thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-21--Victory: U.S. Supreme Court Holds States Accountable to Abiding by Sixth Amendment Standard of Unani

Victory: U.S. Supreme Court Holds States Accountable to Abiding by Sixth Amendment Standard of Unanimous Jury Verdict in Criminal Cases

Victory : U.S. Supreme Court Holds States Accountable to Abiding by Sixth Amendment Standard of Unanimous Jury Verdict in Criminal Cases WASHINGTON , D.C. — In a 6-3 ruling , the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that states must abide by the Sixth Amendment ’ s requirement of unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in criminal cases involving “ serious offenses.
” Pushing back against the idea that the application of fundamental constitutional rights is dependent on what state you live in , The Rutherford Institute had filed an amicus brief in Ramos v. Louisiana , asking the Supreme Court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the rights of criminal defendants and arguing that the right to a unanimous jury in criminal cases—a right dating back to the Magna Carta—should be uniform throughout the United States .
The case arose after a Louisiana man , Evangelisto Ramos , was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison based on circumstantial evidence that failed to convince all 12 jurors that he was guilty .
At the time , Louisiana allowed non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases .
In overruling a 1972 precedent in Apodaca v. Oregon , the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as being necessary to justice and applicable to the states .
Affiliate attorneys Michael J. Lockerby , David A. Hickerson , Jay N. Varon and Heather A. Lee of Foley & Lardner assisted The Rutherford Institute in presenting its arguments .
“ Justice should not be contingent on where one lives , ” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead , president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America : The War on the American People .
“ Thankfully , the Supreme Court recognized that the right to a unanimous jury verdict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s history , tradition , and conscience , is indeed fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.
” The case arose after Evangelisto Ramos was charged with murder , based on circumstantial evidence , for the stabbing death of a prostitute , Trinece Fedison .
Although two members of the 12-member jury believed the state had not proven that Ramos committed the murder , Ramos was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole because the Louisiana law in effect at the time allowed a conviction based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Louisiana ’ s voters amended the State Constitution to require unanimity , though only for crimes committed after 2018 .
In weighing in on Ramos v. State of Louisiana , Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that the Sixth Amendment ’ s right to a unanimous verdict is a fundamental right fully applicable to the states .
The Sixth Amendment provides that “ [ i ] n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial , by an impartial jury.
” The right to a trial by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted only when all jurors , the only impartial persons who have the benefit of all of the evidence for and against guilt , conclude that the accused is guilty .
Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply .
In criminal cases , this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime , guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury .
The Supreme Court has recognized this unanimity requirement “ virtually without dissent ” since the 1800s .
Like the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a speedy trial , the common-law right to a unanimous verdict dates back to the Magna Carta .
And like the prohibition against double jeopardy , the right to confront witnesses , and the right to a speedy trial , “ every state incorporates some form ” of the right to a unanimous verdict .
Indeed , 49 of the 50 states now require a unanimous verdict to convict an accused of any crime , while Oregon only requires a unanimous verdict to convict persons accused of first-degree murder .
August 09 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court to Hold States to Sixth Amendment Standard of a Unanimous Jury Verdict in Criminal Cases The Supreme Court ’ s opinion in Ramos v. State of Louisiana The Rutherford Institute ’ s brief in Ramos v. State of Louisiana

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that states must abide by the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in criminal cases involving “serious offenses.” Pushing back against the idea that the application of fundamental constitutional rights is dependent on what state you live in, The Rutherford Institute had filed an amicus brief in Ramos v. Louisiana, asking the Supreme Court to prevent the states from “watering down” the rights of criminal defendants and arguing that the right to a unanimous jury in criminal cases—a right dating back to the Magna Carta—should be uniform throughout the United States. The case arose after a Louisiana man, Evangelisto Ramos, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison based on circumstantial evidence that failed to convince all 12 jurors that he was guilty. At the time, Louisiana allowed non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. In overruling a 1972 precedent in Apodaca v. Oregon, the Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment’s protections as being necessary to justice and applicable to the states.
Affiliate attorneys Michael J. Lockerby, David A. Hickerson, Jay N. Varon and Heather A. Lee of Foley & Lardner assisted The Rutherford Institute in presenting its arguments.
“Justice should not be contingent on where one lives,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People . “Thankfully, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to a unanimous jury verdict, which is firmly rooted in America’s history, tradition, and conscience, is indeed fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.”
The case arose after Evangelisto Ramos was charged with murder, based on circumstantial evidence, for the stabbing death of a prostitute, Trinece Fedison.
Although two members of the 12-member jury believed the state had not proven that Ramos committed the murder, Ramos was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole because the Louisiana law in effect at the time allowed a conviction based on a non-unanimous jury verdict.
In 2018, Louisiana’s voters amended the State Constitution to require unanimity, though only for crimes committed after 2018.
In weighing in on Ramos v. State of Louisiana, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that the Sixth Amendment’s right to a unanimous verdict is a fundamental right fully applicable to the states.
The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
The right to a trial by jury guarantees that an accused will be convicted only when all jurors, the only impartial persons who have the benefit of all of the evidence for and against guilt, conclude that the accused is guilty.
Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply.
In criminal cases, this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.
The Supreme Court has recognized this unanimity requirement “virtually without dissent” since the 1800s.
Like the right to a jury trial and the right to a speedy trial, the common-law right to a unanimous verdict dates back to the Magna Carta.
And like the prohibition against double jeopardy, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to a speedy trial, “every state incorporates some form” of the right to a unanimous verdict.
Indeed, 49 of the 50 states now require a unanimous verdict to convict an accused of any crime, while Oregon only requires a unanimous verdict to convict persons accused of first-degree murder.
Case History
August 09, 2019 • Rutherford Institute Calls on U.S. Supreme Court to Hold States to Sixth Amendment Standard of a Unanimous Jury Verdict in Criminal Cases
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Ramos v. State of Louisiana
The Rutherford Institute’s brief in Ramos v. State of Louisiana
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead


thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-21--Critical Theory & The Demoralization Of The American Psyche

