iftttwall

Jussie Smollett, whose ham-handed hate crime hoax led to the cancellation of Empire, thinks we’re all morons.

The unemployed actor who paid his drug dealing Nigerian friends to buy MAGA hats, bleach and a rope before staging a 2am attack in “MAGA country” – also known as downtown Chicago, has demanded that the city of Chicago, the Nigerian brothers, and former police superintendent Eddie Johnson pay him for conspiring to frame him for concocting the hate crime, according to the Cook County Record.

Smollett’s case case was mysteriously quashed after Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen, leaned on Cook County top prosecutor Kim Foxx after a grand jury slapped Smollett with a 16 count indictment for lying to the police.

According to a counterclaim to a lawsuit brought by the city of Chicago, however, Smollett is the victim of a conspiracy.

On Nov. 19, Smollett, through his lawyer, William J. Quinlan, of the Quinlan Law Firm, filed a counterclaim in Chicago federal court against the city, former police superintendent Eddie Johnson, the Nigerian brothers alleged to have helped Smollett and others. The counterclaim came as the centerpiece of Smollett’s formal answers to the lawsuit brought earlier this year by the city of Chicago, which demands Smollett be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to compensate the city and taxpayers for the costs of the large police investigation into Smollett’s attack claims.

In the counterclaim, Smollett asserts the hoax allegations emerged as a result of a 48-hour “interrogation” conducted by Chicago Police of brothers Abimbola “Abel” and Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo, and was then seized on by Chicago Police to advance the story Smollett had orchestrated the attack to gain publicity and public sympathy after he allegedly became unhappy with the lack of response from television executives and others to a threatening racist and homophobic letter he claims to have received weeks earlier. –Cook County Record

Smollett claims that Chicago PD deliberately ignored exonerating evidence from the alleged attack in the very liberal, very upscale Streeterville neighborhood. According to Smollett, his attackers shouted “This is MAGA country,” before physically assaulting him while he was innocently walking home at 2am from getting a Subway sandwich.

After evidence suggested it was staged, the two “attackers” – the Osundario brothers – admitted that Smollett paid them $3,500 to carry out the hoax, and that the three of them had practiced beforehand.

They also said that Smollett was involved in creating a racist letter containing a white substance that was sent to the actor on the Chicago set of Empire. When the letter failed to achieve the desired level of national outrage, the Osundario brothers say Smollett concocted the hate-crime. 

Or – bear with Jussie – the Osundarios and Chicago PD conspired to frame him for the hate crime hoax.

Authored by Allen Zhong via The Epoch Times,

California’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Nov. 21 that a law requiring presidential and gubernatorial candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the primary ballot there violates the state’s constitution.

Senate Bill 27, which was sponsored by Democrats and became chapter 121 of the California Elections Code after being signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on July 30, requires presidential candidates to file their income tax returns for the five most recent taxable years with the secretary of state in order to have their names listed on a primary election ballot. The secretary of state’s office would make redacted versions of the returns available to the public on its website within five days.

The bill lays out the same requirements for the candidates for governor but applies to primary elections, not general elections.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye delivers her State of the Judiciary address before a joint session of the Legislature at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., on March 23, 2015. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

The court said the law – the first of its kind in the nation and widely believed to be aimed squarely at President Donald Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, but recently said he would do so before the 2020 election – was unconstitutional because its requirement for disclosure of tax returns to qualify for the ballot added exclusivity.

“This additional requirement … is in conflict with the Constitution’s specification of an inclusive open presidential primary ballot,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 7–0 decision.

“Ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a ‘recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States’ to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box.”

A U.S. judge had temporarily blocked the bill from becoming state law, in response to a different lawsuit; the high court ruled quickly because the deadline to file tax returns for getting on the primary ballot is next week.

The state’s Republican Party Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson challenged the bill, saying it singled out Trump.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for every California voter,” Patterson said in a statement.

“We are pleased that the courts saw through the Democrats’ petty partisan maneuvers and saw this law for what it is—an unconstitutional attempt to suppress Republican voter turnout.”

California Republican Party chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson listens as lawyers present their arguments for and against a recently approved state law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the state’s primary ballot, before the California Supreme Court in Sacramento on Nov. 6, 2019. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

The state defended the law, saying the release of tax returns is a simple way for voters to weigh candidates’ financial status.

