This post was published at Jason Goodman
Two Democratic lawmakers are calling for Ivanka Trump’s security clearance to be revoked. The two are citing ‘credibility issues’ based on series of recent reports.
According to The Hill, several reports have surfaced claiming Ivanka lacks credibility. ‘Recent press investigations highlight severe credibility issues with Ivanka Trump, a White House official, close advisor, and daughter to the President,’ Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) wrote in a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn. In the letter, the lawmakers also renewed their call for Jared Kushner’s (Ivanka’s husband) security clearance to be revoked.
The letter cites reports that Trump ‘used at least two, and possibly three,’ private email accounts for official White House business. Not many Democrats seemed concerned that Hillary Clinton did the same thing, but in an obviously divided government, you’ll have hypocrisy and finger pointing.
This post was published at shtfplan on October 5th, 2017.
Following the tragic events in Las Vegas, which were seemingly made even worse by a product that most people didn’t even know existed a couple of days ago, and ramped-up calls for new gun restrictions from Democrats, the National Rifle Association has just caved and called for “additional regulations” on “bump fire stocks” which effectively serve to allow semi-automatic weapons to function as fully-automatic.
Here is the full statement from the NRA:
“In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented.”
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 5, 2017.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein is getting some Republicans to show interest in her gun bill, which could signal quick gun control in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting. Although it is claimed that this is a newly crafted, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top-ranking Democrat has already offered the bill.
Of course, gun rights activists think Feinstein has several gun control bills lying around, and after a tragedy, she simply dusts one off to exploit. The narrowly written Democratic gun-control bill would ban ‘bump stock’ rifle attachments that enable rapid firing.
This post was published at shtfplan on October 5th, 2017.
A Vulnerable System Parliamentary democracy is vulnerable to the extremely dangerous possibility that someone with very little voter support can rise to the top layer of government. All one apparently has to do is to be enough of a populist to get elected by ghetto dwellers.
Thereafter, political correctness and a belief in multiculturalism in the larger society are helpful. One doesn’t have to be very good in political strategizing, or have strong organizational abilities, or even be intelligent. By jumping through a few hoops, anyone can end up as prime minister in a parliamentary democracy, a major risk currently staring Canada in the face.
Harjit Singh Sajjan is currently Canada’s minister of defense. He was elected in Vancouver South, which is one of the districts with the largest immigrant populations: about 75% of its inhabitants are either first or second generation immigrants. Sajjan received 21,773 votes in the 2015 election. He is new to politics, and it recently turned out he lied about his contribution as a military officer in Afghanistan.
This post was published at Acting-Man on October 5, 2017.
On May 22, 1856, South Carolina Representatives Preston Brooks and Laurence Keitt, along with Virginia Representative Henry Edmundson, made a visit to the Senate chamber. When they arrived, the balcony above the chamber still contained some straggling observers, mostly wives of senators. Since Brooks and Keitt were southern gentlemen, they respectfully waited for the ladies to leave.
Once the galleries were clear and only men remained in the chamber, Brooks and his allies approached Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, who was writing at his desk. Their reason for approaching Sumner was to respond to a speech Sumner had recently given, called ‘The Crime Against Kansas.’
Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner Sumner was a Radical Republican (he is sometimes referred to as an abolitionist, which is a small exaggeration). He gave his speech over the course of two days – May 19th and 20th – and in it, he issued impassioned moral condemnations of slavery and the pro-slavery activists in the Kansas territory. Among the people called out in the speech was Senator Andrew Butler. In what may be the most enduring line of the lengthy speech, Sumner said, ‘Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery.’
So on May 22, when Preston Brooks approached Sumner, he was doing so partly out of his devotion to South Carolina’s peculiar institution, but also out of a sense obligation to defend his family’s honor. ‘Mr. Sumner,’ Brooks said, ‘I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine.’
Sixteen years earlier, in 1840, Brooks was injured in a duel by being shot in the hip. Because of this injury, Brooks had to walk with a cane for the rest of his life. His cane was necessarily in hand when he spoke to Senator Sumner, and after he offered his accusation of libel, Brooks swung his cane and started beating Sumner viciously.
This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on October 5, 2017.
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner is convinced that Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock believed that the people that he was shooting ‘deserve to die’. As I detailed the other day, the massacre in Las Vegas was an operation that was planned well in advance. Paddock (and anyone that was helping him) specifically chose a country music festival as the target, and it is probably safe to assume that there was a reason for that choice. Just think about it. If someone decided to go start shooting at a black church, it would probably be safe to assume that individual is likely a racist. Or if someone decided to shoot up a Jewish synagogue, it would probably be safe to assume that person is anti-Semitic. And so why would someone want to gun down hundreds of people at a country music festival? Well, it could be motivated by a great hatred for country music, but more likely it is because large numbers of conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters would be there.
Yes, it is possible that Paddock decided to commit mass homicide simply to make a name for himself. But as Dr. Welner pointed out during an interview with Fox and Friends, that is usually something that only young men do…
Appearing on Fox and Friends, Welner explained that the massacre was a ‘stranger mass homicide,’ which means that it was motivated either by a political or personal cause, or because the shooter wanted to gain notoriety, such as with Aurora shooter James Holmes, a case that Welner worked on.
‘Here’s the thing, shooting for notoriety’s sake and nothing more is a young man’s crime and this is a 64-year-old with no dramatic mental illness,’ said Welner, equating Paddock with James Hodgkinson, who attempted to massacre Republican lawmakers, which would have mandated special elections to replace them.
Instead, it is almost certain that Paddock was motivated by some sort of ideology. According to Dr. Welner, this ideology made Paddock feel as though gunning down all of those innocent people was the right thing to do…
This post was published at The Economic Collapse Blog on October 4th, 2017.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner told reporters on Wednesday that, after conducting more than 100 interviews and reviewing 100,000 pages of documents, it has yet to come to a finding in its probe into whether Russia meddled in the US election to benefit one candidate over the other.
So in the spirit of being sufficiently diligent (or in forcing Trump to live under a cloud of unfounded suspicion for as long as possible), Burr and Warner announced that they’re expanding the scope of their inquiry to involve…even more interviews and document review as the fishing expedition enters month nine.
‘We have interviewed every official of the Obama administration to see what clarity they had on Russian involvement…and more importantly what they did or did not do and what drove those actions.’
‘We have interviewed indiviuals from around the world…it’s safe to say that the inquiry has expanded slightly…document review generated hundreds of requests on our part for information and identified leads that expanded our initial inquiry.”
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 4, 2017.