion, education, politics, law, the arts, and the media, as they provide the social cohesion necessary to a functioning society.  Undermine the principles that these structural institutions embody, and a capitalist society can be subverted from within without firing a shot.  
A prime example of an undermined structural institution in this country is its public education system, which has been heavily infiltrated by progressive teachers and administrators who have, over the last half-century, methodically indoctrinated generations of impressionable young minds with the alleged virtues of socialism.  The ultimate goal of that subversive indoctrination is to supplant the values of the Founders with those of Marx and Lenin.  In many of our public schools, teachers, who traditionally embody socially approved values, are no longer teaching their students to be proud of their country; they're teaching them to be ashamed of their country and its two-party capitalist system. 
In 16th-century Spain, Catholic missionary Saint Francis Xavier is quoted as saying, "Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man."  What children are taught in school today will determine what kind of country we have in the future.  The relentless socialist brainwashing of America's schoolchildren has yielded troubling results.  A recent poll by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 7 in 10 Millennials surveyed said they would vote for a socialist in the next election.
The stark choice you face in 2020
With Cultural Marxism having penetrated every facet of our society, the tentacles of socialism-cum-communism have quietly seized control of virtually every structural institution in our country, including, most ominously, one of America's major political parties and what has become that party's willing propaganda arm, the journalistically corrupt mainstream media.  A free nation cannot long survive if its press takes sides, so it's not hyperbole to say the great American experiment in representative democracy is staring squarely into the abyss of tyranny.  We the People – our votes, our time, our money — are the only thing standing in the way.  The next election will determine whether our constitutional republic survives or falls from within to the iron hand of single-party socialist rule.
A picture is worth a thousand words, and few pictures better illustrate socialism's lethal threat to America than the one below, which is worth sharing far and wide.
An electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta.

Exxon wins first-of-its-kind climate change case against New York

Exxon wins first-of-its-kind climate change case against New York

ExxonMobil won a first-of-its-kind climate change fraud trial on Tuesday as a judge rejected the state of New York's claim that the oil and gas giant misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming.
New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the state failed to prove that Exxon violated the Martin Act, a broad state law that does not require proof of intent of shareholder fraud.
“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling, deciding the case without a jury.
Exxon celebrated the ruling, saying it confirms their argument that addressing climate change is a shared global challenge better handled through public policy and that litigation threatens to undermine cooperation between the industry and policymakers.
"Today’s ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York Attorney General’s baseless investigation. We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change," Exxon said in a statement. "The court agreed that the Attorney General failed to make a case, even with the extremely low threshold of the Martin Act in its favor."
The result of the case was thought to be the likely outcome after New York surprisingly dropped two of its four claimsagainst Exxon at the close of the three-week-long trial in early November. 
New York Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Zweig announced during his closing statement that the state would no longer be claiming Exxon knowingly and willfully misled investors on how it accounts for the financial risks of climate change.
Instead of claiming common-law fraud, New York decided to commit to using the Martin Act to make its case, which does not require proof of intent to demonstrate fraud.
The conclusion of New York’s lawsuit is the first in a series of court battles playing out related to climate change and the role of oil and gas companies.
New York's case took a different tack than other climate-related suits filed by cities and localities since 2017, so it's hard to read into what the result means for other cases. The Democratic-led state had been investigating Exxon for more than three years before filing the lawsuit in New York's Supreme Court, eventually narrowing its focus to look at the issue of shareholder fraud.
New York alleged that Exxon underrepresented the potential future costs to its business of climate regulations, deceiving investors about their true financial exposure.
Most of the other lawsuits against oil companies make public nuisance claims under state law, seeking compensation for the costs of adapting to droughts, wildfires, severe storms, and other effects of climate change.
The exception is Massachusetts, which sued in October alleging Exxon has misled investors and consumers, both about the risks the company faces from the transition to a low-carbon economy and about the actions the company is taking to clean up its portfolio.

Remember when...

James Comey exonerated Hillary in 2016 saying her actions were wrong and negligent but no criminal intent?

Now, he and the Democrats claim it is Trump's intent that is impeachable!

Head spinning time.

James Comey was never booked for the show.

Very weird claims

Goldman went on to say that he does not believe such donations are "relevant" to the impeachment ...this answer tells you a lot Democrat arrogance

House Democrats' impeachment counsel Daniel Goldman claimed Monday he's "not a partisan," leading GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) to bring forth evidence to the contrary during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, the Washington Examiner reported.

What are the details?

"Are you here as a partisan advocate for the Democratic position, or are you here as a nonpartisan investigator of the facts?" Rep. Gaetz asked the attorney, who responded, "I'm here to present the report we did on our investigation, which was totally and completely relied on the actual evidence we uncovered, the witness testimony and the documents."
Rep. Gaetz then pressed, "Are you partisan?"
"I am not a partisan," Goldman insisted.
The Republican from Florida then asked Goldman whether he had made any political donations, and the counsel admitted he had, saying, "I think it's very important to support candidates for office."
"You've given tens of thousand of dollars to Democrats, right?" Gaetz asked. "Have you given over a hundred thousand to Democrats?"

