Do you have a dog? I have a sweet little three pound chocolate colored teacup poodle named Lady Godiva. Her name seems irregular to some but I had reasons to name her that.
Lady is so there is no mistake that she is a female dog. Godiva is for “Godiva Chocolate” and the fact that GOD is in my dog’s name will hopefully keep her protected from anything she faces in life.
Other people give thought to their dog’s name too.
In Florida a police dog was given the name TRUMP. A photo became a viral Facebook meme this week.
The image of a patrol car belonging to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office with a decal featuring K-9 Trump’s name has gotten more attention than anticipated.
The Orlando Sentinel reported that the Facebook page of Cop Humor, a self-described pro-law enforcement conservative group, posted the meme with accompanying text that read, “Atta boy, Trump! Making a difference.”
On Thursday President Trump made a bold move to protect American values. Trump signed an executive order that promotes free speech on college campuses.
Trump was surrounded by conservative student activists at the signing ceremony. He said, “We’re here to take historic action to defend American students and American values. They’ve been under siege.”
The executive order directs 12 grant-making agencies to use their authority in coordination with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure institutions that receive federal research or education grants promote free speech and free inquiry.
The order would put into effect the loss of federal research funding if they do not protect those rights. It will apply to more than $35 billion in grants.
Trump also said, “Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today.”
While private schools would have more flexibility in limiting speech, they would need to commit to their own institutional rules.
On the other hand, public universities that seek funding would really just have to comply with something which already applies to them, the First Amendment.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, Trump gave an indication that this was in the works.
Trump said, “Even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and the First Amendment.”
A conservative activist who was attacked while working a recruitment table on campus at the University of California-Berkeley, Hayden Williams, was brought up on the stage by the president.
Trump said of Williams, “He took a punch for all of us. And we could never allow that to happen. And here is, in closing with Hayden, here’s the good news. He’s going to be a wealthy young man.”
Apparently, a lawsuit by Hayden is being contemplated.
Trump said, “If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be costly. That will be signed soon.”
Have you ever heard of a child eating dirt? I have but it didn’t seem healthy or something a sane adult would do.
Adults can sometimes eat their own words, humble pie or even eat crow but these metaphors are just that; metaphors. We don’t have to actually digest the similes.
Beto (Robert Francis) O’Rourke took eating to a whole new level after he lost to incumbent Ted Cruz R-TX. Beto ate dirt.
O’Rourke raised $80 million for the Senate race against Cruz and is rejuvenating himself by eating dirt to draw energy.
Beto wrote a 3,000-word profile on himself and it reads, “In January, Beto hit the road, much as his father had done before him, and drew energy from the people he met, and — on one stop in New Mexico he didn’t write about in his blog — by eating New Mexican dirt said to have regenerative powers.”
It also reads, “He brought some home for the family to eat, too.”
Beto’s story was published by The Washington Post.
I wonder if Beto’s family all ate dirt. Someone told me on Twitter that America needs illegal immigrants to pick crops to supply the American people with food. I did argue the point in my reply tweet.
Well, if Beto is correct in his assumption that eating dirt is good for us, maybe we don’t need food? We can all just eat that yummy dirt.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled, with conservative judges in the majority, on an immigration issue. The decision makes it easier to detain immigrants with criminal records.
The ruling was clearly a victory for the Trump administration. It was authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito and left open the possibility that some individual immigrants could challenge their detention.
A group of mostly green card holders argued that unless immigrants were picked up immediately after finishing their prison sentence, they should get a hearing to argue for their release while deportation proceedings go forward.
The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers argued the point that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. On the other hand, the Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime.
The Tuesday decision was 5-4 ruling that federal immigration officials can detain undocumented immigrants at any time after their release from local or state custody.
The court also ruled that the government maintains broad discretion to decide who would represent a danger to the community in deciding who to release or detain.
Back in October, the Trump administration had argued that given the limited money and manpower available, it was almost impossible for the federal government to detain every immigrant immediately upon their release from custody.