For the past several years , if not decades , American values , and Americanism itself has been under a vicious assault .
Terms like racism , white privilege , sexism , and homophobia have been used to discredit the American ideal of individual liberty .
The issue of slavery , for example , has been repeatedly pushed to the forefront of our collective consciousness to try to teach us the founding of our country was not great , and that we have failed to live up to the ideals of liberty and justice for all .
Our education system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you can call it that , does little more than produce automatons who repeat the narrative that America is a racist , sexist , homophobic and greedy country who has little concern for anything other than money .
Today , with the coronavirus propaganda we see the same thing .
Words like unessential worker and social distancing are being used as tools to de-moralize and de-humanize us in what can best be described as a conditioning process to break down our values and morality .
The result of all of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and herded into a group-think mentality .
If men ’ s values are destroyed , he has little else to fight and live for ; therefore , if you can reduce his values , and equate them with negativity , you can control and guide his behavior .
Ayn Rand , in her article entitled “ Our Cultural Value-Deprivation ” cites an experiment that was conducted at McGill University in the 1950s .
The experiment revolved around determining men ’ s reaction to isolation and a lack of sensory perception , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man needed constant stimulation in the brain in order to feel motivation .
Without it , the brain eventually shuts down .
Or , his consciousness fails to work to its maximum effect .
Rand herself was an atheist .
She is looking at this from strictly a scientific viewpoint .
The same argument could be made from the spiritual perspective as well .
Depriving man of his spiritual needs and breaking down his morality would likely have the same effect .
Psychologically speaking , negative thinking tends to lead to more problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , if your values are continually reduced and discredited as something having a negative effect on society , you are likely to eventually have feelings that make you feel less about yourself ; thus affecting the attitudes you have about the society that shaped those values .
Rand goes on to argue that society , in general , can influence the way people think .
We see this taking place every day .
There is , for example , immense social pressure to conform to certain ways of thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being used to force you into compliance ; failing to do so equates to not caring for humanity .
This tactic is used in many other scenarios ̶ if you do not believe in reparations or affirmative action you are a racist .
If you do not believe in the feminist definition of equality between the sexes you are sexist .
If you do not believe in manmade climate change , you are a climate denier .
All these slogan type words are nothing more than propaganda designed to get the individual to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at best , change them to conform to mainstream thinking .
Ironically , this same method of changing people ’ s loyalties , or beliefs based on value deprivation can be found in the book “ Brainwashing : A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.
” “ The first is accomplished by a steady and continuous indoctrination of the individual in the belief that his previous loyalties have been wasted on an unworthy source .
One of the primary instances of this is creating circumstances that apparently derive from the target of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual .
As part of this , there is a creation of a state of mind in the individual , by actually placing him under duress , and then furnishing him with false evidence to demonstrate that the target of his previous loyalty was the source of that duress.
” Many have argued that this book , which was written by Stalin ’ s henchman , Laventri Beria , has been discredited as a “ conspiracy theory.
” It must be pointed out that this is not only the same process that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening in society today .
Particularly in our universities .
Students are taught that America was founded on racist ideals and has failed to live up to the values which we all hold so dear .
This attacks the psyche of the American student and when presented with the leftist view of American history , subdues them into accepting and demanding , change .
This is accomplished through the application of something called critical theory .
Critical theory is often mistaken for critical thinking .
The two are vastly different .
When one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are doing so under the belief that it is crucial to come to the best possible conclusion when trying to solve a problem .
The precepts of critical thinking revolve around finding truth .
Critical theory is something altogether different .
Its origins are Marxist in thinking and was founded at the Frankfurt School of Social Research .
Critical theory can best be defined as a method of critiquing capitalist culture and emancipating one ’ s self from the so-called “ pathologies of modern civilization.
” It was originally intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn their thinking towards global communism .
When this was discovered , the Frankfurt School was forced from Germany and many of their scientists and philosophers settled at Columbia University in the United States .
Columbia is known as a university that loathes Americanism and espouses communism .
It is through the lens of critical theory that Americans are being exposed to concepts like white privilege and being beaten down with the belief that their country has failed to live up to its values .
Students are presented with prevailing American beliefs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with negative connotations of racism , bigotry , sexism , homophobia , and anything else that can be used to demoralize their value system .
They are then presented with an alternative view , socialism .
They are literally trained through techniques that can best be described as value deprivation to hate their country and once demoralized , they readily accept communism , which is presented as being morally superior to capitalism .
The following is a quote from a college textbook being used to analyze literature through the lens of critical theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is believed that a Marxist interpretation is but one small aspect of analyzing a literary work , however critical theory , as demonstrated , is completely Marxist in its origins .
All the sub-theories which make up critical theory have elements that seek to subvert our culture .
“ Marxist theory points out , however , that our belief in the American Dream blinds us to the reality that a vast number of people have not had and do not have equal opportunity in education , employment , or housing due to such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender , race , religion , sexual orientation , and socioeconomic class .
And worse , the American Dream leads us to believe that poor people who are unable to significantly improve their financial status must be shiftless and lazy or in some other way undeserving of decent living conditions .
After all , the American Dream tells us that all it takes to make it in America is hard work and determination and that those who do not make it , have only themselves to blame.
” ( Tyson , Using Critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entitled The Psychology of Pleasure , by Nathaniel Branden , ( which can be found on page 43 of her own book , The Virtue of Selfishness ) which states that men ’ s values can largely be derived from the pleasure they attain from the work they perform or the culture they partake in .
A lack of pleasure , according to Branden or rewarding experiences which offer stimulation , or the sense of accomplishment , will result in the eventual erosion of a man ’ s soul and his drive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto argue that the fundamental life force of any society is the philosophy that drives it .
In America , rugged individualism , and the idea that we can achieve our dreams based on our own efforts in life is the fundamental value we share as Americans .
We are free .
It is this philosophy that is under attack , and by constantly exposing us to the subversive methods of critical theory , and the lies they use to discredit our culture , they are degrading our souls and killing our love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , indeed , deliberate .
We are being governed through the application of the social sciences .
Critical theory is being used in our schools because through experiments like the one described in Rand ’ s article ; it has been known for at least seventy years that men ’ s behavior can be changed once their values are diminished .
They can then be easily guided into collective thinking and coerced into collective behavior because they no longer know what is right .
Soviet defector , Yuri Bezmenov , describes demoralization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information , no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves , their families , their community and their country .
Over the past several decades Americans have been beaten over the head continuously by the media and our academic institutions in a manner that suggests we are not worthy of the values we espouse .
The result is a population unwilling or unable to defend those values .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their earliest days to put their faith in God who has the will to resist .
Rand describes these people as “ the toughest of intellectual giants , able to preserve the unimpaired efficacy of their minds.
” Again , Rand herself was an atheist ; however , it stands to reason that a strong faith in God would prevent people from succumbing to this demoralizing process .
Public Schools do little to teach the concepts of individual liberty and the constitution and in 1963 , a decade after the McGill experiments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the education system by order of The Supreme Court .
It could be theorized that this was a deliberate move to begin the process of undermining American values and setting the stage for what we see occurring today .
A population that for the most part , has little ability to discern the truth for themselves and is willing to sacrifice their own freedom for the illusion of government-provided security .

