Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Trump Likened To Hitler For Saying Black Kids Ought To Able To Walk To School Without Getting Shot

weaselzippers



You know we’re nearing peak insanity levels when the Hitler comparisons start flying.


[Ed; We gotta kick in our 2 cents here.

Most of you drive cars. 

Most cars weigh between 3000 to 4000 lbs. How many of you, at a red light, have had a street person stagger out in front of you and yell at you, pound on your hood, or head for your window advertising evil intent?

Your response was?

1: You put the car into low gear and ran the person over.
2: You rolled up the windows, locked the doors, and at most called 911 on your cell phone.

If you chose solution #1 you would have won the argument, short term. No question. 2 tons of car even at only 5 to 10 miles an hour is about as lethal a moving projectile response as one can imagine.

However, for whatever reason, you didn't run that person down.

So what makes anyone think you would behave any differently with a loaded gun?

Moral? Only the overwhelming majority of people who picked response #2 will be adversely affected by more gun control laws, NOT the criminals who are shooting kids.]


Via WSJ:


Hillary Clinton tried to tar Donald Trump as a racist last week by associating him with the “alt-right.” Yet it is Mr. Trump who has decried the loss of black life to violent crime—and has promptly been declared biased for doing so. Whether intentionally or not, Mr. Trump has exposed the hypocrisy of the Black Lives Matter movement and its allies.


Speaking in West Bend, Wis., on Aug. 16, only days after the recent riots in Milwaukee, Mr. Trump observed that during “the last 72 hours . . . another nine were killed in Chicago and another 46 were wounded.” The victims, as in other cities with rising crime, were overwhelmingly black.


Bringing safety to inner-city residents should be a top presidential priority, Mr. Trump said: “Our job is to make life more comfortable for the African-American parent who wants their kids to be able to safely walk the streets and walk to school. Or the senior citizen waiting for a bus. Or the young child walking home from school.” Mr. Trump promised to restore law and order “for the sake of all, but most especially for the sake of those living in the affected communities.”


The reaction was swift. The progressive website Crooks and Liars deemed Mr. Trump’s speech a “mashup of Hitler and George Wallace. ”On CNN the activist and former Obama adviser Van Jones called it “despicable” and “shocking in its divisiveness.” Historian Josh Zeitz told USA Today that “the term law and order in modern American politics is, ipso facto, a racially tinged term.”

Thank you WSJ and Zip.

It's the destructive policies of Trump's detractors here who continue to get kids shot. 

Monday, August 29, 2016

New and Hot! ISIS Uses Senior Citizens To Execute Prisoners

weaselzippers

Religion of Peace™


Thank You Zip.

Hillary Clinton Whores For MORE Govt. Mind Control/Psychiatry

More of the same hideously expensive scorched earth junk science to feed special interests without any legal footing to purchase even a toe hold on.



hillaryclinton.com


Today, Hillary Clinton announced her comprehensive plan to support Americans living with mental health problems and illnesses—by integrating our healthcare systems and finally putting the treatment of mental health on par with that of physical health. Nearly a fifth of all adults in the United States, more than 40 million people, are coping with a mental health problem.[1] Close to 14 million people live with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.[2] Moreover, many of these individuals have additional complicating life circumstances, such as drug or alcohol addiction, homelessness, or involvement with the criminal justice system.[3] Veterans are in acute need of mental health care, with close to 20% of those returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars experiencing post-traumatic stress or depression.[4] And the problem is not limited to adults: an estimated 17 million children in the United States experience mental health problems,[5] as do one in four college students.[6]
Americans with mental health conditions and their families need our support. The economic impact of mental illness is enormous –at nearly $200 billion per year nationwide in lost earnings[7] —and the human cost is worse. Too many Americans are being left to face mental health problems on their own, and too many individuals are dying prematurely from associated health conditions. We must do better. To date in this campaign, Hillary set out policies that will direct support to individuals with mental health problems and their families—including a detailed agenda to support military service members and veterans, an initiative to end America’s epidemic of drug and alcohol addiction, and a robust caregivers’ agenda. Today, she is building on those proposals with a comprehensive agenda on mental health. Hillary’s plan will:
  • Promote early diagnosis and intervention, including launching a national initiative for suicide prevention.
  • Integrate our nation’s mental and physical health care systems so that health care delivery focuses on the “whole person,” and significantly enhance community-based treatment
  • Improve criminal justice outcomes by training law enforcement officers in crisis intervention, and prioritizing treatment over jail for non-violent, low-level offenders.
  • Enforce mental health parity to the full extent of the law.
  • Improve access to housing and job opportunities.
  • Invest in brain and behavioral research and developing safe and effective treatments.
As a down-payment on this agenda, Hillary will convene a White House Conference on Mental Health during her first year as President. Her goal is that within her time in office, Americans will no longer separate mental health from physical health when it comes to access to care or quality of treatment. The next generation must grow up knowing that mental health is a key component of overall health and there is no shame, stigma, or barriers to seeking out care.

Read more. (get an air sickness bag first)

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Huma Abedin: Hillary's Bribe Broker

Strong evidence of Hillary and Huma’s pay-to-play conspiracy emerges in new email dump.
August 23, 2016 Matthew Vadum




Embattled Hillary Clinton enforcer Huma Abedin gave foreign leaders and activists special access to Clinton when she was secretary of state after they donated to the congenitally corrupt Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to newly released emails.

