Facebook removed a page Tuesday that posted incitements to violence and implied death threats after a Republican lawmaker called the company out.
During a hearing Tuesday with representatives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida asked Facebook’s head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, why the social media giant hasn’t removed the page, “Milkshakes against the Republican Party,” for its calls to violence against Republicans.
“Do you remember the shooting at the Republican baseball game? One of those should happen every week,” one post read, referring to the attempted assassination of GOP members, which almost killed House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La. Bickert read the post back to Gaetz at the hearing.
Another post called for “crazed shooters” to target Republicans at baseball practices, saying, “If you really want to be remembered, that’s how you do it,” before referring to the National Rifle Association as a “terrorist organization.”
“Any call to violence violates our terms of service,” Bickert clarified. However, Gaetz claimed Facebook responded to his staff after reporting the page earlier that “it doesn’t go against one of our specific community standards.” Later that day, Facebook removed the page.
“I am glad Facebook swiftly removed this offensive page; while I unconditionally support the First Amendment, inciting violence against others due to their political affiliation is not constitutionally-protected speech,” Gaetz said in a statement, The Hill reported. “While removing this page was a small step forward to making Facebook a safer place, bigger questions remain.”
“This distinction is not merely academic, as they are governed by different laws and different rules. If Facebook claims to be a neutral forum, it cannot continue to limit conservative content; if Facebook claims to be a publisher, it will lose its legal ‘immunity’ under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” he continued.
“They simply cannot have it both ways,” Gaetz said. “My colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee look forward to exploring this important distinction in the future.”
EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) speaking with the media about the memo released by the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, U.S., February 2, 2018. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rtrlnine536948-1250x650-e1532046310496.jpg389640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-07-19 20:26:342018-07-21 07:21:53Facebook Removes Death Threats Toward Republicans After Lawmaker Calls It Out
Vladimir Putin answered questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace in an interview recorded in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16.
TRANSCRIPT
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace: President Putin, thank you for speaking with us.
I am going to get to some specifics about the summit in a moment, but let’s begin with the big picture. President Trump said in his news conference that our relationship has never been worse, but that changed a few hours ago. How has the relationship, big picture, between the US and Russia changed today?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You know, we should be grateful primarily to our aides, our staff who have been interacting with each other not only recently to prepare this meeting, but for months before that.
I am referring to the work of our agencies in the spheres of special concern for the United States and Russia, primarily counter terrorism.
President Trump and I pointed out today that terrorism is a bigger threat than it may seem at first glance. If the worse comes to the worst, God forbid, and terrorists lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction, the consequences will be terrible.
Our military and special services are building relations in this sphere of crucial importance for our countries. A case in point is our cooperation in Syria, even though we do not fully agree on the global goal and ways to achieve it.
However, we maintain cooperation between our militaries and special services. Their work concerns the fight against terrorism in the broad meaning of the word.
Then, the New START treaty will expire in 2021. What should we do about this? I assured President Trump that Russia is ready to extend this treaty, but we definitely need to discuss details.
We have questions we need to ask our American partners. We believe that the United States does not fully comply with this treaty, but this should be discussed at the expert level. We also talked about Iran’s nuclear programme.
We talked about what we can do to improve the situation in North Korea. I have said this before, but I will repeat that I believe President Trump has done a great deal to promote the settlement of this conflict.
However, we will need international guarantees to attain complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Russia is ready to contribute towards this to the extent that will be required.
Therefore, it can be said that we can see eye to eye on these and several other issues of concern to us. This allows us to say that much has changed for the better during our meeting today.
Chris Wallace: But do you see the summit as a turning point, an end of the effort by the West in recent years to isolate Russia?
Vladimir Putin: And you can see that these efforts did not work out, and they could not have worked out, considering Russia’s size and importance in the world, including in the sphere of global security, as well as in the economy if we consider at least the energy component of the global economy.
I believe that our understanding of the things that unite us and the things we should work on together is prompting us to admit that we must stop fighting each other and should instead join forces to deal with common problems in the fight against shared concerns, so as to overcome these concerns. Therefore, I believe that this is the beginning. It is a start. I believe we have given a good start to this today.
Chris Wallace: Mr President, one of the issues that is standing in the way of more progress, as you know, are the allegations of Russian interference in the US election. You have repeatedly said, and you said again today, that this was not the action of the Russian state, that if there was anything, it was patriotic Russian individuals. I have here the indictment that was presented on Friday from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller that says that twelve members of Russian military intelligence, the GRU, and they talk specifically about units 26165 and 74455, they say – you smile, let me finish – they say that these units were specifically involved in hacking into Democratic Party computers, stealing information, and spreading it to the world to try to disrupt the American election. May I give this to you to look at, sir?
Vladimir Putin: Let me start my answer to your question from a different angle. Look, everyone is talking about Russia’s alleged interference in your election campaign. I said this in 2016, but I would like to repeat this today, and I would like the American audience to hear my reply.
First, Russia as a state has never interfered in the internal affairs of the United States, let alone elections.
Chris Wallace: But sir, this is the indictment, I have twelve names here. It talks about specific units of the GRU, Russian military intelligence. Is the GRU not part of the Russian state?
Vladimir Putin: I will answer your question, have patience and you will hear a comprehensive answer. As for interference in the internal affairs of the United States. Do you really think that it was possible to influence US elections from Russia, to influence the choice of millions of Americans? This is ridiculous.
Chris Wallace: I am not asking whether they influenced, I am asking whether they tried.
Vladimir Putin: I will answer you now, if you bear with me, you will hear my answer. This was the first thing.
Second, I said this in 2016, and I want to repeat it again now. What was the problem? It concerned the hacking of a Democratic candidate’s email. Did this attack involve manipulation with facts? This is very important. I want the Americans to hear this. Did anyone manipulate with the facts or plant fake information? No.
The hackers involved – don’t worry, I will get back to your question – read that candidate’s emails and learned about manipulations within the Democratic Party in favour of one of the candidates. That is all.
As far as I remember, the leaders of the party’s executive bodies resigned. It means that they admitted this fact. I believe this is the crucial thing. You must stop manipulating public opinion and apologise to the voters for what was done, rather than keep looking for those who allegedly did this.
Now back to these issues. I said at the news conference, and I can repeat this now. Mr Mueller…
Chris Wallace: You are indicating that they stole real money, not counterfeit money. So are you saying that this ok, the fact that they took from the DNC, from John Podesta, it was their real e-mail, so it is ok to hack, and spread this information out and interfere with the election?
Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. There is nothing false in the information at my disposal. Everything it says is true, and the leadership of the Democratic Party has admitted it. This is the first thing.
Second, if you do not like my answer, please say so, and I will say no more. But if you want the American people to know my opinion, then have patience.
As for the specific accusations, Mr Mueller has brought charges against a Russian company, a small business working primarily in the catering industry. I have spoken about this before.
This company has hired American attorneys to protect its name in an American court. This court has not yet found any trace of interference by this company.
Do you know about this or not? Let the millions of Americans know about this as well. Now for the [Russian] citizens mentioned here. We have a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, a valid treaty that was signed in 1999. It has been applied quite effectively. I cited an example of its effective application. Why cannot Mr Mueller and his colleagues…
Chris Wallace: I’m not trying to interrupt or be disrespectful.
Vladimir Putin: You are doing this.
Why cannot Mr Mueller send an official request to us within the framework of this treaty? Under this treaty, Russian investigators could question all the individuals that our American colleagues suspect of something. I have said this before. Why has none of this been done to this day? This is surprising. Nobody has sent an official request to us…
Chris Wallace: But the indictment just came. Let me just say. I don’t want to interrupt but I want to ask one question and move on to other subjects. Why do you think Robert Mueller issued this indictment three days before you and President Trump met here at the summit?