California Democrats are one of several groups who are pushing for Trump’s tax returns to be made public. On Nov. 18, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stopped a lower court order requiring Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, to turn over his tax returns to House Democrats amid their impeachment inquiry.

In a separate case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled in favor of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office requiring Trump’s accountants to turn over tax returns.

Trump’s attorneys have submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn that ruling. The justices haven’t said whether they would consider the appeal.

An FBI official is under criminal investigation for fabricating evidence related to the agency’s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page, according to CNN.

According to the report, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) revealed an altered document which – we assume – was used to bolster the application to obtain the warrant and/or subsequent renewals.

Evidence of the fabricated document was turned over to John Durham, the federal prosecutor tasked earlier this year by Attorney General William Barr with launching a broad investigation into the FBI’s activities surrounding the 2016 US election.

As CNN notes, however, “it’s unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI’s investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document.” What we do know, however, is that it was significant enough to warrant a criminal investigation.

Some witnesses who have been interviewed in Horowitz’s investigation have said they expect the inspector general to find mistakes in the FBI’s handling of the FISA process, but that those mistakes do not undermine the premise for the FBI’s investigation.

…

Horowitz’s investigators conducted more than 100 witness interviews in their review. During one of interviews this year, they confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said.

The identity or rank of the FBI employee under investigation isn’t yet known, and it’s not clear whether the employee still works in the federal government. No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court. –CNN

On Thursday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced that Horowitz would release his report on December 9, and would testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee two days later.

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

The U.S. Constitution states:

Article 1, Section 8

1. The Congress shall have Power …

5. To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin….

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting … current coin of the United States.

Article 1, Section 10

1. No state shall … emit Bills of Credit and make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

The intent of the Framers could not have been clearer. The Constitution clearly and unequivocally brought into existence a monetary system based on gold coins and silver coins being the official money of the United States.

Notice that the states are prohibited from issuing “bills of credit.” What are “bills of credit.” That was the term used during that time for paper money. The Constitution expressly prohibited the states from publishing paper money and making anything but gold and silver coins official legal money.

What about the federal government? The Constitution didn’t expressly prohibit it from emitting “bills of credit” like it did with the states. Does that mean that the federal government was empowered to make paper money the official money of the United States?

No, it does not mean that. In the case of the federal government, its powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. If a power isn’t enumerated, then the federal government is automatically prohibited from exercising it.

Therefore, it was unnecessary for the Framers to provide for an express prohibition on the federal government to make paper money the official legal tender of the nation. All that was necessary was to ensure that the Constitution did not empower the federal government to issue paper money.

The powers relating to money that are delegated to the federal government, which are stated above, expressly make it clear that gold coins and silver coins, not paper, were to be the official money of the country. That is reflected by the power given the federal government to “coin money.” At the risk of belaboring the obvious, one does not “coin” paper. Paper is published or “emitted.” It is not coined. Coins are coined.

The provision on counterfeiting also expressly confirms that the official money of the United States was to be gold coins and silver coins. The Framers didn’t provide for punishment for counterfeiting paper money because there was no paper money. They provided for punishment for counterfeiting “current coin of the United States.”

Add up all of these provision and there is but one conclusion that anyone can logically and reasonably draw: The Constitution established a monetary system in which gold and silver coins were to be the official money of the United States.

The power to borrow

That’s not to say, of course, that federal officials could not borrow money. The Constitution did give them that power:

Article1, Section 8

1. The Congress shall have Power …

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

When the federal government borrows money, it issues debt instruments to lenders, consisting of bills, notes, or bonds. But everyone understood that federal debt instruments were not money but instead simply promises to pay money. The money that they promised to pay was the gold and silver coins, which were the official money of the country.

And in fact, that was the monetary system of the United States for more than a century, one in which gold coins and silver coins were the official money of the American people.

It is often said that the “gold standard” was a system in which paper money was “backed by gold.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no paper money. The “gold standard” was a system where gold coins, along with silver coins, were the official money of the country.

