Pelosi calls cops to remove illegals from her home
'You can't say everyone is welcome here and then lock your door'
Amid her staunch opposition to funding a border wall, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called police to evict illegal aliens from camping out at her multimillion-dollar vineyard estate in Napa Valley.
The Daily Wire, citing freelance journalist Nick Monroe, reported citizen journalist and activist Laura Loomer brought illegal immigrants from Guatemala and Mexico onto the property of Pelosi’s walled estate Monday.
The entourage set up a portable canopy with the word “immorality” written on it in large red letters.
The reference was to Pelosi’s recent characterization of a wall on the southern border.
Hanging from the front of the canopy were photos of murder victims of illegal immigrants.
In a livestream of the event, Loomer read the names of the victims, adding that they were not welcome in “sanctuary state California.”
Monroe tweeted that Loomer checked to see if Pelosi had locked her front door, since “only bigots lock their doors.”
“Come on, you can’t say everyone is welcome here and then lock your door,” said Loomer. “You’re killing us, Nancy! You’re killing us!”
Loomer and the illegal immigrants chanted “Nancy, Nancy,” Monroe said.
Police officers showed up and asked for identification.
“I was told IDs were racist,” Loomer told the officers. “I’m so confused.”
The Daily Wire said the officers, on order from Pelosi, ticketed the illegal immigrants and removed them from the property instead of detaining them.
Pelosi told reporters “a wall is an immorality.”
“It’s not who we are as a nation,” she said Jan. 4 amid the partial government shutdown over wall funding. “We are not doing a wall. Does anybody have any doubt? We are not doing a wall.”
How many friends do Saudi Arabia lobbyists have in Washington? A lot.
Most libertarians are familiar with Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex and its nefarious influence on US foreign policy. Many have read Major General Smedley Butler’s short book War is a Racket, in which he lays out the ways in which war is in the economic interests of certain groups, while other groups pay the cost. Some may even have read Robert Nisbet’s warning about the way in which the military-industrial complex has expanded to universities, as researchers seek out government funding from the vast military-industrial blob. While all of these warnings are indeed correct, they neglect another equally nefarious influence on American foreign policy; foreign governments.
Every year foreign governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the US government for everything from foreign aid and trade deals, to trying to influence US military policy. This lobbying is generally ignored, but after the recent gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by the Saudi Arabian government, there has been increased scrutiny on the cozy relationship between the Saudi regime and US politicians — a relationship maintained through the Saudi’s vast entourage of over two dozen DC-area lobbying firms.
According to a recently released Center for International Policy (CIP) report — one based entirely on publicly available information — the Saudi government spent approximately $27 million on US lobbying firms in 2017. So there is no doubt that there’s plenty of good money in pestering politicians on behalf of the Saudis. Not only the lobbyists but for the politicians as well. CIP found that Saudi lobbying firms donated nearly $400,000 to the campaigns of members of Congress they “had contacted on behalf of Saudi interests.” And if this weren’t blatant enough, CIP identified “twelve instances in which that contact and contribution occurred on the exact same day.”
What has Saudi Arabia gotten in return? The CIP report notes that “the timing of many of these political contributions coincides closely with key Congressional events, involving the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) votes and votes to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia.” Let’s also not forget the US support, in the form of mid-air refueling and intelligence, for the Saudi-led coalition into Yemen that has led to a humanitarian disaster — complete with the threat of mass starvation and a widespread cholera outbreak .
This mid-air refueling has been stopped for now as a result of the Khashoggi affair, but, according to CNN ’s Sam Kiley, “it's an opportunity to appear a little bit cross over the alleged murder of Jamal Khashoggi while making sure that the Kingdom's strategic trajectory stays on course.”
It is even possible that all of this lobbying might manage to save Saudi Arabia from the ongoing Khashoggi murder fiasco. NBC reports that the Trump administration has weighed expelling Fethullah Gulen, an exiled Turkish cleric and enemy of the Erdogan regime, “in order to placate Turkey over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.” The Trump administration denies this, but the fact that such action is even in the realm of possibility speaks to the success of Saudi lobbying efforts.
