twitter |This is what an *actual* attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and *unprecedented* decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan Establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment. I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.
Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice.
The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.
And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself.
The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
amgreatness | The abject narcissism of the insular Left is startling. They
apparently believe the American public is amnesiac enough to forget what
leftists once did, now that they’re doing the utter opposite. And they
assume we are to discount their hypocrisy and self-absorption simply
because they self-identify as erudite and moral and assume their
opponents are irredeemable and deplorable.
Impeachment
The Left is saturating the airwaves with outrage over the current
House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry. They allege that formally
investigating Joe Biden’s role in the family grifting operation is
somehow a poor constitutional precedent, if not out-of-bounds entirely.
So we hear further arguments that it will be unwise to impeach a
first-term president when he loses his House majority, that there is no
reason to “waste” congressional time and effort when Biden will be
automatically acquitted in the Democratically controlled Senate, and
that the impeachment is cynically timed to synchronize with president’s
reelection efforts.
All of these are the precise arguments many of us cited when Donald
Trump was impeached in December 2019 (as his reelection campaign began,
and immediately after being cleared of the 22-month,
$40-million-special-counsel Russian-collusion hoax).
The Democrats tried to remove an elected president over a phone call
without a special counsel’s report. So Trump was impeached only after
the 2018 election led to a Democratic House majority, which went from
eating up nearly two years of his administration in the
Russian-collusion hoax straight into the impeachment farce. There was no
concern about the cost to the nation of putting an elected government
into a continual state of siege.
There is one difference, though, between the Trump impeachment and
the Biden impeachment inquiry. Donald Trump was impeached because he
accurately accused the members of the Ukrainian government of paying
Hunter Biden, with his zero fossil fuel expertise, an astronomical sum
to serve on the Burisma board—as the costly quid that earned the
lucrative quo from his dad Vice President Joe Biden.
No one now denies that Joe Biden got prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired
by threatening to cancel legislatively-approved U.S. aid. Shokin knew
about the skullduggery through which the Biden family eventually
received $6.5 million from Ukraine—and so Biden ensured his firing, and
publicly bragged about it in performance-art fashion.
In sum, Trump had a perfect right as commander in chief to delay (he
did not cancel) aid to Ukraine, to ensure that its government was not
still paying off the Bidens for their lobbying efforts on its behalf.
epochtimes | The
U.S. Space Command, the Pentagon’s newest and 11th combatant command,
has reached full operating capability, according to its commander, Army
Gen. James Dickinson.
Gen. Dickinson made the declaration during a headquarters town hall on Dec. 15, according to a statement. The U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM) was created in 2019 at the direction of former President Donald Trump.
“Since
its establishment in 2019, USSPACECOM has been singularly focused on
delivering exquisite capability to the joint force to deter conflict,
defend our vital interests, and, if necessary, defeat aggression,” Gen.
Dickinson said.
“Thanks
to the disciplined initiative of our people and the support of our
joint, combined, and partnered team, I can confidently say we have
reached full operational capability.”
He
explained that the announcement followed an “in-depth evaluation of the
command’s capabilities,” including the ability to execute its mission
on “our worst day, when we are needed the most.”
The
declaration of full operating capability met certain criteria,
including having the appropriate numbers of skills across the human
capital and having the necessary command processes and functions in
place, according to Gen. Dickinson.
“As
the command has matured, challenges to a safe, secure, stable, and
sustainable space domain have significantly increased,” Gen. Dickinson
said. “Both the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation
are fielding counter space capabilities designed to hold U.S., Allied,
and partner space assets at risk.”
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has said that it'll become a “major space power” sometime around 2030 and that it's planning to double the size of its space station in the next few years.
Rick Fischer, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, in a commentary published by The Epoch Times last month, warned that “China has no hesitation to arm its space stations and other large manned space platforms, including its bases on the moon and beyond,” no matter what China’s state-run media have stated.
“Until
the CCP expires or abandons its ambitions for hegemony on Earth, the
United States and its partners in space will need to achieve security,
meaning they will require military capabilities in space to use against
Beijing’s manned and unmanned space systems intended to attack the
democracies,” Mr. Fischer added.
The
command had completed its first training exercise with the U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command, which “served as a major step in validating the
headquarters staff as a ready, joint force,” Gen. Dickinson said.
“Our
work continues,” he said. “As the complexity of the domain grows, so
must our capability to deliver operational and strategic effects to our
nation and preserve the safety and stability of the domain.”
In July, President Joe Biden said the U.S. Space Command’s headquarters would remain at Peterson Air Force in Colorado Springs, Colorado, reversing President Trump’s plans to move it to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.
Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) both released statements on Dec. 15 welcoming the command’s news.
thepressunited |The US Department of Defense has failed its sixth annual audit in a row, but taxpayer money will keep going down that drain
Recently, the Pentagon admitted it couldn’t account for trillions of
dollars of US taxpayer money, having failed a massive yearly audit for
the sixth year running.
The process consisted of the 29 sub-audits of the DoD’s various
services, and only seven passed this year – no improvement over the
last. These audits only began taking place in 2017, meaning that the
Pentagon has never successfully passed one.
