Looks like the laws leftists have imposed in Britain forbidding free speech can cut both ways:
A student diversity officer who was caught up in a racism row after allegedly posting ‘kill all white men’ on social media has been summonsed to court to face malicious communications charges.
Bahar Mustafa, 28, of Edmonton, North London, a welfare and diversity officer at Goldsmiths University, will appear at Bromley Magistrates’ Court on 5 November, police said.
In the ultra-left university environment, not many have a problem with Bahar:
A student petition calling for her to be removed from her position garnered only 165 signatures, and she was allowed by the student union to keep her job, because it failed to meet the 3% threshold to trigger a referendum that could have dislodged her.
To call her a racist or a sexist because she wants white men to be killed would reveal ignorance of the deranged mishmash of corrosive lies that comprises the liberal ruling class’s official ideology:
Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men “because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”
However, such a system only exists in the delusions of progressives. After all, no one gets a university position by denouncing women and nonwhites. BTW, men are the minority gender, so when do I get my minority privilege?
A 22-year-old self-medicating with pot self-reported to the police after he lost feeling in his limbs, cops say.
Police arrived to the home in Austintown, Texas and they could hear “groaning” from inside the man’s room. They discovered him in the “fetal position”surrounded by “a plethora of Doritos, Pepperidge Farm Goldfish and Chips Ahoy cookies,” Fox 2 reports.
The man told police he couldn’t feel his hands because he smoked so much weed.
“A glass pipe with marijuana residue, two packs of rolling papers, two roaches and a glass jar of marijuana were recovered from the man’s car after he gave the keys to police,” according to The Vindicator.
Police released the man’s 911 call:
OPERATOR: 911, what’s your emergency?
CALLER: Hi – I need help.
OPERATOR: And what’s the problem?
CALLER: I’m too high.
OPERATOR: You’re too high?
OPERATOR: What’d you take?
CALLER: I can’t feel anything.
OPERATOR: You’re what?CALLER: I can’t feel anything.
OPERATOR: OK – what did you take?
OPERATOR: OK – what’s your name? Is there anyone there with you?
CALLER: Yeah, they don’t know.
So far, police haven’t charged him with any crime.
Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.
At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall… license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”
In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.
Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.
What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.
For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.
As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.
Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.
But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.
It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo… We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from… engaging in most commercial activities.”
Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced… U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”
Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.
Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using… to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”
Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.
However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.
One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.
At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.
“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.
“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”
A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who was considered the front-runner to replace John Boehner, stunned his Republican colleagues Thursday by abruptly withdrawing from the race, throwing the leadership battle into chaos.
McCarthy’s decision, announced moments before Republicans were set to nominate their candidate, will postpone the vote for speaker. McCarthy had been running against Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Daniel Webster, R-Fla., before he dropped out, and it’s unclear whether other candidates will now step forward.
While McCarthy, R-Calif., faced vocal opposition from some conservative members and groups, he was thought to have more than enough support to win the party’s nomination in the vote initially set for Thursday. Fox News is told McCarthy, in revealing his choice, simply told colleagues it was not his time.
His withdrawal rattled fellow lawmakers, particularly allies in leadership. But addressing reporters afterward, McCarthy said he thinks the party needs a “fresh face.”
“If we are going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that,” McCarthy said. “We’ve got to be 100 percent united.”
He said he will stay on as majority leader.
Chaffetz, speaking shortly afterward, said McCarthy’s withdrawal was “absolutely stunning.” Chaffetz said he would remain in the race. “I really do believe it is time for a fresh start,” he said.
Practically speaking, Republicans’ overriding interest is to find a candidate who can muster an absolute majority on the House floor in a full chamber vote, originally set for Oct. 29. While McCarthy was likely to easily win the nomination, it was unclear whether he could muster a majority – of roughly 218 members – once lawmakers from both parties vote for speaker.
McCarthy gave no indication of dropping out earlier in the day. “It’s going to go great,” McCarthy said Thursday morning. But he later suggested he was concerned he’d only be able to win narrowly in a floor vote later this month.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said McCarthy actually felt he couldn’t reach 218. Still, he said McCarthy’s backing will be the “most important endorsement” for whoever seeks the post.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2012, swiftly put out a statement saying he would not run, while saying he’s “disappointed” McCarthy dropped out.
Conservative groups, meanwhile, cheered the decision. FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon said in a statement that McCarthy “dropped out of the Speaker race because of the House Freedom Caucus and grassroots pressure… This is a huge win for conservatives who want to see real change in Washington, not the same go along get along ways of Washington.”
He was referring in part to a decision Wednesday by the conservative House Freedom Caucus – with its 30-40 members – to back Webster as a bloc.