The outrageous abuses by the Saudi regime — both domestically and abroad — are nearly endless. But, unfortunately, they are not the only foreign power pouring lobbying money into DC to influence US military policy. In 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the UAE spent over $21 million on US lobbying. The UAE has a large ground presence in Yemen as part of the Saudi-led coalition and has been accused of running secret prisons where Yemenis are tortured. Former US Army Colonel Stephen Toumajan is currently the head of the UAE Joint Aviation Command, where, by his own admission to BuzzFeed News, Toumajan claimed that he was “instrumental in the modernization of the UAE fleet with investing over $10 billion in American aircraft and services.”
But US entanglement with the UAE’s sordid business in Yemen doesn’t even stop there. An in-depth investigative report from BuzzFeed News found that former US special forces had been serving as an assassination hit-squad in Yemen for the UAE. In a stunning report, a former Navy Seal recounted to BuzzFeed News how he, along with a former French Foreign Legionnaire, ran a hit squad made up of former US special forces in Yemen — whose targets included not only armed terrorists but politicians as well.
As of 2008, it took over $350,000 to train a Navy SEAL, and then an additional $1 million to deploy him overseas. As Ryan McMaken points out, this means that the US taxpayer is effectively subsidizing the training of “what are essentially death squads designed to eliminate the regimes' enemies” for the UAE.
The Saudis and the UAE obviously feel it is necessary to grease US palms with tens of millions of dollars in order to ensure that arms sales get approved, US assistance in the Yemeni war continues, and the Pentagon continues to turn a blind eye to misconduct from former US service members. This leads to the question, what would US policy toward these two onerous regimes be without millions of dollars in lobbying money?
With such blatant bribery of US officials, it seems impossible to trust US foreign policymakers to judge American national interests in an unbiased and levelheaded way. Factor in the even larger amount of influence wielded domestically by the military-industrial complex and it seems hopeless to expect American foreign policymakers to actually be acting in the American national interest. It is little wonder that American foreign policy has been a complete disaster for decades.
Stewart baker is not a great fan of Trump, but he says the New York Times story about the FBI counterintelligence investigation on Trump has a very bad odor.
...The political and bureaucratic motives mixed into this incident are reminiscent of the motives mixed into the decision to launch an investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, the decision to rely on Christopher Steele's research despite his partisan funding, and the decision to interrogate national security adviser Michael Flynn in the slipperiest of fashions. There are reasons why all of these things might have seemed necessary to honest, committed cops just doing their job. But they also offer a roadmap for how to abuse counterintelligence authority to serve partisan ends—a roadmap that more or less begins where the civil liberties protections of the 1970s end.
My concern is that we're not taking that risk seriously because so many former officials and commentators believe that President Trump deserves all this and more. Some of them still hope that the election of 2016 can be undone, or at least discredited. This leads to a perseverating focus on leaks and scraps from the investigation and a determined lack of concern about the investigation's sometimes tawdry origins. (Yes, I'm talking to you, #BabyCannon!)
If we're going to prevent future scandals, we need to look at both. We need to know the answers to a lot of questions that are not being seriously addressed today: To what extent was politics involved in the decision to open the Trump-Russia investigation; to what extent did politics drive its direction; to what extent was politics involved in the Obama administration's transition intelligence leaks; and, finally, to what extent was politics involved in adding the president to the counterintelligence probe?
The only independent review of any of these questions seems to be the investigation launched by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. He's examining the FISA application for Carter Page. That's a good start, but it's only a start. It's a commonplace insight that President Trump's norm-defying conduct has triggered norm-defying payback by others. I'm sure we're going to learn about the first, but we can't ignore the second.
It's time to expand the Horowitz inquiry, or something like it, into all of these events.
The problem, of course, is that it just doesn't work that way.
If you're concerned about the ever-expanding federal budget deficit, you probably think the government needs to, you know, spend less. Right? Maybe not.
Most Americans believe addressing the budget deficit should be one of the new Congress' top priorities, according to a Harvard-Politico poll released yesterday. But a majority of respondents also want Congress to increase spending in a variety of areas, including infrastructure, education, and the military.
Eighty percent of respondents say it's "extremely important" that Congress take "steps to substantially reduce the federal budget deficit." This seems to be a bipartisan issue, with 81 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Democrats in agreement. This concern over the budget deficit isn't new. A Gallup poll from last March showed that 77 percent of Americans "personally worry about federal spending and the budget deficit" either a "great deal" (51 percent) or a "fair amount" (26 percent).
And there is plenty of cause for concern. It's hard to believe that as recently as 2001, the federal government posted a budget surplus (albeit a small one). In 2002, we were back in the red, with a $158 billion deficit. Now the Congressional Budget Office has projected a $981 billion deficit for the 2019 fiscal year. By 2020, that number will likely surpass $1 trillion. And the deficits from recent years have piled up, with the national debt reaching an astounding $21.974 trillion at the end of 2018.
So it's not a shock that people are worried. The problem is that Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—seem to want to keep spending anyway. Seventy-nine percent of respondents, including 82 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans, believe "increasing spending on the nation's infrastructure" is "an extremely important priority." Bipartisan support for this issue may explain why White House counselor Kellyanne Conway suggested recently that even with Democrats in control of the House, both parties could work together on an infrastructure bill. It's not exactly clear what that legislation would look like, though President Donald Trump promised $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending during his campaign.
Infrastructure isn't the only area where most Americans want to see more spending. Seventy-three percent of respondents—including 84 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans—want Congress to raise federal spending on K–12 education. This would likely mean an increase over the $40.1 billion appropriated by the federal government for elementary and secondary education in 2019.
Finally, the poll shows that 53 percent of Americans want Congress to increase spending on the military. This idea is more popular among Republicans, 68 percent of whom agree with it, though nearly half of Democrats (46 percent) support it as well. Of course, the nation already spends on astronomical amount—$686 billion in 2019—on the Pentagon. But sure, let's throw more money its way!
Federal spending on infrastructure and education is not the main reason the government is nearly $22 trillion in debt. Military spending is a major factor, but the biggest culprits are entitlements, including more than $1 trillion for Social Security and roughly $625 billion for Medicare in 2019. This sort of spending is not sustainable. If no major changes are made, both programs will be insolvent within the next 15 years.
Now in this particular poll, those who said Congress should address the budget deficit came from a different sample from those who said they want Congress to increase spending in the areas described above. Still, the results suggest there's probably significant overlap. But you can't have it both ways. Either politicians take real steps to cut spending and balance the budget, or they keep on spending wildly. There's really no in-between.
The results of the poll make sense. In theory, everyone wants to fix the budget deficit. But the best way to do so is by cutting spending, which no one wants to do, rather than increasing it, which a lot of people seem to like.
And the attitudes of the public reflect the approaches taken by the leaders they elect. Take Trump. Back in 2016, he told The Washington Post he could eliminate the national debt in eight years. Still, he explicitly promised during his campaign not to cut Social Security or Medicare spending. And in case his lack of interest in addressing the deficit/debt wasn't apparent, The Daily Beast reported last month that Trump has said of the looming debt crisis: "Yeah, but I won't be here."
Trump was really just saying aloud what other politicians are no doubt thinking. Even former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–Wisc.), a supposed budget hawk, was a complete failure when it came to balancing the budget.
So here's the biggest takeaway from the Politico-Harvard poll: Plenty of people want Congress to tackle the budget deficit crisis, unless that means reigning the government's wild spending. It probably won't be long before we see how that works out.
What can we do about it? There is no easy answer. Keep explaining to people the basics of economics, and hope that they eventually catch on. It's a slog, but we really have no choice.
Amen. As Ron Paul says, rough times are ahead. But every day, more people are waking up to the fact that what is happening now cannot go on forever. I wouldn't bet that 2019 will be the year - but I wouldn't bet against it, either.
Ever since Dick’s Sporting Goods and banks such as Citigroup made business decisions in line with the mainstream media’s push for gun control, some opponents of gun control have debated whether private companies pose a bigger threat to gun rights than government does. In the case of Dick’s Sporting Goods, the outdoor company decided to stop selling rifles like the AR-15 and banned the sale of firearms to individuals younger than 21. In response to the Parkland shooting in Florida, banks like Citigroup also crafted their own anti-gun policies as reported in The New York Times:
Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers, making it the first Wall Street bank to take a stance in the divisive nationwide gun control debate.
The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.
It’s not just gun owners who are experiencing limited shopping choices. Gun rights lobbies like the National Rifle Association have faced opposition from corporate America. Rental car companies like Avis and software companies like Symantec have severed their affiliate programs with the NRA in the wake of the Parkland shooting hysteria.
