Category Archives: Congress

Obama IRS targeted for audit 1 in 10 donors to conservative groups

Under Obama, conservative Americans suddenly found themselves living not in the U.S.A., but in the (former) Soviet Union.

In 2013-14, news came that the all-powerful Internal Revenue Service of the Obama administration was singling out for scrutiny conservative groups that had applied for non-profit status. See:

But what actually happened is even worse. It turns out Obama’s IRS targeted for audit:

  1. Not just conservative groups that had applied for non-profit 501(c)(4) status, but also conservative groups that already were 501(c)(4)s.
  2. Not just conservative groups, but also individual conservative Americans.

(1) Obama IRS targeted all right-wing groups

In February 2014, then-Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) stated that:

“Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s.  At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

The right-leaning groups that were targeted included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Leadership Institute, a 501(c)(3) that trains young conservative activists. The group’s president, Morton Blackwell, told Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) the audit had cost his organization more than $50,000 and hundreds of man-hours. As part of the investigation, the Leadership Institute was required to produce 23,430 pages of documents and answer far-ranging questions about its interns and other miscellaneous topics.

(2) Obama IRS targeted conservative individuals

On July 22, 2015, the D.C. citizens’ watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that it obtained documents from IRS which confirm the IRS had used donor lists to conservative tax-exempt organizations (such as the aforementioned Leadership Institute) to target those donors for audits. The IRS produced the records in a Freedom of Information lawsuit by Judicial Watch seeking documents about selection of individuals for audits, based upon application information and donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220)).

One of the damning documents is an exchange of letters between then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman:

  • In his letter to Shulman of September 28, 2010, Baucus wrote: “I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations.…”
  • Shulman replied in a letter dated February 17, 2011: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”

Note: Sen. Roy Blunt wrote that Douglas Shulman was cleared to visit the White House more than 100 times during his four years as Obama’s IRS commissioner. In contrast, Shulman’s predecessor, Mark Everson, says he was cleared to visit the Bush White House just once during his four years as IRS commissioner.

After receiving Sen. Baucus’s letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35% gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000, which required the IRS audit the donors.

But the 35% gift tax was really just a ruse because a gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)’s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. In fact, the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.

The documents show that individual donors to Crossroads GPS, associated with Republican Karl Rove, were specifically referenced by IRS officials in the context of the gift tax audit. IRS attorney Lorraine Gardner emailed a 501(c)(4) donor list to former Branch Chief in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel James Hogan. Later, this information was shared with IRS Estate Gift and Policy Manager Lisa Piehl.

In September 2014, another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.

At a May 7, 2014 hearing, the House Ways and Means Committee announced    that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to the conservative 501(c)(4) organization Freedom’s Watch were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bradley Blakeman, Freedom’s Watch’s former president, said he was “personally targeted” by the IRS.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said:

These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech. And the snarky comments about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the obsession with Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS show that the IRS was targeting critics of the Obama administration. President Obama may want to continue to lie about his IRS scandal. These documents tell the truth – his IRS hated conservatives and was willing to illegally tax and audit citizens to shut down opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and reelection.

See also:

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Not a conspiracy theory: U.S. government has engaged in weather modification since 1953

A recent article in New York Times Magazine of April 18, 2017, asks if it’s O.K. “to tinker with the environment to fight climate change”.

Tinkering with the environment is another way of saying “weather modification“.

The NYT article by Jon Gertner describes Harvard professor David Keith’s proposal of a continuous “solar engineering” project to slow down global warming, at a cost of $1 billion a year, by flying ten Gulfstream jets around the world, spraying 25,000 tons of liquid sulphur gas. The gas will condense into airborne particles that scatter sunlight and so reduce global warming. Keith argues such a project is technologically feasible, but is concerned, as he puts it, about “the ethics about messing with nature.”

Chemtrails over Barcelona, Spain

What neither Keith nor reporter Gertner seems to know (or pretend they don’t know) is that the U.S. government has been engaged in “tinkering with the environment” or weather modification since 1953, as revealed in a recently uncovered 784-page U.S. Senate report, Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: May 1978).

