wnd--2020-01-23--Barack Obama's most impeachment-worthy offense

Were President Trump actually guilty of the horrible things Adam Schiff has accused him on Wednesday , his particular offense would not make Barack Obama 's top-10 list .
Although the competition for most impeachment-worthy offense by Obama is a stiff one , let me offer my contender for the most offensive one of all .
Much has been written about the various blunders that led to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11 , 2012 .
Not until 2016 , however , when Ken Timmerman released his book `` Deception , '' did anyone write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for those attacks , Nakoula Bassely Nakoula .
Timmerman describes the White House response to Nakoula 's video as `` disgraceful , un-American , illegal , and a clear violation of Nakoula 's constitutional rights . ''
He does not overstate the case .
TRENDING : Jim Acosta intercepts Ivanka , watch him get blown off and left in the dust The dissembling began on Sept. 11 , 2012 , while the consulate was in flames and the attack still underway .
Shadow adviser to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report he helped prepare .
The report claimed that the inspiration for the imagined protests in Benghazi was `` a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Muhammad originating in America . ''
The `` sacrilegious '' material actually was a trailer for Nakoula 's amateurishly produced movie , `` Innocence of Muslims . ''
The trailer showed what Timmerman calls  '' a remarkably faithful reenactment '' of a classic scene in Muslim lore , the one in which Muhammad marries the pre-pubescent Aisha – not that there 's anything wrong with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a memo blaming the attack on some `` inflammatory material posted on the internet . ''
In the memo , Hillary feigned outrage .
`` The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others , '' said the woman who gave `` Book of Mormon '' a standing ovation on Broadway .
As Timmerman explains in convincing detail , the video had nothing to do with the pre-planned assault on the Benghazi compound .
He writes , `` There were never any demonstrations in front of either U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Obama 's role in this drama has never been explored for the simple reason no one knows where Obama was that night or what he did .
Incredibly , for eight months after the attack , not a single reporter asked the president or a spokesman the simple question Chris Wallace of Fox News posed in May 2013 , `` What did the president do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi ? ''
The man Wallace questioned , senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer , predictably blew him off .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Security Adviser Susan Rice dutifully played her role in the charade , calling the attack `` a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo . ''
She repeated this obvious lie on five talks shows on that one morning .
Knowing his base , Obama went looking for a reliably clueless audience to hear his take on Benghazi and found one on Sept. 18 at the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York , home of the `` Late Show with David Letterman . ''
`` Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his wide-eyed host .
`` You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here , sort of a shadowy character who – who made an extremely offensive video directed at Muhammad and Islam . ''
Letterman reeled back in disbelief .
`` Making fun of the Prophet Muhammad ! ''
he said solemnly .
`` Making fun of the Prophet Mohammad , '' confirmed Obama .
Obama pulled his description of the filmmaker straight from the pages of the New York Times , which called Nakoula , `` a shadowy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal arrests and bankruptcy . ''
More troubling , from the Times perspective at least , Nakoula had reportedly `` expressed anti-Muslim sentiments as he pushed for the making of the film . ''
In 2011 alone , when Nakoula was making his film , there were at least 10 Muslim attacks on his fellow Coptic Christians in Egypt , several of them lethal , one resulting in the death of 24 four Copts .
This relentless persecution made `` anti-Muslim sentiments '' as understandable for Copts as anti-Nazi sentiments were for Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't part of the rainbow coalition in 2012 .
Somehow Muslims were .
The fact that Nakoula and his family had received serious death threats , something of a norm for critics of Islam , did not deter the Times from doxing him .
The reporters tracked Nakoula to his Southern California home , staked it out and confirmed to their readers that this was indeed Nakoula 's house .
With the media cheering on the administration , federal probation officers took Nakoula into custody on Sept. 15 and held him in secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney , `` an extrajudicial prisoner in the United States of America , '' writes Timmerman .
Nakoula was vulnerable .
He was on parole for his involvement in a check-kiting scheme .
Compounding his worries he had quietly cooperated with the Feds and fingered the scheme 's ringleader .
Less than 48 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first alluded to Nakoula 's video , someone in the Obama administration unsealed the indictment and exposed Nakoula to retaliation .
One obvious reason for exposing Nakoula was to prod him into accepting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an angry crime boss .
The Obama administration followed this short-term strategy with the long-term one of revoking Nakoula 's parole .
The feds devised a devilish strategy for revoking it and leaked that strategy almost immediately .
Just three days after the smoke cleared in Benghazi , the Times ' Ian Lovett reported that the feds were inquiring into whether Nakoula `` had been the person who uploaded the video to YouTube . ''
If Nakoula had uploaded the video , Lovett continued much too knowingly , he would have violated parole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without permission from a probation officer . ''
Lovett captured the spirit of the media in the age of Obama—compliant , complicit and scarily indifferent to the First Amendment rights of anyone but establishment journalists .
That an American citizen was about to spend a year in federal custody for producing a perfectly legal satire inspired not a single major media journalist to cry foul .
But then again , they had a president to reelect .
With their swooning support , that president was and would remain famously `` scandal free .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` Unmasking Obama : The Fight to tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency , '' will be published this summer .

Were President Trump actually guilty of the horrible things Adam Schiff has accused him on Wednesday, his particular offense would not make Barack Obama's top-10 list.
Although the competition for most impeachment-worthy offense by Obama is a stiff one, let me offer my contender for the most offensive one of all.
Much has been written about the various blunders that led to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
Not until 2016, however, when Ken Timmerman released his book "Deception," did anyone write in depth about the filmmaker Obama held responsible for those attacks, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula.
Timmerman describes the White House response to Nakoula's video as "disgraceful, un-American, illegal, and a clear violation of Nakoula's constitutional rights." He does not overstate the case.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The dissembling began on Sept. 11, 2012, while the consulate was in flames and the attack still underway. Shadow adviser to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, shared with Hillary a report he helped prepare.
The report claimed that the inspiration for the imagined protests in Benghazi was "a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Muhammad originating in America."
The "sacrilegious" material actually was a trailer for Nakoula's amateurishly produced movie, "Innocence of Muslims." The trailer showed what Timmerman calls "a remarkably faithful reenactment" of a classic scene in Muslim lore, the one in which Muhammad marries the pre-pubescent Aisha – not that there's anything wrong with that.
That same night Hillary Clinton released a memo blaming the attack on some "inflammatory material posted on the internet."
In the memo, Hillary feigned outrage. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," said the woman who gave "Book of Mormon" a standing ovation on Broadway.
As Timmerman explains in convincing detail, the video had nothing to do with the pre-planned assault on the Benghazi compound. He writes, "There were never any demonstrations in front of either U.S. diplomatic facility in Libya. Ever."
Obama's role in this drama has never been explored for the simple reason no one knows where Obama was that night or what he did.
Incredibly, for eight months after the attack, not a single reporter asked the president or a spokesman the simple question Chris Wallace of Fox News posed in May 2013, "What did the president do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi?" The man Wallace questioned, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer, predictably blew him off.
On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, National Security Adviser Susan Rice dutifully played her role in the charade, calling the attack "a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo." She repeated this obvious lie on five talks shows on that one morning.
Knowing his base, Obama went looking for a reliably clueless audience to hear his take on Benghazi and found one on Sept. 18 at the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York, home of the "Late Show with David Letterman."
"Here's what happened," Obama told his wide-eyed host. "You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who – who made an extremely offensive video directed at Muhammad and Islam."
Letterman reeled back in disbelief. "Making fun of the Prophet Muhammad!" he said solemnly. "Making fun of the Prophet Mohammad," confirmed Obama.
Obama pulled his description of the filmmaker straight from the pages of the New York Times, which called Nakoula, "a shadowy gas station owner with a record of criminal arrests and bankruptcy."
More troubling, from the Times perspective at least, Nakoula had reportedly "expressed anti-Muslim sentiments as he pushed for the making of the film."
In 2011 alone, when Nakoula was making his film, there were at least 10 Muslim attacks on his fellow Coptic Christians in Egypt, several of them lethal, one resulting in the death of 24 four Copts.
This relentless persecution made "anti-Muslim sentiments" as understandable for Copts as anti-Nazi sentiments were for Jews in pre-war Germany. But Christians weren't part of the rainbow coalition in 2012. Somehow Muslims were.
The fact that Nakoula and his family had received serious death threats, something of a norm for critics of Islam, did not deter the Times from doxing him.
The reporters tracked Nakoula to his Southern California home, staked it out and confirmed to their readers that this was indeed Nakoula's house.
With the media cheering on the administration, federal probation officers took Nakoula into custody on Sept. 15 and held him in secret without charge or without access to an attorney, "an extrajudicial prisoner in the United States of America," writes Timmerman.
Nakoula was vulnerable. He was on parole for his involvement in a check-kiting scheme. Compounding his worries he had quietly cooperated with the Feds and fingered the scheme's ringleader.
Less than 48 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first alluded to Nakoula's video, someone in the Obama administration unsealed the indictment and exposed Nakoula to retaliation.
One obvious reason for exposing Nakoula was to prod him into accepting federal protection from a prying media and an angry crime boss. The Obama administration followed this short-term strategy with the long-term one of revoking Nakoula's parole.
The feds devised a devilish strategy for revoking it and leaked that strategy almost immediately. Just three days after the smoke cleared in Benghazi, the Times' Ian Lovett reported that the feds were inquiring into whether Nakoula "had been the person who uploaded the video to YouTube."
If Nakoula had uploaded the video, Lovett continued much too knowingly, he would have violated parole restrictions "against his using the internet without permission from a probation officer."
Lovett captured the spirit of the media in the age of Obama—compliant, complicit and scarily indifferent to the First Amendment rights of anyone but establishment journalists.
That an American citizen was about to spend a year in federal custody for producing a perfectly legal satire inspired not a single major media journalist to cry foul.
But then again, they had a president to reelect. With their swooning support, that president was and would remain famously "scandal free."
Note: Jack Cashill's book, "Unmasking Obama: The Fight to tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency," will be published this summer.


