90 Miles From Tyranny

Friday, September 13, 2019

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #743

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.

DOJ Rejects Andrew McCabe’s Appeal To Avoid Charges

The Justice Department has denied Andrew McCabe’s appeal to avoid charges for lying to investigators about approving leaks to the media, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen informed the former FBI deputy director by email that he will reject McCabe’s appeal against charges recommended by Jessie Liu, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.

A source familiar with the probe told The Daily Caller News Foundation that line prosecutors and Liu recommended charges against McCabe over false statements he allegedly made to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Justice Department inspector general’s office.

“The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office,” the Justice Department wrote in an email to McCabe on Thursday, according to Fox News.

A source close to McCabe confirmed the accuracy of the Fox News report to the DCNF.

The decision paves the way for an indictment against McCabe. The Justice Department declined comment regarding any potential indictments.

The New York Times reported on Aug. 26 that McCabe and his lawyers met with Rosen and Liu as part of a last-ditch effort to argue against charges. The Justice Department was investigating McCabe over false statements he allegedly made to the FBI and Justice Department inspector general regarding disclosures of information to the press in October 2016 regarding an investigation of the...

#gunrights

Freedom Has A Nice Ring To It...

The Dick Act Of 1902 Invalidates All So-Called Gun-Control Laws.

Banish Fear, Lived Armed..

Stand Your Ground Is The Right Of Self Defense

Self Defense Is A Human Right...

Modern Women Should Not Have Less Rights Than Her Historical Sisters...

The Right Of Self Defense...

Things You Can Kiss Goodbye If Dems Get Their Green Deal...

The Green Deal Would Destroy The Economy, There Would Be Food Shortages, Rioting In The Streets, Disease And Death Everywhere.

The SquawSkank Redemption...

#elizabethwarren

Judge Napolitano explains why Loretta Lynch could be facing 5-10 years in prison: 'It's a felony

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said Monday that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch could face a lengthy prison term if found guilty of “misconduct in office” for intervening in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

Former FBI Director James Comey testified under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month that while his bureau was in the midst of their investigation into Clinton, Lynch, who at the time was the attorney general, instructed him to publicly refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” instead of an investigation.

According to Napolitano, whose comments came on Fox Business, that "terminology may be indicative of a mindset on the part of Attorney General Lynch that she was going to do whatever she could to prevent Mrs. Clinton from getting indicted."

"There is enough evidence here, just on the basis of the little snippets given to the Senate Intelligence Committee by former FBI Director Jim Comey, that Mrs. Lynch was either conflicted or working at odds with the Justice Department and in behalf of Mrs. Clinton's campaign and the DNC when she told them to use different terminology for the investigation,” Napolitano explained.

Comey admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Lynch’s request made him feel “queasy.” Lynch’s request also led to one of Comey’s closest aides to quip that he was now the director of the “federal bureau of matters,” according to earlier reports.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a letter Friday stating that Lynch is now a focus of their investigation over concerns she may have impeded the FBI’s Clinton investigation.

It is also alleged that Lynch was in contact with then-Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) to improperly discuss the FBI’s investigation of Clinton. If such a document exists, Napolitano said it would amount to “misconduct in office."

"It is alleged, this document has not seen the light of day if it exists, that there is one or several emails between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Loretta Lynch concerning the behavior that Loretta Lynch will take to further the DNC interests while Mrs. Lynch was the attorney general,” Napolitano explained. “That, if it happened, would be misconduct in office."

“It’s a felony,” he said. “Depending on...

Barack Obama proclaimed income inequality to be “the defining challenge of our time” in a 2013 speech. Inequality continues to be a hot political topic and serves as the pretext for recent proposals floated by various politicos like a 70 percent marginal tax rate, student loan forgiveness and universal day care.

Indeed, couched in language like “not everyone is sharing in this prosperity” (Sen. Amy Klobuchar) and “the economy … is working for a thinner and thinner slice at the top” (Sen. Elizabeth Warren), the subject received its fair share of attention at last week’s Democratic debates.

Such high political stakes make it even more concerning that the majority of income inequality research is so misleading.

Snapshot in Time

Most income inequality data represent merely a snapshot in time. Of course, people move about income levels through the duration of their lifetime. Today’s “low-income” individual may be a recent college grad from an upper middle-class family merely working an entry-level job on her way to a lucrative career. Or consider a retired couple with pension plans, savings, investments, a paid-off house and other assets. They may have little “income,” but they have enough wealth to afford a comfortable lifestyle.

Conversely, today’s “high-income” earner may be a small business owner who struggled for decades and finally had a successful year. Indeed, according to Tufts University economist Gilbert Metcalf, “higher-annual-income groups are likely to contain some people at the peak of their age-earnings profile for whom peak earnings are a poor measure of annual ability to consume.” That is, someone may put together a few years of high earnings that don’t reflect his or her long-term well-being.

In short, the people captured in the “low-income” category at a given moment in time may not necessarily be poor, and vice versa. Snap-shot income measures in no way tell us anything about the financial well-being over the lifetimes of the people being studied.

For instance, University of Michigan-Flint economist Mark Perry examined US census data to confirm that “more than 3 out of 4 households in the top fifth of (income-earning) households are in their prime earning years between 35-64 years old.” He continued, “The lowest quintile households are more than 1.5 times as likely to be younger (under 35) as the highest quintile households, and more than three times as likely to be old (65 and over).”

In other words, younger, less experienced workers earn less than their older, more experienced counterparts. Should this type of “inequality” be considered “the defining challenge of our time”?

In sum, simple “income” statistics often provide a misleading snapshot of citizens’ financial well-being, and thus provide an extremely poor indicator upon which to base policy.

Rich Getting Richer and Poor Getting Poorer?

Rarely left out of income inequality “analysis” by progressives is the alleged observation that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer.

This proclamation, however, also suffers in large part due to a static view of the data.

As Russ Roberts, economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution wrote in this 2018 article, “the biggest problem with the pessimistic studies is that they rarely follow the same people to see how they do over time. Instead, they rely on a snapshot at two points in time.”

A far better measure is to measure the same people over time, rather than aggregate figures.

“When you follow the same people over time, you get a very different story from the standard one,” Roberts discovered.

Indeed, “When you follow the same people over time, the largest gains over time often go to the poorest workers; the richest workers often make no progress,” he wrote.

Roberts cites a study published by the Pew Charitable Trusts that examined the Panel Study of Income Dynamics which tracked data on the same people from the late 1960’s up to 2002 that showed “children raised in the poorest families made the largest gains as adults relative to...

Grief-Stricken Father Jailed for Social Media Posts Criticizing Court System After Son Dies in Mother’s Care

The cruelty of the family court system and Big Brother are colliding in this disgusting case.

A grieving father, robbed of his now deceased son by the notoriously unjust family court system, is being held in a Michigan jail for making social media posts about a judge he believes put his baby boy in harm’s way.

Jonathan Vanderhagen lost a custody battle for his son over two years ago, and his son died shortly after while in his mother’s custody. He had warned the court about the mother’s history of unstable behavior, but his pleas were ultimately ignored by the female judge and court referee.

Deborah Vanderhagen, Jonathan’s mother, is raising awareness about what she feels is a grave injustice that is being committed against her son.

“His lawyer said something is going to happen to this child. You need to get him away from the mother. There are too many red flags. And the judge said, oh that is in the past,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.

A police report filed following the untimely death of two-year-old Killian cleared his mother from liability in his death, but the Vanderhagen family disagrees strongly with that assessment. They feel that if Killian was taken care of properly, he may be alive today.

“He was so full of life,” Deborah Vanderhagen said while recalling memories of her beloved grandson. “I am trying not to cry.”

Jonathan Vanderhagen was vocal about his anguish on social media, assigning blame toward Judge Rachel Rancilio for granting sole custody of Killian to his mother. As a result, Rancilio complained about her safety, and the Macomb County Sheriff’s office charged Jonathan with malicious use of telecommunications services as a result.

He refused to be muzzled despite the court infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights. He went back on social media and continued to raise public awareness about corruption the court following his arrest.

“Dada back to digging and you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet,” Jonathan wrote in a social media post after he posted bond.

As a result, a judge determined that Jonathan Vanderhagen violated his bond conditions. He was placed in jail on an astronomical half a million dollars bond, more than what is recommended in for rapists and murderers in many cases.

“He just wants justice. He don’t want to kill anybody. He don’t want anybody physically hurt. He wants them to acknowledge what they’ve done and get justice,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.

Jonathan’s attorney, Nicholas Somberg, believes that this is an egregious case of government overreach meant to silence a public opponent of judicial tyranny and scare away...