Here are some highlights from that report:

(1) The U.S. government has been doing weather modification since 1953 (p. v of Weather Modification):

In a letter addressed to Dr. Norman A. Beckman, Acting Director, Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, Sen. James B. Pearson wrote: “weather modification projects have been operational for nearly 25 years and have been shown to have significant potential for preventing, diverting, moderating, or ameliorating the adverse effects of such weather related disasters and hazards”. Pearson’s “greatest concern” is “regarding the lack of a coordinated Federal weather modification policy and a coordinated and comprehensive program for weather modification research and development.” It is that concern that prompted Sen. Pearson to ask the Congressional Research Service to prepare the Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential report.

Note: James Pearson was a U.S. senator (R-Kansas) from 1962 to 1978. He introduced and sponsored senate bill S.3383 “National Weather Modification Policy Act”. Written into Public Law 94-490 on October 13, 1976, S.3383 authorized a member of the cabinet to “negotiate an International agreement concerning the peaceful uses of weather modification”.

(2) Definition of weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” p. xix):

“Weather modification is generally considered to be the deliberate effort to improve atmospheric conditions for beneficial human purposes—to augment water supplies through enhanced precipitation or to reduce economic losses, property damages, and deaths through mitigation of adverse effects of hail, lightning, fog, and severe storms.”

(3) Modern, scientific methods of weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xix-xx):

  • The modern period in weather modification began in 1946 with cloud seeding using dry ice, then silver iodide.
  • Beginning in the 1950s, there were projects to alter severe storm effects. Commercial weather modifiers also began.
  • By 1978 when the Senate report was published, weather modification included cold fog clearing; “primitive” efforts to abate severe storms and hurricanes; increase winter snowpack by seeding clouds in the mountains on the U.S. west coast and in Israel to enhance precipitation by as much as 15% over “natural” rainfall; opening holes (via seeding) in wintertime cloud layers in northeast U.S. so as to increase sunshine and decrease energy consumption; and experiments to suppress lightning by seeding thunderstorms.

(4) U.S. government involvement in weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxi-xxvi):

  • “For over 30 years both legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government have been involved in a number of aspects of weather modification.”
  • Since 1947, more than 110 weather modification bills and resolutions have been introduced in Congress — for research support, operations, grants, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, international concerns, and using weather modification as a weapon. Some of the bills became laws.
  • Total funding for Federal weather modification research reached a high point of $20 million in fiscal year 1976, falling to $17 million in fiscal year 1978.
  • While each federal government agency conducts its own weather modification research, the National Science Foundation is the lead agency. The NSF and the Departments of Interior and Commerce account for the largest weather modification programs.
  • State governments, universities, private institutions and commercial entities (e.g., airlines) also conduct their own weather modification projects, mostly to increase precipitation, suppression of hail or dispersal of fog.

(5) Global warming from human behaviors that may inadvertently cause weather modification (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxi):

“Modification processes may also be initiated or triggered inadvertently rather than purposefully, and the possibility exists that society may be changing the climate through its own actions by pushing on certain leverage points. Inadvertently, man is already causing measurable variations on the local scale. Artificial climatic effects have been observed and documented on local and regional scales, particularly in and downwind of heavily populated industrial areas where waste heat, particulate pollution and altered ground surface characteristics are primarily responsible for the perceived climate modification. The climate in and near large cities, for example, is warmer, the daily range of temperature is less, and annual precipitation is greater than if the cities had never been built. Although not verifiable at present, the time may not be far off when human activities will result in measurable large-scale changes in weather and climate of more than passing significance. It is important to appreciate the fact that the role of man at this global level is still controversial, and existing models of the general circulation are not yet capable of testing the effects in a conclusive manner. Nevertheless, a growing fraction of current evidence does point to the possibility of unprecedented impact on the global climate by human activities ….”

(6) Weather modification is international (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxvii):

  • While the U.S. is the leader in weather modification research and operations, other countries conduct weather modification as well, but not all governments report that they do.
  • The largest country outside of U.S. was the Soviet Union.
  • Other major weather modification countries are Canada, Israel, Mexico, China.

(7) Weather modification is controversial and has opposition (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xxvii):

“Weather modification is often controversial, and both formal and informal opposition groups have been organized in various sections of the country. Reasons for such opposition are varied and are based on both real and perceived adverse consequences from weather modification. Sometimes with little or no rational basis there are charges by these groups that otherwise unexplained and usually unpleasant weather-related events are linked to cloud seeding. There are also cases where some farmers are economically disadvantaged through receiving more, or less than optimum rainfall for their particular crops, when artificial inducement of such conditions may have indeed been planned to benefit those growing different crops with different moisture requirements.