wnd--2020-01-24--Radically pro-abortion AG's dilemma: He's required to defend pro-life law

It 's an uncomfortable scenario for a pro-abortion attorney general like Keith Ellison in Minnesota .
As the state 's top legal officer , he 's required to defend its laws .
But a law now under challenge is pro-life .
The law requires a 24-hour waiting period for abortions , parental notification , and the burial or cremation of the remains of the unborn child .
Several anonymous individuals and an activist group known for promoting mandated transgender health care have sued to block the law .
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More Society lawyers will appear before a district court judge to request that they join in defense of the law .
The legal team argues that Ellison , an abortion-rights supporter , has publicly committed to `` defend the laws of the state of Minnesota '' without regard for his personal opinions .
`` Though no one has accused Ellison outright of only providing a superficial defense , '' the Thomas More Society said , the legal group has filed a `` Notice of Limited Intervention to Assert the Defense of Lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pro-Life Action Ministries , Incorporated , and the Association for Government Accountability . ''
Thomas More pointed out Ellison had failed to include a key argument in defense of the law , which could create a problem later .
Ellison did n't argue that the plaintiffs lack standing , even though his office has used it often in other cases in recent months .
And under court rules , if it 's not raised now , it can not be brought up later .
Brian Gibson , executive director of Pro-Life Action Ministries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which protect parental rights and families , uphold the tradition of treating human remains with dignity and respect , and ensure that accurate and complete information be available to women , among others , deserve to be robustly and properly defended . ''
`` Unfortunately , Attorney General Ellison appears to allow his radical pro-abortion beliefs to interfere with his obligations to the people of the state of Minnesota .
Pro-Life Action Ministries is seeking to do what is proper and right to the duties of the Minnesota attorney general , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit should be dismissed because it is `` meritless litigation . ''
`` The attorney general has failed Minnesotans on this lawsuit , '' said Erick Kaardal , special counsel for the Thomas More Society .
The legal team said the constitutional requirement might be `` the strongest defense '' in the case .
`` As the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have no standing to sue Minnesota over this issue , any time the attorney general has spent handling this lawsuit without raising the Lack of Private Cause of Action defense has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermined the defense , '' Kaardal said .
`` There is clearly no private cause of action for these claims , which are based upon violations of Minnesota 's constitution .
This lawsuit only continues because of the attorney general 's office 's failure , despite the availability of an applicable and complete defense , routinely applied by the attorney general 's office in other cases , to stop it , '' he said .

It's an uncomfortable scenario for a pro-abortion attorney general like Keith Ellison in Minnesota.
As the state's top legal officer, he's required to defend its laws. But a law now under challenge is pro-life.
The law requires a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, parental notification, and the burial or cremation of the remains of the unborn child.
Several anonymous individuals and an activist group known for promoting mandated transgender health care have sued to block the law.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Thomas More Society lawyers will appear before a district court judge to request that they join in defense of the law.
The legal team argues that Ellison, an abortion-rights supporter, has publicly committed to "defend the laws of the state of Minnesota" without regard for his personal opinions.
"Though no one has accused Ellison outright of only providing a superficial defense," the Thomas More Society said, the legal group has filed a "Notice of Limited Intervention to Assert the Defense of Lack of Private Cause of Action on behalf of Pro-Life Action Ministries, Incorporated, and the Association for Government Accountability."
Thomas More pointed out Ellison had failed to include a key argument in defense of the law, which could create a problem later.
Ellison didn't argue that the plaintiffs lack standing, even though his office has used it often in other cases in recent months. And under court rules, if it's not raised now, it cannot be brought up later.
Brian Gibson, executive director of Pro-Life Action Ministries, said the "sensible Minnesota laws which protect parental rights and families, uphold the tradition of treating human remains with dignity and respect, and ensure that accurate and complete information be available to women, among others, deserve to be robustly and properly defended."
"Unfortunately, Attorney General Ellison appears to allow his radical pro-abortion beliefs to interfere with his obligations to the people of the state of Minnesota. Pro-Life Action Ministries is seeking to do what is proper and right to the duties of the Minnesota attorney general," he said.
The Thomas More Society said the lawsuit should be dismissed because it is "meritless litigation."
"The attorney general has failed Minnesotans on this lawsuit," said Erick Kaardal, special counsel for the Thomas More Society.
The legal team said the constitutional requirement might be "the strongest defense" in the case.
"As the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have no standing to sue Minnesota over this issue, any time the attorney general has spent handling this lawsuit without raising the Lack of Private Cause of Action defense has wasted government resources and taxpayer dollars and undermined the defense," Kaardal said.
"There is clearly no private cause of action for these claims, which are based upon violations of Minnesota's constitution. This lawsuit only continues because of the attorney general's office's failure, despite the availability of an applicable and complete defense, routinely applied by the attorney general's office in other cases, to stop it," he said.


wnd--2020-01-24--5 Trump policies that ended the border crisis

Not many people think of President Donald Trump as a detailed policy innovator .
His detractors still view him as a buffoon unequipped to run the country .
His supporters view him as a guy who has succeeded on great instincts .
Not many view the president as a guy who gets under the hood to study the details of policy options .
But with historically low unemployment ; a booming stock market ; trade deals in place with China , Mexico and Canada ; and many other wins under his belt , it 's a good time to examine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump team deserves more credit than they have received – especially when it comes to immigration .
Trump was faced with a true crisis at our southern border .
Humanitarian policies were being exploited like never before .
Human smugglers and left-wing activists realized there was no need to sneak across our border ; if a migrant showed up and claimed political asylum and a fear of persecution in their home country , we would release them to an American community until a hearing could be held .
America has a history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds .
But our goodwill was abused by those seeking to game our system .
Tens of thousands of people began to show up at our border with no legitimate claim of political persecution .
They were released into American towns , and most never returned for a hearing at all .
These were mostly people fleeing poverty and seeking a better life for their families .
It 's hard to blame them for trying , but our system cracked to the breaking point under this abuse .
Huge caravans of migrants were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no real tools to address the crisis .
The net effect was a nearly open border .
Some on the left want that .
The vast majority of Americans do n't .
Trump pushed his team to come up with new policies to address the crisis .
They were hampered by the fact that too many Democrats in Congress were not interested in finding a solution .
Legislation was out of the question .
Using executive actions and agreements with other countries , the Trump team has implemented a number of policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis .
The Remain in Mexico program , launched in January 2019 , requires that asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for the entire duration of their immigration court proceedings .
This policy eliminates the possibility of `` catch and release , '' where migrants are able to escape into the interior of our country after claiming asylum .
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm here' '' Metering '' is a policy in which migrants who reach a port of entry along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a list and wait their turn to request asylum .
While this policy predates the Trump administration , Trump is the first president to implement metering on a consistent basis , since April 2018 .
Like Remain in Mexico , metering is effective at controlling the number of migrants who inundate U.S. immigration officials every day , and it prevents catch and release .
The Trump administration also entered into asylum deals with Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador – with the Guatemala deal the only one so far to be implemented .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a `` third '' country must apply for asylum in that country before the U.S. , or else be subject to removal to that country .
Flights from the U.S. to Guatemala have already begun , and so far , nearly every single individual who 's been involved has opted to return home instead of staying put in Guatemala and seeking protected status there .
This supports the administration 's argument that many of these asylum claims were not legitimate .
The Prompt Asylum Claim Review process , which can process and deport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was launched this past October .
Instead of undergoing an asylum review process that could take months , migrants subjected to review can be processed in just days .
Finally , the Interior Repatriation Initiative was first introduced in 2012 , but had been mostly shelved until it was recently relaunched with Mexico .
It deports Mexican nationals crossing illegally into the United States deep into the Mexican interior , making illegal reentry into the U.S. that much harder .
The results of these policy innovations have been truly dramatic .
Detention facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Customs and Border Protection officials conducted over 144,000 enforcement operations along the U.S.-Mexico border in May 2019 , when the border crisis reached its peak .
Apprehensions along the border have dropped considerably since that time , with December marking the seventh straight month of declines .
This equated to a 72 % drop from May 's numbers .
What was once a crisis is now under control .
To accomplish all this with no legislation from Congress is truly astounding .
The saddest part about the abuse of our humanitarian border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims to U.S. residency under our laws were lost in the sea of blatantly false claims designed to abuse our generosity .
As the numbers continue to shrink , hopefully those with legitimate claims can once again get a hearing in a timely manner .
The president and his team deserve credit for coming up with these innovative policies that , at least for now , pulled us out from a true emergency situation .