For the past several years, if not decades, American values, and Americanism itself has been under a vicious assault. Terms like racism, white privilege, sexism, and homophobia have been used to discredit the American ideal of individual liberty. The issue of slavery, for example, has been repeatedly pushed to the forefront of our collective consciousness to try to teach us the founding of our country was not great, and that we have failed to live up to the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Our education system, particularly our institutions of higher learning, if you can call it that, does little more than produce automatons who repeat the narrative that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and greedy country who has little concern for anything other than money. Today, with the coronavirus propaganda we see the same thing. Words like unessential worker and social distancing are being used as tools to de-moralize and de-humanize us in what can best be described as a conditioning process to break down our values and morality. The result of all of this is a population that is easily controlled and herded into a group-think mentality. If men’s values are destroyed, he has little else to fight and live for; therefore, if you can reduce his values, and equate them with negativity, you can control and guide his behavior.
Ayn Rand , in her article entitled “Our Cultural Value-Deprivation” cites an experiment that was conducted at McGill University in the 1950s. The experiment revolved around determining men’s reaction to isolation and a lack of sensory perception, if you will. The general conclusion was that man needed constant stimulation in the brain in order to feel motivation. Without it, the brain eventually shuts down. Or, his consciousness fails to work to its maximum effect. Rand herself was an atheist. She is looking at this from strictly a scientific viewpoint. The same argument could be made from the spiritual perspective as well. Depriving man of his spiritual needs and breaking down his morality would likely have the same effect. Psychologically speaking, negative thinking tends to lead to more problems like depression and agitates existing medical conditions. In other words, if your values are continually reduced and discredited as something having a negative effect on society, you are likely to eventually have feelings that make you feel less about yourself; thus affecting the attitudes you have about the society that shaped those values.
Rand goes on to argue that society, in general, can influence the way people think. We see this taking place every day. There is, for example, immense social pressure to conform to certain ways of thinking. Social distancing and self-isolation are terms being used to force you into compliance; failing to do so equates to not caring for humanity. This tactic is used in many other scenarios ̶ if you do not believe in reparations or affirmative action you are a racist. If you do not believe in the feminist definition of equality between the sexes you are sexist. If you do not believe in manmade climate change, you are a climate denier. All these slogan type words are nothing more than propaganda designed to get the individual to question his own beliefs at least and at best, change them to conform to mainstream thinking. Ironically, this same method of changing people’s loyalties, or beliefs based on value deprivation can be found in the book “Brainwashing: A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.”
“The first is accomplished by a steady and continuous indoctrination of the individual in the belief that his previous loyalties have been wasted on an unworthy source. One of the primary instances of this is creating circumstances that apparently derive from the target of his loyalties, so as to rebuff the individual. As part of this, there is a creation of a state of mind in the individual, by actually placing him under duress, and then furnishing him with false evidence to demonstrate that the target of his previous loyalty was the source of that duress.”
Many have argued that this book, which was written by Stalin’s henchman, Laventri Beria, has been discredited as a “conspiracy theory.” It must be pointed out that this is not only the same process that Rand describes but is exactly what is happening in society today. Particularly in our universities. Students are taught that America was founded on racist ideals and has failed to live up to the values which we all hold so dear. This attacks the psyche of the American student and when presented with the leftist view of American history, subdues them into accepting and demanding, change. This is accomplished through the application of something called critical theory.
Critical theory is often mistaken for critical thinking. The two are vastly different. When one believes they are employing critical thinking skills, they are doing so under the belief that it is crucial to come to the best possible conclusion when trying to solve a problem. The precepts of critical thinking revolve around finding truth. Critical theory is something altogether different. Its origins are Marxist in thinking and was founded at the Frankfurt School of Social Research. Critical theory can best be defined as a method of critiquing capitalist culture and emancipating one’s self from the so-called “pathologies of modern civilization.” It was originally intended to critique Germany’s national socialism and turn their thinking towards global communism. When this was discovered, the Frankfurt School was forced from Germany and many of their scientists and philosophers settled at Columbia University in the United States. Columbia is known as a university that loathes Americanism and espouses communism.
It is through the lens of critical theory that Americans are being exposed to concepts like white privilege and being beaten down with the belief that their country has failed to live up to its values. Students are presented with prevailing American beliefs and then they are smashed by equating them with negative connotations of racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and anything else that can be used to demoralize their value system. They are then presented with an alternative view, socialism. They are literally trained through techniques that can best be described as value deprivation to hate their country and once demoralized, they readily accept communism, which is presented as being morally superior to capitalism.
The following is a quote from a college textbook being used to analyze literature through the lens of critical theory. From an academic standpoint, it is believed that a Marxist interpretation is but one small aspect of analyzing a literary work, however critical theory, as demonstrated, is completely Marxist in its origins. All the sub-theories which make up critical theory have elements that seek to subvert our culture.
“Marxist theory points out, however, that our belief in the American Dream blinds us to the reality that a vast number of people have not had and do not have equal opportunity in education, employment, or housing due to such factors as, for example, their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class. And worse, the American Dream leads us to believe that poor people who are unable to significantly improve their financial status must be shiftless and lazy or in some other way undeserving of decent living conditions. After all, the American Dream tells us that all it takes to make it in America is hard work and determination and that those who do not make it, have only themselves to blame.” (Tyson, Using Critical Theory)
Rand also cites an essay entitled The Psychology of Pleasure, by Nathaniel Branden, (which can be found on page 43 of her own book, The Virtue of Selfishness) which states that men’s values can largely be derived from the pleasure they attain from the work they perform or the culture they partake in. A lack of pleasure, according to Branden or rewarding experiences which offer stimulation, or the sense of accomplishment, will result in the eventual erosion of a man’s soul and his drive to achieve anything at all. Rand goes onto argue that the fundamental life force of any society is the philosophy that drives it. In America, rugged individualism, and the idea that we can achieve our dreams based on our own efforts in life is the fundamental value we share as Americans. We are free. It is this philosophy that is under attack, and by constantly exposing us to the subversive methods of critical theory, and the lies they use to discredit our culture, they are degrading our souls and killing our love of country that once existed. It is, indeed, deliberate.
We are being governed through the application of the social sciences. Critical theory is being used in our schools because through experiments like the one described in Rand’s article; it has been known for at least seventy years that men’s behavior can be changed once their values are diminished. They can then be easily guided into collective thinking and coerced into collective behavior because they no longer know what is right. Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, describes demoralization as-
An overt slow process to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.
Over the past several decades Americans have been beaten over the head continuously by the media and our academic institutions in a manner that suggests we are not worthy of the values we espouse. The result is a population unwilling or unable to defend those values. There are those, who having been brought up from their earliest days to put their faith in God who has the will to resist. Rand describes these people as “the toughest of intellectual giants, able to preserve the unimpaired efficacy of their minds.” Again, Rand herself was an atheist; however, it stands to reason that a strong faith in God would prevent people from succumbing to this demoralizing process. Public Schools do little to teach the concepts of individual liberty and the constitution and in 1963, a decade after the McGill experiments were conducted, Christian prayer was removed from the education system by order of The Supreme Court. It could be theorized that this was a deliberate move to begin the process of undermining American values and setting the stage for what we see occurring today. A population that for the most part, has little ability to discern the truth for themselves and is willing to sacrifice their own freedom for the illusion of government-provided security.
Article posted with permission from David Risselada


thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-22--Ohio:  Highly Decorated DARE Cop Arrested For Running An Enormous Child Porn Ring

Beavercreek , OH — The Drug Abuse Resistance Education ( D.A.R.E . )
program should better be called an hilarious exercise in how not to convince kids to keep away from substances the state deems illegal .
As cops hopped on their high horses and had children pledge not to do drugs , the rate of drug use skyrocketed — thrusting the country into one of the worst drug epidemics in human history .
The hypocrisy by the cops who pushed the D.A.R.E .
program has been well-documented over the years , explaining , at least in part , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure from the start .
Now , another cop who pushed kids to ‘ just say no ’ has been arrested and accused of disturbing criminal activity .
Parents whose children participated in the D.A.R.E .
program in Beavercreek , Colorado now need to question their children who may have had contact with former Beavercreek police officer Kevin A. Kovacs .
On Thursday , Kovacs , 58 , was arrested at his home for unspeakable crimes against children .
Kovacs stands accused of producing , distributing , receiving , transporting and possessing child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kevin A. Kovacs , a former longtime Beavercreek police officer , was arrested this morning on federal charges of producing , distributing , receiving , transporting and possessing child pornography , ” said U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers .
“ Additionally , Kovacs is charged with tampering with a witness or informant , according to the statement from the US Attorney ’ s office in the Southern District of Ohio .
Kovacs appeared in federal court at 1:30pm Thursday and was scheduled to appear again at 1:30pm Friday for a detention hearing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years before this cop was arrested for running a child porn ring , Officer Kovacs received the “ Law Enforcement Officer of the Year ” Award .
When presented with the honor , the Beavercreek police department praised him for his work with young children .
Officer Kovacs has served the community of Beavercreek for 25 years .
Currently , in his sixth year as the D.A.R.E .
officer for Beavercreek schools , Officer Kovacs teaches 5th grade students decision-making skills to help them lead safe and healthy lives , empowering them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives free from violence , substance abuse , and other dangerous behaviors .
As the crime prevention specialist , Officer Kovacs provides information to citizens and businesses on safety and security issues and assists in developing crime prevention initiatives in the community .
Officer Kovacs ’ commitment and dedication to working in partnership with our community and helping to educate the youth of Beavercreek inspires respect for law enforcement and fosters the well-being of the community .
Kovacs retired in August 2018 after 25 years with the Beavercreek Police Department .
He worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialist and DARE officer with Beavercreek City Schools , according to a Beavercreek police Facebook post announcing his retirement .
It is highly unlikely that this officer , who worked around young children for nearly a decade , just decided to get into child porn after his retirement .
Officials are now encouraging anyone who may have had inappropriate contact with the officer to come forward .
If you have information related to this case , contact the FBI at 513-421-4310 or the Fairborn Police Department at 937-343-8854 .
Also , it appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some time prior to last week ’ s arrest .
According to News Center 7 , they were at Kovacs ’ Fairborn home in December , when Fairborn police were assisting with a search warrant .
At the time , police declined to comment on the nature of their investigation .
“ The conduct he is alleged to have committed is both disgusting and extremely disappointing , ” said Beavercreek Police Chief Dennis Evers .
“ As a former D.A.R.E .
officer who received departmental and community awards for his work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this criminal activity to be exploitation of children and unlawful.
” The school system — who put this man in front of countless potential victims , expressed their shock after Kovacs ’ arrest .
“ Beavercreek City Schools administration was alarmed after learning of the allegations against Ofc .
Kovacs , ” said Beavercreek Superintendent Paul Otten .
“ School staff and parents have been notified about this alleged incident and are encouraged to reach out to local law enforcement if they have specific concerns or information related to this case.
” According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this type of activity is part of a larger problem in today ’ s society and he ’ s encouraging legislatures to look at passing more stringent laws that would make it more difficult to access this kind of material on the internet .
He also is calling for the increasing of penalties who chose to knowingly access and download the material .
Indeed , it is a growing problem in today ’ s society — and top cops continue to be the ones getting busted for it .
Just this week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stow , Massachusetts who was pulled from his job as the city ’ s top cop after video by a self-declared pedophile hunter was posted online .
The video allegedly shows the cop attempt to meet a boy — who the chief knew was only 14 — for sex .
Instead of meeting the boy , however , the chief was confronted by Predator Poachers Massachusetts .

