U.S. Troops Die Protecting French & Chinese Uranium?

Did U.S. Troops Die in Niger Protecting French & Chinese Uranium?

by Lowell Ponte

The question looms large!

America was surprised when U.S. troops in Niger were ambushed, and four were killed, on October 4. Why are more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers in this desolate region of Western Africa, and in one of the world’s least developed nations?

According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, America’s mission there is “supporting the French-led and the African troops in the campaign to throw ISIS and the terrorists, the radicals, those who foment instability and murder and mayhem, off their stride.” He speaks truth – but not the whole truth.

Until 1958, land-locked Niger was a French colony bordered by oil-rich Libya to the north and oil-rich Nigeria to the south. Niger has far less oil than its neighbors, but has good reason to be fought over both for territory and one key resource.

“France gets about 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors,” the New York Times reported in 2013, and that year France dramatically increased its military forces in Niger to protect its uranium mines. The terrorists attacking Americans this October were driven off minutes later by French fighter jets streaking to the rescue.

Eighty percent of Niger citizens do not know that their country’s northern desert has uranium, which Business Insider described in 2015 as “the world’s fifth-largest recoverable uranium reserves, some 7% of the global total.”

A handful of uranium mines account for roughly a third of all of Niger’s exports and supply a third of France’s reactor fuel (and possibly the key ingredients for French nuclear weapons as well). No wonder France and its American allies are willing to pay a price to keep these radioactive isotopes flowing, avoid terrorist disruptions, and prevent Islamists from seizing this potential source of A-bomb material.

France, however, is not the only uranium mine investor in Niger. The People’s Republic of China also has reportedly committed to investing $300 million and owns a 37 percent stake in the Azelik mine, along with the Niger government plus one other Chinese and one Korean investor in a joint partnership called Somina.

President Barack Obama sent U.S. military forces to Niger in 2013, apparently to support the French buildup to protect their vital uranium mines from Islamists. In October 2017, this cost four American lives. But did these courageous soldiers implicitly also die to defend a Communist Chinese uranium mine, a potential source of China’s nuclear weapons?

How ironic that the Obama Administration gave Russia 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves, some of which Russia may have sold to Iran, and Iran may have sold to North Korea, to make weapons that someday soon could devastate the United States.

How ironic that Mr. Obama allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s political slush fund foundation to pocket $145 million from this Russian deal, thereby letting Russia influence American politics.

And how ironic that Mr. Obama also has been willing to put the lives of American troops on the line in Niger to defend France’s – and Communist China’s – uranium.

Warning Signs Abound For U.S. Economy

WARNING SIGNS ABOUND FOR U.S. ECONOMY

by: Harley Schlanger

July 7 — In the build-up to the G20 summit in Hamburg, there has been much happy talk coming from Trans-Atlantic government officials, Central bankers and the media about the arrival of the long-awaited “economic recovery.” From Brussels, European Central Bank (ECB) chairman Mario Draghi sounded cautiously optimistic, telling European Union leaders on June 23 that the EU is experiencing economic growth and an “improving business climate”, while ECB Executive Board member Peter Praet was much less constrained. In a meeting of bankers in Paris on July 6, he declared that the recovery “has gathered some further momentum recently,” and that there is a “solid upswing” becoming an “increasingly solid cyclical recovery.”

One might ask if the two of them consider the unresolved Greek debt crisis, and the bailouts of Spanish and Italian banks, in violation of new EU banking rules, evidence of a “solid upswing”!

As for the United States, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen was even more upbeat, after the major U.S. banks passed the most recent “stress test.” In an exchange with London School of Economics Professor Lord Nicholas Stern, Yellen said the U.S. banking system is now “very much stronger” due to Fed supervision and higher capital levels. In fact, she added, another banking crisis is unlikely “in our lifetimes.” When asked if she thinks stock valuations are too high, Yellen replied that “by some standard metrics, asset valuations look high,” but then hedged, saying “there’s no certainty about that.” Her explanation sounded eerily reminiscent of former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, who publicly announced he saw no evidence of “irrational exuberance” as investors sent tech stocks soaring in the late 1990s, before the dot-com stock bubble proved him wrong, by crashing in 2000.

