"Probably More" Links Between Clinton & Russia Than Trump, GOPer Exclaims

ORIGINAL LINK

A clearly frustrated Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Sunday that there are "probably more" connections between Hillary Clinton and Russia than there are between Moscow and President Trump.

During an interview with John Catsimatidis that aired Sunday on New York's AM 970, The Hill reports that the lawmaker said:

"I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia or between Russia and the Trump campaign,"

 

"There is probably more evidence of links between Russia and the Clinton campaign than anyone even could imagine between Russia and people involved in the Trump campaign,"

Whether this was a response specifically to this week's New York Times' "Russia-Trump Nexus" op-ed desperation, or more generally the tack that Democrats nationwide seem to remain focused on is unclear. However, as Investors.com's John Merline details below, Rep. King may not be far off the facts...

The Hillary Clinton-Russia Nexus

The acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, told Congress on Thursday that President Trump's firing of James Comey has not derailed the agency's investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Which is good news. Despite Mrs. Clinton's assertion that the idea of collusion is "a total hoax," and despite many unknowns, the links continue to pile up. Here is a partial accounting of the connections we do know something about.

 

THE CLINTON FAMILY BUSINESS There may be no Clinton Foundation office in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but it is not for lack of trying. Bill Clinton received half a million dollars in 2010 for a speech he gave in Moscow, paid by a Russian firm, Renaissance Capital, that has ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation took money from Russian officials and oligarchs, including Victor Kekselberg, a Putin confidant. The Foundation also received millions of dollars from Uranium One, which was sold to the Russian government in 2010, giving Russia control of 20% of the uranium deposits in the U.S. —  the sale required approval from Hillary Clinton's State Department. What's more, at least some of these donations weren't disclosed. "Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government's uranium company, Uranium One, made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all such donors," the Times has reported.

 

JOHN PODESTA In March — that is, long after the election was over — it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman had failed to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company — Joule Unlimited — for which he served as director from 2010 to 2014, when he joined the Obama White House in 2014. Podesta apparently had a large chunk of the shares transferred to "Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on Dec. 20, 2013, about 10 days before he entered the White House," according to a news account.

 

TONY PODESTA Mr. Podesta's bother, who has close personal and business relations with Mrs. Clinton, was "key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics," a March news story reported. The bank was "seeking to end one of the Obama administration's economic sanctions against that country." The report goes on to note that "Podesta's efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia's second largest bank." Mr. Obama imposed the sanctions following the Russian seizure of the Crimean region of Ukraine in 2014.

 

JOHN BREAUX Forbes magazine reports that Mr. Breaux, a former Senator from Louisiana who cut radio ads for Mrs. Clinton's 2008 campaign, represents Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia's third largest bank, on "banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions."

 

THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN In March, Mr. Putin's spokesman said that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with members of Mrs. Clinton's campaign several times while she was running for president in 2016. Further, the campaign never disclosed the number or nature of these secret meetings.

 

Mrs. Clinton and her associates can cry themselves hoarse that there is neither smoke nor fire here, and that Putin was behind her election loss. But all in all, the known facts suggest an unusually extensive network of relationships with a major foreign power. Anyone who cares about the credibility of the American electoral process should want a thorough investigation.

Finally, The Hill notes that King also pushed back on the criticism surrounding Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, maintaining that any investigation relating to Russia would be handled by senior officials in the FBI, not Comey.

"If you are going to be accusing the president of the United States of treason, you better know what you are talking about," he said. "So far, none of these people know what they are talking about."

The lawmaker also said that he is "convinced" that Trump will take a tough geopolitical stance against Putin in the future.

"Putin, whether it's the Ukraine, whether it's Syria, whether it's flying jets too close to the United States… Putin has to realize he cannot be getting away with this, and that Donald Trump is very serious about standing up to Russia, which I am convinced he is."

Which is interesting given the rather pointed statement aimed at Russia last night with regard the North Korea missile test-launch...

via IFTTT

“It’s very important we hear what Putin has to say”

ORIGINAL LINK

Director Oliver Stone © Vincent West / Reuters

The man behind three films about American presidents, Oliver Stone, says his upcoming feature about Russian President Vladimir Putin “opens up a whole viewpoint that we as Americans haven’t heard,” and could help prevent “a dangerous situation – on the brink of war.”