Alito wrote that “neither the statute’s text nor its structure” supported the immigrants’ argument.
The court’s four more liberal justices differed in opinion from the conservative ones. Justice Stephen Breyer took the rare step of reading an oral disagreement from the bench.
Would the mainstream media hold back on a story if it could possibly hurt a Democratic runner in an election? You wouldn’t think so, right? You’d be wrong if you thought that they would get the story out, no matter if it were good, bad or indifferent.
A reporter from Reuters, Joseph Menn, allegedly sat on a big story about Robert Francis O’Rourke. Ted Cruz and O’Rourke ran for a Senate seat in the 2018 mid-term election.
On Friday a famous group of hackers called the “Cult of the Dead Cow” revealed that now 2020 presidential candidate O’Rourke was a member. The hacking group has been credited with inventing the term “hacktivism.”
The group is responsible for a variety of shady activities. Stealing credit card numbers to pay for long-distance telephone service, violating copyright laws and hacking into computers were some of the activities that the hackers participated in. The report from Reuters did stress that O’Rourke himself never “engaged in the edgiest sorts of hacking activity.”
Also brought into light, was another allegation that I’ve written about Beto in connection with the group, wrote bizarre fiction stories under the name “Psychedelic Warlord,” which includes a story about the fantasy of murdering, by running over two children with a car.
As soon as the story came out, Beto was out expressing regret about his deeds.
Check out this VIDEO:
Menn knew about all of this in 2017 and he sat on it. According to Menn, members of the hacking group were protecting O’Rourke’s identity and would not confirm his connection to them unless the reporter, Menn, promised not to write about it until after the November election.
Apparently, they made a deal. Menn agreed to sit on an adverse story about Beto until his Senate race was over. Beto lost to Cruz.
Reuters’s story was titled: “Backstory: How Reuters uncovered Beto O’Rourke’s teenage hacking days.”
The story went on to say:
“After more than a year of reporting, Menn persuaded O’Rourke to talk on the record. In an interview in late 2017, O’Rourke acknowledged that he was a member of the group, on the understanding that the information would not be made public until after his Senate race against Ted Cruz in November 2018.
Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, 46, speaks with supporters during a three day road trip across Iowa, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S., March 15, 2019. REUTERS/Ben Brewer
In an interview with Reuters senior producer Jane Lee, Menn explains how he broke the story and got O’Rourke to open up about his hacking days.
“I decided to write a book about the Cult of the Dead Cow because they were the most interesting and influential hacking group in history. They illustrated a lot of the things that I think are fascinating about hacking and security work.
Focus on Trump’s speech after attack on Muslims
“While I was looking into the Cult of the Dead Cow, I found out that they had a member who was sitting in Congress. I didn’t know which one. But I knew that they had a member of Congress.
“And then I figured out which one it was. And the members of the group wouldn’t talk to me about who it was. They wouldn’t confirm that it was this person unless I promised that I wouldn’t write about it until after the November election. That’s because the member of Congress had decided to run for Senate. Beto O’Rourke is who it was.
“I met Beto O’Rourke. I said ‘I’m writing a book about Cult of the Dead Cow, I think it’s really interesting. I know you were in this group. This book is going to publish after November and your Senate race is over. And he said, ‘OK.’
“And he told me about his time in the Cult of the Dead Cow.””
Cruz took to Twitter to express his feelings:
So Reuters had evidence in 2017 that Beto may have committed multiple felonies—which Beto confirmed on the record—but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race? But when he’s running against Bernie etc, NOW it’s news? https://t.co/dUfrRPw1By
No one in cDc would talk about O’Rourke until I promised not to publish before the 2018 election. That was OK: I wanted the full story for my book, which spans decades, rather than 1 scoop ahead of a state vote. I offered O’Rourke the same terms. He accepted, and we spoke. (8/10) pic.twitter.com/psZCnSD9ZP
If you are going to run for President of the United States, your deepest secrets will be revealed. People will dig up your past and bury you in your own deeds.
