Archive for the ‘Transparency’ Category

IS DONALD TRUMP ‘PROFOUNDLY UNCONSERVATIVE’?

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Is Donald Trump ‘profoundly unconservative’?

No. It doesn’t match his shrinking regulations and limiting government

by Allan H. Ryskind   Allan H. Ryskind, a former editor and owner of Human Events, is the author of “Hollywood Traitors” (Regnery, 2015)

December 31, 2019

Prominent liberal Fareed Zakaria insists that Donald Trump “has been profoundly unconservative” because he’s abandoned what “Republicans used to call the core of their agenda — limited government.” But it’s hard to take the charge seriously, even though some conservatives have sent his piece around for comment to see if he’s onto something. Yet no politician in recent memory has restricted the reach of government at both the federal and state level more than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Mr. Trump’s drastic shrinking of federal economic regulations, opening vast expanses of federal lands for energy exploration, drawing overseas businesses home with tax breaks and passing major tax cuts for corporations and individuals have generated an explosion of well-paying jobs, personal wealth and soaring wages, as well as the lowest level of unemployment for minorities on record. Some 7 million new jobs have been created during Mr. Trump’s presidency and more than 100 million American shareholders have watched the market jump 55 percent since his election.

You’d think Mr. Zakaria would be celebrating Mr. Trump’s low-tax, pro-growth economic agenda as not only core Republicanism but virtually Reaganesque. Increasing prosperity by stimulating market forces without enacting high taxes and big government programs is, of course, how conservatives try to keep government limited.

Mr. Zakaria concedes that Mr. Trump has delivered what conservatives have wanted in the realm of “social and cultural policy,” such as “appointing judges, tightening rules related to abortion and asylum, etc.” but suggests they have little to do with taming the Leviathan.

Really? Stacking the courts with judges steeped in the philosophy of federalism is, of course, precisely the way to limit government on both the economic and cultural fronts. Mr. Zakaria may ignore the threat, but Democratic Party presidential candidates, along with their media support groups, are panicked over the president’s court selections.

(more…)

Share

5 TIMES OBAMA PUT CONDITIONS ON FOREIGN AID AND DEMOCRATS DIDN’T CARE

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

 

The hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to  protecting Obama or Biden is  simply amazing that  they get away with it.    It is up to the conservative media to expose them.  Nancy

 
 PJMEDIA.COM

Five Times Obama Put Conditions on Foreign Aid and Democrats Didn’t Care

By Matt Margolis  Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis
 December 10, 2019

The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party over this impeachment nonsense knows no bounds. Last week I noted five examples of Barack Obama obstructing justice that they had no problem with. Sadly, there’s plenty more hypocrisy to point out.

Democrats have been so desperate to paint Trump’s actions as unprecedented, they’ve even argued that any time conditions are put on foreign aid that’s tantamount to an illegal quid pro quo. When White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney noted that conditions are put on foreign aid “all the time,” the media and the Democrats blew up, claiming this was an admission of a corrupt quid pro quo because, obviously, any condition for aid can’t be anything but. Right?

Of course, everyone knows that Mick Mulvaney was substantively correct. Conditions are put on aid all the time. In fact, some 2020 Democrats are calling for conditions on aid to Israel. Where were the allegations of a quid pro quo? It has already been established that there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and even the Democrats’ own witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma raised legitimate questions.

So, let’s get back to the issue of conditional aid. Quid pro quo or standard operating procedure? Well, if Democrats want to argue that conditional aid is a quid pro quoby default, then I guess Barack Obama should have been impeached. Here are five examples of Barack Obama placing conditions on foreign aid to align with his political agenda that Democrats didn’t have a problem with.

5. Colombia

Despite years of giving Colombia military and economic aid, in 2016, Obama made that aid conditional on the Colombian government negotiating a peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terror-group backed by former Cuban President Fidel Castro. FARC has “slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands of civilians, pumped unfathomable amounts of cocaine into the United States, kidnapped and raped children, and much more.” Yet thanks to Obama’s pressure, nearly half a billion in American taxpayer dollars went toward putting FARC terrorists in the Colombian government without ever being held accountable for their crimes.