It is yet more evidence that in the event Hillary becomes president her administration will be at least as venal and crooked as her husband Bill’s was. Bill sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House while he was president but Hillary has been selling her presidential favors in advance for years through the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation, which is little more than an anticipatory bribe processing center. With Hillary installed in the Oval Office, the sky’s the limit.

The trove of newly released emails obtained by watchdog group Judicial Watch through the courts appear to show that Abedin served as a gatekeeper auctioning access to the would-be president in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. When individuals wanted to meet with Hillary, Abedin would say no, and introduce them to the foundation. After the so-called donation was received access to Clinton would be approved.

Judicial Watch stated Monday that:

"In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of 'Clinton family affairs.”

“Among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment,” Judicial Watchreveals. “Abedin advised Band that when she went through 'normal channels' at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours."

The Clinton Foundation’s website indicates that in 2005 Salman committed to creating something called the Crown Prince's International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a project of the foundation.

By 2010, Salman’s organization had given $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly donated somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 to the foundation. Bahrain Petroleum also contributed an extra $25,000 to $50,000.

There is also an email thread from 2009 in which Band asked Abedin to get the State Department to expedite visas for members of the Wolverhampton (UK) Football Club. One of the members it seems had a “criminal charge” that had thrown a wrench into the visa issuance process.

Band was inquiring on behalf of Hollywood mogul Casey Wasserman, president of the Wasserman Foundation. Wasserman’s philanthropy kicked in between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Abedin arranged nearly immediate access to her boss after Slimfast tycoon S. Daniel Abraham coughed up between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Other Clinton Foundation donors got meetings with Mrs. Clinton after Abedin shook them down for gifts to the foundation.

Clinton confidant Kevin O’Keefe, a Clinton campaign “Hillblazer” who has raised over $100,000 for her candidacy, coughed up between $10,000 and $25,000.

St. Louis political operative Joyce Aboussie asked to set up a meeting between Peabody Energy executive Cartan Sumnar and Clinton. Abedin replied, “We are working on it and I hope we can make something work… we have to work through the beauracracy [sic] here.” Aboussie gave the foundation between $100,000 and $250,000.

Mobile communications executive and political activist Jill Iscol asked Clinton to sit down with Jacqueline Novogratz. The Clinton Foundation took in between $500,000 and $1 million from Iscol and her husband. Secretary Clinton then named Novogratz to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

A memo sent to Clinton’s chief of staff at State, Cheryl Mills, by State Department White House liaison Laura Pena indicated that Rajiv Fernando had been suggested for appointment to the sensitive International Security Advisory Board in mid-2009. The appointment, which came through in 2011, was controversial because Fernando “had no obvious experience in the field,” ABC News reported. Fernando gave the Clinton Foundation $1 million.

“These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There needs to be a serious, independent investigation to determine whether Clinton and others broke the law.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s status as a feminist icon may be in jeopardy after it was reported that Abedin, her likely White House chief of staff should she beat Donald Trump, worked for more than a decade at a Saudi-funded Islamofascist periodical that condemned Clinton’s actions as first lady, praised Muslims’ brutal subjugation of women, and blamed the U.S. for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The longtime Clinton aide’s disturbing Islamist background has been examined at length previously by FrontPage but only recently has the mainstream media taken any kind of interest in it. Abedin’s dangerous links to international terrorism take on a heightened importance now that odds-makers favor the former secretary of state to win the presidential election on Nov. 8.

Abedin is joined at the hip to Hillary. She is closer to Mrs. Clinton than Valerie Jarrett is to President Obama. She has been called a second daughter to the Clintons. Abedin is now a vice chairman of Clinton’s campaign after working for her in the White House, her U.S. Senate office, the Clinton Foundation, and at the Department of State. And like Clinton she is married to a serial philanderer – former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) – who humiliates her and treats her like dirt.

What is new here is that Paul Sperry, author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, has unearthed articles from Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs that savage the feminism and women’s rights that Hillary claims to believe in. Andrew C. McCarthy has said that journal seeks "to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West."

From 1996 to 2008, Abedin was employed as assistant editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Her brother, Hassan Abedin is one of two associate editors listed on the masthead, and sister, Heba Abedin Khalid is one of two assistant editors at the publication.

Abedin’s mother, the editor-in-chief, wrote in the journal in 2002 that America got what it deserved on 9/11.

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

The family matriarch edited a 1999 book that justifies the barbaric custom of female genital mutilation under Islamic law, claiming that “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women.”

Sperry writes in the New York Post that Clinton brags on her campaign website about her enthusiastic support for the UN women’s conference in Beijing in 1995, at which she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” That speech is at the heart of Clinton’s political identity. It was even highlighted in a Morgan Freeman-narrated video shown at last month’s Democratic National Convention minutes before Clinton took the stage to accept her party’s nomination for president.

Although Clinton recently called the Beijing conference a “historic and transformational” event, the following year Abedin’s publication attacked Clinton’s feminism.

An article titled “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,” argues that single mothers, working mothers, and gay couples with children don’t count as families.

“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the article stated. It blames women who wear revealing clothes for being raped and claims that “[p]ushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood.”

Sperry continues, writing:

In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a ‘very aggressive and radically feminist’ agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.

“‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,” [Huma’s mother] Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.

’By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,’ she argued, ‘Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.’

’Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,’ she claimed. ’Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.’

She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of ‘the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.’ While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.

The elder Abedin opposed the effort in Beijing to expand the definition of the family to encompass “gay and lesbian ‘families.’ ”

Huma seems fine with her mother’s views. “My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,” Huma told Vogue.