On Friday, 2020 Democrat presidential candidate Beto (Robert Francis) O’Rourke was apologizing for his past actions.
He was sorry for a campaign joke that he made about how he and his wife raise their children. Has was also sorry for a short story he wrote about murdering two children by running them over.
Beto was taping “Political Party Live” podcast in Cedar Rapids, Iowa when he apologized for a campaign joke he made on a number of occasions. He had been joking and saying that his wife, Amy, raised their children “sometimes with my help.”
Beto said on the podcast, “Not only will I not say that again, but I’ll be more thoughtful going forward in the way that I talk about our marriage, and also the way in which I acknowledge the truth of the criticism that I have enjoyed white privilege.”
Beto commented to CNN and said, “So yes, I think the criticism is right on. My ham-handed attempt to try to highlight the fact that Amy has the lion’s share of the burden in our family — that she actually works but is the primary parent in our family, especially when I served in Congress, especially when I was on the campaign trail — should have also been a moment for me to acknowledge that that is far too often the case, not just in politics, but just in life in general. I hope as I have been in some instances part of the problem, I can also be part of the solution.”
The New York Times reported that Beto’s comments “elicited both laughter and derision” and cited tweets that criticized him for unwittingly exposing the double standard between male and female candidates.
Then there was the murder story that Beto wrote when he was fifteen years old. He acknowledged its surfacing could hurt his campaign.
O’Rourke wrote stories under the name “Psychedelic Warlord.” He wrote in the first person about a murder spree as part of his goal seeking “the termination of everything that was free and loving.” The piece described the first kill as the murder of two children crossing the street.
“Then one day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. I knew, however, that this happiness and sense of freedom were much too overwhelming for them.”
“This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams. As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”
Beto had dismissed the writings before but now says, “It was stuff that I was a part of as a teenager that I’m not proud of today, and I mean that’s the long and short of it. I’m mortified to read it now, incredibly embarrassed, but I have to take ownership of my words. Whatever my intention was as a teenager doesn’t matter, I have to look long and hard at my actions, at the language I have used, and I have to constantly try to do better.”
I agree that he has to take ownership of his deeds. I’ve know writers who write about murder and violence. I’ve edited and published books about murder. I’m not running for president and neither are the authors.
Something about creating a story in one’s mind about the innermost fantasies and motivation to run over children and to deliberately murder them, is difficult to swallow.
At the end of the week we still wait for Special Counsel Robert Mueller Probe to draw to a close. We’ve waited this long; what’s more time? Patience sometimes wears thin.
On Friday morning President Trump took to Twitter to give his thoughts to the American people. The theme of Trump’s tweets, once again, took aim at the Russia investigation by Mueller as the president’s transparency on social media came to the forefront as he commented.
So, if there was knowingly & acknowledged to be “zero” crime when the Special Counsel was appointed, and if the appointment was made based on the Fake Dossier (paid for by Crooked Hillary) and now disgraced Andrew McCabe (he & all stated no crime), then the Special Counsel…….
….should never have been appointed and there should be no Mueller Report. This was an illegal & conflicted investigation in search of a crime. Russian Collusion was nothing more than an excuse by the Democrats for losing an Election that they thought they were going to win…..
As Americans wait for the Mueller Probe to end and would love to see the final results, Trump speculated on if Mueller’s team will complete the investigation and submit a report to Attorney General William Barr.
The investigation should be drawing to a close as we wait for the results. The expected departure of top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann makes the assumption of the end of the probe a reality.
Weissmann led the charge on the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. At this time, it is known that Manafort will face 81 months in prison.
A spokesman from New York University Law School noted that Weissmann will be leaving Mueller’s team “in the near future” and that they were in talks with Weissmann, who had done work with the university in the past, to return to the Law School.
Good deduction. Still, there is no guarantee on when the report will actually come. In the meantime, we wait for Mueller to submit his report and then for Barr to review it. It is then expected that Barr will create his own report to send to Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.
An explanation of the special counsel’s findings would follow. Ultimately, it is the attorney general who is the official who decides what, if anything, in the report can become public.
