This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our freedom. County, State, and National Assemblies are forming across our world nullifying the corrupt corporations. Watch and become AWARE! Participate and be a part of making history!
62 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.
Obama Deep State behind secret Trump coup attempt, Mueller witch hunt
The Epoch Times
has published a flow chart detailing how top Democrats, including
Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, aided the dissemination of
the fake dossier claiming Russians interfered in the 2016 US election.
New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s
involvement.
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the
Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the
FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and
here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email
account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her
private, non-secure email account.
These emails must have involved some classified information, given the
nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the
broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified
intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama
administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails.
If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled
on both ends of these email exchanges.
If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have
been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails
would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be
more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling
of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would
show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal
charges.
That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to
happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI
agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate
this point.
For the moment, I want to put aside the latest controversy — the FBI’s
failure to retain five months of text messages between Strzok and Page,
those chattiest of star-crossed lovers. Yes, this “glitch” closes our
window on a critical time in the Trump-Russia investigation: mid
December 2016 through mid May 2017. That is when the bureau and Justice
Department were reportedly conducting and renewing (in 90-day intervals)
court-approved FISA surveillance that may well have focused on the
newly sworn-in president of the United States. (Remember: The bureau’s
then-director, James Comey, testified at a March 20 House Intelligence
Committee hearing that the investigation was probing possible
coordination between Trump’s campaign and Kremlin interference in the
election.)
The retention default has been chalked up to a technological
mishap. Assuming that this truly was an indiscriminate, bureau-wide
problem — that lost texts are not limited to phones involved in the
Trump-Russia investigation — it is hard to imagine its going undetected
for five months in an agency whose business is information retention.
But it is not inconceivable. Attorney General Jeff Sessions maintains
that an aggressive inquiry is underway, so let’s assume (for argument’s
sake, at least) that either the texts will be recovered or a
satisfactory explanation for their non-retention will be forthcoming.
For now, let’s stick with the Clinton–Obama emails.
On July 5, 2016, Comey held the press conference at which he
delivered a statement describing Mrs. Clinton’s criminal conduct but
nevertheless recommending against an indictment. We now know that
Comey’s remarks had been in the works for two months and were revised
several times by the director and his advisers.
This past weekend, in a letter to the FBI regarding the missing texts,
Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.)
addressed some of these revisions. According to Senator Johnson, a draft
dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final
version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email
exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note that the FBI’s report of
its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July
1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address.
See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated:
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email
domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United
States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That
use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary
Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. [Emphasis added.]
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile
actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.
On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of
Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It
replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.”
This effort to obscure Obama’s involvement had an obvious flaw: It would
practically have begged congressional investigators and enterprising
journalists to press for the identification of the “senior government
official” with whom Clinton had exchanged emails. That was not going to
work.
Consequently, by the time Comey delivered his remarks on July 5, the
decision had been made to avoid even a veiled allusion to Obama.
Instead, all the stress was placed on Clinton (who was not going to be
charged anyway) for irresponsibly sending and receiving sensitive emails
that were likely to have been penetrated by hostile intelligence
services. Comey made no reference to Clinton’s correspondent:
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail
domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United
States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the
territory of sophisticated adversaries. [Emphasis added.] Given that
combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors
gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
The decision to purge any reference to Obama is consistent with the
panic that seized his administration from the moment Clinton’s use of a
private, non-secure server system was revealed in early March 2015. I
detailed this reaction in a series of 2016 columns (see, e.g., here and
here). What most alarmed Obama and Clinton advisers (those groups
overlap) was not only that there were several Clinton–Obama email
exchanges, but also that Obama dissembled about his knowledge of
Clinton’s private email use in a nationally televised interview.
On March 4, just after the New York Times broke the news about Clinton’s
email practices at the State Department, John Podesta (a top Obama
adviser and Clinton’s campaign chairman) emailed Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s
confidant and top aide in the Obama State Department) to suggest that
Clinton’s “emails to and from potus” should be “held” — i.e., not
disclosed — because “that’s the heart of his exec privilege.” At the
time, the House committee investigating the Benghazi jihadist attack was
pressing for production of Clinton’s emails.