Academy Award-winning director and revered documentary filmmaker Stone said in interview with the Sydney Morning Herald that his new film about Putin will be released soon. “It’s not a documentary as much as a question and answer session,” he said. “Mr. Putin is one of the most important leaders in the world and in so far as the United States has declared him an enemy – a great enemy – I think it’s very important we hear what he has to say.”

The film will present Putin’s viewpoint of political events since he was first elected president of Russia in March 2000.

“It opens up a whole viewpoint that we as Americans haven’t heard,” Stone told the newspaper, adding that his crew went to see the indefatigable Russian leader four times over the course of two years.

“I talked to him originally about the Snowden affair, which is in the film. And out of that grew, I think, a trust that he knew that I would not edit it so much,” he said, adding that Putin “talks pretty straight.”

“I think we did him the justice of putting [his comments] into a Western narrative that could explain their viewpoint in the hopes that it will prevent continued misunderstanding and a dangerous situation – on the brink of war.”

The 70-year-old director also commented the accusations of Russian influence on the US presidential elections. “That’s a path that leads nowhere to my mind. That’s an internal war of politics in the US in which the Democratic Party has taken a suicide pact or something to blow him up; in other words, to completely de-legitimize him and in so doing blow up the US essentially. “What they’re doing is destroying the trust that exists between people and government. It’s a very dangerous position to make accusations you cannot prove,” he added.

Stone also said does not believe claims circulating in the mainstream media that Moscow allegedly passed some classified documents to WikiLeaks in a bid to influence the November US elections. “I hold [WikiLeaks editor Julian] Assange in high regard in many issues of state. I take very seriously his statement that he received no information from Russia or any state actors,” Stone said.

WikiLeaks published over 250,000 classified US military and diplomatic documents in 2010 in a move that amounted to the largest information leak in United States history. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when WikiLeaks published ‘Cablegate’. Assange has been stuck inside the Ecuadorian embassy since he took refuge there in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning by the authorities regarding allegations of sexual assault against two women in 2010.

“For 10 years now he’s been a beacon of integrity and honesty,” Stone noted. “He’s been very helpful to understand the world to those who pay attention. “Unfortunately, his reports sometimes get too thick and too difficult to understand, but I don’t think the media has done him any favors really by playing along and accusing him of rape and holding him on these bogus charges. This is scary behavior but it’s also unlawful.”

Stone’s latest movie revolved around NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, who became world-renown figure after leading classified documents detailing the surveillance programs of the US intelligence agencies and its allies in 2013. Stone met him in person in Russia, where Snowden was granted political asylum.

The director said Washington’s unprecedented move towards far-reaching surveillance technology is utterly wrong.

“I think we’ve had a lot of false information – fake news as they say – used for political ideological purposes. In other words, the US has been able, because of this technology, to say without any doubt Russia hacked the election. This is coming from who? From the intelligence agencies that are fighting against Russia with all their hearts and minds. They can’t be trusted. This is important to recognize. I think the Snowden movie shows why they cannot be trusted.”

Amid a US military buildup in response to the North Korean nuclear threat, Stone told the Sydney Morning Herald he is also concerned by where US attacks on Syria and Afghanistan might lead. “The United States is spending on defense and security almost a trillion dollars a year, which is more than all the countries in the world spend on security and the military. It’s inexcusable to people who examine this rationally.”

via IFTTT

First Ever Study of Unvaccinated Vs. Vaccinated Kids, Pulled from Journal, Erased from Internet

ORIGINAL LINK
A study showing homeschooled, unvaccinated children far healthier in many areas than their vaccinated counterparts has been pulled from the Internet — without explanation.

via IFTTT

JAMA Admits 30% of Drugs Approved by FDA-Approved Are Seriously Dangerous

ORIGINAL LINK

Close to one-third of drugs approved by the FDA are found to have safety problems, according to a research report from The Journal of the American Medical Association. JAMA’s report stated that these safety issues, known as “postmarket safety events,” are “common after FDA approval, highlighting the importance of continuous monitoring of the safety of novel therapeutics throughout their life cycle.”

via IFTTT

Gulf Nations Celebrated In Western Press While Silencing Their Own Journalists

ORIGINAL LINK

MINNEAPOLIS– While serving as an unabashed arms dealer to the world’s most repressive governments, the United States is also acting as their public relations agent, characterizing countries that routinely undermine freedom of the press, as well as the rights of women and minorities, as being safe and friendly.