Vladimir Putin: This does not concern me. These are your internal political games. Do not hold Russia-US relations hostage to your political infighting.
By the way, it is obvious to me that this case has been used for internal political fighting, and this is nothing to be proud of for US democracy. Using law enforcement agencies for political infighting is inadmissible.
I have said what I think regarding this fact. Please, send us an official request…
Chris Wallace: Do you think that Mr Mueller is trying to sabotage the relationship?
Vladimir Putin: I do not want to assess his work. It is not for me to do this. Let the Congress which appointed him do this. By the way, the court is not sure that Mr Mueller has been appointed as special counsel in full compliance with American legislation.
According to the court, he was appointed to his current position in violation of the law. But it is no concern of mine. You deal with it yourself. As for suspicions and charges, a procedure is stipulated in the above treaty which you can use to send requests.
Chris Wallace: May I move on, sir?
Vladimir Putin: Of course.
Chris Wallace: I heard the news conference today. My opinion was a bit curious because President Trump spent more time criticising the Democrats and asking about the Democratic server that he did in criticising Russia and asking about the GRU. There are many theories in the United States about why President Trump is so reluctant to criticise you, and I’d like to ask you about a couple of them. One is that you have something on him, kompromat. The other is that as a skilled politician and a former KGB officer you know how to play him, you use phrases like “fake news” and “deep state.” And my question is: do you find President Trump easy to deal with?
Vladimir Putin: First, about why we talked as cultured people should. Why does this come as a surprise? Did we need to meet, go to Helsinki, Mr Trump across the ocean and I from Moscow to abuse and throw mud at each other? This is not how things are done in the global diplomatic practice.
There is no need to meet if you only want to quarrel and worsen relations. We met to find ways to improve our relations, not to destroy them completely. This is the first part of my answer.
The second part concerns the compromising materials you asked about. No, we have no compromising materials and cannot have any. I do not want President Trump to take offence, and I do not want to sound impolite, but we had no interest in him until he announced his decision to run for president.
He is a wealthy man, but there are many wealthy people in the United States. He was in the construction business and organised beauty pageants. Nobody ever thought he would be elected president. He never indicated that he had any political ambitions. So the idea of compromising materials is nonsense.
As you know, I said at the news conference that 550 American business leaders visited St Petersburg [International Economic Forum], and every one of them is more important than Mr Trump used to be. Do you think that we put pressure on each of them, that our secret services shadow them, spy on them and tap their conversations?
First, we do not do this, unlike you. Do not judge others by yourself. Second, we do not have the funds, resources or personnel to spy on everyone. This is just not in our plans. It is simply impossible, and we certainly did nothing of this kind with regard to Mr Trump.
Chris Wallace: I’d like to ask you a couple of specific questions about NATO. If NATO were to move to add either Ukraine or Georgia to the Alliance, how will you respond?
Vladimir Putin: The situation in NATO is as follows. I know about the decision-making mechanism used in the bloc. Of course, its decisions are taken by consensus, but before taking them, individual NATO members can be contacted on a bilateral basis, as it was done with regard to Poland and Romania, which now host elements of the US strategic missile defence system.
This poses a direct threat to our national security. Therefore, the advancement of NATO infrastructure towards our borders poses a threat, and our reaction to it will be extremely negative.
Chris Wallace: Secondly, there are two major NATO exercises later this year: Anaconda and Trident Juncture. Did you and President Trump discuss those and did he give any indication as he did with Chairman Kim of North Korea when he agreed to stop participating in war games. Did he give any indication that the US might not participate in these two NATO operations?
Vladimir Putin: No, we did not discuss this, although it is an issue of concern for us. The NATO infrastructure is expanding, and the number of NATO servicemen in the regions where there should not be any has increased by 10,000 people.
Under the Founding Act on relations between Russia and NATO, there must be no servicemen there. It is certainly a destabilising factor. We must take it into account in our relations. But President Trump and I did not talk about this today.
Chris Wallace: I want to ask you about Russia’s involvement in Syria. According to independent monitors, since the civil war began in 2011, more than a half a million people have been killed, and Russia has bombed civilians in Aleppo and Ghouta. No qualm about killing innocents?
Vladimir Putin: A war is in progress and this is the most horrible thing that can happen to humankind. Of course, victims are inevitable. And people always ask, who is to blame? As I see it, it is the terrorist groups, which have destabilised the country, that are to blame. I mean ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the like. They are the true culprits.
This is exactly what the US military reply, when they deliver strikes at civilian facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq or some other country. On the whole, although this may seem debatable to someone, but on the whole this is true.
As far as Syria is concerned, US aircraft delivered very serious strikes at the city of Raqqa. Earlier today, President [Trump] and I talked about the need to undertake efforts for humanitarian operations. I think we managed to make some headway in this direction. I am looking forward to the implementation of the plans we discussed today.
Chris Wallace: But the UN commission that is investigating Syria says and I quote their words: there was deliberate targeting of civilians by Russian pilots flying Su-24 and 34 military aircraft.
Vladimir Putin: Everything is to be verified and assessed.
But I would like you to return to what I have just said about Raqqa. The aircraft that were attacking this city were piloted by American…
Chris Wallace: We cannot talk about Aleppo and Ghouta?
Vladimir Putin: Well, we can talk about Aleppo and Ghouta, but then let us talk about Raqqa too. Don’t snatch some things out of their context and forget about other things. All right?
Chris Wallace: I do not think that there has been bloodshed in Raqqa. That there were hundreds of thousands of people who were killed in Aleppo and in Ghouta, and in the entire civil war – half a million people. By some estimates, 20,000 children have been killed by the Assad regime and his supporters in Moscow. Are they terrorists?
Vladimir Putin: You are completely wrong; I wish you were familiar with the real situation in Syria. A lot of civilians died in Raqqa. Raqqa has been wiped off the face of the earth. Now it is a solid mass of ruins resembling Stalingrad during World War II, and, of course, there is nothing good in all this.
To reiterate: it is the people guided by their terrorist beliefs and using civilians as hostages who are to blame.
Chris Wallace: At the G7 Summit, President Trump reportedly told the other leaders that Crimea might as well be Russian because everybody there speaks Russian. Did he give you any indication that at some point, not today, but at some point he might recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea, or lift sanctions, or move to bring Russia back into the G7, now the G8, all of which happened as a result of the annexation of Crimea?
Vladimir Putin: Let me make a correction: when Crimea joined Russia it was not an annexation, since the only form of democratic expression is the expression of the will of the people living within a specific territory.
People in Crimea came to the referendum and voted for independence and joining the Russian Federation. If this is an annexation, what is democracy? This is my first point.
My second point is that we are aware of President Trump’s position that Crimea is part of the Ukrainian state, as he has repeated today, while I articulated our position which is close to what I have just told you. Having said that, I think we should leave our discussion of Crimea at that.
Chris Wallace: All right, we are running out of time anyway. Let’s move on.
Last year Defence Secretary Mattis said that Russia is the greatest threat to the United States. And he has since made it clear, an even greater threat than terrorism. In March you introduced a new generation of Russian missiles, including what you called an invincible missile. You said that it could evade, defeat all of our missile defences, and you even released a video that showed that super missile flying over the United States and hitting Florida very near where President Trump’s estate is at Mar-a-Lago. Aren’t you escalating the arms race, and aren’t you being deliberately provocative?
Vladimir Putin: As for the video, it did not indicate that the missile targets US territory. You have to watch it more carefully. This is the first thing I wanted to say.
Second, all our strike systems target…
Chris Wallace: It shows Florida.