Yet, for all this “good news” from the U.S., there are warning signs that all is not well. Yellen’s vice chair, Stanley Fischer injected a note of concern, saying the “increase in prices of risky assets (that is, corporate stocks and bonds, including junk debt — HS)…points to a notable uptick in risk appetites,” adding that continued high valuations in the face of low earnings “is also a cause for concern.” He concluded by stating that the corporate sector — the stock valuations of which are at record levels — is “notably leveraged”. This is a strange, understated way of looking at the $14 trillion of non-financial corporate debt, much of which will never be collected, which has surpassed the amount of mortgage-backed securities debt which crashed the market in 2008, when that debt reached $11 trillion.

THE FRAUD OF THE STRESS TESTS

The belief that the stress tests demonstrated the security of the banking system, as touted by Yellen, has come under fire, ironically by the Wall Street-loving New York Times. In a July 3 editorial, the editors write, “It’s entirely possible that the system is more fragile than the Fed’s stress tests indicate. By the Fed’s calculations, capital held by the nation’s eight largest banks was nearly 14% of assets, weighted by risk, at the end of 2016.” However, the editorial points out that, using international accounting rules instead of American rules, the capital reserve is only 6.3%.

The difference between the two accounting systems “is largely attributable to regulator’s differing assessment of the risks posed by derivatives, the complex instruments that blew up in the financial crisis and that still are a major part of the holdings of the big American banks.”

In other words, by not dealing with the threat posed by derivatives, by restoring Glass Steagall regulations to force the banks to either write down, or write off their derivative obligations, this ticking time bomb remains a real threat within the banking system.

Further, Fischer’s warning, that there has been “a notable uptick in risk appetites”, means that the need of banks and investors for profit is forcing them to bet on more risky financial instruments. If this approach to investment is funded largely by leverage, as Fischer states, it means that once the bubble pops, the collapse will be more catastrophic, wiping out pension funds and individual retirement funds of millions of Americans — just as in 2008.

As to those who point to the “health” of the stock market, which some analysts have said is “defying all models” by continuing to appreciate, the reality is that the unprecedented expansion of corporate debt, fueled by low-interest lending from banks, is largely responsible, as companies are borrowing money to buy their own stock. Fischer obliquely referred to this when he expressed concern for stock appreciation in the face of low corporate earnings. The total valuation of the Dow Jones average, a standard measure of the health of the stock market, has nearly tripled since its low in 2008, going from 8,046 to 21,349 as of June 30 — while corporate profits during that period have been for the most part low or stagnant.

NO UPSWING IN THE REAL ECONOMY

The standard narrative of the “Obama recovery” which is repeated (mostly by Wall Street-controlled Democrats) is that between 10 and 12 million jobs were created during his years in office. Yet the majority of those were temporary, part-time and low-wage. In 2000, there were 19.6 million employed in the manufacturing sector. Today the figure is approximately 12.5 million. For those employed, wages have remained stagnant, while the labor participation rate is near historic lows, with only 62.9% of potential members of the work force employed, meaning almost 95 million are not working.

The hype about Obama’s recovery is unmasked by looking at some figures on poverty in America. According to the 2014 Census, 14.5% of Americans live in poverty, over 45 million people. As of the end of 2014, the number of children living in families near or below the poverty line is 31 million, a staggering 44% of all children in the U.S. From 2008 to 2014, the years of the “Obama recovery”, that percentage grew by 18%.

To survive, those with access to credit are building a significant debt bubble. Average household debt in January 2017 is $132,529, with total consumer debt growing to $12.58 trillion, compared to $12.37 trillion in 2007. The average household pays over $1,300 per year in interest on credit cards, while unpaid average credit card balances grew from $4,400 in 2015 to $5,551 in 2016. And delinquencies are up: the Federal Reserve reports that 7.1% of all credit card balances are more than 90 days late; for paying back student loans, which now total over $1.2 trillion, 11% are 90 days late; and for auto loans, almost 5% are 90 days late, as repossessions are up, and overall car sales are dropping. Over the last two months, General Motors, whose federal bailout after the 2008 Crash was hailed as an example of decisive political intervention, has announced cutbacks in the workforce and partial shutdowns in plants.