It appears the next fad in virtue signaling in the corporate world may be gun control gun.
Why More Laws are Not the Answer
US Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana recently filed the No Red and Blue Banks Act that would “prohibit the federal government from giving contracts to banks that discriminate against lawful businesses based solely on social policy considerations.” Kennedy does raise a valid point about how the government should put the brakes on business subsidization.
Unfortunately, Kennedy falls for the modern-day conservative trap of attacking government contracts because they benefit corporations who espouse leftist causes, rather than categorically opposing all forms of government intervention. For starters, all state contracts and privileges to businesses should be cut off, regardless of their stated goal or purpose. However, many well-intentioned conservatives are stuck on myopic thinking and fail to notice the implicit state coercion in the background. For them, ironically, more government is the answer.
Thinking Beyond Stage 1
Most people see the capitalistic façade of the US economy, but they don’t recognize the implicit threats of state force. Corporations these days are trying to beat the government to the punch when it comes to disassociating with politically maligned groups like gun owners.
If corporations continue to lag, they’ll receive veiled threats from the government to either ban these businesses or else have laws slapped on them. This was on display with the latest social de-platforming scandal.
Justin Raimondo detailed Senator Chris Murphy’s threats to social media companies during the de-platforming:
All this wasn’t good enough for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who demanded to know if the plan was to only take down “one website.” No doubt he has a whole list of sites he’d like to take down. Even more ominously, it was revealed that a direct threat had been made to these companies by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), who sent out a memo listing all the ways the government could crack down on Big Data if they refuse to go along with cleansing the internet of “divisive” material.
In many regards, politically-connected corporation’s decisions to discontinue business with certain political organizations provide cover for control-freak politicians. Instead of having to pass laws themselves, of which they can be held accountable for during election time, politicians can just pressure and even extort a corporation into carrying out their agenda. No controversial laws or regulations necessary — at least for the time being.
It Goes Back to Culture
It would be naïve to believe that these forms of dissociation and censorship are going to be confined to the private sector. At the end of the day, politics is downstream from culture.
What we’re seeing now is a manifestation of this degenerative process — in real time.
No matter what the naysayers claim, political correctness and state-linguistic complex are tools of the political establishment in its campaign to legitimize political universalism. Once businesses embrace state-linguistic complex hook, line and sinker, this same behavior will then permeate to other parts of society. The political realm will eventually be one of the last sectors to embrace these trends. This has become apparent with the incoming Congress, which is already proposing a slew of gun control bills ranging from universal gun registration to red flag gun confiscation schemes.
America Needs De-Politicization
Yes, business decisions to disassociate with gun groups are not qualitatively the same as state-based gun control. In fact, state-imposed gun control is heavy-handed and much harder to repeal due to institutional inertia in government. Think about it: when was the last time we saw any meaningful legislation repealed at the federal level?
In the long-term, gun organizations can at least turn to other banks and service providers for their daily operations. In some cases, certain entities will emerge to serve the needs of niche organizations that find themselves ostracized by legacy institutions. The controversial social media outlet Gab comes to mind.
Other alternatives such as seeking legal remedies through the courts could be valid options for those affected by controversial business decisions. Plaintiffs could cite breach of contract actions such as violations of terms of service or defamation of character should they decide to take these companies to court. One thing is certain: adding more bureaucracy is not the answer in fighting corporate America’s political correctness agenda.
America desperately needs a political detox, and decentralization might just provide the cure.
Hemp is booming in Kentucky and elsewhere but still struggling on social media.
On Dec. 20, President Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill to legalize hemp, but Facebook apparently didn’t get the memo.
Overnight on Dec. 24 Facebook took down the Kentucky Hemp Works page for promoting the sale of “prescription pharmaceuticals.”
Owner Katie Moyer said that she immediately appealed the action but Facebook sent her a response saying that it had reviewed the page and “confirmed that it still violates the Facebook Page Polices.”
Lexington attorney Jonathan Miller, who is general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, said this has happened over the last six years to several hemp-related businesses on Facebook. And there probably isn’t anything that can be done.
