Was Seth Rich Killed over the Steele Dossier? By Daniel John Sobieski

If we are to believe the transcript of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, released unexpectedly by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the search for a smoking gun in the dossier scandal may lead us to a dead body, at least according to Simpson’s lawyer:

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in August 2017, Glenn Simpson was questioned about whether he tried to “assess the credibility” of sources behind information uncovered by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent who compiled the dossier.

“Yes, but I’m not going to get into sourcing information,” Simpson said.

Asked again what “steps he took to verify their credibility,” Simpson declined to answer.

His lawyer, Joshua Levy, then intervened and said Simpson was just trying to protect his sources.

“Somebody’s already been killed as a result of the publication of this dossier and no harm should come to anybody related to this honest work,” Levy said.

The interview didn’t pursue the line of questioning further.

Well, maybe somebody should pursue this hand grenade tossed in the middle of the room. Whoa! Somebody’s already been killed as the result of the dossier put together by former British spy Christopher Steele from questionable Russian sources and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, and possibly used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the campaign of Hillary’s opponent, Donald J. Trump?

As shocking as this revelation may be, it dovetails nicely with fear expressed for her safety by former DNC chair Donna Brazile. In a stunning interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about her new book, Hacks, Brazile made cryptic references to murdered DNC I.T. staffer Seth Rich and revealed that afterward, she took the precautions one takes when one fears for his life.

Facebook Bans Bestselling Author over ‘The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama’ By Megan Fox

Bestselling conservative author Matt Margolis has a new book coming out that is already banned on Facebook. Margolis’s first book, The Worst President in History, which detailed the failures of the Obama administration, was an instant hit last fall. Margolis used social media to market his presidential biography to #1 on Amazon. When he tried to market his latest, The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama, he was banned from Facebook groups for six days with no explanation. This is the ad Margolis created and posted.Shockingly, Margolis paid for this ad to be “boosted” throughout Facebook using the advertiser program they offer. Facebook had no problem taking his money for this ad but banned him directly after he posted it to several groups. The groups he sent it to were all conservative-friendly groups that normally welcome such announcements and buy conservative books.

When Margolis attempted to appeal the ban, he was unable to. This is suspicious timing considering that James O’Keefe just released videos of Twitter executives admitting to “shadow banning” conservative content creators and even those who are associated with conservative sites.

Bridget Johnson, PJ Media’s D.C. editor and terrorism expert has been banned from Twitter since November, and just the other day Facebook admitted they censored conservative author Jon Del Arroz by “mistake.” PJM reached out to Facebook and Twitter about the bannings in light of the scandalous undercover tapes of Big Tech admitting to censoring conservatives — or, as they call us, “sh**ty people.” Twitter did not respond.CONTINUE AT SITE

Climate of Unaccountability Are foundations running state energy policy without transparency?

With President Trump putting economic growth above climate alarums, green activists are turning to progressive states to press their regulatory agenda. Governors from 15 states have formed the U.S. Climate Alliance, for example, to enforce the Paris Climate Agreement despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal. Fair enough if it’s all above board, but records we’ve obtained suggest that foundations are steering policy behind the scenes without transparency or clear public accountability.
***

A leading example is Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s office, which seems to have subcontracted some of its work and budget to two foundations pushing an activist climate agenda. An environmental nonprofit, the World Resources Institute, actually hired Washington’s state government as a contractor last July.

Under this remarkable arrangement, the state agreed to perform a “scope of work” for the nonprofit that includes “activities and deliverables” to advance a green agenda. The special-interest tail is officially wagging the democratic dog, given that the contract provides the job framework for Mr. Inslee’s senior policy adviser for climate and sustainability, Reed Schuler.

According to Mr. Schuler’s official job description, his duties include working to “identify policy ideas,” “draft policy proposals and briefs for communication to Policy Director and Governor’s executive team,” and “prepare letters, executive orders, and other directives for the Governor’s signature.” Beyond the executive branch, Mr. Schuler is also involved in “monitoring progress of clean energy legislation” and representing Washington “among multi-state and international efforts.”