This year’s failure made some headlines, was commented upon briefly
by the mainstream media, and then just as quickly forgotten by an
American society accustomed to pouring money down the black hole of
defense spending.
The defense budget of the United States is grotesquely large, its
$877 billion dwarfing the $849 billion spent by the next ten nations
with the largest defense expenditures. And yet, the Pentagon cannot
fully account for the $3.8 trillion in assets and $4 trillion in
liabilities it has accrued at US taxpayer expense, ostensibly in defense
of the United States and its allies. As the Biden administration seeks
$886 billion for next year’s defense budget (and Congress seems prepared
to add an additional $80 billion to that amount), the apparent
indifference of the American collective – government, media, and public –
to how nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars will be spent speaks
volumes about the overall bankrupt nature of the American
establishment.
Audits, however, are an accountant’s trick, a series of numbers on a
ledger which, for the average person, do not equate to reality.
Americans have grown accustomed to seeing big numbers when it comes to
defense spending, and as a result, we likewise expect big things from
our military. But the fact is, the US defense establishment increasingly
physically resembles the numbers on the ledgers the accountants have
been trying to balance – it just doesn’t add up.
Despite spending some $2.3 trillion on a two-decade military
misadventure in Afghanistan, the American people witnessed the
ignominious retreat from that nation live on TV in August 2021.
Likewise, a $758 billion investment in the 2003 invasion and subsequent
decade-long occupation of Iraq went south when the US was compelled to
withdraw in 2011– only to return in 2014 for another decade of chasing
down ISIS, itself a manifestation of the failures of the original Iraqi
venture. Overall, the US has spent more than $1.8 trillion on its
20-year nightmare in Iraq and Syria.
scheerpost | srael will appear triumphant after it finishes its genocidal campaign in Gaza and the West Bank.
Backed by the United States, it will achieve its demented goal. Its
murderous rampages and genocidal violence will exterminate or ethnically
cleanse Palestinians. Its dream of a state exclusively for Jews, with
any Palestinians who remain stripped of basic rights, will be realized.
It will revel in its blood-soaked victory. It will celebrate its war
criminals. Its genocide will be erased from public consciousness and
tossed into Israel’s huge black hole of historical amnesia. Those with a
conscience in Israel will be silenced and persecuted.
But by the time Israel achieves its decimation of Gaza — Israel is talking about months
of warfare — it will have signed its own death sentence. Its facade of
civility, its supposed vaunted respect for the rule of law and
democracy, its mythical story of the courageous Israeli military and
miraculous birth of the Jewish nation, will lie in ash heaps. Israel’s
social capital will be spent. It will be revealed as an ugly,
repressive, hate-filled apartheid regime, alienating younger generations
of American Jews. Its patron, the United States, as new generations
come into power, will distance itself from Israel the way it is
distancing itself from Ukraine. Its popular support, already eroded in
the U.S., will come from America’s Christianized fascists who
see Israel’s domination of ancient Biblical land as a harbinger of the
Second Coming and in its subjugation of Arabs a kindred racism and white
supremacy.
Palestinian blood and suffering — 10 times the number of children have been killed in
Gaza as in two years of war in Ukraine — will pave the road to Israel’s
oblivion. The tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of ghosts will have
their revenge. Israel will become synonymous with its victims the way
Turks are synonymous with the Armenians, Germans are with the Namibians
and later the Jews, and Serbs are with the Bosniaks. Israel’s cultural,
artistic, journalistic and intellectual life will be exterminated.
Israel will be a stagnant nation where the religious fanatics, bigots
and Jewish extremists who have seized power will dominate public
discourse. It will find its allies among other despotic regimes.
Israel’s repugnant racial and religious supremacy will be its defining
attribute, which is why the most retrograde white supremists in the U.S.
and Europe, including philo-semites such as John Hagee, Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene, fervently back Israel. The vaunted fight against anti-Semitism is a thinly disguised celebration of White Power.
Despotisms can exist long after their past due date. But they are
terminal. You don’t have to be a Biblical scholar to see that Israel’s lust for
rivers of blood is antithetical to the core values of Judaism. The
cynical weaponization of the Holocaust, including branding Palestinians
as Nazis, has little efficacy when you carry out a live streamed
genocide against 2.3 million people trapped in a concentration camp.
africasacountry |By pre-modern I mean the period before
the establishment of the centralized structure of power known as the
modern nation-state. This period differs from one part of the world to
another. In Africa and the Middle East, the nation-state is a recent
colonial creation.
Before the development of centralized
power, there were different forms of political powers that coexisted in
society. The rulers, whether one calls them kings or emperors or
sultans, held one form of political power, which we shall call royal
power. In places like Buganda, this royal power could be further subdivided into the power of the kabaka (king), the power of the namasole (queen mother), the power of lubuga (royal sister), and so on.
But there were also other society-based political powers held by the clans, the shrine,
the church, and so on. In the lands of Islam, the mufti produced (i.e.
interpreted) the Shari’ah (Islamic law), which coexisted with the laws
made by the rulers. The mufti’s legal opinion, though nonbinding, informed many judgments in the courts of law.
