Published on Aug 23, 2019
By Cristina Laila – August 21, 2019
FBI Director Christopher Wray’s FBI is fighting like hell to keep the thousands of outstanding text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page under wraps until after the 2020 election.
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has been in court this summer fighting to get their hands on 13,000 pages of Strzok-Page documents.
The FBI wants over 2 years to “process” the Strzok-Page docs.
The Court in late July ordered parties to negotiate a solution to getting key docs more quickly, Judicial Watch said. The FBI is protecting itself on illegal abuses.
“Wray FBI wants to stall until well after next presidential election before completing release of emails/texts between corrupt FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page,” Tom Fitton said.
“26 months for 13,000 pages!? President Donald Trump should order the FBI to comply with law and stop the stonewalling,” he added.
Recall, former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok and his paramour FBI lawyer Lisa Page were removed from the special counsel investigation after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered they were having an affair and exchanging anti-Trump text messages.
Peter Strzok migrated from the Hillary Clinton email probe to the ‘get Trump’ Russian collusion investigation. Strzok protected Hillary Clinton from Espionage Act charges, then in July of 2016 opened up a bogus CI investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) into ‘Trump Russia’ with no valid reason other than to ‘stop Trump.’
The two FBI lovebirds text each other about an “insurance policy” to stop Donald Trump just in case he were to win the 2016 election.
The FBI was forced to hand over text messages between Strzok and Page, however, they claimed that they were unable to retrieve several months worth of texts because they were ‘missing.’
Mueller also scrubbed other text messages between Strzok and Page. Their phones were set to ‘factory settings’ when the two FBI officials turned in their phones to the FBI resulting in ‘lost’ data.
Judicial Watch has been fighting in court to obtain the outstanding Strzok-Page texts and FBI Director Wray is working to keep the documents hidden from public scrutiny.
President says he won’t allow the US to be treated the way it was treated under Obama
By Kit Daniels
President Trump says he cancelled his trip to Denmark because he felt its prime minister was disrespectful to the United States.
The president was referring to Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s statement that the idea of Denmark selling Greenland to the US was “an absurd discussion.”
“I looked forward to going, but I thought that the prime minister’s statement that it was ‘absurd,’ that it was an ‘absurd’ idea was nasty,” he said. “I thought it was an inappropriate statement.”
“All she had to do is say we wouldn’t be interested.”
He said he won’t allow the US to be treated “the way they treated us under Obama.”
“I thought it was a very not nice way of saying something,” he continued. “She’s not talking to me, she’s talking to the United States of America.”
“You don’t talk to the United States that way, at least under me.”
Previously it was reported that Denmark subsidies Greenland with over a half-billion dollars every year.
“Danish subsidies keep its economy afloat,” reported The Economist. “Last year the annual block grant from Denmark was 3.8bn kroner ($610m), more than a third of Greenland’s budget.”
“Many Greenlandic politicians reckon that new revenue streams from mining and tourism can help to wean the territory off Danish handouts.”
The “new revenue streams” the article is referring to is actually from Chinese investment – and China has a strategic geopolitical interest in the Arctic, which explains why President Trump is interested in buying Greenland.
China claimed it’s an “near-Arctic state” in its official Arctic Policy released last year and aims to create a “Polar Silk Road” in a partnership with Russia that would grant China an economic boost in the region.
“China aims to participate ‘in the exploration for and exploitation of oil, gas, mineral and other non-living resources’ in the Arctic,” reported The Diplomat. “However, the white paper also places a particular emphasis on nontraditional energy sources: ‘The Arctic region boasts an abundance of geothermal, wind, and other clean energy resources,’ the paper said, ‘China will work with the Arctic States to strengthen clean energy cooperation.’”
US lawmakers have also declared that the Arctic “is a region of strategic importance to the national security interests of the United States.”
“…The Department of Defense must better align its presence, force posture, and capabilities to meet the growing array of challenges in the region,” reads Section 1099T of the proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. “…Although much progress has been made to increase awareness of Arctic issues and to promote increased presence in the region, additional measures, including the designation of one or more strategic Arctic ports, are needed to show the commitment of the United States to this emerging strategic choke point of future great power competition.”
Just seven years ago, former President Barack Obama barred a member of the Israeli Knesset from entering the U.S.
By Virginia Kruta
Critics called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s move to bar two freshman Democratic congresswomen from entering Israel “unprecedented” — but just seven years ago, former President Barack Obama barred a member of the Israeli Knesset from entering the U.S.
When news broke that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not allow freshman Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, pundits and political figures alike were quick to voice their criticisms.