In other words, he holds an influential policy position. And it’s funded through a grant from the World Resources Institute, which reimburses Washington for Mr. Schuler’s salary, benefits and expenses. Under its contract, Washington State sends progress reports alongside its $33,210 quarterly invoices to the nonprofit.

Anti-Terror Victory in Congress The House reauthorizes a crucial intelligence tool.

The House voted 256-164 on Thursday to reauthorize a surveillance law critical to America’s security for another six years. If the Senate follows up, this will mark a victory for sensible antiterror policy over exaggerated fears on the right and left.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes intelligence agencies to surveil non-U.S. persons who are “reasonably believed” to be located outside the United States. Foreigners don’t enjoy U.S. constitutional protections, and as we have learned the hard way some of them may be plotting attacks on Americans at home or abroad.

Surveillance is an essential U.S. weapon to prevent such attacks, as officials across Democratic and Republican administrations have averred. The House Intelligence Committee notes the law “has been instrumental in preventing numerous acts of terrorism,” including by top Islamic State terrorist Haji Imam.

In 2009 FBI agents in Denver arrested Najibullah Zazi, who was planning to bomb the New York City subway. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent agency within the executive branch, has said that without Section 702 Zazi’s “subway bombing plot might have succeeded.”

The success of tools like 702 has made the terror threat seem less urgent, but it is as dangerous as ever as Islamic State jihadists disperse after their defeat in Syria and Iraq. In October 29-year-old Uzbek immigrant Sayfullo Saipov mowed down eight pedestrians with a truck in Manhattan. ISIS admirer Akayed Ullah tried to blow himself up in a New York subway tunnel in December.

There is no evidence that officials have abused Section 702, and there is multilayered oversight that includes top intelligence officials, Congress and the FISA judges. But the danger is that a left-right coalition in Congress will re-erect barriers between intelligence agencies and law enforcement that led to the failure to detect the 9/11 plot.

Michigan Republican Justin Amash and California Democrat Zoe Lofgren offered an amendment to force agencies to show probable cause to get an order even to query the Section 702 database. They worry the intelligence agencies are using 702 to conduct “backdoor spying” on Americans whose data is incidentally collected through Section 702 surveillance of a foreign suspect.

PUERTO RICAN “JOURNALIST’ BLAMES THE SHORTAGES ON “THE JEW”

It has been nearly three months since Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, and the island’s recovery has been slow. The U.S. territory is struggling with shortages of food and medical supplies, and a full 45% of residents still don’t have power.

San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz blames Washington for failing to devote adequate resources to Puerto Rico’s recovery — she recently dubbed President Trump the “disaster-in-chief”. But a journalist for El Nuevo Día, the newspaper with the largest circulation in Puerto Rico, has found a different culprit: “the Jew.”

Columnist Wilda Rodríguez wrote a piece on Monday, titled “What Does ‘The Jew’ Want From The Colony?” According to Rodríguez, it is “Wall Street types,” not politicians, that dictate U.S. policy. And, who are the power brokers on Wall Street?

“In the end, Congress will do what ‘the Jew’ wants, as the vulgar prototype of true power is called,” she wrote.

Rodríguez added a disclaimer: “No offense to people of that religion.” She even argued that the term is a source of pride for Israeli Jews.

“More than 20 years ago, the Israeli paper Ma’ariv had an article in Hebrew that explained how the Jews control Washington,” she wrote. “For Israelis, recognizing Jewish power over Washington is not an offensive statement. It is the victory of the Diaspora.”

MY SAY: CRYING WOLFF!

Grey snow and early sunsets keep me home bound many evenings. So I decided to read “Fire and Fury” by Michael Wolff. It is really entertaining and gratuitously insulting to our President but Wolff has missed his calling. Since it is so easy to see the con here…a bitchy attempt to “prove” that Donald J Trump is ignorant and possibly nuts and not fit to be president of the United States.