Monetary debauchery and destruction

It all came to an end in the 1930s, when the Franklin Roosevelt regime ordered all Americans to deliver their gold coins to the federal government. Anyone who failed to do so would be prosecuted for a federal felony offense and severely punished through incarceration and fine if convicted.

In return, people were give federal debt instruments, ones that promised to pay money. But since the money was now illegal, the debt instruments were promises to pay nothing. That’s reflected by the Federal Reserve Notes that people now use to pay for things.

Roosevelt’s actions were among the most abhorrent in the history of the United States. In one fell swoop, he and his regime destroyed what had been the finest and soundest monetary system in the history of the world, one that contributed mightily to the tremendous increase in prosperity and standards of living in the 19th century.

What is also amazing is that Roosevelt did it without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. To change a system that the Constitution established requires a constitutional amendment. That is an arduous and difficult process, which is what the Framers wanted. Roosevelt circumvented that process by simply getting Congress to nationalize people’s gold.

The result of Roosevelt’s illegal and immoral actions regarding money and the Constitution? Moral, economic, and monetary debauchery, which has entailed almost 90 years of plundering and looting people through monetary debasement and devaluation to finance the ever-burgeoning expenses of America’s welfare-warfare state way of life.

The solution

The solution to all this monetary mayhem is go further than the Framers did: Separate money and the state entirely, in the same way that our ancestors separated church and state. Terminate all government involvement in money, including by ending the federal government’s central bank, also known as the Federal Reserve. Establish a free-market monetary system, one in which people are free to choose their own media of exchange. That would go a long way toward restoring liberty, peace, and prosperity to our land.

Three months after a major and still somewhat mysterious rocket explosion in Russia’s far north which caused radiation levels to spike at least sixteen times above normal, President Putin confirmed in statements Thursday that his military is developing a weapon that has “no equal in the world,” according to Interfax news agency.

“The very fact of possessing such unique technologies is today the most important reliable guarantee of peace on the planet,” Putin is reported to have said while meeting with the families of those killed, Interfax reports further. It’s believed that the blast was the result of a failed experimental test of a hypersonic cruise missile powered by a nuclear core.

Prior statements of top Russian officials indicated that the Aug. 8 radiological accident at the northern port city of Severodvinsk had involved a “small-scale nuclear reactor” and had further confirmed an explosion that centered on an “isotope power source for a liquid-fuelled rocket engine”.

This information was revealed despite an initial attempt at covering up the radioactive nature of the accident in the days after the explosion:

Russia covered up the deadly nuclear reactor explosion in August during the salvage at sea of one of Vladimir Putin’s new superweapons, a nuclear-powered cruise missile called Skyfall, a senior State Department official disclosed.

There had been an alarming run on iodine pills after area residents were warned by emergency alerts that a major event had taken place. 

“They led a complex, responsible and critical mission,” Putin said of the five scientists that died in the blast while offering condolences. At least three others had been injured in the explosion.

“We are talking about the most advanced and unparalleled technical ideas and solutions, weapons that are designed to ensure sovereignty and security for Russia for decades to come,” Putin said. 

At the time Reuters cited dangerously high levels of radiation emitted from the military test facility: “Greenpeace has cited data from the Emergencies Ministry that it said showed radiation levels had risen 20 times above the normal level in Severodvinsk around 30 kilometers (18 miles) from Nyonoksa.”

Enough official descriptions of the experimental weapon had been pieced together for analysts to speculate at the time that it had been a prototype nuclear-powered cruise missile known in Russia as the 9M730 Burevestnik and by Nato as the SSC-X-9 Skyfall.

Putin had first unveiled the experimental technology during a 2018 speech showcasing Russian defense technology developments. The chief stunning claim behind the hypersonic missile is that it can traverse the globe indefinitely at “faster than Mach 5” based on its nuclear powered core. 

These latest statements reported in Interfax provide further confirmation that Russia continues to pursue its futuristic hypersonic weapons program even after the latest major setbacks. 

Authored by Mark Angelides via LibertyNation.com,

House Democrats have voted to keep funding the PATRIOT Act in a flurry of partisan hypocrisy. The surveillance legislation that should have every person fearing for their rights and privacy was recently shoehorned through the House, folded into a resolution to keep the federal government funded for three more months. The spending bill was pushed through with not a single Republican vote.

The PATRIOT Act passed in 2001 during the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, but it was originally conceived by former Vice President Joe Biden as the 1995 Omnibus Counterterrorism Act; the law has long been regarded as a major infringement on civil liberties and a reactionary piece of legislation which has passed its time in the sun.

Hypocrisy

The re-authorization was introduced late and offered lawmakers only 72 hours to read the entire continuing resolution. High-profile members of the progressive “Squad,” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who had previously spoken out against the act, were among those who voted to renew it. On her website, Ocasio-Cortez bemoans the creation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as part and parcel of the PATRIOT Act and its associated legislation. She opines:

“The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights.”

Why, then, would she now choose to cast a vote extending said powers?

A Whiff Of 2020?

Every Democrat in the House of Representatives voted for the resolution bar two, who abstained. The fact that those few who demurred were not brave enough to vote against the extension tells us something of interest: This was a party whip. It appears the upper echelons determined that the spending would go through come hell or high water, and woe betide those who go against the party leadership. Is there perhaps an element of self-interest at play here? Each decision made and vote taken in Congress sets a permanent record for individual members; is it beyond the party machine to lay traps for primary candidates who the management team does not view as “suitable”? Or perhaps the whole exercise was designed to test loyalty to the party line?

For a group that touts itself as being the defender of civil rights, it was a bold decision for Democrats to publically place themselves in the firing line of those who see the PATRIOT Act as an invasive, right-wing Trojan Horse.

An Opportunity For Trump?

If the partisan vote in the Senate matches that in the House, Republicans will decline to pass this resolution. The GOP will get the blame if a budget is not passed by midnight Thursday, in time for President Trump’s signature – but perhaps this could be a vote winner in 2020.

If the president rallies Republican senators to shoot the bill down, he can lay claim to a position in defence of civil liberties and drag along with him the Fourth Estate, which would have a hard time advocating a Bush-era policy that it has argued against for almost two decades. Add in a smattering of social media, and Trump could become the Civil Rights President … at least until the next storm in a teacup is served.

Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein accusers have called on the FBI to speak with disgraced British royal Prince Andrew over his years-long association with Jeffrey Epstein, which would demonstrate “justice and accountability for the victims.”

Attorney Lisa Bloom told The Telegraph that while it’s “great” that Prince Andrew is stepping away from his royal duties, he needs to cooperate with US investigators.

“It’s great that he’s stepping away from his royal duties, but it’s really not about that — it’s about justice and accountability for the victims, so it’s important that he says he’s going to cooperate with law enforcement,” said Bloom.

Bloom said Prince Andrew should answer questions from all the accusers’ attorneys — in particular the attorney of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleges she was coerced into having sex with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions when she was 17.

Giuffre has offered a detailed account of a March 10, 2001, encounter in which she said she danced with the prince at Tramp nightclub in London before he had sex with her.

Guiffre publicly released a photograph of her and Prince Andrew in which he has his arm around her waist, which she says was taken at the house of Ghislaine Maxwell, who an ex-girlfriend of Epstein’s who has been accused of acting as his “fixer” at the time. –Business Insider

Meanwhile, attorney Gloria Allred who also represents Epstein accusers, urged the prince to provide any evidence that might help victims seek justice “without conditions and without delay,” including emails, texts and calendars – adding that the prince’s staff should also provide relevant information, according to the BBC.

Allred added that if the prince didn’t offer information voluntarily, he might be asked to speak under oath in a criminal investigation into potential Epstein co-conspirators, along with civil lawsuits brought by Epstein’s accusers.

“I haven’t made a determination yet as to … whether we will need to take Prince Andrew’s deposition,” said Allred, adding “But I’m saying he should provide it in any civil case as well, where his testimony might be relevant.“

“It’s totally extraordinary,” veteran royal watcher and Majesty magazine editor-in-chief Ingrid Seward told CBS on Thursday. “You don’t expect a member of the royal family to be caught up in the life of a seedy pedophile. You just don’t.“

Really Ingrid?

Authored by Walter Williams, op-ed via Townhall.com,

The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science.

Tony Heller has exposed some of the egregious dishonesty of mainstream environmentalists in a video he’s titled “My Gift To Climate Alarmists.” Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming. However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then. Environmentalists hide the earlier data and make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.

Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming. Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now. Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.

Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees. In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees. If climatologists hide data from earlier years and started at 1955, they show an increase in the number of above 90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40. Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.

You might ask: “Who is Tony Heller? Does he work for big oil?” It turns out that he is a scientist and claims to be a lifelong environmentalist. From what I can tell, he has no vested interests. In that respect, he is different from those who lead the environmental movement, who often either work for or are funded by governments.

Once in a while environmentalists reveal their true agenda.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that:

the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Christine Stewart, Canada’s former Minister of the Environment said:

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. … Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Not all scientists are dishonest and not all news reporters are leftists with an agenda. But one wonders at the deafening silence where there’s clear, unambiguous evidence.

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it’s a result of man-made global warming? Why aren’t there any reporters to highlight leftist statements such as those by Edenhofer, Stewart and others who want to ride global warming as a means to defeat capitalism and usher in socialism and communism?

I would prefer to think that the silence of so many scientists represent their fears as opposed to their going along with the environmental extremist agenda.

Former President Barak Obama was in San Francisco earlier today, giving a keynote speech at Salesforce’s Dreamforce conference at Moscone Center, reported Axios.

Obama told hundreds of people in the audience that uncertainty in the global economy remains elevated through the 2020s. That’s because he addressed a significant issue of how technology companies were fueling massive wealth inequality through globalization and automation.

“What I also see is just this sense of anxiety and rootlessness and uncertainty in so many people, some of which is fed by globalization and technology,” Obama said.

Obama then addressed the political turmoil that is spiraling out of control around the world, saying people are feeling economically and culturally insecure.

Obama said globalization and technology have “turbocharged” anxieties around the world, and there needs to be a concerted effort by governments to address the issues that it has created.

“Part of the goal of solving big problems is not just a matter of finding the right technical solution,” he said. “Part of it is also finding out how do we restore some sense of our common values.”We’re chasing after the wrong things,” he said, adding that climate change tops his list of concerns. “There’s such a thing as being too late.”

Obama also points out that it’s incredibly challenging for people to know what’s real and fake news.

He talks about the polarization in the country:

“If you read Fox News, you live in a different reality than if you read the New York Times.”

And bring it all together, Obama could be addressing some of the mechanics of how the US could be thrown in a period of social unrest through the 2020s.

And this comes after Obama said over the weekend that 2020 Democratic candidates should not to move too far to the left, as messages of sweeping societal and government transformations risk turning off the party’s moderate base.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality,” said Obama – who told a room of wealthy liberal donors: “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality.”

“The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”

The extreme polarization of the left and right, along with structural issues created by technology is fueling wealth inequality and leading to the further demise of the middle class. Most of the middle class will blame the other political party, though their understanding of how the Federal Reserve is behind their economic malfeasance will never be known.

As for what exactly triggers a Hong-Kong style like protests in the inner cities of the US is still unknown, though when the next recession strikes, it could be millennials with insurmountable debts rioting in the streets demanding the government cancel their student loans. 

Authored by B.N.Frank via ActivistPost.com,

Broadcast news programming has changed a lot over the past 15-20 years.  News magazine programs like “Dateline” covered more than tragic and twisted crimes.  They also didn’t use marketing slogans like “Don’t Watch Alone.”

Drama sells and, unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of it being reported by all media sources.  But when is it news and when is it deliberate public manipulation?

From “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson”  – Unfreedom of the Press:

Sharyl: You wrote “the American free press has degenerated into a standardless profession, not through government oppression or suppression, but through self-censorship, group think, bias, omission and propaganda.”

Mark Levin: There’s a new doctrine that’s being pushed in journalism school, has been for about 30 years, which is to push what’s called public journalism or community journalism, which is social activism.

And so now you have a lot of reporters, Jim Acosta is a perfect example, who create the drama, then report on their own drama that becomes news for five days. President calls that “fake news.” He’s right. There was a professor Boston who used to head the Library of Congress, but he was a historian at the University of Chicago. Wrote a whole book on it, pseudo events. Our news is filled with phony events and filled with propaganda.

Yikes.  No wonder I feel like I’m watching Wag The Dog when I try to catch up on current events.