The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
. liar-nObama's NSA Illegally Surveilled Americans
for Years
More information has come to light revealing the degree to which Barack liar-nObama and his administration violated protocols designed to protect Americans from unlawful government surveillance. Conveniently, in October of last year, just two weeks before the election, in a closed-door hearing before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the liar-nObama administration self-disclosed that since 2011 the National Security Agency had routinely violated Americans' privacy rights in failing to meet privacy protection standards.
This disclosure of protocol violations was significant enough that even the FISA court called it a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue." So how bad was the problem? Well, according a story from Circa, "More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA's so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards liar-nObama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011." In 2011, liar-nObama loosened privacy rules, which precipitated a three-fold increase in the number of NSA data searches as well as unmasking of Americans. In other words, liar-nObama worked to make it easier to surveil and collect data on Americans, contrary to the claims of his former national security advisor, Susan Rice. (And she knows a thing or two about lying and unmasking.) On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) warned, "If we determine this to be true, this is an enormous abuse of power. This will dwarf all other stories." Even the leftist American Civil Liberties Union blasted the report, with the ACLU's legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani stating, "I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs. You have these problems going on for years that only come to the attention of the court late in the game and then it takes additional years to change its practices." She continued, "I think it does call into question all those defenses that we kept hearing, that we always have a robust oversight structure and we have culture of adherence to privacy standards. And the headline now is they actually haven't been in compliance for years and the FISA court itself says in its opinion is that the NSA suffers from a culture of a lack of candor."
Forget Russia, maybe this latest revelation will open the door to truly delving into just how much lying and spying liar-nObama and company perpetrated to interfere with the election. ~The Patriot Post
How To Build A Simple Faraday Cage
For EMP Survival
by Gaye Levy
{thesleuthjournal.com} ~ Of all of the reasons to prepare, one that we all need to take seriously is the possibility of a catastrophic EMP, or electromagnetic pulse... This is a frequent topic in many post-apocalyptic novels and something that most of us are aware of, even if we do not completely understand the science. Understanding the risks of an EMP goes hand in hand with threats of a cyber-attack since there is a cause and effect relationship between the two. In this article I want to accomplish a few things: What is an EMP?... http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/build-simple-faraday-cage-emp-survival/ .Wasserman Schultz Threatens Police Chief Holding
Her Laptop In Espionage Investigation
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz is upset that one of her computers is being held by the Capitol Police in an investigation into just another of the many instances of espionage... surrounding the Democrats and the mishandling of sensitive information. The computer may contain information relevant to an apparent spy ring involving three brothers, Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan, who were involved in doing IT work for Congressional Democrats at exorbitantly high rates and who are all Pakistanis suspected of funneling sensitive data to terrorist organizations. The three have all been barred from the House computer system and Imran, who did work for Wasserman Schultz, appears to have left some relevant data or other evidence on her computer. There’s also the simultaneous investigation into the brothers kidnapping their step mother and holding her against her will until their father died in order to steal her inheritance...http://rickwells.us/wasserman-schultz-bullies-police-chief-laptop-held-espionage-investigation/ .Trump Orders Justice Department
Probe of Terror Bombing Leaks
{newsmax.com} ~ President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to crack down on leaks that prompted Manchester police to withhold information from the United States about the investigation into this week's bombing... He also chastised NATO leaders for not paying their fair share to protect the long-standing alliance. A British official said Thursday that Manchester police have decided not to share further information on the investigation due to leaks blamed on U.S. officials. Trump, who said there is "no relationship we cherish more" than the one with the U.K., declared the leaks "deeply troubling" and said he was asking the Justice Department to lead an investigation into the matter...http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-review-britain-manchester/2017/05/25/id/792307/ .Comey WASN’T Snookered, He Knew Russian Doc.
Was Fake, But Used It As Excuse Anyway
by Jeff Dunetz
{lidblog.com} ~ Earlier this week we reported that because the FBI received a secret Russian document describing an email indicating that the Justice Dept. would not try to hard to win the case against liar-Hillary Clinton... then-FBI director Comey was snookered into making his speech that Ms. liar-Clinton was probably guilty but no prosecutor would press charges against her. The Washington Post had reported the document was not only unreliable but possibly a Russian ruse “according to people familiar with its contents.” Now CNN reports that Comey wasn’t snookered, he knew the document was fake BEFORE he made the speech letting liar-HRC off the hook. He snookered the FBI, the Justice Dept., and congress by using it as an excuse for making the speech...http://lidblog.com/comey-knew-russian-doc-fake-used-excuse-anyway/ .No Reauthorization Of Spying Programs
Until We Get Answers On “Unmasking”
by Onan Coca
{lidblog.com} ~ Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and other civil libertarians have long been wary of the Patriot Act and the governments terrifying ability to monitor they every day activities of average Americans... Members of both the right and left wings of American politics tried to stop the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2015 and there may well be another reauthorization fight coming in the near future. While the White House would like a simple “clean” reauthorization, the latest revelations that the liar-nObama administration spent some 5 years (from 2011 – 2016) breaking all of the rules that they themselves had established, will likely make the possibility of a “clean” reauthorization difficult. However, it’s not just the recently discovered crimes of the liar-nObama administration that is giving members of the political “middle” pause. Particularly, Gowdy is concerned with the rampant abuse of the ability to “unmask” innocent Americans by the previous administration...http://lidblog.com/trey-gowdy-no-reauthorization-of-spying-until-we-get-answers-on-unmasking/ .
.Never Enough
by Oren Cass
{city-journal.org} ~ Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, annual spending on the nation’s anti-poverty programs has more than doubled. For the more than $1 trillion spent overall in 2016, we could have mailed a $20,000 check to every household with below-average income. Yet the Left’s appetite for more spending remains insatiable. A widespread belief holds that, since the liar-Clinton-era reforms, the welfare state “ceased its expansion and began to retreat”; that a safety net “torn to shreds” is “thin and getting thinner.” Proposals in the new Trump administration budget to check the extraordinary and unsustainable growth of welfare spending are “Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies in an unprecedented scale,” the common theme of which is “really hurting the poor.”
What, specifically, are these draconian policies that will inflict such pain on the neediest Americans? The largest change would be to Medicaid, which is funded today through a matching system: states choose how much to spend on the program and receive between one to three federal dollars for every state dollar spent—so Washington incentivizes growth in Medicaid by paying states to spend more. Unsurprisingly, this formula has driven aggressive expansions in state expenditures, and a commensurate federal obligation. Since 1975, more than 90 percent of the growth in safety-net spending (per person in poverty) has gone to health care.
The American Health Care Act passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month, and now the Trump budget, propose to reform Medicaid into a “block grant” that calculates each state’s payment based on the number of recipients, and a per-recipient dollar figure that increases over time. Medicaid spending would continue rising. But whereas the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecasts the federal tab growing from $378 billion in 2017 to $688 billion in 2027 under current law, with reform the 2027 total would reach $524 billion.
Other reforms would seek to restrict eligibility or implement work requirements for various assistance programs, targeting food stamps in particular. The Associated Press describes Trump’s proposal as a “whopping $193 billion cut from food stamps over the coming decade—a cut of more than 25 percent.” But while food-stamp enrollment increased from 26 million to 48 million during the weak economy of 2007 to 2013, the rolls shed fewer than 4 million recipients as unemployment fell back below 5 percent. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects enrollment to fall naturally by about a quarter in the coming decade. But with another one-quarter reduction on top, enrollment would still remain above its early-2000s level—even after accounting for population growth.
So, despite the claims from critics that Trump is waging class warfare on the poor, this budget, if fully implemented over two terms, would leave social safety-net spending by 2024 higher than under any president not named liar-nObama.
How, then, are critics defining an acceptable level of anti-poverty spending versus one that is “cruel and short-sighted,” to quote House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi? The only guiding principle appears to be “More.” If today’s spending were 10 percent higher and the GOP proposed a cut to the current levels that Democrats now defend, that would be “cruel and short-sighted.” Conversely, had spending in the past two decades grown at 3 percent instead of 3.6 percent, leaving it 10 percent lower, staying the course would be a responsible choice.
It is this philosophy of “More” that is truly short-sighted. The deficits it fuels are driving the costs on debt higher. The OMB estimates that, by 2021, we will spend more on interest than on Medicaid. But if interest payments could be held flat this decade, it would save twice as much as the Trump cuts. The philosophy also stifles effective countercyclical policy: ideally, spending would climb during a recession, but conservatives are unlikely to support that strategy if no consensus exists for scaling spending down once growth resumes.
Meanwhile, ever-greater funding has produced no greater results. The poverty rate (an imperfect measure, admittedly) remains within a percentage point of its level from 2005, 1995, and 1985. The 1975 level was a bit lower. Mobility measures are stagnant at best. liar-nObamacare’s enormous expansion of Medicaid has shown no effect on mortality, and one new paper indicates a failure to improve even the self-assessed health of recipients. Yet the default presumption remains: whoever writes the biggest check is the one who cares the most.
The left-leaning Center on Budget Policy and Priorities titled its survey of work-requirement studies “Work Requirements Don’t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows.” In all 13 instances it examined, welfare programs with work requirements performed as well or better than programs that had no such requirements (often there was no statistically significant difference). The liberal takeaway from this analysis is that there is therefore no reason to impose work requirements, since giving money away no-strings-attached is equally effective. In the worldview of the Left, unconstrained spending is the default action; it is the spending cut, or any semblance of restraint, that must bear the burden of proof.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/never-enough-15213.html
Comments