As more people need help, the austerity-minded Republicans in Congress are chopping away at Medicaid, which provides health care for poor children, and threatening other programs which provide food aid, funding for education, etc. With the federal budget under attack, states are not able to step in to help. When the Fiscal Year 2018 budget began July 1, there were 9 states which had no budget, due to significant revenue shortfalls, including the once-wealthy state of Connecticut, and formerly industrial states, including Illinois, Wisconsin and New Jersey. Though some of the states subsequently passed budgets, with significant budget cuts, Illinois hovers on the verge of bankruptcy, with the State Controller saying “derailment is imminent.”

What this partial picture underscores is that decisive action must be taken at once, to prevent a total breakdown of the United States. President Trump won his election in part by pointing to the fraud of the Obama “recovery”, and putting forward major initiatives, which reflected to some degree the policies promoted by Lyndon LaRouche in his Four Basic Laws, including restoring Glass Steagall, launching major infrastructure investments, and an emphasis on reviving NASA as a science driver. As these initiatives have stalled, in part due to the efforts of opponents of these policies to remove Trump from office, the situation for the average American has worsened.

If Trump wishes to succeed, he must now put the full weight of his presidency behind passing LaRouche’s Four Laws, as the central feature of his anti-Wall Street plan, to revive the U.S. economy.

The Coming Battle Between Trump, The DOJ and Comey

The battle for facts and truth goes on:

Have you reached end the end of your political tolerance rope yet?

Has your political insanity tolerance meter pegged yet?

Every day it’s another adventure in the Trump presidency. First the left just knew for certain that Trump and Putin worked together to take over the ’16 election machine and destroy America in the process. They ignored anything to do with Clinton’s lawlessness and rampant deficiencies and inefficiencies in running a campaign, but they pursued this Trump rant for months and months hoping that facts would justify the desire for Trump’s downfall.

Now that nearly a year’s worth of efforts digging and mining sources and rat holes for non-existent proof of ANY collaboration with the Russians has reveal not a “smidgen of corruption,” they’ve moved on to the next talking point – That Trump illegally interfered with the firing of FBI Dir Comey.

Of course forgetting that Trump followed the suggestion of his Asst. AG, ignoring the fact that Dems and Pubs alike called for his firing as far back as last Oct, and TOTALLY setting aside that Trump has the absolute power given by the constitution to fire anyone he chooses for any reason, it’s an ongoing circus of comedic proportion.

The real fly in the pie is the Mueller involvement. The investigative rule (28 CFR 600.7) states that conflict of interest is basis for recusal. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification. After all, Mueller is not only Comey’s long time friend, and co-worker but Comey is a witness and the ties are too strong for an independent connection. It’s widely known that Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé.

It’s clear where all of this is headed.  Mueller’s probe will morph into an investigation of the Trump-Comey meeting to determine whether the president tried to obstruct justice.  It will become a case of “he said…he said”.   Which man will the special counsel believe?  His good friend or the man who fired his good friend? How can Mueller fairly and impartially assess Comey’s credibility versus Trump’s?

The country is no longer run by laws but by leaks, innuendos, half truths and conjecture. The congressional expenditure of MILLIONS of tax payer dollars to pursue a long menu of “nothing burgers” pales in comparison to the fact that actual work and progress is NOT being done toward those issues that bear real importance like the economy, restoration of our rights and freedoms, securing our country from without and within.

The future may be bright, mediocre or dim but there is a future, and time will tell if we survive the outcome.

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached

DEPT OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE • OPINION

James Comey and Loretta Lynch Should Be Impeached for Whitewashing Clinton’s Crimes

Former federal prosecutor says that Hillary obstructed justice and destroyed evidence—with the support of the president himself

By Sidney Powell • 10/11/16 8:30am

Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people.

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.

It’s easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary—neither under oath nor with a rights warning—in the presence of her coconspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the “investigation.”

Comey’s “investigation” was a farce. Any former prosecutor worth a flip would have convened a grand jury, issued subpoenas, gotten search warrants, seized computers, run wire taps, indicted the Clinton cabal, and squeezed the underlings to plead guilty and cooperate. This business of friendly chats, immunity agreements handed out like party favors, and side deals that include the Attorney General approving the destruction of evidence to keep it from Congress doesn’t happen for others targeted by the feds.

Just ask any number of Wall Street executives who for various reasons found themselves on the opposite side of the Department of “Justice.” In fact, my former client, Jim Brown, served a year in prison convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for testifying about his personal understanding of a telephone call to which he was not even a party. Yes, you read that correctly. Read Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.  It becomes more relevant every day.

