90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, May 14, 2018

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #256

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

How easy we forget. On November 19, 2015, the State Department sent a letter to then-Representative Mike Pompeo that severely undercuts the notion that the Iran deal represents any form of binding American commitment. It turns out that the Obama administration not only acknowledged that the deal wasn’t a treaty (obvious enough), but it also admitted that it wasn’t “an executive agreement” or even a “signed document.” Here are the key paragraphs:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.

The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.

You can read the entire letter here.

“President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal.”

The Iran deal was no sacred American commitment. This was the action of one administration, working with allies and other nations who were fully aware of American domestic skepticism and fully aware of the nature of the “political commitment” they were making.

As our Joel Gehrke reported in 2015, “President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal.” In short, there was nothing truly binding about this deal. From its inception it existed only so long it was politically or strategically expedient for the relevant parties. The only thing truly concrete that came out of the JCPOA was the substantial financial benefit to the world’s most dangerous jihadist state.
COMMENTS

Finally, let’s not forget that one of the justifications for the deal was the entirely faith-based belief that it could represent a turning point in American-Iranian relations, one that would ultimately lead to Iran “fully rejoin[ing] the community of nations.” That didn’t happen. Instead, Iran doubled down on jihad and doubled-down on its efforts to directly threaten Israel from bases in Syria. A foundational premise of the agreement went up in the choking smoke Middle Eastern war.

The Iran deal wasn’t binding then, and it’s not binding now. It wasn’t a true “agreement” then, and it isn’t now. America can’t break its word when it....

High-level Obama officials, including John Brennan and John Kerry, appear to have attempted to entrap Trump campaign officials and candidate Trump himself. This very likely scenario is being closely looked at after Wall Street Journal editor Kimberly Strassel reported there was a mole placed in or close to the Trump campaign.

This isn’t how things are supposed to work in the United States. “This is not who we are,” to quote Obama.
Tying in what we know about spying, unmasking, and leaked texts, it appears the Obama administration was actually attempting to entrap them, in other words, frame them. They might have believed they were doing it to protect the nation, but it appears to be a set up.
Former Business Insider Bureau Chief Paul Sperry believes it was a frame-up, entrapment

Reporter Paul Sperry tweeted on May 11: DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets

Kimberly Strassel elaborates on her report of a mole in the campaign:

WHO IS THE MOLE?

Kimberly Strassel reported in an op-ed on May 10 titled, ‘About that FBI Source’, that there was a mole planted in or close to the Trump campaign.

Several people have been mentioned as candidates, including....

Happy Mother's Day

For all the love, sacrifice, thoughtfulness, affection, and all the other wonderful things mother's give us, Enjoy tour Day!

Mueller Indicted A Russian Company That Didn't Even Exist, Court Transcripts Say

This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller's indictment.

"What about Concord Catering?" Harvey asked Dubelier. "The government makes an allegation that there's some association. I don't mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?"

"We're not," Dubelier responded. "And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich."

"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government," Dubelier continued. "If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not."

The term "indict a ham sandwich" is believed to have originated from a 1985 report in the New York Daily News when New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler told the news publication that government prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to...

By Stephanie Pappas

Many people will spend Mother's Day, celebrating the love, warmth and emotional support they get from their mothers.

But did you know that many moms are also genetic mutants whose very brains altered in the process of motherhood? Yes, this makes good old mom sound a little bit like an X-man, but there's science behind it, we promise.

So this Mother's Day, we've rounded up some of the stranger scientific facts about motherhood. Read on, and then go give that sweet mutant mom a hug

1. Mom's a genetic patchwork

Pregnancy changes the body, but stretch marks get all the glory. A much cooler side-effect of gestation is that moms may carry little pieces of their children with them for years to come.

It's called microchimerism. The placenta separates the blood flow of mom and baby, but a handful of fetal cells cross this barrier and lodge in mom's body. Scientists have found that these cells can persist for years or even decades. The role of these cells, if any, remains mysterious. But a 2012 study found that DNA from a child's cells could even end up in mom's brain.

2. You changed her brain

Research in rodents has found that having offspring changes the brain. When pregnant mom-to-be rats gain new smell-related neurons — perhaps the better to recognize her babies' scent with. These changes persist throughout the mom's life, according to a 2011 study.

The human brain is not immune from pregnancy-related change, either. A yet-unpublished study presented on May 7 at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society found that pregnant women use the right side of their brain more than new moms when looking at images of adult and baby faces sporting different emotions. The effect was strongest when pregnant women were processing happy faces, the researchers reported. The changes may be part of promoting the mother-baby bond after birth, they suggested.

Previous studies have found that pregnant women and new moms get a boost in their ability to read facial emotions, and these brain changes may be related.

3. She might help your love life

The pushy mother-in-law is a time-honored stereotype, but cut mom a break. She may have done more for your love life than you think.

A close and warm relationship with mom during childhood predicts better relationships later in life, according to research presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science. Maternal help in the romance department may even cross species lines: Another 2010 study, this one published in the journal Nature Communications, found that low-ranking male bonobos get more chances to mate when mom is around. Moms play matchmaker by allowing their sons into their social circles, and even chase away rival males.

Not feeling lovey-dovey? Good news: A strong bond with mom can help kids make friends, too.

4. You might have made her a little OCD

If your mom seems to worry a lot, you may not be imagining things. Having a baby makes people a bit obsessive, it turns out.

Northwestern University researchers studied new moms when their babies were 2 weeks and 6 months old, and found that 11 percent had significant symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, such as fear of germs or compulsions to check and recheck the baby monitor. In comparison, only about 2 percent to 3 percent of the general population has these symptoms, the researchers reported in 2013 in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine.

When taken to an extreme, these symptoms can be harmful, the researchers wrote. But some worries are probably normal and adaptive — taking care of a newborn is tough work, after all. The increase in obsessive symptoms may be a result of stress or postpartum hormones.

5. Her voice is powerful

You knew your mother's voice before you were even born. A 2003 study out of Queen's University in Canada published in the journal Psychological Science found that the fetal heart races faster when hearing a recorded poem read by its own mother compared to when the poem is read by a stranger's voice. The study was conducted in the third trimester, when babies were nearly ready to be born. [That's Incredible! 9 Brainy Baby Abilities]

Another study from the University of Montreal found that the newborn brain is as responsive as the fetal heart. When moms made a short "A" sound, the left hemisphere of brand-new babies' brains became active, while the right hemisphere became active when a stranger spoke, the researchers reported in 2010 in the journal Cerebral Cortex. The right hemisphere of the brain is linked to voice recognition, while the left processes language and motor skills, so mom's voice may lay the groundwork for a baby's first words.

This vocal maternal superpower continues long past the baby stage. Hearing a mother's voice eases older children's stress just as much as a real-life hug, according to a 2010 study. The sound of mom's voice lowers a child's stress hormone, cortisol, and raises his or her level of oxytocin, a hormone linked with love and bonding. So give your mom a call this Mother's Day. It'll do you both good.

IRANIAN REGIME THREATENS TO RELEASE NAMES OF WESTERN OFFICIALS WHO TOOK BRIBES TO PASS NUKE DEAL

EARLIER THIS WEEK PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHDREW FROM THE SHAM IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL. PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW THE DEAL WITH THE IRANIAN MULLAHS WAS NOT WORKING.

This was despite former Secretary of State John Kerry working against the Trump administration to salvage the weak deal with the Iranian regime.

On Saturday John Kerry was spotted at a meeting with Iranian officials in Paris, France.

Of course, the Iranian regime is very upset with President Trump’s decision.

Now this…
Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari warned Western officials this week that if they do not put pressure on the Trump administration the Iranian regime will leak the names of all Western officials who were bribed to...

On Tuesday morning at 7 am, CBSNews.com reported a new poll result about Robert Mueller: "A year into the special counsel investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, a slight majority of Americans thinks the investigation is politically motivated. Fifty-three percent say so, while 44 percent think the investigation is justified."

A majority of Americans think the Mueller probe is political, and not justified? CBS paid for the poll, but failed to report it on television. Guess where you could find that result on television? On Fox News on Tuesday night. Sean Hannity had it:

SEAN HANNITY: According to a brand-new CBS News poll, more Americans now think, rightly so, Robert Mueller's witch-hunt is, in fact, politically motivated. Now, this comes as the mainstream, destroy Trump media continues to do Mueller's bidding.

Now, according to NewsBusters, get this, CBS, NBC spent a combined 30 seconds on the recent beat-down last Friday of the special counsel investigation from a federal judge. And meanwhile, President Trump's poll numbers, they're rising. This despite a NewsBusters study showing that network news broadcasts in this country featured negative stories about the president 90 percent of the time. Wow.

Tucker Carlson also reported it:

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, a new poll from CBS finds that the majority of Americans, 53 percent, now view special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation as a politically motivated operation.

And you can see why they might conclude that. The Democratic Party seems to be agreeing with that interpretation and adding to it. Recent fund- raising emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have lied about the investigation itself. They have claimed that if the party can collect 1 million signatures, it will somehow force President Trump to give testimony to...