The clearest examples can be found in three Gulf nations: Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar.

While Jordan’s Queen Rania and King Abdallah are featured in intimate photo stories published by publications like People in the West, the Jordanian government spends its time attacking the press in its home country. In 2015, journalist Jamal Ayyoub was arrested and imprisoned after he published an article critical of the Saudi-led military campaign against Yemen.

For decades, journalists have been targeted by the Jordanian government in a way that’s been described as having “a chilling effect.” The phenomenon has gotten worse in recent times, largely due to new laws and regulations that have been passed in order to stifle criticism. Eleven journalists from the news website 7iber were detained in 2016 alone.

In Bahrain, where a people’s uprising has been largely ignored by mainstream media, government authorities have detained, harassed and tortured journalists. Those who have been targeted include Sayed Ahmed Al-Mousawi and photographer Ahmed Humaidan, who were singled out for documenting the government’s suppression of demonstrations. Al-Mousawi was brutally tortured and jailed without due process, while Humaidan was given a 10-year prison sentence. Both men remain in prison.

According to Qatar’s National Library, the Qatari mass media is considered to be the most powerful media entity in the entire Arab world. This influence is enough to hide the persecution of journalists, as well as protect the interests of a state-operated media industry that is owned by members of the ruling family or their business associates. While filming a documentary on the 2022 FIFA World Cup that highlighted the abuse laborers face in Qatar, journalists were detained by the state and forced to sign “confessions.”

And it wasn’t the first time authorities in Qatar abused their power in this fashion. In 2011, Qatar sentenced a poet to life in prison for daring to insult the country’s top monarch. In 2016, the poet, Muhammad Rasheed al-Ajami, was pardoned in 2016 after spending five years in jail.

While Gulf nations may enjoy the positive attention of mainstream media outside their respective borders, the dark reality of their treatment of journalists should be fully acknowledged by these same media outlets.

The post Gulf Nations Celebrated In Western Press While Silencing Their Own Journalists appeared first on MintPress News.

via IFTTT

Zika: The $183 million dollar FRAUD – NaturalNews.com

Zika: The $183 million dollar FRAUD – NaturalNews.com: "As the Brazilian doctors revealed, the areas in Brazil hit hardest by birth defects like microcephaly also just so happened to be areas where a toxic larvacide known as “pyriproxyfen” had been applied to the water supply for the last 18 months. So while the Brazilian Ministry of Health was quick to place the blame on the Zika virus, there is reason to believe that the virus isn’t what’s causing the tidal wave of birth defects — the pesticide is."



'via Blog this'

Paediatricians Now Advised It’s ‘Dangerous To Call Breastfeeding Natural’

ORIGINAL LINK

Is it dangerous to use the term natural? Paediatricians are now being advised to think so, particularly when it comes to describing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is natural though, and while it is certainly not the only way to feed your baby, and not physically an option for some women, it is nevertheless, and I think inarguably, the most natural and healthy way to feed a baby, the way women have been doing it since the beginning of time. So where’s the danger in referring to breastfeeding in this way?

Science Struggling With Term ‘Natural’

A bioethical argument published in the journal Paediatrics is now advising paediatricians that it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something that is ‘natural.’

A short essay published by authors Jessica Martucci, Ph.D, and Anne Barnhill, Ph.D., builds on a previous publication from the Nuffield Council in bioethics. This 109-page report attempts to classify and explain how the term ‘natural’ may affect an individual’s decision-making process when it comes to health care, as stated:

“Commenting, praising, or favouring something on the basis of it’s being natural, or criticizing, condemning or disapproving of something on the grounds that is unnatural connects the notion of what is natural with value.”

As a basis for their argument, the authors recommend the term ‘natural’ not be used by paediatricians who are encouraging new mothers to breastfeed. It is essentially the opposite of other breastfeeding initiatives from the American Academy of Paediatrics, as follows:

“Breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition. Given the documented short and long-term medical and neuro-developmental advantages of breastfeeding, infant nutrition should be considered a public health issue and not only a lifestyle choice.”