As his counselors grappled with how to address his own involvement in
Clinton’s misconduct, Obama deceptively told CBS News in a March 7
interview that he had found out about Clinton’s use of personal email to
conduct State Department business “the same time everybody else learned
it through news reports.” Perhaps he was confident that, because he had
used an alias in communicating with Clinton, his emails to and from her
— estimated to number around 20 — would remain undiscovered.
His and Clinton’s advisers were not so confident. Right after the
interview aired, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed
Jennifer Palmieri and other senior campaign staffers, stating: “Jen you
probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found
out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.”
Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated
Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from
her — they do not say state.gov.” (That is, Obama had emails from
Clinton, which he had to know were from a private account since her
address did not end in “@state.gov” as State Department emails do.)
So how did Obama and his helpers “clean this up”?
Obama had his email communications with Clinton sealed. He did this by
invoking a dubious presidential-records privilege. The White House
insisted that the matter had nothing to do with the contents of the
emails, of course; rather, it was intended to vindicate the principle of
confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers.
With the media content to play along, this had a twofold benefit: Obama
was able (1) to sidestep disclosure without acknowledging that the
emails contained classified information, and (2) to avoid using the term
“executive privilege” — with all its dark Watergate connotations — even
though that was precisely what he was invoking.
Note that claims of executive privilege must yield to demands for
disclosure of relevant evidence in criminal prosecutions. But of course,
that’s not a problem if there will be no prosecution.
The White House purported to repair the president’s disingenuous
statement in the CBS interview by rationalizing that he had meant that
he learned of Clinton’s homebrew server system through news reports — he
hadn’t meant to claim unawareness that she occasionally used private
email. This was sheer misdirection: From Obama’s standpoint, the problem
was that he discussed government intelligence matters with the
secretary of state through a private email account; the fact that, in
addition, Clinton’s private email account was connected to her own
private server system, rather than some other private email service, was
beside the point. But, again, the media was not interested in such
distinctions and contentedly accepted the White House’s non-explanation.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered Comey to use the word
“matter” rather than “investigation” to describe the FBI’s probe of
Clinton’s email practices. This ensured that the Democratic
administration’s law-enforcement agencies were aligning their story with
the Democratic candidate’s campaign rhetoric. If there was no
investigation, there would be no prosecution.
In April 2016, in another nationally televised interview, Obama made
clear that he did not want Clinton to be indicted. His rationale was a
legally frivolous straw man: Clinton had not intended to harm national
security. This was not an element of the felony offenses she had
committed; nor was it in dispute. No matter: Obama’s analysis was the
stated view of the chief executive. If, as was sure to happen, his
subordinates in the executive law-enforcement agencies conformed their
decisions to his stated view, there would be no prosecution.
Within a few weeks, even though the investigation was ostensibly still
underway and over a dozen key witnesses — including Clinton herself —
had not yet been interviewed, the FBI began drafting Comey’s remarks
that would close the investigation. There would be no prosecution.
On June 27, Lynch met with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill
Clinton, on an out-of-the-way Arizona tarmac, where their security
details arranged for both their planes to be parked.
Over the next few days, the FBI took pains to strike any reference to
Obama’s emails with Mrs. Clinton from the statement in which Comey would
effectively end the “matter” with no prosecution.
On July 1, amid intense public criticism of her meeting with Bill
Clinton, Attorney General Lynch piously announced that she would accept
whatever recommendation the FBI director and career prosecutors made
about charging Clinton. As Page told Strzok in a text that day, “This is
a purposeful leak following the airplane snafu.” It was also
playacting.
Page elaborated that the attorney general already “knows no
charges will be brought.” Of course she did: It was understood by all
involved that there would be no prosecution.
Knowing that, Lynch had given the FBI notice on June 30 that she’d be
announcing her intention to accept Comey’s recommendation. Fearing this
just might look a bit choreographed, the FBI promptly amended Comey’s
planned remarks to include this assertion (which he in fact made on July
5): “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with
the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do
not know what I am about to say.”
But they did not need to participate in drafting the statement, and they
did not need to know the precise words he was going to use. It was not
Comey’s decision anyway. All they needed to know was that there would be
no prosecution.