Vladimir Putin: No, it did not say Florida. This is not true. Watch it one more time, and pay more attention. It did not say Florida. All it made clear was that the missile was headed to the other side of the globe.
Chris Wallace: No, but you can see it on the map.
Vladimir Putin: No, you could not see this on the map. Just pay more attention when you watch instead of scaring your people with threats that do not exist. Yes, watch it carefully. Do you want me to give you this video as a gift?
As for the strike systems, let me remind you that they did not emerge out of nowhere. They emerged as a response to the unilateral withdrawal by the United States from the ABM Treaty. We warned our American colleagues right from the outset that we were not ready to build a missile defence system, since we did not believe in its effectiveness, and it was too costly. Instead we said that we would do everything to penetrate this shield.
As I have said on numerous occasions, but let me repeat it for the American audience, the response was the following: “The missile defence system we, the Americans, are building is not created against you, and you can do as you please. We will proceed from the premise that it is not against us.” In 2003 or 2004 I made a public statement about one of these systems. Our American partners did not respond in any way.
But now we have done it and showed what we have. That being said, this is a matter of negotiation, and we hope, and I hope very much that we will be able to come to solutions in terms of strategic stability that would be acceptable to both sides, including regarding short- and intermediate-range missiles.
Chris Wallace: I have limited time, I would like to ask you about the alleged INF violation, but I want to move on and ask you three final questions about Vladimir Putin. When you were first elected in the year 2000, you were portrayed as a democratic reformer, you talked about the value of European culture and you did not even rule out becoming a part of NATO. What happened?
Vladimir Putin: First, nothing has changed about me. I am the same as I was then. I became President of Russia when I was a grown man, and a person’s predisposition and fundamental beliefs do not change at that age.
But we have to react to what is happening around us. First, the two waves of NATO’s eastward expansion. When Soviet troops pulled out of Germany, we were told that there is one thing Russians can be absolutely certain of: that NATO will never expand beyond Germany’s borders.
There were two waves of expansion, contrary to our objections of principle. They did not give a damn about our objections. We asked you not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, but the United States pulled out of it unilaterally.
You disregarded our calls not to do so and our proposals to work together. There are other examples of this kind.
Take the developments in Yugoslavia. You know that President Yeltsin was categorically against launching military operations without the approval of the UN Security Council, which is the only legal way of using the army. But nobody listened to us.
There were other factors that complicated our relationship. For example, the extraterritorial application of American criminal law, sanctions, and so on. Was it us that introduced the sanctions? No, it was you.
You asked me about Crimea and Ukraine. It was not us who organised a military coup there and used military force to change the government in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution, and it was not us who handed out pies to the rebels. We are aware of the complicated processes underway there, but this is not the way to resolve them. And where is this happening? Right at our doorstep.
So, nothing has happened to me. I would like to know what has happened to you.
Chris Wallace: You say nothing happened to you, but I need to ask you domestically, not internationally, domestically inside Russia. Why is that so many of the people that oppose Vladimir Putin end up dead or closed to it: former Russian spy and double agent Sergei Skripal, the victim of a nerve agent attack in England, Boris Nemtsov, a political opponent gunned down near the Kremlin, investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, murdered in an apartment building. Why is that so many people that were political enemies of Vladimir Putin are attacked?
Vladimir Putin: First of all, we all have many political opponents. President Trump has many political opponents too. Take any person involved in state…
Chris Wallace: But they do not end up dead.
Vladimir Putin: Sometimes they do. Haven’t Presidents been killed in the United States? Have you forgotten about that? Where was Kennedy killed, in the US or in Russia? And what happened to King? As a matter of fact, what happens during clashes between the police and civil society activists, for example, from ethnic African-American organisations? Does this happen in Russia or in the US? This is all taking place in the US. You have many challenges within your country.
It is a sad truth that Russia has not been spared criminal activity. In fact, the Russian state is still in the making, and unfortunately there are many manifestations of this kind. We are fighting this, and hold perpetrators to account.
You have mentioned the Skripals. We want to see the documents on this case, to get a glimpse of any materials. No one has said anything specific, just as with the accusations against Russia of meddling in the political processes in the US. We have not seen a single document.
We now learn that two more people have suffered from the toxic agent referred to as Novichok, but I had never even heard their names. Who are these people, how were they hurt and why?
Chris Wallace: Supposedly they picked up the bottle that was used to attack Skripal. Can I ask you one last question, sir?
Vladimir Putin: No, let’s stay on the subject. What bottle? Who picked it up? Where? What was its chemical composition? Or can it be that these people suffered from something else? Can it be that you have to look inside Great Britain to find the cause?
No one wants to get to the bottom of this issue. These are absolutely groundless accusations. Why all this? Why make our relations worse? We want to build a proper relationship with Great Britain as well.
Chris Wallace: Finally, I know one of the reasons that you wanted to do this interview was so that people in the United States and the West could get a better understanding of the real man. You are often portrayed as a strongman, an autocrat, a person who is a symbol of Russia’s strength. Are those fair characterisations of you, sir?
Vladimir Putin: I do not claim to be a symbol of Russia. But from the point of view of current law, the national flag, the anthem, and the presidency itself are to a certain extent the symbols of the country – and not only those of Russia but also of any other country.
I hope that my work also reflects what Russia is engaged in, what it is concerned about, and what it is ready to do to normalise our relations with all countries, including, of course, with such a great country as the United States of America.
RELATED VIDEO: Russia describes ‘invincible missile’ – BBC News.
EDITORS NOTE: This transcript first appeared in Kremlin.ru.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/putin-chris-wallace.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-07-19 06:39:062018-07-19 06:46:00Putin: ‘Do not hold Russia-US relations hostage to your political infighting!’ [Video]
America needs good men who will stand in the gap to defend or way of life.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/stand-in-the-gap-e1531993668923.jpg385735Bill Finlayhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngBill Finlay2018-07-19 05:47:122018-07-19 05:48:02VIDEO: America Needs Real Men to Stand in The Gap!
Editors’ note: In light of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with the Russian government during the 2016 US presidential election, which now involves Trump Jr. daring to talk to a Russian woman, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin — by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy’s outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.
FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.
Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.
FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.
Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.
FP: Tell us about this document.
Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president—Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.
The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”
Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.
So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.
Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.
FP: Did you have the document vetted?
Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”
But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy.
Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.
I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.
Of course, all of those steps were extra, extra, extra precautions, since the reporter for the London Times had done all that work in the first place. He went into the archive, pulled it off the shelf, and the Times ran with the story. This wasn’t rocket science. I simply wanted to be extra careful, especially since our media did not cover it at all. I now understand that that blackout by the American media was the result of liberal bias. At first I didn’t think our media could be that bad, even though I knew from studies and anecdotal experience that our press is largely liberal, but now I’ve learned firsthand that the bias is truly breathtaking.
FP: So what shockwaves did your exposure of this document set off in the media?
Kengor: Well, I thought it would be a bombshell, which it was, but only within the conservative media.
I prepared myself to be pilloried by the liberal mainstream media, figuring I’d be badgered with all kinds of hostile questions from defenders of Ted Kennedy. I still, at this very moment, carry photocopies and the documentation with me in my briefcase, ready for access at a moment’s notice. I’ve done that for two years now. The pages may soon begin to yellow.
I need not have bothered with any of this prep, since the media entirely ignored the revelation. In fact, the major reviewers didn’t even review the book. It was the most remarkable case of media bias I’ve ever personally experienced.
I couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.