Wolff should have written a novel which would then make a great miniseries. It would lack the bite of ” The West Wing” because Wolff has only a half-wit of the brilliant screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. A transmogrified Kevin Spacey could play the part of the unhinged president, and Meryl Streep could play the First Lady, and Jack Nichols could play Bannon, and Michael Moore could play Wolff. And the press secretary could be played by Oprah Winfrey.

It could go on until 2020 whereas the book “Fire and Fury” is full of innuendo and outright fabrications …all signifying nothing. rsk

President Trump and the Dangers of Armchair Psychiatry Medical professionals should stop attempting to diagnose the mental health of politicians from afar. By Marc Siegel

Back in 2006, when George W. Bush was still president, Duke University Medical Center professor of psychiatry Dr. Jonathan Davidson published a study that reviewed biographical sources for the first 37 presidents (from 1776 to 1974), and expert psychiatrists concluded that half suffered from mental illness, 27 percent while still in office. Twenty-four percent met the diagnostic criteria for depression at some point in their lives, including most famously Abraham Lincoln and Calvin Coolidge. Richard Nixon was treated for many years for stress by psychiatrist Dr. Arnold Hutschnecker, and was severely depressed after leaving office. The psychiatrist who treated Nixon after Watergate has confirmed this to me. “Who wouldn’t be?” he said.

The key to all these cases was either a physician making an in-person assessment and coming up with a diagnostic impression and treatment plan or at least the president or those close to him recognizing the problem. What makes the current pundit-media attack on President Trump’s mental health most disturbing is that those leading the charge are either non-psychiatrists, or else have never examined the president, such as psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee of Yale, who traveled to Washington last month to brief twelve Democratic and one Republican lawmakers on President Trump’s supposed mental instability.

Dr. Lee’s claims come across as partisan meanness, and they undermine the integrity of the medical profession at a time when we are already spending too little actual face time with our patients. Philadelphia psychiatrist Dr. Claire Pouncey, writing in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, supported the actions of Dr. Lee, along with the book of essays she published, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. But Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University, writing a response in the New England Journal of Medicine, called Pouncey and Lee’s actions “a misguided and dangerous morality.”

On Tuesday, the American Psychiatric Association reaffirmed its adherence to the so-called Goldwater Rule, which stipulates that member psychiatrists should not publicly discuss the mental health of a public figure, leader, or candidate. This rule is wise, protects our integrity as physicians, and continues to apply here.

Trump Threatens to Deal Another Blow to the Palestinian Cause By cutting off hundreds of millions in American aid to the Palestinian Authority, the president could radically alter the Middle East. By Victor Davis Hanson

President Trump set off another Twitter firestorm last week when he hinted that he may be considering cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. aid to the Palestinians. Trump was angered over Palestinian unwillingness to engage in peace talks with Israel after the Trump administration announced the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Given that the U.S. channels its Palestinian aid through third-party United Nations organizations, it’s unclear how much money Trump is talking about it. But in total it may exceed $700 million per year, according to reports.

A decade ago, the U.S. row with the Palestinian Authority would have been major news. But not now.

Why?

The entire Middle East has radically changed — and along with it the role and image of the Palestinians.

First, the U.S. is now one of the largest producers of fossil-fuel energy in the world. America is immune from the sort of Arab oil embargo that in 1973–74 paralyzed the U.S. economy as punishment for American support of Israel. Even Israel, thanks to new offshore oil and natural-gas discoveries, is self-sufficient in energy and immune from Arab cutoffs.

Second, the Middle East is split into all sorts of factions. Iran seeks to spread radical Shiite theocracy throughout Iraq and Syria and into the Persian Gulf states — and is the greatest supporter of Palestinian armed resistance. The so-called “moderate” Sunni autocracies despise Iran. Understandably, most Arab countries fear the specter of a nuclear Iran far more than they do the reality of a democratic and nuclear Israel.