Beavercreek, OH — The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program should better be called an hilarious exercise in how not to convince kids to keep away from substances the state deems illegal. As cops hopped on their high horses and had children pledge not to do drugs, the rate of drug use skyrocketed — thrusting the country into one of the worst drug epidemics in human history. The hypocrisy by the cops who pushed the D.A.R.E. program has been well-documented over the years, explaining, at least in part, as to why the program was such a failure from the start. Now, another cop who pushed kids to ‘just say no’ has been arrested and accused of disturbing criminal activity.
Parents whose children participated in the D.A.R.E. program in Beavercreek, Colorado now need to question their children who may have had contact with former Beavercreek police officer Kevin A. Kovacs. On Thursday, Kovacs, 58, was arrested at his home for unspeakable crimes against children.
Kovacs stands accused of producing, distributing, receiving, transporting and possessing child pornography on a massive scale.
“Kevin A. Kovacs, a former longtime Beavercreek police officer, was arrested this morning on federal charges of producing, distributing, receiving, transporting and possessing child pornography,” said U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers. “Additionally, Kovacs is charged with tampering with a witness or informant, according to the statement from the US Attorney’s office in the Southern District of Ohio. Kovacs appeared in federal court at 1:30pm Thursday and was scheduled to appear again at 1:30pm Friday for a detention hearing. This investigation remains ongoing.”
Less than two years before this cop was arrested for running a child porn ring, Officer Kovacs received the “Law Enforcement Officer of the Year” Award. When presented with the honor, the Beavercreek police department praised him for his work with young children.
Officer Kovacs has served the community of Beavercreek for 25 years. Currently, in his sixth year as the D.A.R.E. officer for Beavercreek schools, Officer Kovacs teaches 5th grade students decision-making skills to help them lead safe and healthy lives, empowering them to respect others and choose to lead lives free from violence, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. As the crime prevention specialist, Officer Kovacs provides information to citizens and businesses on safety and security issues and assists in developing crime prevention initiatives in the community. Officer Kovacs’ commitment and dedication to working in partnership with our community and helping to educate the youth of Beavercreek inspires respect for law enforcement and fosters the well-being of the community.
Kovacs retired in August 2018 after 25 years with the Beavercreek Police Department. He worked as a patrol officer, crime prevention specialist and DARE officer with Beavercreek City Schools, according to a Beavercreek police Facebook post announcing his retirement.
It is highly unlikely that this officer, who worked around young children for nearly a decade, just decided to get into child porn after his retirement. Officials are now encouraging anyone who may have had inappropriate contact with the officer to come forward. If you have information related to this case, contact the FBI at 513-421-4310 or the Fairborn Police Department at 937-343-8854.
Also, it appears that the officer had been under investigation for some time prior to last week’s arrest.
According to News Center 7, they were at Kovacs’ Fairborn home in December, when Fairborn police were assisting with a search warrant. At the time, police declined to comment on the nature of their investigation.
“The conduct he is alleged to have committed is both disgusting and extremely disappointing,” said Beavercreek Police Chief Dennis Evers. “As a former D.A.R.E. officer who received departmental and community awards for his work, he, of all people, knew this criminal activity to be exploitation of children and unlawful.”
The school system — who put this man in front of countless potential victims, expressed their shock after Kovacs’ arrest.
“Beavercreek City Schools administration was alarmed after learning of the allegations against Ofc. Kovacs,” said Beavercreek Superintendent Paul Otten. “School staff and parents have been notified about this alleged incident and are encouraged to reach out to local law enforcement if they have specific concerns or information related to this case.”
According to WHIO, Evers also added that this type of activity is part of a larger problem in today’s society and he’s encouraging legislatures to look at passing more stringent laws that would make it more difficult to access this kind of material on the internet. He also is calling for the increasing of penalties who chose to knowingly access and download the material.
Indeed, it is a growing problem in today’s society — and top cops continue to be the ones getting busted for it. Just this week, TFTP reported on a police chief in Stow, Massachusetts who was pulled from his job as the city’s top cop after video by a self-declared pedophile hunter was posted online. The video allegedly shows the cop attempt to meet a boy — who the chief knew was only 14 — for sex. Instead of meeting the boy, however, the chief was confronted by Predator Poachers Massachusetts.
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist


thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-22--People Are Over Being On Their Knees – Now Disobeying Tyrants

This is one of the most positive posts I have ever written .
We are witnessing humanity , on a large scale , standing up .
People are getting off their knees and disobeying the lockdown orders of tyrants .
As I have said before , the government and elitists only have power over you if you allow them .
More and more people around the globe are waking up to their enslavement and standing up to those who want ultimate control over their lives and to rule them .
If you have been an advocate for freedom and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll know what we are witnessing is unprecedented .
It took a massive amount of human rights abuses for the public to wake up , but the good news is that they have and we are now among the many .
One example of removing power from tyrants comes from San Clemente , California .
The city decided to go all out on control dump 37 tons of sand on a local skatepark in order to prevent kids from skating during the coronavirus lockdown .
But just a few days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after removing the sand themselves .
Not only did they remove the sand , but the dig-up was aided by dirt bikers who used it to make a course .
The dig up was filmed by motocross videographer Connor Ericsson , who headed over to the skatepark to help the effort and use the sand as a dirt bike course .
“ Took advantage of all the sand the city dumped into the San Clemente skatepark then helped some local skaters dig it all out so they could do some social shredding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Instagram post on Sunday , which showed him riding his bike in the park and then digging up the sand .
In Alabama ’ s Shelby County , a barbershop plans to reopen on Friday completely disregarding the orders barked by tyrants to remain closed and give up their livelihood .
The Male Room , a full-service barbershop in the Inverness Corners shopping center off Highway 280 , will be offering its services by appointment only starting Friday and with safety measures in place , Scott Farr , president , and partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owns the barbershop , said in a Facebook post Tuesday .
In Bangladesh , India , 100,000 people gathered at a funeral in defiance of lockdown orders .
The funeral for Maulana Zubayer Ahmad Ansari , an Islamic teacher , broke the country ’ s ban of no more than five people attending prayers at one time .
These are not the only examples , just the ones that are easy to find .
The mainstream media and government want everyone to believe that no one is standing up and removing power from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s exactly what ’ s happening .
If you are living in fear of the virus or scared to death of going in public , by all means , cower in fear in lockdown and obey the masters that own you .
But many are coming to terms with the fact the government couldn ’ t close the economy to begin with : we did that by obeying and we will reopen it by disobeying .
The only way to salvage even a shred of our human dignity , rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who put everyone on house arrest .
This is only the beginning .
The people will now decide how much slavery they will accept .

This is one of the most positive posts I have ever written. We are witnessing humanity, on a large scale, standing up. People are getting off their knees and disobeying the lockdown orders of tyrants.
As I have said before, the government and elitists only have power over you if you allow them. More and more people around the globe are waking up to their enslavement and standing up to those who want ultimate control over their lives and to rule them.
If you have been an advocate for freedom and a voluntary society for any amount of time, you’ll know what we are witnessing is unprecedented. It took a massive amount of human rights abuses for the public to wake up, but the good news is that they have and we are now among the many.
One example of removing power from tyrants comes from San Clemente, California. The city decided to go all out on control dump 37 tons of sand on a local skatepark in order to prevent kids from skating during the coronavirus lockdown. But just a few days later, local skaters were shredding again after removing the sand themselves. Not only did they remove the sand, but the dig-up was aided by dirt bikers who used it to make a course. The dig up was filmed by motocross videographer Connor Ericsson, who headed over to the skatepark to help the effort and use the sand as a dirt bike course.
“Took advantage of all the sand the city dumped into the San Clemente skatepark then helped some local skaters dig it all out so they could do some social shredding,” read the caption of Ericsson’s Instagram post on Sunday, which showed him riding his bike in the park and then digging up the sand.
In Alabama’s Shelby County, a barbershop plans to reopen on Friday completely disregarding the orders barked by tyrants to remain closed and give up their livelihood. The Male Room, a full-service barbershop in the Inverness Corners shopping center off Highway 280, will be offering its services by appointment only starting Friday and with safety measures in place, Scott Farr, president, and partner of Ervin, Farr Inc., which owns the barbershop, said in a Facebook post Tuesday.
In Bangladesh, India, 100,000 people gathered at a funeral in defiance of lockdown orders. The funeral for Maulana Zubayer Ahmad Ansari, an Islamic teacher, broke the country’s ban of no more than five people attending prayers at one time.
These are not the only examples, just the ones that are easy to find. The mainstream media and government want everyone to believe that no one is standing up and removing power from governments all around the globe, but that’s exactly what’s happening.
If you are living in fear of the virus or scared to death of going in public, by all means, cower in fear in lockdown and obey the masters that own you. But many are coming to terms with the fact the government couldn’t close the economy to begin with: we did that by obeying and we will reopen it by disobeying.
The only way to salvage even a shred of our human dignity, rights, and economy is to disobey the tyrants who put everyone on house arrest. This is only the beginning. The people will now decide how much slavery they will accept.
Article posted with permission from Mac Slavo


thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-22--Obama’s Communist Stooge John Brennan Suppressed High-Quality Intelligence That Putin Wanted Clinton

Obama’s Communist Stooge John Brennan Suppressed High-Quality Intelligence That Putin Wanted Clinton To Win In 2016

CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia ’ s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton ’ s election .
They also told Fred Fleitz that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts .
From the very first , John Brennan was Obama ’ s muscle who worked outside the law , to put it kindly .
Brennan handled the nasty things that needed to be done .
If you recall , during the presidential election , I ran a number of stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s passport at the Department of State .
There were always questions about Obama ’ s citizenship status and what kind of passport he used to he travel to Pakistan during his college years as a foreign student .
Back in March 2008 , the State Department launched an investigation of improper computer access to passport records of Barack Hussein Obama .
The investigation was focused on John Brennan company ( here. )
.
Brennan ’ s employee was accused of tampering with the passport files .
You will also recall that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case was murdered .
Shot in the head , in his car , in front of his church .
Fred Fleitz : Here ’ s what ’ s behind the Senate-House disputes on Russian meddling in 2016 election While the nation is focused on the coronavirus pandemic , the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report Tuesday that challenges House conclusions about former CIA Director John Brennan cooking intelligence for political purposes .
At issue is a controversial January 2017 intelligence community assessment that concluded that Russia had meddled in the 2016 presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That assessment supported the basic premise of the widely discredited Steele Dossier that , according to recently declassified FBI documents , contained Russian disinformation .
In March 2018 , the House Intelligence Committee issued a report saying the intelligence community assessment had been politicized to hurt Trump .
I am a former CIA analyst and House Intelligence Committee staff member who expressed such views in Fox News op-eds in January and May 2017 .
The report released Tuesday was the second Senate Intelligence Committee report contradicting the findings of the House and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was issued in July 2018 .
Naturally , the political establishment and anti-Trump journalists gloated about the new Senate Intelligence Committee report as bolstering their biases .
NBC reporter Ken Dilanian breathlessly tweeted that it “ confirmed the accuracy of the 2017 US intelligence assessment on Russian election interference , undercutting far right conspiracy theories.
” According to the latest Senate Intelligence Committee report , proper procedures were dutifully followed in drafting the intelligence community assessment .
The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee report says , adding that “ The ICA reflects proper analytic tradecraft despite being tasked and completed within a compressed timeframe.
” However , the House Intelligence Committee came to a different conclusion in its March 2018 report , finding that the intelligence community assessment ’ s judgments on why Russian President Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election did not employ proper analytic tradecraft .
So who is right ?
Accusing the intelligence community of improper “ analytic tradecraft ” in analyzing Russia ’ s strategic intentions is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee to make .
In my opinion , there is no question the House Intelligence Committee is right for the reasons in its 2018 report and other subsequent findings .
The House committee found the intelligence community assessment violated protocols for drafting such assessments .
This major finding shows why America needs strong legislative oversight over the intelligence services .
For example , although the protocols require intelligence community assessments to be “ community products ” and vetted with all intelligence agencies and analysts with equities in a given subject , only three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment : the CIA , National Security Agency and FBI .
With the 14 other intelligence agencies left out , the three participating agencies included only two dozen “ handpicked ” analysts .
Other intelligence agencies working on this issue , such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security , were excluded .
In addition , House Intelligence Committee staff revealed the actual drafting of the intelligence community assessment was done by three close associates of former CIA Director Brennan , who has proven to be the most politicized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to common practice for controversial intelligence community assessments , Brennan ’ s team allowed no dissenting views or even an annex with reviews by outside experts .
These were extraordinary violations of intelligence community rules to ensure that analysis is accurate and trusted .
The Senate committee reports ignored these foundational violations .
The Senate Intelligence Committee report falsely claims that “ all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence ” and that analysts who wrote the intelligence community assessment consistently said they “ were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found the opposite .
They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election .
More gravely , they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia ’ s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton ’ s election .
They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts .
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead , the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win , House Intelligence Committee staff revealed .
They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed , substandard information in the assessment .
So why did the Senate and House Intelligence Committees come to such starkly different conclusions ?
Why would professional intelligence officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and their left-wing media allies claim the House Intelligence Committee ’ s findings are not credible because they were solely the work of what was then the Republican majority under then-Chairman Devin Nunes , R-Calif. On the other hand , the Democrats and their media allies contend that the Senate Intelligence Committee ’ s findings must be believed because they are bipartisan and endorsed by the committee ’ s Republican Chairman Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina .
First , I ’ ve carefully reviewed the unclassified House Intelligence Committee reports and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their Russia investigations .
I found their work credible , aggressively researched , and soundly analyzed .
The unprecedented partisanship of the present chairman , Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , and his staff ’ s apparently authorized leaks , made a bipartisan report impossible .
It is unfair to reject the House Intelligence Committee report out of hand just because it was written by Republican members .
Second , it is more reasonable to regard any bipartisan report on this subject as suspicious .
Democratic lawmakers have been fanatically united in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So it is impossible to believe that a Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee member would allow any references in the panel ’ s reports that intelligence was slanted and weaponized to undermine Trump ’ s presidency .
If information ever reached the Senate Intelligence Committee about Brennan suppressing intelligence in the intelligence community assessment that Putin favored Clinton instead of Trump , its Democratic members and staff certainly would have demanded that those crucial facts never be known .
Third , it is well known that Sen. Burr has been an extraordinarily weak Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill quip that the CIA oversees Burr , not the other way around .
Burr basically has allowed Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner , D-Va. , to run the committee .
Burr refused to cooperate with President Trump ’ s attempts to name a new director of national intelligence last summer because of Warner ’ s objections .
Finally , intelligence officers likely told different stories to Republican House Intelligence Committee and bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigators because of the strong political bias within intelligence agencies against President Trump .
The intelligence officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff members about how the intelligence community assessment was weaponized .
But they would not level with the bipartisan Senate investigation because they worried that their honest assessments that countered the narrative would get back to their supervisors and damage their careers .
I witnessed this problem several times during more than two decades in government .
So what happens next ?
Acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell is trying to get to the bottom of problems with the 2017 Russia intelligence community assessment .
He has asked to see all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
More importantly , federal prosecutor John Durham reportedly is looking into the drafting of the intelligence community assessment as part of his investigation of possible government wrongdoing before and after the last presidential election .
One anticipates that a tough lawman like Durham , with confidence from both sides of the political aisle , will finally answer whether the 2017 intelligence community assessment was rigged to hurt Trump politically .

CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told Fred Fleitz that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.
From the very first, John Brennan was Obama’s muscle who worked outside the law, to put it kindly. Brennan handled the nasty things that needed to be done. If you recall, during the presidential election, I ran a number of stories on the passport breach of Obama’s passport at the Department of State. There were always questions about Obama’s citizenship status and what kind of passport he used to he travel to Pakistan during his college years as a foreign student.
Back in March 2008, the State Department launched an investigation of improper computer access to passport records of Barack Hussein Obama. The investigation was focused on John Brennan company (here.). Brennan’s employee was accused of tampering with the passport files.
You will also recall that the key witness in the presidential Passport tampering case was murdered. Shot in the head, in his car, in front of his church.
Fred Fleitz: Here’s what’s behind the Senate-House disputes on Russian meddling in 2016 election
While the nation is focused on the coronavirus pandemic, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report Tuesday that challenges House conclusions about former CIA Director John Brennan cooking intelligence for political purposes.
At issue is a controversial January 2017 intelligence community assessment that concluded that Russia had meddled in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win. That assessment supported the basic premise of the widely discredited Steele Dossier that, according to recently declassified FBI documents, contained Russian disinformation.
In March 2018, the House Intelligence Committee issued a report saying the intelligence community assessment had been politicized to hurt Trump. I am a former CIA analyst and House Intelligence Committee staff member who expressed such views in Fox News op-eds in January and May 2017.
The report released Tuesday was the second Senate Intelligence Committee report contradicting the findings of the House and other intelligence experts. The first Senate report was issued in July 2018.
Naturally, the political establishment and anti-Trump journalists gloated about the new Senate Intelligence Committee report as bolstering their biases. NBC reporter Ken Dilanian breathlessly tweeted that it “confirmed the accuracy of the 2017 US intelligence assessment on Russian election interference, undercutting far right conspiracy theories.”
According to the latest Senate Intelligence Committee report, proper procedures were dutifully followed in drafting the intelligence community assessment.
The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the ICA,” the Intelligence Committee report says, adding that “The ICA reflects proper analytic tradecraft despite being tasked and completed within a compressed timeframe.”
However, the House Intelligence Committee came to a different conclusion in its March 2018 report, finding that the intelligence community assessment’s judgments on why Russian President Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election did not employ proper analytic tradecraft.
So who is right?
Accusing the intelligence community of improper “analytic tradecraft” in analyzing Russia’s strategic intentions is an extremely grave indictment for a congressional oversight committee to make. In my opinion, there is no question the House Intelligence Committee is right for the reasons in its 2018 report and other subsequent findings.
The House committee found the intelligence community assessment violated protocols for drafting such assessments. This major finding shows why America needs strong legislative oversight over the intelligence services.
For example, although the protocols require intelligence community assessments to be “community products” and vetted with all intelligence agencies and analysts with equities in a given subject, only three intelligence agencies were asked to draft this assessment: the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI.
With the 14 other intelligence agencies left out, the three participating agencies included only two dozen “handpicked” analysts. Other intelligence agencies working on this issue, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, were excluded.
In addition, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed the actual drafting of the intelligence community assessment was done by three close associates of former CIA Director Brennan, who has proven to be the most politicized intelligence chief in American history.
Contrary to common practice for controversial intelligence community assessments, Brennan’s team allowed no dissenting views or even an annex with reviews by outside experts.
These were extraordinary violations of intelligence community rules to ensure that analysis is accurate and trusted. The Senate committee reports ignored these foundational violations.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report falsely claims that “all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence” and that analysts who wrote the intelligence community assessment consistently said they “were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.”
House Intelligence Committee staff members found the opposite. They told me there was conflicting intelligence evidence on Russian motivations for meddling in the 2016 election.
More gravely, they said that CIA Director Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
So why did the Senate and House Intelligence Committees come to such starkly different conclusions? Why would professional intelligence officers give different accounts to these committees?
Democrats and their left-wing media allies claim the House Intelligence Committee’s findings are not credible because they were solely the work of what was then the Republican majority under then-Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.
On the other hand, the Democrats and their media allies contend that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings must be believed because they are bipartisan and endorsed by the committee’s Republican Chairman Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.
I strongly disagree for several reasons.
First, I’ve carefully reviewed the unclassified House Intelligence Committee reports and spoken to committee members and professional staff about their Russia investigations. I found their work credible, aggressively researched, and soundly analyzed.
The unprecedented partisanship of the present chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his staff’s apparently authorized leaks, made a bipartisan report impossible. It is unfair to reject the House Intelligence Committee report out of hand just because it was written by Republican members.
Second, it is more reasonable to regard any bipartisan report on this subject as suspicious. Democratic lawmakers have been fanatically united in promoting the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative. So it is impossible to believe that a Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee member would allow any references in the panel’s reports that intelligence was slanted and weaponized to undermine Trump’s presidency.
If information ever reached the Senate Intelligence Committee about Brennan suppressing intelligence in the intelligence community assessment that Putin favored Clinton instead of Trump, its Democratic members and staff certainly would have demanded that those crucial facts never be known.
Third, it is well known that Sen. Burr has been an extraordinarily weak Senate Intelligence Committee chairman. Some on Capitol Hill quip that the CIA oversees Burr, not the other way around.
Burr basically has allowed Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., to run the committee. Burr refused to cooperate with President Trump’s attempts to name a new director of national intelligence last summer because of Warner’s objections.
Finally, intelligence officers likely told different stories to Republican House Intelligence Committee and bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigators because of the strong political bias within intelligence agencies against President Trump.
The intelligence officers probably felt free to level with Republican staff members about how the intelligence community assessment was weaponized. But they would not level with the bipartisan Senate investigation because they worried that their honest assessments that countered the narrative would get back to their supervisors and damage their careers.
I witnessed this problem several times during more than two decades in government.
So what happens next? Acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell is trying to get to the bottom of problems with the 2017 Russia intelligence community assessment. He has asked to see all of the intelligence on which it is based.
More importantly, federal prosecutor John Durham reportedly is looking into the drafting of the intelligence community assessment as part of his investigation of possible government wrongdoing before and after the last presidential election.
One anticipates that a tough lawman like Durham, with confidence from both sides of the political aisle, will finally answer whether the 2017 intelligence community assessment was rigged to hurt Trump politically.
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller


thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-22--Police Have Begun To Revolt Against Tyrannical Edicts From Local Authoritarians

It ’ s not just the citizenry anymore .
Many in the police force are beginning to see that it isn ’ t just about those they serve , but them as well and are beginning to revolt against little tyrants in local municipalities against their draconian edicts concerning the non-threat of coronavirus .
The story comes by way of Tristan Justice at The Federalist : Police chiefs from Texas to Washington are standing up against draconian orders from local leaders demanding strict adherence to extreme social distancing measures to curb the spread of the novel Wuhan coronavirus .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that its members would refrain from enforcing local County Judge Lina Hidalgo ’ s ruling deeming it mandatory for any individual over the age of 10 to wear a mask in public .
“ The Houston Police Officers ’ Union believes everyone should be wearing a mask in public , in order to protect themselves from the virus and we are encouraging all of our officers to wear a mask , ” the union wrote in a statement .
“ However , we draw the line at the draconian measures Hidalgo has decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work every single day to bridge the gap with our community and earn their trust , we will not stand idly by and allow Hidalgo to tear that bridge down , with her horrific leadership and echo chamber decision making.
” The police union said it had contacted the state attorney general ’ s office to determine whether Hidalgo ’ s ruling was even constitutional , noting that until then , members were encouraged to use discretion in enforcement of the measure as resources are already stretched thin from the pandemic .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced Tuesday that his officers would also abstain from enforcement of lockdown orders , joining Franklin County Sheriff J.D .
Raymond who said he would not stop churches and business from opening with reasonable distancing measures in place .
“ As I have previously stated , I have not carried out any enforcement for the current stay-at-home order , ” Fortney wrote on Facebook .
“ I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion .
We have the right to peacefully assemble .
We have the right to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to attend church service of any denomination.
” Fortney challenged Democratic Washington Gov .
Jay Inslee ’ s lockdown orders as inconsistent , deeming some businesses essential over others .
While government construction projects may continue Fortney points out , private contractors remain out of work .
“ As I arrive to work at the courthouse , I see landscapers show up each day to install new landscape and maintain our flowerbeds , ” Fortney wrote .
“ However , a father who owns a construction company and works alone while outdoors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a living to provide for his wife and children ?
” “ This contradiction is not okay and is bordering on unethical , ” said Fortney .
Further east in Michigan , four sheriffs in the northwest part of the mitten also announced last week that they would refuse to enforce Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s lockdown orders which have been the most extreme in the country .
By the stroke of a pen , Whitmer has deemed it illegal for Michiganders to travel “ between residences ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to purchase .
Whitmer , the sheriffs said in a joint statement , “ has created a vague framework of emergency laws that only confuse Michigan citizens.
” “ As a result , we will not have strict enforcement of these orders , ” the sheriffs wrote .
“ We will deal with every case as an individual situation and apply common sense in assessing the apparent violation… We believe that we are the last line of defense in protecting your civil liberties.
” As the pandemic over the Wuhan coronavirus stretches into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American economy , an anxious public is losing its patience with increasingly strict lockdowns keeping millions out of work while models have proven inaccurate .
Since the start of the pandemic , more than 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment over just four weeks and protests against shelter-in-place orders have begun to appear nationwide .
Last week , several state governors announced they would allow shelter-in-place orders to expire either on or before April 30 with certain conditions in place to kickstart their stalled economies while keeping the virus at bay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tyrannical governors and mayors in their states , it ’ s good to know that those who serve the people are beginning to stand with them even when there are those in their ranks who are enjoying being tyrannical .
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

It’s not just the citizenry anymore. Many in the police force are beginning to see that it isn’t just about those they serve, but them as well and are beginning to revolt against little tyrants in local municipalities against their draconian edicts concerning the non-threat of coronavirus.
The story comes by way of Tristan Justice at The Federalist:
Police chiefs from Texas to Washington are standing up against draconian orders from local leaders demanding strict adherence to extreme social distancing measures to curb the spread of the novel Wuhan coronavirus.
The Houston Police Officers’ Union declared Wednesday that its members would refrain from enforcing local County Judge Lina Hidalgo’s ruling deeming it mandatory for any individual over the age of 10 to wear a mask in public.
“The Houston Police Officers’ Union believes everyone should be wearing a mask in public, in order to protect themselves from the virus and we are encouraging all of our officers to wear a mask,” the union wrote in a statement. “However, we draw the line at the draconian measures Hidalgo has decided to engage in.”
“Our officers work every single day to bridge the gap with our community and earn their trust, we will not stand idly by and allow Hidalgo to tear that bridge down, with her horrific leadership and echo chamber decision making.”
The police union said it had contacted the state attorney general’s office to determine whether Hidalgo’s ruling was even constitutional, noting that until then, members were encouraged to use discretion in enforcement of the measure as resources are already stretched thin from the pandemic.
In Washington, Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney announced Tuesday that his officers would also abstain from enforcement of lockdown orders, joining Franklin County Sheriff J.D. Raymond who said he would not stop churches and business from opening with reasonable distancing measures in place.
“As I have previously stated, I have not carried out any enforcement for the current stay-at-home order,” Fortney wrote on Facebook. “I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion. We have the right to peacefully assemble. We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to attend church service of any denomination.”
Fortney challenged Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s lockdown orders as inconsistent, deeming some businesses essential over others. While government construction projects may continue Fortney points out, private contractors remain out of work.
“As I arrive to work at the courthouse, I see landscapers show up each day to install new landscape and maintain our flowerbeds,” Fortney wrote. “However, a father who owns a construction company and works alone while outdoors is not allowed to run his business to make a living to provide for his wife and children?”
“This contradiction is not okay and is bordering on unethical,” said Fortney.
Further east in Michigan, four sheriffs in the northwest part of the mitten also announced last week that they would refuse to enforce Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s lockdown orders which have been the most extreme in the country.
By the stroke of a pen, Whitmer has deemed it illegal for Michiganders to travel “between residences” or buy seeds while lottery tickets remain permitted to purchase.
Whitmer, the sheriffs said in a joint statement, “has created a vague framework of emergency laws that only confuse Michigan citizens.”
“As a result, we will not have strict enforcement of these orders,” the sheriffs wrote. “We will deal with every case as an individual situation and apply common sense in assessing the apparent violation… We believe that we are the last line of defense in protecting your civil liberties.”
As the pandemic over the Wuhan coronavirus stretches into the next month, wreaking havoc on the American economy, an anxious public is losing its patience with increasingly strict lockdowns keeping millions out of work while models have proven inaccurate.
Since the start of the pandemic, more than 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment over just four weeks and protests against shelter-in-place orders have begun to appear nationwide.
Last week, several state governors announced they would allow shelter-in-place orders to expire either on or before April 30 with certain conditions in place to kickstart their stalled economies while keeping the virus at bay.
States preparing partial reopenings include Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and Texas.
While many are rightly standing up to tyrannical governors and mayors in their states, it’s good to know that those who serve the people are beginning to stand with them even when there are those in their ranks who are enjoying being tyrannical.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-04-22--Creative Leftists Hope To Steal The Vote