On July 2, with the decision that she would not be indicted long
since made, Mrs. Clinton sat for an interview with the FBI — something
she’d never have done if there were a chance she might be charged. The
farce was complete with the Justice Department and FBI permitting two
subjects of the investigation — Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson
— to sit in on the interview as lawyers representing Clinton. That is
not something law enforcement abides when it is serious about making a
case. Here, however, it was clear: There would be no prosecution.
All cleaned up: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no
disclosure of Clinton–Obama emails. It all worked like a charm . . .
except the part where Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency and the problem
is never spoken of again.
FBI agents using Google Gmail to transmit classified Intel on criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, revealed yesterday in True Pundit.
On Friday, Sen. Grassley confirmed the FBI reporting and said expect more to be divulged.
FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page may have used personal
accounts to send official records to each other about the Hillary
Clinton email probe in 2016 even as the bureau investigated her for a
“similar” practice, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Chuck Grassley.
“It appears that Strzok and Page transmitted
federal records pertaining to the Clinton investigation on private,
non-government services,” the Iowa Republican wrote in a Thursday letter
to FBI Director Chris Wray.
He questioned whether that affected the bureau’s treatment of the Clinton case.
“It is important to determine whether their own similar conduct was a
factor in not focusing on and developing evidence of similar violations
by Secretary Clinton and her aides,” Grassley said.
During the campaign, the FBI investigated Clinton’s use of a private
email server instead of a secure, government email account while
secretary of state. Then-FBI Director James Comey decided against
recommending prosecution, but faulted Clinton and her associates for
being “extremely careless” with classified information.
Grassley wrote in his letter to Wray that Strzok and Page, in some
texts, also referred to “related conversations they were having via
iMessage, presumably on their personal Apple devices.”
Members of the FBI and Justice Department’s top brass at their
Washington D.C.headquarters and other field offices are now using burner
phones to stay under the radar of federal investigators and lawmakers,
according to FBI insiders.
The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI
deleted thousands of text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before
investigators could review their content.
While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy
employing the telecom habits of drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for
the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and the DOJ. And
breaks federal laws as well.
Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via:
Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money order
Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous texting
Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of federal subpoenas
Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said.
But that hasn’t slowed their use by top law enforcement personnel in the United States.
With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of
the Inspector General — for potential criminal violations — top FBI and
DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and
internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm.
“The IG is aware of this,” one FBI insider said. “They have been up on these guys for a long time.”
The FBI source’s comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General
has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and
DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals.
One of the main reasons why the Inspector General’s report of its
investigation of the FBI has been delayed is because investigators keep
getting wiretap intelligence on the key players, the FBI official said.
“It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a
very big hole,” the FBI source said. “They have switched to burners.”
Now, it’s discussions via Google’s unsecured gmail platform.
How many other FBI brass are employing Gmail to discuss classified and top secret national security matters?
New shocking details of the FBI’s Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s
anti-Trump texts made public on Thursday show the embattled duo
communicated outside of FBI email servers on Google’s unsecured gmail.
This also sidesteps Federal Records Act laws for maintaining custody
of all emails exchanged during work for federal employees. Emails
exchanged on Google cannot be requested via the FOIA simply because the
government does not maintain custody of the correspondences.
See for yourself: .
So why hasn’t a Special Counsel been appointed yet to tackle the growing corruption scandals in the FBI?
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows took to Twitter Tuesday night to
summarize what’s known so far about the FBI’s Peter Strzok scandal,
which he says “stinks to high heaven.”
Meadows, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, walked through
the timeline of Strzok’s involvement in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation as well as a series of text messages that he exchanged
with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having an affair.
Not only were new and shocking details of Strzok and Page’s
anti-Trump texts made public in recent days, it was also revealed that
the FBI “failed to preserve” five months of Strzok-Page texts during a
period when they were working on the investigation into possible Trump
campaign collusion.
A Rasmussen poll shows that a plurality of 49 percent of those polled
want a special prosecutor to investigate the embattled FBI, while only
31 percent do not. Another 19 percent are on the fence.
According to this poll, the public vehemently disagrees with James Comey, the disgraced former FBI Director who has used his Twitter account to call for an “independent” FBI, which presumably means an FBI that is never criticized or
investigated by the American people’s chosen representatives in
Congress–a frightening thought by way of a banana republic attitude.