How did we get here?

Thanks to the work of Judicial Watch and others, we learned over a year ago now that Hillary Clinton ran the most important and confidential of world affairs and the United States Department of State through an unsecured computer server assembled by her minions and ensconced in the basement of her New York home. She did so despite repeated warnings of security risks, against protocol, and contrary to her own memo to all of her underlings. That posed no problem simply because the rules don’t apply to Clinton.

Conveniently, her server also handled Clinton Foundation correspondence that facilitated the personal enrichment of Hillary and Bill by hundreds of millions of dollars. That money came from Bill’s remarkable “speaking fees” at hundreds of events around the world—each of which was quickly approved as requested by Clinton crony Cheryl Mills at the State Department—as if there were no conflict of interest. Simultaneously, foreign entities made “donations” of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation to obtain the immediate attention of and curry favor with the secretary of state—and it worked.

The conflict of interest inherent in that entire scenario is palpable. It’s the Clintonian equivalent of the scheme former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow conceived that destroyed Enron—a large side-slush fund that operated as his own piggy bank.  The Clintons boldly went where no one has gone before: They privatized the State Department for their massive personal gain, creating a net worth for each of over $100 million dollars in a few short years. Ironically enough, lead counsel for the Clinton Foundation now was President Obama’s longest-serving White House counsel. A former prosecutor on the Enron Task Force, Kathryn Ruemmler was implicated in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct and its cover-up.

The personal home server allowed Hillary Clinton to send and receive all of her emails and run the State Department free from protected, secure, and requiredgovernment channels. It was established deliberately to circumvent the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act—both of which applied to her work-related correspondence.

That was no problem for Clinton however, as she simply “didn’t know how to use a computer,” apparently was incapable of learning to do so (unlike most toddlers in the country), and she liked her Blackberry—which was reason enough for her highness to ignore the national security interests of the entire country.

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: ‘My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.’
Clinton’s insistence on operating outside the government security protocols demonstrated at best deliberate disregard for the law and national security—and, at worst, conduct that was treasonous. That is why 18 USC 793 (d) and (f) make it a crime punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to even move any information relating to the national defense from secure conditions or to fail to return it upon demand. Clinton did both—repeatedly.

The unsecure server also facilitated the clearly conflicting roles of Clinton confidant and protégé Huma Abedin, who was paid simultaneously by the Clinton Foundation and the taxpayers through the State Department. That made it easier for the double-dipping Abedin to schedule meetings quickly for Clinton with those who had paid to play—substantial donors to the Foundation, such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had been denied a face-to-face through those pesky State Department protocols in place for mere mortals. His millions in contributions to the Foundation got him an appointment with Clinton through Abedin in a matter of hours.

We wrote more than a year ago—as soon as we heard one Clinton server was “wiped”—about the Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton. We foresaw the need for a special prosecutor and predicted that if emails could be found, they would likely implicate high ranking people across the government, including the president.

Lo and behold, President Obama, who told the country he heard of Clinton’s private email from news reports, was in reality emailing her at Clintonemail.com and using an alias. He must have forgotten. But, wait—just this week, we get more emails, and there’s now evidence that the White House and the State Department coordinated an attempt to minimize the problem.

Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself—conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it’s called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001. Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

And let’s not forget obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1519. That statute was tailor-made to fit the facts of the Clinton cabal’s destruction of evidence. It reads:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Remember the man relentlessly prosecuted by the feds for throwing a few fish overboard? That case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to decide that fish weren’t the kind of tangible objects/evidence to which Congress intended the new obstruction statute to apply. But emails, computers, and servers are. Senator Clinton voted for that new statute—but it doesn’t apply to her. Well, it would, but Loretta Lynch and James Comey just agreed to destroy evidence of it themselves.

These false statement and obstruction offenses are so easy to prove that prosecutors often tack them on to already multi-count indictments just for good measure when they want to hammer Wall Street bankers or other citizens and business people who actually work for a living.

How many of these federal criminal offenses are established by the limited evidence that has been pried out of the Clintons’ hands or resurrected from unsuccessful although mighty attempts to destroy it? They are truly countless, as each email would be a separate charge but, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just pick three or four—that don’t even include all the conspiracy charge options routinely used by “reasonable” prosecutors.