There ’ s an old joke that goes like this : How does a lifelong conservative voter in Chicago switch to being a liberal voter ?
He dies .
If the left is so great and leftists ’ ideas are so wonderful , then how come they often have to cheat to win elections ?
During the coronavirus , with its extraordinary upending of our regular life , some want to use this crisis to permanently change how we vote in this country .
This reminds me of the left ’ s slogan , “ Never let a crisis go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Associated Press reported on a new law in Chicago whereby prisoners can vote in prison ( not just by absentee ballot ) : “ A state law enacted last summer requires that Illinois ’ 20,000 pretrial detainees be given the opportunity to vote .
That means absentee ballots must be distributed in every jail in the state .
But the law also requires that any county with more than 3 million residents set up voting machines in the jail .
Cook was the only county to qualify.
” On April 3 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has prompted new calls to expand access to voting ahead of November ’ s election and intensified the long-running partisan fight over voting rights .
… And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants money dedicated to vote-by-mail to be part of the next coronavirus bill.
” It may sound good , but some of the left ’ s tactics have been designed to basically steal the vote .
The left has been pushing for illegal immigrants to be able to vote .
And every time an illegitimate vote is cast it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If there is cheating by Republicans against Democrats , I ’ m not aware of it .
If you answer , “ Watergate , ” please note that was about half a century ago .
As we face the critical election this year , 2020 , we do well to stay on guard against any means from anybody to steal our vote .
Veteran journalist Bob Knight wrote a book , “ Liberty on the Brink , ” on the left ’ s efforts to falsify elections .
In a TV interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is to allow millions of illegal immigrants into the country , not keep track of them , and then weaken the voting laws .
… In the book , I go through a number of ways they do this .
They fight voter ID laws , which are very common-sense laws because everybody agrees on them.
” Scott Powell , a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute , told me : “ In America , you have to have an identification to fly , to buy alcohol , to drive a car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the more important things an American citizen can do , and there should be unanimous support for voter identification .
Without voter identification , we are more likely to have electoral fraud , and that can swing elections in key areas.
” One of the key strategies of the left to try and sway the outcome of upcoming elections is a movement to abolish the Electoral College .
But that was a brilliant concept the founders included in the Constitution itself to allow for states across the nation to have their say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
The left just wants the big cities ( usually liberal ) to decide .
As constitutional attorney Jenna Ellis points out , “ The Electoral College is a process that was put in place to safeguard the safety of the voters and to make sure that every state has a voice and has representation.
” Bob Knight gives an example of a practice rife with the potential for voter fraud : “ Ballot harvesting is one of the latest techniques that the left is using to , I believe , steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some jurisdictions , and it means you can go out and collect ballots from people you ’ re not related to .
Usually , you can not vote , you can not turn in a ballot for someone you ’ re not related to , and that ’ s to prevent vote fraud.
” He points out that on election night 2018 , in normally conservative Orange County , California , several Republicans were leading – one of them by 14 % .
And then , says Knight : “ Thousands of ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harvested by volunteers , usually union leaders .
And that swept the Democrats to power in all congressional districts in Orange County .
Now I can ’ t believe that Orange County overnight became a Democratic county , other than the ballot harvesting that facilitated it.
” Yes , the coronavirus may alter some of how voting is done in this critical election year .
But it ought not to be the means by which the left tries to steal our vote .
Knight notes how serious this threat of voter fraud is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take over the country and impose a socialist state on America .
If they win this time around , I ’ m not sure we ’ ll ever get the American freedom we ’ re used to back .
”

There’s an old joke that goes like this: How does a lifelong conservative voter in Chicago switch to being a liberal voter? He dies.
If the left is so great and leftists’ ideas are so wonderful, then how come they often have to cheat to win elections?
During the coronavirus, with its extraordinary upending of our regular life, some want to use this crisis to permanently change how we vote in this country. This reminds me of the left’s slogan, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
On March 16, the Associated Press reported on a new law in Chicago whereby prisoners can vote in prison (not just by absentee ballot): “A state law enacted last summer requires that Illinois’ 20,000 pretrial detainees be given the opportunity to vote. That means absentee ballots must be distributed in every jail in the state. But the law also requires that any county with more than 3 million residents set up voting machines in the jail. Cook was the only county to qualify.”
On April 3, CNN observed, “The coronavirus crisis has prompted new calls to expand access to voting ahead of November’s election and intensified the long-running partisan fight over voting rights. … And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants money dedicated to vote-by-mail to be part of the next coronavirus bill.”
It may sound good, but some of the left’s tactics have been designed to basically steal the vote.
The left has been pushing for illegal immigrants to be able to vote. And every time an illegitimate vote is cast it nullifies a legitimate vote that is cast.
If there is cheating by Republicans against Democrats, I’m not aware of it. If you answer, “Watergate,” please note that was about half a century ago.
As we face the critical election this year, 2020, we do well to stay on guard against any means from anybody to steal our vote. Veteran journalist Bob Knight wrote a book, “Liberty on the Brink,” on the left’s efforts to falsify elections.
In a TV interview, he told me, “One thing is to allow millions of illegal immigrants into the country, not keep track of them, and then weaken the voting laws. … In the book, I go through a number of ways they do this. They fight voter ID laws, which are very common-sense laws because everybody agrees on them.”
Scott Powell, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, told me: “In America, you have to have an identification to fly, to buy alcohol, to drive a car. Voting in an election is one of the more important things an American citizen can do, and there should be unanimous support for voter identification. Without voter identification, we are more likely to have electoral fraud, and that can swing elections in key areas.”
One of the key strategies of the left to try and sway the outcome of upcoming elections is a movement to abolish the Electoral College. But that was a brilliant concept the founders included in the Constitution itself to allow for states across the nation to have their say in the outcome of the election for president. The left just wants the big cities (usually liberal) to decide.
As constitutional attorney Jenna Ellis points out, “The Electoral College is a process that was put in place to safeguard the safety of the voters and to make sure that every state has a voice and has representation.”
Bob Knight gives an example of a practice rife with the potential for voter fraud: “Ballot harvesting is one of the latest techniques that the left is using to, I believe, steal elections. Ballot harvesting is legal in some jurisdictions, and it means you can go out and collect ballots from people you’re not related to. Usually, you cannot vote, you cannot turn in a ballot for someone you’re not related to, and that’s to prevent vote fraud.”
He points out that on election night 2018, in normally conservative Orange County, California, several Republicans were leading – one of them by 14%. And then, says Knight: “Thousands of ballots came in [later] that were harvested by volunteers, usually union leaders. And that swept the Democrats to power in all congressional districts in Orange County. Now I can’t believe that Orange County overnight became a Democratic county, other than the ballot harvesting that facilitated it.”
Yes, the coronavirus may alter some of how voting is done in this critical election year. But it ought not to be the means by which the left tries to steal our vote.
Knight notes how serious this threat of voter fraud is: “The left is trying to take over the country and impose a socialist state on America. If they win this time around, I’m not sure we’ll ever get the American freedom we’re used to back.”
Article posted with permission from Jerry Newcombe