The journal’s advisory board is filled with academic advocates for Islamofascism and useful idiots.

Ali S. Asani of Harvard University whines that “[f]or too long, Islam has been taught in the western academy through discourses that primarily represent the religion as a religion of empire and power.” John I. Esposito and John O. Voll of Georgetown University co-wrote a Huffington Post article titled, “In the Middle East, Islamists Are Not the Enemies of Democracy.”

Predictably, the Clinton campaign says move on, there’s nothing to see here.

Abedin was just a figurehead at the journal, according to the Clinton campaign, a flat-out lie that doesn’t even make sense. Afigurehead is supposed to be at the top of an organization, something Abedin clearly was not.

“My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that period,” Clinton mouthpiece Nick Merrill said after Sperry’s article was published. “She did not play a role in editing at the publication.”

Maybe it was a “no show” job like on The Sopranos.

If Hillary Clinton wins, count on Huma Abedin springing out of bed in the morning every day to show up for work to continue the fundamental transformation of the country set in motion by Barack Hussein Obama.
Tags: Hillary, Huma Abedin, Radical Islam


Thank You Mr Vadum and FPM.

Think real hard about being too high minded to vote for The Donald before you sit this election out on principle.

None of us are going to get everything we want from any candidate.

Take what you can get and go back for the rest later.

Friday, August 26, 2016

House Panel Accuses University of New Mexico of Illegally Obtaining Aborted Baby Body Parts For Research

CNSNews
By Melanie Hunter | August 26, 2016

The House Select Panel of Infant Lives has accused the University of New Mexico’s medical school of illegally transferring fetal tissue after reports surfaced that students dissected aborted baby brains among other body parts during a summer program in 2012 and 2014, Fox News reported Friday.

In a letter to New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), chair of the panel, reportedly accused the school of breaking New Mexico law as it pertains to the use of aborted fetal tissue provided by Southwestern Women’s Options, an abortion clinic that provides late-term abortions.

“Documentation obtained by the panel in the course of its investigation reflects that the transfer of fetal tissue from SWWO to UNM for research purposes is a direct violation of New Mexico’s Jonathan Spradling Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act,” Blackburn wrote.

According to the Jonathan Spradling Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, “‘Decedent’ includes a stillborn infant and, subject to restrictions imposed by law other than the Jonathan Spradling Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, a fetus but not including a fetus that is the subject of an induced abortion.”

Section 4 of the Act, titled “Who may make anatomical gift before donor’s death,” says “an anatomical gift of a donor’s body or part may be made during the life of the donor for the purpose of transplantation, therapy, research or education.”

It further says the anatomical gift may be made by: “the donor, if the donor is an adult or if the donor is a minor and is: (1) emancipated; or (2) authorized pursuant to state law to apply for an instruction permit because the donor is at least fifteen years of age; B. an agent of the donor, unless the power of attorney for health care or other record prohibits the agent from making an anatomical gift; C. a parent of the donor, if the donor is an unemancipated minor; or D. the donor's guardian.”

The House subpoenaed records from the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center and Southwestern Women’s Options, which included procurement notes.

In one notation dated May 24, 2012, a lab assistant wrote: “Asked clinic for digoxin treated tissue 24-28 wks. for methylation study & because [name redacted] wants whole, fixed brains to dissect w/ summer camp students,” the Albuquerque Journal reported.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, university officials acknowledged that the “six-week ‘Neuroscience Summer Experience’ in 2012 and 2014 involved fetal brain dissections” but said it was not a summer camp, but an educational research program attended by undergraduate and graduate students as well as children of faculty members.

Thank You Ms Hunter and CNS.

ISIS Makes Kids Execute 5 Prisoners In New Propaganda Video

weaselzippers

One of the kids is supposedly British.







Thanks Zip.

Feel Good Video of The Day: Aleppo, Jihadi Goes Airborne After Being Hit By Syrian Army Shell




HT to Zip

Thursday, August 25, 2016

DOJ Against Holding People Because They Can't Afford Bail

weaselzippers



Which means all of these people would be let out without bail and more would skip, because they would have nothing to lose.
Via Washington Examiner:

It is unconstitutional for defendants to be held in jail simply because they can’t afford to post bail, the Justice Department asserted this week.
This marks the first time that the federal government has sided with this position before an appeals court, according to NBC News.
In a friend of the court briefing, the DOJ said: “Bail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be denied “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
Keep reading…

Thank You Wash Ex and Nick.

"The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be denied “life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

Well now ain't that just 'special'.

From each according to everything they Earned,

To each according to Buying them into voting us back in.

Where's the due process to insure equal protection for people who do have the money to pay a bailbond firm, usually because they have ties to the community they Worked for it in? (further reasons for them to not skip town).


"It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself."
Justice Antonin Scalia.

Want more on the absolute travesty this Regime has made of the Rule of Law?

SCOTUS

Due Process and Equal Protection mean squat to the Lynch/Obama DOJ. 





Except to appoint Janet Napolitano as President of the University of California system.


We got your Due Process and Equal Protection for ya Right, Here, America.

San Francisco Govt: Hides Psych Gulags, Then Shows World Its Johnson

Music on Thursday, Jennifer Batten, Respect



Jennifer Batten isn't just the voice behind the mic. She's the guitar player. Decades of dedication and hard work.

Here's the whole album, and yes, the opening 'Flight of the Bumblebee' is her.



Our weekly music posts are confirming what we knew they would, but it's still nice to have the numbers.

