Saturday, September 14, 2019

Cancel Male Candidates

New DCCC Chief Wants to 

Cancel Male Candidates

Lucinda Guinn agrees 'we shouldn't let boys run for office anymore'

Lucinda Guinn / YouTube screenshot

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's newly appointed executive director wants to cancel male political candidates.

Lucinda Guinn, a former executive at pro-abortion fundraising giant EMILY's List, was named executive director of the embattled Democratic elections organization. The news comes as a blow to male Democrats, as Guinn has indicated on social media that she does not want men to run for office.

In a February tweet, Guinn appeared to agree with another user's proposal that "we shouldn't let boys run for office anymore."

The idea was initially raised by liberal think tank Third Way's senior vice president, Lanae Erickson, who asked, "Anyone else having the feeling that maybe we shouldn't let boys run for office anymore?"
"Sure do," Guinn said.

The DCCC did not return request for comment.

It is unclear if two male Democrats that supported the hiring of Guinn, Reps. Tony Cardenas (D., Calif.) and Scott Peters (D., Calif.), are aware of Guinn's potential ban of male candidates. Neither returned requests for comment.

Guinn's hiring comes at a time of turmoil within the DCCC. Former executive director Allison Jaslow, a gay combat veteran, resigned after the Washington Free Beacon discovered anti-gay and racist tweets sent by recently promoted staffer Tayhlor Coleman.

"#ThingsIDontRemember: giving a lesbian my number during Mardi Gras. Now she keeps calling me," Coleman tweeted with the hashtags "#awkard #yikes #homophobia."

Five other senior staffers followed Jaslow in leaving the DCCC in the wake of Coleman's tweets, but Coleman herself is still employed by the DCCC according to her Twitter bio.

Lawmakers from the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus were reportedly furious with the DCCC at a meeting announced in the wake of the Washington Free Beacon exposé.

Justice Democrats, the progressive group that backed Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.), fundraised off the DCCC mayhem. Ocasio-Cortez has previously advised Democratic donors to stop giving money to the DCCC.

Ocasio-Cortez's anti-DCCC sentiment was echoed by the freshman representative's senior counsel and policy adviser, Dan Riffle, who goes by "Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure" on Twitter.

"The simple and obvious solution here is for Progressive Caucus members to stop paying dues to the @DCCC," Riffle said in a now-deleted tweet. "The DCCC is not an organization that backs any Democrat. They work to elect a certain kind of Democrat, and if you aren't that kind of Democrat why are you giving them money?"

Ocasio-Cortez did not return request for comment on Guinn's hiring.


Background Checks? There's an app for that...

Trump, lawmakers consider app that would conduct background checks: report


President Trump and Republican lawmakers are reportedly considering supporting an app that would conduct background checks before gun sales as a gun control measure, The Washington Post reported. 
The app would be connected to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks system that could be used to complete background checks on private gun sales, three senators and other officials told The Washington Post. 

However, lawmakers and congressional aides have privately raised privacy concerns for gun owners about the app idea. 

Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Washington Post that he was told about the app by a White House official. Thune said he was concerned gun owners’ personal data being available, adding that it “would kind of be a de facto registry.”  

“It’s fraught with a lot of issues when it comes to some of the Second Amendment concerns,” Thune said. 

Currently, there are no federally mandated background checks for the private sales of guns.
Kris Brown, president of Brady, a gun violence prevention advocacy group, called on the Senate to take up a background check bill that would include private gun sales, CNN reported.

"This proposal reveals one important fact from the White House: they recognize the problem of the private sale loophole that allows 20 percent of guns to be sold with no background check at all. ... We agree the private sale loophole must be fixed, but it should be fixed in a way that allows meaningful enforcement, not easy circumvention that endangers lives," Brown said.

News of the app came as lawmakers expect Trump to unveil his plan to reduce gun violence next week. Senior advisors briefed Trump on various gun safety measures this week but he did not seem concerned with the details of how each plan would work, an unnamed source confirmed to CNN. 
Trump has also met with lawmakers on potential gun control plans, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), among others.

Will McCabe Bring The FBI Down with Him?



Will McCabe Bring the FBI Down with Him?


