One Citizen Speaking

GAO ISSUES AN OPINION ON UKRAINE FUNDING: IS THIS MORE DEMOCRAT GASLIGHTING?

Once again, the Drudge Report issues a headline that portrays President Trump in the worst possible light…

Based on an “opinion” issued by the GAO…

Press statement regarding GAO Decision B-331564, Office of Management and Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance The following is a statement from Thomas H. Armstrong, Esq., General Counsel, U.S. Government Accountability Office, regarding a legal decision issued on January 16, 2020: “Today, GAO issued a legal decision concluding that the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine.  The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.  OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.”  The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.” The full decision can be found here. [From the Report Summary] In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA. [About the GAO] The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, reliable information to help the government save money and work more efficiently. The GAO is headed by the Comptroller General of the U.S., a professional and non-partisan position in the U.S. government. The comptroller general is appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a 15-year, non-renewable term. Gene L. Dodaro became the eighth Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on December 22, 2010, when he was confirmed by the United States Senate. He was nominated by President Obama in September of 2010 from a list of candidates selected by a bipartisan, bicameral congressional commission. He had been serving as Acting Comptroller General since March of 2008. [OCS: As we have seen, a number of independent, nonpartisan agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency,  the Environmental Protection Agency, and others have been politically compromised by their leadership, many with deep ties to the Democrat Party, the Obama Administration, and the bureaucratic deep state. Therefore, there is no way of knowing if this is a partisan report, but the circumstances are suspect.] <Source: GAO>

Who asked for this opinion and when did they ask for it?

[From the GAO Report] On October 30, 2019, Senator Chris Van Hollen asked the Comptroller General about this matter during a hearing before the Senate Committee on the Budget. Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990: Achieving the Vision: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Budget, 116th Cong. (2019), (statement of Sen. Van Hollen). Chris Van Hollen, is a Democrat serving as the junior United States Senator from Maryland since January 3, 2017. From 2003 to 2017 he served as the U.S. Representative for Maryland's 8th congressional district. Van Hollen is deeply partisan and served as the Chair of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) devoted to defending challenged Democrats in the House and to extending the party’s political reach. Van Hollen has a history of progressive politics, including the support for Obamacare, gun control, abortion, and has submitted legislation with Senator Susan Collins, a marginal Republican who often is at odds with her Republican colleagues.  <Source>

Is this opinion worth anything?

How many people remember when the GAO issued an opinion that the Department of Defense broke the law when the Obama Administration, at the direction of President Barack Obama, released five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in exchange for the deserter Bowe Bergdahl? No press release. No consequences. No muss, no fuss. If a GAO legal opinion justifies impeachment, Obama should have been impeached.

But, truth be told, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is prima facie unconstitutional as it would mandate that the President of the United States spend money with a corrupt government for purposes which do not advance the interests, national security, foreign affairs, or economic, of the United States. The Congressional Act is a direct violation of the Constitutional duties of the President.

Bottom Line...

Like any allegations, this release by an arm of a deeply partisan Congress is only an "opinion" and as such has not been challenged in a court of law nor did it include a statement from the Office of Management and Budget which disputes the opinion nor a statement from the President's Legal Counsel.

Unfortunately, in these trying times, I cannot trust my government, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We have seen government lawyers lie to the Court, dissemble, and knowingly issue false and misleading information. Therefore I can only conclude that legal opinions are like assholes – every lawyer and agency has at least one.

What bothers me the most is the fact that there were serious scandals during both the Clinton and Obama Administrations which led directly to the President, yet there were no special counsels, no investigations as their respective Attorneys-General ran interference on behalf of the President, and certainly no calls for impeachment – all for demonstrable offenses far greater than the spurious charges facing President Trump. The Trump impeachment cites no violation of civil or criminal code, no treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The House Democrats have trashed our Constitution and themselves are guilty of abuse of power and, in the case of Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, criminal acts relating to subornation of perjury.

The real bottom line: the Ukraine aid deadline was September 30, 2019 and the aid was actually delivered September 12, 2019 -- no harm, no foul -- and the evidence points to a political hit on the same day the Trump impeachment was signed by Nancy Pelosi, complete with ceremonial pens that looked like a golden bullet, complete with Nancy Pelosi's name. What happened to the solemnity of the occasion? 

The only party to collude with the Russians was the Democrat Party. 

We are so screwed.

-- steve

SENATE: THE CONTINUATION OF THE SCHIFF SHOW

There is no doubt in my mind that, should the Republicans take over the House and retain the Senate, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), along with members of his staff, should be investigated and prosecuted for their conspiracy to materially damage the national defense of the United States, and more specifically, perjury, suborning perjury, fraud, and manufacturing materially false evidence.

The time for investigation and evidence gathering is over. If the House Democrats impeached the President with insufficient or faulty evidence, it is not up to the Senate to continue the work of the House to remedy deficiencies in their case.

“There’s going to be new evidence coming out all the time. And if this is conducted like a fair trial, then that new evidence should be admitted. If it’s relevant, if it’s probative, if it sheds light on the guilt or innocence of the president, then it should be admitted. It will be hard, I think, for the senators to ignore new and probative evidence.. What are they gonna say? We’re not going to look at that. We don’t want to see it. We’re going to close our eyes and close our ears and just pretend it didn’t happen or we didn’t learn this fact?”

There is no doubt that between now and the election, politics will turn toxic. Perhaps with communist-inspired and led demonstrations from Antifa, Black Lives Matter, or other communist front groups.

What do all these things have in common?

• Support for the "Death to America" chanting Iranian mullahs.
• Police state spying, government-manufactured evidence, and bully-boy tactics.
• Charges of racism, sexism, and 'phobias to curtail free speech.
• Communist front-groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
• Reverence for communist dictators and thugs like Hugo Chavez.
• Passes for ethic gangs lime MS-13.
• Self-avowed communists like Bernie Sanders.
• Massive Clinton-style corruption that is ignored by the government.
• No cash bail required, releasing criminals into the streets, and tickets for stealing $950 or less.
• Setting $950 prosecution "stay out of jail"  on the theft of property.
• Theft of your hard labor and wealth redistribution to other politically corrupt groups.

DEMOCRATS!

Bottom line…

The country is being held hostage by a rogue House majority who has proceeded in a one-sided star chamber impeachment, demanding a speedy process for the specific intent to politically influence the 2020 election, failing to call relevant witnesses nor permit the Republicans to call their own witnesses -- such as the so-called whistleblower who started the entire proceeding with questionable behavior. If the Senate were to act in a fair and impartial manner, governed by the Constitution, they must reject the House procedure and dismiss the impeachment.  

Fair-minded Americans should realize what is happening to our country and that the revolution that Bernie Sanders speaks about is underway with the Democrat Party at the forefront. We are about to lose our country to the delight of the communists and Democrats, now much the same thing.

We are screwed.

-- steve

IOWA DEMOCRAT DEBATE

When these Democrat candidates for the 2020 presidency tell you big corporations are bad…

Remember the truth…

Bottom line…

Even if corporations, supported by corrupt politicians,  use legal tax dodges to pay little or no taxes, remember two things: one, politicians wrote and passed the tax code; and two, their thousands of employees have jobs and do pay taxes.

So instead of attacking a straw man, perhaps we should hold the corrupt politicians responsible for taxation policy.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

DEMOCRATS: COLLUSION STRIKES BACK -- “RUSSIANS HACKED BURISMA?”

Shades of Hillary Clinton…

Question: How to deflect attention from Ukraine corruption involving George Soros, Hunter Biden, Former United States Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, the Obama State Department, and the Obama Administration?

Answer:    Lay it all off on Russian disinformation inserted into a hacked Burisma server.

Russians Hacked Ukrainian Gas Company at Center of Impeachment

With President Trump facing an impeachment trial over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, Russian military hackers have been boring into the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the affair, according to security experts.

The hacking attempts against Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served, began in early November, as talk of the Bidens, Ukraine and impeachment was dominating the news in the United States.

It is not yet clear what the hackers found, or precisely what they were searching for. But the experts say the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens — the same kind of information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment. <Source: New York Times>

Russians hacked company key to Ukraine scandal: researchers

A U.S. cybersecurity company says Russian military agents have successfully hacked the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the scandal that led to President Donald Trump’s impeachment.

Russian agents launched a phishing campaign in early November to steal the login credentials of employees of Burisma Holdings, the gas company, according to Area 1 Security, a Silicon Valley company that specializes in email security.

It was not clear what the hackers were looking for or may have obtained, said Area 1′s CEO, Oren Falkowitz, who called the findings “incontrovertible” and posted an eight-page report. The timing of the operation raises the possibility that Russian agents could be searching for material damaging to the Bidens or scheming to plant forged data and sow misinformation online. <Source: AP>

Question:  Who is the security company and who is behind the company.

Q&A: Oren Falkowitz, the former NSA hacker defending presidential campaigns from online attacks

As a hacker working for the National Security Agency, Oren Falkowitz learned how to use a seemingly innocuous email to trick a user into giving up control of their digital lives.

Now he’s responsible for protecting presidential campaigns from falling victim to the same kind of attacks.

Falkowitz is the CEO and co-founder of Area 1 Security, a cybersecurity firm that protects dozens of businesses, nonprofits and political campaigns from phishing attempts. Four years after Russian operatives hacked thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, cybersecurity is a bigger issue than ever for White House hopefuls — and Area 1’s headquarters, in an incongruously historic Queen Anne house in Redwood City, is on the front lines.

This summer, the company persuaded the Federal Election Commission to allow it to provide low-cost services to political campaigns, which would typically be a violation of rules designed to prevent businesses from currying political favor.

About half of the major 2020 presidential candidates are now using Area 1’s services, according to Falkowitz. He says the company has already blocked attempts by foreign governments to break into campaigns’ networks — although he won’t divulge many details. <Source: Mercury News>

It appears that Falkowitz supports Democrats, including presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker…

And, I am unsure of who the company’s client may be…

The Cybersecurity 202: FEC poised to limit who can give political campaigns free cybersecurity help The Federal Election Commission appears poised to draw strict limits this week on which organizations can provide free cybersecurity help to political campaigns targeted by foreign hackers. The FEC just recently gave the go-ahead to a nonprofit run by former campaign directors for Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, upending rules that typically consider such free services illegal campaign contributions. But commissioners appear ready to reject a similar request from a small for-profit company that protects against phishing attacks, according to two draft opinions commissioners will debate at a meeting Thursday. Cybersecurity pros argue that political campaigns need as much help as they can get if they want to avoid a replay of the Russian hacking operation that rocked the 2016 election. But campaign finance hawks are wary of opening the floodgates to all security organizations out of concern they’ll try to barter for political favors later. “The concern is that a company provides free stuff to a candidate and the candidate gets into office and the company comes back and says, ‘Hey, you owe us,’ ” Adav Noti, chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center told me. Noti’s group wrote an early draft of the advisory opinion the FEC approved in late May allowing the nonprofit Defending Digital Campaigns to offer free cybersecurity services on a strictly nonpartisan basis. The reasoning, in a nutshell, was that the danger of Russian or Chinese hackers running roughshod over the 2020 campaign outweighed the danger of the nonprofit benefiting politically. But that reasoning shouldn’t extend to a private company, Noti told me, because a company’s main goal is making money and improving its standing – not improving democracy. “Corporations just have no business giving money or free services to candidates under the law,” he said. “That’s exactly the sort of corruption of the democratic process these laws are here to correct.” Yet security pros such as Oren Falkowitz -- CEO of Area 1 Security, the company seeking to provide the services -- say that limiting companies' contributions could leave presidential and congressional campaigns underprotected against an onslaught of attacks from Russian hackers looking to upend the 2020 contest or from other U.S. adversaries looking to follow the Russian playbook. <Source: The Washington Post>

Is it possible that Area 1 Security is working with Defending Digital Campaigns which may be run by the former campaign directors for Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney?