They get viewed between 15 to 20 times more than our junk medicine and junk political coverage does.

Which tells us that rock and roll is 15 to 20 times better for a person's outlook than anything the mental health drug and disability pushing fraudsters are peddling.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Journal: Transgenderism 'Not Supported By Scientific Evidence'

dailycaller
by PETER HASSON

Although popular culture and many of the leading media organizations have bought wholeheartedly into the idea that gender identity is something distinct from one’s biological sex — that a man could be born in a woman’s body or vice versa — such beliefs have no grounding in any credible scientific evidence, according to a report published Monday in the journal The New Atlantis.

Arizona State University professor of statistics and biostatisticsLawrence S. Mayer and John Hopkins University Medical School professor of psychiatrics Paul McHugh co-authored the report, which examined top peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences.

“Examining research from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, this report shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence,” they noted.

Among the key findings listed by the authors was that, “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

“Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood,” the authors continued.

“There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents, although some children may have improved psychological well-being if they are encouraged and supported in their cross-gender identification. There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.”

“An area of particular concern involves medical interventions for gender-nonconforming youth. They are increasingly receiving therapies that affirm their felt genders, and even hormone treatments or surgical modifications at young ages,” they added later.

“But the majority of children who identify as a gender that does not conform to their biological sex will no longer do so by the time they reach adulthood. We are disturbed and alarmed by the severity and irreversibility of some interventions being publicly discussed and employed for children.”

The report also found that, “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”

“While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation,” the authors explained.

“While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.”

McHugh previously served for 26 years as the Psychiatrist in Chief at John Hopkins Hospital.

“At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits,” he wrote in a June 2015 essay on the topic.

In addition to his position at ASU, Mayer is currently a scholar in residence at Hopkins.

He dedicated his work on the report “to the LGBT community, which bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared the population as a whole. We must find ways to relieve their suffering.”

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson


Tags: Transgender

Thank You Mr Hasson and DC.

HT to Huck Funn


Monday, August 22, 2016

Bring The Funders of Black Lives Matter To Justice

frontpagemag

How many police officers have to die so a grad student in gender studies doesn’t have to get a real job?


(Ed; Now if That ain't hitting the nail on the head. 'Gender Studies? If you're really that gender ID challenged, the next time you get in the shower, take a look. All the gender study anyone needs.)


 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Follow the money is the watchword of politics.

The left pretends that it is above money or against money, but its networks rival those of any drug cartel or mob outfit and are often constructed to thwart any investigation of its finances.

These networks are strange reincarnations of Cold War era Communist front groups. Except that instead of the money coming from Soviet agents, the cash flows from left-wing billionaires and family foundations hijacked by the left to serve uglier and darker purposes.

And yet the setup has remained basically the same.

Out front are the front groups. These organizations pretend to be grassroots movements stocked with photogenic young people. They zero in on specific issues targeting a key demographic. Behind the scenes are the big money people who are pulling their strings. In between is a shadowy world built to distance the funders from the funded. The passionate young people don’t seem nearly so authentic when you realize that they’re just puppets dancing to the tune of an 86-year-old billionaire rattling around a 16-room mansion on Fifth Avenue or a vast estate in Bedford.

The recent Soros leaks showed how the left’s grass roots organizations are dictated to by radical billionaires like him. And they also show that Soros‘people were well aware of the need to distance themselves from the organizations that they were funding. And it is all about the funding.

Take Black Lives Matter.

Behind the bullhorns and race riots is something different. It’s not outrage. It’s big money.

In a splashy item, the Ford Foundation announced that it had helped found the Black-Led Movement Fund. The Black-Led Movement Fund wants to raise $100 million on top of another $33 million from Soros and assorted left-wing groups.

What is this Black-Led Movement Fund? The announcement defaults to Borealis Philanthropy. What is Borealis Philanthropy? It’s what is known as a philanthropic intermediary. And it’s not the only intermediary behind the Black-Led Movement Fund.

The Ford Foundation press release claims that it partnered with “Borealis Philanthropy, Movement Strategy Center, and Benedict Consulting.” The Movement Strategy Center is yet another intermediary connecting funders and donors. And that’s alongside Solidaire, Neighborhood Funders Group–Funders for Justice and, for those who still feel too exposed, Anonymous Donors.

Why does all this funding need to be heavily disguised?

First, it’s a good bet that a good deal of it will be going to people who are not protesting anything.

Nobody needs $133 million to rile up a mob in Baltimore, Ferguson or Milwaukee. The social justice grads who are kept on the payroll to community organize don’t cost nearly that much.

The more the money is moved around, the harder it is to tell where it’s going and who is cashing in.

For example, the Benedict Consulting referenced by the Ford Foundation in its Black-Led Movement Fund piece doesn’t appear to have any sort of internet presence. It may however refer to Ingrid Benedict who was formerly a senior fellow at the Movement Strategy Center also referenced as having helped found the Black-Led Movement Fund. Benedict also appears to have assisted in putting together Resource Generation’s framework for funding Black Nationalist movements.

And Benedict also appears to work as a Philanthropic Consultant while heading up Abigail Disney’s Daphne Foundation. Benedict’s clients include the Ford Foundation, Resource Generation, Neighborhood Funders Group and the NoVo Foundation. These groups also appear to be involved in funding the Black-Led Movement Fund.

Is there a conflict here? Probably far smaller than the ones involved in the Clinton Foundation. But there is also little doubt that money fed into this network will be following a most interesting route.