The DoJ’s rejection of a last-ditch appeal by the legal team representing fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe and the recommendation by federal prosecutors that charges actually be filed against the documented liar, leaker, and co-conspirator in the attempted coup against duly elected President Donald Trump puts the deep state in a face-to-face confrontation with a potential legal Armageddon. An indictment will leave McCabe with no excuse for not carrying out his threat to bring them all down with him.

Before his firing, McCabe sent a shot across  the bow of his co-conspirators in the plots to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House, according to Fox News correspondent Adam Housely in a series of tweets reported by Gateway Pundit at the time of the firing:

Fox News reporter Adam Housley reported on Twitter tonight about the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, stating his sources were telling him that in the past few days McCabe threatened to “take people down with him” if he was fired...
8:31 p.m. PDT: “I am told yesterday McCabe felt the heat and went to try and save his last two days and even told some he would take people down with him if he was fired. So…let’s see what comes of this. I know this…a ton of agents…a ton…were watching this very closely.”

Investigative journalist Sara Carter confirmed McCabe’s threat on the March 16, 2018 episode of "The Ingraham Angle":

CARTER: He lied. Plain and simple he lied. A lot of former FBI agents that I spoke to say I hope he's fired. Is he going to get fired today? That's all I kept hearing all day because they realize if they had done this, they would have been fired too.

And there's a lot of ongoing investigations right now. This is not just about Michael Horowitz at the DOJ right now. Remember, there's a prosecutor looking into the unmasking, the FISA abuse that has been taking place with Carter Page in particular. So, we have a number of investigations and McCabe is worried. He's said over and over again, if I go down, I'm taking everybody else with me.

McCabe was at the heart of all the criminal activity and knows where the bodies are buried. His silence until now may be traced to the fact that to date no one has actually been held accountable. An easy indictment of his boss, book tour veteran James Comey, was bypassed and newly minted CNN analyst McCabe, filling the chair vacated by creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti, got to join his fellow liar and leaker, John Brennan, at the poster child for fake news.

“Lack of candor” about leaking to the press is the least of McCabe’s worries. McCabe is a signatory to at least one of the FISA applications requesting surveillance of American citizens, namely Team Trump. His signature was his affirmation that the information in it, based largely on the Steele dossier paid for by Team Hillary and the DNC and compiled from Russian sources by a British agent, was accurate and verified. The FISA warrant he signed was a fraud committed on the court.

The Steele dossier, despite McCabe’s prior obfuscations, was acquired illegally. Money was laundered through a law firm to a dirt-gathering opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to Russian sources making most of the stuff up. The fact that the transaction went through multiple hands does not make it any more legal. It just makes the coming indictment longer.

McCabe, the man he worked for, James Comey, and the people who worked under McCabe, such as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, then took this fruit of foreign interference in our election and used it to commit a fraud upon the FISA court to trigger the illegal surveillance of one political campaign by another with the aid of co-conspirators at the DoJ and FBI.

That McCabe himself was a key architect of this coup is found in the texts of FBI Agent Peter Strozk, who speaks of the plan hatched in “Andy’s office” to stop Trump at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:

Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to (Lisa) Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in "Andy's" (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe's) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [break]... that there's no way he gets elected. I want to believe that... But I'm afraid we can't take that risk... We have to do something about it."

In another text, Page said: "maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace." Strzok replied: "I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps."

"This goes to intent," Jordan said. "We can't take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can't take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He's saying, 'we can't take the risk, we have to do something about it.'"

McCabe himself said under oath he could not verify the accuracy of virtually anything in the dossier and has acknowledged that without the “salacious and unverified” document, as James Comey once described it, no investigation of Team Trump would have occurred.


Then there’s the case of Michael Flynn.  The unmasking of Flynn in the Russia probe may indeed be retaliation against Flynn for perceived political sins, but not for what and by whom you might think if reports from investigative watchdog site Circa News are correct.


As I noted here on June 30, 2017 , Michael Flynn and Andrew McCabe have a past that predates the Trump presidency, one that provides ample motivation for the perjury trap that McCabe and Comey set up after Flynn’s illegal unmasking.  McCabe had a personal grudge against Flynn and the perjury trap was his revenge.


It explains why McCabe would entrap Flynn in a seemingly harmless interview about contacts with Flynn’s Russian counterparts, advising Flynn he didn’t need to bring a lawyer along to complicate things.