The speaker’s race already has seen several curveballs since Boehner suddenly announced his retirement at the end of the month and McCarthy swiftly positioned himself as the presumptive next in line.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy, McCarthy was seen to stumble in a Fox News interview where he appeared to link Hillary Clinton’s dropping poll numbers to the congressional Benghazi committee. His comments fueled Democratic charges that the committee is merely political, which GOP leaders deny.
Amid the backlash over McCarthy’s Benghazi remarks, Chaffetz entered the leadership race over the weekend.
Republicans have nearly 250 members in the House and on paper have the numbers to win against the Democrats’ nominee, likely Nancy Pelosi. But if the winning Republican nomineecomes out with a tally short of 218, he or she will have to spend the next several weeks trying to rally support to get to that number.
In a curious development, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., also sent a letter to House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., urging a full vetting of all leadership candidates to avoid a repeat of 1998, when the conference selected then-Rep. Bob Livingston in November to succeed outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It then emerged Livingston had been conducting an affair. Jones asked that any candidate who has committed “misdeeds” withdraw.
Asked by FoxNews.com to elaborate, Jones said he doesn’t “know anything” specific about any of the candidates, but, “We need to be able to say without reservation that ‘I have nothing in my background that six months from now could be exposed to the detriment of the House of Representatives.'” He said he wants to make sure the candidates have “no skeletons.”
David Jacques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, told Bill O’Reilly on Monday that the people of Roseburg would not welcome Barack Obama if he came to town to politicize the funerals of the Umpqua College shooting victims.
Madman Chris Harper-Mercer murdered eight students and a teacher last week in a shooting spree on campus.
David Jacques and community leaders, including Douglas County commissioners, the police chief and local sheriff, do not want Obama to come grandstand in Roseburg for political purposes.
Now, there is a Facebook protest page set up to protest Obama in Roseburg.
They rolled out their “Unwelcome Mat.”
From the Defend Roseburg-Deny Barack Obama Facebook Protest page:
The anointed one his majesty king 0bama and the White House have announced a Friday arrival in Roseburg, Oregon in the wake of Oct 1st’s horrific tragedy at UCC.
Polarizing as usual, Mr 0bama has insisted on politicizing the event as a conduit for increased executive orders on gun control via means of his pen, and his phone.
This blatant disrespect of the victims families, the community and the town of Roseburg, Mr 0bama’s administration is flying not just the 747 that is airforce one to Oregon, but a three helicopter team of Sikorsky’s that make up HMX-1, known as Marine one to travel to Roseburg at the taxpayers expense.
We need a lot of people. Please come show your support for Roseburg, not the little man who has no respect for the constitution.
Local activist Casey Runyan is organizing the protest.
UPDATE: (7:30 PM ) 1,900 people have signed up to attend rally to protest Barack Obama.
A previously deported criminal alien from El Salvador who was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 12-year-old at gunpoint has made his way back to Texas across the porous U.S.-Mexico border. Agents with the U.S. Border Patrol arrested 34-year-old Rene Vladimir Escobar Bautista over the weekend near the border city of Hidalgo, court records obtained by Breitbart Texas revealed.
During an investigation into his background, authorities learned that Escobar had been deported in 2003 following a federal prison sentence on a child rape case. In 2001, federal authorities arrested Escobar who was 20-years-old at the time after he kidnapped a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint form her parents house in Long Island, New York and took her to North Carolina.
Court records from the New York case show that in 2002 rather than fight the case, Escobar took a plea deal and a judge found him guilty of the charge of taking a minor across state lines to engage in sexual activity. For that charge, Escobar was sentenced to spend 16 months in prison and then he was deported.
Escobar is just one of several criminal alien sexual predators who have been previously deported that have been arrested near the Texas border recently, as reported by Breitbart Texas.
In September, authorities arrested 22-year-old Jose Manuel Segovia near Roma Texas. Segovia had been previously convicted of attempted child rape.
Also in September, authorities arrested 47-year-old Pablo Medrano Banda who had been living in South Texas. Medrano had previously been convicted of indecency with a child by sexual contact.
In August, authorities arrested 23-year-old Mauricio Toto Xolo near the Texas border. Toto Xolo spent a year in prison following a 2010 rape conviction.
Also in August authorities arrested Joel Silva Duran, a 22-year-old convicted child rapist who had re-entered the country just months after having been deported.
There is so much to dislike about this program that I barely know where to begin criticizing it. To say that I don’t care for the show is an understatement. To say that it makes me want to gouge my own eyeballs out with a KFC spork is closer to the truth, and here’s why: IT DOESN’T EXPLAIN ANYTHING!