First, Clinton testified to Congress that she “turned over all of her work-related emails.” Second, she “only wanted to use one device.” Later, she chose her words carefully, claiming “nothing was marked classified when it was sent or received.”  That sounds good to people who are not lawyers, but it’s Clintonese and not the law.

She “turned over all her work emails”?

First, her friend Sidney Blumenthal found a number of emails he exchanged with her about confidential matters of State that she didn’t produce. Next, that pesky Pentagon found over 1,000 emails between Hillary and General Petraeus alone. Most recently, the FBI found roughly 15,000 Clinton thought had been erased completely when she had her servers “wiped” professionally with BleachBit. We’ll never know how many were deliberately destroyed to protect her incompetence and corruption. Mills, Samuelson, and others at Platte River Networks destroyed whatever they wanted.

As both secretary of state and an attorney who had long been paid by the taxpayers, Clinton should know that information “relating to the national defense” is what is protected under 18 USC 793(f). It doesn’t have to be “classified”—marked or unmarked—even though much of it was.

Sure, let’s give her the presidency and the nuclear codes and access to every national secret—ISIS can just hack her and use our own missiles to destroy us. They won’t have to worry about trying to bring nukes into the country.

In any event, according to the FBI’s perfunctory investigation, more than 2,000 of the emails available are classified as Confidential or Secret or higher.

Clinton may have only wanted “one device,” but the truth is that she had 13“personal mobile devices that were lost, discarded, or destroyed.” Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has an excellent timeline of irrefutable, no-spin facts derived from the part of the FBI’s file that has been made public. The timeline of events alone is damning.

Not surprisingly, Attkisson reports that “[a]fter the State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by the House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with Bleachbit, and the FBI couldn’t review them. After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server ‘PRN’ with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.”

One of our favorite Clinton lies is: “My staff and I will cooperate completely with the investigation.”

I guess that’s why they invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination, had hard-drives wiped, destroyed devices with hammers, put theselected emails in the hands of her attorney and refused to produce them for weeks, while her staff all refused to speak without grants of immunity or took the Fifth. I guess it just depends on how you define “cooperation.”

Enter stage left James Comey, Director of the FBI, who fills himself with righteous indignation to tell Congress what a great job the FBI did in this “investigation.” As Congressman Trey Gowdy said, and I concur, “This isn’t the FBI I used to work with.”

Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clintondeclined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton’s emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote: “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell?  Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison.

It’s not just the private server. It’s not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.

It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it’s about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment. The conduct of the Clintons, their cronies, their Foundation, and now our highest law enforcement officials make the entire Watergate scandal look like an insignificant computer hack.

Where is the Congress? Where are what used to be our great newspapers? The sounds of silence are terrifying indicators of how government-controlled our mainstream media has become. I guess that’s why Reporters Without Borders has dropped our Freedom of Press rank to 46th world-wide.

FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be impeached for their roles in whitewashing Clinton’s crimes and their own participation in the destruction of evidence. They facilitated and participated in the obstruction of justice—spitting in the face of the Congressional investigation. Congress should be able to name a special prosecutor when the Attorney General has a clear conflict—such as meeting secretly with Bill Clinton during the “investigation” and receiving a promise of continuing as Attorney General if Hillary is elected President. The timeline of events and their conduct reek of corruption.

Stay tuned. Clinton’s answers under oath to D.C. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan are due October 13. Remember, he’s the judge who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice following the Bush administration’s corrupted prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. And it was Judge John Sirica—combined with what was then the great Washington Post—who exposed the Nixon corruption.

With more and more government intrusion in every aspect of our individual businesses and lives, we are quickly losing the land of the free, and we now must wonder if any of the brave are home. Who has the chutzpah to stand up to the Clintons?  Where are the real Americans? Hopefully, on election day, they will pour out in droves and resoundingly demand real change. The election and Judge Sullivan are our only chances for justice at all.

Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine United States Attorneys from both political parties. She was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice—a legal thriller that tells the inside story of high-profile prosecutions.

RIDICULING THE WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTER

RIDICULING THE WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTER — Comments from Crista Huff

I’ve been shocked to see liberals on Twitter aggressively ridiculing the “white working class voter”. Is this about the Twitter libs being bigoted against white people, or about them expressing class superiority, or about them hating Republicans and/or people who voted for President-elect Trump?