4. Nigeria

 

Obama threatened to cut off aid to Nigeria over anti-gay legislation in the country in 2011. At the time, Obama had yet to publicly declare support for gay marriage in the United States, and certainly, his attempts to strongarm Nigeria over anti-gay legislation had the potential for personal political gain back home, right? Interestingly enough, Obama again made conditions for aid with Nigeria in 2013 over corruption issues.

(more…)

Share

PHILADELPHIA’S TOP PROSECUTOR PURSUES ‘SOCIAL,’ NOT ACTUAL, JUSTICE

Friday, January 17th, 2020

 

Philadelphia’s Top Prosecutor Pursues ‘Social,’ Not Actual, Justice

Larry Krasner said he wouldn’t prosecute certain offenses and the bad guys got the message.

By Jennifer Stefano  Ms Stefano is vice president and chief innovation officer at the Commonwealth Foundation
January 11, 2020

District Attorney Larry Krasner speaks to the media in Philadelphia, March 6, 2019.PHOTO: MATT ROURKE/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Michael White didn’t deny killing Sean Schellenger. He admitted to police and at his trial that he plunged a knife several times into Schellenger’s back during a July 2018 scuffle in Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square. Numerous witnesses and a cellphone video confirmed what happened. Yet in October 2019 a jury acquitted Mr. White, a 22-year-old college student, of voluntary manslaughter. Many, including the victim’s family, blame Larry Krasner, Philadelphia’s soft-on-crime district attorney.

Mr. Krasner is one of a new crop of “progressive prosecutors” who have won election in liberal cities. They include San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, who was raised by Weather Underground radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn because his own parents were in prison for participating in the murder of police officers. Mr. Krasner was a virulent critic of law enforcement before running to become the city’s top prosecutor. During a 30-year career as a defense lawyer, Mr. Krasner gained notoriety for filing 75 lawsuits against Philadelphia police. In a 2017 campaign video he said “policing and prosecution are both systematically racist,” and he called poverty and crime consequences of “mass incarceration.”

Mr. Krasner’s candidacy was laughed off until George Soros dumped $1.7 million into the campaign. At his primary election night victory party, Mr. Krasner smiled while his supporters chanted, “No good cops in a racist system!” and “f— the FOP!” (the Fraternal Order of Police). He has refused to prosecute certain gun and drug crimes and ordered the 300 prosecutors in his office to seek lighter sentences. These moves have confirmed the suspicions of many Philadelphians that Mr. Krasner is more interested in coddling the city’s criminals than he is in providing justice to the victims of crimes.

(more…)

Share

OBAMA, IRAN AND TRUMP, JCPOA

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

 

OBAMA PASSED THE BUCK.  TRUMP REFUSED TO PLAY

The Iran deal was never meant to stop Iran from building a bomb—it was supposed to delay it until disaster happened on someone else’s watch

By Lee Smith   Lee Smith is the author of The Consequences of Syria

 

EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

JCPOA advocates claim Trump left the U.S. and the entire world vulnerable by leaving the Iran deal. The JCPOA, they say, was working. This is not true and hasn’t been true since the very beginning of the deal, at least not on the terms sold to Congress and the U.S. public. From the start, Iran was given secret loopholes that made it appear they were meeting the publicly stated terms of deal. Among other recent violations: The Iranians have exceeded the amount of uranium they’re allowed to enrich; they’ve exceeded the levels of purity of enriched uranium; they’ve violated the types of centrifuges they were allowed to spin; and injected uranium into centrifuges they were not allowed to use for enrichment.

Perhaps most tellingly, Iran’s nuclear archives, which Israel seized from a Tehran warehouse in January 2018 and made public months later, show that the regime never gave up its intentions to build a military nuclear program, despite promises in the JCPOA to never pursue nuclear weapons……

The most infamous payoff was the $1.7 billion in cash the administration shipped off to the IRGC on wooden pallets in exchange for U.S. citizens held hostage by the regime. The White House said that there was no “quid pro quo,” that it was Iran’s money to begin with—$400 million the pre-revolutionary government had deposited in 1979 to buy U.S. arms, plus interest. But the U.S. had already used the $400 million to compensate terror victims of the Islamic Republic. That was Iran’s money. The $400 million the Obama administration used to “pay back” the Iranians belonged to the U.S. taxpayer.