(8) Weather modification as a weapon of war (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp. xix, xxviii):

  • “Not all weather modification activities, however, have been or can be designed to benefit everyone, and some intentional operations have been used, or are perceived to have been used, as a weapon of war to impede the mobility or tactical readiness of an enemy.”
  • The U.S. used weather modification as a weapon of war in Vietnam: “attempts were made to impede traffic by increasing rainfall during the monsoon season.”
  • Expect weather warfare between nations in the future.
  • There have been international efforts to ensure peaceful use of weather modification.
  • “Because atmospheric processes operate independent of national borders, weather modification is inherently of international concern…. Whereas domestic weather modification law is confused
    and unsettled, international law in this area is barely in the formative stage. In time, ramifications of weather modification may lead to major international controversy.

(9) Weather modification will have unintended ecological effects (from “Summary and Conclusions,” pp.xxix-xxx):

“Economically significant weather modification activities will have an eventual ecological effect, though appearance of that effect may be hidden or delayed…. Deliberate weather modification, such as precipitation augmentation, is likely to have a greater ecological impact in semi-arid regions than in humid ones.”

Dane Wigington of geoengineeringwatch.org asks:

How big does the climate engineering elephant in the room need to be before it can no longer be hidden in plain site? How much more historical proof do we need of the ongoing climate engineering/weather warfare before the denial of the masses crumbles? When will populations around the globe bring to justice all those responsible for the ongoing and rapidly worsening worldwide weather warfare assault?

And so, the next time you’re mocked and called a “conspiracy theorist” because you bring up chemtrails or HAARP or California’s peculiar historic 100-year drought, show them this post. They are the ones in denial, not us.

See also:

~Eowyn

President Trump signs law restoring states’ right to defund Planned Parenthood

On his first full day of work in the White House on January 23, 2017, a day after the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order to defund overseas abortion agencies. {See “Trump fulfills 3 promises in first day of work as POTUS, including defund International Planned Parenthood”)

On April 3, 2017, President Trump put an end to the U.S.’s $75 million funding  of a United Nations abortion agency — the UN Population Fund.

Ten days later on April 13, 2017, President Trump signed into law a joint Congressional resolution, H.J.Res. 43, enabling states to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills.

H.J.Res. 43 repeals one of Obama’s last malevolent acts as POTUS.

In December 2016, Obama had bestowed his parting gift to the abortion industry with a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule banning states from withholding Title X federal “family planning” grants to abortion clinics. At the time, HHS explained that the rule was created in reaction to states that tried to stop funding abortion providers.

H.J.Res. 43, that President Trump signed into law, reads:

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients (81 Fed. Reg. 91852; December 19, 2016), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

On April 14, 2017, speaking for all pro-lifers, Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, said:

“Today we thank President Donald Trump for restoring states’ freedom to direct taxpayer dollars away from abortion providers in favor of supporting community health centers that deliver comprehensive women’s care, and already outnumber abortion providers 20 to 1.”

Applauding H.J.Res. 43, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser urges Congress to take up more legislation to strip Planned Parenthood and abortion providers of other federal funds like Medicaid reimbursements, and redirect those federal funds to health providers that do not perform abortions.

Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) introduced H.J. Res. 43 to the U.S. House of Representatives, which nullified the HHS rule. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) sponsored H.J. Res. 43 in the Senate. The measure passed the House easily and then narrowly passed the Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence as the tie-breaking vote.

If the Trump administration never does anything else, H.J. Res. 43 alone is a confirmation of the rightness of our votes last November 8 for Trump-Pence.

And don’t let anyone tell you that Republicans are no different from the party of  Demonrats.

~Eowyn

Former US intelligence officials: Trump lied about Assad’s chemical attack on Idlib province

“President Trump should make his case in front of the American people and allow their elected representatives to debate the benefits and risks of further Middle East intervention to our national security interests.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

What we know to be FACTS:

  1. On 4 April 2017, the town of Khan Shaykhun in Syria’s Idlib province, was struck by a heavy airstrike followed by massive civilian chemical (sarin nerve gas) poisoning, including children.
  2. At the time of the attack the town was under the control of Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as the al-Nusra Front — a Sunni Islamist terrorist organization fighting against Syrian Government forces in the Syrian Civil War, with the aim of establishing an Islamist state in the country.
  3. President Donald Trump, the U.S. Pentagon, and the UK (in the person of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson) blamed the attack on the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Russian and Syrian governments said it was caused by the Syrian Air Force’s destruction of a nearby rebel-operated chemical weapons warehouse.
  4. In the early morning hours of April 7, 2017, the Trump administration fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. destroyer in the Mediterranean Sea, at Shayrat Air Base in Syria,said to be the location from where the Assad government allegedly had launched the April 4 chemical attack.