Were the libs previously embracing white working class voters because they needed their votes, and now they’re revealing their true colors?

No matter how you slice and dice it, it’s extremely bigoted behavior. Would these people go into a supermarket and ridicule the cashier? Would they stop by a roadside work area and ridicule the guy who’s holding the “STOP” sign? Would they drive up to a toll booth and ridicule the tolltaker? How about warehouse managers and assembly line workers and janitors?

What takes place in the mind of an American when they feel emboldened to express public disdain for vast segments of the population? Why is there no “gut check” telling them that such bigotry is wrong, and that vocalizing bigotry simply doubles down on their shameful impulses?

Are we, as a society, just a couple years away from more overt and individualized persecution?

 

A SURGE IN CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT PLANS WITHIN THE U.S.

President-elect Trump will travel to Indiana on December 1 for Carrier’s announcement that it will not move its Indiana operations to Mexico. Carrier is a division of United Technologies. (Bloomberg, November 29, 2016)

After a discussion with President-elect TrumpFord Motor Company announced that it will not move its Lincoln automobile manufacturing plant from Kentucky to Mexico. (Breitbart, November 18, 2016)

Taiwan-based Quanta Computer has announced that it expects its U.S.-based manufacturing business to expand under a Trump presidency. Quanta makes data center servers, in Tennessee and California, for big-name tech companies. (Nikkei Asian Review, November 29, 2016)

Foxconn Technology Group, an assembler of iPhones for Apple Inc., is considering shifting some production from Taiwan to the U.S., after a June request to do so by Apple. (Nikkei Asian Review, November 18, 2016)

Are You Too Secure?

Are You Too Secure?

Should Terrorists Be?

A court order requiring Apple amounts to an “unprecedented” stretch of an antiquated law — one that is about to spark an epic fight pitting privacy against national security, legal scholars said Thursday. That being… to create a way to help law enforcement get access to a terrorist’s smartphone.

A federal judge in New York last fall unsealed portions of a case revealing that Apple had turned over information to law enforcement about 70 times in recent years, according to the government, based on court orders citing an obscure 1789 law called the All Writs Act. This act allowed courts to issue orders if other judicial tools were unavailable.

This week’s court order was different from those issued in the past as it requires Apple to create new software, experts said, not provide technology already at hand. In essence forcing Apple to make a new software that doesn’t exist in order to violate its own program of making something that was designed to be inaccessible.

“This is a new frontier,” said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. “I know of no other statutory provision that would arguably create an obligation for device manufacturers to help out the government.”

Apple may not have fought orders in the past because “it was easy for Apple to give the data,” she said. “But the architecture of the phones changed. This is about Apple creating a new forensic version of its software to do the job the FBI wants it to do.”

Apple has hired attorneys Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. They are expected to argue the order violates constitutional provisions as well as the All Writs Act and would create bad public policy.

Law enforcement has relied on a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that said the All Writs Act could be used to compel New York Telephone Co. to provide technology to enable investigators to track calls being made in a gambling operation. The phone company was a heavily regulated public utility and already had the technology, however technology has certainly changed since then and key differences from the Apple case, experts said.

UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said a carefully drafted federal law giving law enforcement the right to get around encryption in certain compelling situations probably would be constitutional. But he doubted a court could force a company to write software. “You can’t subpoena or get a warrant for something that doesn’t exist.”

The case, which will be heard in the magistrate’s courtroom next month, would then go before a federal district judge. If appealed, the case will be heard by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the case could be fast-tracked, Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court probably would not want to hear one that poses such novel issues without a hearing by an appeals court. “Context is everything,” he said. “I don’t think the courts have the authority to tell someone to write software, but if the reason is to prevent a dirty bomb from exploding tomorrow, the context would matter a lot.”

David O’Brien, senior researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, said Apple is likely to argue that the government’s demand would place an unreasonable burden on the company. But the government can counter that public safety is at stake.

In the New York case, U.S. District Magistrate Judge James Orenstein hesitated at ordering Apple to unlock a customer’s smartphone. He wanted to know first whether the assistance sought by the government was technically feasible and whether the proposed order would be unduly burdensome.