Not many people think of President Donald Trump as a detailed policy innovator. His detractors still view him as a buffoon unequipped to run the country. His supporters view him as a guy who has succeeded on great instincts. Not many view the president as a guy who gets under the hood to study the details of policy options. But with historically low unemployment; a booming stock market; trade deals in place with China, Mexico and Canada; and many other wins under his belt, it's a good time to examine the president's policy record. Maybe the Trump team deserves more credit than they have received – especially when it comes to immigration.
Trump was faced with a true crisis at our southern border. Humanitarian policies were being exploited like never before. Human smugglers and left-wing activists realized there was no need to sneak across our border; if a migrant showed up and claimed political asylum and a fear of persecution in their home country, we would release them to an American community until a hearing could be held.
America has a history of taking in persecuted people on humanitarian grounds. But our goodwill was abused by those seeking to game our system. Tens of thousands of people began to show up at our border with no legitimate claim of political persecution. They were released into American towns, and most never returned for a hearing at all. These were mostly people fleeing poverty and seeking a better life for their families. It's hard to blame them for trying, but our system cracked to the breaking point under this abuse. Huge caravans of migrants were overrunning border crossings, and American officials had no real tools to address the crisis. The net effect was a nearly open border. Some on the left want that. The vast majority of Americans don't.
Trump pushed his team to come up with new policies to address the crisis. They were hampered by the fact that too many Democrats in Congress were not interested in finding a solution. Legislation was out of the question. Using executive actions and agreements with other countries, the Trump team has implemented a number of policy innovations that have taken us out of this crisis.
The Remain in Mexico program, launched in January 2019, requires that asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for the entire duration of their immigration court proceedings. This policy eliminates the possibility of "catch and release," where migrants are able to escape into the interior of our country after claiming asylum.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Metering" is a policy in which migrants who reach a port of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border must put their names on a list and wait their turn to request asylum. While this policy predates the Trump administration, Trump is the first president to implement metering on a consistent basis, since April 2018. Like Remain in Mexico, metering is effective at controlling the number of migrants who inundate U.S. immigration officials every day, and it prevents catch and release.
The Trump administration also entered into asylum deals with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador – with the Guatemala deal the only one so far to be implemented. This mandates that migrants who pass through a "third" country must apply for asylum in that country before the U.S., or else be subject to removal to that country. Flights from the U.S. to Guatemala have already begun, and so far, nearly every single individual who's been involved has opted to return home instead of staying put in Guatemala and seeking protected status there. This supports the administration's argument that many of these asylum claims were not legitimate.
The Prompt Asylum Claim Review process, which can process and deport asylum-seekers at an extremely fast rate, was launched this past October. Instead of undergoing an asylum review process that could take months, migrants subjected to review can be processed in just days.
Finally, the Interior Repatriation Initiative was first introduced in 2012, but had been mostly shelved until it was recently relaunched with Mexico. It deports Mexican nationals crossing illegally into the United States deep into the Mexican interior, making illegal reentry into the U.S. that much harder.
The results of these policy innovations have been truly dramatic. Detention facilities that were shockingly overcrowded now have space. Customs and Border Protection officials conducted over 144,000 enforcement operations along the U.S.-Mexico border in May 2019, when the border crisis reached its peak. Apprehensions along the border have dropped considerably since that time, with December marking the seventh straight month of declines. This equated to a 72% drop from May's numbers. What was once a crisis is now under control.
To accomplish all this with no legislation from Congress is truly astounding. The saddest part about the abuse of our humanitarian border policies is that people who have legitimate claims to U.S. residency under our laws were lost in the sea of blatantly false claims designed to abuse our generosity. As the numbers continue to shrink, hopefully those with legitimate claims can once again get a hearing in a timely manner. The president and his team deserve credit for coming up with these innovative policies that, at least for now, pulled us out from a true emergency situation.


wnd--2020-01-24--Bill Clinton spokesman makes up conversation between GOP senators

Former Clinton White House press secretary Joe Lockhart lit up Twitter when he claimed to have overheard two panicked , Fox News-watching Republican senators confessing they had no idea how powerful the Democrats case is against President Trump .
The senators said , according to Lockhart : `` If half the stuff Schiff is saying is true , we 're up sh** 's creek .
Hope the White House has exculpatory evidence . ''
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm here' But after thousands of retweets and likes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it up , the Washington Free Beacon reported .
Calling it `` satire , '' Lockhart did not delete the misleading tweet even as it went viral .
While his original tweet clearly was taken seriously , he ridiculed critics .
`` Seems like I poked the bear today , '' he wrote .
`` The purveyors of Pizzagate and the Seth Rich conspiracy are lecturing me on honesty .
I told a joke , you guys are a destructive joke that is killing our democracy .
Other than that , hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nice evening . ''
The Free Beacon noted that CNN reporters on the beats of media and `` disinformation '' have insisted satire is no excuse for spreading `` fake news , '' particularly if it can be misconstrued .
Twitter user Donie O'Sullivan pointed out that Lockhart 's tweet got the same number of engagements the top New York Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week .
Cindy Otis wrote on Twitter , `` A lot of people sharing this 'satirical ' story on Facebook do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked controversy Tuesday when he said Sen. Ted Cruz , R , Texas , should face prison time for tweeting while he was on the Senate floor .
However , the Free Beacon pointed out , the former public relations executive apparently did n't take into account the fact that senators have staffers who handle their social media accounts .
And senators can not be imprisoned for breaking Senate floor rules .

Overheard convo between two Republican Senators who only watch Fox News. "is this stuff real? I haven't heard any of this before. I thought it was all about a server. If half the stuff Schiff is saying is true, we're up shit's creek. Hope the White House has exculpatory evidence — Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) January 22, 2020
Former Clinton White House press secretary Joe Lockhart lit up Twitter when he claimed to have overheard two panicked, Fox News-watching Republican senators confessing they had no idea how powerful the Democrats case is against President Trump.
The senators said, according to Lockhart: "If half the stuff Schiff is saying is true, we're up sh**'s creek. Hope the White House has exculpatory evidence."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But after thousands of retweets and likes, Lockhart acknowledged in subsequent tweets that he made it up, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Calling it "satire," Lockhart did not delete the misleading tweet even as it went viral.
While his original tweet clearly was taken seriously, he ridiculed critics.
"Seems like I poked the bear today," he wrote. "The purveyors of Pizzagate and the Seth Rich conspiracy are lecturing me on honesty. I told a joke, you guys are a destructive joke that is killing our democracy. Other than that, hope you're enjoying the trial and have a nice evening."
The Free Beacon noted that CNN reporters on the beats of media and "disinformation" have insisted satire is no excuse for spreading "fake news," particularly if it can be misconstrued.
Twitter user Donie O'Sullivan pointed out that Lockhart's tweet got the same number of engagements the top New York Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week.
Cindy Otis wrote on Twitter, "A lot of people sharing this 'satirical' story on Facebook don't know it is satire."
Lockhart sparked controversy Tuesday when he said Sen. Ted Cruz, R, Texas, should face prison time for tweeting while he was on the Senate floor.
However, the Free Beacon pointed out, the former public relations executive apparently didn't take into account the fact that senators have staffers who handle their social media accounts. And senators cannot be imprisoned for breaking Senate floor rules.


wnd--2020-01-24--Happy anniversary to Citizens United

Happy anniversary to Citizens United

Ten years ago , the Supreme Court overturned portions of a federal law that empowered government to dictate how Americans who were not connected to any candidates and political parties could practice their inherent right of free expression .
It was one of the greatest free speech decisions in American history .
The case of Citizens United revolved around state efforts to ban a conservative nonprofit group from showing a critical documentary it produced of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton right before the 2008 Democratic primary elections .
At the time , the McCain-Feingold Act made it illegal for corporations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communication '' one month before a primary or two months before the general election .
Or , in other words , the law , written by politicians who function without restrictions on speech – and applauded by much of a mass media that functions without restrictions on speech – prohibited Americans from pooling their resources and engaging in the most vital form of expression at the most important time , in the days leading up to an election .
`` By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the majority , `` the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth , standing , and respect for the speaker 's voice . ''
Right after the decision , President Barack Obama famously rebuked the justices during his State of the Union for upholding the First Amendment , arguing that the Supreme Court had `` reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm here' Not a word of what he said was true .
First of all , the court had n't overturned a century of law ( though the age of the law bears absolutely no relevance to its constitutionality ) .
Citizens United reversed portions of a law , less than a decade old , that forbade Americans from contributing as much as they wanted directly to the funding of speech .
Corporations would still be banned from donating directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1907 .
Moreover , those corporations , typically unwilling to pick partisan sides for reasons of self-preservation , are still responsible for only a fraction of all political spending , averaging around 1 % or less since 2010 .
Top 200 corporations spend almost nothing on campaigns .
Conversely , since 2010 , there 's been an explosion in grassroots political activism on both right and left .
As Bradley A. Smith points out in The Wall Street Journal today , small-dollar donors are more in demand than ever .
Bernie Sanders lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more money from donors who gave less than $ 200 than any candidate in history .
Nothing in Citizens United , of course , made it legal for foreigners to participate in American elections .
It is still illegal for anyone running for office to solicit , accept or receive help from foreign nationals .
Obama , like many progressives , would ratchet up the scaremongering over anonymous political speech .
Over the past couple of decades , our political class has convinced large swaths of the electorate that private citizens have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to every political donation .
They do not .
As the often-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says : `` Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority . ''
It is true , though , that since the Citizens United decision , streaming services have been able to produce and play documentaries about political candidates like Trump without answering to a government entity .
Publishing companies , especially smaller ones , can now print books about political figures without being policed by the state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to any independent group that shares your values .
As it should be .
The very notion that anyone should be restricted from airing his or her views is fundamentally un-American .
Then again , even if the floodgates had opened for `` special interests '' – a euphemism for causes that Democrats dislike – and even if there had been a massive spike in corporate spending on speech , and even if secretive corporate entities started producing documentaries that disparaged favored political candidates and released them days before an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The principle of free expression is n't contingent on correct outcomes , it is a free-standing , inherent right protected by Constitution .
That principle holds whether people of free will are too lazy or too gullible to resist alleged misinformation .
The proper way to push back against rhetoric you do n't like is to rebut it .
Or not .
It should be up to you .