Thus the mufti was an important political authority even if he held no
government office. Elsewhere, the church made its own laws that
coexisted with the laws of the kings and emperors.
This kind of political arrangement in
which power was spread rather concentrated in one entity means that
there was no single political authority that determined who should be
included in or excluded from the political community. An outsider who
was rejected by one clan could be admitted by another. A heretic who was
persecuted in one village could find peace in a neighboring village. A
cultural stranger who was denounced today could be accepted tomorrow.
The terms of inclusion and exclusion were contestable, flexible and
abstract. There was no permanent or universal outsider.
The modern state, on the other hand,
does two things. First, it centralizes and monopolizes all political
power, including the power to determine who is a citizen and who is not.
Even if a clan in northern Uganda admits a Somali as its member, the
state of Uganda reserves the authority to revoke the citizenship of this
new clan member.
Second, the modern state
institutionalizes and reifies the criteria for determining who is
included and who is excluded in the political community. In Uganda, a
full citizen must be a member of an indigenous community that was living
within the borders of Uganda by February 1, 1926, as noted earlier.
This makes the nation-state an
inherently and extremely discriminatory form of political association
with no precedent in history. It seeks to dominate society completely
with specific emphasis on marginalizing and colonizing certain sections
of society.
To mitigate the marginalization of the
minorities, liberals (such as John Locke) introduced the ideas of
tolerance within the framework of secularism. The liberal nation-state
creates two spheres, namely, the public sphere and the private domain.
The private is the domain of religion and other cultural identities
while the public is the sphere of reason.
To ensure peaceful coexistence between
the national community and the minorities, liberals prescribe that
matters to do with religion, culture, and identity should be personal
business confined to the private domain. Public principle, including
state law, should be based on reason, not religion or any other cultural
prejudice. The assumption is that reason is neutral and objective
rather than being socially constructed. How can reason and public
principle be neutral and objective in an identity-based state? How can
an identity-based state produce a law that is detached from the cultural
identity of the state?
But there is even a bigger problem. If
liberal tolerance appears to have worked, it has only worked where the
minorities are too weak to threaten the dominance of the national
majority. Where the minorities gain some power and influence, they are
seen as a threat that must be dealt with. The rising popularity of far
right parties in Europe is partly fuelled by the supposition that the
minorities, including the Muslims and migrants, are purportedly gaining ground in these countries.
Indeed, Zionist ethnic cleansing
possibly seeks to reduce the Palestinians to small manageable numbers
that could eventually be tolerated without threatening the dominance of
the Jewish national community. The liberal notion of tolerance only
requires the national majority to tolerate the minorities, but it does
not ask why there should be a national majority in the first place. Thus
liberal tolerance does not offer a
meaningful solution to the fundamental problem of the nation-state,
which is rooted in the distinction between the national community and
the minorities.
All liberal interventions have failed
to end ethnic cleansing because liberalism operates within the framework
of the nation-state. Liberalism has no critique of the nation-state as
nation-state—it only critiques certain manifestations of the
nation-state. In other words, liberalism has no critique of the problem
itself; it only focuses on certain manifestations of the problem.
It is this conceptual narrowness of
liberalism that prompts political actors to create more nation-states as
a solution to the violence of the nation-state. When Jews were
persecuted in Europe, the European powers could not think of a better
solution than creating a separate nation-state for Jews. The consequence
was to reproduce the violence of the nation-state, this time in the
form of Zionist ethnic cleansing in Palestine. It is for this reason
that the ongoing problem in Palestine cannot be meaningfully addressed
by resorting to the so-called two-state solution.
If such a solution was to be adopted,
what would happen to the non-Jews living in the Jewish state and what
would happen to the non-Palestinians living in the Palestinian state?
Considering that neither Jews nor the Palestinians are a homogenous
category, how would the state deal with internal differences in the form
of religious sects and ethnic factions of its national community?
thehill | New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) went after former President Trump on Friday, arguing that a second Trump term would be hampered by “chaos and distraction.”
“The guy just has chaos and distraction that follows him,” he said in an MSNBC interview Friday. “He’s not going to be able to get the stuff that we need done to fix this country.”
“Republicans want to go forward with the next generation of conservative
leadership,” he continued, downplaying the former president. “We always
want to be looking forward to the next opportunity to actually get
stuff done. Not just looking in the rearview mirror, worrying about
Trump litigating things.”
Sununu endorsed former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley for
the GOP nomination on Tuesday. He used Friday’s interview to
springboard more reasons why he believes Haley is better suited for the
White House.
“Her numbers were surging long before I even got on board because she’s connecting with folks,” he said.
“By doing that, by spending time on the ground with our voters, she’s
earning their trust, and trust is a very rare thing in Washington
nowadays. People are liking it,” he continued. “She’s got that charisma,
more than any other candidate out there. And that connection is why
you’re seeing her numbers jump up.”
Despite the endorsement, Sununu complimented her GOP primary rivals Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,
calling them “great friends of mine” and “good candidates.” He offered
no compliment for Trump or biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Haley has been gaining momentum in the polls, notably in New Hampshire, and often coming in second place. But, Trump still remains the clear GOP front-runner.