I thought the whole point of this series was to help us understand how and why the zombie apocalypse began. If that’s not so, what IS the point? It seems to me that its parent series has the bases covered when it comes to showing us clueless people trying to survive the chaos of walker-world. Do we really need to see more of the same here? I mean, can somebody please explain to me why we are supposed to care about another random group of people who know nothing about what’s going on, and afford us no insight into the genesis of the zombie pandemic?
Oh, and did I mention that this show’s main characters are dumbasses? They are, especially the female lead named Madison, who, in the second episode, attempts to have a conversation with what looks like an undead Barack Obama as it shambles toward her, drooling and glassy-eyed. Keep in mind that, by this point in the story, she and her boyfriend, Travis, have already been attacked by a zombie – which didn’t stop trying to eat them even after they ran it over with a truck.
As for Travis, later on, he too tries to have a nice, civil chat with a zombie that he finds feasting on the intestines of a dog in his living room. Then, when another character is forced to step in and save the fool’s life, he tries to stop his hero from killing the zombie. Now that I think about it, Travis is an even bigger dumbass than Madison, and she’s got only slightly more functioning brain cells than your average walker.
By the way, none of these people seem to care what’s going on outside of Los Angeles, which is where the story takes place. Thanks to ‘The Walking Dead’, we know that zombies are also popping up on the east coast – and assumedly everywhere else on the planet – yet, nobody in this story appears to be curious at all about what’s happening anywhere else. You’d think that at least one of them would be glued to their TV or computer, trying to find out anything they can about the scope of the problem while there’s still electricity available to them, but they don’t. Instead, everyone on the show behaves as if the advances in communications technology over the course of their lives have had only a peripheral influence on them.
And why is it that these folks didn’t immediately load up on food, water and weapons once they realized that the living dead were walking the Earth? After all, they were among the first to see a walker up close, so it would be reasonable for them to try and procure as many survival items as possible before stories of reanimated, flesh-eating corpses spread throughout the city, and all the stores got overrun. Frankly, the only character on the entire show who seemed to appreciate the gravity of the situation early on was a pimple-faced high school kid named Tobias who tried unsuccessfully to impress upon dim-witted Madison just how completely screwed everyone was. Sadly, he was only a minor character, and after the second episode, he was never heard from again.
Look, if I wanted to watch a show about unappealing idiots facing imminent, societal collapse, I’d tune into C-SPAN. Maybe this program’s creators don’t know it, but there are alternatives to their zombie franchise on TV these days, and those shows actually have entertaining characters and engaging plotlines. While the likes of ‘iZombie’ and ‘Z Nation’ may not have the production value of AMC’s original gore-fest, at least they’re trying to take the theme in a new direction. What does this program do, other than kill time before we get a chance to see Rick Grimes and his crew of seasoned zombie-killers again?
Personally, I would like to have seen this teleplay begin with a focus on hospital, morgue and funeral home employees in various states across the country, since those are the kinds of places where you’d expect zombies of this particular variety to first appear. It also would have made sense to introduce a few characters from some top-secret, government facility who either started the whole mess, or at least have some idea as to what caused it. Instead we are confronted with a bunch of people whose only distinguishing, common features are that they tend to be less intelligent and likeable than just about everyone on the first series.
Last night, the inaugural season of ‘Fear The Walking Dead’ came to an ugly, putrefied end, yet we still have no new information pertaining to the origin of the zombie apocalypse. The only thing we do know for sure is that Californians have little to no common sense, and their government is run by incompetent, lying douchebags. Thanks, AMC, that really clears things up for me. What’s next on the schedule, a prequel to ‘Mork and Mindy’ where Mork meets a chick named Mandy before finally settling down with the girl of his dreams?
Edward L. Daley
The Obama administration tried to persuade Argentina to “provide the Islamic State of Iran with nuclear fuel” back in 2010.
President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner made these accusations during her speech this week to the General Assembly.
Nuclear fuel is a key component in nuclear weapons.
The United States mainstream media ignored this story for some odd reason?
UPDATE – Here is President Kirchner’s speech to the UN General Assembly.
(relevant accusation starts around the 19:45 minute mark)
When the Argentinians asked the administration to put it in writing – all communications ceased and the administration went silent.
The White House knew it would be unpopular with the American public.
President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, a leftist, made the claim Monday at the United Nations.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner claimed Monday afternoon at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City that in 2010, the Obama administration tried to convince the Argentinians “to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear fuel,” reported Mediaite.
Kirchner said that two years into Obama’s first term, his administration sent Gary Samore, former White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Argentina to persuade the nation to provide Iran with nuclear fuel, which is a key component of nuclear weapons.