A couple of points to keep in mind:

  • At the time of the alleged chemical attack, things were going well for the Assad government in its efforts to combat the Syrian “rebels,” among whom is the al-Nusra Front. In other words, there was no reason for the Assad government to launch a chemical attack against the “rebels”.
  • From 2013, when Obama and Congress had agitated to attack the Syrian government because of the latter’s alleged deployment of chemical weapons, Assad knows well the U.S. would go berserk if he were to launch a chemical attack.

Two former U.S. intelligence officials are speaking out about what they know and believe about the April 4 “chemical attack” on the town in Idlib. They are:

  1. Walter Patrick “Pat” Lang, Jr., 76, a former U.S. Army officer who left the army with the rank of Colonel, then worked as a high-level civilian intelligence analyst in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at the equivalent rank of a lieutenant general, specializing in the Middle East and South Asia. Lang is now a commentator on the Middle East, private intelligence analyst, and author.
  2. Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst from the administration of John Kennedy to that of George H.W. Bush, and prepared the President’s Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Both Lang and McGovern maintain that:

  • On April 4, the Assad government undertook a conventional (not chemical) air strike at a rebel-held weapons/explosives depot in Idlib.
  • The Assad government had notified the Trump administration of its intended strike.
  • Unbeknown to the Assad government, the weapons depot contained deadly chemicals — of organic phosphates and chlorine (not sarin).
  • The explosion of the depot released the chemicals into the air, which was carried by a strong wind to a nearby town, Khan Shaykhun, and killed civilians.

Below are the respective analyses of Lang and McGovern, originally published on Intel Today, a website that is less than a year old, founded last July. My guess is Intel Today is a forum of retired and/or active “white hats” U.S. intelligence officials.

Analysis by former DIA Intelligence Analyst Col. Patrick Lang

Donald Trump’s decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

  1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
  2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believed was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
  3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
  4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
  5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

Here’s the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.

This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars [Note: the cost is more likely $114.5 million, based on the per-unit cost of Tomahawk cruise missile] of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit. The Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I’m hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war crime.

Analysis by former CIA agent Ray McGovern

Syrian aircraft ‘knew’ there was a weapons cache in this particular rebel-held area.  That was correct, and the Syrian aircraft bombed it.

What seems not to have been known was the existence nearby of a large storage facility for chemicals.  That too was damaged, releasing a cloud of chemicals that the wind blew south and poisoned those villagers.

Here is what most likely happened:

The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons and explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.

We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you.

See also:

~Eowyn

Look who support Trump’s missile strike on Syria

In the early morning hours of April 7, 2017, the Trump administration fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. destroyer in the Mediterranean Sea, at Shayrat Air Base in Syria, alleged to be the location from where the Assad government, on April 4, allegedly launched a chemical attack of sarin nerve gas which killed many civilians, including women and children, in the rebel-held town of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib province.

Trump undertook this act of war against the legitimate government of a sovereign state who has the support of Russia and China:

  • without an official investigation of the alleged chemical attack
  • without the approval of Congress
  • without an act of aggression from the Syrian government against the United States
  • without Syria presenting a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States
  • without a prior consultation with Russia (or China), and in so not doing, risks WW3 with two world powers.

Trump justified the missile strike as being for the Syrian children allegedly killed by the alleged chemical sarin-gas attack. So it’s all the more ironic that his missile strike killed 18 civilians, including 5 children. (AFP)

Here are the prominent Americans who support Trump’s missile attack:

(1) Bill Kristol

He who supported a third-party candidate against presidential candidate Trump, who finds Trump’s “America First” nationalism vulgar and embarrassing, who openly advocates a deep-state coup against President Trump — now approves of Trump risking WW3 by firing 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria, without even an investigation as to who’d actually deployed the sarin gas attack.

(2) Brian Williams

The pathological liar and disgraced former NBC anchorman calls Trump’s missile strikes that killed 18 civilians, including 5 children, a “beautiful” sight:

(3) Pelosi & Schumer

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) said, “Tonight’s strike in Syria appears to be a proportional response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–NY) said, “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do.” (Wikipedia)

(4) A Pack of RINOs

Senators John McCain (R–AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R–SC) said, “Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action. For that, he deserves the support of the American people.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–WI) said the strike was “appropriate and just.”

Also Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Orin Hatch (R-UT), David Perdue (R-GA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Thom Tillis (R-NC).  (Wikipedia)

(5) Hillary Clinton

Yesterday, April 7, speaking to a crowd of supporters in Houston, Texas, Clinton applauds Trump’s missile strikes and urges him to undertake even more U.S. military action to take out Assad — and open America’s doors to Syrian refugees:

“The action taken last night needs to be followed by a broader strategy to end Syria’s civil war . . . . So I hope this administration will move forward [and] . . . recognize that they cannot in one breath speak of protecting Syrian babies and in the next close America’s doors to them.”

(6) The Military-Industrial Complex

CNN Money reports, April 7, 2017, that Raytheon, the company that makes the Tomahawk missiles used in Trump’s air strikes on Syria, rose in early stock trading Friday. Investors are betting that Trump’s air strike means the Pentagon will need more Tomahawks.

The Department of Defense asked for $2 billion over five years to buy 4,000 Tomahawks for the U.S. Navy in its fiscal 2017 budget last February.

Raytheon(RTN) wasn’t the only defense stock rising Friday either. Lockheed Martin (LMT), which partners with Raytheon on the Javelin missile launcher system and also makes Hellfire missiles, gained nearly 1%.

And so, Donald Trump finally achieves bipartisan support . . . . Sarc/

I have a question for all the conservatives out there who support Trump’s missile strike against the Assad government:

Weren’t you adamantly AGAINST Obama wanting to attack Assad in 2013?

Then, as now, the conditions are the same. Then, as now, the excuse for U.S. military action is Assad’s alleged chemical attacks and those poor little children.

So what has changed to account for your enthusiastic support to attack Syria now?

And how does launching 59 cruise missiles at Syria — only 23 (or 40%) of which actually hit the target — at a cost of $114.5 million (each Tomahawk costs $1.94 million), Make America Great Again?

See also:

~Eowyn

Poll: Most young people say gov’t should pay for health care

time-magazine-millennials_500

The public education indoctrination system has succeeded.

From Seattle Times: Most young Americans want any health care overhaul under President Donald Trump to look a lot like the Affordable Care Act signed into law by his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

But there’s one big exception: A majority of young Americans dislike “Obamacare’s” requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine.

A GenForward poll says a majority of people ages 18 to 30 think the federal government should be responsible for making sure Americans have health insurance. It suggests most young Americans won’t be content with a law offering “access” to coverage, as Trump and Republicans in Congress proposed in doomed legislation they dropped March 24. The Trump administration is talking this week of somehow reviving the legislation.

Conducted Feb. 16 through March 6, before the collapse of the GOP bill, the poll shows that 63 percent of young Americans approve of the Obama-era health care law. It did not measure reactions to the Republican proposal.

The most popular element of the law is allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, which is favored by 75 percent of 18-30 year olds. It’s not just that they personally benefit — an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in January found that provision was equally popular among all adults. That proposal was included in the failed GOP overhaul.

But the Republican plan also contained provisions that most young Americans — the racially diverse electorate of the future — do not support, according to the poll. Two-thirds of young people agree with a smaller majority of Americans overall that the government should make sure people have health care coverage. And they understand that will cost more: Sixty-three percent want the government to increase spending to help people afford insurance.

Those feelings cut across racial lines and include most whites, who formed the base of Trump’s political support in the presidential election. “I do believe the government should offer it because we pay taxes,” said Rachel Haney, 27, of Tempe, Arizona. “I do feel like it’s a right.”

GenForward is a survey of adults age 18 to 30 by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the AP-NORC Center. The poll pays special attention to the voices of young adults of color, highlighting how race and ethnicity shape the opinions of a new generation.

Only about a quarter of young people want “Obamacare” repealed. That includes 16 percent of young adults who want it repealed and replaced as Trump has vowed and another 10 percent who want it repealed without a replacement. Just over a third of young whites want to see the law repealed, making them more likely than those of other racial and ethnic groups to say so.

“He just wants to protect us from al-Qaida, and terrorism,” said Kervin Dorsainvil, 18, a computer technician from Port Charlotte, Florida. “I feel like health care should be much higher on the list. I feel like we have the resources, the medical technology and everything in place to provide the health care to the people. So why wouldn’t we do that?”

Young people are more likely than Americans overall to say the government should make sure people have health care. A recent AP-NORC poll of U.S. adults, conducted during and after the collapse of the GOP proposal, found just 52 percent called it a federal government responsibility to make sure all Americans have coverage.

Despite their overall approval of “Obamacare,” young Americans’ views on the law aren’t all rosy. Just a third say the law is working relatively well, while another third think the health care policy has serious problems. About 2 in 10 consider the law to be fatally flawed.

The law’s requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine is opposed by 54 percent of young people and favored by just 28 percent.

On the other hand, 71 percent favor the law’s Medicaid expansion, 66 percent of young adults favor the prohibition on denying people coverage because of a person’s medical history, 65 percent favor requiring insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control, 63 percent favor requiring most employers to pay a fine if they don’t offer insurance and 53 percent favor paying for benefit increases with higher payroll taxes for higher earners.

About a quarter of young adults say they personally have insurance through their parents, while another 1 in 10 have purchased insurance through an exchange.

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Congress told U.S. military not ready to respond to an enemy attack, but Trump threatens Syria with war

Russ Read reports for The Daily Caller that during a hearing yesterday, April 5, 2017, the House Committee on Armed Services was told by the vice chiefs-of-staff of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy that their respective services all suffer from a lack of readiness.

In the case of the Army, Vice Chief-of-Staff Gen. Daniel Allyn said:

  • Only 3 of 58 Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) would be available to respond to an enemy attack if one hypothetically happened tonight. Since a BCT usually numbers anywhere between 4,400 to 4,700 soldiers, that means the Army has only about 13,500 troops ready to fight an enemy in the event of an emergency.
  • To make matters worse, “only about two-thirds of the Army’s initial critical formations — the formations we would need at the outset of a major conflict — are at acceptable levels of readiness to conduct sustained ground combat in a full spectrum environment against a highly lethal hybrid threat or near-peer adversary.”A “lethal hybrid threat” or “near-peer adversary” includes countries like Russia and China.
  • The current state of Army unreadiness means much of the force would be unable to properly respond to an emergency threat. Gen. Allyn warned that the end result of such an emergency situation would include “excessive casualties, especially to civilians.”

The solution to the problem, according to Allyn, is the immediate repeal of the Budget Control Act of 2011, an Obama-era law that put artificial caps on defense spending. A potential repeal of the law has bipartisan support across the committee. However, Congress has thus far been unable to remove it, forcing them to pass continuing resolutions to keep the military funded.

Some good comments from Daily Caller‘s readers:

“Hey! Obama had to get the Army’s priorities straight first. Like homosexual marriage, women in combat, transgender accommodation, etc. Everyone knows a real army can’t fight without those. Just ask the Greeks and the Romans at the end of their empires.” -Neitherleftnorright

“How many of these combat-effective units are in the United States? Defending the US was once the primary role of US military forces. Bleeding off military power in foreign wars makes us that much more vulnerable to attack. It’s expensive to keep an army in the field, but much less so if it stays on native soil, where lines of supply and communication are shorter and more secure.” -Rossbach

“That used to be called a pocket division. 13,000 troops???? Not even enough for a spitball fight.” -Sgtsnuffy

“It isn’t true. There are over 6,000 Special Forces troopers alone on top of 3,500 Rangers. That would leave just 6,000 guys capable in the standard army. The army has to be questioned why it is spending $140 billion a year just to have 14,000 guys capable for battle.” -Gregory Dittman

“Improve that, sure. But let’s not panic. The countries that are a ‘lethal hybrid threat’ or ‘near-peer adversary’ are not any more ready than we are. Not even close.” -Alec Dacyczyn

Meanwhile, as the vice chiefs of the Armed Forces all say the U.S. military is not ready to fight a war, President Trump seems to have succumbed to the neo-con warmongers and is threatening war against Syria.

CNN just reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said “steps are underway” to get rid of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Steve Bannon is booted from the National Security Council, while Trump’s Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner wields increasing power as a de facto secretary of state (New York Times). And we all know Israel wants Assad out. See:

H/t FOTM‘s Anon

See also:

~Eowyn