Second, funding Black Lives Matter and the various organizations orbiting around the same protests means funding race riots, sedition and street violence by hate groups.

It’s understandable that some major donors might not wish to be publicly associated with that. Some people would love to have their name stamped on the sack of Baltimore. But not everyone does.

Radical Chic, as Tom Wolfe documented so aptly in the piece of the same name, is exciting for some. Rich Saudis and Qataris fund mass murder from Syria to Paris. The obese princeling that tires of his imported luxury cars and his harem of imported slaves brought in by modeling agencies can pay for mass murder by cutting a check to Al Qaeda or ISIS. His American counterparts in Marin County or Arlington can watch poor neighborhoods burn after cutting a check to the right domestic terrorists.

The latest wave of Black Nationalist activists is cashing in on that frisson. So are the fundraisers.

And they should not be allowed to get away with it.

Call it Radical Chic or the Capitalist Communism of left-wing billionaires, those who suffer are the families of wounded and murdered police officers, the small business owners whose shops are looted or put to the torch and the residents of troubled neighborhoods for whom life grows even worse.

The last ten years have witnessed a monumental effort by the left to recreate its worst abuses of the seventies without a hint of apology, acknowledgement or conscience. This time around there is absolutely nothing natural or historical about these developments. Instead they are being funded as a dedicated effort by some powerful and influential people who are forcing history to repeat itself.

The grim farce of left-wing billionaires funding race riots in poor neighborhoods is as ugly as it is unacceptable. Twenty year olds in t-shirts and thirty year olds in blue uniforms should not be dying for the amusement of George Soros or any other bored Manhattanites looking for a radical thrill.

Financing race riots is not charity. It’s domestic terrorism. And the powerful men and women funneling money into the racist network of Black Nationalist groups should be treated just like Al Qaeda funders.

It’s time to hold them accountable.

Beyond the Soros clan, the entire network of family foundations and front groups financing street violence has to be investigated and dismantled. The funding of domestic terror in our cities must be curtailed by exposing who is behind them and how they have benefited from the violence.

Those who have gotten cash and kicks from the destruction of cities must be brought to justice.

Black Lives Matter is a racist hate group. But behind the hate is profit. Social justice activists go to extremes to catch the attention of funders. There are a great many graduates with useless degrees whose only career paths run through social justice activism. And activism does not pay well.

Take the tactics up a notch and you won’t have to punch the clock for pennies at some storefront educational non-profit, but you can get cash from George Soros. The ugly hateful tactics of Black Lives Matter paid off. Follow the money and you’ll see broken lives but also heaps and heaps of dirty cash.

And that is what it’s about.

How many police officers have to die so a grad student in gender studies doesn’t have to get a real job? How many towns and cities have to be burned so Soros can relive his World War II glory days?

Even one is too many and we have long since gone past one.

Follow the money. Bring on the justice. End the violence.


Thank You Mr Greenfield and FPM.

Friday Music On Monday? For The Victims of Psychiatry, Thunder, Dirty Love

Whole weekend was OBE.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Pro Palestinian Thugs Attack Jews On US Campuses

frontpagemag
And strangely, it’s a distant country that wants to do anything about it.
August 18, 2016

P. David Hornik



Israel has a history of helping, sometimes saving, Jewish communities in distress. The idea that Israel is responsible for all Jews has a special place in the Israeli ethos.

This week the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset held a meeting to discuss the case of a Jewish community in distress. The bipartisan meeting was jointly called by MK Anat Berko of the right-of-center Likud Party and MK Nachman Shai of the left-of-center opposition party Zionist Union.

Strangely, the Jewish community in question was not one living in a failed state or an oppressive dictatorship. Instead, the focus of the meeting was on the United States—specifically, the Jewish students at its universities.

American universities are, of course, a major arena of anti-Israeli activity including Israel Apartheid Weeks, BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) advocacy, and the silencing—often through violent disruption—of Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers.

The Knesset members were told that:

· Jewish students in institutions such as NYU, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, the University of Oklahoma, Harvard, Claremont College in Los Angeles, Vassar College in New York, and many others have been subjected to harassment by BDS and Students for Justice in Palestine activists, including the taping of eviction notices to their doors. Jewish students who have approached campus administrations for help say they avoid taking action. In one case, at NYU, some anti-Jewish students who had posted “eviction notices” were expelled.

· Students for Justice in Palestine has been compiling lists of Jewish students on American and Canadian campuses with details of their dorm addresses, raising real concern about the students’ safety.

· The universities claim to oppose anti-Israeli and antisemitic activity—and, of course, abuse of any kind on a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual-orientation basis, to the point of providing “safe spaces” and the like for students who feel they have been offended. Yet, in reality, it’s open season for students who engage in such activity as long as it’s directed at Israel or Jews. At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, students and former students tied to Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Students Association have praised Hitler, threatened violence, incited violence, and endorsed terror organizations in social-media posts. Jewish groups in Tennessee have expressed “anger, disappointment and worry” at the university’s “tepid response” to complaints.

· Out of 941 reported antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2015, 90 occurred on university campuses. Those 90 marked an increase of almost 100% from 47 in 2014. Amnon Goldstof, head of an Israeli reserve-soldiers NGO call Reservists on Duty that has recently toured the U.S., told the Knesset committee that “Jewish students are the most persecuted minority on [U.S.] campuses.”