Kirchner’s full remarks are as follows, per the Argentine president’s official website:
“In 2010 we were visited in Argentina by Gary Samore, at that time the White House’s top advisor in nuclear issues. He came to see us in Argentina with a mission, with an objective: under the control of IAEA, the international organization in the field of weapons control and nuclear regulation, Argentina had supplied in the year 1987, during the first democratic government, the nuclear fuel for the reactor known as “Teheran”. Gary Samore had explained to our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Héctor Timerman, that negotiations were underway for the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease with its uranium enrichment activities or to do it to a lesser extent but Iran claimed that it needed to enrich this Teheran nuclear reactor and this was hindering negotiations. They came to ask us, Argentines, to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear fuel. Rohani was not in office yet. It was Ahmadinejad’s administration and negotiations had already started.”…
Kirchner went on to say at the U.N. that when Samore was asked to provide the request in writing, all communications immediately ceased and Samore disappeared…
* The Swedes see the welfare systems failing them. Swedes have had to get used to the government prioritizing refugees and migrants above native Swedes.
* “There are no apartments, no jobs, we don’t dare go shopping anymore [without a gun], but we’re supposed to think everything’s great… Women and girls are raped by these non-European men, who come here claiming they are unaccompanied children, even though they are grown men… You Cabinet Ministers live in your fancy residential neighborhoods, with only Swedish neighbors. It should be obligatory for all politicians to live for at least three months in an area consisting mostly of immigrants… [and] have to use public transport.” – Laila, to the Prime Minister.
* “Instead of torchlight processions against racism, we need a Prime Minister who speaks out against the violence… Unite everyone… Do not make it a racism thing.” – Anders, to the Prime Minister.
* “In all honesty, I don’t even feel they [government ministers] see the problems… There is no one in those meetings who can tell them what real life looks like.” – Laila, on the response she received from the government.
The week after the double murder at IKEA in Västerås, where a man from Eritrea who had been denied asylum grabbed some knives and stabbed Carola and Emil Herlin to death, letters and emails poured into the offices of Swedish Prime Minister (PM) Stefan Löfven. Angry, despondent and desperate Swedes have pled with the Social Democratic PM to stop filling the country with criminal migrants from the Third World or, they write, there is a serious risk of hatred running rampant in Sweden. One woman suggested that because the Swedish media will not address these issues, Löfven should start reading foreign newspapers, and wake up to the fact that Sweden is sinking fast.
During the last few decades, Swedes have had to get used to the government (left and right wing parties alike) prioritizing refugees and migrants above native Swedes. The high tax level (the average worker pays 42% income tax) was been accepted in the past, because people knew that if they got sick, or when they retired or otherwise needed government aid, they would get it.
Now, Swedes see the welfare system failing them. More and more senior citizens fall into the “indigent” category; close to 800,000 of Sweden’s 2.1 million retirees, despite having worked their whole lives, are forced to live on between 4,500 and 5,500 kronor ($545 – $665) a month. Meanwhile, seniors who immigrate to Sweden receive the so-called “elderly support subsidy” – usually a higher amount – even though they have never paid any taxes in Sweden.
Worse, in 2013 the government decided that people staying in the country illegally have a right to virtually free health and dental care. So while the destitute Swedish senior citizen must choose between paying 100,000 kronor ($12,000) to get new teeth or living toothless, a person who does not even have the right to stay in Sweden can get his teeth fixed for 50 kronor ($6).
The injustice, the housing shortage, the chaos surrounding refugee housing units and the sharp slide of Swedish students in PISA tests – all these changes have caused the Swedes to become disillusioned. The last straw was that Prime Minister Löfven had nothing to say about the murders at IKEA.
Gatestone Institute contacted to the Swedish government, to obtain emails sent to the Prime Minister concerning the IKEA murders. According to the “principle of public access to official documents,” all Swedes have the right to study public documents kept by authorities – with no questions asked about one’s identity or purpose. The government, however, was clearly less than enthusiastic about sharing the emails: It took a full month of reminders and phone calls before they complied with the request.
