Omar Feels The Heat

Of all the scandals in which Ilhan Omar is enmeshed, one might think the Daily Mail’s revelation this past July of her affair with political consultant Tim Mynett would be the least of them. The news last week of Beth Mynett’s divorce filing, however, has begun to disillusion a Somali community that has taken Omar at face value. Not cool — not cool at all, and it has thrown Omar off her game.

Omar’s denial of the affair is a lie that is both obvious and bald-faced. She has therefore run from the tabloid newspapers and the local media as they have sought to report on the scandal. See, for example, Emily Bowden’s New York Post article and accompanying video “Ilhan Omar dodges questions from The Post about alleged affair.”

For Omar, offense has always proved the best defense.
In this scandal she has run out of plays.

The scandal has pushed the incredible panoply of scandals we have covered in depth on Power Line into the background: the identity fraud, the marriage fraud, the immigration fraud, the tax fraud.

In the past three weeks I have circled back to interview sources whom I have found to be highly reliable in the Omar saga. They open a window onto the scandals from the perspective of Ahmed Hirsi, her long-time partner and the father of her three children.

According to sources, Hirsi is telling friends:

• that he will not go to jail for Omar;

• that while Omar did indeed marry her brother (Ahmed Elmi) for fraudulent purposes, Hirsi did not know at the time that she had married Elmi;

• that Omar is threatening Hirsi he would be in trouble along with her if the truth were to come out;

• that Omar has asked him to state publicly that all is well with their marriage even though it is completely done and finished; and

• that in fact they are living apart and have been divorced under Islamic law (although they remain legally married).

Having humiliated Ahmed Hirsi by her affair with Tim Mynett, Omar now wants Hirsi to perform public relations services for her to suppress the scandal. That is cold.

Hirsi has maintained his silence through all the scandals so far. One may infer that there is a good reason why Hirsi has never spoken up on Omar’s behalf in any of these scandals. Hirsi’s knowledge of Omar’s conduct is knowledge of her wrongdoing.

Rather than respond in substance to questions based on the known facts and evidence, Omar has wildly accused us and others of bigotry. Among the others she has now implicitly accused of bigotry is the Star Tribune, which has treated Omar almost entirely as a hometown hero. This is how Omar rolled in the Star Tribune page-one story of June 23 on the state campaign finance board findings that gave new life to the scandals we have pursued:

Omar’s reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud. Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of “fake journalists on bigoted blogs.”

Omar spokesman Jeremy Slevin issued a statement Friday [June 21] asserting that the questions about her personal life are illegitimate:

“Since before she was elected to office, Ilhan has been the subject of conspiracy theories and false accusations about her personal life. Emboldened by a president who openly treats immigrants, refugees and Muslims as invaders, these attacks often stem from the presumption that Ilhan — like others who share those identities — is somehow illegitimate or not fully American.

“Ilhan has shared more than most public officials ever do about the details of her personal life — even when it is personally painful,” he continued. “Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate. Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family.”

When it comes to the Star Tribune, Omar is an ingrate as well as a liar.

Beyond her accusations of bigotry, her false denials, and her nonresponse responses,

Omar’s lies have been the order of the day for three years running. Her act is getting old and wearing thin. One wonders how long she can keep the lid on. 

by Scott Johnson for Powerline

Pentagon to divert $3.6B....

https://nypost.com/2019/09/03/pentagon-to-divert-3-6b-in-funds-from-various-projects-toward-border-wall/

Pentagon to divert $3.6B in funds from 

various projects toward border wall

By Ben Feuerherd - September 3, 2019 

The defense secretary on Tuesday approved a border-wall spending plan that will divert funds from more than 100 military construction projects to earmark $3.6 billion for constructing a wall on the southern border with Mexico.

The plan to allocate money for the border wall will take funds from some 127 existing military projects, according to the Pentagon. It’s not clear which projects will be affected.

The existing plans are being “deferred,” not canceled, said Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker, but there is no guarantee that Congress will vote to replenish the now under-funded projects.

