by Daniel Greenfield
How can you tell that internet censorship is really taking off? Easy. It’s becoming a business model.
Steven Brill is raising $6 million to launch News Guard. This new service will rate news sites on their trustworthiness from green to red. Forget politically unbiased algorithms. The ratings will be conducted by “qualified, accountable human beings” from teams of “40 to 60 journalists.” Once upon a time, journalism meant original writing. Now it means deciding which original writing to censor.
“Can trust be monetized?” The Street’s article on News Guard asks. But it isn’t really trust that’s being monetized. It’s censorship. It’s doing the dirty work that Google and Facebook don’t want to do.
Where’s Hillary’s Indictment?
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, argues new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer will lead to Hillary Clinton’s indictment if the FBI reopens the case. Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, weighed in on the report, telling FOX Business’ Stuart Varney on “Varney & Co.,” “The significance is an FBI acknowledgement that Huma Abedin, Mrs. Anthony Weiner, when she had a top security clearance as the number two assistant to Hillary Clinton when Hillary was Secretary of State, regularly sent copies of sensitive material to her own laptop so she could look at it at night, either knowing or forgetting that her husband had access to it as well.”
Napolitano said this gives insight into the State Department’s casual approach to top secret documents under Hillary Clinton.
“This, yet again, shows the culture in the Hillary Clinton State Department of a cavalier attitude about the handling of government secrets. It also shows the FBI awareness of it. It also shows the president’s frustration with it when in a tweet this morning he said ‘there she goes again, crooked Hillary, Jim Comey let her off the hook again.’ Something I profoundly agree with him on.”
by KRISTINA WONG
An American businessman who went undercover for the FBI was blocked during the Obama administration from telling Congress what he knew about Russia’s efforts to influence the Clintons’ and Obama administration decisions, according to a report. Attorney Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate intelligence committee, told The Hill that she is trying to get the Trump administration or the FBI to free her client to talk.
“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” Toensing said.
She said her client possesses “specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com …
Family Security Matters
by TOM MCCAFFREY
Harvey was the first hurricane of category 3 strength or greater to come ashore in the U.S. since Wilma hit Florida in 2005. Nevertheless, scientists from sea to shining sea are claiming that Harvey, and now Irma, prove beyond a doubt that man-made climate change is real.
Climate scientists tell us we must reduce our production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This would mean reducing the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Given the current state of our technology – wind and solar are vastly more expensive than fossil fuels – reducing the burning of coal, oil, and gas would mean reducing economic productivity altogether, especially energy generation and manufacturing. It would diminish Americans’ wealth, comfort, leisure, safety, health, and longevity, and it would weaken our security from foreign enemies.
But there’s more. If a government could arbitrarily reduce a people’s economic productivity, then liberty itself would soon be at an end. Imagine if government could limit the number of books that could be published in a given year, or the number of newspapers or websites that could operate at given time, or the number of churches there could be. To impose such limits would be tyranny. So would choking off the economic productivity of a people.
By Michael Bargo, Jr.
The DACA program being terminated by AG Sessions was a Federal program started by President Obama. The program was promoted as an administrative strategy to provide eligible youth relief from deportation. Since the entire issue has been clouded with political rhetoric it’s important to look at its legal and constitutional status.
The DACA program was started when on November 20, 2014 President Obama issued an Executive Order. It’s important to note that the US Constitution does not allow any president to set immigration policy. Since the DACA EO was directed to delay deportation of illegal immigrants it clearly falls under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and those Federal rules can only be passed by Congress. The Constitution clearly states in Article I Section 8 clause 3 that only the Congress shall have power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It further states that all legislative powers shall reside in Congress, which shall be composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate.
The power to establish any rules regarding immigration do not reside in the office of President and never have. So, at this point the question is moot: President Obama did not have any authority to issue a DACA order through any “executive action.”
President Obama himself stated twenty-two times that he has no authority over issues of immigration. This then means he can’t unilaterally change any immigration laws. But President Obama’s entire presidency was an exercise in executive overreach, and several of the changes he made to immigration law were overturned by the Supreme Court.
It’s important to understand that whether or not one agrees with what President Obama does about immigration is irrelevant: he has no authority under the Constitution to write or rewrite, or amend, the rules of immigration passed by Congress such as the 1996 Illegal Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. What President Obama frequently did during his presidency was go around Congress and write his own laws by changing the application of existing law through new regulations and rules. He has no more authority to change laws through bureaucratic rule changes than he does to pass a law.
By Brian McNicoll
President Obama never was shy about using his phone and pen to achieve what he could not get from Congress on regulatory matters.
But documents revealed last week show the Obama administration may have been willing to get around congressional decisions on spending by using a slush fund of sorts funded by the profits of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two government-sponsored home loan giants.
Fannie and Freddie are federally chartered enterprises which buy mortgage loans from banks and bundle them into securities that are sold to investors, thus freeing up capital so that banks can make more home loans.
They are government-sponsored enterprises, which means the government guarantees their loans. But they are run as private enterprises, with private leadership, a board of directors and, most significantly for this purpose, investors. They’re even listed on the stock market.
Image via americandailypatriot.com
Ah, California. Is there nothing you can’t make more ideological with every passing week? In the Golden State’s latest effort to prove that they’re really not interested in being part of the rest of the nation, California’s state government – which viciously opposes President Trump’s travel ban – has expanded their own travel ban. Of course, it only applies to state funded travel, and rather than restricting traffic with terrorist hot spots, it blocks airline tickets to states which it deems insufficiently “woke.” In this case, that would be Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota. (Fox News)