The only cable source was FoxNews, Brit Hume’s “Grapevine,” and even then it was only a snippet in the round-up. In fact, I was frustrated by the occasional conservative who didn’t run with it. I did a taping with Hannity & Colmes but they never used it, apparently because they were so focused on the mid-term elections, to the exclusion of almost any other story or issue. The Hannity & Colmes thing was a major blow; it could’ve propelled this onto the national scene, forcing the larger media to take note. That was the single greatest disappointment. I think Sean Hannity might have felt that I wasn’t hard enough on Senator Kennedy during the interview. He asked me, for instance, if what Kennedy did could be classified as treason. I told him honestly, as a scholar, that I really couldn’t answer that question. I honestly don’t know the answer to that; I’m not a constitutional scholar. I don’t have the legal background to accuse someone of being a traitor. I was trying to be as fair as possible.
Rush Limbaugh, God bless him, appreciated it. He talked about it at least twice. So did blogs like Michelle Malkin’s HotAir. Web sources like FrontPage hit it hard. But without the mainstream news coverage, the story never made the dent I expected it would.
I should note that Ed Klein of Parade magazine recently contacted me. He himself got a rude awakening on the media’s liberal bias when he wrote a negative book on Hillary Clinton. I’ve not heard back from him. But he’s a rare case of journalistic objectivity.
If I may vent just a little more on the mainstream press, Jamie: There’s a bias there that really is incredibly troubling. Over and over again, I’ve written and submitted the most careful op-eds, trying to remove any partisan edge, on issues like Reagan and Gorbachev privately debating the removal of the Berlin Wall (I have de-classified documents on this in The Crusader as well), on Reagan’s fascinating relationship with RFK, on various aspects of the Cold War that are completely new, based on entirely new evidence from interviews and archives. When I submit these op-ed to the major newspapers, they almost always turn them down. The first conservative source that I send them to always jump at them. The liberals, however, are very close-minded. Nothing is allowed to alter the template. You can construct the most fair, iron-tight case, and they turn it down. This is not true for everything I write on the Cold War era, but no doubt for most of it. And certainly for the case of Senator Kennedy and this KGB document.
FP: How about trying to place some op-eds on the Kennedy document?
Kengor: Here again, all the mainstream sources turned me down. I had no alternative but to place the op-eds in the conservative outlets. Liberal editors blacklisted the piece. I began by sending a piece to the New York Times, where the editor is David Shipley, who’s extremely fair, and in fact has published me before, including a defense I wrote on the faith of George W. Bush. This one, however, he turned down. He liked it. It certainly had his intention. But he said he wouldn’t be able to get it into the page.
I sent it to the Boston Globe, three or four times, actually. I got no response or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. It was as if the piece was dispatched to the howling wilderness of Siberia—right into the gulag—airbrushed from history.
The most interesting response I got was from the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, another very fair liberal, a great guy, who since then has retired. He published me several times. We went back and forth on this one. Finally, he said something to the effect, “I just can’t believe that Ted Kennedy would do something this stupid.” My reply was, “Well, he apparently did.” I told the editor that if he was that incredulous, then he or someone on his staff should simply call Kennedy’s office and get a response. Hey, let’s do journalism and make news! It never happened.
For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.
FP: So, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?
Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.
FP: Tell us about the success the book has had in the recent past and the coverage it has received outside of the U.S.
Kengor: The paperback rights were picked up by the prestigious HarperPerennial in 2007, which I’m touting not to pat myself on the back but to affirm my point on why our mainstream press should take the book and the document seriously. The book has also been or is in the process of being translated into several foreign-language editions, including Poland, where it was released last November. It is literally true that more Polish journalists have paid attention to the Kennedy revelation than American journalists. I’ve probably sold about 20 times more copies of the book in Poland, where they understand communism and moral equivalency, than in Massachusetts.
FP: One can just imagine finding a document like this on an American Republican senator having made a similar offer to the Nazis. Kennedy has gotten away with this. What do you think this says about our culture, the parameters of debate and who controls the boundaries of discourse?
Kengor: History is determined by those who write it. There are the gatekeepers: editors, journalists, publishers. The left’s ideologues are guarding the gate, swords brandished, crusaders, not open to other points of view. The result is a total distortion of “history,” as the faithful and the chosen trumpet their belief in tolerance and diversity, awarding prizes to one another, disdainful and dismissive of the unwashed barbarians outside the gate.
You can produce a 550-page manuscript with 150-pages of single-space, 9-point footnotes, and it won’t matter. They could care less.
FP: So, this historical revelation is not a revelation?
Kengor: That’s right, because it is not impacting history—because gatekeepers are ignoring it.
Another reason why the mainstream media may be ignoring this: as I make clear in the book, this KGB document could be the tip of the iceberg, not just with Kennedy but other Democrats. John Tunney himself alluded to this in an interview with the London Times reporter. That article reported that Tunney had made many such trips to Moscow, with additional overtures, and on behalf of yet more Democratic senators. Given that reality, I suppose we should expect liberal journalists to flee this story like the plague—at least those too biased to do their jobs.
For the record, I’ve been hard on liberal journalists in this article, and rightly so. But there are many good liberal journalists who do real research and real reporting. And it’s those that need to follow up on this. I’m a conservative, and so I’m not allowed into the club. Someone from inside the boys’ club needs to step up to the plate.
FP: All of this is in sync with David Horowitz’s and Ben Johnson’s new book, Party of Defeat, isn’t it? As the book demonstrates, many Democrats are engaging in willful sabotage in terms of our security vis-à-vis Islamo-Fascism today. And as the Kennedy-KGB romance indicates, a good portion of Democrats have always had a problem in reaching out to our enemies, rather than protecting our national security. Your thoughts?
Kengor: Obviously, as you know and suggest, this does not apply to all Democrats, needless to say. But there are many liberal Democrats who were dupes during the Cold War and now are assuming that role once again in the War on Terror. President Carter comes to mind, as does John Kerry, as does Ted Kennedy, to name only a few. When I read President Carter’s recent thoughts on Hamas, it transported me back to 1977 and his stunning statements on the Iranian revolution, or to 1979 and his remarks on the Soviets and Afghanistan. Many of these liberals and their supporters on the left literally see the conservative Republican in the Oval Office as a greater threat to the world than the insane dictators overseas that the likes of Reagan and George W. Bush were/are trying to stop. That’s not an exaggeration. Just ask them.
History is repeating itself, which can happen easily when those tasked to report and record it fail to do so because of their political biases.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/TED-KENNEDY-KGB-e1531992486457.jpg385640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-07-19 05:28:342018-07-19 05:31:19Ted Kennedy and the KGB: A reflection on the late Democratic Senator’s outreach to the Kremlin to undermine President Reagan.
People in highly developed countries take energy for granted.
Try living without it.
Millions of Africans still live without electricity. That needs to change. Fast.
Two of CFACT’s most distinguished scholars, Paul Driessen and David Wojick, posted a pair of articles to CFACT.org you should know about.
They discuss international development banks.
The first titled “Multilateral anti-development banks” explains how large development banks have abandoned the energy needs of people in Africa and the developing world and sacrificed them to climate ideology. They placed the huge profits corporations make on climate ahead of people.
“Foreign Operations” appropriation bills now working their way through Congress supposedly provide funding to “advance U.S. diplomatic priorities overseas,” “increase global security,” and continue “life-saving global health and humanitarian assistance programs for the world’s most vulnerable populations.”
The bills include handsome funding for the World Bank and other so-called Multilateral Development Banks: some $1.8 billion in total. The United States is by far the World Bank Group’s largest donor, and a major funder of four other MDBs: the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
In recent years, these banks have embraced manmade climate change alarmism as a key foundation for their lending policies. In particular, they refuse to fund the development of electric power generation via fossil fuels – thereby starving impoverished nations and families of desperately needed electricity.