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court overturned portions of a federal law that empowered government to dictate how Americans who were not connected to any candidates and political parties could practice their inherent right of free expression. It was one of the greatest free speech decisions in American history.
The case of Citizens United revolved around state efforts to ban a conservative nonprofit group from showing a critical documentary it produced of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton right before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. At the time, the McCain-Feingold Act made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to engage in "electioneering communication" one month before a primary or two months before the general election.
Or, in other words, the law, written by politicians who function without restrictions on speech – and applauded by much of a mass media that functions without restrictions on speech – prohibited Americans from pooling their resources and engaging in the most vital form of expression at the most important time, in the days leading up to an election.
"By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others," Justice Anthony Kennedy would write for the majority, "the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice."
Right after the decision, President Barack Obama famously rebuked the justices during his State of the Union for upholding the First Amendment, arguing that the Supreme Court had "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Not a word of what he said was true.
First of all, the court hadn't overturned a century of law (though the age of the law bears absolutely no relevance to its constitutionality). Citizens United reversed portions of a law, less than a decade old, that forbade Americans from contributing as much as they wanted directly to the funding of speech. Corporations would still be banned from donating directly to candidates, as they had been since 1907.
Moreover, those corporations, typically unwilling to pick partisan sides for reasons of self-preservation, are still responsible for only a fraction of all political spending, averaging around 1% or less since 2010. Top 200 corporations spend almost nothing on campaigns.
Conversely, since 2010, there's been an explosion in grassroots political activism on both right and left. As Bradley A. Smith points out in The Wall Street Journal today, small-dollar donors are more in demand than ever. Bernie Sanders lives on them, and Donald Trump raised more money from donors who gave less than $200 than any candidate in history.
Nothing in Citizens United, of course, made it legal for foreigners to participate in American elections. It is still illegal for anyone running for office to solicit, accept or receive help from foreign nationals.
Obama, like many progressives, would ratchet up the scaremongering over anonymous political speech. Over the past couple of decades, our political class has convinced large swaths of the electorate that private citizens have a civic responsibility to publicly attach their names to every political donation. They do not. As the often-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
It is true, though, that since the Citizens United decision, streaming services have been able to produce and play documentaries about political candidates like Trump without answering to a government entity. Publishing companies, especially smaller ones, can now print books about political figures without being policed by the state. And you can contribute as much money you want to any independent group that shares your values. As it should be. The very notion that anyone should be restricted from airing his or her views is fundamentally un-American.
Then again, even if the floodgates had opened for "special interests" – a euphemism for causes that Democrats dislike – and even if there had been a massive spike in corporate spending on speech, and even if secretive corporate entities started producing documentaries that disparaged favored political candidates and released them days before an election, it still wouldn't matter. The principle of free expression isn't contingent on correct outcomes, it is a free-standing, inherent right protected by Constitution. That principle holds whether people of free will are too lazy or too gullible to resist alleged misinformation. The proper way to push back against rhetoric you don't like is to rebut it.
Or not. It should be up to you.


wnd--2020-01-24--Queen Elizabeth beats Hollywood & the stumblebum Sussexes

His wife , a hero of sorts only in the TV series `` Suits , '' had hightailed it to Canada , leaving Harry Windsor , formerly known as Prince Harry , to deliver a concession speech .
Make no mistake – no matter the moola they rake in , Harry and Meghan Markle have been sorely defeated and deflated .
Earlier in January 2020 , the stumblebum Sussexes had smugly announced to the public that they `` planned to carve out a progressive new role within this institution . ''
The unavoidable implication of that sleight-of-hand was that `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was just not woke enough for the two 's exquisitely honed sensibilities .
Gallantly has Harry tried , since , to make his subjects believe that it is he , not Meghan Markle – his meddlesome , divisive , American wife – who had attempted , and failed miserably , to outsmart Queen Elizabeth II .
But the crass and callous rollout production , lacking in etiquette and contemptuous of royal protocol , fell flat .
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instagram statement , that it had brainy royal correspondents and members of the Queen 's Bench snickering that Harry and his Hollywood wife must have been getting bad advice from friends across the Atlantic , who knew nothing about the workings of the British monarchy .
A woman of impeccable class , HM the Queen , aged 93 , handled the Markle tantrum with great kindness – even though the couple had informed the world of their antics before apprising the queen and other members of the Royal Family .
Wrapping up Markle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ load of bafflegab , peppered with oddly fatalistic phrases such as , `` after so many years of challenges , '' `` there really was no other option , '' and , sadly , `` it had come to '' this .
Translated : After two years of royal toil , my wife had had enough .
She cracked under the duress of being dressed to the nines , served the food of her fancy , watched over and catered to , housed in a palace of her own design , and showered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title .
These were paltry rewards for Markle 's herculean efforts .
In a word , Meghan prefers the life of a celebrity to the life of a public servant .
Despite two years of torturous toil , Harry and his `` hardworking '' bride were prepared `` to continue serving the queen . ''
Alas , rambled Harry , that `` unfortunately , … was n't possible . ''
The queen was having none it .
No wonder .
Her Royal Majesty embodies mettle .
She has lived a life of dedication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before being crowned , Elizabeth had joined the military , during World War II , where she `` drove a military truck while she served . ''
Translated , again : Meghan and Harry ( the man of the house comes first ) had hoped to serve the queen on their own terms .
Her Highness went hardline , the outcome of which is that , for mindlessly following Meghan , Harry and his boorish bride have been stripped of their status as `` working members '' of the Royal Family , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honor of traveling on behalf of the queen .
Their names have been expunged from the court circular .
The Sussexes are also in the bad books of the prince of Wales .
Prince Charles , after all , pays for his sons ' lavish lifestyle .
According to Alastair Bruce , ABC News ' royalty consultant , and himself a military man , Prince Harry will also lose his honorific military patronages and titles , including `` his title as Captain General Royal Marines , '' which was especially dear to Harry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in Windsor , a place beyond picturesque , did n't quite cut it for Meghan .
But , since it was renovated largely at public expense , down to a yoga studio , a staircase for Meghan 's grand entrances and original paintings from the queen 's own collection – the pair will have to reimburse the Sovereign Grant fund .
That the British monarchy stands for the last vestiges of ancient English tradition is not in dispute .
But what do the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stand for in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose sources crown Meghan Markle as the `` principal agent of the current debacle , '' tethers Harry and Meghan to … Marx : Markle is a `` product of an entertainment business that has done more than any other industry to fulfil Marx 's prediction that 'all that is sacred ' would be 'profaned ' and 'all that is solid ' would 'melt into air . '
'' `` The Communist Manifesto '' predicted and celebrated that crass commercialism would subject national institutions `` to the revolutionary logic of the global market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muses the Economist 's Bagehot Column , `` are … embracing capitalism in its rawest , most modern form : global rather than national , virtual rather than solid , driven , by its ineluctable logic , to constantly produce new fads and fashions . ''
[ Emphasis added . ]
`` In 21st-century capitalism you accumulate followers in order to monetize them .
… In a 21st-century-capitalist society you are propelled around the world in pursuit of the latest marketing opportunity . ''
To date , the queen has foiled Meghan 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sussex Royal . ''
Believe it or not , the two twits had gone and hired a branding agency – the same one that caters to the children 's channel Nickelodeon – and had tried to trademark a Sussex Royal logo .
No doubt the Queen 's Bench has put Meghan and her American pettifoggers in their proper place .
Once upon a time , a dolt from Tinseltown imagined she was a match for the queen of England .