What follows are excerpts from emails sent from private citizens to Prime Minister Stefan Löfven:
From Mattias, a social worker and father of four, “a dad who wants my kids to grow up in Sweden the way I had the good fortune of doing, without explosions, hand grenades, car fires, violence, rape and murder at IKEA”:
“Hi Stefan. I am a 43-year-old father of four, who is trying to explain to my children, ages 6-16, what is going on in Sweden. I am sad to say that you and your party close your eyes to what is happening in Sweden. All the things that are happening [are] due to the unchecked influx from abroad. You are creating a hidden hatred in Sweden. We are dissatisfied with the way immigration is handled in Sweden, from asylum housing to school issues. And it takes so long to get a job, many people give up before they even get close. Mattias”
Marcus, 21, wrote:
“Hi Stefan, I am one of the people who voted for you. I live in Helsingborg, still with my parents because there are no apartments available. I can see where I live that as soon as an old person moves out, eight foreigners immediately move in: they just bypass us young, Swedish people in line. With all that is going on in Sweden – rapes, robberies, the IKEA murders and so on – why aren’t non-Swedes sent back to their countries when they commit crimes? Of course we should help refugees, but they should be the right kind of refugees… I’m sorry to say this, Stefan, but the Sweden Democrats should be allowed to rule for four years and remove the people who do not abide by the laws, and who murder or destroy young women’s lives. It is horrible, I have a job that pays poorly because there are no jobs. Sweden has more people than jobs.”
“Esteemed Prime Minister. I am writing to you because I am very worried about the development in Swedish society. I am met daily by news of shootings, exploding hand grenades/bombs, beatings, rapes and murders. This is our Sweden, the country that, when you and I grew up, was considered one of the safest in the world.
“You, in your role as Prime Minister, have a responsibility to protect everyone in the land, regardless of whether they were born here or not. Unfortunately, I can see that you are not taking your responsibility seriously. I follow the news daily, and despite our now having suffered another act of madness, this time against a mother and son at IKEA, I do not see any commitment from you?…
“You should emphatically condemn the violent developments we see in this country, allocate resources to the police, customs and district attorneys to slow and fight back (not just build levees and overlook) criminal activity.”
“Hi Stefan! After reading about the horrible deed at IKEA in Västerås, I am now wondering what you are going to do to make me feel safe going to stores and on the streets of Sweden. What changes will there be to make sure this never happens again? Will immigration really continue the same way?”
“Hi, I’m wondering, why is the government quiet about such an awful incident? The whole summer has been characterized by extreme violence, shootings, knifings and explosions. The government needs to take vigorous action so we can feel safe.”
Laila’s subject line reads: “Is it supposed to be like this?”
“Are we supposed to go outside without arming ourselves? Rape after rape occurs and no one is doing anything about it. I was born and raised in Vårby Gård, but seven years ago, we had to move because we couldn’t take the dogs out in the evenings due to the non-Europeans driving on the sidewalks. If you didn’t move out of the way, they would jump out of the car and hit you. If you called the police, they do nothing – in a suburb of Stockholm. When my brother told some of these men off, a rocket (the kind you use at New Year’s) appeared in his mailbox. You can imagine how loud the blast was. Women and girls are raped by these non-European men, who come here claiming they are unaccompanied children, even though they are grown men…
“It is easy to get weapons today, I wonder if that is what we Swedes need to do, arm ourselves to dare to go shopping. Well, now I am getting to what happened at a major department store: Two people were killed and not just killed, there is talk online of beheading.
“The Prime Minister will not say a word, but resources are allocated to asylum housings, a slap in the face for the relatives who just had two of their kin slain. Swedish newspapers will not say a word, but fortunately, there are foreign newspapers that tell the truth. We Swedes can’t change apartments, we live five people in three bedrooms. Two of us are unemployed, looking, looking and looking for work. The only option is employment agencies. I’m 50 years old, on part-time sick leave because of two chronic illnesses, I cannot run around from one place to another. But more and more asylum seekers keep coming in. There are no apartments, no jobs, we don’t dare go shopping anymore, but we’re supposed to think everything’s great.
“Unfortunately, I believe the Prime Minister needs to start reading foreign newspaper to find out that Sweden is going under. I found out that the mass immigration costs billions every year, and the only thing the immigrants do is smoke waterpipes in places like Vårby Gård. This is happening in other places too, of course. Now it’s starting to spread; you will see that in the opinion polls, next time they are published. Soon, all Swedes will vote for the Sweden Democrats. They are getting more and more supporters every day.
“You Cabinet Ministers do not live in the exposed areas, you live in your fancy residential neighborhoods, with only Swedish neighbors. It should be obligatory for all politicians to live for at least three months in an area consisting mostly of immigrants, the car should be taken from you so you’d have to use public transport… After three months, you would see my point.
“I am scared stiff of what is happening in this country. What will the government do about this?”
“Hi Stefan, why don’t you, as our Prime Minister, react more against all the violence that is escalating in our country? [Such as] the double murder at IKEA in Västerås. Add to that the bombings and other things happening in Malmö. Instead of torchlight processions against racism, we need a Prime Minister who speaks out against the violence, who says that it’s wrong no matter which ethnic group is behind it or at the receiving end of it.