As Sara A. Carter and John Solomon of Circa News reported:

The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

Flynn’s intervention on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was highly unusual, and included a letter in 2014 on his official Pentagon stationary, a public interview in 2015 supporting Gritz’s case and an offer to testify on her behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against McCabe, who was soaring through the bureau’s leadership ranks.

The FBI sought to block Flynn’s support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn…

McCabe eventually became the bureau’s No. 2 executive and emerged as a central player in the FBI’s Russia election tampering investigation, putting him in a position to impact the criminal inquiry against Flynn.

Three FBI employees told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in the Russia case.


Andrew McCabe should not be a national pundit on CNN calling for Trump’s impeachment. He should be preparing his legal defense against indictments that can’t come a moment too soon. And we should be prepared for McCabe carrying out his threat to bring them all down. We may yet find out what really happened in “Andy’s office”.
             

The Competence Vote




From the first moment when he announced his intent to run for President of the United States in 2015, Donald Trump was very clear on one specific aspect to his view of why people would vote for him.  As a candidate, he repeated it often:
So the reporter said to me the other day, “But, Mr. Trump, you’re not a nice person. How can you get people to vote for you?”
I said, “I don’t know.” I said, “I think that number one, I am a nice person. I give a lot of money away to charities and other things. I think I’m actually a very nice person.”
But, I said, “This is going to be an election that’s based on competence, because people are tired of these nice people. And they’re tired of being ripped off by everybody in the world.”
President Donald J Trump continues to highlight that message today:
It’s funny, from time-to-time people ask “how is CTH consistently able to predict what Donald Trump will do about a complex issue”?  In reality the answer is simple, go back and re-read his hour long campaign kick-off speech. [See Here]

Donald Trump, now President Trump, is one of the most consistent people in history when it comes to his big picture views; and also his big picture solutions.  There are small shifts, and slight changes in the direction toward the solution, but ultimately the big picture destination is consistent.

Specifically because President Trump works on optimal solutions toward the goal destination, his objective, the non-politician takes a different approach than would be expected from a typical politician.  Ultimately this is how Trump is able to accomplish so much more in a similar amount of time; he’s not poll-testing the route. 

Each big goal, each major objective, has a series of way-points.  The process for reaching those way-points is independent and entirely based on the goal itself.  Politicians look at this approach and think of it as inconsistent, because the travel is not subject to a specific map that is always followed.

Because President Trump’s search for ‘optimal travel’ is not based on a prior path – but based on each unique destination, the goal is more predictably reached.  In many ways it is just common sense.

Competence in policy is not measured by endless planning, discussion and debate… it is measured by results.  Achieving results requires action.  Start the journey and head to the way-point; reach the initial objective – evaluate, and immediately measure the next way-point; repeat until you reach the destination.
[…] So we need people— I’m a free trader. But the problem with free trade is you need really talented people to negotiate for you. If you don’t have talented people, if you don’t have great leadership, if you don’t have people that know business, not just a political hack that got the job because he made a contribution to a campaign, which is the way all jobs, just about, are gotten, free trade terrible.
Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people, but we have people that are stupid. We have people that aren’t smart. And we have people that are controlled by special interests. And it’s just not going to work.
[…]  I love China. The biggest bank in the world is from China. You know where their United States headquarters is located? In this building, in Trump Tower. I love China. People say, “Oh, you don’t like China?”
No, I love them. But their leaders are much smarter than our leaders, and we can’t sustain ourself with that. There’s too much— it’s like— it’s like take the New England Patriots and Tom Brady and have them play your high school football team. That’s the difference between China’s leaders and our leaders.
They are ripping us. We are rebuilding China. We’re rebuilding many countries. China, you go there now, roads, bridges, schools, you never saw anything like it. They have bridges that make the George Washington Bridge look like small potatoes. And they’re all over the place.
We have all the cards, but we don’t know how to use them.
We don’t even know that we have the cards, because our leaders don’t understand the game.
We could turn off that spigot by charging them tax until they behave properly. (continued

Saudi Arabia's Oil Supply Disrupted After Drone Attacks

Article written in "Newsmax":

Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi group on Saturday attacked two plants at the heart of Saudi Arabia's oil industry, including the world's biggest petroleum processing facility, in a strike that three sources said had disrupted output and exports.

The pre-dawn drone attack on the Saudi Aramco facilities sparked several fires, although the kingdom, the world's largest oil exporter, later said these were brought under control.

Three sources close to the matter said oil production and exports had been affected. One source said 5 million barrels per day of crude production had been impacted -- close to half the kingdom's output -- but did not elaborate.

State television said exports were continuing, however Aramco has yet to comment since the assault, which the Houthis said involved 10 drones. Authorities have not said whether oil production or exports were affected.

The attacks come as Aramco accelerates plans for an initial public offering of the state oil giant to as early as this year, and follow earlier cross-border attacks on Saudi oil installations and on oil tankers in Gulf waters. Saturday's attacks appeared to be the most brazen yet.

Saudi Arabia, leading a Sunni Muslim military coalition that intervened in Yemen in 2015 against the Houthis, has blamed regional rival Shi'ite Iran for previous attacks, which Tehran denies. Riyadh accuses Iran of arming the Houthis, a charge denied by the group and Tehran.

Authorities have not reported on casualties. A Reuters witness nearby said at least 15 ambulances were seen in the area and there was a heavy security presence around Abqaiq.

"A successful attack on Abqaiq would be akin to a massive heart attack for the oil market and global economy," said Bob McNally, who runs Rapidan Energy Group and served in the U.S. National Security Council during the second Gulf War in 2003.

CRISIS MEETING
Abqaiq is 60 km (37 miles) southwest of Aramco's Dhahran headquarters. The oil processing plant handles crude from the world's largest conventional oilfield, the supergiant Ghawar, and for export to terminals Ras Tanura - the world's biggest offshore oil loading facility - and Juaymah. It also pumps westwards across the kingdom to Red Sea export terminals.

Two of the sources said Ghawar was flaring gas after the strikes disrupted gas processing facilities. Khurais, 190 km (118 miles) further southwest, contains the country's second largest oilfield.

Many Western employees of Aramco live in Abqaiq. The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh said it was unaware of any injuries to Americans from the attacks.

"These attacks against critical infrastructure endanger civilians, are unacceptable, and sooner or later will result in innocent lives being lost,” the embassy quoted Ambassador John Abizaid as saying in a Twitter post.

The three sources said Aramco had raised emergency levels and was holding a crisis meeting after the assault.

It was the latest in a series of Houthi missile and drone strikes on Saudi cities that had largely been intercepted, but have recently hit targets, including Shaybah oilfield last month and oil pumping stations in May. Both those attacks caused fires but did not disrupt production.

"This is a relatively new situation for the Saudis. For the longest time they have never had any real fears that their oil facilities would be struck from the air," Kamran Bokhari, founding director of the Washington-based Center for Global Policy, told Reuters.

He said Riyadh had in the past largely protected oil assets against vehicle-borne explosive attacks by militant groups.
 
Hours after the Houthi strike in Abqaiq, the Reuters witness said fire and smoke were still visible but had started dying down. Earlier video footage verified by Reuters showed bright flames and thick plumes of smoke rising towards the dark pre-dawn sky. An emergency vehicle is seen rushing towards the site.

The Saudi interior ministry said Aramco industrial security teams fighting the fires since 0400 (0100 GMT) had managed to control them and stop their spread. It did not identify the source of the drones but said an investigation was underway.

The Saudi-led coalition launched air strikes on Yemen's northern Saada province, a Houthi stronghold, on Saturday, a Reuters witness said. Houthi-run al Masirah TV said the warplanes targeted a military camp.

The Houthis' military spokesman, without providing evidence, said drones hit refineries at both Saudi sites, which are over 1,000 km (621 miles) from the Yemeni capital Sanaa, and pledged a widening of assaults on Saudi Arabia.

The chief of Iran's elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani praised the Houthis for their resistance in a Twitter post.

Tensions in the region have escalated in recent months after the United States quit an international nuclear deal and extended economic sanctions on Iran.

Fellow Gulf OPEC producers the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait voiced support for any measures by Saudi Arabia to safeguard its security.

The violence is complicating U.N.-led peace efforts to end the Yemen war which has killed tens of thousands and pushed millions to the brink of famine. The conflict is widely seen as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran

The coalition intervened in Yemen to try to restore the internationally recognized government ousted from power in Sanaa by the Houthis, who say they are fighting a corrupt system.

 https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/saudiarabia-oil-drone/2019/09/14/id/932679/

 Saudi Arabia's Oil Supply Disrupted After Drone Attacks


Graham: US should consider strike on Iranian oil refineries after attack on Saudi Arabia

Article written by Tal Axelrod in "The Hill":

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a prominent foreign policy hawk, said the U.S. should consider striking Iranian oil refineries in response to new attacks on Saudi oil refineries by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. 

“It is now time for the U.S. to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries if they continue their provocations or increase nuclear enrichment,” Graham tweeted.

“Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime’s back,” he added.

It is now time for the U.S. to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries if they continue their provocations or increase nuclear enrichment.
Iran will not stop their misbehavior until the consequences become more real, like attacking their refineries, which will break the regime’s back.
 Graham, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is one of Congress’s chief critics of Iran, warning in June that Tehran should prepare for “severe pain” after it shot down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone.

The South Carolina Republican is a former critic of President Trump who has become one of his staunchest supporters.

His tweet comes the same day as Houthi rebels in Yemen launched drone strikes against two oil refineries deep into Saudi territory in response to Riyadh’s air campaign against the rebel group.

“Air Force of the Yemeni Army and Popular Committees, Saturday morning carried out a large-scale operation with 10 drones, targeting Abqaiq and Khurais refineries east of Saudi Arabia,” Brig. Gen. Yahya Sare’e said, adding that operations will “expand” and be “more painful” as Saudi Arabia continues its military efforts in Yemen.

Riyadh is heading a U.S.-backed regional campaign to oust the Houthi rebels in Yemen as the country’s civil war descends into a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The conflict has killed thousands of civilians, caused millions to leave or lose their homes, and sparked widespread starvation.

The Houthi rebels have attacked refineries in Saudi Arabia before in an attempt to strike at the country’s chief economic sector, though Saturday’s strike hit about 500 miles from Yemeni territory and was one of the largest operations they’ve launched yet

 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/461419-graham-us-should-consider-strike-on-iranian-oil-refineries-after-attack-on

 Graham: US should consider strike on Iranian oil refineries after attack on Saudi Arabia

Corporate Social Activism

Corporate Social Activism:

When the Tail Wags the Dog



Corporate Social Activism: When the Tail Wags the Dog
Source: AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File
Corporations exist primarily to provide goods and services to willing buyers. Yet a growing number of employees believe that this mission must include the role of social change facilitator. They view profit and global salvation as woven together. To accommodate this call for reinvention, some employers are offering their work forces paid leave for activism. Welcome to the age of the radicalized, “woke” employee.

A corporation, whether unionized or not, has a natural interest in addressing employee grievances. Open communication is necessary for workplace morale. But at some companies, top officials have become advocates on such controversial public issues as gun control, immigration and global warming. This trend is almost entirely driven by employees, particularly younger ones. And the politics lean sharply leftward. Amplified by social media, activist workers are trying to persuade employers to be accountable to the general population, also known as “stakeholders.” And they’re getting results.  

Google, a company with a current market cap of roughly $400 billion, experienced this “rule from below” about a year and a half ago. Employees were in revolt over a Defense Department contract through which Google would develop Cloud-based artificial intelligence with potential military applications. About 4,000 employees signed a petition demanding that Google and all of its contractors refrain from such activity. Management relented, announcing that it would not renew the contract. 

As a further manifestation of mission reboot, employees at certain companies now are receiving paid days off for attending rallies, seminars and other political events. Some employers don’t even have to be coaxed. At Luxe, a San Francisco-based valet parking smart phone app, founder and CEO Curtis Lee, angered over President Trump’s “Muslim ban” of January 2017, provided paid leave to any employee who took part in protests against that executive order. Ventura, Calif.-based outdoor gear and apparel retailer Patagonia, meanwhile, is paying bail and court costs for employees arrested at environmental demonstrations.  

Recent market research suggests such business practices could become standard. This May, New York-based public relations firm Weber Shandwick released a study, “Employee Activism in the Age of Purpose: Employees (UP)Rising,” indicating that nearly four in 10 surveyed employees had openly supported or criticized their employers over a particular public issue. The figures for baby boomer, Gen Xer and millennial respondents, respectively, were 27 percent, 33 percent and 48 percent. A nationwide survey released in 2017 by St. Louis-based consulting firm Povaddo yielded a similar result. Among employees of major American companies, 57 percent believed employers should be more active in addressing social problems and 38 percent said they were less likely to make a long-term commitment to a company whose management isn’t politically-focused.  

A new seal of approval awaits employers who make the desired adjustments: the “B Corporation.” This designation, issued by B Lab, a nonprofit entity based in Berwyn, Pa., requires that a company achieve a minimum score for “social and environmental performance” and integrate stakeholder concerns into governing documents. At present, there are roughly 1,700 Certified B companies worldwide. For help in acquiring such status, corporations can rely on Conscious Company, a self-described “magazine for business leaders, entrepreneurs, and the next generation of professionals looking for meaning and mission in their work,” that relies upon a “community of forward-thinking, influential changemakers to help us co-create the content.” In less spin-tested language, it would seem this publication intends to facilitate global boycotts of unenlightened enterprises. 

Some companies, to their credit, aren’t buckling under such pressure. Early this summer, for example, employees at the Boston-based furniture company Wayfair staged a publicized walkout to protest the company’s contract with the government to provide $200,000 worth of beds for Baptist Child and Family Services to operate a migrant detention center for unaccompanied children in a Texas border community. Wayfair employees were steaming over their employer’s involvement with Trump’s “concentration camps.” But co-founders Steve Conine and Niraj Shah held firm, properly noting that a company should not renege on its commitments to customers. Perhaps the protestors, filled with love for humanity, would have preferred that these children sleep on a concrete floor. 

Corporations cannot allow themselves to be held hostage to political-activist employees. When they cave in, willingly or not, they risk violating their fiduciary duties to investors. A corporation has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of persons formally connected to it. What business owes “society” or certain political causes is not nearly of the same priority. 

Oberst-Gruppenführer O’Reich




Democrat Presidential Candidate and aspiring Oberst-Gruppenführer Robert Francis O’Reich is very proud of his debate moment when he brazenly admitted that, “Hell, yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15.”

Jawohl, mein Oberst-Gruppenführer!

Now, to be fair, Herr O’Reich won’t be personally rounding up law-abiding citizens’ guns.

Not at all.

He will depend on armed Landespolizei to do it for him.

And if you dare to tell Oberst-Gruppenführer O’Reich “Kommen und nehmen Sie es!” he will wilt like a little Fräulein and accuse you of threatening him. 


Ach du liebe Zeit! What a pussy.

Fortunately for Oberst-Gruppenführer O’Reich, Tvitter has veys of silencing his enemies.

So while he is free to issue his threats against law-abiding Americans, we kleine Volken aren’t permitted to respond.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Oberst-Gruppenführer O’Reich wants the latter.

What’s more, he is the living embodiment of the former.

An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

And Herr O’Reich fears a free citizenry.

Even that silly tweet makes that crystal clear.

And while Kleine Fräulein O’Reich was breathlessly “Vell, I nevering!” over this tweet, his brownshirt followers on Twitter began threatening Cain and his family to the point where his wife and kids now have police protection.


This is the kind of man Robert Francis O’Reich is.

And this is exactly how he would act if he ever got anywhere near the levers of power.

The good news is Oberst-Gruppenführer O’Reich will never get near the levers of power.

The bad news is every other Democrat running agrees with him.

Hamza Bin Laden: President Trump confirms al-Qaeda leader's son is dead



US President Donald Trump has confirmed that Hamza Bin Laden, the son of al-Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden, was killed in a US operation.

Last month, US media - citing intelligence officials - reported he had died in an air strike.

He was officially designated by the US as a global terrorist two years ago.

He was widely seen as a potential successor to his father. Thought to be about 30, he had sent out calls for attacks on the US and other countries.

"Hamza Bin Laden, the high-ranking al-Qaeda member and son of Osama Bin Laden, was killed in a United States counter-terrorism operation in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region," Mr Trump said in a brief statement issued by the White House.

"The loss of Hamza Bin Laden not only deprives al-Qaeda of important leadership skills and the symbolic connection to his father, but undermines important operational activities of the group."

The statement did not specify the timing of the operation.



Trey Gowdy Warns Everyone to Lower Their Expectations

Former congressman Trey Gowdy warns everyone to tamp down expectations from the IG report on FISA abuse. One point of focus from Horowitz’s letter today is that he *only* looked at the singular FISA issues surrounding Carter Page, nothing more.

…”Relating to a certain U.S. person.”

Therefore if Carter Page was not a victim; meaning if Carter Page was an active participant (mole) in the FBI operation – willing to be the vehicle by which the Steele Dossier could be injected into the investigation; then there will likely be no criminal conduct outlined by Horowitz.  The head of the tick-tock club was not happy with this possibility.

The Housing Solution Democrats Are Missing

 Article by Larry Alton in "The American Thinker":

The U.S. has been struggling with a shortage of affordable housing for years, and the situation becomes more fraught every day. In fact, it’s one of the only things that Democratic presidential hopefuls can seem to talk about, though few have any real ideas beyond declaring housing a human right and then blocking development that would make it more accessible. None seem to be willing to admit that President Trump’s strategies surrounding housing -- specifically, his regulatory moves to eliminate barriers to new construction -- are the only meaningful way to resolve the situation.

An Overwhelming Rental Shortage
In order to properly address the affordable housing crisis, the first step is to get at the root of the problem. In this case, there are several major problems, but the most important is the overall lack of available rental units. According to a report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the United States has a shortage of 7 million affordable rentals targeting extremely low-income tenants, and not a single state has enough to meet demand. Furthermore, because of a lack of construction workers, there also aren’t enough professionals to build new units, at least not under current financial and legal structures.

Without enough construction workers, investing more into renovating old buildings could help meet demand, but that will only go so far. Modified older buildings with their fresh polish are unlikely to come with low enough rents to actually serve as affordable housing. Instead, they’d likely attract wealthier tenants, raising rents in a given area, rather than driving them down as intended. Tiny homes have also been proposed as an option for low-income communities, but there are actually extraordinary amounts of red tape surrounding these units and most are more expensive than they should be, based on available amenities; they should be considered a solution of last resort.

Focusing on Consistent Funds
Another element that needs to be taken into account in order to address the affordable housing crisis is how the low-income population that would live in these properties will pay the rent. Housing ceases to be considered affordable once it consumes more than 30% of a household’s income, which is unrealistic for the lower-income households in many markets.

One possibility for ensuring tenants get paid for their properties is the Section 8 housing program. If more landlords choose to enter the Section 8 program, that would increase their access to government funds to cover costs and could even encourage development. What it wouldn’t do is help make people responsible for their own housing. Increasing development, on the other hand, could naturally drive market prices down, encouraging tenants to be independent. Just as we don’t want to welcome immigrants who are just going to become a “public charge” down the line, we also don’t want to build housing for people who won’t be able to live in it. We need to allow natural market forces to regulate all factors, including rents and wages.

The Regulation Trap
Another major problem with the Democratic proposals for solving the housing crisis is just how much regulation and red tape these plans would put in the path of any project. Even at current regulatory levels, 25% of new construction costs are purely regulatory. More red tape means more expenses, and those higher costs have to be passed on to consumers, or else they become the responsibility of taxpayers who already cover their own housing costs. Those taxpayers shouldn’t face a double burden because Democrats want to make housing more expensive.

Regulatory costs tend to be higher in cities where there’s also less buildable land, so building more affordable housing may mean reorganizing populations into more affordable regions. Midwestern states could benefit from the economic stimulus brought about by new development, the jobs would be an ideal fit for a region losing industrial jobs, and more people moving to the region could reinvigorate the area’s economy. It makes much more sense to feed a natural economic cycle than to create an artificial one and worsen problems. Housing costs are too high in many rural counties, yet no one ever talks about how the crisis shapes these communities or how they could be helped by new construction.

The Rent Is Too Damn High
President Trump has always had an eye on rural America and its needs, while Democrats treat that part of the country as though it doesn’t exist -- only cities seem to matter. By rethinking where we need new housing, how to finance it so that it’s self-sustaining, and how to build it with less red tape, we can meet the demands of the affordable housing crisis. The economy is strong right now, but after years of declining manual labor jobs, now is the perfect time to reinvigorate them, boost employment among the lowest earning groups, and help them pay market rents. A rising tide lifts all boats -- building affordable housing could be America’s rising tide.
 
 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/the_housing_solution_democrats_are_missing.html