· MK Berko said that it has become almost impossible for Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers to address students at U.S. campuses. She told the committee that “when she was supposed to give a lecture on a US college campus, it had to be moved because protesters blocked the hall where it was supposed to take place.” Also attending the meeting was Tzahi Gabrieli of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, who “said the physical intimidation of the sort Berko faced is the most common on campuses.”

The latter part of the meeting, in which Gabrieli detailed the Strategic Affairs Ministry’s approach to countering the anti-Jewish phenomena, was held behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has signed a law prohibiting the state’s public worker pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel and support BDS.

New Jersey thereby becomes one of over a dozen states that have passed anti-BDS laws this year. This is a welcome and laudable development. It is, though, strangely discordant with a situation where “pro-Palestinian” activists are allowed to attack Jews on U.S. campuses. Even stranger is that a distant, foreign country—Israel—is taking upon itself the task of doing something about it.

The time for the U.S. authorities to crack down on these thugs is now. 

Tags: Campus, Israel, Left


Thank You Mr Hornik, FPM, and Israel.

Obama To Bypass Congress, Unilaterally Raise Death Tax

CNSNews
Curtis Dubay | August 18, 2016 |



ED; or in this case, whenever the Emperor gets another wild hair and doesn't even bother to take it to Congress.


President Barack Obama isn’t afraid to enact his agenda over the will of Congress. At this late stage in his presidency, he’s still overreaching his authority to push through an agenda; his most recent overstep being an effort to unilaterally raise the federal estate tax.

Conservatives have successfully lessened the impact of the estate tax, colloquially known as the “death tax,” in recent years. In 2000, before George W. Bush became president, the death tax had a rate of 55 percent and struck families with assets valued at $675,000 or more.

Today, because of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, the rate is down to 45 percent and only estates worth over $10 million face the tax. This is a victory conservatives should be proud of.

Of course, there are no permanent victories in Washington, especially when it comes to tax policy. Raising the death tax is a perpetual desire of liberals. They see this tax as a necessary tool to stop wealth from being concentrated among a few families.

Obama has long wanted to raise the death tax, and has included steep increases to the death tax in each of his budgets. But instead of accepting the will of Congress as a check on his power, Obama has chosen to raise the death tax on his own.

Recently, the Treasury Department released regulations to limit the ability of families to use valuation discounts to reduce their death tax liability when a family member dies.

Valuation discounts make sense economically because they allow families to reduce the taxable value of an asset that does not have a deep and frequently-traded market. For instance, the owner of a family-owned business may pass on a $20 million business to his children. The IRS would assess the death tax on the $10 million value of the business (after the $10 million exemption).

However, that ignores the fact that the family cannot readily sell the business, or some of its assets, because there is no market for a portion of a family-owned enterprise. Valuation discounts allow families to reduce the value of the business to better reflect its lack of marketability.

The same thinking applies to the valuation of any asset. Those assets with deep and active markets will, all else equal, have higher prices than those with inactive markets.

The new IRS regulations would make it harder for family-owned businesses to use valuation discounts, and as a result, raise the death tax bills of families trying to hold onto their companies. This will destroy jobs as those businesses are broken up and slow the economy.

What liberals miss in the death tax debate is that the wealthiest people do not typically inherit their fortunes. They earn them. Think Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Furthermore, when the government taxes away half of what people accumulate during their lifetimes, it creates a powerful disincentive for families to build wealth. The death tax is a particularly potent scourge of family-owned businesses. These businesses are usually closely held and look valuable on paper because they often own many assets. However, small businesses generally lack liquid cash to pay their estate tax bill when the principal owner passes away, forcing the surviving family members to sell the business to pay the IRS.

The tax ends up becoming a deterrent for leading a successful life. That deterrent has a powerful negative impact on the economy. That is why there is also an incredibly strong economic argument for abolishing the death tax completely.

The public has 90 days to voice its opinion on the Treasury’s regulations and the administration’s unilateral action on this important issue. Americans should tell the Obama administration that they do not appreciate the effort to make it harder for a businesses to stay in the family after a loved one passes away.

Curtis S. Dubay, a leading expert on tax reform, income tax, corporate tax, international taxes, and the estate tax, is a research fellow in tax and economic policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.


CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

Thank You Mr Dubay and CNS.


This is "Making The Rich Pay Their Fair Share" in plain, idiot proof english.

So let's put every family farm in America out of business that han't already been put out of business by taxing them off their land.

Land redistribution has worked out so well in Russia, Communist China and every place else it's been tried. Wait, It Hasn't?

Someone better tell Hillary.

Joe Biden: Trump Can't Be Trusted With The Nuclear Launch Codes, Then POINTS Out The Guy With Him Who HAS The Codes


Biden's sole purpose in being VP has been, from the start, to be Obama's Fail Safe Insurance Policy against Impeachment.

So, you want to trust Hillary with those launch codes?

She's the one who approved Joe Biden to convince the voters that she Does possess the judgment skills to be trusted with those launch codes.

Transgender Anyone? 1st Sales Drop In Years Sends Clueless Target Execs Scrambling For Answers

weaselzippers


Paging Captain Obvious.

Via Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Its shelves are better stocked than ever before. It’s added thousands of new grocery items. And it’s rolled out new offerings such as the jazzy in-house Cat & Jack kids clothing line.

So why haven’t shoppers been showing up at Target Corp.’s stores in the last few months like they have in the past?

That was the troubling question on analysts’ minds after the Minneapolis-based retailer reported a surprising 2.2 percent drop in traffic during the May-to-July period — its first decline in that metric in a year and a half, and the biggest slide it’s seen since the Great Recession outside of the massive data breach a few years ago that temporarily scared off shoppers.