It appears that the authors assume that public health initiatives should be built based on the assumption that individuals can’t tell the difference between what is natural or normal and what is healthy. The authors go on to propose:

“Promoting breastfeeding as ‘natural’ may be ethically problematic and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that ‘natural’ approaches are presumptively healthier. This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination.”

Ahhh… so now it makes sense. It seems they are worried that by calling breastfeeding natural and healthier for the infant, parents might assume that whatever is natural is healthier in all cases, and thus potentially opt out of vaccinating their children.

It’s also important to think about where Doctors are being advised from.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”  – (source)(source) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

This is a problem that’s well known in the medical community, which is why John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated that most current published research findings are false.

How Can We Properly Define ‘Natural’?

The correct definition of natural is “existing in or formed by nature.” As you can see, at no point is it implied that natural equals healthier. In many cases natural does not mean healthy, such as the addition of “natural flavourings” in many processed foods.

A few months after this initial article was published, Martucci wrote an essay that goes on to describe the severe backlash that she and her colleague experienced in response. Apparently, many people took offence to the article, particularly to assertions like the ones below:

“Studies have shown that parents who resist vaccination tend to inhabit networks of like-minded individuals with similar beliefs. These pockets of anti-vaccination sentiment tend to overlap with reliance on and interest and complementary and alternative medicine, skepticism of institutional authority, and a strong commitment and interest in health knowledge autonomy and healthy living practices.”

There are a few important points to bring up here. Firstly, there are a number of assumptions being presented that need to be questioned. Many parents are labelled “anti-vax” for simply choosing to delay the recommended vaccination schedule, or choose which ones their children receive. The statement seems to be aimed at those who choose to either not vaccinate or at least question the safety of vaccines. However unintentionally, though, it also shows that there is a massive shift in the way parents are thinking nowadays, and that they aren’t just taking what doctors tell them at face value.

The authors go on to compare breastfeeding to not vaccinating:

“Meanwhile, synthetic substances, products, and technologies mass produced by industry (notably, vaccines) are seen as “unnatural” and often arouse suspicion and distrust. Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky.”

Again the authors fail to note a few obvious flaws in their argument; breastfeeding has absolutely no associated risks and vaccines have many potentially harmful side effects, with countless studies to showcase this.

It is important to note that both authors are employed at the same institution as Dr. Paul Offit, the Director of the Vaccine Education Centre at the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and a professor of vaccinology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

It seems clear the paper was motivated by a vested interest in encouraging mothers to vaccinate their children.

If you want to learn more specifically about the controversy and the information emerging that has more parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, you can check out this article:

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

You can also sift through or website as we’ve published many articles sourced with many studies regarding vaccines, and different types of vaccines.

Conclusion

You cannot compare something like breastfeeding to vaccines. Breastfeeding is natural, whether you like the term or not, and vaccines are unnatural — they are part of a man-made process that involves putting chemical additives into the human body.

Parents should have the right to choose, based on their own research, what they feel is right for their children, regardless of if breastfeeding continues to be defined as natural or not.

Thoughts, concerns? Get involved in the discussion in the comments section.

Much Love

via IFTTT

The Consensus Echo Chamber Take On Trump Firing Comey Is All Wrong

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The unanimous very smart person take on Trump’s firing of James Comey is that it’s a political disaster which will lead to total ruin and possibly his impeachment.

I disagree.

The key factor that will determine how this ultimately turns out hinges largely on whether or not there was actual coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to sway the election through hacking or other nefarious means. Personally, I don’t think there was, which is why I don’t expect Donald Trump to be removed from office. The consensus view right now is that Trump’s firing of Comey offers further circumstantial evidence that he’s trying to cover up coordination with Russia in order to end the ongoing investigation. This is certainly a possibility to consider, but it’s definitely not the only possibility, nor is it the most likely explanation.

First, the optics. The timing of this move looks unquestionably bad, particularly if a story published in today’s New York Times is correct. It reports:

WASHINGTON — Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to three congressional officials who were briefed on his request.

 

Mr. Comey asked for the resources last week from Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of Mr. Comey this week, the officials said.

 

Mr. Comey then briefed members of Congress on the meeting in recent days, telling them about his meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, who is the most senior law enforcement official supervising the Russia investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from that inquiry because of his close ties to the Trump campaign and his undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador.

 

The timing of Mr. Comey’s request is not clear-cut evidence that his firing was related to the Russia investigation. But it is certain to fuel bipartisan criticism that President Trump appeared to be meddling in an investigation that had the potential to damage his presidency.

If this is accurate, I think it’d be impossible for any honest person to determine that the above played no role in Trump’s firing of Comey. The next conclusion is that this means Trump is afraid of the ongoing Russia investigation — where there’s smoke there’s fire, right?

While that could be the case, there are other explanations. First, Trump simply may have been sick and tired of Comey, just as most Americans, including myself, are sick and tired of him. Comey isn’t the most popular guy out there. Indeed, high profile Democrats have been incessantly complaining about him, with Hillary Clinton once again publicly blaming him for her election loss as recently as last week. Trump may genuinely think Comey is incompetent (after all he didn’t even look at the hacked DNC servers but let discredited private company CrowdStrike do the work), and Comey’s recent request to expand the Russia investigation may have further called his judgment into question in the eyes of Trump.

This doesn’t mean Trump is guilty of coordination with Russia. For example, let’s assume for a moment that there was no coordination with Russia to sway the election. If that’s right, Trump and his team could quite legitimately view Comey’s insistence on more funding for the investigation look like incompetence or a personal vendetta. This would frustrate anyone, and it would especially irritate a person accustomed to firing whoever he wants, whenever he wants (after all, he had a show where he became famous for saying “You’re Fired”). As such, the overwhelming impulse for a guy like Trump is to fire Comey irrespective of whether or not there was any Russia conspiracy. This doesn’t make it the right thing to do, but it also doesn’t mean he’s in cahoots with Russia. It could simply be that an impulsive guy who’s accustomed to firing people at will decided to fire a guy who was increasingly getting on his nerves.

Given what we know about Trump’s personality, I think his choice to fire Comey is consistent with both the scenario where he is guilty of Russia coordination, and one where he isn’t. The consensus narrative which claims Trump firing Comey is proof of his guilt and merely an attempt to cover up a Russia conspiracy, is an emotionally driven and hastily determined conclusion.

To summarize, Trump’s dismissal of Comey looks bad, but it doesn’t mean he’s hiding anything. To me, it looks like a typical Trumpian move whether or not there’s any shadiness with Russia going on. Let’s now move on the the next part of the post: How does this play out politically in the near-term, and how will it affect his chances for reelection in 2020?

While Trump often doesn’t seem to understand this, his true power comes from his base. By base, I don’t mean the tens of millions of people who voted for him, rather, I’m referring his hardcore fans who voted for him largely to disrupt the status quo. I’m referring to the dedicated MAGA people who had never really participated in politics before, but became energized by Trump. These people are the key to winning reelection in 2020.

Despite all the noise made by D.C. “Never Trump” think tankers and pundits, they proved themselves to be irrelevant in 2016, as Trump won despite their vitriol. Trump’s base got him elected and Trump’s base will determine his prospects in 2020. Your average Republican doesn’t really matter. The average GOP voter would vote for a fire hydrant before Hillary Clinton, and these people aren’t going to vote Democratic or stay home in 2020 because Trump fired James Comey. In contrast, if Trump sufficiently pisses off the base, he’s finished.

Trump’s base is absolutely giddy about the firing of James Comey, and that’s a win for Trump in my opinion. Trump’s base accurately sees the entire Department of Justice (which includes the FBI) as a total joke. An institution that primarily exists to protect elitist criminals. Considering the inability of the DOJ/FBI to jail a single bank executive for the financial crimes committed last decade, this view is entirely appropriate.

James Comey has been a big part of this racket, so there’s no love lost for him. Comey’s termination is being cheered by Trump’s base, unlike his very unpopulist and oligarch-coddling moves up until this point, such as surrounding himself with Goldman Sachs bankers. If anything, this energizes a base that had become increasingly concerned about the neocon war mongers and financial crooks running rampant throughout his administration. This move plays perfectly into Trump’s base and will be seen as Trump taking it to the deep state.

Unfortunately, Trump’s not really taking on any deep state, as was fully demonstrated earlier today when he was seen in the Oval Office with one of the deep state’s most notorious war criminals.

Pool brought into the Oval. It's Trump and ... Kissinger. pic.twitter.com/1F1CPO4kQw

— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) May 10, 2017

While I find the above far more offensive than the dismissal of James Comey, the hyperventilation emanating from the corporate media, Democrats and Never Trumpers actually gives Trump more cover to be an even more egregious pawn of the deep state and Wall Street. That’s because the firing of Comey gives him unwarranted street cred amongst the base, and the more the corporate media parrots squawk, the more the base will love it.

Which brings me to the final and most important part of this piece. The entire Comey firing saga could go in several directions, but an increasingly likely outcome is the one I don’t see being discussed anywhere. First we need to ask ourselves, what’s likely to happen next? Calls for a special prosecutor and independent investigation into Trump-Russia collusion are likely to get louder and louder. Given the timing of the firing, I support this and I think there’s a good chance it’ll happen. I hope it does happen, as we really do need to put an end to all the speculation and hysteria one way or the other, once and for all. But here’s where it gets really interesting…

If Trump really did coordinate with the Russian government to affect the U.S. election and indisputable evidence emerges, it will be an enormous scandal and he will likely be removed from office. Personally, I don’t think such evidence exists because I don’t think such collusion happened, but I support an independent investigation. On the other hand, what might happen if Trump didn’t collude with Russia?

Here’s where Trump legitimately has a chance to destroy the Democratic Party once and for all. The Democrats have already been putting all their eggs in the Russia conspiracy theory basket, and this focus on Russia as opposed to jobs, healthcare, student loans, debt slavery etc., has made the American public think the Democratic Party is more out of touch than both Trump and the GOP. Given that’s where things stand today, imagine what’ll happen to the party and its leaders if they start spending 100% of their time pursuing this lead and then nothing comes up? What then?

I’ll tell you what happens. The Democratic Party, as useless as it is today, will completely evaporate as a serious political opposition force in America. This is because it appears all of its handful of 2020 hopefuls seem to be completely hyperventilating and losing their minds about Comey’s dismissal and asserting that it represents proof Trump colluded with Russia.

Imagine if Trump is cleared by an independent investigation? These Dems will look like complete imbeciles with horrible judgement who wasted the nation’s time while tens of millions of Americans struggled to make ends meet. This will destroy the party and lead to an easy Trump win in 2020. This is a potentially lethal trap for Democrats and they seem to be falling for it in unison.

And give me a break on all of this sudden placing of the FBI up on a pedestal. As I remarked to Eric Holder last night on Twitter:

 

To conclude, I think the “expert” pundit take on the Comey affair is completely wrong and missing the bigger picture. Most commentators are merely following their own biases and coming to conclusions based largely on emotions. I’m no fan of Trump and I think he’ll merely prove to be a useful tool of the deep state and Wall Street dressed in populist language. I don’t come to the conclusion in today’s post based on my desire for it to happen. In fact, what I’d really like to see is real and thoughtful opposition to his authoritarian nature and Wall Street ass-kissing, but we know we won’t be getting that from the Dems. Indeed, it’s becoming increasingly likely the entire party may end up falling on the sword that is the Russia conspiracy theory.

As always, time will tell.

via IFTTT

The Conviction of an Activist for Laughing Portends Repression of Protest Under Trump

ORIGINAL LINK
  Women affiliated with CODEPINK protest during a confirmation hearing for Sen. Jeff Sessions, on Capitol Hill in New York, January 10, 2017. Desiree Fairooz, at center behind sign, is now on trial for giggling when a senator praised Sessions record of “treating all Americans equally under the law.” (Photo: Al Drago / The New […]

via IFTTT

Medical studies are almost always bogus | New York Post

Medical studies are almost always bogus | New York Post: "Luckily, there is a growing group of people working to expose the ugly side of how research is done. One of them is Stanford professor John Ioannidis, considered one of the heroes of the reproducibility movement. He’s written extensively on the topic, including a scathing paper titled “Why Most Published Scientific Research Findings Are False.”

He’s found, for example, out of tens of thousands of papers touting discoveries of specific genes linked to everything from depression to obesity, only 1.2 percent had truly positive results. Meanwhile, Dr. Ioannidis followed 49 studies that had been cited at least a thousand times — of which seven had been “flatly contradicted” by further research. This included one that claimed estrogen and progestin benefited women after hysterectomies “when in fact the drug combination increased the risk of heart disease and breast cancer.”"



'via Blog this'