The administration argued that the U.S. had to pay the ransom in cash because Tehran had been cut off from the financial system and there was no other way to transfer the funds. That was not true. The Obama administration had wired payments to Iran before and after the wooden pallets episode. The Iranians wanted cash so it would be harder to track their terror financing…….

The Obama administration even paid the Iranians when they violated the deal. The Iranians overproduced reactor coolant, (heavy water, a key ingredient in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons) in violation of the JCPOA, and the administration offered to buy it for $10 millionto keep them in compliance. But that wasn’t enough for Tehran—or the White House. In exchange for giving up the nuclear-related material they had promised not to have in the first place—the heavy water—the regime then demanded more nuclear material in exchange. And the American administration agreed: In January 2017, Obama greenlighted the shipment of 130 tons of uranium to Iran.

 BEGINNING OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE

(more…)

Share

GETTING CLOSER TO ‘SHOVEL READY’

Thursday, January 16th, 2020

 

What better way to slow the growth of a dynamic country such as ours, than to impose restrictive and time consuming environmental regulations.  Was  that  possibly  the plan of the Green/Globalist/Marxist Movement?   Ya think???   Nancy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Getting Closer to ‘Shovel Ready’

Environmental impact statements shouldn’t take 13 years and more than 16,000 pages.

The Editorial Board  January 13, 2020

Traffic backs up on Interstate 70 near Silverthorne, Colo., Jan. 7, 2018. PHOTO: THOMAS PEIPERT/ASSOCIATED PRESS

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  On Thursday the Trump Administration released a proposed rule to streamline NEPA reviews. One highlight is that the process would have presumptive limits: two years and 300 pages for a full environmental impact statement; or a year and 75 pages for a smaller environmental assessment. Thorny cases could go longer with written approval by “a senior agency official of the lead agency.”

If you visit an aging American megaproject—say, the Hoover Dam—you’ll probably see a startling statistic about how quickly it was built. Congress authorized the damming of the Colorado River in 1928, construction started in 1931, and the 726-foot concrete wonder opened in 1936. That’s a “shovel ready” job.

Today even modest public works, including roads, bridges and airport runways, can spend years in limbo, no thanks to the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. That 1970 law requires an environmental study of any major project that involves federal funding or permitting. NEPA hasn’t been overhauled in 40 years, which is why the Trump Administration deserves applause for moving last week to modernize it.

Everybody wants to protect the environment. But NEPA isn’t doing the job sensibly. No single agency has responsibility for its enforcement, unlike the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act. There’s no obligation for the feds to keep a specific timeline. Environmental assessments and impact statements are often monstrously detailed, since agencies and sponsors are trying to make them litigation proof.

The result is a regulatory morass. From 2013 to 2017, the average final impact statement took more than four years and ran 669 pages, the Council on Environmental Quality said last summer. The longest file was for a contentious 12-mile expansion of Interstate 70 in Denver. The final report ran 8,951 pages, plus another 7,307 pages of appendices. The whole rigmarole took 13 years.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – CLARE LOPEZ – IRAN AND ITS HISTORY OF TERRORISM

Tuesday, January 14th, 2020

 

VIDEO – CLARE LOPEZ – IRAN AND ITS HISTORY OF TERRORISM

Lopez Video: Behind the Scenes of the Soleimani Hit

JAN 13, 2020   7:59 AM  BY JAMIE GLAZOV

Biography

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism issues. Specific areas of expertise include Islam and Iran. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments, and acquiring extensive expertise in counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation issues with a career regional focus on the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. She has served in or visited over two dozen nations worldwide, and speaks several languages, including Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian, and currently is studying Farsi.

Now a private consultant, Lopez also serves as Vice President of the non-profit forum, The Intelligence Summit, and is a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI Centre), where she teaches courses on the Iranian Intelligence Services, and the expanding influence of Jihad and Sharia in Europe and the U.S. She is affiliated on a consultant basis with DoD contractors that provide clandestine operations training to military intelligence personnel. Lopez was Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington, DC think tank, from 2005-2006. She has served as a Senior Scientific Researcher at the Battelle Memorial Institute; a Senior Intelligence Analyst, Subject Matter Expert, and Program Manager at HawkEye Systems, LLC.; and previously produced Technical Threat Assessments for U.S. Embassies at the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, where she worked as a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Chugach Systems Integration.