Thankfully, despite the best efforts of Deep Staters like Comey and
the corrupted American media, the public is paying attention to the
story and is very skeptical of an agency that appears to have been
highly politicized during Comey’s reign.
About a year after President Trump fired Comey, we now know that
Comey’s tenure resulted in the kind of partisan behavior that resembles
the secret police, including the indefensible exoneration of Hillary
Clinton over her email scandal, a “secret society” to bring down Trump,
an “insurance plan” should Trump win the election, and a partnership
with the Clinton campaign to fund a discredited dossier that was used to justify the FISA warrants so the Obama administration could spy on the Trump campaign.
Former deputy assistant director of the FBI counter-terror division
Terry Turchie said the agency’s recent scandals symbolize “Watergate
part two,” Wednesday on “Fox and Friends.”
“There is a lot of political dirty tricks going on here. I don’t
think this trail is going to stop at the door of the Russians,” Turchie
said. “I think it’s going to stop where the Democratic party came
through the door of the FBI. I think this is Watergate part two.”
Turchie also discussed the texting scandal between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page and called it a “catastrophic failure,” for the Bureau.
As Turkish and allied militant forces from the so-called Free Syrian
Army (FSA) advance further upon Kurdish positions in northern Syria, Turkey has called upon the United States to vacate its military bases in the Syrian district of Manbij. Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Turkish foreign minister Melet Cavusoglu said that Ankara is calling upon the US, its official ally in NATO, to cease any and all support to Syrian Kurdish forces and militias.
Cavusoglu’s statement came mere hours after an official telephone
talk between Turkey’s Presidential Spokesman Ibrahim Kalin and US
National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond McMaster about the ongoing
Turkish invasion of Syrian soil.
Turkish backed forces advancing in Afrin. Image via South Front
Though unconfirmed by officials in Washington, the US-funded Voice of America reports that McMaster "pledged to stop giving arms to YPG Kurdish forces in Syria" during the phone call.
However, it is unclear what this would mean on the ground as the
Pentagon has in the past attempted to make a linguistic distinction
between the YPG per se (Kurdish "People's Protection Units")
and the Syrian Democratic Forces (the former comprises the bulk of the
latter), as well as a distinction between YPG operating in Afrin Canton
and the rest of Kurdish forces in Rojava.
Voice of America reports the following of the high level phone call between McMaster and Erdogan's presidential spokesman:
Turkey said Saturday that Washington has pledged to stop giving arms to YPG Kurdish forces in Syria,
as Turkey's offensive against the U.S.-backed group there enters its
eight day. Turkey's presidency said in a statement that U.S. National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster spoke Friday with Ibrahim Kalin, a
spokesman for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. McMaster
confirmed in the phone conversation that the U.S. would not give weapons
to the YPG militia, the statement said. There has been no U.S.
confirmation.
While both Turkey and the United States are in violation of
international law by entering Syria with military forces without
permission by Damascus or a UN mandate, both countries have vastly
different interests in the country.
The United States has for years supplied weapons and training to
Kurdish militias in northern Syria, causing concerns that they seek an eventual secession of Kurdish-occupied lands from Syria.
Turkey on the other hand, having supported so-called "moderate" rebel
groups such as the FSA since at least 2015, actively seeks to prevent
the existence of a YPG-controlled area to its southern border, as it
sees the Syrian Kurdish units as an affiliate of the banned Kurdistan
Workers’ Party, which is active within Turkey.
Via The Saker
Meanwhile, with the lifting of bad weather and the return of Turkish warplanes and gunships to the skies over northern Syria, pro-Ankara forces have breached the defenses of Kurdish forces in a key area of the Afrin region on Saturday.
As reported by Al-Masdar News earlier this morning, so far Saturday has
witnessed the Turkish Army and allied Free Syrian Army militias under
its command advance inside Afrin from positions near the northwestern border of Turkey and Syria.
Sources report that Free Syrian Army-linked rebel groups and Faylaq
al-Sham Islamists managed to seize the village of Ali Beski and the
hilltop of Point 740 in the Rajo area of Afrin. The militant advance was
backed up by fire support from Turkish attack helicopters which
targeted Kurdish positions and movements. The engagement for the two
locations in Rajo resulted in a dozen Kurdish casualties of which 10
fighters were killed and two were captured by pro-Turkish rebels.