TCH | Corporations, mostly modern multinationals (special interest group), write the legislation. The corporations then contract the lobbyists. Lobbyists then take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.
The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is sub-contracted to a segment of DC operations known as K-Street. That’s where the lobbyists reside. Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress lucrative commissions for passing their laws. That’s the modern legislative business in DC.
When we talk about paying-off politicians in third-world countries we call it bribery. However, when we undertake the same process in the U.S. we call it “lobbying”. Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws. In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.
Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now. Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.
The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests. These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.
In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.
Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.
Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in the corporate media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it. Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.
The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves. The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it. “Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.
Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc. The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.
Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.
The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.
Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group. When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.
While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.
This is the way legislation is created.
If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism.
The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.
Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.
When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.
The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.
Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.
Why?
Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.
Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.
President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.
The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.
As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.
Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.
Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.
Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.
No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.
Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system. Republicans and democrats hate the presidency of Donald Trump because it is hurting them financially.
President Trump is not figuratively hurting the financial livelihoods of DC politicians; he’s literally doing it. President Trump is not an esoteric problem for them; his impact is very real, very direct, and hits almost every politician in the most painful place imaginable, the bank account.
In the pre-Trump process there were millions upon millions, even billions that could be made by DC politicians and their families. Thousands of very indulgent and exclusive livelihoods attached to the DC business model. At the center of this operation is the lobbying and legislative purchase network. The Big Club.
Without the ability to position personal wealth and benefit from the system, why would a politician stay in office? It is a fact the income of many long-term politicians on both wings of the uniparty bird were completely disrupted by Trump winning the 2016 election. That is one of the key reasons why so many politicians retired in 2018.
When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.
When we understand the business of DC we understand why the entire network hates President Donald Trump.
Ep. 51 It’s becoming obvious that the US government has made contact with nonhuman beings. So why are they lying to us about it? We asked UFO whistleblower Dave Grusch. pic.twitter.com/IP1dV29KnI
I know @RepMikeTurner has been catching much of the flak for spearheading the watering down of the UAPDA, but a special mention must be made to my home state’s 4th district Rep and HPSCI ranking member @jahimes for also reportedly running around during the NDAA conference committee and making last minute efforts to lobby for removal of the most important enforcement and oversight provisions from the original Schumer-Rounds amendment. Thanks to @ChrisUKSharp and his investigative journalism for that anecdote.
People need to understand it wasn’t just the NatSec wing of House Republicans that sunk the UAPDA. I myself am a registered Democrat who is informed on this topic and has found common cause with many Republicans to want to see transparency. Publicly playing coy with and seeming hopelessly mystified by the topic of UAP on late night shows, while quietly thumbing the scale behind the scenes like this will not be looked upon kindly.
To whatever staffer of @jahimes is tasked with managing his Twitter account, make no mistake—people with the knowledge and agency to make noise about this issue know what happened here"
politico | Elise Stefanik’s viral line of
questioning of an elite trio of university presidents last week over how
to respond to calls for the genocide of Jews didn’t just spark
bipartisan outrage and lead to a high-profile resignation. It settled a
personal score the congresswoman had with her alma mater, which had all
but disowned her in the wake of Jan. 6.
Back then, in 2021, the dean of
Harvard University’s school of government said the New York
congresswoman’s comments about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential
election had “no basis in evidence,” and the Harvard Institute of
Politics removed Stefanik from its senior advisory committee. Stefanik
at the time criticized what she described as “the ivory tower’s march
toward a monoculture of like-minded, intolerant liberal views.”
Mitch
Daniels, the retired former president of Purdue University and a former
Republican governor of Indiana, called it “higher ed’s Bud Light moment”
— referring to the beermaker’s divisive ad campaign featuring a
transgender influencer — “when people who hang out with only people who
adhere to what has become prevailing and dominant ideologies on campuses
and suddenly discover there’s a world of people out there who
disagrees.”
Republicans,
of course, have been the loudest voices defending Stefanik. Daniels,
who has also testified before hostile lawmakers on behalf of his
university, mocked that the administrators Stefanik questioned retained
the white-shoe law firm WilmerHale to prepare.
dailycaller |“[DEI] is the main cause of anti-Semitism today. It divides students
along racial and religious lines and creates a zero-sum game. If you’re
in favor of one group you’re [against] another group,” Dershowitz told
Fox Business host Larry Kudlow. “It is a real problem. It is
anti-intellectual, it is dishonest in many ways. Look, it uses the word
diversity, but only means racial diversity. Less than 3% of the faculty
at Harvard identify as conservative. They say equity, which suggests
equality, but equity is the exact opposite of equality. Indeed under
equity, if you dare to quote Martin Luther King’s dream of a world where
children are judged not by the color of their skin, but by content of
their character, you have committed a microaggression. Inclusion, Larry
Summers made it clear that inclusion has excluded Jews over the years.”