“Because all the people living in Sweden are Swedish, right? A torchlight procession against racism only highlights the fact that it’s immigrants committing these crimes. What we need now is a clear signal from our popularly elected [officials] that violence needs to stop now. Sweden is supposed to be a haven away from violence.
“I’m asking you as our Prime Minister, take a stand against the violence. Unite everyone in Sweden into one group and do not make it a racism thing.”
Some of the people received a reply from Carl-Johan Friman, of the Government Offices Communications Unit; others have not received any reply at all. A typical response goes:
“Thank you for your email to Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. I’ve been asked to reply and confirm that your email has reached the Prime Minister’s Office and is now available for the Prime Minister and his staff. It is of course not acceptable that people should be exposed to violence and criminal activities in their everyday life. Many efforts are made to counteract violence, and quite correctly, this needs to be done without pitting groups against each other. Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views, they are important in shaping government policies.”
Gatestone Institute contacted Laila, one of the people who emailed, and asked her if she was satisfied with the answer she got. Laila replied:
“No, I’m not satisfied with the answer, because they didn’t even respond to what I was talking about. In all honesty, I don’t even feel they see the problems. They’re talking about what it looks like when they have their meetings, but there’s no one in those meetings who can tell them what real life looks like. It feels like the answer I got was just a bunch of nonsense. They understand that people are scared. They talk about demonstrating against racism; they seem to be completely lost. The politicians do not understand how things work in Swedish society, because they live in their safe, snug neighborhoods where things are quiet. But a lot of Swedes are forced to live in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, because they cannot afford an apartment somewhere else.”
The anger at the government’s non-reaction to the IKEA-murders also led to a demonstration at Sergels Torg, Stockholm’s main public square, on September 15. Hundreds of protesters demanded the government’s resignation, and held a minute of silence for the slain mother and son, Carola and Emil Herlin. The organizers plan to hold similar protests every month throughout Sweden.
The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US history.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, has written to Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, in Virginia, requesting that he release all relevant documents pertaining to his activities as head of a non-profit organization called the Institute of Global Environment And Society.
Smith has two main areas of concern.
First, the apparent engagement by the institute in “partisan political activity” – which, as a non-profit, it is forbidden by law from doing.
Second, what precisely has the IGES institute done with the $63 million in taxpayer grants which it has received since 2001 and which appears to have resulted in remarkably little published research?
For example, as Watts Up With That? notes, a $4.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to one of the institute’s offshoots appears to have resulted in just one published paper.
But the amount which has gone into the pockets of Shukla and his cronies runs into the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2013 and 2014, for example, Shukla and his wife enjoyed a combined income in excess of $800,000 a year.
Steve McIntyre, the investigator who shattered Michael Mann’s global-warming ‘Hockey Stick’ claim, has done a detailed breakdown of the sums involved. He calls it Shukla’s Gold.
In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Shukla – $128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700). Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.
Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013. Combined with Shukla’s university salary, the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014. In addition, as noted above, Shukla’s daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.
The story began last month when, as we reported at Breitbart, twenty alarmist scientists – led by Shukla – wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to use RICO laws to crush climate skeptics.
Shukla’s second big mistake was to send the letter not from his university address but from his non-profit, the IGES.
But his first, far bigger mistake, was his hubris in organizing the letter in the first place. It drew the attention of Shukla’s critics to something which, presumably, he would have preferred to keep secret: that for nearly 14 years, he, his family and his friends have been gorging themselves on taxpayers’ money at IGES; and that this money comes on top of the very generous salary he receives for doing much the same work at George Mason University (GMU).
It’s the latter detail which has led former Virginia State Climatologist Pat Michaels – one of the skeptics who might have been affected by Shukla’s proposed RICO prosecutions – to describe this as “the largest science scandal in US history.”
Under federal law, state employees may not be remunerated for doing work which falls under their state employee remit. As a Professor at GMU, Shukla is definitely an employee of the state. And the work for which he has most lavishly been rewarding himself at IGES appears to be remarkably similar to the work he does at GMU as professor of climate dynamics.
If GMU was aware of these extra-curricular payments, then it was in breach of its own policy on “financial conflicts of interest in federally funded research.”
If it wasn’t aware of them, then, Shukla legally may be required to send half of that $63 million in federal grants to his employer, GMU.
For many readers, though, perhaps the biggest take-home message of this extraordinary story is: Who do these climate alarmists think they are?
Perhaps $63 million in federal grants is just peanuts if you’re gorging on the climate-change smorgasbord, but for most of the rest of us, that constitutes a serious sum of money. Especially when we know it is being taken from us in the form of taxes.
Do they really feel under no obligation to spend it well?
Do they actually feel so sanctified by the rightness of their cause that they deserve to be immune from scrutiny or criticism?