His wife, a hero of sorts only in the TV series "Suits," had hightailed it to Canada, leaving Harry Windsor, formerly known as Prince Harry, to deliver a concession speech.
Make no mistake – no matter the moola they rake in, Harry and Meghan Markle have been sorely defeated and deflated.
Earlier in January 2020, the stumblebum Sussexes had smugly announced to the public that they "planned to carve out a progressive new role within this institution." The unavoidable implication of that sleight-of-hand was that "this institution" (the monarchy) was just not woke enough for the two's exquisitely honed sensibilities.
Gallantly has Harry tried, since, to make his subjects believe that it is he, not Meghan Markle – his meddlesome, divisive, American wife – who had attempted, and failed miserably, to outsmart Queen Elizabeth II.
But the crass and callous rollout production, lacking in etiquette and contemptuous of royal protocol, fell flat.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
So deeply silly was the Sussexes Instagram statement, that it had brainy royal correspondents and members of the Queen's Bench snickering that Harry and his Hollywood wife must have been getting bad advice from friends across the Atlantic, who knew nothing about the workings of the British monarchy.
A woman of impeccable class, HM the Queen, aged 93, handled the Markle tantrum with great kindness – even though the couple had informed the world of their antics before apprising the queen and other members of the Royal Family.
Wrapping up Markle's failed brinkmanship, Harry unleashed a load of bafflegab, peppered with oddly fatalistic phrases such as, "after so many years of challenges," "there really was no other option," and, sadly, "it had come to" this.
Translated: After two years of royal toil, my wife had had enough. She cracked under the duress of being dressed to the nines, served the food of her fancy, watched over and catered to, housed in a palace of her own design, and showered with her heart's desire and a title.
These were paltry rewards for Markle's herculean efforts. In a word, Meghan prefers the life of a celebrity to the life of a public servant.
Despite two years of torturous toil, Harry and his "hardworking" bride were prepared "to continue serving the queen." Alas, rambled Harry, that "unfortunately, … wasn't possible." The queen was having none of it.
No wonder. Her Royal Majesty embodies mettle. She has lived a life of dedication and duty. Still in her teens, before being crowned, Elizabeth had joined the military, during World War II, where she "drove a military truck while she served."
Translated, again: Meghan and Harry (the man of the house comes first) had hoped to serve the queen on their own terms. Her Highness went hardline, the outcome of which is that, for mindlessly following Meghan, Harry and his boorish bride have been stripped of their status as "working members" of the Royal Family, have forfeited their HRH titles and the honor of traveling on behalf of the queen. Their names have been expunged from the court circular. The Sussexes are also in the bad books of the prince of Wales. Prince Charles, after all, pays for his sons' lavish lifestyle.
According to Alastair Bruce, ABC News' royalty consultant, and himself a military man, Prince Harry will also lose his honorific military patronages and titles, including "his title as Captain General Royal Marines," which was especially dear to Harry.
Granted, life at Frogmore Cottage, in Windsor, a place beyond picturesque, didn't quite cut it for Meghan. But, since it was renovated largely at public expense, down to a yoga studio, a staircase for Meghan's grand entrances and original paintings from the queen's own collection – the pair will have to reimburse the Sovereign Grant fund.
That the British monarchy stands for the last vestiges of ancient English tradition is not in dispute. But what do the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stand for in this tawdry saga? The Economist magazine, whose sources crown Meghan Markle as the "principal agent of the current debacle," tethers Harry and Meghan to … Marx:
Markle is a "product of an entertainment business that has done more than any other industry to fulfil Marx's prediction that 'all that is sacred' would be 'profaned' and 'all that is solid' would 'melt into air.'"
"The Communist Manifesto" predicted and celebrated that crass commercialism would subject national institutions "to the revolutionary logic of the global market." "The Sussexes," muses the Economist's Bagehot Column, "are … embracing capitalism in its rawest, most modern form: global rather than national, virtual rather than solid, driven, by its ineluctable logic, to constantly produce new fads and fashions." [Emphasis added.]
"In 21st-century capitalism you accumulate followers in order to monetize them. … In a 21st-century-capitalist society you are propelled around the world in pursuit of the latest marketing opportunity."
To date, the queen has foiled Meghan's mindless plan to brand the term "Sussex Royal." Believe it or not, the two twits had gone and hired a branding agency – the same one that caters to the children's channel Nickelodeon – and had tried to trademark a Sussex Royal logo.
No doubt the Queen's Bench has put Meghan and her American pettifoggers in their proper place.
Once upon a time, a dolt from Tinseltown imagined she was a match for the queen of England.
The End.


wnd--2020-01-24--Do we really need to talk so much about the Holocaust?

The further we move away from an event , the harder it is to remember it , its details and even its outcome .
Any event enters the annals of history the minute it takes place , and there is nothing man can do to erase that event from our collective memories .
Nothing can take it away unless it is an event the vast majority of people wish to forget or even tell the rest of the world never happened .
There are four types of people in any event of history : the victims , the helpers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it pertains to the Holocaust , they all need to be remembered .
Not only do we run the risk of forgetting an event , but we also run the risk of allowing history to repeat itself .
When it comes to the Holocaust , it would be tragic on both levels .
This month , we remember the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau ( Jan. 25 ) , and we also commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day ( Jan. 27 ) .
As 40 heads of states and key representatives gather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the helpers ( Righteous Among the Nations ) , the rest of the world is invited to post a photo of themselves with the hashtag # WeRemember .
The beauty of a hashtag is that it inserts itself into the worldwide web to never disappear or be changed , and that has power in and of itself .
Once composed and posted , a hashtag serves as a beacon to bring people to a particular topic , where all similar hashtags congregate .
It can be very helpful .
The downside of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as gimmicks to satisfy their own conscience .
Can someone post # WeRemember or # FightAntisemitism and feel satisfied that they have done their good deed to speak up against the Holocaust and anti-Semitism ?
Sure , they can – but does it really help ?
Hashtags alone only serve to point to the gravity of the Holocaust and the danger of the new anti-Semitism , as much as a repeated word can .
Hashtags will not defeat Holocaust deniers , historical revisionists and anti-Semites .
Hashtags are the bumper stickers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement in passing as they move to their eternal abode in cyberspace .
They do n't speak up ; they do n't sign petitions ; they do n't march on the street in protest ; they ca n't teach history , ethics or morality .
We need people for all that .
Create all the hashtags you want – they might tug on the strings of our hearts , but until we move into action , nothing will change .
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so much more : • Visit one of the numerous U.S.-based ( 30 states ) Holocaust memorial/museums like the one in Washington , D.C. , or even Yad Vashem in Jerusalem .
If you can not visit a museum , get online to their sites and learn from their extensive databases and research tools .
• Read on the topic .
Start with the autobiographical short book `` Night '' by Elie Wiesel .
Move on to `` The War Against the Jews : 1933-1945 '' by Lucy Dawidowicz .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holocaust further affected Jewish/Christian relations , read `` The Jewish People and Jesus Christ After Auschwitz '' by Jakob Jocz .
• Please , share your knowledge with the next generation .
Two-thirds of millennials do not know what Auschwitz was .
Additionally , 22 % of Americans have never heard of the Holocaust .
• Attend marches and/or protests in your city or near you if they take place to show your support to the Jewish community and your disagreement with the enemies of Israel .
• Be ready to even go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need .
We can be proactive in 2020 instead of reactive in the 1930s and '40s .
Things might get worse before they get better .
The African American communities should not stop telling their people about slavery and segregation , just like the Native American communities should not stop educating their young ones about the poor treatment and fate of their forefathers .
So , why should we stop speaking of the Holocaust , and why should we let those who deny it get away with it ?
Remembering a happy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings pleasure as we reminisce .
When we are called to remember a somber moment on mankind 's timeline , remembering the event is just the tip of the iceberg .
Sharing our memories , past experiences and teaching others about those events is key .
Very soon , all the survivors of the Holocaust will be gone , and the task of continuing to honor their memory will fall on those of us who still believe that the Holocaust happened and that it could happen again .
So , YES , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , today more than ever !

The further we move away from an event, the harder it is to remember it, its details and even its outcome. Any event enters the annals of history the minute it takes place, and there is nothing man can do to erase that event from our collective memories. Nothing can take it away unless it is an event the vast majority of people wish to forget or even tell the rest of the world never happened. There are four types of people in any event of history: the victims, the helpers, the perpetrators and the bystanders. As it pertains to the Holocaust, they all need to be remembered.
Not only do we run the risk of forgetting an event, but we also run the risk of allowing history to repeat itself. When it comes to the Holocaust, it would be tragic on both levels. This month, we remember the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau (Jan. 25), and we also commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day (Jan. 27). As 40 heads of states and key representatives gather to pay tribute to the victims and the helpers (Righteous Among the Nations), the rest of the world is invited to post a photo of themselves with the hashtag #WeRemember.
The beauty of a hashtag is that it inserts itself into the worldwide web to never disappear or be changed, and that has power in and of itself. Once composed and posted, a hashtag serves as a beacon to bring people to a particular topic, where all similar hashtags congregate. It can be very helpful. The downside of a hashtag is that too many people use them as gimmicks to satisfy their own conscience. Can someone post #WeRemember or #FightAntisemitism and feel satisfied that they have done their good deed to speak up against the Holocaust and anti-Semitism? Sure, they can – but does it really help?
Hashtags alone only serve to point to the gravity of the Holocaust and the danger of the new anti-Semitism, as much as a repeated word can. Hashtags will not defeat Holocaust deniers, historical revisionists and anti-Semites. Hashtags are the bumper stickers of the 21st century, they make a statement in passing as they move to their eternal abode in cyberspace.
They don't speak up; they don't sign petitions; they don't march on the street in protest; they can't teach history, ethics or morality. We need people for all that. Create all the hashtags you want – they might tug on the strings of our hearts, but until we move into action, nothing will change.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
We can do so much more:
The African American communities should not stop telling their people about slavery and segregation, just like the Native American communities should not stop educating their young ones about the poor treatment and fate of their forefathers. So, why should we stop speaking of the Holocaust, and why should we let those who deny it get away with it?
Remembering a happy and positive moment requires no action but simply brings pleasure as we reminisce. When we are called to remember a somber moment on mankind's timeline, remembering the event is just the tip of the iceberg. Sharing our memories, past experiences and teaching others about those events is key. Very soon, all the survivors of the Holocaust will be gone, and the task of continuing to honor their memory will fall on those of us who still believe that the Holocaust happened and that it could happen again. So, YES, we need to continue talking about the Holocaust, today more than ever!


wnd--2020-01-24--Boys' problems due to 'toxic' masculinity, or 'absent' masculinity?