“So, it’s a fraudulent concept, a dangerous concept, but 700 of my
colleagues at Harvard, professors have come out pandering to President
Gay and calling for her to remain on,” Dershowitz continued. “They don’t
want people like you and me, who are now outsiders to have any
influence on Harvard but they refuse to answer the legitimate points
made by people like Bill Ackerman, they just dismiss him out of hand
because he’s a rich alumni.”
Gay issued a clarification in a statement posted on X Wednesday, a day after she was grilled by Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York about antisemitic actions on the university’s campus.
“Schools
are, colleges and universities are not only the current faculty, not
only the current students but they are alumni and they are the future
students, they are great institutions and DEI is destroying these
institutions and President Gay is a product of DEI,” Dershowitz said.
“She championed it. That’s how she became president. She is the symbol
of DEI and the symbol has failed and she must also recognize her own
failure and her role in that failure.”
modernity |Al Gore says that people having access to information outside
of mainstream media sources is a threat to “democracy” and that social
media algorithms “ought to be banned.”
Yes, really.
Gore made the comments during an appearance at the Cop28 climate change hysteria conference in Dubai.
Gore whined that social media had “disrupted the balances that used
to exist that made representative democracy work much better.”
The former Vice President said that functioning democracy relied on a
“shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together
collectively” but that “social media that is dominated by algorithms”
upsets this balance.
According to Gore, people are being pulled down “rabbit holes” by
algorithms that are “the digital equivalent of AR-15s – they ought to be
banned, they really ought to be banned!”
Gore claimed, “It’s an abuse of the public forum” and that people were being sucked into echo chambers.
“If you spend too much time in the echo chamber, what’s weaponized is
another form of AI, not artificial intelligence, artificial insanity!
I’m serious!” he added.
Apparently, the only echo chamber that should be allowed to exist is
Gore’s own rabbit hole, wherein the earth is constantly on the brink of
destruction thanks to people not obeying his technocratic mandates.
Perhaps Gore is unhappy at his own misinformation being fact checked
by individuals who have access to information not produced by corporate
media sources that are friendly to him.
Gore infamously predicted that the north polar ice cap would be “ice free” within 5 to 7 years.
popehat |Stefanik’s purpose was transparent. No matter how the college
presidents answered, she won. If they answered accurately — that the
question depended on the context - she could shriek neeeeeerrrrrrdddd like
a football player bullying a kid with glasses, and credulous people
would eat it up. If the presidents answered inaccurately but simply
“yes,” she could make her next point: then why aren’t you punishing
people who advocate intifada? Why aren’t you expelling students for
saying “from the river to the sea”? Why aren’t you punishing people for
accusing Israel of genocide? That was her express, explicit purpose:
Congresswoman Stefanik:
Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate
MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or
no?
President Kornbluth:If targeted at individuals not making public statements.
Congresswoman Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?
President Kornbluth:I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
Congresswoman Stefanik:But you've heard chants for Intifada.
There’s
the rhetorical trick. Calling for Intifada is not the same as calling
for the genocide of the Jews, and it’s just dishonest to say it is. Not
all Jews are Israeli. Arguing that a particular group has a moral
right to violent revolution against the power over it is not a call for
the genocide of a group. The argument about when violent revolution is
morally justified is ancient.
Whether or not you agree that Israel is tyrannical or the Palestinians
are unjustifiably oppressed, you can’t outlaw arguments that they are
and pretend you’re anything but an absolute censor. The hearing was
full of gripes like that — contentions that the slogan “from the river
to the sea” should be outlawed and complaints that colleges had invited
speakers with radical pro-Palestinian views. The crystal clear message
was we think protecting Jews from antisemitism requires suppressing a broad range of speech from Them.
You
might say I am being more than usually uncharitable in this post.
That’s because I think people falling for Stefanik’s gambit have been
more than usually gullible. They’ve become useful idiots for evil.
They’ve become the dupes of people who will wave the banner of “fight
antisemitism” while pushing Great Replacement Theory. They’ve become
the patsies of people who transparently want to use Jews as an
instrument and excuse to suppress speech they don’t like. They’ve
become the creatures of cynical, dishonest politicians who want to treat
hard things like they are simple to rile up mobs.
dailycaller | Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York warned colleges and
universities in a letter on Saturday that she would order legal action
against them if they fail to address antisemitism on campus.
Three
university presidents appeared before Congress on Dec. 5 to testify
about antisemitism on their campuses, after which they were heavily criticized for failing to say whether “calling for genocide against Jews” violated their institutions’ codes of conduct. Hochul wrote
to all colleges and universities in New York that a failure to address
antisemitism would result in legal action from the state under New York
State Human Rights Law and Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of
1964.
“I assure you that if any school in
New York State is found to be in violation, I will activate the State’s
Division of Human Rights to take aggressive enforcement action and will
refer possible Title VI violations to the federal government,” Hochul wrote in the letter, which was posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.
UPenn’s president and chairman of the board of trustees resigned on Saturday, while Harvard’s president issued a public apology amid calls for her removal.
“The moral lapses that were evidenced by the disgraceful answers to
questions posed during this week’s congressional testimony hearing
cannot and will not be tolerated here in the State of New York,” Hochul
wrote.