A federal judge Wednesday blocked the Obama administration from implementing new regulations on hydraulic fracturing, saying that the administration does not appear to have the statutory authority to do so.
The rule, finalized in March by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is the federal government’s first major attempt to regulate the innovative oil and gas extraction technique commonly known as fracking.
Fracking is generally regulated at the state level. BLM sought to impose additional restrictions on the practice for oil and gas wells on federal land.
Judge Scott W. Skavdahl of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming said that the agency appears to lack the statutory authority to do so and issued a preliminary injunction blocking BLM from implementing the rule.
“At this point, the Court does not believe Congress has granted or delegated to the BLM authority to regulate fracking,” Skavdahl wrote in his opinion.
In fact, BLM “previously disavowed authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing,” the judge noted.
The Environmental Protection Agency previously had the authority to regulate the fracking-related practices that the rule targets, but the 2005 Energy Policy Act stripped the agency of that authority.
“It is hard to analytically conclude or infer that, having expressly removed the regulatory authority from the EPA, Congress intended to vest it in the BLM, particularly where the BLM had not previously been regulating the practice,” Skavdahl wrote.
The ruling marks a major setback for Obama administration efforts to crack down on fracking, which has spurred unprecedented increases in U.S. oil and gas production since 2009.
The ruling does not scuttle the regulations, but rather prevents their implementation while a lawsuit brought by Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah, and the Ute Indian tribe makes its way though the federal courts.
Two industry groups, the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, have also sued to block the rule.
“Today’s decision essentially shows BLM’s efforts are not needed and that states are – and have for 60 years been – in the best position to safely regulate hydraulic fracturing,” said IPAA spokesman Jeff Eshelman on the ruling.
Glaring shortcomings in cyber-security training throughout the State Department on former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s watch reflected a pervasive anti-security “culture” she encouraged there, according to multiple former intelligence and military officials.
Acting State Department Inspector General Harold W. Geisel issued six critical reports that charged top officials did not submit themselves to the department’s mandatory “security awareness training” during Clinton’s tenure. The training covers procedures for properly handling of sensitive and classified government documents and how to secure digital communications.
Senior officials from deputy assistant secretaries to chiefs of missions at U.S. embassies did not submit themselves to regular training sessions as required by the department and government-wide standards, according to Geisel.
Geisel first warned in November 2010 mandatory security training was not being given to senior department officials. A highly redacted November 2012 audit by the IG found in a random check of 46 officials that “all 46 employees had not taken the recommended role-based security-related training course in the time-frame (that is, 6 months) as recommended in the Information Assurance Training Plan.”
Annual IT security training is mandatory throughout the U.S. military and within all intelligence agencies and is required by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which sets government-wide security standards.
“A strong IT security program cannot be put in place without significant attention given to training agency IT users on security policy, procedures, and techniques, as well as the various management, operational, and technical controls necessary and available to secure IT resources,” according to NIST publication 800, the “bible” for government security.
“Failure to give attention to the area of security training puts an enterprise at great risk because security of agency resources is as much a human issue as it is a technology issue,” NIST warned.
“When you get the training, they give you lots of scenarios and lots of duplicate and redundant situations where you see the impact of security violations,” said Col. James Waurishuk, who retired in August 2014 from the U.S. Special Operations Command.
“If you don’t take the training, you don’t see it, so you don’t understand it.” he said.
Waurishuk, a 30-year military veteran, was also critical of Clinton for hiring Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer with her unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, in the department’s Bureau of Information Resources Management as a “strategic advisor.” Pagliano had no national security experience and no security clearance for handling classified documents.
“Here’s a person brought in for his campaign expertise, but doesn’t have knowledge, training or grasp of the national security environment, the threats and the gravity of failing to ensure secure environments. To put somebody at that level in charge without that degree of experience, that’s reckless,” Waurishuk said.
Other former military and intelligence officials blame Secretary Clinton for setting a poor example when she decided to conduct official government business on a private email account and a private server located at her home in New York.
“There was a corporate culture among the highest echelons of State Department that she perhaps deliberately chose to ignore these security protocols. And consequently, they just were not enforced,” said James Williamson, a former Special Forces and counter-terrorism officer who is now president and CEO of Global Executive Management. His firm offers crisis management, diplomatic and security services to its clients.
“I would hold Mrs. Clinton directly responsible for inculcation of this culture within her organization,” Williamson said.
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) General Kenneth Bergquist said effective government security awareness starts at the top.
“What you have is a culture that emanates from the top,” said Bergquist. He was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the first president of the new Joint Special Operations University. He was assigned after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the U.S. Central Command as special operations staff director.