But The Daily Wire’s editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro reminded former Vice President Joe Biden of the Obama administration’s move to ban Israeli Knesset member Michael Ben Ari in 2012.
Ben Ari, who belonged to Israel’s National Union coalition of right-wing parties, requested a visa in order to attend two conferences — a request which was denied by the Obama administration in February of 2012. The American consulate denied the visa on the grounds that Ben Ari “belonged to a terrorist organization.”
The American consulate never publicly released the name of the terrorist organization to which they believed Ben Ari belonged, but he told Israeli outlet Haaretz that he suspected it was his association with Kach — a far-right political movement that was considered a terrorist organization and had been banned in Israel 18 years prior in 1994.
Ben Ari responded to the move saying, “The U.S. government, who receives with open arms [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, who calls for the destruction of Israel, [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas, who planned the murder of children in Jerusalem, and [Israeli Arab MK] Ahmed Tibi, who enthusiastically encourages shahids, chose to bar me from meeting with Jewish communities in the U.S. and to encourage aliyah to Israel, with claims that I am a terrorist.”
Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin called the move “unacceptable,” saying in a letter to then U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro, “National Union is a completely legitimate faction of the Israeli parliament, and Ben Ari an elected representative of the State of Israel, a close American ally. To impugn him as belonging to a terrorist organization and bar him from visiting the country is unacceptable.”
Ben Ari, now a part of the far-right Otzma-Yehudit party, was banned from running for office in March of 2019. The High Court of Justice voted 8-1 to ban him, citing his “anti-Arab ideology,” marking the first time an individual candidate has been banned from elections. The court approved a far-left Jewish candidate and an Arab party slate.
Sales have “officially exploded” this summer.
AUGUST 20, 2019
Sales of pepper spray in some areas of Sweden have surged as much as 90 per cent amidst concerns over the country’s rape problem.
According to a report by Swedish newspaper Expressen, the Kjell & Company retail chain announced that sales of the self-defense item have spiked 90 per cent in August compared to June.
The sales figures are being described as an “accelerating, increasing trend,” with manufacturer Plegium revealing sales have been rising for years but “officially exploded” this summer.
Another pepper spray company called Bodyguard also revealed that its sales had increased by 21 per cent despite stiff competition from market newcomers.
“The Swedish summer has been shaken by a series of assault rapes. The most notable events have taken place in Uppsala, where two completed rapes and two attempted rapes took place between August 3rd and 7th alone,” reports Expressen.
After a string of four sexual assaults and rapes in the span of five nights, Swedish police in numerous cities advised women to not walk alone at night and to go home early.
Figures released last year found that 58 per cent of convicted rapists and 85 per cent of all convicted assault rapists in Sweden were born outside of Europe.
In cases where the victim did not know the attacker, the proportion of foreign offenders was more than 80 per cent. Nearly 40 per cent of the convicted rapists are from the Middle East or from Africa, areas of the world from which Sweden has accepted large numbers of migrants in recent years.
A study by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet found that 88 per cent of gang rapists in the Scandinavian country over the last six years have had a migrant background.
Other figures show that migrants from Muslim-majority nations commit 84 per cent of “very violent” rapes in Sweden.
As we reported yesterday, robberies targeting children in Sweden have also hit a new record high, with young men with migrant backgrounds being blamed for the spike.
By Jim Hoft
Anti-Semitic Democrats Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) lashed out at the Israeli government on Monday in a joint press conference in Minnesota.
On Thursday Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar were banned from entering Israel after months of their frequent attacks on the Jewish state and their promotion of the anti-Semitic BDS movement.
Their trip was planned by the antisemitic, pro-terror Miftah organization.
On Monday the radical Democrats lashed out at Israel for blocking their entry.
** Rashida Tlaib lashed out at the Israel security wall that eliminated terrorist attacks in their country.
The two Democrats also threatened US aid to the Jewish State.
Rep. Ilhan Omar: We give Israel more than $3 million in aid every year. This is predicated on them being an important ally in the region and (airquotes) “the only democracy” in the Middle East. But denying a visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally and denying millions of people freedom of movement, or expression or self determination is not consistent with being a democracy. We must be asking as Israel’s ally the Netanyahu government stop the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land and ensure full rights to Palestinians if we are to give them aid. These are not just my views.
This is how you impose an unpopular and ineffective environmentalist policy that will hit the poorest citizens hardest, is bound to create a host of unintended consequences, and is founded on speculative science to begin with.