Last month , The Atlantic magazine ran a powerful article by Peggy Orenstein about young men in America .
Titled `` The Miseducation of the American Boy , '' the article is poignant and deeply troubling .
And yet I was struck by the fact that Orenstein misses some obvious causes and connections .
She mentions , for example , that the interviews she conducted over two years revealed young men who are broadly supportive of the dreams , aspirations and general equality of young women .
They are tolerant of and form friendships with gay classmates .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portend progress and better emotional and mental health , right ?
But that is not what Orenstein sees .
Instead , it is boys ' opinion of themselves , of masculinity and manhood , that are stunted and crippled .
They all knew the term `` toxic masculinity . ''
In Orenstein 's words : `` They could also easily reel off the excesses of masculinity .
… They 'd seen the headlines about mass shootings , domestic violence , sexual harassment , campus rape , presidential Twitter tantrums , and Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got my attention .
Mass murder is a consequence of `` excessive '' masculinity , as is rape .
President Donald Trump is an exemplar of what is wrong with masculinity .
Apparently , so is Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm here' These are not statements of fact ; they are opinions – and strongly negative ones at that .
Orenstein does not ask why the young men she interviewed are so aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely held ) views , or why they have internalized them so strongly .
She provides other , similarly distressing data .
When asked in a PerryUndem survey what traits our society associates with masculinity , only 2 % of male respondents chose `` honesty and morality . ''
Why is that ?
No answer is offered .
When Orenstein asked her own interview subjects `` what they liked about being a boy , most of them drew a blank . ''
She quotes one interviewee who admitted : `` I never really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more about what is wrong with guys . ''
This is heartbreaking .
We should be asking why America 's boys feel the way they do , and why so much of what they hear about themselves as males is so negative .
Orenstein is sincerely affected by the young men who trusted her with their deepest fears and anxieties .
But she seems utterly oblivious to causes that should be obvious , given what the boys have told her .
Most notably , Orenstein completely overlooks the impact the sexual revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people – boys and girls – have on their own identities and society 's expectations of them .
Orenstein asks the boys she interviews what constitutes `` the ideal guy . ''
When a surprising number of them mention `` sexual prowess , '' she characterizes this as a viewpoint hearkening back to 1955 .
Au contraire .
That is a distinctly more modern phenomenon .
Orenstein cites a recent survey in which young men report `` more social pressure to be ever-ready for sex and to get with as many women as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contemporary `` culture of adolescence , '' complete with a worship of `` sexual conquest , '' has replaced perspectives of men as protectors and caregivers from earlier in the 20th century .
If you think the culture of sexual conquest is driven by the boys , you are seriously out of date .
As a woman ( and a mother ) , I was horrified by what the boys told Orenstein about the young women in their social lives .
As young teens , these girls are `` hooking up '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mocking and humiliating them to friends and classmates , and on social media .
I was frankly shocked by Orenstein 's obliviousness to this .
She decries what she views as the boys ' misogyny .
But not a word about the self-destructive promiscuity and deliberate cruelty of the girls .
Orenstein never asks the most obvious question : Why would n't a culture that worships promiscuous sex send the message to young men that their entire value revolves around sex ?
And consider the stated – and hidden – messages that young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to sleep with as many men as possible .
( Your girlfriend wo n't be faithful to you . )
Divorce should be easy .
( If your own father left and you 're hurt by that , who cares ?
Men wo n't stay in a marriage .
You should n't expect to stay in a marriage . )
Dads are `` deadbeats '' or buffoons .
( Mothers are more important than fathers . )
Abortion is a constitutional right , and men should have no say .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
They can be destroyed whether you want that or not .
You do n't matter . )
It is n't that every negative , oppressive trend affecting American boys is an aftereffect of the sexual revolution .
Some problems Orenstein mentions – difficulty expressing emotions ; fear of failure ; `` jock culture , '' with its bullying and vicious coaches – have been around much longer .
But the sexual revolution – which we were told would resolve the `` battle of the sexes '' – has not only left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most notably , absent fathers .
This , too , Orenstein virtually ignores .
But much evidence suggests that things like crime , mass shootings and sexual assault are not so much a function of toxic masculinity as they are absent masculinity .
With no role models to demonstrate strong , healthy male behavior – including respect for women , sexual self-restraint , honor and chivalry – boys are left to fend for themselves , filled with untamed energy ; the self-loathing and anger that comes from abandonment ; societal messages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promiscuous sex ( but with rampant accusations – even presumptions – that men are rapists ) .
It is easy to understand why young men feel hopeless , frustrated and depressed .
Who is responsible for the miseducation of American boys ?
Our society .
But changing that means admitting that the libertine behaviors we promised ( or were promised ) would bring fulfilment have wrought little but chaos and destruction .
Do we , as a society , have the courage to admit this , for the sake of our boys and @ @ @

Last month, The Atlantic magazine ran a powerful article by Peggy Orenstein about young men in America. Titled "The Miseducation of the American Boy," the article is poignant and deeply troubling. And yet I was struck by the fact that Orenstein misses some obvious causes and connections.
She mentions, for example, that the interviews she conducted over two years revealed young men who are broadly supportive of the dreams, aspirations and general equality of young women. They are tolerant of and form friendships with gay classmates. According to the contemporary narrative, these trends should portend progress and better emotional and mental health, right?
But that is not what Orenstein sees.
Instead, it is boys' opinion of themselves, of masculinity and manhood, that are stunted and crippled. They all knew the term "toxic masculinity." In Orenstein's words: "They could also easily reel off the excesses of masculinity. … They'd seen the headlines about mass shootings, domestic violence, sexual harassment, campus rape, presidential Twitter tantrums, and Supreme Court confirmation hearings."
That brief statement got my attention. Mass murder is a consequence of "excessive" masculinity, as is rape. President Donald Trump is an exemplar of what is wrong with masculinity. Apparently, so is Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
These are not statements of fact; they are opinions – and strongly negative ones at that. Orenstein does not ask why the young men she interviewed are so aware of those (in their impressionable minds, widely held) views, or why they have internalized them so strongly.
She provides other, similarly distressing data. When asked in a PerryUndem survey what traits our society associates with masculinity, only 2% of male respondents chose "honesty and morality." Why is that? No answer is offered. When Orenstein asked her own interview subjects "what they liked about being a boy, most of them drew a blank." She quotes one interviewee who admitted: "I never really thought about that. You hear a lot more about what is wrong with guys."
This is heartbreaking. We should be asking why America's boys feel the way they do, and why so much of what they hear about themselves as males is so negative. Orenstein is sincerely affected by the young men who trusted her with their deepest fears and anxieties. But she seems utterly oblivious to causes that should be obvious, given what the boys have told her.
Most notably, Orenstein completely overlooks the impact the sexual revolution has had on the skewed perspective young people – boys and girls – have on their own identities and society's expectations of them. Orenstein asks the boys she interviews what constitutes "the ideal guy." When a surprising number of them mention "sexual prowess," she characterizes this as a viewpoint hearkening back to 1955.
Au contraire. That is a distinctly more modern phenomenon. Orenstein cites a recent survey in which young men report "more social pressure to be ever-ready for sex and to get with as many women as possible." She also reports that a contemporary "culture of adolescence," complete with a worship of "sexual conquest," has replaced perspectives of men as protectors and caregivers from earlier in the 20th century.
If you think the culture of sexual conquest is driven by the boys, you are seriously out of date. As a woman (and a mother), I was horrified by what the boys told Orenstein about the young women in their social lives. As young teens, these girls are "hooking up" with multiple boys and then comparing, mocking and humiliating them to friends and classmates, and on social media. I was frankly shocked by Orenstein's obliviousness to this. She decries what she views as the boys' misogyny. But not a word about the self-destructive promiscuity and deliberate cruelty of the girls.
Orenstein never asks the most obvious question: Why wouldn't a culture that worships promiscuous sex send the message to young men that their entire value revolves around sex? And consider the stated – and hidden – messages that young men get every day: Women should be able to sleep with as many men as possible. (Your girlfriend won't be faithful to you.) Divorce should be easy. (If your own father left and you're hurt by that, who cares? Men won't stay in a marriage. You shouldn't expect to stay in a marriage.) Dads are "deadbeats" or buffoons. (Mothers are more important than fathers.) Abortion is a constitutional right, and men should have no say. (Your children shouldn't mean anything to you. They can be destroyed whether you want that or not. You don't matter.)
It isn't that every negative, oppressive trend affecting American boys is an aftereffect of the sexual revolution. Some problems Orenstein mentions – difficulty expressing emotions; fear of failure; "jock culture," with its bullying and vicious coaches – have been around much longer.
But the sexual revolution – which we were told would resolve the "battle of the sexes" – has not only left those problems unaddressed but also created others, most notably, absent fathers.
This, too, Orenstein virtually ignores. But much evidence suggests that things like crime, mass shootings and sexual assault are not so much a function of toxic masculinity as they are absent masculinity. With no role models to demonstrate strong, healthy male behavior – including respect for women, sexual self-restraint, honor and chivalry – boys are left to fend for themselves, filled with untamed energy; the self-loathing and anger that comes from abandonment; societal messages of worthlessness; and the cultural push toward promiscuous sex (but with rampant accusations – even presumptions – that men are rapists). It is easy to understand why young men feel hopeless, frustrated and depressed.
Who is responsible for the miseducation of American boys? Our society. But changing that means admitting that the libertine behaviors we promised (or were promised) would bring fulfilment have wrought little but chaos and destruction.
Do we, as a society, have the courage to admit this, for the sake of our boys and our girls?


wnd--2020-01-24--How much wallet cash should I carry?

How much wallet cash should I carry?