A third player — radical Islamic terrorism — has turned against the Arab status quo as well as the West. Because Palestinian organizations such as Hamas had flirted with Iran and its appendages (such as the terrorists of Hezbollah), they have become less useful to the Arab establishment. The terrorist bloodlettings perpetrated by groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda have discredited terror as a legitimate means to an end in the eyes of the Arab world, despite previous support for Palestinian terrorists.

Third, the world itself may have passed the Palestinian issue by.

Dems Admit They Need Illegals For Their Votes Leaked memo reveals they are fighting to make the DREAMer nightmare permanent. Matthew Vadum

Democrats at the Left’s premier think tank have finally admitted in a leaked memo that illegal immigration is key to their party’s future electoral success.

Republicans may not be angels but they have never wielded compassion as a cudgel the way Democrats do. But this memo ought to end Democrats’ phony compassion shtick for all time. Power is the only thing that matters to them. They don’t care about America or Americans. They care only about winning. Honest observers have known this for years.

What did Democrats actually do this time to help solidify their image as the party of power over principle?

Specifically, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a sister organization of the Center for American Progress, distributed a brief to allies Monday calling the so-called DREAMers, that is, illegal aliens brought to the country at a young age, a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the Daily Caller reports.

Democrats can’t win elections without cheating. They pushed the 1993 Motor-Voter law to make voter fraud easy to commit and difficult to prosecute. They oppose voter ID laws tooth-and-nail for the same reason. They changed immigration laws a long time ago so they could change the electorate by importing new voters.

That’s why left-wingers invented chain migration in the Sixties. It is a magic carpet that brings terrorists, public charges, and low- and no-skilled workers to the United States. Democrats rigged the game by modifying immigration law. The resultant tsunami of immigrants from authoritarian Third World countries over the past half century helped Democrats grow their political base. It supposedly takes generations for immigrant families to back away from collectivism and big government as solutions to life’s problems and become Republicans. Continued high immigration rates benefit Democrats and the crony capitalists who bankroll them, impoverish the workers already here, and virtually guarantee endless growth in the size and scope of government.

Worker skill levels dropped after the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965 which began the flood of immigrants from countries hostile to the traditional American values of limited government, individualism, and a healthy respect for markets and civil society. When the INA was overhauled, a “national origins” formula calculated to maintain the existing population demographic in the nation as of 1924, was dumped in favor of one based on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents.

Democrats aren’t stupid.

The Imaginary Hispanic: What the Illegal War is About And why a border wall is a threat to the survival of the Democrats. Daniel Greenfield

There are two statistics that explain the Democrat obsession with illegal immigration and open borders.

97% of immigrants in the appropriate grouping identify themselves as Hispanic, but by the fourth generation that number falls to half. Only 7% of immigrants describe themselves as Americans, but 56% in the third generation call themselves Americans. Even the use of Spanish is slowly declining.

If a minority stops existing after a few generations, did it ever actually exist?

The Democrats had abandoned their working class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration.

In the economics of identity politics, Hispanics, unlike African-Americans, are not an enduring group. And that is a serious challenge for Democrats and their leftist allies who treat politics as a game of demographic Risk played with minorities across the states and cities of the United States.

Democrats have pinned their hopes for a national majority on a European origin group whose minority status is cultural and linguistic. And even without the old melting pot, foreign languages and cultural affinities decline across generations as immigrants become Americans. What Democrats really want aren’t a lot of Hispanics, but an endless firehose of first generation immigrants.

Democrat political affiliation falls with each succeeding generation and Republican affiliation rises. A family that speaks English is less likely to vote Democrat or view themselves as an oppressed minority. Even in California, support for subsidized lawyers for illegal aliens falls from a decisive majority among immigrants to a near tie by the second generation. It’s why Trump improved on Romney’s numbers with Hispanic voters despite defying every politically correct recommendation of the post ‘12 RNC autopsy.

Hispanic immigration becomes less politically helpful with each generation. The Dem majorities grow thinner and less reliable. Hispanic immigration, unlike Islamic migration, produces diminishing political returns for its sponsors. The only solution to the retention problem lies with open borders.