Just passing this along in case you know anyone who may be interested at all? see below
I know it's late notice, but a friend of mine has two tickets for the
Super Bowl in Minneapolis, MN at the new U. S. Bank Stadium on Sunday,
February 4th. They are box seats and he paid $3,500 per ticket, which
includes the ride to and from the airport, lunch, dinner, a $400.00 bar
tab and a pass to the winners locker room after the game. What he didn't
realize when he bought them last year was that it's on the same day as
his wedding.
If you are interested, he is looking for someone to take his place. It's
at St. Paul's Church at 3 p.m. Her name is Ashley. She’s 5'4", about
115 pounds, a good cook, loves to fish and hunt and will clean your
truck.
A blogger added up the deer license sales
in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There
were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin… Allow
me to restate that number: 600,000!
Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the 8th
largest army in the world. (That’s more men under arms than in Iran.
More than France and Germany combined.) These men, deployed to the woods
of a single American state, Wisconsin
to hunt with firearms. And NO ONE WAS KILLED. That number pales in
comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania’s and
Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY. Toss
in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it literally
establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would
comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number
of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.
——————————————————– The point? ——————————————————–
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of
home-grown firepower! Hunting… it’s not just a way to fill the freezer.
It’s also a matter of national security.
That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us
disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control. Overall
it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t
possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain…
What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50
million armed citizens???
For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.
(If you agree, as I do, pass it on, I feel good that I have an army
of millions who would protect our land, and I sure don’t want the
government taking control of the possession of firearms.)
Trump: Flu Shots Inject Bad Stuff In Your Body! from Truth Warriors on Vimeo.
Donald Trump is no dummy! He knows the flu shots are a total scam
because all his friends who get the shot every year always get the flu
while he never has one and doesn't get the flu! Love the part in there
where he says "I don't like the idea of injecting bad stuff in my
body." Priceless truth from a great man! Now hopefully we can soon
get national laws that prevent anybody from being forced to take ANY
shot! That's what the demons in the medical establishment fear most
because now the sheep do it because they've been lied to and told they
have no choice! God gives you the choice what to put in your body.
The government, companies and hospitals can never be allowed to inject
anybody including doctors and nurses against their will. That's the
definition of tyranny.
Adventures In Franchising and Insider Secrets for Future Franchisors
You win some, you lose some. This franchise owner lost $400,000. Here, he shares the franchise lessons he learned the hard way.
Ian Calderon wants restaurateurs to think long and hard before giving you a straw.
Calderon, the Democratic majority leader in California's lower house, has introduced a bill
to stop sit-down restaurants from offering customers straws with their
beverages unless they specifically request one. Under Calderon's law, a
waiter who serves a drink with an unrequested straw in it would face up
to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
"We need to create awareness around the issue of one-time use plastic
straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills, waterways, and
oceans," Calderon explained in a press release.
This isn't just Calderon's crusade. The California cities of San
Luis Obispo and Davis both passed straws-on-request laws last year, and
Manhattan Beach maintains a prohibition on all disposable plastics. And
up in Seattle, food service businesses won't be allowed to offer plastic
straws or utensils as of July.
The Los Angeles Times has gotten behind the movement, endorsing
straws-on-request policies in an editorial that also warned that
"repetitive sucking may cause or exacerbate wrinkles on the lips or
around the mouth." Celebrity astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson (always up
for a little chiding) and Entourage star Adrian Grenier have appeared in videos where an octopus slaps them in the face for using a plastic straw.
The actual number of straws being used is unclear. Calderon, along with news outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San FranciscoChronicle—unfailingly
state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them
ending up in waterways and oceans. The 500 million figure is often
attributed to the National Park Service; it in turn got it from the recycling company Eco-Cycle.
Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason
that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be
Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason
that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone
surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9
years old.
Cress, who is now 16, says that the National Restaurant Association
has endorsed his estimates in private correspondence. This may well be
true, but the only references to the 500 million figure on the
association's website again points back to the work done by Cress.
More important than how many straws Americans use each day is how
many wind up in waterways. We don't know that figure either. The closest
we have is the number of straws collected by the California Costal
Commission during its annual Coastal Cleanup Day: a total of 835,425 straws and stirrers since 1988, or about 4.1 percent of debris collected.
Squishy moderates on the straw issue have pushed paper straws, which
come compostable at only eight times the price. Eco-Cycle skews a bit
more radical, with their "Be Straw Free" campaign—sponsored
in part by reusable straw makers—that urges the adoption of glass or
steel straws. Because we all know how good steel smelting is for the
environment.
In any case, criminalizing unsolicited straws seems like a rather
heavy-handed approach to the problem, especially since we don't actually
know how big a problem it is. But don't take my word for that. Ask Milo
Cress.
"If people are forced not to use straws, then they won't necessarily see that it's for the environment," he tells Reason. "They'll just think it's just another inconvenience imposed on them by government."
Update: Reason spoke with Voleck Taing, a senior assistant
to Assemblyman Calderon, who said they intend to amend the bill to
remove the fines.
Three earthquakes hit California on Thursday, one as far south as
Trabuco Canyon and a second all the way up to a spot off the coast of Eureka, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
A
third earthquake struck near Lytle Creek, California, registering a 2.5
on the Richter scale. Trabuco Canyon, which is close to Lytle Creek,
registered 4.0. Both cities are near Los Angeles.
The northernmost
earthquake, closest to Eureka, registered a 5.8 on the Richter scale.
However, because it hit 100 miles off the coastline, the vibrations were
not as strong when they reached land. ABC7 reports
that residents of Ferndale, California, in Humboldt County, felt the
earthquake, but there are currently no reports of damage or injuries.
California from above. The state was rocked by earthquakes on Thursday. NASA
According
to the USGS, when the earthquake hit at 8:39 a.m., the ripples of
seismic activity reached from the southern coast of Oregon to nearly
Ukiah, California, about 400 miles away.
Over the past seven days,
California has experienced 15 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater
up and down the state, including two that hit off the coast in the
Pacific Ocean.
Many of the tremors occurred near or along the San
Andreas fault, where tectonic plates shift along the western edge of the
state. The San Andreas fault is known to be particularly prone to
earthquakes, and scientists believe that it will someday rock the state
with "The Big One."
Smaller
earthquakes often precede bigger ones, but it’s hard to say whether
this activity is indicative of a bigger earthquake to come, and if so,
when.
Underwater seismic activity can sometimes cause tsunamis,
which can cause major destruction when they reach land. The National
Tsunami Warning Center tweeted that the earthquake off the coast of Northern California is not expected to cause a tsunami.
The
California coast is part of the “Ring of Fire,” an area where there are
an abnormal number of underwater volcanoes. Made up of the Pacific
coastline of the U.S., Asia and the Pacific Islands, this area is prone
to earthquakes.
The Statue of Liberty, a US symbol of immigration stands in New York Harbor at sunset in New York City (AFP Photo/SPENCER PLATT)
Washington
(AFP) - US President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday unveiled
a sweeping new immigration plan to Congress that offers 1.8 million
young unauthorized immigrants known as "Dreamers" a path to citizenship
over 10-12 years.
In
a comprehensive reform that will be formally presented next week, Trump
has also asked Congress to eliminate the popular "green card lottery"
program and severely restrict family immigration, steps analysts say
could cut in half the more than one million foreign-born people moving
to the country annually.
And
in the name of halting illegal immigration, he has also demanded
Congress budget $25 billion for a "trust fund" for constructing a wall
on the US-Mexico border -- a major plank of Trump's White House
campaign.
"The
Department of Homeland Security must have the tools to deter illegal
immigrants; the ability to remove individuals who illegally enter the
United States, and the vital authorities necessary to protect national
security," a senior White House official told journalists.
The
White House's offer of a path to citizenship for the Dreamers was much
wider than expected. Earlier it had suggested it was only open to
granting citizenship to the 690,000 young immigrants registered under
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.
But
in exchange, Trump was asking Congress to make future legal immigration
more difficult -- and to shore up the Homeland Security Department's
toolbox and funding to crack down on the overall population of
unauthorized immigrants, estimated at some 11 million, including
Dreamers.
That could make the plan difficult to get past Democrats, no matter how strong they want the Dreamers reform.
"There
is no public policy justification for cutting legal immigration in
half. None," said Democratic Senator Brian Schatz on Twitter.
- Sharp turn in immigration policy -
The
plan represents a sharp shift in US immigration policies. Trump
promised during his 2016 presidential campaign a tough crackdown on
illegal immigration, but has extended this to narrowing the doors for
legal immigrants and refugees.
The
end of the lottery system -- which was introduced in 1990 to diversify
the origins of new immigrants -- was expected and has support from some
Democrats. Trump has argued the program has allowed people into the
country who have supported Islamic extremists.
"This
program is riddled with fraud and abuse and does not serve the national
interest," the White House said in a summary Thursday.
Trump
however at least momentarily undermined his push against the lottery
when, in immigration bill negotiations with lawmakers in early January,
he complained about immigrants from what he reportedly dubbed "shithole"
nations like Haiti, El Salvador and countries in Africa, sparking
widespread outrage.
Trump
has also argued for ending "chain" migration, the practice of allowing
the extended family members of people who already have US citizenship to
immigrate.
Thursday's
proposal said that to "protect the nuclear family," family immigration
would be only permitted for spouses and minor children.
- Battle in Congress likely -
The
White House plan immediately provoked the ire of Democrats, who made
clear they would likely fight to water down the changes in negotiations
in coming weeks.
Pro-immigration
groups said it would reduce overall immigration by half, and was aimed
at bringing more Caucasians into the country.
"$25
billion as ransom for Dreamers with cuts to legal immigration and
increases to deportations doesn't pass the laugh test," said Democratic
Representative Luis Gutierrez.
"The
White House released a hateful, xenophobic immigration proposal that
would slash legal immigration to levels not seen since the racial quotas
of the 1920s," said Lorella Praeli, director of immigration policy at
the American Civil Liberties Union.
But
Republican leaders in Congress voiced solid support: Senate majority
leader Mitch McConnell said the White House proposal was a "framework"
for crafting a final immigration deal.
Republican
Senator Tom Cotton, a hardline conservative, called Trump's framework
"generous and humane, while also being responsible."
However,
some conservatives were angered by the sweeping offer to Dreamers,
which they say constitutes an amnesty that rewards law-breakers and sets
a bad precedent for other undocumented immigrants.
"Any
proposal that expands the amnesty-eligible population risks opening
Pandora's box," said Michael Needham, chief executive of the right-wing
lobby Heritage Action.
An open letter to Freewill and to all men responding on this blog, emailed by reader with request to post...............
F : After many years of hard work by John and more recently Olive Oyl and Popeye, you have turned this blog in to a cheap bitching rag sheet, revealing your own personal problems disguised as being a national problem.
Is that what you believe John McHaffie had in mind when, during the phone calls regarding the many computer problems he was experiencing from attempts to hack the blog, you volunteered to help
him with his computer problems? John spoke with and had many friends, but we never heard him put women down or refer to them on this blog with any four letter words or in a degrading manner.
You
complain about American women, yet you don't admit to the faults of many
American men, including yourself. Want to know why some women turn away from some men? Watch what comes out
of your mouth, including all manner of disrespectful four letter words. Watch your attitude. And don't profess 'Christian' when you are anything BUT. Lies will always be exposed.
A
male would be well advised to take regular/daily showers, brush your teeth and use mouthwash, use deodorant and wear
clean clothes and shoes so he doesn't stink. Comb your hair and beards. Clean the crap from your beards. Don't chew tobacco and drool down your beards and spit in empty pop cans. In short, don't smell and look like big foot - or worse.
Clean your transportation and the place where you live - inside and
outside. No woman wants to live in or be around filth.
A woman isn't interested in
being your personal maid service or personal prostitute. Women are not made to be your personal toys
to f**k. If you want
a woman who is nothing more than a sex slave, then find one at your local hangout - topless club - IF you can get one
to respond to you.
Women have feelings and can love and care for others in a multitude of
ways, but they don't like to be manhandled and rushed in to a bed or on the floor
to be used for the male's gratification and then tossed aside with no real concern for her. And for sure most women are not interested in dirty smelly filthy slobs for sex.
The reason most foreign women will
marry an American man is because they believe the fairy tale that the American
male is successful and has allot to offer the woman by her coming to America -
a nice clean home in a nice area, a nice clean car, the money to purchase
clothing and to take care of the children when born. Then, when they get here -
and are guarded like they are in a prison and not allowed to return home to be
with their families - the anger comes forth and the battles begin. So, instead of taking care of your own personal issues to improve yourself, go ahead and seek a woman in a foreign country and see how well you succeed there.
It would appear that you and friends have similar standards. What are your living conditions like? It would seem you may be one of those who wants to be a mountain man or frontier
man out in the woods? Perhaps a bit aggressive even to the point of destructive or abusive? No woman wants to live without plumbing, or
toilets or showers, no running water, no heating and air conditioning, and living out in the sticks with no one
to talk to or transportation to get away. Most women agreeing to live like that passed
with the demise of the wagon trains.
As a whole, women are not deceptive - any
more then you men are. Women have had to learn to be self reliant because many men
don't take care of the family and home business responsively. Some of that is picked up from their own upraising, some from irresponsibility - not working or spending money on wine, women and song, and some from just being AHOs.
A woman being feminine is
what attracts you men. You want the women to be clean, attractive and
responsive but stupid and able to be easily manipulated for your personal gain.
If you have had several 'relationships' and none have succeeded, instead of
blaming the women - take a good long honest hard look at yourself. No woman - any more than a man - wants a thug or a selfish, lazy, dirty, smelly, bossy demanding or
stupid man in her life. Easier to be alone than to become some male's maid and
personal prostitute.
If a man cannot 'trust' a woman, WHAT would be the
cause behind that? The very issues already mentioned here? Is that her fault,
too? Or could it be that the male isn't
presenting himself in a responsible, caring and loving manner? Or is not able to provide what she is looking for in a permanent relationship, in particular taking financial responsibility for the children? She may feel insecure and that perhaps she
has made a terrible mistake?
We live in
a country that fortunately still offers multiple choices, including to be able to choose to
leave a 'relationship' that is not providing what each is looking for. Give the other person the freedom to leave if
she wants to. You will both be much happier for it. In the meantime, take a long hard honest look at yourself and admit to whether you are what a woman would want in her life. Misrepresenting your lifestyle and choices is only misleading others who read what you post - but the savvy can see through that. In the meantime, this blog is being destroyed. We grieve for that and for our friend John, and we grieve for OO and PE who served faithfully for the benefit of all the readers.
The evidence continues to pile up against the deep state in the brewing FBI scandal.
While the mainstream media assure the public through propaganda that
there is no such thing as a “deep state,” the evidence shows otherwise.
According to The New York Post, each
day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive ongoing
scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement
agency: the FBI.
If either one is true, and we believe both probably are, it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.
More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that
was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get
FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the
opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it
spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the
court of the dossier’s political link. -The New York Post
“There is so much smoke here. We have to dig into it — this is not a distraction. Again, this is bias — potentially corruption — at the highest levels of the FBI,” Johnson added.
These major and intertwined scandals all point to the one thing the
media is dead set on indoctrinating into the minds of the public as
fake: the deep state.
There’s too much evidence to deny it, yet the media writes it off as a
conspiracy or fake news and demeans those who seek answers to the
questions they refuse to even ask.
But how do they explain the missing text messages and the “secret society” comments between two top-ranking FBI officials?
Very poorly, but the masses don’t seem to care that much and won’t
even consider the fact that maybe the media and their own government
fooled them.
Article posted with permission from SHTFPlan
Are you in doubt that the real original jurisdiction De Jure Republic is being restored? Do you have Questions that you want answered? Do you want to get involved? Visit https://national-assembly.net/ for more information and to participate. Check out the forums as the national assembly is 100% transparent to the public and welcomes public participation. This is the real deal folks. This is our last chance to do it right and nullify the 1871 contract that employed the U.S. Corporation to provide 19 governmental services to the people. This is our right under Article 1 of the Bill of rights. This also nullifies General Order 100 of 1863.
Search This Blog "if this search box is working"
Donation to assist in efforts to restore our republic
The DUKE - Patriot!
Born in 1948 Died in 2015
National Assembly of the people returning to self governance
Join the forums and introduce yourself so your state coordinator can connect with you.
Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?
Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle
11
Followers
The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.
.