You are a centrist government in a democratic Western country. You want to be seen to be taking action on the environment, but you believe in consumer capitalism, and therefore wouldn’t dare to dismantle the profit-making machinery that actually contributes most of the CO2 within your economy. You praise the ideals of the Green New Deal, only because you know it will never become reality.
Your target must be insignificant economically, yet high-profile in its symbolic value. Meat works perfectly. Eating it already has an aura of hedonistic licentiousness, and restricting consumption covers several bases – animal cruelty, public health, and most importantly, climate change resulting from intensive livestock farming. You will get years of headlines, just as when you banned plastic bags or forced people to pay deposits on plastic bottles.
But you can’t just ban meat. Or ration it to 200 grams a week for every citizen. Because that would be considered an authoritarian intrusion that fundamentally violates your people’s freedom.
You try to turn it into a just cause. Activist organizations have been lobbying for this longer than you have been in power, and PETA will have the factory farming pictures. Scientists will supply the studies (take only the ones that support your view). You leverage entirely hypothetical but impressive sounding research such as the 2016 Oxford University one that claimed that going vegetarian would save 8 million lives and $1.5 trillion, or one that alleges that meat “kills” 2.4 million people a year around the world, or the one that says that the US going vegetarian would be the same as taking 60 million cars off the road.
Yet, even after the publicity campaign, you still can’t ban meat. This is the time for the moment of genius, the clever solution that squares the circle between a free populace and their paternalistic-minded rulers.
You put a tax on it. Not a declared one, but a stealth tax. Perhaps merely drop the VAT rebate that it enjoys, as was proposed in Germany, which currently taxes meat at 7 percent VAT, but is contemplating moving the levy to 19. You can have more meat – as much as you want – but you will pay more for the luxury, and there is a fairness to it too – the more schnitzel you consume the more dosh you dish out. Does the money go into environmental causes? Probably not – there is currently no way to separate meat VAT from others – but at least people will be nudged into the correct behaviors.
The fruits of your labors will be evident within months.
Being a wealthy lawmaker you will eat as much or as little meat as before, as food makes up a small proportion of your monthly budget. Your constituents – that is a different matter. Perhaps some will get the message, and eat more vegetables instead. Or perhaps, instead of buying organic, cruelty-free, carbon-neutral meat, they will now buy more factory-farmed meat. Or perhaps they will spend the money on a decent steak but will not be able to afford to repair their car, or take that holiday to the Balearics. Though I guess that could be a result in itself – after all, as a rule, the poorer someone is in the West, the less CO2 they emit. Some might be so deprived, however, that they will eat no meat at all. Their remaining money will now go to other, cheaper and more harmful high-calorie processed foods, like cakes or oven-fried chips. While your farmers will simply find it more profitable to export the food abroad, over longer distances, increasing their emissions. Is this what you wanted?
Oh, sin taxes, they used to be so simple when you were targeting the universally agreed-upon harms, such as smoking, with the aim of their complete eradication. But this is getting more nuanced now. Meat has been eaten by the homo sapiens since its emergence, and played an important role in its evolution. It still remains a key source of protein for your population. Ethically too, eating it is a source of legitimate pleasure to the sensory organs of millions. Is it the job of the government to strip its citizens of their daily pleasures, to literally deny adults the full choice of food for their dinner? What’s the morally correct trade-off between seven-course feasts of imported ostrich and elk and government-mandated buckwheat three times a day?
You, the politicians, will complain that you are only using the tools at your disposal – that you can’t charge a poor person less at the meat counter, that you cannot ban a farmer from exporting his carcasses, or a supermarket from opting for cheaper transatlantic chicken over homegrown beef. But then is your clever solution any better than rationing books and Iron Curtain-style central planning?
You will say that at least it is better to be doing something.
And indeed you are right – it is the “something” that matters, not the specific results. After all if there is one thing that Greta Thunberg and Nigel Lawson can agree on is that creating a meat tax in Germany, Sweden and Denmark, the three countries that have shown the greatest appetite for this policy, will make almost no difference to global emissions. For example, even if every resident of the United States, the country with the highest consumption of meat per capita, stopped eating meat tomorrow, that would only slice 2.6 percent off its emissions. Meanwhile, a Chinese person now eats five times as much meat as they did in the 1980s, and still only half as much as Americans – so he wants more. And the world population will likely double by the end of the century. Germans eating two fewer sausages a week was never going to be more than a gesture, and everyone knows it.
Though bearing in mind other environmental policy perversities – like banning nuclear to rely on dirty coal, or incentivizing biofuels and, in the process, rainforest destruction – perhaps “negligible” is the best effect we can all hope for. And you get to enjoy your steak guilt-free.
By Igor Ogorodnev