Goldman went on to say that he does not believe such donations are "relevant" to the impeachment discussion, the Examiner reported.
Congressman Gaetz then asked Goldman whether or not he had ever tweeted at President Donald Trump, to which Goldman responded that he had made "a number of tweets" in his "private capacity" before he took his current job working on the impeachment probe for House Democrats.
"Matter of fact, this is one of those tweets," Gaetz said, pointing to a poster behind him showing Goldman directed a tweet to President Trump last year, wherein, as the Daily Wire pointed out, the attorney suggested "the dubious, rumor-filled 'Steele Dossier' was completely fact."
"What lying?" Goldman wrote in August 2018. "Nothing in the dossier has proved to be false (including your pee tape). But we can agree that we all look forward to the facts coming out. Everything that has come out so far has shown you to be an out and out liar (eg Cohen tape, purpose of June 9 meeting, etc)."

Gaetz then pointed to a number of the documented falsehoods from the dossier, before telling Goldman, "As we sit here today, where you've, I guess, got a tweet about a 'pee tape,' presenting yourself as 'not a partisan,' hired by the Democrats to pursue the president, do you regret this tweet?"
Goldman refused to answer the question, telling Congressman Gaetz, "I hope you read the evidence."

LBGTQ will sap you into agreement

The white student also yelled 'you're gonna end up f***in' dead!' apparently at black student

Czech shooting: Gunman kills six at hospital in Ostrava

Czech shooting: Gunman kills six at hospital in Ostrava

  • 2 hours ago
Media captionArmed police respond to Czech hospital attack
A gunman has killed six people in a hospital waiting room in the Czech city of Ostrava before shooting himself in the head, police say.
Armed police found the suspect dead from a self-inflicted gunshot in a vehicle three hours later.
The gunman was believed to be a patient at the hospital, one unconfirmed report said. His motive remains unclear.
Officers said they were called to the hospital in the north-eastern city at 07:19 (06:19 GMT).
The shooting took place in a matter of moments at Ostrava university hospital's trauma clinic. Hospital director Jiri Havrlant told Czech TV the gunman opened fire without warning, hitting nine patients.
Four men and two women were killed and three other people were wounded, two seriously. All of the victims were patients at the hospital.
The hospital was initially locked down.
A doctor inside the hospital told the Aktualne website that staff had been locked in a hallway waiting for the emergency to end.
Patients and staff are evacuated from a hospital after a shooting incident, in Ostrava, Czech Republic, 10 December 2019Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionPatients and staff were eventually evacuated from the hospital by the emergency services
Police earlier asked for help in their search for the gunman, but warned people not to approach him, adding that the site in the Moravian-Silesian region had been "secured". 
The suspect had used a handgun and had driven off in a silver Renault Laguna car, according to police. They said they had established the 42-year-old man's name, had photographs of him and had obtained his vehicle licence plate number. 
Presentational white space
Police said that once they had obtained pictures of the suspect from security cameras they launched two helicopters to search for him. When one of the helicopters was flying over the car some 5km (3 miles) north of the hospital, the man shot himself in the head and later died of his injuries.
The gun used in the attack was described as a 9mm Czech-made handgun, which the suspect did not have a licence for.
Czech police tweet of suspected gunmanImage copyrightCZECH POLICE HANDOUT
Image captionThe man described by police as the gunman was shown wearing a red jacket
Police initially posted an image of a man they said they needed to trace and said later he was the man behind the shooting, but they later removed the picture from their social media feed after he was found.
Patrols were stepped up at what police described as soft targets, such as schools, shopping centres and other hospitals.
Colleagues of the suspected gunman told Czech media that he had recently gone on sick leave, declaring he was seriously ill. He was said to be a construction engineer who had been treated at the hospital's haemato-oncology department.
Prime Minister Andrej Babis confirmed that six people had been killed and that the shootings occurred at close range. He cancelled a foreign trip and was preparing to travel to Ostrava, reports said.
Police officers stand guard near the site of a shooting in front of a hospital in Ostrava, Czech RepublicImage copyrightREUTERS
Image captionThe hospital in Ostrava is about 300km (190 miles) east of Prague
The governor of the Moravian-Silesian Region, Ivo Vondrak, said the shooting was "a great tragedy".
Police said that officers responding to reports of a shooting had arrived at the scene within five minutes. Ostrava is about 300km (190 miles) east of Prague.
Gun attacks in the Czech Republic are rare, although gun ownership is relatively high for Europe because of the popularity of hunting.
In 2015, a man opened fire in a restaurant in the eastern town of Uhersky Brod, killing eight people before turning the gun on himself.
Last week, the Czech government lost a legal challenge to an EU law restricting private use of semi-automatic rifles. It was introduced by the European Union in 2017 after a spate of militant Islamist attacks in 2015.
The government in Prague said the law would do nothing to increase security.