(more…)

Share

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S GUERRILLA WAR

Monday, January 13th, 2020

 

How Obama and his administration is working behind the scenes to discredit President Trump.     Nancy

The Obama Administration’s Guerrilla War

By Eric Erickson   January 10, 2020

In the modern era, it is difficult to come up with an administration that has spent as much energy trying to sabotage its successor in office. Obama administration officials have worked tirelessly to embed themselves into media outlets as supposedly objective voices.

After President Donald Trump oversaw the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and as missiles fell from the night sky into Iraq from Iran, those voices took to the airwaves to push the Obama line against Trump. In the American media, with help from former Obama staffers, Trump was the bad guy and Iran was the good guy. Iran deescalated tensions. Trump made things worse.

On CNN, Jim Sciutto of the Obama administration sat as an objective news anchor. CNN also now has Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, Laura, in an anchor chair, too. They tossed a co-anchor for their early morning news show to make room for the daughter of one of Barack Obama’s most ardent defenders. But we are supposed to pretend there is no bias.

They have been joined by a bevy of other Obama surrogates who now pretend to be objective analysts. Watching James Clapper, also of the Obama administration, pretend to be an unbiased national security analyst for CNN makes me long for the days of “Baghdad Bob,” Saddam Hussein’s spokesman who claimed the Americans had been defeated as American tanks rolled into Baghdad.

Newsweek reported last week that, “James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, has urged Americans to be skeptical of President Donald Trump’s justification for the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.” Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that CIA Director Gina Haspel, whose nomination Clapper supported, “had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran’s response if he was killed, according to current and former American officials. Indeed, Haspel had predicted the most likely response would be a missile strike from Iran to bases where American troops were deployed, the very situation that appeared to be playing out on Tuesday afternoon.”

Who do we believe? The CIA director or the people ideologically dedicated to protecting Obama’s precious Iran deal? When watching the Obama team — whether they are anchoring CNN coverage or mouthing off on MSNBC — it is striking just how invested they are in denying reality.

After Iran launched its functionally impotent attack against American positions in Iraq, Trump rightly pointed out the Obama administration helped Iran launch those missiles. The pushback from media fact checkers and Obama surrogates was fast and furious — and also more dedicated to protecting Obama than the truth.

(more…)

Share

OBAMA’S 2,800 STRIKES CONGRESS DIDN’T APPROVE

Wednesday, January 8th, 2020

 

www.westernjournal.com/hypocritical-dems-trash-trump-fine-obamas-2800-strikes-congress-didnt-approve/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=newsletter-CT&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=conservative-tribune

Hypocritical Dems Trash Trump but Are Fine with Obama’s 2,800 Strikes Congress Didn’t Approve

J

By Randy DeSoto
Published January 6, 2020 at 4:20pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democratic leaders are decrying President Donald Trump’s use of force against Iranian Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization but allowed former President Barack Obama free rein to carry out military operations.

Obama oversaw military actions in both Syria and Libya for months without seeking the approval of Congress.

The Washington Times reported in April 2015 that U.S. strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq surpassed 2,800 by that point in the conflict.

“The U.S. military has been conducting strikes in Iraq for 10 months, and began striking directly at targets in Syria last September as part of Mr. Obama’s announced campaign to degrade the capabilities of the Islamic State,” according to The Times.

By mid-April 2015, the U.S. had carried out 1,458 strikes in Iraq and 1,343 in Syria.

Obama pointed to his powers as commander in chief, as well as the September 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force” resolution passed by Congress, which recognizes, “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

The Obama administration also relied on the 2002 AUMF resolution calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq.

The Times reported that Obama continued his military campaign in Iraq and Syria, even after a new authorization for the use of force against the Islamic State was introduced, but had not been passed by Congress.

(more…)

Share

CHINA TIGHTENS SURVEILLANCE TOOL

Thursday, January 2nd, 2020

 

With these surveillance tools that the Chinese are developing and will  be exporting to other countries in the future,  it probably makes good sense to watch this development  very closely.  Technology in the not too distant future just may very well be attempting to control our thoughts and our lives !  Nancy

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

‘Social credit score’: China set to roll out ‘Orwellian’ mass surveillance tool

By Bill Gertz   December 9, 2019

China is developing a new high-tech system of mass surveillance and coercion aimed suppressing political dissent among its 1.4 billion people, while forcing American and Western businesses to conform to the government’s communist policies if they want to operate there.

The system that critics call an Orwellian national-level control system has been dubbed the Social Credit System (SCS) and was set for launch in the coming year, although recent reports from China now say the rollout could be delayed until 2021.

The massive system has been tested in several major Chinese cities and uses millions of surveillance cameras linked to supercomputers containing massive databases. Face and voice recognition technology then identifies and monitors people with the goal of controlling behaviors that range from dissident political activity to jaywalking, ostensibly as part of a financial credit monitoring system similar to those used in the West.

Vice President Mike Pence called out the program in a recent speech, warning that China’s surveillance state is “growing more expansive and intrusive — often with the help of U.S. technology.”

“By 2020, China’s rulers aim to implement an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life — the so-called social credit score,” Mr. Pence said. “In the words of that program’s official blueprint, it will ‘allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven, while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.’”

Facial recognition tools are widely used now in China bolstered by cameras deployed along streets, on buildings, in train stations, in classrooms and subway lines. With the emergence of next-generation 5G telecommunications technology, the reach of the surveillance networks is only expected to increase.

As part of the stepped-up surveillance, the Chinese government announced this month that all who purchase SIM cards for mobile phones must first produce a facial recognition print.

(more…)

Share

ELIZABETH WARREN HAS A PLAN, OH MY !

Monday, December 30th, 2019

 

“Oh My” is right !!!  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan, Oh My

She may not win the nomination, but her ideas show where the American left wants to go

By the Editorial Board,   December 27, 2019

She’s the candidate with a plan for everything: That’s Elizabeth Warren’s brand. But even that sells her ambitions short, as we discovered after a tour of her 60-some policy papers. Ms. Warren is proposing a transformation of American government, business and life that exceeds what the socialist dreamers of a century ago imagined.

Her standing in the polls has fallen after missteps over Medicare, but she is still in the top candidate tier. Her ideas deserve to be taken seriously because they show where the American left wants to go:

***

• Wealth tax: Tax net worth over $50 million at 2% a year, and 6% above $1 billion. To prevent the rich from yachting off, add a 40% “exit tax” on assets over $50 million upon renouncing U.S. citizenship. Estimated revenue: $3.75 trillion over a decade from 75,000 households. Most economists, including many Democrats, call that number a fantasy. Courts might also find the tax unconstitutional.

• Medicare for All tax:Charge companies with at least 50 workers an “Employer Medicare Contribution,” equal to 98% of their recent outlays on health care, while adjusting for inflation and changes in staff size. These varying fees “would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally.” Estimated revenue: $8.8 trillion over a decade. If receipts fall short, add a “supplemental” tax on “big companies with extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.”

• Global corporate tax: Raise the top business rate to 35%. Apply this as a world-wide minimum on overseas earnings by U.S. companies. Businesses would “pay the difference between the minimum tax and the rate in the countries where they book their profits.” Apply a similar minimum tax to foreign companies, prorated by the share of their sales made in the U.S. Estimated revenue: $1.65 trillion over a decade.

• Corporate surtax: Tax profit over $100 million at a new 7% rate, without exemptions. This would go atop the regular corporate rate. Estimated revenue: $1 trillion over a decade from 1,200 public companies.

• Slower expensing: “Our current tax system lets companies deduct the cost of certain investments they make in assets faster than those assets actually lose value.” Closing this “loophole,” she says, would raise $1.25 trillion over a decade.

• Higher capital gains taxesTax the investment gains of the wealthiest 1% as ordinary income, meaning rates near 40% instead of today’s 23.8%. Apply the tax annually on gains via a “mark to market” system, even if the asset hasn’t been sold. Estimated revenue: $2 trillion over a decade.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories