Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Fri. May 12, 2017
Happy Birthday to our Helene…
Many more as well…
Many more as well…
Our Granddaughter Lauren and her husband Yurie have started a bathing suit website. They are both students at UMass Dartmouth.
Lauren is the model featured in most of the swimsuit photos (the young blonde model).
BTW, Lauren and Youri are high honors students at UMass Dartmouth. Youri is a 4.0 student and Lauren just behind that.
Here is their web site. Enjoy and let us know what you think. https://kalikaco.com/
CONTACT
Dartmouth, MA
+213 342 1669
7 Days a week from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm
Sales@kalikaco.com
Anyone who chants "Hey Hey, Ho Ho" cannot be taken seriously.
Bill O’Reilly’s wife makes SHOCKING claims...
(this is bad!)
Ousted Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is currently wrapped up in multiple sexual harassment lawsuits.
And another scandal just erupted — and if this this one is proven truth, it has the potential to turn O’Reilly’s supporters against him… and could even secure his place in history as one of television’s biggest creeps.
An affidavit from his divorce proceedings, signed and notarized October 10, 2011, was acquired by Jezebel and reported Tuesday. The document reveals an alleged case of assault by O’Reilly against his then wife, Maureen
McPhilmy… and the details are shocking.
According to her statement in the sworn affidavit, McPhilmy returned to her Long Island home in December of 2009 to find O’Reilly half-naked engaging in phone sex at around 10:30 p.m.
Caught red-handed, O’Reilly allegedly “flew into a fit of rage,” slamming his wife against a nearby wall so hard that the force left a hole.
He then allegedly immobilized her, wrapping his arms around her shoulders, neck and hands and dragged her out of the bedroom and down the hall.
McPhilmy claims O’Reilly then dragged her down a flight of stairs and through the kitchen as she screamed for help.
Finally, a security guard heard her cries and came to her rescue.
The guard, assigned to protect O’Reilly and his family, quickly adapted to his new role protecting the family from O’Reilly.
He recognized the signs of assault and asked McPhilmy if she wanted to file a police report, which she denied.
While the story isn’t confirmed, there are many similarities with the sexual assault claims made by Fox News’ employees, and common assertions of lewd and perverted behavior by O’Reilly.
Andrea Mackris, former producer of O’Reilly Factor, sued O’Reilly in 2004 for sexual assault. Her complaint was based on a phone call she received from her boss in which she could hear him masturbating on the other end of the call.
She claimed to have recorded the call, which was likely a factor in the $9 million settlement from O’Reilly.
In another tale of the repeat-offending creep, Fox News employee Juliet Huddy claimed O’Reilly made similar phone calls to her.
According to the New York Times, O’Reilly took advantage of the power he had over her career to force her to accept his sexual advances. Similar to the stories from the other two women, Huddy claimed he made phone calls to her in which she could hear him masturbating.
When she refused this, among other slimy advances, he attempted to sabotage her success.
Huddy sued O’Reilly, and settled out of court a payment in the high six-figures according to people familiar with the agreement.
While nothing is proven in the repeated accusations against O’Reilly, the similarities in the women’s stories raises red flags.
The most recent revelation of the assault claim from O’Reilly’s wife could be seen as grounds to make the final call that O’Reilly is guilty on all counts.
And another scandal just erupted — and if this this one is proven truth, it has the potential to turn O’Reilly’s supporters against him… and could even secure his place in history as one of television’s biggest creeps.
An affidavit from his divorce proceedings, signed and notarized October 10, 2011, was acquired by Jezebel and reported Tuesday. The document reveals an alleged case of assault by O’Reilly against his then wife, Maureen
McPhilmy… and the details are shocking.
According to her statement in the sworn affidavit, McPhilmy returned to her Long Island home in December of 2009 to find O’Reilly half-naked engaging in phone sex at around 10:30 p.m.
Caught red-handed, O’Reilly allegedly “flew into a fit of rage,” slamming his wife against a nearby wall so hard that the force left a hole.
He then allegedly immobilized her, wrapping his arms around her shoulders, neck and hands and dragged her out of the bedroom and down the hall.
McPhilmy claims O’Reilly then dragged her down a flight of stairs and through the kitchen as she screamed for help.
Finally, a security guard heard her cries and came to her rescue.
The guard, assigned to protect O’Reilly and his family, quickly adapted to his new role protecting the family from O’Reilly.
He recognized the signs of assault and asked McPhilmy if she wanted to file a police report, which she denied.
While the story isn’t confirmed, there are many similarities with the sexual assault claims made by Fox News’ employees, and common assertions of lewd and perverted behavior by O’Reilly.
Andrea Mackris, former producer of O’Reilly Factor, sued O’Reilly in 2004 for sexual assault. Her complaint was based on a phone call she received from her boss in which she could hear him masturbating on the other end of the call.
She claimed to have recorded the call, which was likely a factor in the $9 million settlement from O’Reilly.
In another tale of the repeat-offending creep, Fox News employee Juliet Huddy claimed O’Reilly made similar phone calls to her.
According to the New York Times, O’Reilly took advantage of the power he had over her career to force her to accept his sexual advances. Similar to the stories from the other two women, Huddy claimed he made phone calls to her in which she could hear him masturbating.
When she refused this, among other slimy advances, he attempted to sabotage her success.
Huddy sued O’Reilly, and settled out of court a payment in the high six-figures according to people familiar with the agreement.
While nothing is proven in the repeated accusations against O’Reilly, the similarities in the women’s stories raises red flags.
The most recent revelation of the assault claim from O’Reilly’s wife could be seen as grounds to make the final call that O’Reilly is guilty on all counts.
Gorka: Trump Fired FBI Director to Make a Statement After Comey’s Latest Testimony
On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to President Trump, said the firing of FBI Director James Comey was an example of how “incredibly decisive” the president is.
“The recent testimony of the director added that last straw to the camel’s back and proved that he’s unfit to serve, and that he’s lost the confidence not only of the president but of the agents that serve under him,” Gorka said of Comey.
“Before I came into the White House, I spent many years training and educating FBI agents, so I have lots of connections with them,” he said.
“When they tell you from one of the field offices that when the director gave that infamous press conference, where for 13 minutes he built a watertight case for the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and then in the last minute punted and said ‘no, I’ve decided not to recommend prosecution’ – when half of the agents in that field office stood up, as I was told by a reliable source, put on their jackets and left the office for the next four days, then you know your situation is untenable. You’ve lost the institution, Raheem,” he told SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam.
Kassam asked if it was wise for the Trump White House to get into a “war of words with somebody who will be testifying in front of committees, probably for the foreseeable future, who will become a face on the national media, who will write his memoirs now about his time there and his experiences with the new president.”
“As I’ve said before, I am a lowly deputy assistant. I’m not going to give Donald J. Trump advice on strategic communications,” Gorka responded. “Remember, on the day of the election the Huffington Post said Hillary Clinton has a 98 percent chance of victory. The New York Times said Hillary Clinton is going to win. I don’t think anybody has anything to teach the president about communications, what to tweet, what to say in a press conference. He’s broken the whole mold of strategic communications, and he’s done so despite the old ways of doing business. So I think he’s pretty secure in what he does, and he will weather any consequences admirably.”
Kassam asked for Gorka’s response to those who imply there is a “whiff of fascism,” as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews put it, around the Comey firing.
“I think they should go and live in a real fascist state like Venezuela,” Gorka suggested. “Go live there for a few weeks and check that out. It’s an insult to people like my parents who lived under fascism, and then under communism. It’s just outrageous, absolutely outrageous.”
“This is a man who, in every speech he’s given since January the 20th, has made it patently obvious that he is a president for all Americans, whether or not you voted for him,” Gorka said of Trump. “What he’s doing with regards to national security, the economy, revitalizing our international relations – they’re not partisan political. They’re really about the bumper sticker that was the election campaign platform: MAGA, Make America Great Again. If you see any whiff of anything totalitarian or fascist in that, you need to look in the mirror yourself first, and look at how fascist your tendencies may be.”
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
James Comey ‘Threw the Reputation of the FBI Under the Bus,’ Says Bureau’s Former Assistant Director
by DANIEL J. FLYNN
The former assistant director of the FBI tells Breitbart News that President Donald Trump fired bureau director James Comey for legitimate reasons.
“He was fired for cause in my view,” James Kallstrom informs Breitbart News. “When the referral came to the bureau close to a year ago, Comey knew at that point, if not soon after, that the Justice Department had no interest in conducting a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. They would never approve a grand jury and they would never approve an indictment.”
Comey, "mildly nauseous" to think FBI may have affected election
Kallstrom faults Comey for presiding over a “sham” investigation of Clinton. From granting unnecessary immunity deals to conducting an interview of Clinton not under oath to too slickly issuing a document dump the day after the Fourth of July, the FBI deviated from standard-operating procedure during the investigation of the former secretary of state’s reliance on private servers to send and receive classified material, Kalstrom says.
“He did something the FBI never does,” the former head of the FBI’s New York office points out of Comey. “It never discloses the charges against an unindicted person—ever.”
Kallstrom maintains, “He was so out of left field—the things he did.”
This included citing a lack of intent on Clinton’s part to rationalize not pursuing the case further when the relevant statute does not mention intent. “Intent does not matter at all,” Kallstrom explains to Breitbart News. “There’s no ‘intent’ in the statute. Nevertheless, in my opinion there’s a busload of intent.”
Comey angered supporters of Donald Trump when he refused to recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton in July despite finding numerous instances of wrongdoing. When he reopened an investigation into the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee less than two weeks prior to the election, Comey enraged the supporters of Mrs. Clinton. Ultimately, the FBI director less than four years into his ten-year term counted few friends in either party.
“The cause [for firing] is that he took upon himself authority he didn’t have, number one,” Kallstrom says of the former FBI director acting as a de facto prosecutor rather than as a mere investigator. “Number two, he told the public that he undertook a ‘thorough’ investigation. You can’t put ‘thorough’ and ‘lack of a grand jury’ in the same sentence. He threw the reputation of the FBI under the bus.”
The Trump administration noted a loss of faith in Comey and the need to bolster public trust in the bureau as reasons for the shocking dismissal of the FBI director. In the history of the FBI, just two other directors, William Sessions and L. Patrick Gray, acting as director in the wake of J. Edgar Hoover’s death, left the post involuntarily at the direction of the president.
“He’s basically a good guy,” Kallstrom notes of Comey. “I don’t think he’s done this with malice aforethought. He just lacks common sense. He just wasn’t up for the job of FBI director.”
Fake News Alert: Trump Catches CNN In A Disastrous Lie
President Trump took to Twitter to shoot down a report by CNN’s Gloria Borger claiming that Roger Stone recommended the firing of now-former FBI Director James Comey.
Borger cited “a source familiar with the conversation” and reported that “Stone was among those who recommended President Trump fire Comey,” but the president claims his decision has nothing to do with Stone.
Borger also reported that Stone spoke to Trump “after Comey appeared at a hearing last week on Capitol Hill,” citing the same source.
This is newsworthy because Stone is being probed by the FBI as part of its Russia investigation, that Comey was leading until he got fired. Stone, a longtime friend to Trump, has been mixed up in political controversies since Watergate and has been tied Russia, although he denies any improper contacts with Russian officials.
Six Candidates Trump Could Tap to Lead the FBI
Top prospects to replace James Comey range from career cop to a liberal judge
by Jim Stinson
With James Comey out at the FBI, a number of candidates have already been floated to replace the terminated director.
Vice President Mike Pence went to the Capitol on Wednesday to explain the surprise decision, and made the case to reporters about how Comey’s removal will offer a “fresh start” for the FBI.
Vice President Mike Pence went to the Capitol on Wednesday to explain the surprise decision, and made the case to reporters about how Comey’s removal will offer a “fresh start” for the FBI.
“Ray Kelly would be an excellent pick … He’s run big institutions under administrations — federal and local … So if it’s not Ray Kelly, they ought to try to clone Ray Kelly.”
Comey had irritated members of both parties, but especially Democrats, for his odd press conference on July 5, in which he outlined the numerous violations of the law former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed by setting up a private email server. But Comey concluded that press conference by noting that he would not recommend charges, and that no reasonable prosecutor would.
Ten months later, the news conference — and Comey’s subsequent attempts to justify it — has finally caught up with him. Rod Rosenstein, the newly installed deputy attorney general, is a man known for his knowledge of law and Justice Department guidelines, and his recommendation to the president that Comey be removed was one of the key factors in Trump’s decision to remove the FBI director.
Rosenstein believed Comey violated the Justice Department lines of authority by deciding, without the consultation of the attorney general, that he would announce the facts of the Clinton email case to the public. His memo on Tuesday cited the opinions of respected legal officials from both parties, all of whom concluded that Comey had crossed ethical lines by publicizing so much of the Clinton email case and by declining to recommend charges to the Justice Department because, in his opinion, “no reasonable prosecutor” would have pressed charges. The scathing memo focused almost entirely on that July 5, 2016, news conference, and pointed to a consensus within the legal community that it is not the job of the FBI to determine whether prosecutors would press charges in any given case.
The question facing Trump now is: Who would lead the FBI back to its position of fairness and objectivity, and restore its sterling reputation as a nonpolitical agency?
Here are some of the candidates being mentioned who could lead the FBI:
Ten months later, the news conference — and Comey’s subsequent attempts to justify it — has finally caught up with him. Rod Rosenstein, the newly installed deputy attorney general, is a man known for his knowledge of law and Justice Department guidelines, and his recommendation to the president that Comey be removed was one of the key factors in Trump’s decision to remove the FBI director.
Rosenstein believed Comey violated the Justice Department lines of authority by deciding, without the consultation of the attorney general, that he would announce the facts of the Clinton email case to the public. His memo on Tuesday cited the opinions of respected legal officials from both parties, all of whom concluded that Comey had crossed ethical lines by publicizing so much of the Clinton email case and by declining to recommend charges to the Justice Department because, in his opinion, “no reasonable prosecutor” would have pressed charges. The scathing memo focused almost entirely on that July 5, 2016, news conference, and pointed to a consensus within the legal community that it is not the job of the FBI to determine whether prosecutors would press charges in any given case.
The question facing Trump now is: Who would lead the FBI back to its position of fairness and objectivity, and restore its sterling reputation as a nonpolitical agency?
Here are some of the candidates being mentioned who could lead the FBI:
Ray Kelly, former NYPD commissioner
Kelly is the longest-serving police commissioner in the Big Apple’s history. He served from 2002 to 2013, and Trump has praised his work.
“What I think they really need is somebody who isn’t going to be smeared as a partisan,” said Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. prosecutor, speaking on “The Laura Ingraham Show” on Wednesday morning. “And what the situation demands at the moment would be somebody — if you could find somebody like him, he’ll kill me if I mention his name — but Ray Kelly would be an excellent pick … He’s run big institutions under administrations, federal and local, and administrations under both parties … So if it’s not Ray Kelly, they ought to try to clone Ray Kelly.”
Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers
Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) is a former FBI agent and is well-liked by FBI agents. He has substantial experience with the federal government that many of his rivals do not.
He served as a congressman from Michigan’s 8th District from 2001 to 2015. Most impressively, he was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2011 to 2015.
Rudy Giuliani, former NYC mayor
Giuliani served as New York City mayor from 1993 to 2001 and is beloved by many FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. Giuliani himself was a U.S. attorney under President Ronald Reagan who became known for his fearless prosecutions of mobsters and corrupt businessmen.
Giuliani was also one of Trump’s top campaign advisers, but he declined a Cabinet nomination and is already saying he doesn’t want the job of the nation’s top cop.
Judge Merrick Garland
Garland is best known for being President Obama’s failed and final nominee to the Supreme Court. The Republican-led Senate failed to act on his nomination during the 2016 election, allowing Trump to select his own nominee upon taking office.
Now some believe Trump could pick Garland to be the new FBI director. The job as top cop is not political — something Comey did not fully understand — and Garland’s Democratic roots would not matter too much in his duties.
“I like Merrick Garland a lot,” said McCarthy. “He’s a very, very solid law enforcement guy. He’s a political progressive, but I think I’d be much more comfortable with him as FBI director than on the Supreme Court … I think he’d be fine.”
Former U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte
Shortly after Comey’s termination, Fox News panel floated the idea of Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) for FBI chief.
Ayotte did not endorse Trump during her bid for reelection in 2016, and her ambivalence did not prevent her from losing her Senate seat.
But she may have earned Trump’s admiration by helping to shepherd Judge Neil Gorsuch through the Senate confirmation process on his way to the Supreme Court.
Ayotte served as attorney general for the Granite State from 2004 to 2009.
Judge Diane Sykes
Sykes is a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the 7th Circuit.
Before she was appointed to the federal court in 2004, she served for five years on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
“I think she’s great,” said McCarthy.
Mexico Ranked Second Deadliest Country in the World
As the total number of conflict fatalities decreased around the world in 2016, the number of intentional homicides exploded in Mexico.
With 23,000 homicides in 2016, Mexico ranked as the second deadliest country in the world, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) revealed in their Armed Conflict Survey.
The report, published on Tuesday, highlighted the effect that drug cartels are having in Latin America. Leading the way are Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador:
This assessment of violence in the region is based on more than numbers, although the 39,000 people killed in Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in 2016 indicate a security crisis much more complex and serious than most other countries in the region. Mexico’s 2016 intentional homicide total, 23,000, is second only to Syria.
…
In all four countries, armed forces have been deployed for many years specifically to fight criminal gangs and, in the case of Mexico, transnational drug-trafficking cartels, with military-grade weapons and vast financial resources. In all four countries, criminal groups have ambitious territorial claims: they fight amongst themselves and use arms to challenge the state directly for local control. Unlike traditional political conflicts, these criminal conflicts are fought to establish autonomous territories, not to pursue national politico-ideological goals.
2016 marked the second consecutive year that the number of conflict fatalities decreased around the world, CNN noted. Despite the decrease of 10,000 conflict fatalities from 2015 to 2016, Mexico’s homicide rate is accelerating:
As the Armed Conflict Survey shows, intentional homicides jumped by 22.8% from 2015 to 2016. Violence continues to increase. The first two months of 2017 were the most violent January and February on record, with 3,779 homicide cases registered by the authorities. The following month was even worse: March 2017 saw 2,020 murders. This was the highest monthly tally since June 2011, a bloody moment in the midst of Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’. In December 2006, President Felipe Calderon deployed the armed forces to the streets with the mission of crushing the cartels. But the resulting conflict brought misery to Mexico: 105,000 people lost their lives in intentional homicides between that month and November 2012.
Compounding the drug war is the corruption within the Mexican government. The organization that has the largest influence is the Sinaloa Cartel, which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) identifies as the largest and most prolific in the world. Court documents filed by the DOJ against Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, state that corrupting government officials was the cornerstone of the cartel’s success, Breitbart Texas reported.
In the 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reported, “Mexican TCOs [Drug Cartels] remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States; no other group is currently positioned to challenge them.”
Despite the risk that Mexican drug cartels pose to the national security of U.S., many Democratic politicians, and even some Republican politicians are opposed to building walls along the U.S.-Mexico Border.
In April, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “The president, I think, talking about this wall, is expressing a sign of weakness. He is saying I can’t control our borders, I have to build a wall.” Not to be outdone by Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), said the proposed U.S.-Mexico Border wall was “a political stunt.”
Obama: Smaller Steaks Save the Planet
BY MARTIN LIOLL
If you buy into the climate change agenda, Barack Obama wants you to know that change begins with you — and your T-bone.
In an appearance at the Global Food Innovation Summit in Milan, Italy, on Tuesday, the former president said it was the role of environmentalists to teach people to “have a smaller steak.”
According to Eater, Obama was appearing with former White House chef Sam Kass to discuss how cows are killing the environment with methane farts and various other alleged externalities.
“What’s true is I’m not a vegetarian,” the former president admitted. “That doesn’t mean we can’t teach [people] to have a smaller steak… This also means we’re going to have to find way start producing protein in a more efficient way.”
The president’s remarks on pollution and food are enough to make any right-thinking individual happy he’s gone from the Oval Office.
“I think people naturally understand… air pollution, so they can make the connection between air pollution and greenhouse gasses,” Obama said.
“People aren’t as familiar with the impact of cows, of methane. Some of it is just lack of knowledge in the general public… Part of is that food is a very emotional issue, especially here in Milan, right?
“Food is so close to us… people are more resistant to the idea of government telling us what to eat, what to grow.”
Apparently, this is another one of those moments where Obama is telling people to “eat our peas.” Literally. And he seems kind of unnerved that people are so resistant to the goshdarn government telling them what to eat. How dare they?
Your steak isn’t just to blame for global warming, though. Did you know the refugee crisis plaguing Europe is partially because you just can’t stop going to Outback?
“Some of the refugee flows into Europe originate not only from conflict, but also from where there are food shortages that will only get worse as climate change continues,” Obama said.
Oh yeah, and income inequality is also served medium rare.
“When most of the world’s poor work in agriculture, the stark imbalances we’ve worked so hard to close between developed and developing countries will be even tougher to close,” Obama said. “The costs will be borne by people in poor nations that are least equipped to handle it.”
It’s a rare (pun unintended) occasion that, when the the former president speaks, I would rather see him giving his opinions on the current American political landscape. That, at least, would be substantive. Wrongheaded, sure, but substantive. This business about food and climate change is just unmitigated nonsense.
Oh, and it’s nonsense that Obama doesn’t feel any compunction to practice, either: According to Breitbart, Kass noted that he’d cooked “thousands of steaks” for Obama during his time as White House chef.
In an appearance at the Global Food Innovation Summit in Milan, Italy, on Tuesday, the former president said it was the role of environmentalists to teach people to “have a smaller steak.”
According to Eater, Obama was appearing with former White House chef Sam Kass to discuss how cows are killing the environment with methane farts and various other alleged externalities.
“What’s true is I’m not a vegetarian,” the former president admitted. “That doesn’t mean we can’t teach [people] to have a smaller steak… This also means we’re going to have to find way start producing protein in a more efficient way.”
The president’s remarks on pollution and food are enough to make any right-thinking individual happy he’s gone from the Oval Office.
“I think people naturally understand… air pollution, so they can make the connection between air pollution and greenhouse gasses,” Obama said.
“People aren’t as familiar with the impact of cows, of methane. Some of it is just lack of knowledge in the general public… Part of is that food is a very emotional issue, especially here in Milan, right?
“Food is so close to us… people are more resistant to the idea of government telling us what to eat, what to grow.”
Apparently, this is another one of those moments where Obama is telling people to “eat our peas.” Literally. And he seems kind of unnerved that people are so resistant to the goshdarn government telling them what to eat. How dare they?
Your steak isn’t just to blame for global warming, though. Did you know the refugee crisis plaguing Europe is partially because you just can’t stop going to Outback?
“Some of the refugee flows into Europe originate not only from conflict, but also from where there are food shortages that will only get worse as climate change continues,” Obama said.
Oh yeah, and income inequality is also served medium rare.
“When most of the world’s poor work in agriculture, the stark imbalances we’ve worked so hard to close between developed and developing countries will be even tougher to close,” Obama said. “The costs will be borne by people in poor nations that are least equipped to handle it.”
It’s a rare (pun unintended) occasion that, when the the former president speaks, I would rather see him giving his opinions on the current American political landscape. That, at least, would be substantive. Wrongheaded, sure, but substantive. This business about food and climate change is just unmitigated nonsense.
Oh, and it’s nonsense that Obama doesn’t feel any compunction to practice, either: According to Breitbart, Kass noted that he’d cooked “thousands of steaks” for Obama during his time as White House chef.
“I don’t think thousands,” Obama responded.
“Well, hundreds maybe,” Kass said. “I’ve been cooking for you for 10 years.”
When you’re a Democrat, rules are for the little people. That’s true whether it’s something as big as Hillary Clinton’s email server or as small as the steak Barack Obama wants you to eat.
“Well, hundreds maybe,” Kass said. “I’ve been cooking for you for 10 years.”
When you’re a Democrat, rules are for the little people. That’s true whether it’s something as big as Hillary Clinton’s email server or as small as the steak Barack Obama wants you to eat.
FBI: Refugees Responsible for 15% of Terror-Related Investigations
And liberals still want open borders?
Out of over 2,000 “violent extremist investigations… about 300 of them are people who came to the Unites States as refugees,” former director of the FBI, James Comey, said in testimony last week.
This is in direct opposition to the claim from Democrats that refugees pose no threat to our national security. Claiming that they are “vetted” is a terrible defense, because vetting alone can’t weed out the bad from the good, as Comey admitted in 2015:
“The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, they’ve never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging.”
Mark Krikorian over at National Review had this to say about refugees and terrorism:
So 15 percent of the FBI’s terrorism cases are refugees – far more than their share of the immigrant population, let alone the general population. And that denominator of 2,000 presumably includes people with no immigration nexus at all – skinheads, antifa, Klan, environmental and animal rights extremists, et al. So the refugee share of immigration-related terrorism investigations is more than 15 percent, perhaps much more.
If vetting alone doesn’t work and banning travel from selected countries is merely a band-aid, what’s left? Simple: The U.S. can’t allow refugees to resettle here. Unless it is an extraordinary emergency, as Krikorian poses, but “even the UN refugee agency acknowledges that emergency cases make up only 0.4 percent of its resettlement referrals.”
“Help refugees where they are – our money goes much, much further and we can keep the security threats offshore,” Krikorian concludes.
This is in direct opposition to the claim from Democrats that refugees pose no threat to our national security. Claiming that they are “vetted” is a terrible defense, because vetting alone can’t weed out the bad from the good, as Comey admitted in 2015:
“The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, they’ve never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging.”
Mark Krikorian over at National Review had this to say about refugees and terrorism:
So 15 percent of the FBI’s terrorism cases are refugees – far more than their share of the immigrant population, let alone the general population. And that denominator of 2,000 presumably includes people with no immigration nexus at all – skinheads, antifa, Klan, environmental and animal rights extremists, et al. So the refugee share of immigration-related terrorism investigations is more than 15 percent, perhaps much more.
If vetting alone doesn’t work and banning travel from selected countries is merely a band-aid, what’s left? Simple: The U.S. can’t allow refugees to resettle here. Unless it is an extraordinary emergency, as Krikorian poses, but “even the UN refugee agency acknowledges that emergency cases make up only 0.4 percent of its resettlement referrals.”
“Help refugees where they are – our money goes much, much further and we can keep the security threats offshore,” Krikorian concludes.
Doctors Alleging Donald Trump’s Mental Instability Are Breaking Professional Ethics
These health professionals pretend the world is eerily silent on Donald Trump's fluctuating moods, and that it is up to them to reveal the truth.
By Cullen Herout
By Cullen Herout
Is Donald Trump mentally unstable? That’s what Dr. John Gartner is trying to prove with his Change.org petition: it’s been circulating recently, seeking signatures from mental health professionals.
The petition states that as someone suffering from a severe and persistent mental illness, Donald Trump, pursuant to Section Four of the Constitution’s 25th amendment, should be removed from the presidency.
The petition now has almost 60,000 signatures. Gartner asserts that Donald Trump has malignant narcissism, a disorder characterized by traits of both narcissistic personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder. The disorder earns the label “malignant” because it becomes toxic to the individual’s relationships and surrounding world. As such, mental health professionals across this great nation are claiming a “duty to warn” the world about the toxic nature of Donald Trump’s personality.
This Virtue-Signaling Lacks Credibility
A “duty to warn”? An ethical dilemma? This virtue signaling has crescendoed for several months now. But being an armchair diagnoser is never something a mental health professional is called to do. The profession has a longstanding history of not inserting itself into politics, and continues to hold that position, the presence of some leftists notwithstanding.
But since the mental health profession continues to move further left, this development is ultimately unsurprising. While Gartner does not expect Trump to be ousted from the presidency, he does plan to waste Congress’ time by presenting the petition to Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Don’t take this as a defense of Trump. He may or may not have a mental illness of some kind. I don’t know, and wouldn’t presume to know without talking to him and to those close to him. Those who oppose Trump’s presidency are quick to paint him as the malevolent version of Bill Murray’s character in “What About Bob,” an obsessive fellow whose concern for self-image is the only thing stopping him from dropping nuclear warheads on the entire eastern hemisphere.
Yet those who know Trump best portray him as a genuine, caring individual with a heart as big as the post-conversion Grinch on Christmas morning. Those two perspectives are very difficult to reconcile, and the claim that one can diagnose Trump without having ever met him is astoundingly arrogant.
The Ethical History Of Medicine Matters
The intricacies of malignant narcissism notwithstanding, the fact that these ethical concerns are being voiced by those on the Left makes them even more absurd.
The “duty to warn” mandates, also known as Tarasoff laws, exist so that mental health professionals may break the confidentiality of the provider-patient relationship in order to protect a specific victim. But the duty to warn doesn’t apply here because a) Trump is not their patient, b) they have no specific targeted victim, c) the “duty to warn” doesn’t give blanket permission to announce a mental illness to the whole world, and d) again, Trump is not their patient.
And just announcing to the world that Trump is dangerous doesn’t qualify as fulfilling some sort of ethical duty; it just makes them sound desperate to denigrate a president they loathe.
Don’t Take Ethical Advice From The Left
These health professionals pretend the world is eerily silent on Donald Trump’s fluctuating moods, and that it is up to them to reveal the truth. But typing “Donald Trump is dangerous” into Google will net approximately three trillion hits. We’ve seen nonstop commentary on Trump’s Twitter habits, his character, and his history of berating one group of people or another. Clearly, there is no shortage of people worried that Donald Trump is mentally unfit to hold the presidency. Pretending that one’s mental health credentials gives some bonus insight into a man who has been in the news 24 hours a day for the last two years is the height of absurdity. And I say that as a mental health professional.
The so-called Goldwater Rule, section 7.3 of the American Psychiatric Association’s code of ethics, deems it unethical to diagnose someone without having met the person or conducted an interview. Gartner has claimed that the Goldwater Rule doesn’t apply here, but it’s illogical to suggest bending ethical guidelines while simultaneously claiming to be doing something ethical. These doctors may think they are acting ethically by warning the world about Donald Trump. But if they have to break the ethics code to do it, they look like hypocrites.
Indeed, ethics deal with rights and wrongs, and how we should act in certain situations. Ethical concerns are guided by moral principles, tenets which serve to point us in the right direction along the way to our destination. To study ethics is to be concerned with what we ought to be doing at any given time.
This Is Hypocrisy, And Nothing More
And that’s the entire problem here. Taking ethical advice from the Left is like taking directions from someone with no map, no compass, and no sense of direction. We have put our faith in a philosophy that doesn’t have even a basic understanding of directions from which to work.
The Left brought us moral relativism, the idea that right and wrong are subjective. According to leftists, the concept of “ought to” does not, or at least should not, exist. The self is the highest good, and as such, any behavior or idea is good so long as it benefits the self and so long as the self determines that it is good. This is why the Left are, among other things, the peddlers of abortion on demand, people who firmly believe that killing one’s child is okay as long as the mother believes it’s what she ought to do.
The Left’s love of abortion speaks to an understanding of ethics that is blurry at best, and evil at worst. So please forgive me if I roll my eyes and pay no attention to their ethical concerns regarding Donald Trump’s mental health, and their deliberations on how best to proceed. Their concern rings hollow and ultimately falls on deaf ears. It becomes nothing more than another example of the emotionally-charged faux outrage. Ultimately, they have no objective moral principles on which to cling, which is why this appeal to ethics is so confounding.
The Left has done nothing to earn our attention when it comes to ethical discussions. And until they decide that protecting all human beings is a good idea, it will remain that way.
Cullen Herout is a pro-life, pro-family writer. He has a passion for writing about life issues, marriage, fatherhood, and creating a culture of life. He is a licensed mental health practitioner and has worked for almost six years with the post-abortion ministry Rachel’s Vineyard. Cullen also hosts a pro-life radio show, which can be heard here. Follow him on Facebook or contact him here.
G’ day…Ciao…….
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/05/httpift.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment