Category Archives: Donald Trump

Creepy Joe Biden blames sexual assaults on “white man’s culture”

This guy Biden, THIS OLD WHITE MAN, is “still well-liked by Americans.”

According to a Gallup poll on March 7, even though he has not declared his candidacy, 56% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Creepy Joe Biden. According to the NY Intelligencer, a “a Biden–Abrams Ticket Is a Brilliant Idea for Both Biden and Abrams.”

Wonder how the mainstream media will push (or not) Biden forward once his latest nugget of knowledge (aka, selling identity politics) comes out.
Where do we start…

From NY Post: Women have been suffering in “a white man’s culture” — which has continually turned a blind eye to sexual assault and misconduct, according to former Vice President Joe Biden, who propped up Anita Hill as an example.

“To this day I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to give her the kind of hearing she deserved,” Biden said Tuesday while speaking at an event to combat sexual violence on college campuses. “But I also realized there was a real and perceived problem the [Senate Judiciary] committee faced: They’re a bunch of white guys.

The 76-year-old Democrat continued, “No, I mean it sincerely — a bunch of white guys…hearing this testimony. So…when Anita Hill came to testify, she faced a committee that didn’t fully understand what the hell it was all about.”

Biden, who was Judiciary chairman for the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, got criticized heavily for his handling of the Hill situation. Thomas was accused of harassing Hill, who is black, while he was her supervisor.

“Last fall, you saw it all over again in the Kavanaugh hearing,” Biden blasted. “Almost 30 years…the culture — the institutional culture — has not changed. We have an obligation to change the culture in this country.”

Later on during his speech, Biden brought up a widespread misconception about the “rule of thumb” being an old reference to British common law and it’s tolerance of domestic abuse.

“This is English jurisprudential culture — a white man’s culture,” Biden said, describing how people think the “rule of thumb” was a law that allowed husbands to beat their wives with sticks no thicker than their thumbs. “It’s got to change,” he repeated.

Describing sexual assault, Biden claimed it was “about the abuse of power.”

“It’s not about sex,” he said. “It’s about power. The most insidious abuse of power of all. And right now we live in a culture where the abuse of power is allowed to penetrate the highest offices of government, where it lives in board rooms and global corporations, and it poisons entire industries — from Hollywood to hotel workers. It pushes down women all around the world.”

Biden spoke for more than a half hour during Tuesday’s event, which was held at the Russian Tea Room in Manhattan. He repeatedly condemned violence against women throughout his speech.

No man has a right to lay a hand on a woman, no matter what she’s wearing, she does, who she is…Never,” Biden said. “If you see a brother taking an inebriated co-ed up the stairs at a fraternity house and you don’t go and stop it, you’re a damn coward. You don’t deserve to be called a man.”

DCG

There’s ample evidence that Biden is a pedophile. Below is a compilation of pics of him pawing, touching little girls.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Barbara Bush blamed Donald Trump for her ‘heart attack’

America’s Ruling Class at the George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication, Dallas, Texas, April 25, 2013.

Add Barbara Bush (BB) to our long, long list of Demonrat crazies.

The New York Post reports, March 27, 2019, that in a book by USA Today’s Washington bureau chief Susan Page, The Matriarch: Barbara Bush and the Making of an American Dynasty, which is based on interviews in the last 6 months of her life, BB blamed Donald Trump for her “heart attack” after he “relentlessly” ridiculed her son Jeb during the 2016 Republican primaries with the nickname “Low Energy Jeb”.

But Page points out: “It wasn’t technically a heart attack, though she called it that. It was a crisis in her long battle with congestive heart failure and chronic pulmonary disease that hit her like a sledgehammer one day in June 2016,” when Trump had secured the GOP nomination.

An excerpt from Page’s book:

Afterward, Jeb, whose presidential campaign was already history, urged her [BB] to let it go, to focus on herself and have faith in the country.

“Jeb said, ‘Mom, don’t worry about things you can’t do anything about,’” [Barbara] Bush recalled. “He’s right. Just do good, make life better for someone else.”

Page says that BB’s “negative opinion of Trump” actually “dated back decades”:

  • In 1988, Trump volunteered to be George H.W. Bush’s running mate, which, according to BB, George dismissed as “strange and unbelievable.
  • In 1990, BB wrote in her diary that Trump is “the real symbol of greed in the ’80s.”
  • BB told Page she was incredulous that Trump won the presidency: “I woke up and discovered, to my horror, that Trump had won. I don’t understand why people are for him.”
  •  After Trump was elected, a friend gave BB a red, white and blue digital “Trump countdown clock” that displayed how many days, hours, minutes and seconds remained in his term. BB placed it on a table at her bedside, where she could see it every day to the day she died.
  • When asked how she thought things were going during the Trump presidency as his first anniversary in office approached, BB said: “I’m trying not to think about it. We’re a strong country, and I think it will all work out.”

BB’s Trump Derangement Syndrome actually led her to leave the Republican Party. Although in October 2017, BB told Page she considered herself a Republican, four months later (and two months before she died), BB said: “I’d probably say no today.”

Net rumor is that satanist Aleister Crowley was Barbara Bush’s biological father

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump 100% vindicated: AG William Barr’s letter to Congress on Mueller Report

After two years and $25 million of taxpayer dollars, the long-awaited Mueller report was delivered to Attorney General William Barr last Friday, March 22, 2019.

The report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes. Of course, that won’t stop the Demon Party from undertaking yet more investigations, which some leading Demonrats are already vowing.

The Mueller Report is not yet made public, but below is AG Barr’s summary letter of the report’s “principal conclusions” to the chairmen (Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jerrold Nadler) and ranking members (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Doug Collins) of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

I had a hell of time finding the letter in text format to copy and post here. You can also read the letter in PDF here.

The Attorney General

Washington, DC.
March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 CPR. This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 US. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”¹

_________________

¹In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

_________________

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2

_________________

² See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

_________________

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public View, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e. g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

* * *

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 CPR. I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr
Attorney General

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Happy Sunday: Mueller report finds no Trump/Russia collusion nor that President Trump committed crimes

Breaking report from Twitchy. There is a tweet in the Twitchy link to the letter that the DoJ sent to the Judiciary Committee.

There was never a doubt in my mind that President Trump colluded or committed a crime. I did doubt whether or not Mueller could complete an unbiased investigation.

And now we know.

Happy Sunday demorats!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Video that big tech is censoring: Another day in Trump’s America

The man who did this video, Paul Martinez, says that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are censoring his video. It did take me some time to find it, and others noted this on YouTube as well. Cowards…

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

12 Republican senators voted against Trump’s national emergency to build border wall

Bridget Bowman reports for Roll Call that yesterday, 12 Republican senators joined every Demonrat senator in voting for a resolution to block President Trump invoking a national emergency at the southern border so as to build the wall with defense funds. Trump had declared a national emergency last month after the Democrat-dominant House refused to appropriate his requested $5+ billion funds for a border wall.

See “The Trump Show” on Trump’s declaration of national emergency to build border wall, and “Ann Coulter: By signing the budget deal, Trump signs away his right as CIC to build the wall“.

The resolution passed the Senate, 59-41, after passing the House late last month.

The Gang of 12 Republicans includes so-called “moderate” senators — one of whom is up for re-election in 2020 — and so-called “conservatives”. 6 of the 12 serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Here are the 12 Republican senators who voted to thwart President Trump’s national emergency declaration:

(1) Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee: A 3-term senator and member of the Appropriations Committee said in a statement yesterday ahead of the vote that although he supports the president on border security, the emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent: “His declaration to take an additional $3.6 billion that Congress has appropriated for military hospitals, barracks and schools is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend.” Alexander announced last December that he would not run for re-election in 2020.

(2) Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri: A senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Blunt is concerned about the precedent Trump’s declaration of emergency would set. Blunt was re-elected to a second Senate term in 2016. (He served several terms in the House before running for Senate in 2010.)

(3) Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: Not only is this POS pro-late term abortions, Collins actually co-sponsored the resolution ostensiblyout of concern for the precedent an emergency declaration would set for the powers of the executive branch. The four-term senator is likely to face her toughest re-election next year, with Democrats raising millions of dollars for a yet-to-be-determined challenger after she voted for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

(4) Sen. Mike Lee of Utah: First elected in 2010, Lee announced his support for the resolution Wednesday after Trump rejected Lee’s offer of a compromise to curtail future national emergency declarations through an amendment of the National Emergencies Act to include the automatic termination of future emergencies after 30 days unless Congress authorizes the emergency to continue. Lee said in a statement announcing his decision that “For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch.”  One of the most conservative senators, Lee is up for re-election in 2022.

(5) Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas: A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Moran tweeted that “I share President Trump’s goal of securing our borders, but expanding the powers of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits is something I cannot support.” Moran is up for a third term in 2022.

(6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: Another pro-abort POS, Murkowski said in a floor speech earlier this month: “Congress is a co-equal branch of government and as such Congress should stand up for itself.” She is not up for re-election until 2022.

(7) Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky: Earlier this month, Paul announced at a GOP Lincoln Day dinner that he would support the resolution because Congress did not appropriate the funds Trump was looking to use for the border wall, and “If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.” A self-described libertarian, Paul was re-elected to the Senate in 2016 after a failed White House bid, and he will not face voters again until 2022.

(8) Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio: Portman had worked with Mike Lee on the compromise resolution. The two-term senator said that while he supported Trump’s request for border wall funding, an emergency declaration is not necessary to secure those funds, and that the declaration would set a “dangerous precedent” by opening “the door for future presidents to implement just about any policy they want.” Portman won re-election by more than 20 points in 2016 and won’t face voters again until 2022.

(9) Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah: Although Romney is a freshman senator, he entered the Senate with a high profile as his party’s 2012 presidential nominee and the former governor of Massachusetts. Critical of Trump in the past, even before Trump officially declared a national emergency, Romney said he “would also expect the president stay within statutory and constitutional limits.” Romney won the open Utah Senate race in 2018 by 32 points, and he is not up for re-election again until 2024.

(10) Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida: Like the others, Rubio too warned of the precedent set by Trump’s national emergency. A member of Senate Appropriations, he said in February that while he agrees there is a crisis at the southern border, “a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal.” Rubio won re-election by 8 points in 2016 after an unsuccessful run for the GOP nomination for president. Trump carried Florida by just 1 point in 2016.

(11) Sen. Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania: A “conservative” Republican, Toomey had occasionally broken with President Trump in the past, particularly on Trump’s use of tariffs. Toomey told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he supports Trump’s effort to build a border wall, but the declaration of a national emergency was “a very important separation of powers issue.” Toomey narrowly won re-election in 2016 when Trump won Pennsylvania by less than a point.

(12) Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi: The two-term senator, who’s the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the second-highest-ranked Republican on the Armed Services Committee, also had “serious reservations” about what an emergency declaration would do to the separation of powers. Wicker said in a statement earlier this week: “The precedent we set this year might empower a future liberal President to declare emergencies to enact gun control or to address ‘climate emergencies,’ or even to tear down the wall we are building today.” Wicker, an Air Force veteran, won re-election comfortably last fall in a state Trump carried by nearly 20 points in 2016.

Today, President Trump used his veto powers for the first time to overturn the Congressional resolution, calling it “reckless”. He said: “Today I am vetoing this resolution. Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution and I have the duty to veto it.” To override his veto would require two-thirds of the vote in both the House and the Senate, and the Senate doesn’t have the 67 votes needed for an override. (New York Post).

For all the Gang of 12’s concerns about the separation of powers and Trump setting a “dangerous precedent” by declaring a state of national emergency, one would think such declarations are rarely invoked.

Not so.

The fact of the matter is there have been 58 national emergencies declared by presidents since 1979 under the National Emergencies Act of 1975, 31 of which are still active national emergencies. Below are the number of national emergencies declared by President Carter and after:

  • Jimmy Carter: 2 — one of which is still active.
  • Ronald Reagan: 6 — none of which is active.
  • George H.W. Bush: 5 — none of which is active.
  • Bill Clinton: 17 — 6 of which are still in effect.
  • Barack Obama: 13 — 11 of which are still active.
  • Donald Trump: 3. (Source: CBS News, citing the Brennan Center)

H/t Kelleigh

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

New Pentagon transgender rule to set limit on troops transitioning; must serve as their birth gender

From Fox News: The Defense Department has approved a new policy that will largely bar transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning to another sex, and require most individuals to serve in their birth gender.

The memo outlining the new policy was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, and it comes after a lengthy and complicated legal battle. It falls short of the all-out transgender ban that was initially ordered by President Donald Trump. But it will likely force the military to eventually discharge transgender individuals who need hormone treatments or surgery and can’t or won’t serve in their birth gender.

The order says the military services must implement the new policy in 30 days, giving some individuals a short window of time to qualify for gender transition if needed. And it allows service secretaries to waive the policy on a case-by-case basis.

Under the new rules, currently serving transgender troops and anyone who has signed an enlistment contract by April 12 may continue with plans for hormone treatments and gender transition if they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

But after April 12, no one with gender dysphoria who is taking hormones or has transitioned to another gender will be allowed to enlist. And any currently serving troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria after April 12 will have to serve in their birth gender and will be barred from taking hormones or getting transition surgery.

The memo lays out guidelines for discharging service members based on the new policy. It says a service member can be discharged based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria if he or she is “unable or unwilling to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with his or her biological sex, or seeks transition to another gender.”

It adds that troops must be formally counseled and given a chance to change their decision before the discharge is finalized.

In a statement Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ban “cowardly.”

“The President’s revival of his bigoted, disgusting ban on transgender servicemembers is a stunning attack on the patriots who keep us safe and on the most fundamental ideals of our nation,” the California Democrat said. “The President’s years-long insistence on his cowardly ban makes clear that prejudice, not patriotism, guides his decisions.”

Palm Center, a California research institute, protested the new policy Tuesday. Director Aaron Belkin said, “The Trump administration is determined to bring back ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ a policy that forced service members to choose between serving their country and telling the truth about who they were.”

The final legal injunction blocking the new policy was lifted last week, allowing the Pentagon to move forward. But restrictions on transgender troops are likely to face ongoing legal challenges and have been slammed by members of Congress as discriminatory and self-defeating.

The memo was signed by David L. Norquist, who is currently serving as the deputy defense secretary.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said in February that barring service by transgender individuals “would cost us recruits at a time when so few Americans are willing to serve.” She spoke at a hearing in which transgender troops testified that transitioning to another sex made them stronger and more effective members of the military.

Until a few years ago service members could be discharged from the military for being transgender, but that changed under the Obama administration. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced in 2016 that transgender people already serving in the military would be allowed to serve openly. And the military set July 1, 2017, as the date when transgender individuals would be allowed to enlist.

After Trump took office, however, his administration delayed the enlistment date and called for additional study to determine if allowing transgender individuals to serve would affect military readiness or effectiveness.

A few weeks later, Trump caught military leaders by surprise, tweeting that the government won’t accept or allow transgender individuals to serve “in any capacity” in the military. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,” he wrote.

His demand for a ban triggered a legal and moral quagmire, as the Pentagon faced the prospect of throwing out service members who had willingly come forward as transgender after being promised they would be protected and allowed to serve. And as legal battles blocked the ban from taking effect, the Obama-era policy continued and transgender individuals were allowed to begin enlisting in the military a little more than a year ago.

An estimated 14,700 troops on active duty and in the Reserves identify as transgender, but not all seek treatment. Since July 2016, more than 1,500 service members were diagnosed with gender dysphoria; as of Feb. 1, there were 1,071 currently serving. According to the Pentagon, the department has spent about $8 million on transgender care since 2016. The military’s annual health care budget tops $50 billion.

Last year, all four service chiefs told Congress that they had seen no discipline, morale or unit readiness problems with transgender troops serving openly in the military. But they also acknowledged that some commanders were spending a lot of time with transgender individuals who were working through medical requirements and other transition issues.

The five transgender troops who testified in February said their medical transitions took anywhere from four weeks to four months and they did most of it on their own time. All said they were fit to return to deploying afterward.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Socialist Venezuela in 5th day of nationwide blackout

Venezuelans are in their fifth day of a blackout that began last Thursday, plunging most of the country — 23 of Venezuela’s 24 states — into darkness.

The blackout in the capital, Caracas, was total, beginning at 4:50 pm on March 7, just before nightfall. People set out for home early, well before the sun went down, because Caracas is one of the world’s most crime-ridden cities. Traffic lights went out and the subway system ground to a halt, triggering gridlock in the streets and huge streams of angry people trekking long distances to get home from work.

Forced to walk 12 km (7 miles) from her office in eastern Caracas to her home across town, Estefania Pacheco, a mother of two and a sales executive, said: “We are tired. Exhausted.”

Caracas’ international airport was hit, according to social media posts from would-be travelers. Telephone services and access to the internet were knocked out.  Commerce, including the buying of food, was shut down because most transactions are done with debit or credit cards, although hyperinflation has rendered the local currency, the bolivar, almost worthless. Inflation will hit 10,000,000% this year, the IMF estimates.

A shocking viral image shows a severely malnourished 19-year-old girl dying in her mother’s arms. Doctors at the Integral Diagnostic Centre in the northern city of Valencia were forced to turn her away due to the power outage. The mother, Elizabeth Diaz, was told to take her daughter, who suffered from cerebral palsy and chronic malnourishment and weighed just 10kg (22 lbs.), to another medical facility where she was assured they would treat the daughter. But the girl died in her mother’s arms shortly after they arrived.

The socialist government of Nicolas Maduro first blamed the blackout on sabotage of the state-owned Guri hydroelectic dam in Bolivar state — one of the biggest in Latin America — by “right-wing fascists”, but gave no details. A year ago, Maduro had asked the armed forces to provide security to protect the country’s hydroelectric facilities.

Then Maduro blamed the blackout on U.S. imperialism. With typical bombast, he said U.S. machinations will fail and that “Nothing and no one can defeat the people of Bolivar and Chavez,” referring to the liberation hero Simon Bolivar and Hugo Chavez, the late socialist icon and buddy of Hollyweirdo Sean Penn.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Maduro is wrong to blame the U.S .or any other country for Venezuela’s woes. He tweeted: “Power shortages and starvation are the result of the Maduro regime’s incompetence.”

Venezuelan critics blame the government for failing to invest in upkeep of the electrical grid. Opposition leader Juan Guaidó, 35, tweeted that Venezuela has plenty of hydroelectric plants and more: “We have water, oil and gas. But unfortunately we have an usurper in Miraflores.”

Guaidó, a National Assembly leader, said the blackout had claimed “dozens” of lives since it began 5 days ago. He describes the situation in Venezuela as a “catastrophe” and is calling on the opposition-dominated assembly to decree a “state of alarm” in the country. Backed by some 50 countries led by the United States, Guaidó has declared himself interim president, calling Maduro’s rule illegitimate because his re-election win last year was fraudulent. The opposition leader wants Maduro to resign from the Miraflores Palace and make way for new elections.

Even before the nationwide blackout, Maduro’s regime has been systematically blacking out the country’s internet and social media. Platforms including YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook were blocked during the exact time Guaidó made important speeches, the NGO NetBlocks said. Blacking out the internet is especially bad for Guaidó’s popularity as Maduro’s government controls most of the country’s TV and radio outlets.

Sources: Breitbart; Business Insider; Daily Mail.

Meanwhile, back in swanky Malibu, California, Hugo Chavez’s best bud Sean Penn — with a net worth of $150 million — was seen (with Julia Roberts) arriving for Coldplay frontman Chris Martin’s 42nd birthday party on March 2, a day before most of Venezuela was plunged into darkness. (Just Jared)

Sean Penn at Chris Martin’s birthday, Malibu, CA, March 2, 2019.

See Kelleigh Nelson’s “Venezuela’s Road to Disaster is Littered with Chinese Debt“.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Chaos in Venezuela: Death toll rises and protests rage on amid blackout

Ain’t socialism grand? And today’s demorats want this model for our great country. INSANITY.

From NY Post: Demonstrations roiled Venezuela’s capital Caracas on Saturday as a near total blackout continued in the country.

Supporters of opposition leader Juan Guaidó vented their anger over a major electricity outage and lack of other basics as Venezuelans backing President Nicolás Maduro held a rival demonstration.

“This is chaos,” said Jorge Jaimes, a physician who joined opposition protesters on Avenida Victoria. “We are at the end of this road.”

Since the outage started Thursday, at least 13 people have died in hospitals without electricity, according to reports.

Tensions remain high as Maduro keeps struggling to assert his authority in the face of calls by Guaidó and many foreign leaders for new balloting.

Addressing protesters, Guaidó, who declared himself interim president in January, promised to embark on a tour of the country before leading a nationwide march on the capital. “All the options are on the table,” he said, using a phrase employed by President Trump, who has refused to rule out a military intervention in Venezuela.

Guaidó was speaking from the back of a pick-up truck after security services prevented the opposition from setting up a stage at their original protest site. Three people were arrested.

Communication with the interior of the country was largely shut off by the outage. Sporadic power failures are common in Venezuela, but the latest one has been far more widespread than usual.

Maduro claimed the outage was caused by US sabotage of the national electrical system and accused Guaidó of collaborating. Local news outlets said regional authorities attributed the failures to problems at the country’s main power plants.

Maduro stepped up verbal attacks on Guaidó, calling him “a clown and puppet” in a speech to supporters outside Miraflores, the presidential palace.

The US and about 50 other countries have voiced support for Guaidó’s campaign to oust Maduro and hold new elections. But the ruler has retained the support of the military and allies including Russia and China.

Guaidó—who has the support of around 60 percent of Venezuelans, according to a recent poll—and the United States have tried a variety of approaches to lure the military away from Maduro. They range from private talks to a proposed Venezuelan amnesty law that would shield officers from future prosecution.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Covington High School student suing CNN for over $250 million

I hope they pay big time.

From Fox News: CNN is likely to be hit with a massive lawsuit worth more than $250 million over alleged “vicious” and “direct attacks” on Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, his lawyer has told Fox News.

Lawyer L. Lin Wood discussed his decision to sue CNN for its reporting and coverage of his client during an interview that will air on Fox News Channel’s “Life, Liberty & Levin” on Sunday at 10 p.m. ET.

CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes,” Wood told Fox News host and best-selling author Mark Levin.

“They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites. Totally false.”

“Now you say you’ve seen the tape; if you took the time to look at the full context of what happened that day, Nicholas Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong. He was, as I’ve said to others, he was the only adult in the room. But you have a situation where CNN couldn’t resist the idea that here’s a guy with a young boy, that Make America Great Again cap on. So they go after him.”

Wood continued: “The CNN folks were online on Twitter at 7 a.m retweeting the little one-minute propaganda piece that had been put out. … They’re out there right away going after this young boy. And they maintain it for at least two days. Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the Internet and find the truth and then report it? Maybe do that before you report the lies.”

Wood then detailed the timing of the suit, saying it will be issued “Monday, Tuesday at the latest.”

“I’ve got some young, smart lawyers that are working hard as we can,” he told Levin. “Double-checking, and listen, when we file complaints, we’ve investigated it because we want to get it right. Maybe CNN can learn from that.”
Fox News has reached out to CNN representatives for comment on the pending litigation.

Wood filed suit last month against The Washington Post. The suit calls for $250 million in compensatory and punitive damages over the paper’s coverage of the confrontation, an encounter that went viral on social media. He told Fox News that the claim against CNN is apt to be even higher.

“I expect because of the way they went after Nicholas so viciously, that the claim for his reputational damage will be higher than it was against The Washington Post,” the veteran attorney said.

“The Post was $50 million for the reputational damage … $200 million in punitive damages — punitive damages are designed to punish and to deter. I would think the punitive-damage award against CNN that we’ll seek will be at least the same $200 million as it was against The Washington Post. But the compensatory damage to Nicholas’s reputation, that number I expect will be higher.”

The lawsuit against The Washington Post accused that outlet of practicing “a modern-day form of McCarthyism” by targeting Sandmann and “using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles … to smear a young boy who was, in its view, an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.”

Several days ago, The Post published an editor’s note admitting that subsequent information either contradicted or failed to confirm accounts relayed in its initial article. The editor’s note was not satisfactory to Sandmann’s legal team.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0