In a letter to Congress announcing the spending plan, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he “determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated total cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency.”

President Trump declared a national emergencyin February so he could use military funds to construct the wall that he promised during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump’s plan to use military funds for the wall touched off a fervent debate between Republican supporters and Democratic opponents, who said the plan would “cannibalize” military projects.

“It is a slap in the face to the members of the Armed Forces who serve our country that President Trump is willing to cannibalize already allocated military funding to boost his own ego and for a wall he promised Mexico would pay to build,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the option.

Subsidize This~! Taxpayers Funding Multinational and Mega Corporations

Government Subsidies (Farm, Oil, Export, Etc)

What Are the Major Federal Government Subsidies?

Each year, the U.S. federal government subsidizes a wide range of economic activities that it wants to promote. What exactly are subsidies? The definition may be broader than you think. Find out about the most well-known subsidies, the history of these subsidies, and some of their costs.

01 - What Is a Subsidy?

Most subsidies are cash grants or loans that the government gives to businesses. It encourages activities the government wishes to promote. The subsidy depends on the amount of the goods or services provided.

The World Trade Organization has a broader definition of subsidies. It says a subsidy is any financial benefit provided by a government which gives an unfair advantage to a specific industry, business, or even individual. The WTO mentions five types of subsidies:

1. Cash subsidies, such as the grants mentioned above.
2. Tax concessions, such as exemptions, credits, or deferrals.
3. Assumption of risk, such as loan guarantees.
4. Government procurement policies that pay more than the free-market price.
5. Stock purchases that keep a company's stock price higher than market levels.

These are all considered subsidies because they reduce the cost of doing business. 

02 - Farm Subsidies

Many experts argue that U.S. farms don't even need subsidies. After all, they are located in one of the world's most favorable geographic regions. It has rich soil, abundant rainfall, and access to rivers for irrigation when rainfall fails. Today's farms have all the advantages of modern business. They have highly trained labor, computerized equipment, and cutting-edge chemical research in fertilizers and seeds.

But America's food supply must also be protected from droughts, tornadoes, and recessions. In fact, agricultural subsidies were originally created to help farmers ravaged by the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression of 1929.

This price support system lasted until the 1990s. The federal government guaranteed farmers a high enough price to remain profitable. How did it do this? It paid farmers to make sure supply did not exceed demand. The government subsidized farmers to keep croplands idle in order to prevent overproduction. It also bought excess crops. It then either stored them or gave them away to feed low-income people throughout the world.

Most subsidies went to farmers of grains, such as corn, wheat, and rice. It’s because grains provide 80 percent of the world's caloric needs. By 1999, farm subsidies had reached a record $22 million. 

Between 2001 and 2006, farm subsidies tapered off a bit, averaging $19 billion a year. Of this, about 15 percent was wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant. 

Between 1995 and 2010, farm subsidies had ballooned to $52 billion a year on average. Of this, more than 6 percent went toward four "junk food" components: corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils. Many people wondered why the federal government was subsidizing food that contributed to America's obesity problem. 

During the recession, as lawmakers looked for ways to cut the budget, many asked, "Do corn growers need subsidies?" In 2011, a record 12.4 billion bushels of corn were produced. In 2012, 94 million acres of corn were scheduled to be planted. This was more than in any year since World War II.

By 2017, large farms dominated the industry. Farms generating $1 million or more in sales produced two-thirds of the nation's agricultural output. Only 4 percent of farms were that large. Big farms gobbled up small ones that couldn't compete. They relied on economies of scale to produce more food at a cheaper price. That sent prices down even more, putting more small farmers out of business.

The 2012 budget proposed a 22 percent cut to farm subsidies, including the $5 billion direct payment program. Half of farmers receiving subsidies made more than $100,000 a year. Between 1995 and 2016, the top 10 percent of farmers received 77 percent of subsidies. The top 1 percent received 26 percent or $1.7 million per recipient. The top recipient was Deline Farms Partnership, which received $4 million in 2016.