I 'm trying very hard to get out of debt .
I have my beginner emergency fund in place , and I 'm living on a monthly budget .
Is it OK to include a little wallet cash in my budget at this point , just in case ?
TRENDING : Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm here' It 's probably not going to throw you off too much in terms of getting out of debt if you budget $ 20 or so , just to have some cash in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than that , though .
The idea of having $ 50 , $ 100 , or $ 200 in walking around money is pretty self-defeating when you 're supposedly saving , budgeting and working hard to get out of debt .
What really matters is the amount of pocket money you allow yourself to have .
Think of it as a safety valve .
Sometimes things come up in the course of day-to-day life that are just necessary , unexpected expenses – but not emergencies .
Just designate a small amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular , monthly budget , and stick to that amount !
Do you appreciate Dave 's clear and solid answers to readers ' questions ?
Order his book `` The Money Answer Book '' and get your finances on the right track !
Do you think I should stop making contributions to my 401 ( k ) for a year , so I can save up an emergency fund ?
I 'm 28 and debt-free , but I do n't have anything saved for emergencies .
If you 're debt-free and making decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't take a whole year to set aside an emergency fund .
Just make it a priority in your monthly budget .
And yes , my advice to you is temporarily stop making contributions to your 401 ( k ) until you have a fully-funded emergency fund of three to six months of expenses .
I recommend people stop investing , or wait to start investing , until they are debt-free except for their home and have a fully-funded emergency fund in place .
In some cases , depending on how much debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or three years to do all this .
I know that seems like a long time , but in the grand scheme of things it 's really not .
If you do n't have an emergency fund , but you 're contributing to a 401 ( k ) , there 's a good chance you 'll end up cashing out your 401 ( k ) if a large , unexpected expense comes along .
Then , when you cash out a 401 ( k ) early , you get hit with a penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a wise plan !

Dear Dave,
I'm trying very hard to get out of debt. I have my beginner emergency fund in place, and I'm living on a monthly budget. Is it OK to include a little wallet cash in my budget at this point, just in case?
Andrew
Dear Andrew,
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
It's probably not going to throw you off too much in terms of getting out of debt if you budget $20 or so, just to have some cash in your wallet. I wouldn't recommend much more than that, though. The idea of having $50, $100, or $200 in walking around money is pretty self-defeating when you're supposedly saving, budgeting and working hard to get out of debt.
What really matters is the amount of pocket money you allow yourself to have.
Think of it as a safety valve. Sometimes things come up in the course of day-to-day life that are just necessary, unexpected expenses – but not emergencies. Just designate a small amount of cash for it as part of your regular, monthly budget, and stick to that amount!
Dave
Do you appreciate Dave's clear and solid answers to readers' questions? Order his book "The Money Answer Book" and get your finances on the right track!
Emergency fund first, then 401(k)
Dear Dave,
Do you think I should stop making contributions to my 401(k) for a year, so I can save up an emergency fund? I'm 28 and debt-free, but I don't have anything saved for emergencies.
Bryan
Dear Bryan,
If you're debt-free and making decent money at your job, it shouldn't take a whole year to set aside an emergency fund. Just make it a priority in your monthly budget. And yes, my advice to you is temporarily stop making contributions to your 401(k) until you have a fully-funded emergency fund of three to six months of expenses.
I recommend people stop investing, or wait to start investing, until they are debt-free except for their home and have a fully-funded emergency fund in place. In some cases, depending on how much debt they have, it can take two or three years to do all this. I know that seems like a long time, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not.
If you don't have an emergency fund, but you're contributing to a 401(k), there's a good chance you'll end up cashing out your 401(k) if a large, unexpected expense comes along. Then, when you cash out a 401(k) early, you get hit with a penalty plus your tax rate. That's not a wise plan!
Dave


Witnesses!

Trump on Virginia gun grab : 'It will never happen as long as I 'm here '

* Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required.
Thank you for contacting us. Please check your email inbox to confirm your message and send it to our editorial team.


wnd--2020-01-23--What it'll be like after Roe is overturned

( SAVECALIFORNIA.COM ) -- At my two appointments this morning at secular businesses , I was asked the obligatory question @ @ @ @ @ ?
” And I answered , “ Thankful to Jesus , and a little sad.
@ @ @ @ @ I was sad , I held up my phone and showed them that 61 million @ @ @ @ @ in 47 years of Roe v. Wade .
Then we had a little talk about @ @ @ @ @ fact made them sad too .
These sobering statistics make me hunger for the day @ @ @ @ @ overturned .
What about you ?
And what will life be like in America if @ @ @ @ @ ruling , which permitted Americans to abort their unwanted children , is overturned ?
Here @ @ @ @ @

(SAVECALIFORNIA.COM) -- At my two appointments this morning at secular businesses, I was asked the obligatory question, “How are you?” And I answered, “Thankful to Jesus, and a little sad.”
When they asked why I was sad, I held up my phone and showed them that 61 million pre-born babies have been killed in 47 years of Roe v. Wade. Then we had a little talk about it, because this shocking fact made them sad too.
These sobering statistics make me hunger for the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned. What about you? And what will life be like in America if and when this unconstitutional 1973 ruling, which permitted Americans to abort their unwanted children, is overturned?
Here are 10 likely outcomes:
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-24--Beto's back: Failed candidate teams with Bloomberg group in bid to turn Texas blue

Some people never get tired of losing -- former Democratic presidential candidate Robert Francis `` Beto '' O ’ Rourke is proof of that .
He failed in his bid to unseat Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz , before failing to secure the Democratic nomination for president .
Now , The Little Engine That Couldn ’ t is reportedly joining forces with a gun control group financed by current Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an effort to help Democrats take control of Texas ' state legislature .
`` O ’ Rourke is campaigning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment views align closely with O ’ Rourke ’ s extremist views , '' The Daily Wire reported .
Markowitz is running in a Jan. 28 special election runoff to the fill the Texas House District 28 seat being vacated by former GOP state Rep. John Zerwas .
TRENDING : Jim Acosta intercepts Ivanka , watch him get blown off and left in the dust Democrats are currently nine seats away from flipping the Republican-controlled Texas House of Representatives , according to The Texas Tribune .
While O ’ Rourke may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are enough to raise red flags , because a charismatic man with a billionaire behind him could do some damage .
And that might explain why two GOP sources in the Lone Star State told The Daily Wire that they have concerns .
The reason , they said , is because many Republican voters do not get excited about voting in special elections because they feel their districts are safe .
“ The sources said that the districts are in play and that Democrats only need to pick up a few seats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas House , which could reverberate throughout the state for decades as the moment that turned Texas blue , ” The Daily Wire said .
When O ’ Rourke was campaigning to be a senator , he told Texans that they should be able to keep their legally owned firearms , including AR-15s .
But things changed during his presidential campaign .
At that point , he started calling for the confiscation of what Democrats refer to as “ assault weapons.
” '' Hell yes , we 're going to take your AR-15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the September Democratic presidential debate , less than two months before he left the race .
“ We ’ re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore , ” he said .
But at the next debate , he was slightly more measured , insisting that there would be a so-called `` buyback '' program and that Americans would go along with it .
“ If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or AK-47 , one of these weapons of war , or brings it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we saw in Kent State recently , then that weapon will be taken from them , ” he said , according to The New York Times .
“ We must buy them back , ” he said .
“ I believe in this country ; I believe in my fellow Americans .
I believe they will do the right thing.
” Teaming up with Bloomberg 's radical Moms Demand Action group shows precisely what O ’ Rourke has in mind -- and that clearly does not include allowing Americans to keep their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not as the Founding Fathers intended us to keep them .
That ’ s why it is imperative for Texans to vote , even if they are in solidly Republican districts , and hand O ’ Rourke another defeat .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Some people never get tired of losing -- former Democratic presidential candidate Robert Francis "Beto" O’Rourke is proof of that.
He failed in his bid to unseat Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, before failing to secure the Democratic nomination for president.
Now, The Little Engine That Couldn’t is reportedly joining forces with a gun control group financed by current Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an effort to help Democrats take control of Texas' state legislature.
"O’Rourke is campaigning for left-wing candidate Eliz Markowitz, whose Second Amendment views align closely with O’Rourke’s extremist views," The Daily Wire reported.
Markowitz is running in a Jan. 28 special election runoff to the fill the Texas House District 28 seat being vacated by former GOP state Rep. John Zerwas.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Democrats are currently nine seats away from flipping the Republican-controlled Texas House of Representatives, according to The Texas Tribune.
While O’Rourke may be a continuous failure, his recent actions are enough to raise red flags, because a charismatic man with a billionaire behind him could do some damage.
And that might explain why two GOP sources in the Lone Star State told The Daily Wire that they have concerns.
The reason, they said, is because many Republican voters do not get excited about voting in special elections because they feel their districts are safe.
“The sources said that the districts are in play and that Democrats only need to pick up a few seats and they will be able to flip the Texas House, which could reverberate throughout the state for decades as the moment that turned Texas blue,” The Daily Wire said.
When O’Rourke was campaigning to be a senator, he told Texans that they should be able to keep their legally owned firearms, including AR-15s.
But things changed during his presidential campaign.
At that point, he started calling for the confiscation of what Democrats refer to as “assault weapons.”
"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," he said at the September Democratic presidential debate, less than two months before he left the race.
“We’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore,” he said.
But at the next debate, he was slightly more measured, insisting that there would be a so-called "buyback" program and that Americans would go along with it.
“If someone does not turn in an AR-15 or AK-47, one of these weapons of war, or brings it out in public to brandish and intimidate, as we saw in Kent State recently, then that weapon will be taken from them,” he said, according to The New York Times.
“We must buy them back,” he said.
“I believe in this country; I believe in my fellow Americans. I believe they will do the right thing.”
Teaming up with Bloomberg's radical Moms Demand Action group shows precisely what O’Rourke has in mind -- and that clearly does not include allowing Americans to keep their Second Amendment rights, at least, not as the Founding Fathers intended us to keep them.
That’s why it is imperative for Texans to vote, even if they are in solidly Republican districts, and hand O’Rourke another defeat.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-24--K-9 bites cow, deputy tases K-9, cow kicks deputy

( WCBD ) A deputy in Georgetown County was forced to use a taser on his own K-9 on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ Georgetown County Sheriff ’ s Office , a deputy responded to the scene of a @ @ @ @ @ A cow near the scene distracted the dog which led to the dog biting the @ @ @ @ @ situation , the deputy tased the dog .