“Where we have seen a consistent issue is on the advertising side, where companies have tried to sell products and been rejected. I’m told marijuana companies have had fewer problems,” Miller said. “We’ve been hoping the passage of the Farm Bill would change that, because now it takes away the underlying argument that it violates the Controlled Substances Act.”
Often, Miller said, Instagram and Twitter will follow Facebook’s lead and cut off companies, too, often with little explanation other than an implication that “they are doing something illegal.”
No company is supposed to tout specific medical or veterinary benefits from hemp products, which are supplements and not regulated by the FDA.
Moyer, who processes hemp on a farm in Christian County and sells cannabidiol drops, hemp root salve, hemp protein powder, hemp seed oil and more, said she’s always very careful not to make medical claims....
End of the Year Analysis, Training Goals,and Turning Up The Heat
December 28, 2018 By ncscout
As longtime readers as probably noticed, the pace of this blog has simmered down a bit over the past year. There’s a couple of reasons for that- I’m training good people nearly full time and I’m dedicating the bulk of my writing effort to American Partisan. And while I’m never one for bragging on anything, the site is the fastest growing website in the survival and preparedness genre. I didn’t do that, y’all did. And I didn’t make my courses the overwhelming success they’ve been thus far- y’all did. That silent majority- those of you out there who never run your mouth online while coming out to train in the real world- you’re the ones who’re doing it, and you’re the ones that truly matter.
Those dedicated many who’ve braved both bitter cold and a Carolina summer’s heat, slogging in miserable mud or sleeping in improvised pine bough shelters listening to the night song of the coyote, it has been the most dedicated among you who’ve taken that leap into training. And the journey has been thus far amazing. But I’m not one for resting on laurels. The training schedule for the spring is set in stone. Most of the events are nearly full- if you’re on the fence, do not delay in reserving a spot. Everything from firearms and small unit training to wilderness survival and primitive living to the peerless commo courses, this spring is full of opportunities to expand your base of knowledge for yourself and your group. June 15-16th I’ll be returning to the American Redoubt for the RTO Course and possibly a couple more classes, the details of which are being finalized now.
I’m hitting 2019 like a JDAM. Between the open enrollment courses and continuing to write in my free time, there’s going to be a series of webinars focused on communications skills. It’s not what you’ll get in the RTO Course, but it will provide a supplement to those skills as well as an option for those that can’t travel. Through American Partisan we may be starting up a monthly/bi-monthly sitrep & topic podcast. And last but not least, my Field Communications Handbook, spiral bound and somewhat pocket sized, will be published (and not cost the same as a college textbook!) along with a few other (hopeful) surprises. But most important, I work for you- you out there, reading this, who are awake. My goal for 2019 is the same as it was in 2015 when I started this blog, as it was in 2013 writing for various other blogs, as it was the day I enlisted to serve this nation- give my absolute best to an American people who deserve it. I will be working as hard for you as I can, bringing my very best, as I think we’re in a time of great peril. It’s time to step it up. There is no time like the present.
Open Enrollment Dates
Unless otherwise noted, courses are held at our training site in NC. This list does not include private training dates. NC training site is available to groups for private training sessions. To see a detailed description of the courses listed, check out the Training Courses page. For questions, class inquiries and requests, contact me direct: email@example.com
RTO Basic: 26-27 January / North Carolina / $200
Kalashnikov Carbine Basics: 9 February / North Carolina / $200
Recon and Surveillance Team Course: 23-24 February /North Carolina / $300
Squad Designated Marksman Workshop: 2 March / North Carolina / $200
RTO Basic: 23-24 March / North Carolina / $200
First Line Course: 27-28 April / North Carolina / $200
Signals Intelligence / Low Level Voice Intercept: 4-5 MAY / North Carolina / $200
Advanced RTO: 25-26 MAY / North Carolina / $200
RTO Basic: 15-16 June / Hamilton, Montana / $300
Forward all questions and class inquiries to: firstname.lastname@example.org
More than $17 million has now been raised for that wall. That may seem like a lot, until you learn just how expensive that thing is. Based on the part of the wall that has already been funded, that will pay for about 4,000 feet of wall. Put another way, that comes to $4,250 per foot.
Does that seem like an efficient use of money to you? It sure doesn't to me - and that doesn't even take into account the annual maintenance costs for that wall.
But at least a part of the government is shut down. If it stays shut down, it wouldn't bother me at all.