The company’s shares tumbled nearly 6 percent by midday trading Wednesday as Target also reported its first comparable sales drop in two years and lowered its forecast for the second of the year, including during the holidays, when it now expects sales to be flat to down two percent. It was a stark change from just a few months ago when Target executives said sales could grow as much as 2.5 percent this year.

Target executives offered their own explanations for the falloff in traffic: It lost some trips to in-store pharmacies amid the rebranding of them to the CVS Health banner. Electronic sales were down double digits — Apple products in particular tumbled more than 20 percent. And an overhaul of the grocery department to include more specialty and organic items is still not hitting the mark with consumers.

But analysts also wondered if there were deeper issues at play — in particular, Target’s ability to hold off the mounting threat from Amazon.com.

“Clearly this was a step in the wrong direction,” said Sean Naughton, an analyst with Piper Jaffray. “Some of the concern is now going to be about Amazon’s continued success and the potential for Prime Now (Amazon’s delivery service within two hours on select items) becoming more ubiquitous across the country with people being able to get things more quickly.”

Keep reading…


How did the Execs responsible for this get to Be the execs responsible for this?

In a nutshell?

Academia.

These Execs deserve to be sued by their own stockholders.

Thank You Star Tribune and Dapandico.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

15 Yr/145K Patient Study Finds Locking Up People In Psych Hospitals Provides NO Benefit

lancet
abstract



Suicide risk and absconding in psychiatric hospitals with and without open door policies: a 15 year, observational study
Dr Christian G Huber, MD†,Press enter key for correspondence informationPress enter key to Email the author,
Andres R Schneeberger, MD†,
Eva Kowalinski, MD,
Daniela Fröhlich, MA,
Stefanie von Felten, PhD,
Marc Walter, MD,
Martin Zinkler, MD,
Prof Karl Beine, MD,
Prof Andreas Heinz, MD,
Prof Stefan Borgwardt, MD,
Prof Undine E Lang, MD
†Contributed equally
Published Online: 28 July 2016

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30168-7
|

Article Info

Summary

Full Text
References
Supplementary Material

Summary
Background

Inpatient suicide and absconding of inpatients at risk of self-endangering behaviour are important challenges for all medical disciplines, particularly psychiatry. Patients at risk are often admitted to locked wards in psychiatric hospitals to prevent absconding, suicide attempts, and death by suicide. However, there is insufficient evidence that treatment on locked wards can effectively prevent these outcomes. We did this study to compare hospitals without locked wards and hospitals with locked wards and to establish whether hospital type has an effect on these outcomes.
Methods

In this 15 year, naturalistic observational study, we examined 349 574 admissions to 21 German psychiatric inpatient hospitals from Jan 1, 1998, to Dec 31, 2012. We used propensity score matching to select 145 738 cases for an analysis, which allowed for causal inference on the effect of ward type (ie, locked, partly locked, open, and day clinic wards) and hospital type (ie, hospitals with and without locked wards) on suicide, suicide attempts, and absconding (with and without return), despite the absence of an experimental design. We used generalised linear mixed-effects models to analyse the data.
Findings

In the 145 738 propensity score-matched cases, suicide (OR 1·326, 95% CI 0·803–2·113; p=0·24), suicide attempts (1·057, 0·787–1·412; p=0·71), and absconding with return (1·288, 0·874–1·929; p=0·21) and without return (1·090, 0·722–1·659; p=0·69) were not increased in hospitals with an open door policy. Compared with treatment on locked wards, treatment on open wards was associated with a decreased probability of suicide attempts (OR 0·658, 95% CI 0·504–0·864; p=0·003), absconding with return (0·629, 0·524–0·764; p<0 0="" absconding="" and="" but="" completed="" not="" p="0·63).<br" return="" suicide="" without="">Interpretation

Locked doors might not be able to prevent suicide and absconding.


Funding

None.

And it only took them 15 years and 145,000 thought criminals to figure this out.

Well, this is Psychiatry we're dealing with.


Sunday, August 14, 2016

Refugee by SABO



"Out, Standing!"

Lee Ermy.

EPA Whitewashes Illegal Human Experiments

John Dunn and Steve Milloy



The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has employed the prestigious National Academy of Sciences to whitewash the EPA's illegal experiments on human beings. Naturally, the sordid activity is all being conducted in secret.

Several years ago, we detailed for American Thinker readers how we had discovered that the EPA was violating virtually every law enacted and regulation promulgated for the protection of human experiments since the development of the Nuremberg Code.

The story begins in the 1990s, when the EPA began regulating fine particulate matter (P.M.) in outdoor air. These regulations were justified on the basis that they would prevent 15,000 premature deaths per year. The supposedly scientific studies underlying the rules could not be challenged at the time because the EPA refused to provide Congress and independent researchers with the key underlying data. Also, the relevant laws and their judicial interpretation did not provide a way to challenge EPA science in court.

Though the EPA got away with issuing the rules, it knew they were vulnerable to challenge because the underlying studies – all dubious statistical correlation studies – didn't actually show that P.M. killed anyone. Neither did animal toxicology studies, no matter how much P.M. the laboratory animals inhaled. So the EPA decided to back up its statistical claims by testing extremely high doses of P.M. on real, live people.

Over the next 15 years, the EPA began quietly experimenting on elderly subjects (up to age 80), asthmatics, people with heart disease or metabolic syndrome, and combinations of the aforesaid by placing them in a sealed chamber and making them inhale high levels of P.M. as well as diesel exhaust, smog, and even chlorine gas. At one point, the EPA even experimented with children by spraying high levels of diesel exhaust particulate up their noses.

Though none of these experiments produced any biological response indicating that P.M. is in any way harmful, the EPA relied on its statistical studies to make even more grandiose claims about the supposed dangers of P.M. The EPA claimed that any inhalation of P.M. could cause death. It claimed that death could occur within hours of inhalation or after decades of inhalation. In 2011, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson testified to Congress than P.M. caused about 570,000 deaths per year in the U.S., more than 20 percent of all U.S. deaths.

The EPA continued its experiments.

We found out about the experiments in September 2011, when the EPA finally published a report about an alleged health effect caused by P.M. Agency researchers exposed an obese 58-year-old woman with heart disease to a high level of P.M. The experiment was stopped when the woman's heart began to beat irregularly. She was taken to the hospital, where she remained overnight. The EPA's report chalked up the event to the exposure to P.M.

Although the EPA's conclusion was obviously faulty (the woman had a pre-existing heart condition that caused the arrhythmia) and has since been debunked by other research, the report led us to inquire about how exactly the woman came to be exposed to high P.M. by EPA researchers.

After several Freedom of Information Act requests and pressure from Congress, we learned that although the EPA had declared P.M. essentially the most deadly substance known to man, the agency was intentionally exposing individuals it thought would be most vulnerable to the effects of P.M. in order to support its statistical claims about P.M. lethality and its regulations.

The problem for the EPA is that if P.M. is as deadly as the agency claims, then these experiments are fundamentally unethical and illegal. Humans cannot be treated as guinea pigs for the purpose of advancing a regulatory agenda. Compounding the illegality of the experiments is the fact that the EPA never informed the study subjects that it believed that the experiments could kill them. This conduct violated federal and state laws requiring that physicians and researchers obtain informed consent prior to experimenting on humans – not that anyone could actually consent to illegal experiments in the first place.

Mental Health: Comes With FREE Sudden DEATH

(Read the snippets we excerpted out of the FDA antipsychotic drug labels, and don't bother with the FDA links. They got house cleaned shortly after we called them on it.)

(Though the mechanism of action is unknown, . . .)


After a federal lawsuit and much bad press, the EPA inspector general (I.G.) took up the case in October 2012. Eighteen months later, the I.G. concluded that the agency had indeed failed to warn study subjects that it believed that the experiments could kill them while inexplicably ignoring the issue of whether the experiments were fundamentally illegal and unethical. No matter, though. Media reports of the I.G.'s limited finding tremendously embarrassed the agency – so much, in fact, that something had to be done.

Enter the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The NAS was formed in 1863 by Congress and President Lincoln to advise the government on science. It has a bifurcated structure. The actual NAS has evolved into an honorary membership organization for elite and politically well connected scientists. The actual advice-giving part of the NAS is a separate non-profit organization called the National Research Council (NRC), which hires itself out to federal agencies to provide scientific advice. In providing that advice, however, the NRC does not rely on the prestigious NAS membership. Instead, it enlists second- and third-tier (or worse) scientists eager to build their résumés and improve their standing in academia. Despite the decidedly hack nature of NRC advice, it is marketed as if it were coming from the collective wisdom of the prestigious NAS membership.

After the embarrassing I.G. report was issued, the EPA decided to avail itself of the benefit of the NAS-NRC charade. Not only did it hope to whitewash the I.G. report, but it was hoping to conduct the process in secret. It almost worked.

We were notified about what was going on by a source who only inadvertently learned of the EPA-NAS scheme near the end of the process. From what we have learned so far, it looks as though the EPA contracted with the NAS-NRC in early 2015. A committee of mostly academics was formed and began meeting on June 1, 2015. There was no public notice of the formation of the committee, and though the meeting was supposed to be open to the public, there was no public notice. So the "public" meeting was attended only by the committee members, NRC staff, and the EPA. Four more meetings were held, the last one in April 2016. None open to the public.

When we learned of the NRC committee in June 2016, we hurriedly provided comments to the committee docket and requested the opportunity to present information to the committee – a reasonable request, given the circumstances. We were the ones who had discovered and exposed the EPA's wrongdoing. We are the ones most familiar with the facts. Based on a review of the committee docket, it was clear that the EPA had provided the committee with selective, misleading, and incomplete information. Two months later, we are still waiting for the NRC to respond to our request.

In the end, this entire sordid episode raises two main issues. First, to whom is the EPA lying? If P.M. is really as dangerous as the EPA claims, which claims it uses for its regulations, then the agency has committed felonious acts against its human guinea pigs. The only way the EPA has not committed these crimes is if P.M. is not as dangerous as the EPA claims, in which case the agency has lied to the public and Congress and has grossly overregulated P.M.

There is no third possibility here. The EPA has seriously lied to someone.

The other issue is one for the NAS as an organization. The prestigious group is being used in a covert effort to whitewash the EPA's dishonest and illegal conduct – a far cry from its chartered mission and probably what its elite scientist members expect or would support. Now that the scheme has been uncovered, it should think twice before it self-immolates doing the EPA's dirty work.

John Dunn, M.D., J.D. is an instructor in emergency medicine at Fort Hood, Texas and adviser to the American Council on Science and Health and the Heartland Institute. Steve Milloy, MHS, J.D., LLM publishes JunkScience.com and is a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Law Institute.

Thank You Mr Dunn, Mr Alloy, and American Thinker.