Apple had the technology at that time to give the government, but the criminal defendant in the case later confessed and opened his phone for investigators. In today’s newest iPhone models, they are not capable of being unlocked and therefore a new software would be required to be created to accomplish the goal.

We’re in a situation where public safety is balanced with personal privacy AND… a company’s right to preserve its advantage over competitors. People (including terrorists) buy the new iPhone because their privacy is assured and customers know that the government can’t access emails, texts, location and other private information.

Traditional Conservatism

With today’s political environment being uncertain, questionable, even potentially damaging to our future, there’s been a return to at least reviewing those standards and principles that were envisioned by our founders.

We’ve had questionably unconstitutional actions by our administration, insensitivity to the citizenry by our congress, and proposals and actions that defy all common rules of social etiquette, anti-racism, economic growth and personal freedoms.

With all this in mind, we invite your visit to a blog that has independent views and insights with a conservative slant.

Enjoy and CLICK HERE to visit the latest posts.

 

SCOTUS Decision Affects You and Your Dr

Dr. Elaina George was a guest on Erskine Overnight and continues to provide the latest inside info on Obamacare.

You may recognize Dr. George as a guest on many television shows such as Neil Cavuto on Fox.

Dr. George is working on a program to assist the Private Practice Doctor who chooses to maintain independence from the Big Federal Government System better known as Obamacare.

SCOTUS Decision Affects You and Your Dr

We at Erskineonradio.com are in agreement with her philosophy and believe she is onto something cutting edge.

Dr. George is a frequent guest on Erskine Overnight and we will continue to support her and re post her articles as soon as available.

Check out Dr. George’s bio at the bottom of her article which we are proud to feature below:

What the King v Burwell Decision Means for Doctors and Patients

While reading the Supreme Court’s decision on King vs. Burwell, I realized that I was not surprised by the ruling. It fits the pattern that has developed over the last several years. The letter of the law has not applied to The Affordable Care Act, this was true when it was upheld as a tax instead of an abrogation of the Commerce clause, and now the ruling has massaged the meaning of subsidies that apply to state run exchanges to apply to everyone.

The other thing that has not changed is the fact that patients will continue to find access limited by rising out of pocket expenses in the form of rising deductibles, co-insurance and premiums that are expected to continue to increase further. We can continue to look forward to patients using emergency rooms as primary care centers because they can’t afford to see a physician and independent physicians closing their practices or becoming hospital employees further exacerbating the doctor shortage. The ruling does nothing to change the reality that having health insurance in the age of Obamacare does not equal access to quality healthcare.

Finally, the winners have been rewarded. When the stock value of health related companies such as corporate hospitals rise on the news of the decision, doctors and patients should take pause. The insurance companies and hospitals have clearly figured out that business as usual can continue. In fact, it will become business as usual on steroids. Insurance companies will be empowered to further limit their physician panels, they will continue to decrease the medications that they will cover, they will continue to decrease what they cover as medically unnecessary and experimental to limit access to physician directed care while they increase their premiums increasing their profits in the bargain. Hospitals will continue to get larger taking over the market and setting prices without pressure from honest competition from independent physicians, ambulatory surgery centers, labs and radiology centers that would encourage cost control.

The King vs. Burwell decision has answered the question of who stands to gain in the age of Obamacare. Justice Roberts in his opinion said it best “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” With this decision medical insurance companies, hospitals and other pieces of the corporate healthcare delivery system now have the scale clearly tipped in their favor at the expense of doctors the patients – the mission has been accomplished.

King v Burwell Decision Affects You and Your Dr

DR. ELAINA GEORGE BIO:

Dr Elaina George is a Board Certified Otolaryngologist. She graduated from Princeton University with a degree in Biology. She received her Masters degree in Medical Microbiology from Long Island University, and received her medical degree from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. Dr George completed her residency at Manhattan, Eye Ear & Throat Hospital. Her training included general surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, pediatric ENT at The NY-Presbyterian Hospital, and head and neck oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. She has published in several scientific journals and presented her research at national meetings. As a solo practitioner in private practice who is also a small business owner, she has a unique perspective on the problems of health care delivery, the true costs of healthcare and viable solutions. Dr George is a recipient of the Patients’ Choice Award in 2008 and 2009. She was recently honored with membership in The Leading Physicians of the World and Who’s Who Top Doctors Honors Edition.