Hochul has previously dealt with fallout from an antisemitic controversy at a university in her own state. Police arrested Cornell University undergraduate student Patrick Dai on Oct. 31 for allegedly making violent threats to commit a mass shooting against Cornell’s Center for Jewish Living.
“Gov.
Hochul cannot command colleges and universities to violate the First
Amendment. Nor may she enforce state law to compel action against speech
protected by the First Amendment,” the Foundation for Individual Rights
and Expression told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Broad, vague
bans on ‘calls for genocide,’ absent more, would result in the censorship of protected expression.”
newrepublic | The
question of Kissinger’s alleged antisemitism is a complicated one. Yes,
he told a friend in the 1970s that Judaism “has no significance for
me,” according to Walter Isaacson’s 1992 biography, and is also quoted
as having said in 1972, “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I
would be antisemitic.” Another gem from that year: “Any people who has
been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”
But
to be fair, these views were not as uncommon among German Jews in the
United States as one might wish them to have been. One can find
similarly disturbing quotes in the private discussions of say, the great
pundit and political philosopher Walter Lippmann and the longtime New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger. When confronted with Richard Nixon’s frequently hysterical antisemitic rants about “dirty rotten Jews from New York” who dared to reveal the truth about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in the Times
or some such thing, Kissinger usually tried to placate the president
without explicitly agreeing or disagreeing. But when he felt Jews,
whether American or Israeli, were refusing to cooperate with his plans,
he was more than happy to join in, once complaining to Nixon that he had
“never seen such cold-blooded playing with the American national interest”
as when American Jewish leaders supported Israel’s position over that
of the Nixon administration. The Israelis at various times were “as
obnoxious as the Vietnamese,” “boastful,” “psychopathic,” “fools,” “a
sick bunch,” and “the world’s worst shits.” As for American Jewish leaders, “They seek to prove their manhood by total acquiescence in whatever Jerusalem wants.”
Kissinger
was a Jew who found other Jews exceptionally annoying—none more so than
Israelis, with whom he frequently negotiated but failed to get to do
things his way. The question is, was he worse about Jews and Israel than
about anyone else who refused to genuflect before what he understood to
be his genius? To be fair to someone who really doesn’t deserve it,
Kissinger, like Nixon, would tend toward churlish, racist reactions when
anyone rebuffed him. When, for instance, Indian Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi refused to go along with his plans for a secret opening to China,
he informed the president that “well, the Indians are bastards anyway,” and Gandhi herself was “a bitch.”
But
Kissinger also engaged in explicitly antisemitic actions himself. When,
in September 1973, Nixon appointed him to be secretary of state,
Kissinger thanked him for saying nothing about his “Jewish background.”
And as he doled out jobs to his aides, he made certain to count the Jews
to ensure there were not too many of them. He explained that while he
knew that it required 10 Jews for a minyan (Jewish prayer service), he
could not “have them all on the seventh floor.”
Kissinger also once removed a counselor, good friend, and fellow German
Jew, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, from a list of aides scheduled to accompany
the president to Germany because he said,
“I don’t think too many Jews should be around.” But here again, he was
likely not acting out of personal anti-Jewish animus. Rather he was
behaving cravenly in the face of what he judged to be the Jew-hatred of
others, especially Nixon, who famously ordered an aide to count the
number of Jews working in the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For the
purpose of history, the most important aspects of Kissinger’s hostility
to Jews and Israel can be seen in his conduct related to the 1973 “Yom
Kippur War.” Kissinger apologists have consistently attempted to give
him the credit that belongs almost entirely to Jimmy Carter for the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Martin Indyk, a longtime diplomat and Kissinger acolyte, actually published a 688-page book titled Master of the Game, making exactly this comical claim.
The
truth is that Kissinger’s machinations were at least partially
responsible for the fact of the war itself. Egypt’s visionary leader
Anwar Sadat made clear to Kissinger and company that he was interested
in a peace agreement with Israel (and moving his allegiance from the
Russians to the Americans). The Israelis expressed interest at the time,
but Kissinger instructed them that they were “wasting time” in taking
Sadat seriously. To make certain the Israelis went along with his plans,
he secretly bribed them with a promise of over 100 U.S. Phantom fighter
jets. His overture rejected, Sadat eventually decided that another war
to avenge the humiliation of 1967 was his only choice to lay the
groundwork for an eventual deal. Even Indyk, who treats Kissinger’s
famous “shuttle diplomacy” between Israel and Egypt after the war as one
of the great achievements of American diplomatic history, admitted in
his book that Kissinger “might have averted the Yom Kippur War” by taking Sadat seriously earlier.
Kissinger
also helped ensure that Israel would be unprepared for the Egyptian
attack. According to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan’s secret testimony
before Israel’s 1974 Commission of Inquiry, just before the war began,
Kissinger warned Israel that if it wanted any help from the United
States in the event of hostilities, then it should not make a preemptive
strike against Egypt or Syria or to mobilize the reserve army before
the war actually started. These warnings were given after Kissinger
insisted that all other Americans leave the room and no notes be taken.