Instead, the MDBs are pouring money into solar and wind power schemes that simply cannot produce affordable, reliable electricity on a large enough scale to help raise their client countries out of poverty.
We recently explained how Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) use manmade climate change alarmism to justify lending policies that reject funding for fossil fuel electricity generation, promote expensive and unreliable renewable sources, and thereby help keep impoverished nations poor.
Now, in a daring show of humanity and common sense, the African Development Bank (AfDB) has broken ranks with the World Bank and its like-minded carbon colonialist brethren. The AfDB has announced that it will once again finance coal and natural gas power generation projects. As AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina puts it, “Africa must develop its energy sector with what it has.”
In a formal statement, Adesina noted: “The key challenge for Africa is the generation of power. The continent has the lowest electrification rate in the world. Power consumption per capita in Africa is estimated at 613 kWh per annum, compared to 6,500 kWh in Europe and 13,000 kWh in the United States. Power is the overriding African priority.
“The investment is expensive, yes, but the long-term returns will be much greater. To fast track universal access to electricity, the Bank is investing US$12 billion in the power sector and seeks to mobilize $45-$50 billion from other partners.”
The big banks may have gone all-in on climate, but the “investments” they are financing will have no meaningful impact on global temperature, while causing real harm to people forced to live without energy.
The African Development Bank is wise to recognize this reality and to put its money on the side of providing real energy and genuine hope for Africa.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/africa-energy-poor.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2018-07-19 04:57:552018-07-19 05:18:23The Dark Continent and Africans for Energy
Americans deserve the facts, objectively reported. They know media bias is pervasive.
A recent Morning Consult poll found that only a quarter of voters now trust the media to tell them the truth, a record low.
The media savages President Donald Trump and portrays his administration in the worst possible light. Over 90 percent of his network news coverage has been negative, higher than any other president.
The muting of conservative voices by social media also has intensified. Social media companies have repeatedly censored, removed, or “shadow banned” conservative journalists, news organizations, and media outlets that do not share their liberal political views.
Facebook’s new algorithm for what users see on their timeline has disproportionately harmed conservative publishers. They’re getting fewer readers while their liberal counterparts haven’t been impacted to the same degree.
Recently, Google’s employees easily convinced the company’s management to cut ties to contracts with the military.
And Google has long faced criticism from fact-checkers over manipulating search results to slight conservatives. Google also has deleted or blocked references to Jesus, Chick-fil-A, and the Catholic religion. When will it stop?
Also alarming are the guidelines being written by these companies to define “hate speech.” Facebook’s newly published Community Standards, which determine what content is allowed, define these terms for the American people.
It violates Facebook rules “to exclude or segregate a person or group.” So a conservative organization calling for illegal immigrants to be returned to their home country could be labeled a hate group by the platform and their content removed altogether.
Some platforms have allowed liberal interest groups to determine what information is available to the public.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is allowed to influence platform guidelines and sometimes censor content that it deems “hate” speech.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has a “hate map” that lists over 900 organizations. These include pro-life, religious freedom, and border security groups—all popular with the American people. And all are unfairly targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It’s no secret that social media organizations are typically controlled and run by individuals who lean liberal, sometimes radically so.
It will require a constant effort by these entities to neutralize this relentless bias if, in fact, they really want to do it.
All media entities should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think.
Rep. Smith is a Republican who has represented Texas’s 21st district since 1987. Twitter: @LamarSmithTX21.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FacebookPhone-1250x650-e1531961365975.jpg366640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-18 20:50:442018-07-18 20:51:03The Bias Problem Plaguing America’s Social Media Platforms
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has taken legal action to stop the ongoing intimidation and harassment of groups opposed to transgenders serving in the military. Yesterday, TMLC filed a motion on behalf of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to stop an effort by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist groups and transgender individuals to compel compliance with a staggering subpoena for the production of documents served on CMR on May 3, 2018.
Kate Oliveri, TMLC Trial Counsel.
Kate Oliveri, TMLC Trial Counsel and the principal attorney representing CMR, stated: “This intrusive subpoena seeks information irrelevant to the underling case in which CMR has no part. It is an example of those pushing identity politics attempting to bully and silence any opposition through an abuse of the legal process.”
The subpoena controversy arises out of a federal lawsuit, Ryan Karnoski, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., filed in a Federal District Court located in the State of Washington, by several transgender individuals and major national LGBT activist groups to stop enforcement of President Trump’s August 2017 ban on transgenders serving in the military. CMR is not a party in that lawsuit and did not have any official or unofficial role in developing or implementing President Trump’s transgender ban.
Nevertheless, the LGBT-Plaintiffs served a broad-ranging subpoena on CMR located in Michigan, commanding it to search all its records and electronic files for documents and communications generated in the past 36 months, from June 16, 2015 (the day Trump announced his candidacy) to the present, between CMR and the President, Vice President and the Defense Department, relating to public policy on transgenders in military service or transgender people in general. Plaintiffs hope to uncover proof that President Trump’s order banning transgenders from serving in the military was motivated by “animus against transgenders” communicated to him by non-party groups like CMR and others.
The LGBT-Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel production of the alleged documents after CMR filed written objections to their subpoena.
Elaine Donnelly is the President of the Center for Military Readiness which she founded in 1993. CMR is an independent, non-partisan, public policy organization that promotes sound principles of unit cohesion, mission readiness, and combat lethality. Donnelly believes that policies should be based on empirical evidence derived from actual experience, not sociological theories and misguided political goals.
Commenting on the LBGT motion to compel production, Donnelly stated: “Their subpoena seeks to violate our First Amendment right to free speech, and to punish CMR for engaging in public policy discussions as an independent source of information and analysis. CMR refuses to be intimidated, silenced or deterred from our mission.”
Donnelly added, “Equal opportunity is important, but if there is a conflict between career considerations and military necessity, the needs of the military and the nation must come first.”
There is a concerted national effort by LGBT activist organizations to overturn President Trump’s ban on transgenders serving in the military. Federal lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed against President Trump in the states of Washington, California, Maryland and in Washington D.C. Subpoenas were served on CMR in three of those cases. CMR filed written objections in all three cases. However, a motion to compel CMR to produce the documents was filed only in the State of Washington case.
The demands on CMR to comply with the Subpoena are staggering:
All Documents and Communications from the Relevant Period between CMR and President Trump, the Executive Office of the President, the Trump Campaign, Vice President Pence, the Office of the Vice President, or the Department of Defense, concerning military service by transgender people, public policy regarding transgender people, medical treatment for transgender people, and/or transgender people in general.
According to the Plaintiffs, the definition of the word “communication” means: any transmission by one or more persons to one or more persons by any means including, without limitation, telephone conversations, letters, telegrams, teletypes, telexes, telecopies, e-mail, text messages, computer linkups, written memoranda, and face-to-face conversations; “communication” includes all documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) containing, summarizing, or memorializing any communication.
CMR opposes the LBGT-Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery on the grounds that such discovery is irrelevant and out of proportion to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case, imposes an undue burden on CMR, and infringes on CMR’s First Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/WYARMYGUARDGRADS-e1531957777865.jpg359640Thomas More Law Centerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThomas More Law Center2018-07-18 19:50:042018-07-18 19:50:04Court Asked To Stop LGBT Groups From Harassing The Center For Military Readiness
The Wisconsin congressman who introduced the “abolish ICE” bill admitted he would vote against it during an appearance Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” while also declining to comment on crime committed by illegal immigrants.
The bill from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., co-sponsored by nine other Democrats, was designed to dismantle U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Congress created the agency in 2003 to amp up security at the border and prevent illegal immigrants entering the country.