Apparently so according to this screenshot (https://www.defendcampaigns.org/partners)

Any “connected people” on the Board of Defending Digital Campaigns?

Board Members

Debora Plunkett, Board Chair

Former Director of Information Assurance at the National Security Agency

Debora Plunkett is a cybersecurity leader with over 30 years of experience.  A former Director of Information Assurance at the National Security Agency, she is currently Principal of Plunkett Associates LLC, a consulting business. She is a Senior Fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center and a Professor of Cybersecurity at the University of Maryland. 

Ms. Plunkett served on the National Security Council at the White House in the Administrations of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush where she developed national cybersecurity policies and programs. Debora earned an undergraduate degree from Towson University, an MBA from Johns Hopkins University, and a Master of Science in National Security Strategy from the National War College. (https://www.defendcampaigns.org/team)

Robby Mook

President of the House Majority PAC, CBS Contributor, Former Campaign Manager Hillary Clinton

Robby Mook is a nationally recognized political strategist, who has organized winning organizations at the local, state and national level.  Mook served as Campaign Manager for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, where he built a $1 billion, 50-state, 4,500-person organization.  He also ran Terry McAuliffe’s winning campaign for Governor of Virginia, U.S. Jeanne Shaheen’s first winning campaign for U.S. Senate and led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2012, when Democrats gained 8 seats. 

Mook is now President of the House Majority PAC, which is dedicated to protecting and expanding the Democratic House Majority.  He is also a Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a CBS contributor.  (https://www.defendcampaigns.org/team)

Matt Rhoades

Co-CEO of CGCN Group, Former Campaign Manager, Mitt Romney

Matt Rhoades currently serves as Co-CEO of CGCN Group, an integrated advocacy and strategic communications firm that specializes in helping corporations, nonprofits and trade associations navigate complex legislative and regulatory issues.

 In 2017, Mr. Rhoades teamed up with Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, and Eric Rosenbach, former Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s Chief of Staff, to launch the Defending Digital Democracy Project at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The initiative develops strategies to protect political organizations and election infrastructure from hackers and cyber threats. In 2015, he served as a fellow at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

Mr. Rhoades gained prominence working at the highest levels of political organizations and campaigns. As campaign manager for Governor Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, he successfully guided Governor Romney’s campaign to victory through a crowded field of candidates in the Republican presidential primary. In 2010, Mr. Rhoades served as the Executive Director to Governor Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America Political Action Committee. He also served as the Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director on Governor Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign. (https://www.defendcampaigns.org/team)

Bottom line…

I found the 8-page report unconvincing, and unlike professional-level reports, there is no indication who requested the report, who paid for the report, and what might be contained in the full report. All I found was suspicious generalities and attributions, nothing to indicate the subject nature of any material surreptitiously obtained. And, most importantly, there does not appear to be a forensic examination of the Burisma server or logs which might show foreign incursions.

Since the timing is suspect, the players appear to be Democrat heavyweights, and I have little or no confidence in the report or its findings. That is, if it is possible a state-sponsored group hacked Burisma, why would the NSA be above suspicion?

We are so screwed.

-- steve

WHO WON THE JANUARY 2020 DEBATE?

It appears that the race for the 2020 presidential nomination may come down to a communist, Bernie Sanders, and a clown, Joe Biden …

No winners and the real loser was the American citizen.

I wonder how many decent, hard-working Americans are wondering what happened to the Democrat Party …

The top issues

Constitution – continue weakening the U.S. Constitution by appointing activists judges who do not uphold inalienable rights and those granted by the Constitution, especially the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That may politicians are willing to violate the Constitution’s equal under the law provisions to confer special privileges and perks to certain classes of people is outrageous. The idea that historical grievances trump the law is both illegal and immoral.

Security of the United States – starting with former president Jimmy Carter, the father of Islamo-Fascism, moving to former president Bill Clinton, the corrupt president that allowed North Korea to go nuclear, to former president Barack Obama, the father of a stronger, more militant Iran, the Democrats are still looking to weaken the U.S. military and spend that “peace dividend” on their social programs. The current crop of nominees has decried the elimination of one of the top terrorists in the world, once again providing they cannot be trusted with the safety and security of the United States.

Jobs and the economy – all of the candidate support extreme spending on global climate change and other initiatives that would literally bankrupt the United States with expenditure far exceeding revenues and burdening each American citizen with a debt loan that amounts to involuntary servitude to the state.

Healthcare – all of the candidates support a version of a single payer plan which would kill the existing Medicare, eliminate private insurance and place everyone, illegal aliens included, under a state-run program that looks similar to Medicaid. A welfare program where all healthcare would be rationed by segmented identities and provide for those who provide for the state over senior citizens.

Law enforcement – continuing to denigrate and weaken law enforcement, allow violent criminals to roam our streets, and to incarcerate and release felons on the basis of race until the prison population reflected the same proportion of that race in the general population.

Immigration – all of the candidates would negate U.S. sovereignty and open our borders to almost any individual that wants to emigrate into the United States, including those who cannot be vetted and have criminal, terrorist, or adverse medical backgrounds.

Increasing authoritianism – to enforce these unpopular position with their dangerous outcomes would demand a larger government, higher confiscatory-level taxes, the surrender of individual freedoms and choices, and an increasingly strong government force to enforce these unwelcome programs. Do not delude yourself into thinking that democratic socialism is not the same as early-stage communism.

There is no doubt in my mind that allowing Democrats to take office at the local, state, and federal levels is a clear and present danger to all Americans.

Bottom line…

HO HUM … BORING! SAME LIES!

It appears that the candidates were more inclined to attack and demonize President Trump rather than expose the lies of each other and their dangerous policies. The one question I wanted to ask: why the inner cities, governed by democrats, are still cesspools of illiteracy, poverty, disease, and crime after the expenditure of trillions of dollars over the years, should not be used to judge corrupt Democrat policies?

The debate appears tailored for an Iowa audience. If I had to hazard a guess why the candidates did not go after each other, it is because Iowans hate discord and might penalize the combatants. People wondering why race was not debated, consider that Iowa is 90.28% White and only 3.51% Black. Likewise, there is an estimated 3% of illegal aliens in the state. 

We are so screwed.

-- steve

MOBILITY: THE ULTIMATE FREEDOM

While most adults are anchored in place by family, finances, and other circumstances, perhaps it is time to take another look at mobility and freedom, especially if you can influence younger Americans.

Here in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, we have a progressive socialist democrat majority in state government that is doing everything in their power to limit the ability of its residents to move freely about the state or travel to other states. Attempting to use public policies to push residents into highly-concentrated, and more controllable, population centers dependent on union-controlled mass transit. From refusing to repair, replace, or build-out freeways to the creation of a multi-billion dollar train whose route goes nowhere essential, will never pay for itself, is not high-speed as promised, and is little more than a union make-work project. All paid for by taxpayers who are funding democrat politicians who are using their money to gain or maintain political power.

There have been numerous studies showing states, counties, and municipalities governed by progressive socialist democrats are poorly run, rife with corruption, and in general, impose a staggering social and financial burden not found in states governed by Republicans.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Blue State Redistribution: High-tax states are losing people, money, and seats in Congress,” the Wall Street Editorial Board found that corporations and individuals are on the move.

Blue State Redistribution High-tax states are losing people, money and seats in Congress. The Census Bureau and IRS last week also released state population growth and income migration data for 2018 that show the exodus from high-tax to low-tax states is accelerating. Four states have lost population since 2010 including West Virginia (-3.3%), Illinois (-1.2%), Vermont (-0.3%) and Connecticut (-0.2%), but 10 experienced declines last year. New York was the biggest loser as a net 180,000 people left for better climes. Over the last decade New York has lost more of its population to other states (7.2%) than any other save Alaska (8%), followed by Illinois (6.8%), Connecticut (5.6%) and New Jersey (5.5%). Hmmm, what do these states have in common? Large tax burdens and politically powerful public unions. Illinois’s property tax rates are the second highest in the country after New Jersey. The state lost $5.6 billion in adjusted gross income last year to other states, about twice as much as in 2012. Notably, income outflow hasn’t increased from Michigan or Wisconsin.

Bottom line…

If you look at the charts, you will see that more than individuals are leaving certain states, corporations and their jobs are also moving. If this trend continues, the key to survival will be mobility, the ability to follow the jobs, and improved living conditions. Perhaps it is now time to caution children and young adults about the accumulation of “stuff,” which can also impede mobility as you no longer own your things, but they own you.

The demographics make a strong case against the progressive socialist democrats. So does common sense and a sense of patriotism.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS AND THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE

There is little or no doubt that most progressive socialist democrat environment activists believe that the ends justify the means, fair or foul. Hence it is no surprise when they abandon the scientific method and research that cannot be replicated in favor of over-hyped dystopian scenarios designed to advance a progressive socialist agenda.

Hence, there are three unproven assumptions that color all research funding, and consequently, the results of many studies.

Anything "natural" is always a superior state.
The environment is "fragile" and thus needs protection from humans.
Human interventions in any environmental processes are significantly damaging unless created, managed, and monitored by progressive activists.

All resulting in the creation of problems, issues, and matters that must be urgently addressed lest they result in a planetary emergency or catastrophe.

And, that the remedy is always individual and organizational behavior modification through public policy, even when such public policies are clearly threatening to individual citizens and commerce. Namely, public policies that promote larger government, higher taxes, stricter regulations, and the curtailment of individual freedoms and choices.

Thus, research is used by the progressive socialist democrats to justify a  multiplicity of public policies that always seem to point away from inalienable rights, individualism and capitalism toward totalitarianism and collectivism. With liberal allowance for political activities that support a feedback loop between corrupt politicians and self-serving special interests that seek to access the public treasury or create rules and regulations that favor their various enterprises.

Unfortunately, the media, in all forms, has been corrupted by politics and corporate interests and can no longer be relied on to explain issues in an unbiased manner and that the divide between journalist-driven news and commentary has become almost non-existent.

Subversion starts with language and definitions. Take, for example, the simple concept of environmental stewardship, an ethical concept where individuals and organizations take the responsibility for the maintenance and preservation of natural resources. Nobody wants polluted air, land, or water, yet the corrupt politicians often devise ways to allow gross polluters to continue their harmful and odious practices by purchasing government-sanctioned indulgences, permission to pollute in exchange for tax revenues or fees, campaign contributions, voter support, or media attention.

As an example of disingenuous intellectual dishonest, consider that the very last thing progressive socialist democrats want is low-cost, clean, sustainable, reliable, and abundant energy. For with abundant energy comes economic growth and higher standards of living. And with prosperity comes fewer needs for politicians to manage the real or imagined scarcity which underlies their political power.

Bottom line...

We are so screwed,

-- steve

NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION: RANK PARTISANSHIP ON BEHALF OF THE DEMOCRATS

In what appears to by a display of rank partisan political hypocrisy, the New York City Bar Association has written a letter to the leaders of Congress, condemning the actions of Attorney General William Barr and requesting an investigation into his conduct.

We write on behalf of the New York City Bar Association (the “City Bar”) to urge Congress to commence formal inquiries into a pattern of conduct by Attorney General William P. Barr that threatens public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice. We make this request based upon our belief, as similarly recognized by Mr. Barr during his Senate confirmation hearings, that the Attorney General occupies a unique position with special obligations as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. We also make this request in keeping with the City Bar’s mission to embrace advancement of the rule of law and the fair administration of justice, especially by those who are entrusted with important public responsibilities. [OCS: Given the public record of the criminal actions involving some of the Obama Administration’s highest officials who happen to be attorneys this letter is yet another rank partisan attack on the Trump Administration. The Obama Administration ignored the rule of law and the fair administration of justice on numerous occasions – including lying to the Court multiple times on numerous cases. With nary a peep from the City Bar Association about the corruption and partisanship of the heads of the Obama Department of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and many more. If the City Bar were to take exception to all of the public misstatements by lawyers, they would actually have something to do other than manufacturing anti-Trump, anti-Barr controversy prior to the release of reports that are likely to condemn a fair number of lawyers – including one who altered documents submitted to the court.] [Excerpts]      On December 10, 2019, in a television interview soon after DOJ’s Inspector General released a report finding no improper political motivation in the FBI’s commencement of a counterintelligence investigation into alleged ties between the Trump-Pence campaign and Russian officials in 2016, Mr. Barr publicly rejected the Inspector General’s findings, asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the FBI’s actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion. Although that second investigation (which is being supervised by a different DOJ official) is not yet complete, Mr. Barr nevertheless openly discussed his opinions about the likely outcome of that investigation. In a separate statement the previous day, Mr. Barr asserted that the FBI’s factual predicate was “insufficient to justify” its investigation and that the FBI may have acted in “bad faith” in commencing that investigation. [OCS: Based on documents available to the public, the IG’s efforts were artificially constrained by a date that did not allow the examination of relevant documents occurring before that date. Additionally, the IG’s efforts were limited to “current employees" of the department. And since the IG lacked subpoena power and could not interview those who had been fired or left government service voluntarily, the report is incomplete and the conclusions drawn may not be accurate when multi-departmental actions are considered. In this, the report is deeply flawed.]      These comments follow and are reminiscent of Mr. Barr’s earlier mischaracterizations of the Mueller Report, prior to his release of a redacted version of it, in which Mr. Barr claimed the special counsel had found insufficient evidence of any obstruction of justice by President Trump—a material mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and a proposition rejected by more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors based on the facts set forth in the Mueller Report. [OCS: First, the “Mueller Report” is a privileged report to the Attorney General explaining why certain actions were taken or not taken. It is not meant to be public report as Muller had a singular duty: make a finding of fact and then indict or do not indict the subject. Second, Mueller’s Report was written as an ambiguous impeachment document by deeply partisan individuals who themselves may be accused of criminal wrongdoing with respect to the last FISA renewal declaration. And third, since Mueller did not taken any position on the obstruction of justice allegation, it was left to the Attorney General to make the final decision. He found the evidence unconvincing and appropriately dismissed the matter. As for the partisan opinions of former federal prosecutors, of which there are tens of thousands, the opinions of individuals without access to the underlying evidence and who must rely on a partisan-written report is worthless in a court of law and in general.]      These public statements by Mr. Barr also contravene the norms applicable to his office and warrant further investigation by Congress as part of an inquiry into Mr. Barr’s conduct as Attorney General more generally. [OCS: I would say that, given the public information, the norms and protocols applicable to each and every department involved in Crossfire Hurricane were violated and warrant investigation, and most likely criminal prosecution.]      They may even implicate ethical considerations, insofar as prosecutors must generally avoid public comments on ongoing investigations and must not manifest any bias or prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or partisan political considerations in exercising their prosecutorial discretion. [OCS: For the City Bar Association to even mention the word “ethics” is the height of hypocrisy given the conduct of their membership over the years. There are no checks and balances that provide the public access to the activities of the City Bar’s disciplinary process as most matters are handled in a confidential manner.]       Although we do not in this letter take any position on whether or not Mr. Barr has violated any Rules of Professional Conduct, at least one leading legal ethics authority has suggested that government lawyers have special obligations to be factually accurate in their public statements, and should be bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, even if they do not represent clients in the traditional sense. [OCS: Of course they have taken a position – they don’t like Attorney General Barr and will do anything to muddy or destroy his reputation prior to the release of further reports of criminality or malfeasance in this presidential campaign season. As for government lawyers having a special obligation to be factual in their public statements, perhaps they haven’t read their own leftist rag, the New York Times?]      For the reasons stated above, we have significant concerns about the propriety of Mr. Barr’s recent actions and statements. We urge Congress to exercise its constitutional obligations by expeditiously commencing formal inquiries into Mr. Barr’s conduct. [OCS: Funny, the City Bar Association wasn’t too concerned about Attorney General Eric Holder’s statements, Contempt of Congress, or actions during the Obama Administration. Likewise, not a peep out of the City Bar Association about Lorretta Lynch’s “secret meeting” with Bill Clinton or her behavior during her tenure. Can you say that the City Bar Association is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and run by rank partisans beholden to the Democrat Party? – you bet!] For those wishing to read the complete letter, in context and with full lawyerly footnotes, it can be downloaded from the New York Bar Association.

Bottom line…

Where is the New York City Bar Association’s outrage over FBI James Comey usurping the powers of the Department of Justice and using a nonexistent element of law to excuse Hillary Clinton's clearly criminal behavior? The New York City Bar Association is a joke and should be disbanded as a public service.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

GEORGE CARLIN WAS A VERY FUNNY LEFTY ...

BUTTIGIEG: BLAME AMERICA FIRST

A stunning example of why Pete “Blame America First” Buttigieg should never be President of the United States…

Blow it out your Buttigieg…

Is this 2020 Presidential candidate, progressive socialist democrat Pete Buttigieg saying that the United States may be partly to blame for the Iranians downing a civilian airliner with anti-aircraft fire? (Possibly a Russian SA-15 surface-to-air missile.)

Perhaps he should be requesting answers to why the Iranian air controllers ever issued a takeoff clearance to this aircraft during times of military hostilities, knowing that there were active anti-aircraft weapons in the area?

If anyone is to be blamed, the responsibility lies with the foreign regulators and air carriers themselves. The decision to fly through troubled areas is often a probability and economic calculation as the additional miles flown to avoid trouble spots mean higher fuel and operating costs for airlines, not to mention disruptions in scheduling.

Hours before the Ukrainian plane was allegedly shot down, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) issued a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) warning of dangers in the region and issued a “no-fly” order prohibiting flight activities in the airspace over Iraq, Iran, and the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHICH PRESENT AN INADVERTENT RISK TO U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCALCULATION OR MIS-IDENTIFICATION..

And to characterize retaliation for an attack on our embassy or our drone strike against a known long-time senior terrorist with significant American blood on his hands as “an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat” should forever prevent Buttigieg from becoming Commander-in-Chief.

Buttigieg served for seven months in Afghanistan, a war of which he approved, as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Reserve, returning to the United States on September 23, 2014. While deployed, he was assigned to the Afghan Threat Finance Cell, a counterterrorism unit that targeted Taliban insurgency financing. He was not officially in combat but faced the typical threats to anyone who ventured outside the wire. A foreign policy expert and military strategist he is not. And, I am not so sure he is a pro-America, anti-communist leader. In fact, he is a confirmed socialist if you listen to what he is saying or reading what he writes.

Bottom line …

It appears that we will be faced by the four B’s -- Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, and bullshit in the primaries. We are so screwed.

-- steve