The House budget also proposed $180 billion in cuts to the farm subsidy program. But $133 billion of the cuts were to the food stamp program, affecting 8 million consumers, not farmers. 

03 -  Oil Subsidies

In March 2012, President Obama called for an end to the $4 billion in oil industry subsidies. Some estimates indicated that the real level of oil industry subsidies is higher, between $10 and $40 billion. At the same time, oil company profits benefited when oil prices reached a record of $145 a barrel in 2008. 

The oil industry subsidies have a long history in the United States. As early as World War I, the government stimulated oil and gas production in order to ensure a domestic supply.

In 1995, Congress established the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. It allowed oil companies to drill on federal property without paying royalties. This encouraged the expensive form of extraction since oil was only $18 a barrel. The Treasury Department reported that the federal government has missed $50 billion in foregone revenue over the program's lifetime. It argued that this may no longer be needed now that deepwater extraction has become profitable.

Here is a summary of the 2011 oil industry subsidies compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense in its report, "Subsidy Gusher."

• Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit - $31 billion.
• Intangible Drilling Costs - $8.9 billion.
• Oil and Gas Royalty Relief - $6.9 billion.
• Percentage Depletion Allowance - $4.327 billion.
• Refinery Equipment Deductions - $2.3 billion.
• Geological and Geophysical Costs Tax Credit - $698 million.
• Natural Gas Distribution Lines - $500 million.
• Ultradeepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and other Petroleum Resources R&D - $230 million.
• Passive Loss Exemption - $105 million.
• Unconventional Fossil Technology Program - $100 million.
• Other subsidies - $161 million.

Greenpeace argues that the oil industry subsidies should also include the following activities:

• The Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
• Defense spending that involves military action in oil-rich countries in the Persian Gulf.
• The construction of the U.S. federal highway system which encourages reliance on gas-driven cars.

The BEA argues that these federal government activities were primarily done to protect national security and not promote specific activities within the oil industry. Even though the intent was not to directly subsidize it, they may have benefited the industry indirectly.

04 -  Ethanol Subsidies

Between 1979 and 2010, the corn industry received $20 billion in federal subsidies. Congress wanted to divert production into ethanol, a component of gasoline. The subsidies were meant to help producers meet a 2005 federal law that required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be produced by 2012. In 2007, a revision increased the goal to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Only 6.25 billion gallons were produced in 2011.

The corn subsidy, a tax credit of $0.46 a gallon, ended in January 2012. Ethanol producers would have liked to see a larger credit of $1.10 per gallon remain. The credit was to research cost-effective ways to convert other bio-fuels, like switchgrass, wood chips, and nonfood corn byproducts.

When the corn subsidy ended in 2012, ethanol producers were left in a bit of a glut. But that was because gasoline refiners stocked up on subsidized ethanol before prices went up. The glut was absorbed over time. Demand increased during the U.S. summer driving season. Growing markets, such as Brazil, couldn’t keep up with their own need for ethanol. They began importing it from the United States.

Converting corn for fuel became controversial when it helped drive food prices higher in 2008. That created food riots throughout the world. That was just one reason for the high price for corn and other commodities. Also, investors fled to the commodities markets in response to the global financial crisis of 2008.

Many experts argue that using corn for fuel is a poor allocation of natural resources when 60 percent of the world's population is malnourished. Furthermore, corn is not an efficient fuel source. Even if all the corn in the United States were converted to ethanol, it would only meet 4 percent of America's fuel consumption needs.

(Source: “Ethanol Subsidy Dies But Wait There's More,” MSNBC.com, December 29, 2011.)

05 - Export Subsidies

The WTO bans export subsidies. But it allows two U.S. federal government export subsidy programs. They help U.S. farmers compete with other countries' subsidized exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes:

1. The Export Credit Guarantee Program, which finances U.S. farm exports. The USDA guarantees the buyers' credit when they can't get credit approval locally.
2. The Dairy Export Incentive Program, which pays cash subsidies to dairy exporters. It helps them meet the subsidized prices of foreign dairy producers.

06 - Housing Subsidies

Housing subsidies promote homeownership and support the construction industry. They total about $15 billion a year.

Housing subsidies come in two forms: interest rate subsidies and down-payment assistance. The biggest interest rate subsidy is the mortgage interest deduction on the federal income tax. There are also some smaller interest subsidies that reduce mortgage costs for low-income families. 

The federal government also matches the amount low-income families save for a down-payment. This came to $10.9 million in 2008. (Source: “Homeowner Subsidies,” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, February 23, 2011.)

These direct homeowner subsidies paled in comparison to what the federal government spent to support its Federal Housing Authority mortgage loan guarantee program.

The real trouble started when it created two government-sponsored enterprises. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided a secondary market to buy these mortgages from banks.  But they bought too many. That forced the government to spend up to $100 billion to bail out Fannie and Freddie. Even this wasn't enough, and the government nationalized them.

Was the bailout a subsidy? Yes, in a sense. That’s because without it, there would have been no housing activity whatsoever after the subprime mortgage crisis. Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Guaranty Corporation were behind 90 percent of all home loans. The agencies replaced the private sector's role in the home mortgage market in the United States.

07 - Other Subsidies

The U.S. federal government offers many more subsidies that it thinks will improve the economy.

For example, the 2009 Cash for Clunkersprogram was a subsidy to auto dealers, according to the BEA. In the program, dealers received a subsidy of up to $4,500 from the federal government after discounting a new vehicle to a consumer who traded in an old car.

The goal was to jump-start the economy after the recession. It also aimed to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and lessen U.S. reliance on foreign oil. 

08 - Obamacare Subsidies

More than half of the Obamacare subsidiesare designed to go to middle-income families. These are hard-working parents. They hold jobs as food service workers, administrative personnel, and health aides. These are also jobs that don't provide health insurance.

Although 10.6 million Americans were eligible for subsidies as of February 2018, most didn't get them. Why? It’s because they didn't sign up for insurance on the exchanges.

Obamacare is budgeted to spend $1.039 trillion on subsidies for these middle-class working families between 2015 and 2024. It only expects to spend $792 billion on expanded Medicaid and Childrens’ Health Insurance Program for the poor. 

https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-farm-oil-export-etc-3305788

kimberly@worldmoneywatch.com

Why Comey Escaped Charges Last Week And Why His Luck Is Likely To Change

The release of last week’s Inspector General’s report, which focused on James Comey, was a disappointment to conservatives who were hoping to see the former FBI Director held accountable for his actions. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that Comey had flouted FBI rules and ignored protocol in his determination to undermine President-elect Trump. He leaked memos he had written after each meeting with Trump with the intention of triggering the appointment of a special counsel. And he was successful. Horowitz clearly presented Comey’s wrongdoing, but even so, Attorney General William Barr declined to charge him with a crime.

There were several reasons for Barr’s decision. Comey, having attained the top position at the FBI knew the limitations of the law and how to remain within them. First, he made sure his memos were not classified at the time he leaked them. Next, he leaked the documents to his attorney friend who also had a security clearance.

Finally, he employed a legal tool that only an experienced trial lawyer would be familiar with. The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, who is a former US attorney himself, immediately recognized it and explained how Comey used what prosecutors call a “recollection recorded.”

At a certain (prearranged) moment during the intelligence briefing of President-elect Trump on January 6, 2016, the other officials, including CIA director John Brennan, left Comey and Trump alone so that Comey could “spring the trap.”

Comey told Trump of the dossier and specifically discussed the “golden showers” story. McCarthy writes that he was trying to force Trump into making incriminating statements that he could include in his memo of the meeting, and which could later be used as a “recollection recorded.” This is what Comey wrote in his memo following the meeting.

I said, the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013. He interjected, “there were no prostitutes; there were never prostitutes.” He then said something about him being the kind of guy who didn’t need to “go there” and laughed (which I understood to be communicating that he didn’t need to pay for sex). He said “2013” to himself, as if trying to remember that period of time, but didn’t add anything. He said he always assumed that hotel rooms he stayed in when he travels are wired in some way.

McCarthy explains what Comey was trying to accomplish:

If you understand what Comey was doing, the memo is not very subtle. The implication is that the “golden showers” incident may well have happened (meaning: Yes, Putin may have Trump over a barrel, just like Chris Steele says!). The president-elect was adamant only that prostitutes were not involved, not that an escapade of this kind was inconceivable.

That is to say: If the FBI’s investigation turned up some corroboration for Steele’s pee-tape story, Comey would now be in a position to provide helpful testimony about Trump’s statements and state of mind. The memo itself might even be admissible in court as evidence for the prosecution.

In June 2017, when the existence of former director Comey’s memos first emerged, he was asked why he’d made them. He [Comey] explained, “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president.”

I [McCarthy] observed at the time that, as an old prosecutor, that got my antennae pinging. To non-attorneys, this was just gobbledygook. But as any trial lawyer can tell you, “recollection recorded” is not an idle phrase. It is a term of art in the Federal Rules of Evidence (specifically, Rule 803(5), “Recorded Recollection”).

Most out-of-court statements (e.g., a news story about an event) are inadmissible as hearsay. But under some circumstances, “recollection recorded” is an exception to the hearsay rule. To qualify, the recollection must be recorded (such as in a memo) at the time an incident was fresh in the witness’s memory, so that it accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge. That’s why — if you’re not only an FBI official but a seasoned trial lawyer, such as Jim Comey — you’d want to write it down contemporaneously or immediately after the relevant event. Perhaps in a car speeding to a meeting with fellow investigators to report back to them about the investigation you’ve just done, despite telling your prime suspect, the incoming president, that you are not investigating him.

Barr is not a stupid man and knew that, due to Comey’s careful preparation and deliberate manipulation of the President-elect, it would be difficult to prosecute a case against him.

Barr is also well aware that there are two far more comprehensive reports coming. The first, the IG’s report on the FBI’s abuse of the FISA Court application process is due at the end of this month or in early October. The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin wrote that these reports are expected to show clear violations of the law. “Not in violation of regulations or procedures: in violation of the law.”

And, from what sources such as former DOJ official Joe DiGenova, investigative reporter John Solomon and several GOP members of Congress have said, the findings will be very damaging to James Comey and his colleagues.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) appeared on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” last weekend and predicted that the IG’s FISA abuse report would be “devastating” and will result in indictments. Biggs, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee said:

I anticipate that we will see some very stark revelations of manipulation of the whole system for political purposes. When you see that happen, that’s when I think you’re going to see references or referrals for indictments, and I think you are going to see some indictments.

I think you are going to see some accountability there.

Biggs estimated that the report “will be released probably mid-September.”

Comey signed off on the original FISA Court application and two of the three renewals for the warrant to spy on low-level Trump campaign advisor Carter Page for the purpose of spying on Trump. The FBI knowingly used Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier as the basis of their FISA applications. Comey, as well as the other major players in the conspiracy to bring down Trump knew the dossier was bogus, but wanted to gain a window into his campaign. FBI officials had been warned by the fourth highest ranking DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC and that Steele had been hired by opposition research firm Fusion GPS. They were told that Steele harbored deep resentment against Donald Trump and was “desperate” that he lose the race.

In addition, the FBI had received an email from State Department official Kathleen Kavalec prior to submitting their first application to the FISA Court.

Finally, The Hill’s John Solomon reported that the FBI kept a chart of the allegations made in the dossier. And the finest law enforcement agency in the world with all of the powerful tools of intelligence available to them, had not been able to verify a single one.

Three months after signing off on the first application swearing that the information had been “verified,” Comey sat in Trump’s office and grossly misrepresented the situation for his own purposes.

The case against Comey and his top officials is pretty clear cut in this instance and there is a solid trail of evidence to back it up. This leaves very little opportunity for deception.

The second and most consequential report will come after special prosecutor John Durham completes his investigation into the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion case.

That report will be the “main event.” Babbin writes that, “It will be the one that decides whom to indict and will obtain those indictments from one or more grand juries convened for that purpose.” (I will focus on that report in a later post.) 

written by Elizabeth Vaughn for RedState

Devin Nunes Discusses Legal Risk for James Comey

In the aftermath of the IG report covering the conduct of former FBI Director James Comey, HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes appears on Fox News to discuss the existing legal risk that surrounds Mr.  

Legitimate Firearms Use Still Outpaces Firearms Crime, By Far

Elderly Man Beaten and Tied up 

With Wife by Robbers Manages to Free Himself

 and Shoot at Them 

An Oklahoma man in his 70s who was tied up during an attempted robbery last month was able to free himself and scare off the suspects with a gun, police say.

The incident occurred just before 11 p.m. on August 31 inside a couple's home in the 100 block of East Drive in Tuttle, investigators said. The two residents, both in their late 70s, were tied up by suspects during the late-night armed robbery attempt—which didn't go to plan.

According to police, the husband was assaulted before being tied up alongside his wife. But he was able to break through his restraints and reach a loaded gun. The man fired at the culprits, who fled with a third suspect in a vehicle that had been waiting outside the victims' home.

Yesterday, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) announced that it was seeking the public's assistance in identifying three suspects, and released multiple images on Facebook.

Two images showed the male suspect, the third image was of the female suspect's tattoo and the fourth picture, taken via home surveillance, showed the suspects' vehicle. The OSBI, an independent agency, said it became involved at the behest of Tuttle Police Department.

Investigators described one suspect as a female in her mid-20s to early 30s, approximately 5'4'' and 130 pounds. She appeared to have a tattoo on the back of her neck or upper back.

A white male was also described in the release. Investigators said he was the same age range, roughly 5'7'' and 140-145 pounds. He appeared to have tattoos on his right arm. The third suspect was observed sitting in the driver's seat of the vehicle but never entered the home.

The OSBI did not reveal the identities of the elderly victims. It was not immediately clear if any of the suspects were hit by the homeowner's bullets as he fought back against the robbery. Officers can be reached at (800) 522-8017 or via the email-based hotline: tips@osbi.ok.gov.

Upon conviction in the state, a charge of first-degree robbery carries penalties of between 10 years and life in prison, according to the Oklahoma Legal Group law firm. Second-degree robbery can result in prison sentences of up to 10 years.

Oklahoma Legal Group explains online: "Robbery in the first degree consists of cases in which—while in the process of taking the property of another person by means of force or fear—the perpetrator either inflicts serious bodily injury, threatens a person with immediate serious bodily injury, intentionally puts someone in fear of immediate serious bodily injury, or commits or threatens to commit an additional felony upon the victim.

"Second degree occurs when none of the conditions necessary for first-degree robbery occur, yet there is still a taking of property from another person through the use of force or fear." 

Source: Newsweek

James Mattis Gives the Country a Warning

Article written by Jim Geraghty in the "National Review":

‘Tribalism Must Not be Allowed to Destroy Our Experiment.'

In his new autobiography, former secretary of defense James Mattis writes:

What concerns me most as a military man is not our external adversaries; it is our internal divisiveness… We are dividing into hostile tribes cheering against each other, fueled by emotion and a mutual disdain that jeopardizes our future, instead of rediscovering our common ground and finding solutions. All Americans need to recognize that our democracy is an experiment and one that can be reversed. Tribalism must not be allowed to destroy our experiment.

 I’m close to finishing the first draft of the second thriller novel, thinking through the theme, as well as heroes, villains, chases, explosions, and all that good stuff. One of the themes that’s emerging is how few Americans recognize that peace, prosperity, freedom, and relative social harmony are really glaring outliers in human history* — and how many Americans think that peace, prosperity, freedom, and relative social harmony are “normal” — and that no matter what goes wrong, no matter how many bad decisions we make, our lives will always bounce back to what we think is normal. We don’t realize how good we have it, even in the bad times, and we don’t realize that we can lose it all if we don’t tackle our challenges responsibly.

History isn’t just full of massacres; it’s full of massacres that most Americans never heard of during their educations.

The massacre of the Herero and Namaquain German South West Africa of 1904, — 30,000 to 110,000 people were killed. The Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932 — 3.3 million to 7 million killed in a manmade famine; and the concurrent Kazakh genocide, when another 1.5 million to 3 million were killed. Nanking, China, 1937 — anywhere from 30,000 to 300,000 killed. The Parsley Massacre in the Dominican Republic, 1937 — up to 35,000 killed.

This isn’t just long-ago history, either. Mass killings in Indonesia in 1965, 500,000 to 3 million dead. The Nigerian Civil War — 100,000 killed, and up to 2 million more were killed from starvation. The Bangladesh genocide in 1971 — between 300,000 and 3 million killed. The Red Terror in Ethiopia in 1976 — up to 500,000 killed. The Cambodian genocide in the late 1970s — 1.3 million to 3 million killed. Somalia of 1987 — an estimated 200,000 killed.

Did I say not just ancient history? I meant really recent. Forty-five worshippers killed by the Red Mask paramilitary group in Chiapas, Mexico, 1997. Anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 killed in riots in Gujarat, India, 2002. Several hundred to 1,500 killed in Andijan, Uzbekistan in 2005. About 3,000 massacred in South Sudan, 2012. During the Syrian Civil War, forces loyal to Bashir Assad summarily executed 108 people — half children! — in Houla, Syria, in 2012.

But we don’t have to look to foreign shores to find horrors and monstrosities. The Bear River massacre of 1863; a mob of about 500 people conducted mass lynchings in Los Angeles’s Chinatown in 1871. Maybe you’ve heard a bit more about the Red Summer of 1919 or the Tulsa race riot of 1921; and the destruction of Rosewood, Fla. in 1923.  In 1979, in Greensboro, N.C., the Communist Worker’s Party, the American Nazi Party, and the KKK had a violent clash that killed five and injured twelve.

You’re smart, well-informed readers, yet you’ve probably only heard of half of these; I hadn’t heard about them until I started reading up on massacres in history. If you haven’t heard of these, it isn’t necessarily your fault. Your teachers only had so much time, and the story of one group slaughtering another group was simultaneously depressing and seemingly not all that relevant to students who wanted to do well on the SAT or AP tests. But perhaps a side effect of teaching history the way we do — here are some ancient bloody battles, then things gradually got better, and now we’ve left all those ugly sentiments and feelings and actions behind — is that we inadvertently feed the notion that human nature has changed.

Tribalism, xenophobia, hate — the temptation to succumb to these passions may well be baked in the cake of the human condition. But the fact that massacres and hatred are not omnipresent means we can overcome them. “The internal beast is human nature. It cannot be killed; it can only be tamed. And even then, constant vigilance is required. The story of civilization is, quite literally, the story of taming, directing, channeling or holding at bay human nature,” as Jonah writes in Suicide of the West.

It also means we need to appreciate what Americans have built — slowly, gradually, and with great struggle. Even when we’ve had it bad, we’ve had it pretty good. If you grew up even lower middle-class in the United States with minimal encounters with crime and violence, you won the lottery of human experience, historically speaking. For most of the time man has walked this earth, people lived with the fear that the next village over, or the next kingdom over, or the next country over could suddenly come riding over the hill and kill everyone — just because they wanted their resources, their territory, or slaves.
There is no shortage of malevolent people who would be comfortable with our society backsliding towards the historical norm, just for the opportunity to express that endless rage within them.

In another passage on leadership, Mattis writes, “institutions get the behavior they reward.” What behavior does our media reward? What behavior does our electorate reward? What behavior does our government reward?

 https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/just-remember-how-good-we-have-it-despite-our-current-struggles/

Walmart to stop selling ammunition for handguns, assault-style weapons

September 3, 2019
(Reuters) – Walmart Inc said on Tuesday it would discontinue sales of ammunition for handguns and some assault-style rifles in stores across the United States, in response to the recent mass shootings in Texas and Ohio.
The largest U.S. arms retailer, which has been under pressure to change its policies on gun sales, also said it would discontinue handgun sales in Alaska, the only state where it still sells these guns.
Walmart has already ended sales of assault rifle and raised the minimum age for gun purchases to 21. The latest move will leave it focused on weapons for hunting, including deer rifles, shotguns and related ammunition.
The company will stop selling all handgun ammunition and some short-barrel rifle ammunition, such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber after clearing current stock. While short-barrel ammunition is commonly used in some hunting rifles for small animals such as prairie dogs, they can also be used in military-style weapons with high-capacity magazines.
The retailer said it took the action following the death of 22 people in a mass shooting in a Walmart store in Texas as well as deadly shootings in Ohio and Saturday’s incident in Midland and Odessa, Texas.
Just last month, the company said it would not change its policy on selling firearms even as it took down signs and playable demos of violent video games.
“As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same,” Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon said in a letter to Walmart’s associates.

The retailer said it took the action following the death of 22 people in a mass shooting in a Walmart store in Texas as well as deadly shootings in Ohio and Saturday’s incident in Midland and Odessa, Texas.
Just last month, the company said it would not change its policy on selling firearms even as it took down signs and playable demos of violent video games.
“As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same,” Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon said in a letter to Walmart’s associates.
The company added that its latest actions would reduce its market share of ammunition from around 20% to a range of about 6% to 9%, and would trend toward the lower end of that range over time.
McMillon said he would send letters to the White House and the Congressional leadership, urging the government to strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who could pose an imminent danger.
“These horrific events occur and then the spotlight fades … Given our decades of experience selling firearms, we are also offering to serve as a resource in the national debate on responsible gun sales,” he said.
 https://www.oann.com/walmart-to-stop-selling-short-barrel-rifle-ammunition/

It Has Been 103 Days Since AG Barr Was Given Declassification Authority

Senator Graham Calls on Bill Barr to Declassify

 FISA Abuse Documents and Release Them ASAP

written by Katie Pavlich for Townhall

Senator Lindsey Graham has written a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr urging him to declassify FISA documents used during the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. 

"Since March 28, 2018, the Department's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has been conducting an investigation into the Department's and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable Department and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) related to Carter Page. According to Inspector General David Horowitz that investigation is nearing completion," Graham wrote in a letter to Barr Tuesday morning. "In order for the Inspector General to be able to present the most complete results of his investigation to Congress and the American people, certain documents will need to be declassified and released to the public. I write to urge you to declassify all documents the Inspector General identifies as appropriate for declassification as much as possible, without harming national security."

Graham also provided a long list of documents he believes should be declassified and released, which includes:

All documents and communications originally shared with the Gang of Eight in May 2018 related to the investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election, including any transcripts of summaries of transcripts of conversations between George Papadopoulos and confidential informants. 

The applications for FISA warrants and any renewals thereof for Carter Page or anyone else associated with the Trump campaign. 

Any opinions from the FISC related to the Carter Page FISA or other Trump campaign related FISAs. 

The chart that shows the FBI's attempts to verify the allegations in the Steele dossier. 

Any FBI or Department documents or communications discussing Christopher Steel's credibility and/or biases or the FBI or the Department's knowledge of Steele's contacts with members of the meida. 

FD-302s or other interview summaries related to anyone at FBI or the Department who interacted or accepted documents or communications from Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Michael Sussman, Perkins Coie, or the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or anyone associated with the DNC. 

The FBI's confidential human source reports and related documents and communications for Christopher Steele. 

Documents and communications related to the defensive briefings given to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

In the meantime, the IG report on the investigation into the origins of the Russia probe is expected by the end of the month.