Clinton and her inner circle of aides and advisers “have no experience whatsoever or cultural reference to security of documents and security of information. They had never really been involved in any aspects of what I call the culture of security awareness. So they were starting out from a basis of ignorance,” said Bergquist, who also worked at the Central Intelligence Agency told the DCNF.
Geisel said in a November 2010 audit that the State Department “should improve methods to identify individuals with significant security responsibilities, ensure that they take the required training every 3 years, record the training records in the Office of Personnel Management-approved centralized system, and provide management with tools to monitor compliance with the training requirement.”
In July 2011 the IG found that there was a ‘lack of maintenance of classified information nondisclosure agreements” for security training.
The November 2011 IG audit found that “The Department is not tracking and documenting Significant Security Responsibilities (SSR) training attendance.”
In a redacted November 2012 audit, the IG warned that training for top State Department officials was widespread.
The IG’s office added that top line officials who held “significant security responsibility” personnel did not appear to be getting training.
Among those who were identified by the IG as not getting the security training were the State Department’s chief of mission, deputy assistant secretary, information management specialist, information technology specialist and the office director for the security engineering officer.
Bergquist said that he understood that many in Secretary Clinton’s inner circle did not want to bother with training. “They said, ‘I don’t want to spend four hours going through this type of training. I’ve got more important things to do. That’s low on my priority list,” the general said.
Bergquist called it “hubris. That kind of attitude permeates down.”
On the last day of the fiscal year, Congress approved a short-term spending measure that keeps the federal government operating through Dec. 11.
The bill passed easily in the Senate, 78-20:
The bill faced strong dissension in the House, where 151 Republicans voted against it because the bill does not cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood (vote roll call here).
President Barack Obama signed the spending bill late Wednesday.
The vote was notable in the House in that it provided a chance for candidates for upcoming leadership races to weigh in on a controversial issue in the caucus.
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who is the leading candidate to replace Speaker John Boehner, voted for the measure.
His only opponent for speaker, Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., voted against the bill, as did Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who is one of two lawmakers running for majority leader.
The other majority leader contender, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., voted for the spending bill.
Some House members believed that the vote on the continuing resolution, as the funding measure is known, would be telling in how potential new leadership may handle future issues.
Conservatives argued that leadership candidates would be judged on if they stood up to Planned Parenthood in the face of a potential shutdown.
“It’s unfortunate that this thing passed,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But I think the most unfortunate thing is we should have back on July 14, when the first [Planned Parenthood] video came out, went full commitment to making this a national debate and really elevating it and going all in. We could have been in a position to win, but we didn’t, and this is the part that frustrates me.”
“Our new leadership has to commit, whoever that happens to be, to the same effort on things that we’ve told the voters we were gonna do – like we all told them we were pro-life, right? – we have to have the same intensity in getting those things done that we did on, for example, trade promotion. We have to demonstrate we are actually fighting on the things we said and have that full debate. And that’s what we are not doing.”
Taking a different view, Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, told the The Daily Signal that conservatives were wrong to try to hold up the spending measure to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
“Leadership will look feckless and ineffective if they try to appease the rejectionist members of this conference,” Dent said.
“Going forward,” Dent remarked, “leadership will have to find a way to move forward on five or six measures that must be resolved, including a budget agreement, tax extenders, the debt ceiling, and a long-term transportation measure. All will require a level of compromise required to move beyond the warfare and get to a better place.”
The continuing resolution funds the government at a rate of $1.017 trillion annually for the next two and a half months. Senate leaders argued the deal gives Congress time to negotiate a budget deal with the president, though Obama has been pushing Congress to break the spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act.
The continuing resolution also provides $74.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations and reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration, E-verify program, and Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Senate Republican leaders introduced a government spending bill last week that included a one-year moratorium on funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation also directed the $235 million in savings derived from the government funding allocated for Planned Parenthood to be directed to community health centers.
That bill, however, was blocked in the upper chamber, after it failed to reach the 60 votes needed to advance.
Obama White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett threw Hillary Clinton under the bus Wednesday at the Washington Ideas Forum, where she told interviewer Andrea Mitchell that the White House gave Clinton guidance forbidding her from using private email.
“Yes, there were. Yeah, absolutely,” Jarrett said when asked if the White House sent guidance to Cabinet secretaries about not using private email. “Obviously we want to make sure that we preserve all government records, and so there was guidance given that government business should be done on government emails and that if you did use a private email that it should be turned over.”
“That’s what she’s doing, as you said as recently as a few minutes ago,” Jarrett added. “And I think she has been asked about this multiple times, including by you Andrea. And I think she said, Look to do it again I probably made a mistake and I wouldn’t do it, and she’s working hard to comply with making sure that everything is pursuant to the Federal Records Act.”