Dayan then canceled his air force’s preemptive operation and objected to
Golda Meir’s plan to mobilize the reserves. Kissinger is not known to
have given any similar warning to the Egyptians. Indeed, according to Sadat’s memoirs,
Kissinger actually encouraged the attack, via secret messages, in order
to improve Egypt’s negotiating position in the war’s aftermath. To my
knowledge, Kissinger never addressed this.
Kissinger wanted Israel
to suffer a significant setback before it finally won the war. He
succeeded at this at an enormous cost in lost lives on both sides. As
the Egyptian army marched toward Tel Aviv, he informed Sadat and company
that the United States was doing merely the minimum to aid Israel that
was possible under the circumstances. After eight days of fighting,
however, Nixon insisted, over Kissinger’s objections, on implementing a
massive emergency weapons airlift. He did this despite Kissinger’s
warning that victory would make Israel “even more impossible to deal with than before.”
Kissinger
came in for extremely harsh criticism from some American Jews in this
period. Hans Morgenthau, a respected international relations scholar
whom Kissinger personally revered, went so far as to compare
the pressure he was applying to Israel to the way the West had treated
Czechoslovakia in 1938 when it was threatened by Hitler. To try to
disarm such critics, Kissinger undertook a series of off-the-record
meetings with Jewish writers and intellectuals and another with leaders
of Jewish organizations.
The
former group spanned the political spectrum, from the democratic
socialists Irving Howe and Michael Walzer to neoconservatives such as
Seymour Martin Lipset and Norman Podhoretz. There was no room for
disagreement between the two poles, however, because the only issue
discussed was Israel’s security and how to best ensure it. Kissinger
posed as Israel’s savior and warned of a noticeable turn against all-out
support for Israel in Congress. (Actually, the opposite was true.
Congress was far more pro-Israel than Kissinger was.) He pointed out
that, given the “critical opposition” to Israel within the international
community, the perfidy of the “European vultures,” and the likely
success of the “extremely effective” OPEC oil embargo, which would give
the Arab world more leverage over the West and turn consumers in both
the U.S. and Europe against Israel. Israel was “in great danger.” What
he needed, he explained,
was for influential American Jews to “privately … make clear to the
Israelis that you understand the situation.” The meeting broke up,
according to the notes taken by an aide to Kissinger, “with warm
expressions of gratitude.”
NYTimes | Richard M. Nixon
has long been the Freddy Krueger of American political life. You know in
your bones that he is destined to keep returning.
Sure
enough, though dead 16 years, Nixon is back onstage, with the release
of a fresh batch of tapes from his Oval Office days. They show him at
his omni-bigoted worst, offering one slur after another against the
Irish, Italians and blacks. Characteristically, he saved his most potent
acid for Jews. “The Jews,” he said, “are just a very aggressive and
abrasive and obnoxious personality.”
But
Nixon’s hard-wired anti-Semitism is an old story. What has caused many
heads to swivel is a recording of Henry A. Kissinger, his national
security adviser. Mr. Kissinger is heard telling Nixon in 1973 that
helping Soviet Jews emigrate and thus escape oppression by a
totalitarian regime — a huge issue at the time — was “not an objective
of American foreign policy.”
“And if
they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union,” he added, “it is
not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”
In New York, the
epicenter of Jewish life in the United States, some jaws are still not
back in place after dropping to the floor.
Bad
enough that any senior White House official would, without prodding,
raise the grotesque specter of Jews once again being herded into gas
chambers. But it was unbearable for some to hear that language come from
Mr. Kissinger, a Jew who as a teenager fled Nazi Germany with his
family, in 1938. Had he not found refuge in this country and in this
city — the Kissingers settled in Washington Heights — he might have
ended up in a gas chamber himself.
“Despicable,”
“callous,” “revulsion,” “hypocrite,” “chilling” and “shocking” were a
few of the words used this week by some leaders of Jewish organizations
and by newspapers that focus on Jewish matters.
Conspicuously, however, many groups and prominent individuals stayed
silent. They include people who would have almost certainly spoken up
had coldhearted talk of genocide come from the likes of Mel Gibson or
Patrick J. Buchanan, neither a stranger to provocative comments about
Jews.
Even some who
deplored Mr. Kissinger’s remarks tempered their criticism. The
Anti-Defamation League called the recorded statements “outrageous,” but
said they did not undermine “the important contributions and ultimate
legacy of Henry Kissinger,” including his support of Israel. The
American Jewish Committee described the remarks as “truly chilling,” but
suggested that anti-Semitism in the Nixon White House might have been
at least partly to blame.
“Perhaps
Kissinger felt that, as a Jew, he had to go the extra mile to prove to
the president that there was no question as to where his loyalties lay,”
the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in a statement.
There
was no hedging in editorials by Jewish-themed newspapers like The
Forward and The Jewish Week. Separately, in a Jewish Week column,
Menachem Z. Rosensaft, a New York lawyer who is active in
Holocaust-related issues, dismissed Mr. Kissinger as “the quintessential court Jew.” And J. J. Goldberg, a Forward columnist, wrote, “No one has ever gone broke overstating Kissinger’s coldbloodedness.”