Trump’s criticism of the investigation on Twitter comes after hundreds of pages of transcripts were released from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s and his lover at the time, former FBI counsel Lisa Page’s closed-door interviews before the House Judiciary Committee last summer.
Page’s testimony was rather informative. It confirmed that FBI officials had very little evidence at the beginning of the investigation in August 2016.
Page stated that the FBI “knew so little” about whether the allegations were “true or not true,” and had a “paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path” of vetting the allegations.
You can read all of Page’s testimony here:
Strzok and Page became famous for their exchange of numerous anti-Trump text messages. The pair worked on the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election.
With all their anti-Trump rhetoric, the two also served, for a short period of time, on Mueller’s probe team.
We await a report but even though it appears to be coming soon, we really don’t know when or if it will be released.
Do you remember the New Mexico compound where children were found to have been abused and one child’s remains were discovered? Maybe the fact that the compound was a makeshift “Terrorist Camp” rings a bell?
I’ve wondered if the crimes would ever face justice. My patience has paid off. Three suspects were tied to the New Mexico compound where alleged Muslim extremists have been reported to train children to be school shooters.
It appears that not dotting the “i’s” and crossing the “t’s” can lead to consequences.
District Judge Emilio Chavez dismissed charges against three of the five defendants. Lucas Morton, Subhannah Wahhaj and Hujrah Wahhaj had charges against them dropped in a ruling that authorities say violated the state’s “10-day rule.”
Prosecutors missed the 10-day limit for an evidentiary hearing to establish probable cause. Taos District Attorney Donald Gallegos’ office missed the deadline requiring a preliminary hearing to be held within 10 days of the Aug. 3 arrests.
Judges dropped all child abuse charges against the five clan members.
The five suspects who were originally arrested by authorities after the August raid that followed a month’s long inquiry into the disappearance of Abdul-ghani Wahhaj, aged three years old. The boy had severe medical issues and disappeared from the state of Georgia in December.
An official had said at the time that the occupants of the compound were “most likely heavily armed and considered extremist of the Muslim belief.”
At the time of the initial arrests, agents recovered a ten-page, handwritten document, titled “Phases of a Terrorist Attack,” from the compound. That document included instructions for “the one-time terrorist” and provided detailed instructions on determining ideal attack locations, using “choke points,” defending “safe havens,” escaping perimeter rings, and detecting sniper positions. This document indicates the defendants were not merely talking a deadly talk, but had been carefully planning an attack.
Now, the leaders who are suspected of running a terrorist training camp, are back in custody. They have been charged with terror, kidnapping and firearms offenses.
Gallegos’ unprofessional approach to the case allowed the alleged suspects to go free. He is facing calls for his resignation.
On Saturday, The Republican gubernatorial nominee, Rep. Stevan Pearce called for Gallegos to resign immediately.
Pearce, thanked federal authorities afterward for stepping in “when our state officials prove incapable of fulfilling their basic duties.”
Mr. Pearce said in a statement, “The state and the nation have been disgusted by the incompetence displayed by the Taos District Attorney and I renew my call for his resignation.”
U.S. Attorney John C. Anderson put out a statement that said, “The superseding indictment alleges a conspiracy to stage deadly attacks on American soil. These allegations remind us of the dangers of terrorism that continue to confront our nation, and the allegation concerning the death of a young child only underscores the importance of prompt and effective intervention by law enforcement. I commend our law enforcement partners for their ongoing diligence and outstanding work in identifying and disabling imminent threats of targeted violence.”
I have followed this story and at least I feel that justice may actually be served now that the little mess created by not following rules in an indictment has been taken care of by a higher ruling.
The U.S. Southern border is a place where the action never stops. Smugglers are rather inventive when thinking up new ways to divert attention by U.S. Border Patrol Agents.
Monday was no exception to the basic rules of getting illegal immigrants into the United States. Two Salvadoran girls were used as decoys and distracted from the actual intentions they represented.