(WCBD) A deputy in Georgetown County was forced to use a taser on his own K-9 on Wednesday afternoon.
According to the Georgetown County Sheriff’s Office, a deputy responded to the scene of a reported burglary around 4:00 p.m.
A cow near the scene distracted the dog which led to the dog biting the cow.
To deescalate the situation, the deputy tased the dog.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-24--Man chokes girlfriend after getting 'upset' while watching Trump impeachment trial

( USA TODAY ) A man who had been watching the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Tuesday allegedly @ @ @ @ @ in a Pennsylvania motel room when she wanted to watch something else , according to @ @ @ @ @ Clark , 53 , who lives at the northern York County motel , faces charges @ @ @ @ @ and harassment .
Police responded to the Scottish Inn at about 7:45 p.m. Tuesday after @ @ @ @ @ .
The woman reported that Clark had assaulted her and that she had left the @ @ @ @ @

(USA TODAY) A man who had been watching the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Tuesday allegedly choked and punched his girlfriend in a Pennsylvania motel room when she wanted to watch something else, according to charging documents.
Lonnie D. Clark, 53, who lives at the northern York County motel, faces charges of strangulation, simple assault and harassment.
Police responded to the Scottish Inn at about 7:45 p.m. Tuesday after Clark's girlfriend called 911. The woman reported that Clark had assaulted her and that she had left the room, documents state.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-24--Incredible secret river discovered in Israel's south leaves country stunned

( WORLD ISRAEL NEWS ) A long and geologically unique river that was kept a close secret by the Dead @ @ @ @ @ area it lies was revealed to the public for the first time Monday in a @ @ @ @ @ .
Over 10 kilometers in length , the river gushes all year long through white @ @ @ @ @ cutting across the Judean desert towards the Dead Sea .
When contacted by reporter Oren @ @ @ @ @ of nature protection for the Israel Nature and Parks Authority , Shai Technai , was @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think that maybe you ’ ve ingested hallucinatory mushrooms , ” Technai @ @ @ @ @ you sure that this is what you saw ?
”

(WORLD ISRAEL NEWS) A long and geologically unique river that was kept a close secret by the Dead Sea Works in whose concession area it lies was revealed to the public for the first time Monday in a report by Kan 11 News.
Over 10 kilometers in length, the river gushes all year long through white canyons 20 meters deep, cutting across the Judean desert towards the Dead Sea.
When contacted by reporter Oren Aharoni, the Southern Coordinator of nature protection for the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, Shai Technai, was in shock at the discovery.
“I think that maybe you’ve ingested hallucinatory mushrooms,” Technai told him. “Are you sure that this is what you saw?”
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-24--Soros to start $1 billion school to fight nationalists, climate change

( BLOOMBERG ) Billionaire George Soros said he will commit $ 1 billion to start a global university to fight @ @ @ @ @ , calling them twin challenges that threaten the survival of our civilization .
The Open @ @ @ @ @ an international platform for teaching and research , the 89-year-old said Thursday at the World @ @ @ @ @ Switzerland .
The university will be launched through a partnership of the Soros-backed Central European @ @ @ @ @ “ As a long-term strategy our best hope lies in access to quality education , @ @ @ @ @ the autonomy of the individual by cultivating critical thinking and emphasizing academic freedom , ” @ @ @

(BLOOMBERG) Billionaire George Soros said he will commit $1 billion to start a global university to fight authoritarian governments and climate change, calling them twin challenges that threaten the survival of our civilization.
The Open Society University Network will offer an international platform for teaching and research, the 89-year-old said Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The university will be launched through a partnership of the Soros-backed Central European University and Bard College.
“As a long-term strategy our best hope lies in access to quality education, specifically an education that reinforces the autonomy of the individual by cultivating critical thinking and emphasizing academic freedom,” Soros said.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-24--Pence team refutes reports of snub from Prince Charles with video of 2 together

Vice President Mike Pence 's office aggressively pushed back Thursday against social media chatter that Britain 's Prince Charles had snubbed Pence while the two were both at the World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem .
A video that surfaced Thursday and soon went viral showed Prince Charles moving down a line of dignitaries , shaking everyone 's hand until he came to Pence , with whom the prince kept eye contact as he passed .
Many said the video showed a clear snub .
After the uproar , Katie Waldman , Pence 's press secretary , shared a video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other .
And CBS ' Mark Knoller tweeted out a photo of Pence appearing to laugh at one of the prince 's remarks .
Pence was at the event representing the United States .
President Donald Trump did not attend but contributed a comment for a commemorative book for the event , according to The Washington Post .
“ We have a fundamental and collective duty to ensure that each new generation knows the truth , ” Trump wrote .
“ The lessons of the Holocaust must forever be engrained in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solemn and sacred promise that such evil and hatred will never again come to power.
” TRENDING : Jim Acosta intercepts Ivanka , watch him get blown off and left in the dust In his speech , Pence said the world can not let the memory of the Holocaust fade away .
“ We gather to fulfill a solemn obligation , an obligation of remembrance , to never allow the memory of those who died in the Holocaust to be forgotten by anyone anywhere in the world , '' Pence said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerless cry for help and the powerful refuse to answer .
“ Today we mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve .
We remember the names and the faces and the promise of the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust , '' the vice president went on .
`` Today we also pay tribute to those who survived , who all these years have borne witness to that evil and have served mankind by their example.
” Pence said honoring the Holocaust required vigilance to monitor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We must be prepared to confront and expose the vile tide of anti-Semitism that is fueling hate and violence all across the world , and we must stand together , '' Pence said .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Vice President Mike Pence's office aggressively pushed back Thursday against social media chatter that Britain's Prince Charles had snubbed Pence while the two were both at the World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem.
A video that surfaced Thursday and soon went viral showed Prince Charles moving down a line of dignitaries, shaking everyone's hand until he came to Pence, with whom the prince kept eye contact as he passed.
Prince Charles skips greeting US's Pence, shakes hands with Israel's Netanyahuhttps://t.co/mXvkSNVkDn pic.twitter.com/9RVBwVBkg4 — Yeni Şafak English (@yenisafakEN) January 23, 2020
Many said the video showed a clear snub.
Watch it in slow motion! Prince Charles maintains eye contact throughout his encounter w/Pence, giving him the death stare. It immediately causes Pence to look down, and after the snub, Pence awkwardly pats Charles on the arm as he walks by. Snub NOT unintentional. #ThursdayVibes pic.twitter.com/y0jEnpXTU2 — April (@speakout_april) January 23, 2020
This was totally intentional. Prince Charles looked him right in the eye! — 𝑳𝑖𝒔𝒂'𝒔 ᴾºⁱⁿᵀ o𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝒆𝒘 📷 (@LHarrisPhoto) January 23, 2020
Whoa Nelly!!
Now that was a ROYAL SNUB. — April in TX (@BGHeaven) January 23, 2020
After the uproar, Katie Waldman, Pence's press secretary, shared a video of the prince and the VP talking to each other.
Video of @Mike_Pence and Prince Charles backstage in Jerusalem. pic.twitter.com/PWOypUaUs3 — Katie Waldman (@VPPressSec) January 23, 2020
And CBS' Mark Knoller tweeted out a photo of Pence appearing to laugh at one of the prince's remarks.
All smiles as VP Pence exchanges greetings with Prince Charles at World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem which @VP addressed this morning. (Official White House Photo Myles D. Cullen) pic.twitter.com/R85PXgBxHo — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) January 23, 2020
Pence was at the event representing the United States. President Donald Trump did not attend but contributed a comment for a commemorative book for the event, according to The Washington Post.
“We have a fundamental and collective duty to ensure that each new generation knows the truth,” Trump wrote.
“The lessons of the Holocaust must forever be engrained in the consciousness so that we can fulfill our solemn and sacred promise that such evil and hatred will never again come to power.”
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In his speech, Pence said the world cannot let the memory of the Holocaust fade away.
“We gather to fulfill a solemn obligation, an obligation of remembrance, to never allow the memory of those who died in the Holocaust to be forgotten by anyone anywhere in the world," Pence said.
"Today we remember what happens when the powerless cry for help and the powerful refuse to answer.
“Today we mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve. We remember the names and the faces and the promise of the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust," the vice president went on.
"Today we also pay tribute to those who survived, who all these years have borne witness to that evil and have served mankind by their example.”
Pence said honoring the Holocaust required vigilance to monitor the current state of anti-Semitism.
“We must be prepared to confront and expose the vile tide of anti-Semitism that is fueling hate and violence all across the world, and we must stand together," Pence said.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.