Now
87, Mr. Kissinger confined himself this week to a brief statement that
said his taped comments “must be viewed in the context of the time.”
Back
then, American Jewish groups strongly supported legislation that would
have made any improvement in American-Soviet trade relations contingent
on freer emigration by Soviet Jews. The president and Mr. Kissinger
rejected that approach, which was rooted in human rights concepts not
suited to their power politics, or realpolitik. They were bluntly angry
at Jewish organizations for pushing hard on the issue.
In his statement,
Mr. Kissinger said of Jewish emigration that “we dealt with it as a
humanitarian matter separate from the foreign policy issues.” That
approach, he said, led to a significant rise in the number of Jews
permitted to leave the Soviet Union. In fact, it did, for a while
anyway.
Still, that “gas chamber” line
is about as ugly as it gets. It seems unlikely to change many views of a
man who is both widely admired and widely hated, but there is one word
that just might haunt Mr. Kissinger to his final days.
Genocide is “not an American concern,” he said, but “maybe a humanitarian concern.”
dailysignal | First, the Left—and
university presidents are almost the Platonic ideal of intellectual
leftists—believes that Jews are not part of the intersectional coalition
of the oppressed. By leftist logic, Jews are part of the superstructure
of power, since all success is merely a reflection of hierarchies of
power, and Jews are disproportionately successful. Thus Jews cannot be
victims.
Then there’s the second reason: The hard Left hates Israel. The Left hates Israel because, like American Jews, Israel is too successful
in the region in which it is located. Israel, according to the Left, is
a colonialist outpost of the West, and the West is evil because it too
is successful—which means that it is exploitative and oppressive.
Hence the Left’s rabid attachment to the idea that calls for Israel’s
destruction are somehow not antisemitic, but actually a reflection of a
more universalistic humanitarian creed.
Sure, that creed would actually materialize in the death of millions
of Jews and the dominance of radical Muslim terrorism. But that doesn’t
matter. After all, Israel is the real problem, because the West is the
real problem—and we know that’s true because the West and Israel are
successful.
According to the Left, radical Muslim regimes that impoverish their citizens aren’t worth one bit of attention. Israel, by contrast, ought to be destroyed.
So, what ought to be done?
First, donors ought to pull their money from such universities.
Second, businesses ought to start hiring directly out of high school
and stop treating the bizarre credentialing process of major
universities as worthwhile. It isn’t. Chances are better that you’ll get
a great employee by selecting a high school graduate with 1500 SAT and a
4.0 GPA than by selecting a Harvard graduate with the same statistics.
Finally, parents ought to stop subsidizing this nonsense with their own children.
The universities are corrupt through and through. Their endorsement
of DEI has been a curse to reason and decency. Their politics are vile,
and those politics also make the universities corrupt factories of moral
depravity.
foxnews | More than a dozen state attorneys general signed a letter to media outlets
such as the New York Times and Reuters, putting them "on notice" that
providing material support to terrorist organizations such as Hamas is
illegal, Fox News Digital exclusively learned.
"We
will continue to follow your reporting to ensure that your
organizations do not violate any federal or State laws by giving
material support to terrorists abroad. Now your organizations are on
notice. Follow the law," 14 state attorneys general stated in a letter
to the chiefs of CNN, The New York Times, Reuters and The Associated
Press on Monday afternoon.
Republican Iowa Attorney General
Brenna Bird spearheaded the letter, which detailed concerns that
journalists embedded with Hamas may actually have deep connections with
the terrorist organization "and may have participated in the October 7
attack."
"Reporting credibly alleges that some of the individuals that your
outlets hire have deep and troubling ties to Hamas—and may have
participated in the October 7 attack. In the wake of those alarming
reports, some of you have cut ties with these so-called journalists
whose connections to terror groups have become too obvious to hide.
Good. But one factor in determining whether an organization has provided
material support for terrorism is that it be ‘knowing,’" the letter
states.
The attorneys general said the four outlets have a responsibility to
fully vet potential hires and ensure they have no connections to
terrorist organizations before putting them on the payroll and embedding
them during armed conflicts.
"If your outlet’s current hiring practices led you to give material support to terrorists,
you must change these policies going forward. Otherwise, we must assume
any future support of terrorist organizations by your stringers,
correspondents, contractors, and similar employees is knowing behavior,"
they wrote.
The state AGs pointed to a recent letter sent by a
bipartisan group of lawmakers to Reuters asking "how its journalist knew
to be available for the October 7 attack," and called on the outlet to
address whether it had prior knowledge of the attack or if one of the
organization’s journalists had been in contact with Hamas before the
attack.
The letter went on to argue that the issue of providing material
support to terrorist organizations is not new, pointing to a watchdog
group telling the AP five years ago that "one of its journalists worked
for the Hamas-affiliated Quds TV." While The New York Times, the AGs
continued, published an op-ed in 2020 penned by Taliban deputy leader
Sirajuddin Haqqani.
"Mr. Haqqani himself is on the Department of
Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions List. Did the
Times pay for that piece? If so, whom did it pay? Was that payment consistent with federal and State laws? These questions are still unanswered," the letter stated.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