President Donald Trump has said he opposes abolishing ICE, tweeting that it will “mean more crime in our country.”
The Democrats want to abolish ICE, which will mean more crime in our country. I want to give ICE a big cheer! Vote Republican in November.
“What would you do about illegals who get busted for DUI [if] there’s no ICE?” Carlson asked Pocan. “Do they get to stay? What happens, specifically, in that case?”
Pocan refused to answer, seemingly having no prospective solution in mind, and instead pivoted to the issue of family separations. He said that reunifying children separated from their illegal immigrant parents at the border should be the priority.
A majority of voters, 54 percent, support the federal government continuing to fund ICE, while 21 percent of voters are undecided, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll on July 11. Those who support abolishing ICE, 25 percent, identify as Democrats.
COLUMN BY
EDITORS NOTE: The House passed a nonbinding resolution Wednesday backing ICE and denouncing calls by some Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists to abolish it, NBC News and other media outlets reported.
The featured image is of Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rollcallpix102258-1250x650-e1531955469254.jpg393640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-07-18 19:13:272018-07-18 19:13:27Congressman Who Introduced ‘Abolish ICE’ Bill Won’t Comment on Crime by Illegal Immigrants
Ever since the Helsinki Summit last Monday (July 16th), people on-line, in person, and on the radio, have been asking me about the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin. Specifically, what I thought about Mr. Trump’s comments at the press conference afterwards, and was Mr. Trump a puppet of Mr. Putin. In a nutshell, it was all a huge media spectacle designed to distract the American public.
First, I do not consider Russia our friend or enemy, someone we are about to engage in war. I believe Mr. Trump was correct in labeling them our “competitors.” He also noted how the relations between the two countries have soured to the lowest point in several years, which is why calling for a summit made a lot of sense at this point in our history. It’s like two large dogs meeting each other for the first time to determine who will be the Alpha male; they have two choices, either attack each other viciously or sit side-by-side tending to their own territory. We obviously do not know the specifics of what was said in the summit itself, but it appears the two dogs are willing to sit side-by-side.
Prior to the meeting, the Democrats didn’t want Mr. Trump to meet with Mr. Putin, claiming he wasn’t qualified to negotiate with someone as intimidating as the Russian President. Of course, they also said this about the Singapore Summit, the G7 in Canada, and the NATO meeting in Brussels. Plain and simple, the talking heads of the main stream media do not like Mr. Trump and it is not in their vernacular to say something complimentary about him. In other words, they were all prepared to attack Mr. Trump regardless of what he said at the press conference.
I listened carefully to the questions asked and the one in particular that touched off the firestorm regarded who Mr. Trump believed was telling the truth about Russia’s involvement with our 2016 presidential election, U.S. intelligence or Mr. Putin. After going through hours of in-depth discussions in forging a new relationship with the other big dog, the last thing Mr. Trump wanted to do was to provoke a fight in front of the cameras, which is why he answered the way he did.
This, of course, did not satisfy the press, the Democrats and the RINOS in Congress who accused him of being unpatriotic, a dupe, even “treasonous.” One talking head even compared this to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, something I do not believe the speaker actually lived through. Interestingly, I do not remember the same outrage in 2012 when a hot microphone picked up President Obama telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the election.
The outrage by the liberals today was Pavlovian in nature, causing their supporters to drool and cast doubt with voters. Is this nothing more than an example of the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)? Maybe, but I tend to believe it is more insideous than this. The real intent here is to create a much needed smokescreen to divert attention away from America’s booming economy as created by Mr. Trump. This is the Achilles Heel of the Democrats. To cover it up, the media is using the Helsinki Hysteria to cloud the issue so the American public is deliberately kept in the dark about the economy.
Think about it, the Gross Domestic Product is up, unemployment is down, wages are up, even Mr. Trump’s tariffs appear to be working on countries like China, where their stock market has dropped 23%. The President’s insistence on fair trade, and for NATO partners to pay their fair share, may seem callous at the time, but is beginning to work to America’s benefit. Unfortunately, because of the poor press coverage, most Americans are unaware of the progress we have made, which is how the Left wants it.
This frontal attack on Mr. Trump by the media, the Democrats, and RINO’s is intended to create fear thereby inhibiting how Mr. Trump conducts himself. This will continue unabated until the midterm election in November and probably beyond until he has been hounded out of office. So, the question becomes, should Mr. Trump change his style of management and curtail all other meetings until the election? Absolutely not; that would be worse than worrying what the opposition personally thinks of him. The nation must move forward, whether the opposition likes it or not.
This diversionary tactic reminds me of the scene towards the end of “The Wizard of Oz” where Toto pulls back the curtain revealing the true wizard. Dorothy and her companions are admonished to, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Today, the desperate Left admonishes us to, “Pay no attention to the economy!”
The hysteria was not unexpected. In fact, it was all rather predictable.
I would dare to say that if you asked Americans, specifically our children, if they believe our governments “See Something, Say Something” program is a needed and positive concept 99.9 percent would agree. This operation went into full swing after the 911 attacks by Muslim terrorists on our country. This program is actually a deceptive and very dangerous U.S. classified operation to condition Americans to inform on their friends, family, neighbors and others. Our government unfortunately wants us to follow the same path that Hitler put in place on his fellow Germans. Hitler brainwashed the German citizens that “ratting” on fellow citizens was patriotic to secure the security of Germany.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
“If you control the children you control the future”
This story is true in America. Liberals within our government fully understands that if you control the minds of the children, you will control the future. The U.S. government has now taken over the control of our children by slowly eroding the influence of their parents. Our children are being brainwashed in all levels of the education system.
Our government desires American children to feel comfortable informing on anyone they have been brainwashed by educators to believe have offended them in anyway or poached into their safe zones. This is the BIG picture of what the “See Something, Say Something” campaign is about. The SMALL picture that is fed to the public is that this campaign is to fight the war on terrorism. Don’t fall for it and do not believe one small atom of this lie.
I was a federal agent working numerous Top Secret operations for our government for almost two decades. Without disclosing any classified information, I can inform the American public that disinformation operations are conducted by our government to fool our enemies and in many cases to fool the very American citizens our government is bound to be truthful to and protect. The See Something, Say Something is meant to control the American people more than it is meant to harm our enemies.
This can be proven in various ways, but I will give a very clear example for Americans to ponder: There are dozens of private American counterintelligence and counterterrorism professionals like myself who receive constant calls from Americans about legitimate suspicious activity especially in the area of Islamic based terrorism. I often give them advice to notify the FBI, but I warn them that likely the Agent will not take them serious, ridicule them, or even call them an outright Islamaphobe. I tell them this because numerous Americans have told me this is exactly what the FBI has done to them. This behavior is shameful and very, very un-American.
My point is that liberals (communists) within our government do not care about truly protecting this great land from Islamic terrorists or other threats, nor do they really care about what adult Americans “See and then Say Something” report. Again I repeat, our government (aside from a few within to include President Trump) only desire to brainwash our children to advance their liberal long term agenda to turn America into hell holes like Venezuela and Cuba.
It is the responsibility of conservative Americans to be mindful of what their children are being taught in schools and prepare their families for the soon to be violent civil war in America. Thankfully patriotic citizens elected President Trump because this gives patriots from 4 to 8 years to regroup and acquire the survival tools for the war we will soon have.
HERE ARE A FEW QUICKIES OF INTEL:
There are now over 3000 Islamic mosques in America. 80 plus percent are Sunni Wahhabi and financed by Saudi Arabia. All are anti American.
The FBI and CIA are liberal political machines designed to turn America into a socialist country.
Illegal immigrants are a burden to America ten times more than they do any good whatsoever.
Muslims (both violent and non violent) in America do not want to assimilate and put shariah law above the U.S. Constitution.
ANTIFA and MS 13 are both criminal gangs who have no place in America.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/01-television-brainwashing-e1465480258539.jpg361640Dave Gaubatzhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDave Gaubatz2018-07-18 09:51:392018-07-18 10:15:46See Something, Say Something: A U.S. Classified Brainwashing Program
In an article titled “Vladimir Putin Humiliated Robert Mueller” Steven Ahle wrote:
Putin invited Mueller and some of his team to Russia to interrogate the 12 men. Then Putin took it a step further and reminded Mueller that the US and Russia have an extradition treaty and he could have the 12 men sent to the US to meet with Mueller and face the charges. To no one’s surprise, Mueller has decided to do neither one. I don’t blame him after what happened with the first 16 indictments of Russians. One of the companies they named didn’t even exist until after the time frame in which they allegedly committed crimes. Another company has aggressively answered the bogus charges against them. Therefore setting Mueller into full panic mode because he had no evidence against them.
Ahle goes on to note, “Then Putin hit Mueller with the knockout blow, suggesting that the US intelligence agents had helped Bill Browder funnel 1.5 billion dollars out of Russia, with 400 million being rerouted to the Hillary campaign. He asked for Mueller’s help in investigating the matter.”
The Russians say that Browder and his partners at Ziff Brothers Investments, a New York venture capital firm, illegally syphoned billions of rubles out of the country.
In the 2016 election cycle, Ziff Brothers Investments gave $1.7 million. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly two-thirds, or about $1.1 million, went to Democratic committees, and the rest to Republicans.
Putin said associates of Bill Browder gave $400 million to the Clinton campaign. The associates appear to be the Ziff brothers. According to public data, Ziff Brothers Investments gave about $315,000 to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
Overall, the firm gave about $1.1 million to Democratic committees around the country.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, shown testifying before Congress while serving as FBI director in 2013. (J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/robert-mueller-1-e1531908437602.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-07-18 06:11:412018-07-18 06:18:23President Putin offers to have Mueller interview the 12 Russians… Mueller declines?
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., is worried his party is alienating moderate voters by moving too far to the left.
“If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism,” Coons said in a speech on Thursday, according to U.S. News and World Report.
“And we’ve got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions.”
Coons also warned that the growing Democratic push to abolish Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, which enforces the nation’s immigration laws, is counterproductive.
“Abolish ICE is too easily mocked as open borders and no law enforcement,” the senator warned.
“Instead of having something that makes a Twitter hashtag and gets you on Rachel Maddow and fires people up, we need to have something that fires people up and is a policy position we can actually defend.”
“Forty percent of voters self-identify as pragmatic or moderate. We cannot abandon them,” he added.
EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Chris Coons, D-Del. as they arrive for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 26, 2017. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rollcallpix106903-1250x650-e1531870595639.jpg381640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-07-17 19:36:452018-07-17 19:37:03Democrat Senator Worries His Party Is Going Too Far Left
Sure, some of the anger aimed at President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is partisan bluster meant to placate the activist base.
Still, most Democrats were going to get hysterical about any pick, because any conservative pick was going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking.
For those who rely on the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool—forcing people to join political organizations, forcing them to support abortion, forcing them to subsidize socially progressive sacraments, forcing them to create products that undermine their faith, and so on—that’s a big problem.
Some, such as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, indulged in the histrionic rhetoric we’ve come to expect in the Trump era, claiming that Kavanaugh would “threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” But almost none of the objections coming from leading Democrats have been even ostensibly about Kavanaugh’s qualifications as a jurist or, for that matter, his interpretation of the Constitution.
“Specifically,” prospective presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued, “as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Surely, the former attorney general of California comprehends that “health care” is not a constitutional right but rather a policy concern whose contours are still being debated by lawmakers—and probably will be for decades.
What Harris probably meant is that Kavanaugh is an existential threat to the practice of forcing Americans to buy products in the private marketplace against their will. Kavanaugh, incidentally, upheld Obamacare as an appellate judge for jurisdictional reasons even though it displeased him on policy grounds. (He wrote that the law is without “principled limit.”) He did this because he has far more reverence for the law than Harris does.
Leading presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., whose collectivist doctrine clashes directly with the Constitution’s goal of restraining the state and empowering the individual, worries about “workers’ rights, health care, climate change, environmental protection, and gun safety.” He should.
Kavanaugh, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, is a critic of Chevron deference, the practice that allows administrative agencies to ignore their legal charge and have free rein to interpret statutory authority in virtually any way they please. Few things undermine the socialist agenda more than limiting our regulatory agencies’ ability to lord over the economic decisions of Americans.
Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, another potential presidential hopeful, said Kavanaugh “can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers, or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.”
To “safeguard” the rights of women means keeping abortion legal on the federal level, without any genuine restrictions. For Gillibrand and others, invented rights are sacramental, whereas other precedents, such as stopping the “flow of corporate money”—which is to say, the right of free expression codified by the Citizens United decision—should be conveniently discarded.
There is absolutely no guiding principle to any of this other than political preference.
It seems to me that with another originalist justice, we inch closer to a time when the majority of the left will simply dismiss the court as an antiquated impediment to progress. We already see this happening—not only from progressives but from supposed moderates. It’s why flip-flopping partisans such as Ezra Klein are now lamenting the “anti-democratic” position of the court.
By “anti-democratic,” he doesn’t mean the court legalized abortion or same-sex marriage without the consent of states; he means it has recently stopped the federal government from compelling individuals to act in ways he and many others approve of.
Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics and progressive conceptions of “justice” goes back to President Barack Obama, who promised in 2008 to nominate justices sharing “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
The left hailed this position as proof of a thoughtful and moral temperament, when in reality it’s an ideological position that allows judges to arbitrarily create law and subordinate their constitutional duty to their personal worldview.
Of course, there are a number of legitimate debates about how we should interpret the Constitution. And all justices aren’t political on all issues. Nor are all conservatives pure. But it’s the left that now embraces relativistic arguments about the intent and purpose of the Constitution.
I wish the Supreme Court were less important. But right now, it’s one of the only institutions preserving constitutional order. And that’s why the left is about to go nuts again.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: @davidharsanyi.
Dear Readers
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is among the Democrats who have spoken out against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/picture alliance / Consolidated/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180713_lizwarren-1250x650-e1531826648384.jpg376640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-17 07:26:102018-07-17 07:26:10Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh. They Fear the Constitution.
President Donald Trump’s administration released a plan June 21 that, if enacted, would impose some order on the sprawling administrative state—something that is long overdue.
Decades of ceaseless expansion of the size and scope of the federal government have created a bloated and inefficient federal bureaucracy, replete with agencies and offices with overlapping functions.
The Rube Goldberg-esque structure of the federal bureaucracy is not only expensive, it thickens the web of government red tape, makes government services less efficient, and makes mission failure more likely by splintering simple jobs among diffuse agencies.
Trump’s plan would begin the long process of rearranging the overgrown federal bureaucracy by grafting together agencies that do similar work and pruning away offices that have outlived their usefulness.
More on the specifics of the reorganization plan can be found here.
However, while the president directs the executive branch, its structure is largely the product of Congress. Through the legislative process, it creates departments and agencies, establishes their responsibilities, and determines their funding.
While Congress sometimes delegates authority to the president to determine how staff and funds are deployed or even how an agency is organized, major shakeups require congressional action.
Details of the Reforming Government Act
That’s where legislation introduced June 27 by Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and James Lankford, R-Okla., comes in.
Their bill, the Reforming Government Act of 2018, would give the president the power to draw up a broad plan for reorganization—the specifics of which could go far beyond what his administration has already proposed—to be considered under expedited parliamentary procedures in Congress.