At least ten people illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in California while Border Patrol agents were distracted by two girls aged six and nine years old.
On Tuesday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection in San Diego said that an unidentified smuggler dropped the two young girls into concertina wire at an “aging” section of the border barrier.
Video evidence showed the girls being dropped from the wall before the smuggler fled the scene.
Border patrol responded and rushed to the scene. They gave the girls medical attention before taking them to a nearby station.
But the video surveillance showed that the girls were just a decoy to allow at least ten people cross into U.S. territory illegally.
CBP San Diego tweeted out this:
Last night, a human smuggler dropped two young Salvadoran girls, 6 and 9, from the aging border barrier behind concertina wire. As agents vacated their patrol positions in response, 10 people crossed illegally nearby. They eluded capture. #USBP#CBP#BORDER#BORDERSECURITYpic.twitter.com/t2QNmQLpoK
On Tuesday House Judiciary Committee Republicans released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year’s closed-door interview with ex-FBI attorney Lisa Page.
The long and drawn out Russian meddling probe ultimately brought up and gave center stage to explosive texts between then-lovers Page and her partner then-FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.
The transcripts from last year’s interview with Page brought to light revealing new details about the bureau’s controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald J. Trump.
Page got her name recognized when it was revealed by the Justice Department inspector general that she and Strzok exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages. Page and Strzok were deeply involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling. They investigated potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election. Later, they both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
In the text messages that were shared by Page and Strzok the so-called “insurance policy” was mentioned on numerous occasions.
During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned about the texts. Page answered questions for about 10 hours total on July 13 and July 16.
Page ultimately confirmed that the “insurance policy” referred to the Russia investigation. She explained that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at “total breakneck speed” and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn’t be elected anyway.
Page also confirmed that investigators only had a “paucity” of evidence at the start.
After the questioning began, then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked about the text sent from Strzok to Page in August 2016.
The text reads, “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
FBI agents had named the investigation into the Trump campaign, “Crossfire Hurricane.”
Page said, “So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton. And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”
Page also said that, “if the answer is this is a guy just being puffery at a meeting with other people, great, then we don’t need to worry about this, and we can all move on with our lives; if this is, in fact, the Russians have coopted an individual with, you know, maybe wittingly or unwittingly, that’s incredibly grave, and we need to know that as quickly as possible.”
If you read the transcripts, you will see that it was never expected that Trump would be the President of the United States. In fact, the D.C. swamp agreed and Page said that all they needed was an allegation, and claimed “it is entirely common, particularly in a counterintelligence investigation, that you would only have—you would have a small amount of evidence” in launching a probe.
The pair worked on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and then Page served a short detail on Mueller’s team and then returned to her post at the FBI in 2017. She then ultimately left the bureau in May 2018.
Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after the texts were discovered and was reassigned to the FBI’s Human Resources Division. He was fired in August 2018.
Recently, former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, said he did not recall ever discussing the “insurance policy” with Strzok or Page.
I believe that “Andy’s” bubble burst with revelations that Page remembered the situation clearly.
A Leader Not A Politician
FROM AN EARLY AGE FALCON SANE WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT.
When asked why, he answered, “So I can help people.”
During a period of political and social unrest in the U.S., tender-hearted Falcon travels through youth into adulthood crossing the paths of love, corruption, and power, in search of the American dream—freedom. Despite incredible odds, he never gives up, never gives in, and never loses sight of who he is.
His quests carry him to the wilderness of the Idaho mountains, into the belly of a foul profiteering county jail, clamped in the jaws of an unethical corporation, and ultimately to a long-desired romance. As a successful businessman, and with an incredible woman at his side, Falcon turns his passion toward fixing the corruption of his beloved America and runs for president.
His message is clear: United, we can make a difference.
Listen To FREE AMERICA
Interview with Jason Kraus, hosted by Michael Higgins/Dianne Lynn Savage
Interview with Jason Kraus, hosted by Michael Higgins/Dianne Lynn Savage, talking specifics of his Personal Responsibility Act of 2017