Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #783
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.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
LGBT Students Harassing Christians On Campus Isn’t Activism — It’s Bullying
There is no 'clash' between conservative students and LGBT students at Baylor University, as there is no conservative effort to silence or ban LGBT student activities on campus.
What is the difference between being an advocate and being a bully? In modern political activism, the line continues to blur as so many on the left refuse to separate one from the other. At Baylor University, a private Baptist college located in Waco, Texas, this distinction and lack of respect for it from liberal activists has been well demonstrated.
LGBTQ Nation reported, “Queer and conservative students are clashing at a religious Texas university.” It describes the “clashing” as, “The LGBTQ students, united under the Greek letters Gamma Alpha Upsilon (GAY), say that YAF [Young America’s Foundation] has made baseless accusations that GAY ‘is violent and [has] intentionally threatened or sabotaged their members/meetings’ by tearing down YAF event fliers and disrupting meetings.”
It’s Not a Clash When One Side Isn’t Fighting
The LGBT organization argues that while LGBT student members do, in fact, routinely tear down fliers and signs for upcoming conservative events and are known for “voicing displeasure over YAF’s conservative speakers,” the students are not acting with authorization from the organization itself. Despite the ongoing dispute over these accusations, members of the organization have so aggressively petitioned school officials to ban well-known conservative speakers such as Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro, the school is attempting negotiation meetings in an effort to quell the controversy. An “equity officer,” charged with investigating claims of discrimination and harassment, was even involved regarding Shapiro’s upcoming November speech, although a representative of the LGBT group denied requesting officer involvement.
Prior to Walsh’s speech, LGBT students organized petitions “denouncing it that garnered thousands of signatures, as well as an attempt to have the event cancelled, claiming Walsh’s presence on campus threatened the...
They Aren’t Whistleblowers. They’re Double Agents.
The New York Times on Oct. 4 reported that a second intelligence official “alarmed by President [Donald] Trump’s dealings with Ukraine” is considering whether to file a complaint with the intelligence community inspector general.
Like the first whistleblower, however, this individual is apparently trying to advance his agenda outside of the process provided by federal law.
As we have detailed, the first whistleblower began with the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, however, prohibits that direct contact, requiring instead that complaints follow a process that begins with the intelligence community inspector general.
In like fashion, this second individual, who claims to have firsthand information regarding Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has chosen to talk to the media through his or her lawyer, rather than file a complaint.
The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>
According to the lawyer, this person has firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations included in the first complaint and has spoken to the inspector general.
Until this official files a complaint and it’s made public, we have no idea whether his or her account will, as the media have reported, bolster the secondhand and thirdhand information recounted in the first complaint. Until we see his or her complaint and the information actually detailed in it, the information the media report that his lawyer told them is still secondhand.
Naturally, that hasn’t stopped the media from calling this a “firsthand” account and speculating wildly about its impact on Democrats’ impeachment efforts. The New York Times, for example, claims that it “would potentially add further credibility to the account of the first whistleblower.”
There’s that word again: “whistleblower.”
The media often use it, but all we know is that the second person has something to say that his or her lawyer has shared with the media. How does that make him or her a “whistleblower”? For that matter, is the first person a whistleblower?
Let’s start with the law that protects intelligence officials who blow the whistle. The key provision of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is codified in Title 50 of the U.S. Code Section 3033.
The law does not define or even use the term “whistleblower,” except in the title, but it does clearly identify the people it’s designed to protect.
To be covered by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, a would-be whistleblower must (1) be an employee of the intelligence community or of an intelligence community contractor, (2) who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information, (3) with respect to an urgent concern, and (4) who follows the disclosure procedures set forth in the act.
The act defines “urgent concern” as a problem, abuse, or deficiency relating to “an intelligence activity within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence.”
That’s the most concrete way we have of defining a “whistleblower.” Those criteria show that this second person is not a whistleblower at all.
For one thing, we have no evidence corroborating the lawyer’s assertion that his client is an intelligence official. For another, there is no indication that he or she intends to submit a...
Grassley Suspects ‘Deep State’ Is Responsible For Delay In FISA Abuse Report
Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley expressed frustration Monday at a months long delay in the release of the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on possible FBI surveillance abuse against the Trump campaign, questioning whether the “deep state” has somehow slowed the release of the document.
“All of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be ‘deep six’ by the deep state,” Grassley wrote on Twitter.
All of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be “deep six” by the deep state
9,440 people are talking about this
Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, began in March 2018 investigating whether the FBI complied with legal requirements in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The bureau relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier in applications for the warrants, as well as for the main investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.
Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer, dug up dirt on the Trump campaign on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign. In the dossier, he alleged that Trump aides, including Page, worked with Kremlin operatives to influence the 2016 election. Steele also claimed that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump team and...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)