If the legislation passes, the president could draft a plan to create, abolish, or move entire departments of the federal government (or sub-units thereof). Agencies that have overlapping functions—for example, the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration, which also inspects food—could be merged.
Government services spread across dozens of agencies could be consolidated into the most appropriate agency. Financial education programs, for example, are currently operating across 20 agencies, and job training programs are even more diffuse, spread across 40 agencies.
There are literally hundreds of similar examples of overlap, fragmentation, and duplication that a reorganization plan could address.
The only limitations the Johnson-Lankford bill imposes is that the president’s reorganization plan must be “efficiency-enhancing.” That means that any plan would reduce the number of government agencies and save money, while preventing the merging, abolishing, or moving of independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Election Commission.
Once the president formulates a reorganization plan, the proposal would go to Congress for fast-track consideration.
Like other bills, the plan would first go through committees in both the House and Senate. But unlike other bills, those committees would only have 75 days to read it and provide their recommendations to the Congress at large. Once the 75 days lapse, the reorganization plan would leave committees for the floor automatically—with or without the committees’ recommendations.
After moving to the floor of Congress, debate would be limited to 10 hours, and then members would cast an up-or-down vote on final passage of the resolution. At no point along the way would amendments be allowed. Essentially, once a president formulates a reorganization plan, Congress has two choices: Take it or leave it.
Why This Is the Right Approach
Johnson and Lankford are wise to want to empower the executive branch to develop a government reorganization plan, instead of asking Congress to take on such a heavy lift.
Incidentally, they are not the first legislators to suggest such an approach—Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Mark Warner, D-Va., introduced a similar bill in 2012.
The president, along with his or her White House staff and political appointees in the departments are more deeply embedded in, intimately familiar with, and prepared to diagnose the ailments of the administrative state.
Past Congresses recognized the president’s comparative advantage in proposing and carrying out executive reorganizations, and from 1932 to 1984, the U.S. government enacted 93 separate executive reorganization plans. But, in 1984, Congress let this executive reorganization authority lapse.
Aside from expertise, there is another reason it might be better to leave reorganization largely in the hands of the president. Members of Congress—each of whom serves on a number of committees that oversee one or several departments—often have incentives to fight any reorganization plan that lessens their own influence.
While all members of Congress might agree that something must be done to pare back the sprawling federal bureaucracy in principle, each individual member of Congress is likely to adopt a NIMBY—“not in my backyard”—attitude to any concrete proposal that lessens the size and strength of the agencies under his or her committee’s or subcommittee’s jurisdiction.
The Promise of Reorganization
The Johnson-Lankford bill might be a popular way for members of Congress to meet their constituents’ demands to “drain the swamp.”
To be sure, this Congress has already done much to help the president cut back red tape. Using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to strike down new federal regulations, it kept 16 costly Obama-era rules from going into effect. Prior to the 115th Congress, the Congressional Review Act had been used only once.
Reforming the structure of government is at least as pressing as checking its excesses. After all, the tangled, obscure, and almost impenetrable nature of the administrative state is what makes the swamp analogy such a popular description of Washington.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is of Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. who has introduced legislation with Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., that would give President Donald Trump wide latitude to restructure executive agencies. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/JamesLankford-1-1250x650-e1531825716223.jpg374640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-07-17 07:08:452019-03-06 19:37:45Trump and Senators Offer Plans to Reorganize Bureaucracy, Drain the Swamp
Here’s a word I never thought anyone would use to describe Senator Dianne Feinstein: “moderate.” But that’s the political twilight zone Democrats find themselves in, now that 28-year-old socialists are heaving the party Left. In California, where the oldest member of the U.S. Senate couldn’t even win her party’s endorsement, people are starting to wonder: could this gamble cost Democrats the midterms?
For Feinstein, the party’s decision to back Kevin de León was even more remarkable this time around, since she trounced him by more than 30 percent in last month’s primaries. Even so, California Democrats announced over the weekend that they were sticking with their guy, insisting that the five-term Feinstein was too much of a “centrist.” That’s news to most of us, who’ve never mistaken anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-family orthodoxy as anything remotely resembling conservatism. This is, as one California political scientist point out, “the strongest signal yet of just how far to the left California’s Democratic activists have moved, how emboldened they are…” But, as he and others caution, just because the state party is endorsing this over-the-top extremism doesn’t mean American voters are.
“It’s only a signal about the party’s most activist core,” said the University of California’s Thad Kousser, “not a sign that everyday voters are choosing a pure progressive over a pragmatist.” Already, the party’s candidates in other areas are panicking. They see this abandonment of Feinstein as a warning: move Left or move out. Some Democratic House candidates fired off a letter to the California state party, pointing out the devastating ripple effect of their over-the-top extremism. “A divisive party endorsement for U.S. Senate would hurt all down-ballot candidates and our ability to turn out Democrats we desperately need to vote in November,” they caution.
That’s because de León isn’t your garden-variety progressive. This is a candidate, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who would out-radicalize Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with his campaign to impeach Trump, socialize health care, and open the borders. And while his agenda might attract big party donors, it’s bound to cause a huge split with heartland Democrats who are begging the DNC to get back to basics. When your own party argues you’re “lazy,” “out of touch with mainstream America,” and relying on “too much identity politics” where “winners and losers are picked by their labels” — you’re in trouble.
But that’s the sort of desperation President Trump’s success has created for Democrats. It’s sort of a “derangement syndrome,” John Fund writes, “pushing many [Democrats] into positions that may play well with their base but that will be problematic if they become associated with the party in general elections. Socialized medicine, abolishing ICE, identity politics, political correctness, and sky-high tax rates may quicken the pulse of those who see themselves leading the class struggle.”
Even the more liberal members of the Senate worry where decisions like California’s might lead. This “rift in the nation’s party’s direction,” Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) warns, carries with it some significant risks. The party, he urged, needs to stress “pragmatic ideas,” not “pie-in-the-sky” policies that “might sound great in a tweet, like free college and free health care” (a jab at Ocasio-Cortez’s unrealistic promises). Like a lot of people, he wonders if the Democrats are betting the midterms on a platform light years to the Left of most Americans.
The latest numbers from Brookings would certainly suggest they are. Despite the rise of progressive House candidates (280 this year compared to 97 in 2016), the Establishment is still winning when it counts. “Of course many of the progressive non-incumbents are first-time candidates,” the group explains, “inspired by Bernie Sanders and turned off by Donald Trump. If they stay in politics many of them may do better in future races. But for now their record is… not great.” The more important takeaway for Republicans is this: “Progressive Democrats may not be winning a civil war inside the party. But, if and when Democrats have a chance at power again, progressives will have moved them on some pretty big issues.”
If a woman who’s taken a blowtorch to the First and Second Amendments, declared Christians unfit for public office, and supported partial-birth abortion isn’t liberal enough for the Democratic Party, then it’s a brave new world indeed. Meanwhile, if conservatives want to hang on to their majority, the solution is obvious: be more intentional than ever about highlighting the Grand Canyon-sized gaps in the two parties’ values. In a country that rejected the leftward lurch of Obama, it’s the clearest path to victory.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/democrat-party-logo-flag-e1531824223240.jpg364640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-07-17 06:44:082018-07-17 06:44:08A Dem Outlook for November
Ever since the Helsinki Summit last Monday (July 16th), people on-line, in person, and on the radio, have been asking me about the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin. Specifically, what I thought about Mr. Trump’s comments at the press conference afterwards, and was Mr. Trump a puppet of Mr. Putin. In a nutshell, it was all a huge media spectacle designed to distract the American public.
