The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
While other controversies rage,
work on border wall moves forward
by Byron York
.
liar-nObama Officials Subpoenaed in Unmasking
Probe
A new chapter has been opened in the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. On Wednesday, the House committee issued subpoenas to the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation demanding that they turn over all records related to the liar-nObama administration's "unmasking" of members of Donald Trump's campaign team. The subpoenas named three liar-nObama officials: former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and, interestingly, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power.
While the subpoenaing of Rice and Brennan would be logical given their positions with respect to the intelligence community, the naming of Power is intriguingly odd. Why would an ambassador, whose job is diplomacy, demand the unmasking of U.S. citizens? This seems to be well outside her job description. As The Wall Street Journal explains, "Unmaskings are supposed to be rare, and if the mere ambassador to the UN could demand them, what privacy protection was the liar-nObama White House really offering U.S. citizens?"
The temperature may be starting to rise for those former members of liar-nObama's White House. While the mainstream media has for months been pushing a narrative of a Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy — a narrative absent of any articulated or real crime — what has been largely ignored by the MSM is the actual criminal action of the leaking of classified information. The liar-nObama administration has even admitted that it violated protection protocols in collecting intelligence on American citizens. Coupled with the number of unmasked members of Trump's team, we're seeing a better picture of an liar-nObama administration deeply engaged in political spying, which is a serious crime. If anyone was engaged in a Nixonian type of affair, all signs are pointing toward liar-nObama not Trump.
~The Patriot Post
.
.
How Some State Politicians Are
Using Government to Threaten Free Speech
by Jeremy Cady and Dan Caldwell
{dailysignal.com} ~ When it comes to threatening the free speech rights of American citizens, progressives have largely been the culprits at the federal level. Yet increasingly, Republican state legislators have taken up this crusade... Last month, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez rightly vetoed a Republican-supported bill that would have forced nonprofits to disclose their supporters’ personal information, saying it would “likely discourage charities and other groups that are primarily non-political from advocating for their cause.” Now, New Mexico’s Democratic secretary of state might impose the same disclosure requirements through campaign finance rules she plans to unveil later this year... http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/31/state-politicians-using-government-threaten-free-speech/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpVNFkyRm1aamxtTlROayIsInQiOiJZT1RSUnFCR1BYWkVYVjBic1VNTUozM0lBYWJxNm9ET3pRTmcyMXQ2MWFaV0ZmdHQycEt4QWNSejBnK1lYXC9USTcweHl3RmcyVzc1UkNCZCtpaitleVwvYWpBWTJ1T1VrM1ZQUzBKUXpla3FVbGNlXC93Q3BzQitoTzIxS3BjMXNsWSJ9
.
Outrage over Trump’s climate
deal withdrawal is like Groundhog Day
by Marc A. Thiessen
{aei.org} ~ The left-wing Guardian newspaper said the president’s decision to withdraw from the global climate treaty signed by his Democratic predecessor represents “a blunt rebuff to European hopes” and has turned America into “the ultimate rogue state.”... Britain’s Independent declared: “It is not even isolationism, it is in-your-face truculence.” The president of France called the decision “disturbing and unacceptable.” The US National Environmental Trust declared: “This is no way to conduct policy. It looks like amateur hour at the White House.” The president being attacked is not Donald Trump. It is George W. Bush, who was chastised for his 2001 decision to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto treaty on global climate change signed by the liar-Clinton administration. Of course, the predicted apocalypse never happened. To the contrary, the Wall Street Journal reports that after Bush’s withdrawal the US “reduced emissions faster than much of Europe thanks to business innovation —namely, hydraulic fracturing that is replacing coal with natural gas.” It turns out that technology, not treaties, is the best way to curb emissions – and to do so without harming consumers by dramatically increasing the cost of electricity... http://www.aei.org/publication/outrage-over-trumps-climate-withdrawal-is-like-groundhog-day/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITODAY&utm_campaign=060217
.
Here’s how James Comey can
wiggle out of his May 3 testimony
by William A. Jacobson
{legalinsurrection.com} ~ Many people — on Twitter and in the punditry — believe that Comey stated on May 3 there had been no attempts to stop his investigation... If Comey gave such testimony before the Senate, it would be consistent with the testimony of Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, on May 19 that there had been no “political interference” in the investigation (emphasis added): I welcome the opportunity to discuss my role in the removal of FBI Director James Comey, although I know you understand that I will not discuss the special counsel’s ongoing investigation. Most importantly, I want to emphasize my unshakeable commitment to protecting the integrity of every federal criminal investigation. There never has been, and never will be, any political interference in any matter under my supervision in the United States Department of Justice. But, there are reports that Comey will testify next week that Trump supposedly asked him to halt the investigation of Michael Flynn, engaged in some as yet unspecified uncomfortable interference, and that Comey wrote a memo or memos to the file documenting such conversations. (Note: Those reports do not attribute those words directly to Comey, but rather, to people who supposedly know what he will say.) So would Comey’s expected testimony really contradict his May 3 testimony?... http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/heres-how-james-comey-can-wiggle-out-of-his-may-3-testimony/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
.
North Korea’s Dictator Promises
Deadly “Gift” for United States
{totalconservative.com} ~ Despite pressure from the U.S., South Korea, Japan, and even China, North Korea is moving ahead with its missile testing program... On Tuesday, after launching its third successful missile test in recent days, dictator Kim Jong Un reportedly said the U.S. could expect more of the same in the weeks and months to come. The country’s official state news agency quoted Dear Leader as issuing a dire warning to North Korea’s enemies: “He expressed the conviction that the test would make a greater leap forward in this spirit to send a bigger ‘gift package’ to the Yankees,” said KCNA... http://totalconservative.com/north-koreas-dictator-promises-deadly-gift-united-states/
.
Showboat Dems Pledge To Replace Feds
In Paris – Do They Have The $100 Billion?
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Once again Democrats are organizing subversion, pretending they are the ones in power in the White House and defying the President... this time on his decision to withdraw from the Paris Wealth Redistribution and Global Climate Welfare Accord. New York City Mayor “Red” Bill DeBlasio vowed to issue an executive order “soon” mandating that the city honor the goals of the Paris accord. That will surely come as a relief to the UN bureaucrats who had their eyes on some new office furniture, a limo, maybe a couple of “assistants.” They were probably worried that they might have to curtail their lavish spending with the American extorted funds not flowing. It’s nice of de Blasio and the people of New York to fill that funding gap. After all, only five or six sentences of the 31 pages deal with temperature or specifics of problems in the environment. The majority of the document deals with the redistribution of United States’ and other developed nations’ treasury contents to other,”undeveloped and small island nations” and their needy government officials...The people of NY and Ca are going to be very mad at their leaders. http://rickwells.us/showboat-dems-pledge-to-replace-feds-in-paris-do-they-have-the-100-billion/
.
.
While other controversies rage,
work on border wall moves forward
by Byron York
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ New revelations come almost by the minute in the Trump-Russia affair. A reasonable observer might conclude that is all that is happening in the Trump administration. But even as those troubles fill news sites and cable TV, administration officials are quietly moving ahead on one of the president's top campaign promises: the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Although it hasn't received much attention relative to the president's many problems, extensive planning for the wall is under way, officials are evaluating specific proposals, sites are being studied, and yes, there is money available to get going. The work is being done under President Trump's executive order of Jan. 25.
"The executive order calls on the authority in the Secure Fence Act for us to begin immediately," said a senior administration official who recently provided an extensive update on the state of the wall project. In March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent out a request for proposals for companies to bid on the construction of prototypes -- not little models to sit on someone's desk, but full-scale sections of proposed wall designs that will be put in place on the border. So far, Border Protection has received more than 100 proposals.
"We are evaluating what started out as a solicitation to industry and request for proposals -- 18 to 30 feet high, concrete, impenetrable, hard-to-scale, the correct aesthetics," the official said.
There are some important points to remember before going any further. First, there is no intention to build a wall to stretch the entire border, from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas. In his campaign, the president made clear that the wall need not cover every mile of the border. Certainly, no expert who supports more barriers at the border believes it should, either.
And the wall does not always mean a wall. The Jan. 25 executive order defined "wall" as "a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous and impassable physical barrier." Planners say that in practice, that will certainly mean extensive areas with an actual wall. But other areas might have the type of fencing outlined in the Secure Fence Act, or some other barrier yet to be designed.
And that leads to a third point: The border barrier will not look the same at all points along the border. The terrain of the border is different -- some parts are so imposing they don't need a barrier at all -- and officials plan to design walls and barriers that fit each area, rather than one long, unchanging structure.
Right now, officials are studying how many "buildable miles" will need a barrier. At the moment, planners believe that about 700 "buildable miles" of the border will require a wall or other barrier. That just happens to be about the same amount called for in the Secure Fence Act.
Does the government have that much land available? The answer is mostly yes. Remember, from the numbers cited above, that there are more than 650 miles along the border with something on them -- vehicle fence, simple pedestrian fence, whatever. That means the government has already gone through the land acquisition and approval process required to erect a barrier.
There's no doubt that hundreds of miles of truly impenetrable barriers would have a huge effect on illegal border crossings. Talk to some experts who favor tougher border enforcement, and they will say that even as few as 100 well-chosen miles of barrier would make a difference.
Once planners decide where to build, there will then be the question of what to build. If the decision is to build a wall, then the question is: a wall of what? Planners have decided that concrete will definitely be involved, even though it hasn't played much of a role in earlier barriers. Why concrete? "It's an interpretation of the vision," the senior administration official explained. By "vision," he meant it is a way to make Trump's oft-repeated promise of a "big, beautiful wall" a reality. Trump didn't mean a fence.
On the other hand, using concrete presents one obvious problem. Whatever barrier is built, Border Protection agents on the U.S. side need to be able to see through it. That's always been a requirement with earlier barriers. So now, officials are looking for creative ideas for a wall that will still allow them full sight of the Mexican side.
That touches on the most important consideration for planners. A wall isn't just a wall. It is a system -- a "smart wall," as they call it. It involves building a barrier with the monitoring technology to allow U.S. officials to be aware of people approaching; to be able to track them at all times; to have roads to move people around; the facilities to deal with the people who are apprehended; and more.
That was before Comey was sacked.
At this point, it's impossible to say what building a smart wall will cost, because officials haven't yet decided on a plan.
Republicans on the Hill argue that they got as much money in the recent spending bill as they could for the project, given that they had to work with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown and fund the government through Sept. 30. "We weren't going to get anything passed that said, quote-unquote, 'wall,'" noted one GOP staffer.
The next funding hurdle will come when Congress considers spending for 2018. Most House and Senate Democrats appear determined to stop a border barrier. They say it will be expensive and ineffective, while some Republicans believe Democrats oppose the wall mainly because they fear it will work.
After the recent spending bill passed, some opponents of the wall declared the project dead. But any victory dance right now is premature. Yes, it's certainly possible the wall won't be built. But it's also possible it will be built, or that significant parts of it will be built. The work is already under way
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ New revelations come almost by the minute in the Trump-Russia affair. A reasonable observer might conclude that is all that is happening in the Trump administration. But even as those troubles fill news sites and cable TV, administration officials are quietly moving ahead on one of the president's top campaign promises: the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Although it hasn't received much attention relative to the president's many problems, extensive planning for the wall is under way, officials are evaluating specific proposals, sites are being studied, and yes, there is money available to get going. The work is being done under President Trump's executive order of Jan. 25.
"The executive order calls on the authority in the Secure Fence Act for us to begin immediately," said a senior administration official who recently provided an extensive update on the state of the wall project. In March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent out a request for proposals for companies to bid on the construction of prototypes -- not little models to sit on someone's desk, but full-scale sections of proposed wall designs that will be put in place on the border. So far, Border Protection has received more than 100 proposals.
"We are evaluating what started out as a solicitation to industry and request for proposals -- 18 to 30 feet high, concrete, impenetrable, hard-to-scale, the correct aesthetics," the official said.
There are some important points to remember before going any further. First, there is no intention to build a wall to stretch the entire border, from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas. In his campaign, the president made clear that the wall need not cover every mile of the border. Certainly, no expert who supports more barriers at the border believes it should, either.
And the wall does not always mean a wall. The Jan. 25 executive order defined "wall" as "a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous and impassable physical barrier." Planners say that in practice, that will certainly mean extensive areas with an actual wall. But other areas might have the type of fencing outlined in the Secure Fence Act, or some other barrier yet to be designed.
And that leads to a third point: The border barrier will not look the same at all points along the border. The terrain of the border is different -- some parts are so imposing they don't need a barrier at all -- and officials plan to design walls and barriers that fit each area, rather than one long, unchanging structure.
Right now, officials are studying how many "buildable miles" will need a barrier. At the moment, planners believe that about 700 "buildable miles" of the border will require a wall or other barrier. That just happens to be about the same amount called for in the Secure Fence Act.
Does the government have that much land available? The answer is mostly yes. Remember, from the numbers cited above, that there are more than 650 miles along the border with something on them -- vehicle fence, simple pedestrian fence, whatever. That means the government has already gone through the land acquisition and approval process required to erect a barrier.
There's no doubt that hundreds of miles of truly impenetrable barriers would have a huge effect on illegal border crossings. Talk to some experts who favor tougher border enforcement, and they will say that even as few as 100 well-chosen miles of barrier would make a difference.
Once planners decide where to build, there will then be the question of what to build. If the decision is to build a wall, then the question is: a wall of what? Planners have decided that concrete will definitely be involved, even though it hasn't played much of a role in earlier barriers. Why concrete? "It's an interpretation of the vision," the senior administration official explained. By "vision," he meant it is a way to make Trump's oft-repeated promise of a "big, beautiful wall" a reality. Trump didn't mean a fence.
On the other hand, using concrete presents one obvious problem. Whatever barrier is built, Border Protection agents on the U.S. side need to be able to see through it. That's always been a requirement with earlier barriers. So now, officials are looking for creative ideas for a wall that will still allow them full sight of the Mexican side.
That touches on the most important consideration for planners. A wall isn't just a wall. It is a system -- a "smart wall," as they call it. It involves building a barrier with the monitoring technology to allow U.S. officials to be aware of people approaching; to be able to track them at all times; to have roads to move people around; the facilities to deal with the people who are apprehended; and more.
That was before Comey was sacked.
At this point, it's impossible to say what building a smart wall will cost, because officials haven't yet decided on a plan.
Republicans on the Hill argue that they got as much money in the recent spending bill as they could for the project, given that they had to work with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown and fund the government through Sept. 30. "We weren't going to get anything passed that said, quote-unquote, 'wall,'" noted one GOP staffer.
The next funding hurdle will come when Congress considers spending for 2018. Most House and Senate Democrats appear determined to stop a border barrier. They say it will be expensive and ineffective, while some Republicans believe Democrats oppose the wall mainly because they fear it will work.
After the recent spending bill passed, some opponents of the wall declared the project dead. But any victory dance right now is premature. Yes, it's certainly possible the wall won't be built. But it's also possible it will be built, or that significant parts of it will be built. The work is already under way
Comments