Please, Refresh Page








God Bless America !

 "The best way to fight an enemy is head on- and out in the open."   This is interesting because the Congressional records only go back to 1994....  jt

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 25, 2017
Statement from President Donald J. Trump

The alleged leaks coming out of government agencies are deeply troubling. These leaks have been going on for a long time and my Administration will get to the bottom of this. The leaks of sensitive information pose a grave threat to our national security.

I am asking the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies to launch a complete review of this matter, and if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There is no relationship we cherish more than the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseMay 11, 2017
Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:45 P.M. EDT

MS. SANDERS: Another light crowd today. Good afternoon. First off, before we get started, I’d like to bring up Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert to tell you about an executive order on cybersecurity that the President just signed. He’ll take a few of your questions and, respectfully, I ask that you keep your questions for him on the topic of the executive order. And don’t worry, I’ll come back and answer all of the rest of your pressing questions as soon as he wraps up.

So with that, I’ll turn it over to Tom.

MR. BOSSERT: Thank you, Sarah. Thank you very much for your time. Couple of things positive to report today, and the first is that President Trump, about an hour ago, signed an executive order on cybersecurity. And that executive order, among other things, is going to keep his promise that he has made to the American people to keep America safe, including in cyberspace.

I’d like to do a few things. I’ll promise you that we will distribute the executive order, but if I could, I’ll preview the executive order for you, walk you through its three primary sections, some of its wave tops, and then take your questions.

Among other things, at least as an observation for me, I think the trend is going in the wrong direction in cyberspace, and it’s time to stop that trend and reverse it on behalf of the American people. We’ve seen increasing attacks from allies, adversaries, primarily nation states but also non-nation state actors, and sitting by and doing nothing is no longer an option. So President Trump’s action today is a very heartening one.

There are three sections. They’re in priority order, in a sense. The first priority for the President and for our federal government is protecting our federal networks. I think it’s important to start by explaining that we operate those federal networks on behalf of the American people, and they often contain the American people’s information and data, so not defending them is no longer an option. We’ve seen past hacks and past efforts that have succeeded, and we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening in the future.

So a few things on federal networks. We have practiced one thing and preached another. It’s time for us now, and the President today has directed his departments and agencies, to implement the NIST framework. It’s a risk-reduction framework. It is something that we have asked the private sector to implement, and not forced upon ourselves. From this point forward, departments and agencies shall practice what we preach and implement that same NIST framework for risk management and risk reduction.

The second, I think, of note -- point in protecting our federal networks is that we spent a lot of time and inordinate money protecting antiquated and outdated systems. We saw that with the OPM hack and other things. From this point forward, the President has issued a preference from today forward in federal procurement of federal IT for shared services -- got to move to the cloud and try to protect ourselves instead of fracturing our security posture.

Third point I would make is that the executive order directs all its department and agency heads to continue its key roles, but it also centralizes risk so that we view our federal IT as one enterprise network. If we don’t do so, we will not be able to adequately understand what risk exists and how to mitigate it.

Number of thoughts on that. Among other things, that is going to be a very difficult task. So modernizing is imperative for our security, but modernizing is going to require a lot of hard, good governance. And responsible for that today is the President’s American innovation -- Technology Council, I’m sorry. The President’s American Technology Council is going to run that effort on behalf of the President here out of the White House. And we have great hope that there will be efficiencies there, but also security.

And I would probably note to you that other countries have taken two or three years to learn what we just came up with in two or three months, and that is that we can’t promote innovation without first thinking through risk reduction. So doing that together is a message that we’ve learned, but doing it together is a message we’d like to encourage private sector folks to adopt.

So point two in the executive order is our critical infrastructure cybersecurity effort. The President has directed the President’s Cabinet to begin the hard work of protecting our nation’s most critical infrastructures -- utilities, financial and healthcare systems, telecommunications networks. He’s directed them to identify additional measures to defend and secure our critical infrastructure. And he’s continued to promote the message that doing nothing is no longer an option.

So the executive order not only requires his departments and agencies to help those critical infrastructure owners and operators and the most important ones, but to do it in a proactive sense. The message is a tilt towards action.

We’ve seen bipartisan studies, as an observation from me, over the last eight years, both parties. They’ve made powerful recommendations. They have not been adopted for various reasons. This executive order adopts the best and brightest of those recommendations, in my view.

I’m going to stop with those three and take questions.

Q Two questions for you real quickly. First --

MR. BOSSERT: Actually, if I could --

Q Yes, please. Brian.

MR. BOSSERT: Brian, go ahead.

Q First, was the Russian hack in any way responsible or an impetus for this? Number two, I’ve talked to IT people who say putting stuff on the cloud actually can be problematic as far as security. So what additional security measures would you apply to the cloud to make sure that it’s not as risky as some of the IT people tell us it would be?

MR. BOSSERT: Couple questions there. So let me say three things first. The third section of the executive order -- may be the one I skipped over here a moment ago -- speaks to two halves. It speaks to not only the need to develop the norms and the interoperable, open communication system that is the Internet -- the United States invented the Internet and it’s time to maintain our values on it -- but it also speaks to a deterrence policy which has long been overdue.

And so the Russians are not our only adversary on the Internet, and the Russians are not the only people that operate in a negative way on the Internet. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, other nation states are motivated to use cyber capacity and cyber tools to attack our people and our governments and their data. And that’s something that we can no longer abide. We need to establish the rules of the road for proper behavior on the Internet, but we also then need to deter those who don’t want to abide by those rules.

So the answer to your first question is, no, it wasn’t a Russian-motivated issue, it was a United States of America-motivated issue.

Q And the second question about the cloud, that security on the cloud -- IT people say it’s --

MR. BOSSERT: If we don’t move to shared services -- we have 190 agencies that are all trying to develop their own defenses against advanced protection and collection efforts. I don’t think that that’s a wise approach.

There’s always going to be risk. And so your questions is, are we still at risk? Yes. I’m not here to promote for you that the President has signed an executive order and created a cyber-secure world in a fortress U.S.A. That’s not the answer. But if we don’t move to secure services and shared services, we’re going to be behind the eight ball for a very long time.

Q Thank you.

MR. BOSSERT: You’re welcome. Sir.

Q You said “sitting around doing nothing.” Is it your contention that the Obama administration, that was its approach to cybersecurity? Sitting around and doing nothing? Question one. And number two, you talked about one enterprise network. Does that mean every system throughout the federal government under this executive order, the ambition is to make them all the same? Or protected in the same way?

MR. BOSSERT: No. So I’ll answer them in reverse order, if I can.

What we need to do is view the federal government as an enterprise as opposed to just viewing each department and agency as its own enterprise. So the Department of Homeland Security -- and Secretary Kelly will play a large and leading role in this effort in implementing the President’s executive order -- as an enterprise. And their enterprise network covers 340,000 or so employees and their contractors and so forth. They are responsible, and that Secretary of each department and agency will remain responsible, for securing those networks.

But we need to look at the federal government as an enterprise as well so that we no longer look at OPM and think, well, you can defend your OPM network with the money commensurate for the OPM responsibility. OPM, as you know, had the crown jewel, so to speak, of our information and all of our background and security clearances.

So what we’d like to do is look at that and say, that is a very high risk, high cost for us to bear, maybe we should look at this as an enterprise and put collectively more information in protecting them than we would otherwise put into OPM looking at their relevant importance to the entire --

Q So their budget, in other words.

MR. BOSSERT: No, not just their budget but based on what they do. So each department and agency has a responsibility to protect its own networks, but they now have a responsibility to identify their risk to the White House, to the President, so that we can look at what they’ve done and, just as importantly, what risk they know they’re accepting but not mitigating. There’s a lot of identified risk, but there’s also a lot of identified and not remediated risk.

So that mitigation strategy is going to have to come through a centralized place. We’ve seen other countries, Israel and others, adopt a centralized view of risk management and risk-acceptance decisions. So that’s the answer to your question.

The second question, though, maybe, is that --

Q “Sitting around doing nothing.” Is that the administration -- the previous administration’s approach, from your vantage point?

MR. BOSSERT: I think that the observation is that we have not done the basic block-and-tackling of thinking of the Internet as something that the American people benefit from. I think what we’ve done is focus on the federal IT portion of it. I think that a lot of progress was made in the last administration but not nearly enough. I think we’re going to change that. And I think looking at this from the perspective of a deterrence strategy, to be honest, yes, I think the last administration should have done that, had an obligation to do it and didn’t.

Q I was wondering if the administration has a view on what might constitute an act of war with regard -- what kind of cyberattack might constitute an act of war.

MR. BOSSERT: There’s a whole lot that we’ll talk about in terms of what constitutes a cyberattack, what’s war and what’s not war. The Tallinn Manual and other things are important. But I think the most important answer to your question is that we’re not going to draw a red line on cyberwar at this point today. It’s not within the direct scope of the executive order. But it also would violate I think the President’s primary mission he made to not telegraph our punches.

If somebody does something to the United States of America that we can’t tolerate, we will act.

Q You said that the goal of this is to secure the Internet. You talked about the Internet as something that Americans use and enjoy. Well, the technical standards for most things on the Internet are put together by many international standards organizations and engineers, and things like that that often aren’t in the United States. Has there been any talk of outreach to these sorts of bodies to try and build in security into the next generation of protocols?

MR. BOSSERT: Yeah, absolutely. So the message here is not just protecting the people of America. We have an “America first” perspective, but the idea of having likeminded people with similar viewpoints, like our allies, developing with us the open, operable Internet is something key to figuring out how we will define what is and is not acceptable.

We can’t cut off the Internet at our borders and then expect it to operate in a viable way. And if there are good ideas coming out of Germany, then we’ll take them. If there are good ideas coming out of Peoria, we’ll take them as well.

Q You mentioned the American Technology Council a short time ago. We really don’t have much of an indication that there’s going to be, like, significant Silicon Valley or tech leaders who are going to be coming here. We know that there have been reports the President has had a few phone calls with someone like Mark Zuckerberg. Can you enlighten us a bit? Who can we expect to see here coming to the White House next month? Can we expect to see someone like Mark Zuckerberg working closely with the administration when it comes to that council?

MR. BOSSERT: So let me go backwards a little bit. Instead of telling you who the President did and didn’t talk to -- I’ll probably get that wrong anyway -- I’ll tell you that there’s a lot to be learned from private industry. And among other things, that stuff needs to come into the White House in the appropriate way.

And so we talk on a regular basis to leaders, some that are technical leaders, some that are business leaders. My point of calling out the American Technology Council was to point out that they’re going to have a leadership role in modernizing our federal IT. And that has a lot of reasons, right? There’s efficiencies and cost-savings that are beyond just security.

So this executive order speaks to the security component of it. And I would direct you then to the American Technology Council and their efforts as you look through and think about those other efficiencies.

But as an example, we’ve heard numbers that suggest the federal government spends upwards of $40,000 per employee on their IT service costs. And that is so out of line with private industry that Secretary Ross and others would probably have a very easy time buying and making a lot of money off of a company that’s so poorly invested their dollars, and so I think you’ll see that innovation come from that group of leaders and thoughtful people.

And then in terms of what you’ll see over the next month, I would say I don't know the answer to that specifically, but I'd like to take the opportunity and the opening before Sarah pulls me to thank two or three people, and one of them high on my list is Mayor Giuliani. I'd like to thank him for the advice he’s given to me and to the President and to others as we formulate this thinking. I'd like to thank Representative McCaul. I'd like to thank a few other members of Congress -- Representatives Ratcliffe and Hurd; Representative Nunes, Senator Collins, Senator McCain, in particular; Senators Burr and Whitehouse. There’s a number of people that provided thought leadership and taken action to pass legislation -- all those things that we've liked and that has improved our cybersecurity over the last eight years.

So I don't want to be critical of things that have happened over the last eight years, but I do want to look forward to improvement.

Q Can you -- a former Obama administration official who dealt with other countries and other entities in other countries -- he said that there were tens of thousands of attempts to hack into government systems daily. Can you quantify, can you confirm or deny that?

MR. BOSSERT: No. The answer for “no” is that we see that happen and we then start getting into a numbers game. And what I think would be a better argument right now -- not to cut off that question, it’s a reasonable one, but the better answer here is for us to figure out how we can provide a better collective defense of our federal IT and those networks and data that we operate. If we do it based on an individual attack basis, we're probably looking at it in the wrong way.

Q So was this person correct when they said entities from around the world --

MR. BOSSERT: I would say it this way, without numbers -- the trend line is going in the wrong direction. We see additional attacks, additional numbers, additional volume, and occasionally additional successes that trouble us. And that's the best way I can quantify that for you today.

Q Thank you.

MR. BOSSERT: You're welcome. Thank you.

Q Can you just say why the cybersecurity order was delayed? This was going to come out one day early in the administration. And there had been a lot of talk about concern from Silicon Valley and tech leaders with the direction that it was going in. So are those -- do you have some sense of the kind of support that this order has, or not, from the tech world?

MR. BOSSERT: I want to answer you and even reject part of your question, if I can, and I think that will be clarifying. So first, I'll reject one part of your question. So we did see some concerns, but I don't think that they remain. And I look forward to their response after they read the President’s executive order today.

One of those concerns, for example, arose when they read the voluntary call of the President’s executive order, which I applaud today, that we reduce greatly the number of botnet attacks in the United States -- the distributed denial of service attacks. That's going to require voluntary cooperation among all the different owners and operators of different privately held companies -- from service providers to manufacturers of goods. And those things are going to have to happen voluntarily.

What the President calls for is for the government to provide the basis for that coordination, without defining who’s in and who’s out -- it's a voluntary operation. But we know that they have the technical capacity, if they have the will, to come together on behalf of the American people and reduce those botnets dramatically. And the President is calling for them to do that. He’s asking for the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Commerce to facilitate that.

And what we thought we saw was reflections of a concern that there would be a compulsion, and I think that's something that I can put to rest today -- and that's why I poked into your question a little bit.

But then, if I could, the broader question of delay, I don't really much take that either. I think sometimes we've been criticized for doing things too quickly, and now maybe we're being criticized for doing things to slowly. So maybe I'm right in the middle of the sweet spot, I would argue. But I think the President has hit this timing perfectly.

And I'll tell you three reasons why. One of the block-and-tackle things that he directed us to do before the executive order was to get the money right. He’s picked a Cabinet full of people that know that business operations and business functions have to follow first so that you can then provide policy that he can implement -- right? So policy sets direction and vision, but if you don't have the right money and back-office infrastructure and so forth to implement those things, then you have to either change your vision or change your amount of money.

And so, just off the top of my head, I just thought you might ask that question. The first I already preemptively answered, and that is that we tend to learn a lesson here that we don't want to innovate with policy on the innovation side, and secure with policy on the security side without doing that in tandem. And you saw the President signed on Friday last the Technology Council and he signed today the cybersecurity order. And that was done intentionally.

And then, lastly, in between now and then, the President’s FY18 budget allocated $319 million to DHS’s cybersecurity budget alone. We have dedicated an increase of $1.5 billion across all departments involved in protective cyberspace.

So, from my perspective, both his first budget request and his future ones have right-sized and aligned that amount of money, keeping America safe. And that might answer all three components of your question.

And with that, I know Sarah wants to pull me away. So thank you so much for your time.

Q -- the President address concerns Americans might have about political motivations that these cybersecurity companies like -- for instance, you mentioned Facebook -- they’re very political --

MS. SANDERS: Maybe Tom could come back to questions later. Thank you so much, Tom. And actually, he was wrong on one thing -- I would gladly have let him stay up here and talk cybersecurity with you all day. (Laughter.)

I have a few announcements. And then, as promised, I will get to, I'm sure, all of your many pressing questions. I'd like to announce that the President also just signed another executive order establishing a bipartisan presidential advisory commission on election integrity. This will be chaired by Vice President Mike Pence. The President is committed to the thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections. And that's exactly what this commission is tasked with doing.

The bipartisan commission will be made up of around a dozen members, including current and former Secretaries of State, with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serving as vice chair. It will also include individuals with knowledge and experience in elections, election management, election fraud detection, and voter integrity efforts.

Five additional members that have been announced as of today -- Connie Lawson, the Secretary of State of Indiana; Bill Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire; Matthew Dunlap, the Secretary of State of Maine; Ken Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio; and Christy McCormack, a commissioner on Election Assistance Commission.

The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of federal elections, and provide the President with a report that identifies system vulnerabilities that lead to improper registrations and voting. We expect the report will be complete by 2018.

The experts and officials on this commission will follow the facts where they lead. Meetings and hearings will be open to the public for comments and input, and we will share those updates as we have them.

In Cabinet news, Secretary Perdue is in Cincinnati, Ohio today to announce the Agriculture Department’s plan for reorganizing to provide better service to the American people, as the President directed in his March 13th executive order. With the barges of the Ohio River behind him, many of which contain products that are beginning a journey that will ultimately take them to markets overseas, Secretary Perdue will announce a new mission area for trade and foreign agriculture affairs, recognizing the growing importance of international trade to the agriculture sector of the economy.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement will hold a press conference at 2:15 p.m. today -- probably not too far away -- to announce the results of a highly successful recent gang surge operation. The President has made enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws a top priority, and today’s announcement will underscore not only that commitment but his focus on targeting transnational gangs and prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety.

Also today, Secretary Mattis met with the Turkish Prime Minister in London to discuss a range of bilateral security issues, and the Secretary reiterated the United States’ commitment to protecting our NATO ally. And both leaders affirmed their support for peace and stability in Iraq and Syria.
One other thing I wanted to point out -- last night, Obamacare suffered another serious blow as Aetna announced its decision to pull out of the Nebraska and Delaware marketplaces, which ends their participation in exchanges completely. They’ve sustained hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years and is projected to lose more than $200 million in 2017. The company attributes those losses to structural issues within the exchanges “that have led to coop failures and carrier exits and subsequent risk pool deterioration.”

This latest news adds to the mountain of evidence that Obamacare has completely failed the American people, and reinforces why there is no time to waste in repealing and replacing this law before it takes our entire healthcare system down with it.

Finally, I know -- those hands -- I know we sent out a timeline regarding the former -- the firing of former Director Comey yesterday, because there seemed to be some misperceptions about the meeting between the President and the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General on Monday. But I'm going to read it to you all again just to make sure we're all on the same page, because I want the sequence of events to be perfectly clear to everyone.

The President, over the last several months, lost confidence in Director Comey. After watching Director Comey’s testimony last Wednesday, the President was strongly inclined to remove him.

On Monday, the President met with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General and they discussed reasons for removing the Director.

The next day, Tuesday, May 9th, the Deputy Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the Attorney General and the Attorney General sent his written recommendation to the President.

Hopefully, that clears up some of those things. And with that, I will take your questions.

Steve Holland.

Q Sarah, in the Lester Hold interview the President just had he made a number of remarks. Why did the President think that James Comey was a “showboat” and “grand-stander”?

MS. SANDERS: I think probably based on the numerous appearances that he made, and I think that it's probably pretty evident in his behavior over the last year or so with the back-and-forth. And I think that it speaks pretty clearly -- those words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation, so I think it's pretty clear what he meant.

Q When were these three conversations that the President had with James Comey about whether he was under investigation? He said one was at dinner, two phone calls. Was that since January 20th, or when?

MS. SANDERS: That’s my understanding. I don't have exact on when those phone calls took place.


Q Sarah, two parts of the Comey question regarding the interview the President just gave. First of all, isn't it inappropriate for the President of the United States to ask the FBI Director directly if he’s under investigation?

MS. SANDERS: No, I don't believe it is.

Q But one of these conversations the President said happened at a dinner where the FBI Director, according to the President, was asking to stay on as FBI Director. Don't you see how that's a conflict of interest -- the FBI Director is saying he wants to keep his job, and the President is asking whether or not he’s under investigation?

MS. SANDERS: I don't see that as a conflict of interest, and neither do the many legal scholars and others that have been commenting on it for the last hour. So, no, I don't see it as an issue.

Q But, Sarah, the other question I want to ask you about is, I asked you directly yesterday --

MS. SANDERS: That will be three, I think.

Q Different subject related to Comey. I asked you directly yesterday if the President had already decided to fire James Comey when he met with the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General, and you said, no. Also the Vice President of the United States said directly that the President acted to take the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General to remove the FBI Director. Sean Spicer said directly, “It was all him,” meaning the Deputy Attorney General. Now we learn from the President directly that he had already decided to fire James Comey. So why were so many people giving answers that just weren’t correct? Were you guys in the dark? Was the Vice President misled again, as happened with Mike Flynn --

MS. SANDERS: I know you’d love to report that we were misled and what it creates -- I let you finish and read off every single one of those statements, so unless you want to trade places, I think it's my turn now.

I think it's pretty simple. I hadn’t had a chance to have the conversation directly with the President to say -- I'd had several conversations with him, but I didn’t ask that question directly, “had you already made that decision.” I went off of the information that I had when I answered your question. I've since had the conversation with him, right before I walked on today, and he laid it out very clearly. He had already made that decision. He had been thinking about it for months, which I did say yesterday and have said many times since. And Wednesday I think was the final straw that pushed him. And the recommendation that he got from the Deputy Attorney General just further solidified his decision and, again, I think reaffirmed that he made the right one.

Q Was the Vice President in the dark, too?

MS. SANDERS: Nobody was “in the dark,” Jonathan. You want to create this false narrative. If you want to talk about contradicting statements and people that were maybe in the dark, how about the Democrats. Let’s read a few of them. You want to talk about them? Here’s what Democrats said not long ago about Comey. Harry Reid said Comey should resign and be investigated by the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer said, “I don't have confidence in him any longer.” Senator Bernie Sanders said it would not be a bad thing for the American people if Comey resigned. Nancy Pelosi said Comey was not in the right job. Former DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz said that she thought Comey was no longer able to serve in a neutral and credible way. President Obama’s advisor, Valerie Jarrett, reportedly urged him to fire Comey. Just yesterday, Representative Maxine Waters said that Hillary Clinton would have fired Comey.

If you want to talk about people in the dark? Our story is consistent. The President is the only person that can fire the director of the FBI. He serves at the pleasure of the President. The President made the decision. It was the right decision. The people that are in the dark today are the Democrats. They want to come out, they want to talk about all of these -- they love Comey and how great he was.

Look at the facts. The facts don't lie. Their statements are all right there. I think it's extremely clear that -- and, frankly, I think it's kind of sad -- in Washington, we finally have something that I think we should have all been able to agree on, and that was that Director Comey shouldn’t have been at the FBI, but the Democrats want to play partisan games. And I think that's the most glaring thing that's being left out of all of your process stories.

John Roberts.

Q Sarah, you said from the podium yesterday that Director Comey had lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI. On Capitol Hill today, the Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe directly contradicted that. What led you and the White House to believe that he had lost the confidence of the rank and file of the FBI when the Acting Director says it's exactly the opposite?

MS. SANDERS: Well, I can speak to my own personal experience. I've heard from countless members of the FBI that are grateful and thankful for the President’s decision. And I think that we may have to agree to disagree. I'm sure that there are some people that are disappointed, but I certainly heard from a large number of individuals -- and that's just myself -- and I don't even know that many people in the FBI.

Q And a question to what you were saying about the Democrats. Clearly, they didn’t like James Comey too much after the October 28th pronouncement that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Their point now is the timing is different, that this was in the middle of an investigation. Do they have a point?

MS. SANDERS: Not at all. And I think Mr. McCabe made that point far better than I could today when he said that there’s been no impediment to the investigation. And as I said before, any investigation that was taking place on Monday is still taking place today. So I think that's, again, another sad story by the Democrats that they’re trying to peddle.


Q Thank you. Another comment from the hearing today -- the Acting Deputy Attorney General said -- I'm sorry, McCabe said that he considers the investigation into Russian meddling in the election to be highly significant. In the past, the President has said that the investigation was a hoax, and he’s questioned even recently whether maybe it wasn’t Russia, it might have been China. Does the President consider this investigation to be highly significant?

MS. SANDERS: Look, I think he would love nothing more for this investigation to continue to its completion. I think one of the reasons that the “hoax” component is the collusion component that has been the false narrative that you guys have been pushing for the better part of a year. I think that's the piece that he is repeatedly talking about being the hoax.

Q But in terms of the threat to national security, does he take that seriously? Does he think that's significant? Putting aside the --

MS. SANDERS: Of course, he takes national security seriously. I mean, to even hint that he doesn’t I think is to misunderstand this President completely. From the very moment that he stepped onto the campaign stage, to the day that he took the oath of office to become President, he has talked about national security. He's made that one of the biggest priorities in the administration. You just saw Tom Bossert here talking about cybersecurity. On all fronts, whether it's securing the border, whether it's protecting people abroad here, the President has been focused on that.

Q Does the think what Russia did during the election was a threat to U.S. national security?

MS. SANDERS: You know, I haven’t had the chance to ask him about that. I think we're still waiting on the final conclusion of that investigation.

Q Is he open-minded about that? He doesn’t know --

MS. SANDERS: Look, I think any time we have somebody interfering with our election, that would be considered a problem, and I think the President would certainly recognize that.


Q Sarah, I appreciate it. Two questions. First, as has been mentioned, Vice President Pence yesterday said the firing was based on the recommendation of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. We know now that that's not true. Was the Vice President misled again, or did he mislead the American people?

MS. SANDERS: I believe I answered that question.

Q But if you have, I don’t think I caught it, because the Vice President said yesterday that the President chose to accept and support the decision of the Deputy Attorney General and Attorney General.

MS. SANDERS: He certainly accepted the Deputy Attorney --

Q (Inaudible) going to do it either way.

MS. SANDERS: But that doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t still accept his recommendation. I mean, they're on the same page. Like, why are we arguing about the semantics of whether or not he accepted it? They agreed. I mean, I'm not sure how he didn’t accept the Deputy Attorney General's recommendation when they agreed with one another.

Q So if I may just switch topics slightly. If the President knew he was going to do this, why ask for those memos to begin with? Why not just fire Comey? Why have these memos put out and then explain that he did it because of the memos, but then say that he was going to do it either way? I'm confused as to why we even got those memos.

MS. SANDERS: Look, I think he wanted it to get the feedback from the Deputy Attorney General, who the Director of the FBI reports to. Again, it further solidified the decision that he had made. The only person that can fire Comey was the President. He made that decision. It was clearly the right one, as evidenced by all of the comments, both by House and Senate Democrats, Republicans, and many people within the FBI.

I think instead of getting so lost in the process -- did this happen at 12:01 or 12:02, did he fire him because he wore a red tie or a blue tie -- he fired him because he was not fit to do the job. It's that simple. This shouldn’t be a complicated process. The President knew that Director Comey was not up to the task. He decided that he wasn’t the right person in the job. He wanted somebody that could bring credibility back to the FBI. That had been lost over these last several months. The President made that decision. He made it; he moved forward. It was the right one. I don’t think that the back-and-forth makes that much difference.

Q Did you call on me?

MS. SANDERS: Yes, I'm sorry.

Q Okay, thank you. Sarah, going back to what you said about Democrats -- yeah, you have some Democrats that say that Comey should have been fired, but they're questioning the timing. Why now? Even though the Deputy Attorney General did do that, they're questioning why now. He couldn’t wait anymore?

MS. SANDERS: I think that I've answered this. I hate to again just keep repeating myself, but we're kind of getting lost on the same questions here. He had decided that he wasn’t fit. There's never going to be a good time to fire someone, whether it's on a Tuesday or a Friday.

Q Why not day one, when he comes in?

MS. SANDERS: He decided he wanted to give Director Comey a chance. He did. And he felt like he wasn’t up to the task.

Q And then last question: Monday, Sean Spicer, when he was at the podium, he said after the testimony with Clapper and Yates, he said -- he talked about there was no collusion from what Clapper said. But he also said that there needs to be a timeline when the Russia investigation ends. And then yesterday you said it should continue. Which one is it? Should it continue or should it end? Because Spicer said the President wanted it to end, Monday. And now, yesterday, you said it should continue. I mean, I'm just trying to find out which one it is.

MS. SANDERS: I've said that we wanted to come to its completion. We wanted to continue until it is finished, which we would like to happen soon, so that we can focus on the things that we think most Americans, frankly, care a whole lot more about. I think the people in this room are obsessed with this story, a lot more than the people that we talk to and we hear from every day. We'd like to be focused on the problems that they have. That's the point -- is we’d love for this to be completed. But we also want it to be completed with integrity. And I think that was one of the other reasons, frankly, that I think that the decision the President made was the right one, because I think it adds credibility and integrity back to the FBI where a lot of people, frankly, were questioning.

Q We now know the President fired the FBI Director with more than six years left on his 10-year term because he was a show-boater, a grandstander. How important is it that the next FBI director not be a show-boater or a grandstander? And how important is it that this person show loyalty to the President?

MS. SANDERS: I think that the main factor that they're looking for is that they're loyal to the justice system, they're loyal to the American people. This President is looking for somebody who can come in, that is independent, and has the support, I think, across the board, whether it's Republicans, Democrats, members of the FBI, and certainly the American people.

Again, it wasn’t just one thing that caused the President to make this decision. A large part of why he made this decision was because he didn’t feel like Director Comey was up to the job. He had watched -- it was just an erosion of confidence that he had in his ability to carry out the task that needed to be done. He's looking for somebody who can do that.


Q Thank you, Sarah. Two questions. First, I want to follow up on what John asked about, the rank and file of the FBI. Don’t you think the acting director of the FBI has a better handle on the rank and file than you do?

MS. SANDERS: Look, I'm not going to get in a back and forth on who has a better handle. Again, I've heard from multiple individuals that are very happy about the President's decision, and I know that it was the right one. I believe that most of the people that we've talked to also believe it was the right decision to make.

Q And I want to also ask about the meeting yesterday between President Trump and the Russian Foreign Minister. Can you walk us through how a photographer from either a Russian state news outlet or the Russian government got into that meeting and got those photographs out?

MS. SANDERS: Yeah. The same way that they would -- whoever the President was meeting with when it comes to a foreign minister or a head of state. Both individuals had official photographers in the room. We had an official photographer in the room, as did they.

Q Usually, media -- independent media in the U.S. is typically invited into those meetings. Why didn’t that happen in this case?

MS. SANDERS: It varies, actually. Not always. Particularly sometimes, the protocol, when it is not the head of state, and prior to the President meeting with the head of state, that wouldn’t always take place. So, again, proper protocol was followed in this procedure.

Q Has the President been questioned by the FBI with regard to their investigation into Russian interference in the election?

MS. SANDERS: Not that I'm aware of.

Q Does he expect to be?

MS. SANDERS: I haven’t had a chance to ask him that question, so I don’t know. I'm not going to guess on what he may expect.


Q So, at the Justice Department, there's a general protocol that discourages conversations with the President of the United States by the FBI director about anything that might involve the President. That's the general aspect of the protocol that's usually required to ensure that there is no confusion about political interference of any kind, of even the impression or the appearance of political influence on the FBI. That's the standard procedure. You just said here it was appropriate for the President of the United States to ask whether or not he was under investigation. Why is it appropriate if that's not consistent with the guidelines at the Justice Department to avoid that very encounter?

MS. SANDERS: We've talked to several -- again, several legal scholars have weighed in on this and said that there was nothing wrong with the President asking that question.

Q So the Justice Department should change its protocol on this?

MS. SANDERS: I haven’t seen their protocol. I'm only speaking to the information that I have at this --

Q What you think and the President thinks.

MS. SANDERS: No, it's what I think. I mean, look at the people that followed up the interview. There were multiple attorneys that came on after and specifically stated that it was not inappropriate and it wasn’t wrong for the President to do so. So, again, I can only base it off -- I'm not an attorney, I don’t even play one on TV -- but what I can tell you is what I've heard from legal minds and people that actually are attorneys, and that's their opinion. So I have to trust the justice system on that fact, too.

Q Would you say, based on the experience that you and Sean and this communications office had Tuesday and Wednesday, that you were given all of the best information to relay to the American public, through us -- and your job is to relay that information to the American public; we're only intermediaries -- about what happened with this firing and the rationale for it?

MS. SANDERS: It's funny that you mention intermediaries. You seem to take a much more proactive approach most of the time. But I'll go with intermediaries for today.

Look, I think we were absolutely given the information that we could have at that time. It was a quick-moving process. We took the information we had, as best we had it, and got it out to the American people as quickly as we could.

Q And would you say that that information was accurate then or is more accurate now?

MS. SANDERS: I would say that after having a conversation with the President, you don’t get much more accurate than that.

Q And so by that standard, should reporters and the country essentially wait for a pronouncement from the President before believing that which is stated on his behalf by the White House communications staff?

MS. SANDERS: Look, Major, I'm not going to get into back and forth, that we have to have like a direct quote every single time. In this process, I gave you the best information I had at the moment. I still don’t think that it contradicts the President's decision. You guys want to get lost in the process.

Q I don’t think asking you a question and getting an answer is lost in the process, Sarah, with all respect.

MS. SANDERS: And I'm answering those questions. It's very simple: The President decided to fire Director Comey. Nobody else gets to make that decision. And he made it, he stands by it, as do the rest of us.

Q Two questions. Following up on this, back in, I think, October of last year, the former President was highly criticized by members of the FBI and other ethical folks outside of the FBI for making some comments on television that sort of suggested that he had an opinion about how the Hillary Clinton email case should go. And the charge was that he was interfering, that he was putting his thumb on the scale of an ongoing, active investigation. There was a lot of criticism from Republicans of the President about that.

Talk to me about how that -- how what this President did in his series of conversations with the FBI director doesn’t go far beyond what former President Obama did? And to Major's point, how can you argue -- regardless of maybe some pundits on TV who might be saying otherwise -- how can you argue that that doesn’t have an appearance of trying to influence an investigation that's actively going on?

MS. SANDERS: Look, I think the President has encouraged this investigation to take place and complete so that we can move forward. We've been as compliant as possible throughout the entire process. We will continue to do so. Nobody wants this investigation to go forward complete and end with integrity more than the President.

Q But people clearly know which way he wants it to come out, right?

MS. SANDERS: On the right side. I think that he wants it to come out -- he's very well aware of the actions he has or hasn’t taken. He knows he didn’t take any action. And I think he's ready for the rest of you guys to understand that as well.

Q And one last question, just to follow up on the FBI thing. And I'm not trying to be overly combative here, but you said now today, and I think you said again yesterday, that you personally have talked to countless FBI officials, employees, since this happened.

MS. SANDERS: Correct.

Q I mean, really? So are we talking --

MS. SANDERS: Between like email, text messages -- absolutely.

Q Like 50?


Q Sixty, seventy?

MS. SANDERS: Look, we’re not going to get into a numbers game. I mean, I have heard from a large number of individuals that work at the FBI that said that they're very happy with the President's decision. I mean, I don’t know what I else I can say.

Q Sarah, there's a report from The Wall Street Journal that the Deputy Attorney General asked the White House Counsel to correct the version of events that was coming out initially after the Comey firing. Is that accurate? And does that contribute to the different version of events that we've seen over the last 48 hours?

MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware of a specific ask for a correction. I do know that we all want to make sure that we get this right. And that's been our -- what we've attempted to do all along. It's the reason we sent the update last night. I know there were several questions after the briefing yesterday, and I addressed that again in the opening today. Our goal is to get this as right and clear as we can.

Q And did the President know that Comey had sought more resources before his investigation, before he made the decision?

MS. SANDERS: No. And I also think, based on what I've seen, the Department of Justice has also pushed back and said that that's not accurate. But I would refer you to them.


Q So, Sarah, was it a mistake for the White House to try to pin the decision to fire James Comey on Rod Rosenstein?

MS. SANDERS: I don’t think there was ever an attempt to pin the decision on the Deputy Attorney General.

Q -- it was on his recommendation.

MS. SANDERS: Look, I think his recommendation, again, it was extremely clear. The President, though, makes the decision. The buck stops with him. Nobody has ever tried to say that this wasn’t the President's decision, that he wasn’t the one that carried it out. And to try to, I think, conflate those things is just not what took place. We know that the President has been thinking about this for a long time. Wednesday, it certainly, I think, expedited that -- the Director's testimony from last Wednesday. And then getting the recommendation from the Deputy Attorney General I think just further solidified the President's decision.

Q And just to clarify one thing you said. You said the President has encouraged this investigation into Russia. He wants to see it reach its completion sooner rather than later. How has he encouraged it if he just fired the man who was overseeing the Russia investigation?

MS. SANDERS: There are multiple people that are part of this, and it's not just the FBI. You've got the House Committee, the Senate Committee.

Look, again, the point is, we want this to come to its conclusion. We want it to come to its conclusion with integrity. And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.

Thanks so much, guys.

2:29 P.M. EDT

Newspaper editorials warn Trump it would be dangerous to ditch Paris climate agreement
Research ››› May 25, 2017 4:02 PM EDT ››› KEVIN KALHOEFER

The editorial boards of many major newspapers have issued stern warnings against the Trump administration pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, saying such a move “risks the planet” and would erode trust and goodwill with international allies.

Sarah Wasko / Media Matters
Trump to announce decision on Paris agreement after G-7 summit

President Donald Trump is expected to announce in the coming days whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris agreement. White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have said that the president plans to issue his decision on whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris agreement after the G-7 summit, which takes place on May 26 and 27. Under the agreement, which the U.S. joined under former President Barack Obama, nearly 200 countries pledged to curb their carbon emissions. [The Washington Post, 5/9/17; The Hill, 5/24/17]

Wash. Post reports that momentum in Trump administration “has turned against the Paris climate agreement”
Wash. Post: Foes of the Paris agreement have “gained the upper hand” against the accord’s supporters in the White House. The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin reported on May 3 that, within the White House, “the momentum has turned against the Paris climate agreement” as foes of the accord “gained the upper hand in the ongoing debate” about whether to remain in the agreement. In the past months, the Trump administration had been divided on the issue, with Tillerson arguing that it is “important that the United States maintain a seat at the table on the conversations around how to address the threats of climate change” and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt calling the agreement “a bad deal for America.” [The Washington Post, 5/3/17; Media Matters, 1/12/17, 4/13/17]

Editorials warn against leaving Paris accord, saying it “risks the planet” and would be “a gratuitous thumb in the eye” of world’s nations

NY Times: Trump "has stripped America of its hard-won role as a global leader on climate issues." In a May 22 editorial, the The New York Times called Trump’s claim that meeting the U.S.’s Paris obligations would cost jobs and damage the economy a “bogus argument,” and debunked the conservative myth that China and India are not taking action on climate change. Earlier, on March 28, a Times’ editorial headlined “President Trump risks the planet” argued that he should not repudiate the Paris agreement and highlighted the dangers of disengaging from the fight against climate change, writing that if he rolls back Obama's climate initiatives, “the United States will have neither the tools nor the credibility to lead the world on emissions reduction.”

Mr. Trump’s ignorance has stripped America of its hard-won role as a global leader on climate issues.


Mr. Trump has, for all practical purposes, repudiated Paris. The initiatives that he threatens to dismantle are the very ones that support Mr. Obama’s expansive pledge in Paris to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than one quarter below 2005 levels by 2025. Without them, the United States will have neither the tools nor the credibility to lead the world on emissions reduction, and surely the leaders of China and India and the rest of the world are smart enough to see this.

This raises two very real dangers. Either other big countries also pull out of the agreement. Or they decide to seize the initiative on clean energy sources, which would be good for the climate but bad for American industry. [The New York Times, 3/28/17, 5/22/17]

Wash. Post: “Leaving the Paris agreement would be a gratuitous thumb in everyone’s eye.” In a March 4 editorial, The Washington Post wrote that withdrawing from the Paris agreement “would be an enormous and possibly irreparable error,” adding, “This is not a hard call: Staying in the agreement is costless, while leaving would rightly provoke sharp and sustained international outrage. … leaving Paris would be nothing more than a gratuitous thumb in the eye of practically every important nation on the planet, a bizarre and irrational unforced error.”

The Post took up the accord again in a May 3 editorial, writing, “Staying in the Paris accord is cost-free, but pulling out is not” and warning that Trump “must not underestimate the cost of pulling out. … By leaving Paris, the United States would surrender a huge amount of diplomatic capital and reputation — much more than it is already set to lose by unwisely reversing Obama-era emissions-cutting policies. Mr. Trump would hear about it for the rest of his presidency. And for good reason.” And on May 20, the Post called the prospect of leaving the accord “an unthinkably irrational move that would enrage allied governments for no material benefit.” From the March 4 editorial:

THE NEW YORK TIMES reports that the Trump administration has divided over whether to remove the United States from the Paris climate agreement, a landmark international deal with vast diplomatic and environmental significance. Withdrawing — or asking the Senate to decide what to do, which is effectively the same thing — would be an enormous and possibly irreparable error. This is not a hard call: Staying in the agreement is costless, while leaving would rightly provoke sharp and sustained international outrage.


President Trump could modify the U.S. Paris commitment, or simply leave President Barack Obama’s Paris pledge in place. Although Mr. Trump has promised to rip up major elements of Mr. Obama’s climate plan, other policies, such as congressionally mandated renewables subsidies and state-level efforts, would continue apace. Crushing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan would ill-prepare the country for the significant emissions cuts that it will have to make in coming decades, but it would not keep the nation from reducing its emissions by more modest levels in the near term. If the country is going to be achieving emissions cuts anyway, why not take some international credit for them?

Given all that, leaving Paris would be nothing more than a gratuitous thumb in the eye of practically every important nation on the planet, a bizarre and irrational unforced error. [The Washington Post, 3/4/17, 5/3/17, 5/20/17]

USA Today: Abandoning the Paris agreement “could endanger the planet’s future.” USA Today wrote in an editorial on April 19 that leaving the Paris agreement could provide other nations “an excuse to bail or fall short on their emission-reduction commitments” and “damage America's credibility and erode diplomatic relations with countries that take their environmental promises far more seriously.”

Abandoning the Paris agreement could endanger the planet's future. The accord relies heavily on international peer pressure, and pulling out would offer other nations an excuse to bail or fall short on their emission-reduction commitments.

Reneging on such a far-reaching and historic pact would also damage America's credibility and erode diplomatic relations with countries that take their environmental promises far more seriously. Nations that have, or are planning, taxes on carbon emissions could slap retaliatory tariffs on goods imported from America.


Abandoning Paris would expose America to massive international condemnation, all for the sake of getting out of a non-binding agreement. That makes no sense. [USA Today, 4/19/17]

LA Times urges Trump to “embrace the Paris climate agreement” and avoid marginalizing the U.S. In an April 19 editorial headlined “Surprise us, Mr. President, and embrace the Paris climate agreement,” the Los Angeles Times editorial board expressed hope that Trump “might still join the rest of the world in trying to address the potentially existential threat of global warming” by remaining in the agreement. The Times continued, “For the United States to back off from the Paris accord now not only would imperil the chances of global success, but would marginalize the U.S. as a leader in a defining issue of our era. At the same time, if the U.S. were to stay in the Paris agreement while weakening the United States' commitments, that still would be a losing proposition for the nation, and the world, given that emissions need to be even more sharply curtailed than already planned.”

It's slightly encouraging that there seems to be an internal debate underway between a set of Trump advisors who want the president to keep his promise to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement and another set urging him to stick with the pact but loosen the Obama goal of reducing by 2025 U.S. emissions by up to 28% of 2005 levels. That the Trump administration is even debating the issue rather than blindly carrying out its ill-conceived campaign promise offers a hopeful sign that the president's position could change, and that he might still join the rest of the world in trying to address the potentially existential threat of global warming. For the United States to back off from the Paris accord now not only would imperil the chances of global success, but would marginalize the U.S. as a leader in a defining issue of our era.

At the same time, if the U.S. were to stay in the Paris agreement while weakening the United States' commitments, that still would be a losing proposition for the nation, and the world, given that emissions need to be even more sharply curtailed than already planned.


 The president is in a position to prove his critics wrong — to demonstrate that he can weigh (actual, not alternative) facts and frame positions based on reality and in the best interests of the nation. We invite him to do so by sticking with the Paris agreement and the Clean Power Plan, and by directing the government to find ways to reduce U.S. emissions even further. Those are steps that a sagacious and respected world leader would take. [Los Angeles Times, 4/19/17]

Chicago Tribune: Withdrawal from the agreement would make Trump “a loser” on the world stage. A March 29 Chicago Tribune editorial argued that Trump exiting the climate accord “would not only set back the worldwide efforts to reduce emissions — but it also would elevate China into the top role as global leader on the issue, which would make the president one of those people he tweets about: a loser.”

Candidate Trump vowed to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which included unprecedented promises by nearly every nation on Earth to take concrete steps to reduce their carbon emissions. It was a nonbinding pact without enforcement mechanisms, but world leaders are still moving forward to fulfill their promises to reach their goals. While it would take about four years for Trump to formally withdraw the U.S. from the pact, the president could effectively end American efforts sooner by refusing to act on Obama’s emissions reduction promises. That would not only set back the worldwide efforts to reduce emissions — but it also would elevate China into the top role as global leader on the issue, which would make the president one of those people he tweets about: a loser. [Chicago Tribune, 3/29/17]

The Virginian-Pilot: Pulling out of the agreement would be “reflexive and childish” and put Virginians at risk. The Virginian-Pilot’s editorial board wrote on May 7 that leaving the Paris accord would “represent a massive step away from the type of leadership on environmental stewardship the world needs from the United States — and it could have catastrophic implications for the residents of Hampton Roads," a metropolitan region in southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

REPORTS BY TRUSTWORTHY media sources circulated last week claiming that President Donald Trump intends to sign an order that would withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.


If Trump follows through, it would represent a massive step away from the type of leadership on environmental stewardship the world needs from the United States — and it could have catastrophic implications for the residents of Hampton Roads.

Pulling out of the deal would adhere to Trump's campaign promises to do so and his reflexive and childish opposition to everything Obama did or said. Trump is, after all, a man who once said climate change is some type of hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to harm the American economy, a position both laughable and paranoid. [The Virginian-Pilot, 5/7/17]



My roots begin in a far away land
and spread to where I now stand.
My roots begin on  American soil
before I was born...who am I.
I am a part of long ago, other times
And other my blood
will testify....I am the offspring
of both brave and noble races.

My grandfather of long ago
was the first of the English barons
to take up the Cross and go forth
to the Holy Wars.
Richard the Lion heart,
knighted him on the battlefield.
But I am not he.. my grandfather lives
through the blood in me.

My grandfather fought the white man
that came from across the sea.....
to protect his land and family. Who am I
I am not he... My grandfather lives
through the blood in me.

Who am I!?
I am the offspring of all good and
bad things.

Are we not all tied together-to the past?
Are we not all warriors and peace seeks
at heart?
Are we not all defenders of our own beliefs?
My bloodline is not me.

I am an American-born to defend justice
and fight and die for liberty-if need be.
                                -Jan Tetstone
12: 29 am May 26, 2017


"To be rather than to seem"

Barbara Pierce Bush, George W. Bush’s daughter, to keynote Planned Parenthood fundraiser

By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Barbara Pierce Bush, the 35-year-old daughter of former President George W. Bush, will deliver the keynote address at the annual fundraising luncheon of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas on Wednesday.
Proceeds from the annual event will support Planned Parenthood’s healthcare services for women, including abortions.
“Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas is thrilled to announce Barbara Pierce Bush as the Keynote Speaker for the 2017 Annual Luncheon,” the event’s description reads.
Cecile Richards, the organization’s president, told BuzzFeed News that it is “really exciting” to have Ms. Bush speak.
“I don’t know if she’s ever spoke at any [Planned Parenthood] event before,” she said.
Ms. Bush is the CEO and co-founder of the nonprofit Global Health Corps, which partners with several Planned Parenthood affiliates around the world.

It's better that two paths cross
and two hearts cross in passing
Than it is for one heart to travel
down life's lonely roads alone.

It's better to know the touch
of human compassion in passing
than to never know there is
more to life than the road
you walks alone. jt
10:46 pm May 24, 2017

Burns Confidential - 11216 Day 12 Burns, Oregon FBI Following Sheriff and Judge
Valley Forge Network
Published on May 24, 2017
Mark Connors Channel
(Original Title) 11216 Day 12 Burns, Oregon FBI Follwing Sheriff and Judge

Wednesday 05/24/17
Valley Forge Network
Published on May 24, 2017
Great Update from John Lamb today
John Lamb



 May 24, 2017

Let's start working together worldwide to save our individual countries from total take over by the elite few.... Let's begin by understanding exactly what we are up against. Ask yourself who exactly it is feeding the banking business. There's a beginning to everything. And like a new born baby it must be fed to grow.

The beginning :The first mercantile agency in the world was established in the City of New York in 1841.

After being fed  by unsuspecting victims for 150 years:  The same institution is the first in its field to-day :      Dun & Bradstreet
Since 1841, companies have trusted D&B’s business credit information to help them reduce bad credit risk and improve cash flow. Contact us to see how we can help your business make confident credit decisions.

Here is something you might find interesting: ALL government agencies, including the Department of Defense, and the US President have D-U-Ns numbers.

D-U-Ns numbers are used worldwide.......... It looks like the elite few have turned human beings into assets -instead of customers. The best thing to do is tell those in the business of giving business advice : YOU ARE FIRED!

Afterwards, I guarantee,  those put in office by the people, who have been profiting from big business -will get the hint.     love and peace    jt

John Lamb ~ Camp Liberty 5/22/17
J Grady
Published on May 22, 2017
Day 18 Camp Liberty Pahrump Nevada
Thank you John Lamb for keeping us all updated

Mock bus crash used in training several Las Vegas agencies
Multiple Las Vegas agencies participated in a mass casualty training exercise involving an overturned school bus on Monday, May 22, 2017. (Twitter/@NHPSouthernComm)Multiple Las Vegas agencies participated in a mass casualty training exercise involving an overturned school bus on Monday, May 22, 2017. (Twitter/@NHPSouthernComm)Multiple Las Vegas agencies participated in a mass casualty training exercise involving an overturned school bus on Monday, May 22, 2017. (Twitter/@NHPSouthernComm)Multiple Las Vegas agencies participated in a mass casualty training exercise involving an overturned school bus on Monday, May 22, 2017. (Twitter/@NHPSouthernComm)

By Lawren Linehan Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 22, 2017 - 1:35 pm

Multiple Las Vegas agencies participated in a mass casualty training exercise Monday morning involving an overturned school bus.
Nevada Highway Patrol tweeted photos and video of the mock crash site, which shows a white passenger car perpendicular to a large overturned school bus.
The scene is similar to a May 4 crash that killed a woman and sent more than a dozen middle school students to a hospital. In the fatal crash near Nellis Boulevard and East Carey Avenue, a white Ford Taurus LX sedan ran a red light and T-boned a Clark County School District bus.

Despite the similarities, Highway Patrol spokeswoman Chelsea Stuenkel said, “there is no specific link or reference to the other (May 4) crash.”
Stuenkel said the bus is being used in this training to represent a large passenger vehicle and multiple fatalities. The vehicles used in the training were previously damaged or out of service, she said.
Contact Lawren Linehan at or at 702-383-0381. Follow @lawrenlinehan on Twitter.

Press Release
May 19, 2017
Federal Reserve imposes $1.2 million fine and permanent ban on employment against former Barclays Bank PLC employee
For release at 3:00 p.m. EDT
The Federal Reserve Board on Friday announced that it has imposed a $1.2 million fine and a permanent ban on employment in the banking industry against Christopher Ashton, the former Global Head of Foreign Exchange (FX) Spot Trading at Barclays Bank PLC, in connection with the manipulation of FX pricing benchmarks.
Ashton failed to answer, appear, or request a hearing in administrative law proceedings after the Board charged him in June 2016 with unsafe and unsound practices related to his use of electronic chat rooms to coordinate FX trading, facilitate manipulation of FX pricing benchmarks, and disclose confidential customer information to traders at other organizations, as well as his failure to appropriately supervise other Barclays traders.
The enforcement proceedings against Ashton follow the Board's May 2015 enforcement actions against Barclays for unsafe and unsound practices related to its compliance and control failures concerning its practices in the FX markets. The Board required Barclays to pay $342 million in penalties.
For media inquiries, call 202-452-2955
Attachment 1 (PDF)
Attachment 2 (PDF)
Related Content
Board Votes
Last Update: May 19, 2017

Press Release
March 10, 2017
Federal Reserve Board seeks to fine and prohibit two former managing directors at J.P. Morgan Securities (Asia Pacific) from employment in banking industry
For release at 3:15 p.m. EST
The Federal Reserve Board announced on Friday it will seek to fine and prohibit Fang Fang and Timothy Fletcher, two former managing directors at J.P. Morgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited, from working in the banking industry for their participation in a referral hiring program that violated anti-bribery law.
Fang and Fletcher are alleged to have offered internships and other employment opportunities to individuals referred by foreign officials, clients, and prospective clients in order to obtain improper business advantages in violation of firm policies and U.S. anti-bribery law. In addition to permanently prohibiting them from the banking industry, the Board seeks to impose a $1 million fine against Fang and a $500,000 fine against Fletcher.
The enforcement proceedings against Fang and Fletcher follow the Board's November 2016 enforcement actions against JPMorgan Chase & Co. for unsafe and unsound practices related to the firm's referral hiring program. The Board required JPMorgan Chase & Co. to pay $61.9 million in penalties for control deficiencies related to the firm's referral hiring practices and anti-bribery policies.
For media inquiries, call 202-452-2955
Attachment (PDF)
Attachment 2 (PDF)
Last Update: March 10, 2017


Assemblywoman wants to ban private prisons in Nevada
Southern Desert Correctional Center in Indian Springs is an example of a crowded Nevada prison. A proposal calls for inmates to be moved out of state while the prison is renovated.

By Yvonne Gonzalez (contact)
Published Tuesday, April 4, 2017 | 2 a.m.
Updated Tuesday, April 4, 2017 | 1:04 p.m.

Related news
Nevada plans to send some inmates to private prisons
Sessions: U.S. to continue use of privately run prisons
There was no opposition to a proposed ban on private prisons in Nevada when the bill came before a committee of lawmakers this morning.

Assemblywoman Daniele Monroe-Moreno, D-North Las Vegas, is amending the bill to bring down the anticipated price tag of almost $85 million and to give the prison system time to transition. A retired corrections officer, Monroe-Moreno said Monday that she’s seen the need for improved services and criminal justice reforms.

“The use of for-profit prisons can be a temporary fix if necessary, but it is not the ultimate fix for the overcrowding issues and other problems that we have in our criminal justice system,” she said.

Monroe-Moreno said for-profit prisons are a big business. “It kind of incentivizes having people be incarcerated more often, having longer sentences,” she said.

The Nevada Department of Corrections estimated the cost of the original version of Assembly Bill 303 and said it would be unable to meet the proposed requirements with current resources.

The $85 million estimate attached to the original bill took several issues into account, such as new construction and the potential lease of an alternate facility in North Las Vegas. Monroe-Moreno said the amended version largely eliminates that estimated cost.

Nevada’s one for-profit facility is a federal prison in Pahrump that Monroe-Moreno said the Legislature cannot control. The bill requires that state and local prisons, jails and detention facilities fall under the direct operational control of the state or a local government.

Members of the Assembly’s Corrections, Parole and Probation Committee heard support for the bill from corrections officials and public defenders, among others.

Department of Corrections Director James Dzurenda said there were almost 600 inmates sleeping in unconventional housing, such as day rooms and program rooms.

Gov. Brian Sandoval’s recommended budget requests that 200 inmates be housed out of state due to crowding and needed repairs in an uninhabitable part of Southern Desert Correctional Center. The Corrections Department’s fiscal note says the original bill would have prevented that.

Monroe-Moreno said the amended bill would temporarily house those inmates out of state while repairs are made.

“We’ve come to a happy medium between what they need and what I’d like to see,” she said.

Two buildings need to be repaired. Monroe-Moreno said she’s been told the work would take two years for each, and the inmates would be moved back in state as soon as the facilities are ready.

“Once we’re able to get them back in, we’ll have refurbished facilities but we’ll also have more programming to help with the behavioral health care issues and education issues once they come back,” she said.

Less employee training and higher turnover are some of the issues seen in some for-profit prisons, said Nicole Porter, of the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project, a nonprofit advocacy group.

“With AB 303, Nevada lawmakers have an opportunity to codify the practice of incarcerating no state prisoners in private prison,” Porter said.

Assemblyman Keith Pickard said people hear about the same kinds of problem outcomes in the public prison system as well. Porter said overpopulation issues can contribute to issues within prisons while also contributing to the need for for-profit facilities.

Keeping in mind the prisoners being transferred out of state, Pickard asked for an analysis of institutions that are run well.

“We’re talking about a mixed bag of results,” he said. “I’m wondering if then there are best practices.”

If passed, the provisions in the bill would take effect in July. A sunset clause would give prisons five years to transition.


Nevada Bundy Protest - JLamb KStewart - Torture Chamber - Monday 05/22/17
Valley Forge Network
Published on May 22, 2017
John Lamb



“Signing Day” brought new meaning for four of the nation’s brightest teens as they were officially accepted into an innovative medical school pipeline program today through Florida Atlantic University’s “FAU High School M.D. Direct” program. The first-of-its-kind pipeline program to be launched in the United States, M.D. Direct places high school students from FAU High School directly in-line for medical school at FAU, jumpstarting their careers as young, aspiring physicians-to-be.

The inaugural group of students were celebrated during a special ceremony at FAU’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine on Friday.

The M.D. Direct “Signing Day,” complete with FAU mascot “Owlsley” who wore scrubs and a physician’s white coat, mimicked one of the most exciting times in collegiate athletics and provided a platform for parents, as well as University and community leaders to cheer on these stellar students who were garbed in FAU medical school T-shirts and baseball caps.

Among the distinguished guests in attendance were FAU President John Kelly, FAU First Lady Carolyn Kelly, Phillip Boiselle, M.D., dean of FAU’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, and Stuart L. Markowitz, M.D., senior associate dean of student affairs and admissions in FAU’s College of Medicine, who emceed the special ceremony.

To be accepted into the medical school pipeline program was no easy feat for these four national merit scholars who were identified in their junior year at FAU High School. The program requires them to complete their B.S. degree within one year and complete a graduate program at FAU or approved research program prior to entering medical school. To qualify for this program they have to participate in pre-medical course advising, mentoring, clinical experiences, medical-related service learning, and research. They also must successfully meet certain requirements for the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), a grueling endeavor for most college students who are typically in their early 20s when they complete this test, and participate in MCAT test preparation.

Among the four students is aspiring neurosurgeon Maximilian Rabil, 18, who recently received his college degree six days prior to receiving his high school diploma, and will conduct neuroscience research before he is eligible to start medical school in fall 2018. Sarah Palumbo, 18, Nadia Sial, 17, and Cara Busheme, 18, will join Rabil to be among the nation’s youngest medical students.

“We have an incredible group of gifted and talented students at FAU High School with an interest in medicine. Impressively, these students have achieved stellar accomplishments during their high school years, including a research publication in the ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ and earning a college degree during high school, among others,” said Boiselle. “We are delighted for these exceptional students to continue their educational journeys at FAU. On behalf of the entire community of the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, I am delighted to welcome Max, Sarah, Nadia and Cara as our inaugural pipeline students from the FAU High School.”

Boiselle together with Markowitz, Gary J. Rose, M.D., associate professor of surgery in FAU’s College of Medicine, and Joel D. Herbst, Ed.D., assistant dean for PK-12 schools and educational programs in FAU’s College of Education, see this pipeline program as an opportunity to work with middle and high school students while they are still forming impressions of what they hope to accomplish after they graduate and to help them understand what a career as a physician entails.


Christophe de Margerie   Total's CEO (OCT}2014 This is interesting because it's from Russian sites....


Two people Chained on the Roadside
Gavin Seim
Streamed live 2 hours ago
Help these people get out...

Older article  but very interesting...jt

Can 'Hacking Back' Be An Effective Cyber Answer?

With the exponential growth in data breaches over the past few years, the concept of ‘hacking back’ is growing in popularity. Proponents ask: If I can use a gun for self-defense in my home, why can’t I similarly ‘hack back’ against attackers who invade my cyberspace? Let’s examine that premise from different perspectives.


All around the world, companies, governments and individuals are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of effective solutions to our growing criminal problems in cyberspace. For many, the bad guys are not just winning, they are currently crushing the good guys with few negative consequences.

When it comes to cybercrime, online attacks against critical systems, destructive malware and other forms of cyberattacks, more experts are coming to the conclusion that "just playing defense" is a losing online strategy in the long run.

What can be done? One popular answer is taking the battle to the bad guys. People call it many different things, from offensive cybercapabilities to electronic countermeasures to strikeback to hacking back or hack back.

While there are many different definitions and stories about hacking back, the term basically “involves turning the tables on a cyberhacking assailant: thwarting or stopping the crime, or perhaps even trying to steal back what was taken.”
The Supportive Case for Hacking Back

According to a growing number of security experts, there are steps that could be taken to allow for progress in this area.

In a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing held in September last year, Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., noted that the nation's intelligence chiefs have lamented the lack of a clear national cyberdeterrence strategy:

"From the private sector to government, our country is taking body blow after body blow in cyberspace," Royce said in his opening statement. "Why aren't we hitting back?"

James Lewis, director and senior fellow in the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Strategic Technologies Program, said hitting back could be just the thing.

"We need to make credible threats," he said. "We need to have countries believe that we will respond with punitive action."

While Israel, Russia and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom and France have all shown they'll hit back after a cyberattack, the U.S. has lagged, Lewis said.

Several other experts also testified on what cyber-counter-attack steps might make sense.

But those discussions involved government actions. What about the private sector?

Earlier in 2015, Juan Zarate, the former deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism during President George W. Bush’s administration, told a forum at the Hudson Institute that “The U.S. government should deputize private companies to strike back against cyberattackers as a way to discourage widespread threats against the nation’s businesses, a former government official says.”

Many U.S. businesses have limited options for defending their IP networks, and the nation needs to develop more “aggressive” capabilities to discourage cyberattacks, said Zarate.

The U.S. government should consider allowing businesses to develop “tailored hack-back capabilities,” Zarate said Monday at a forum on economic and cyberespionage hosted by think tank the Hudson Institute. The U.S. government could issue cyberwarrants, giving a private company license “to protect its system, to go and destroy data that’s been stolen or maybe even something more aggressive,” he added.

Several panelists at the Hudson event contributed to a new report, Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare: An Evolving Challenge.

Furthermore, TheGuardian (UK) highlighted the perspectives of Dennis Blair, former director of national intelligence in the Obama administration, who has come out in favor of electronic countermeasures. Here’s an excerpt:

Blair co-authored a 2013 report from the US Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property. It considered explicitly authorising strikeback operations but stopped short of endorsing this measure at the time.

Instead, the report suggested exploring non-destructive alternatives, such as electronically tagging stolen data for later detection. It also called for a rethinking of the laws that forbid hacking, even in self-defence.

Significant Concerns With Hacking Back

Beyond the fact that it is illegal to hack back, there are currently a long list of concerns with going on the cyberoffense. Several of these are listed in this Kaspersky blog. Here are four:

Attackers can remain anonymous forever
Cyberattacks are asymmetric: a single hacker is capable of successfully destroying an entire company
It’s cheap and easy for hackers to regroup almost anywhere, anytime, even if their systems are physically destroyed
Organized crime has enthusiastically embraced cybercrime (i.e., don’t expect them to play nice)

Along the same lines as item No. 1, researchers point out the difficult problem of attribution — that is knowing who really attacked you in cyberspace.

Jason Hong, associate professor at Central Michigan State University, said “Companies should absolutely not hack back against cyberthieves. One major concern is attribution, namely knowing that you have identified the right parties. Intruders typically use other people’s computers and servers, so odds are high that a company would simply be attacking an innocent party. ...”

Questions abound regarding how this world work if everyone was attacking everyone else, which could lead to even more chaos. What is the threshold test for the level of certainty required to enforce rights?

This Security Week article contains quotes from many different industry experts regarding their views on hacking back. I find several of the quotes to be interesting, such as Chris Pogue from Nuix:

"When asked about the concept of hacking back, the answer is simple. It's cyber vigilantism. It's illegal. Don't do it. So as not to operate in the world of such moral absolutes, let me provide some additional details into why this is a horrible idea:

1. Poking the Bear — Attackers, regardless of their skill level, enjoy several advantages, not the least of which is that they are hackers and most IT professionals are not. ...

2. Who are you attacking — A large percentage of attacks take place from something called, "Jump Servers" or "Jump Boxes. ..."

3. Don't start an international incident — Many countries from which these attacks are launched consider cyber-attacks tantamount to an act of war. ...

4. We have people for that — There are federal agencies like the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA whose job it is to handle situations like this. ...”

Is There Any Middle Ground?

In a Financial Times article last summer, John Strand described a set of 20 tricks and traps to thwart cybercriminals.

“The main active defense tactics as the three As: annoyance, attribution and attack. Only two of the three As are considered above-board, however.

Annoyance involves tracking a hacker and leading him into a fake server, wasting his time — and making him easy to detect. A new generation of start-ups is specializing in building traps for data centers, including two Israeli companies, TrapX and Guardicore.

Attribution uses tools to trace the source of an attack back to a specific location, or even an individual hacker. The two most popular tools in the ADHD kit are attribution techniques: the “honey badger,” which locates the source of an attack, tracking its latitude and longitude with a satellite picture, and beacons, which are placed in documents to detect when and where data is accessed outside the user’s system.”

But it is the third A — attack — that is most controversial. To “hack back,” a company accesses an alleged hacker’s computer to delete its data or even to take revenge. Both of these steps are considered illegal.

I believe that it is important to reiterate the three options laid out by the Financial Times: annoyance, attribution and hacking back.

Clarity is important, and there is a big difference between leading a hacker to a fake server (using “honeypots” or other tricks) or trace their sources of attack and taking revenge or deleting data from other systems. No doubt, the lines can get fuzzy at times, but the reality is pretty clear for most people.

Final Thoughts

Despite the many challenges to hacking back that exist today, the concept of self-defense in cyberspace is bound to lead to new laws and new clarity in regard to hacking back.

It seems to me that the biggest difference between a gun self-defense policy and cyber self-defense policy is the absolute certainty that a person has when someone is running at you with a knife or a gun in your home. There is almost no doubt who you are fighting and what needs to be done in the physical world, and cyberspace brings a host of unknowns. Bottom line, attribution is very hard.

Nevertheless, I believe that new approaches will emerge over the coming decade, which may change the playing field in cyberspace. I’m not exactly sure how we will solve the difficulties, but I have a strong feeling that this “hacking back” topic is just beginning to heat up.


May 22, 2017:  I thought after starting back working on my site I'd have plenty of time for writing poetry and drawing....I was wrong. For my friends who enjoy reading my writings, I'm posting this for you  2013 writings by Jan Tetstone     You are welcome to share the link with your family and friends.   love and peace   jt

NO MORE YAHOO FOR ME.....!         yahoo sold out

Before continuing, please consider the following information.
By terminating this account, you will lose your Yahoo identity and Yahoo Mail account (including Business Mail provided by Aabaco Small Business), as well as your Flickr account and, in many instances, your Tumblr account, if applicable. We will also delete or anonymize your account data and settings across the Yahoo network. This includes the contents of your Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo Contacts, Business Mail services provided with your Aabaco Small Business account, My Yahoo settings and more, including your Flickr photos and the statistics for your Flickr account, if applicable. Account deletion will also terminate access to any paid services that you own with this Yahoo account. You may not be able to recover payments remitted for these services or the data associated with these accounts.
To help avoid unnecessary charges, before proceeding please verify that you have no active premium services associated with this Yahoo account (including any Aabaco Small Business services). If you are a Yahoo Ad Free Mail customer, please manage your billing account at If you are an Aabaco Small Business customer (formerly Yahoo Small Business), please manage your billing account at If you are a Flickr Pro customer, please manage your billing account at
If you are a Fantasy Sports user and have funds in your fantasy wallet (, please be sure to withdraw any remaining balance prior to deleting your Yahoo account because you will no longer be able to access your fantasy wallet.
In most cases your account will be deactivated and then deleted from our user registration database in approximately 40 days with longer hold periods for accounts registered in: Australia or New Zealand (approx. 90 days); and Brazil or Taiwan (approx. 180 days). This delay is necessary to discourage fraudulent activity.
Click here to learn what information may possibly remain in our archived records after your account has been deleted.
Please note that due to the limited number of names available, we may allow other users to sign up for and use your curren Yahoo identity after your account has been deleted.

We are sorry to see you go!
Are you sure you want to terminate your Yahoo! Account?
If so, please confirm your identity with your email address.

Enter your email address
Yes, terminate this account


How Jerry Yang Killed Yahoo, By Saving It

Brian Solomon , FORBES STAFF

yahoo verizon sale aol 5 billion jerry yang alibaba investment
Jerry Yang's genius is partially to blame for Yahoo selling to Verizon. (Ethan Pines For Forbes)

In 2005, Yahoo cofounder Jerry Yang pulled off what would be one of the greatest strategic investments in tech history: he arranged for Yahoo to spend $1 billion for a 40% stake in fledgling Chinese ecommerce site Alibaba.

The deal for Alibaba was expensive and risky at the time, but ended up as the most lucrative bet in Silicon Valley: at today's prices, that stake would be worth more than $80 billion. Normally, such a success would preserve a company for years, but on Monday morning Yahoo announced that it would sell its operating business—the web properties without Alibaba and other investments—to Verizon for less than $5 billion, pennies on the dollar it would have commanded at its peak 15 years ago.

Ironically, the Yahoo sale became an inevitability not in spite of Yang's amazing Alibaba heist, but because of it. Yahoo's core business of news, email, and advertising technology has been in a steady decline for years, as the company missed out on the search, social, and mobile waves. But there would be no impetus to sell, abandoning Yahoo's independence, if not for the Alibaba stake.

That's because a cold reality emerged after Alibaba, now the leader in China's massive ecommerce opportunity, went public in the largest IPO in history in September 2014. Suddenly Yahoo investors could see clearly that the company's ownership stake in Alibaba (which had been reduced by more than half in various sales) was worth far more than Yahoo's struggling websites. Not only that, but tax implications became a huge priority. If Yahoo were to sell its shares in Alibaba on the open market to reap the windfall Yang achieved, it could incur a tax of 38% on the transaction, or more than $10 billion.

That fact led to an odd truth: the value of finding a way to divest of the Alibaba stake (and smaller Yahoo Japan stake, in a similar position) in a tax-free way became worth more than Yahoo's core business itself. When analysts calculated the Yahoo's assets piecemeal, the core business appeared to be trading for a value below zero. Here's Bloomberg View's Matt Levine on that notion last December:

Recommended by Forbes


Rally for Dwight and Steven Hammond
Published on Jan 7, 2016
Rally for Dwight and Steven Hammond of Burns, OR, January 2, 2016.



5/19/17: Weekly Address
The White House
Published on May 19, 2017
The White House

Why does Trump parrot what someone else wrote. One can tell he's reading from cards.
The President appears to be buttering up US veterans in his WH speeches. Watch your back America.
Bs is bs regardless of whose mouth it comes from jt


Andrea Parker ~ Judge Gloria Navarro clarifies the trial schedule and denies motions to consolidate.
Published on May 19, 2017
Tier 3 will begin retrial on June 26th. Tier 1 trial will begin 30 days after verdicts


Check this out Crime in Banking


Obama Sold the American people out when he signed this [below]...........jt


The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release June 15, 2011
Executive Order 13577--SelectUSA Initiative


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to support private sector job creation and enhance economic growth by encouraging and supporting business investment in the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Business investment in the United States by both domestic and foreign firms, whether in the form of new equipment or facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, is a major engine of economic growth and job creation. In an era of global capital mobility, the United States faces increasing competition for retaining and attracting industries of the future and the jobs they create. My Administration is committed to enhancing the efforts of the United States to win the growing global competition for business investment by leveraging our advantages as the premier business location in the world.

As a place to do business, the United States offers a hardworking, diverse, and educated workforce, strong protection of intellectual property rights, a predictable and transparent legal system, relatively low taxes, highly developed infrastructure, and access to the world's most lucrative consumer market. We welcome both domestic and foreign businesses to invest across the broad spectrum of the U.S. market.

The Federal Government lacks the centralized investment promotion infrastructure and resources to attract business investment that is often found in other industrialized countries. Currently, States and cities are competing against foreign governments to attract business investment. Our Nation needs to retain business investment and pursue and win new investment in the United States by better marketing our strengths, providing clear, complete, and consistent information, and removing unnecessary obstacles to investment.

Sec. 2. SelectUSA Initiative. (a) Establishment. There is established the SelectUSA Initiative (Initiative), a Government wide initiative to attract and retain investment in the American economy. The Initiative is to be housed in the Department of Commerce. The mission of this Initiative shall be to facilitate business investment in the United States in order to create jobs, spur economic growth, and promote American competitiveness. The Initiative will provide enhanced coordination of Federal activities in order to increase the impact of Federal resources that support both domestic and foreign investment in the United States. In providing assistance, the Initiative shall work to maximize impact on business investment, job creation, and economic growth. The Initiative shall work on behalf of the entire Nation and shall exercise strict neutrality with regard to specific locations within the United States.

(b) Functions.

(i) The Initiative shall coordinate outreach and engagement by the Federal Government to promote the United States as the premier location to operate a business.

(ii) The Initiative shall serve as an ombudsman that facilitates the resolution of issues involving Federal programs or activities related to pending investments.

(iii) The Initiative shall provide information to domestic and foreign firms on: the investment climate in the United States; Federal programs and incentives available to investors; and State and local economic development organizations.

(iv) The Initiative shall report quarterly to the President through the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, and the National Security Staff, describing its outreach activities, requests for information received, and efforts to resolve issues.

(c) Administration. The Department of Commerce shall provide funding and administrative support for the Initiative through resources and staff assigned to work on the Initiative, to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations. The Secretary of Commerce shall designate a senior staff member as the Executive Director to lead the Initiative. The Executive Director shall coordinate activities both within the Department of Commerce and with other executive departments and agencies that have activities relating to business investment decisions.

(d) Federal Interagency Investment Working Group.

(i) There is established the Federal Interagency Investment Working Group (Working Group), which will be convened and chaired by the Initiative's Executive Director, in coordination with the Director of the National Economic Council.

(ii) The Working Group shall consist of senior officials from the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Export Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the National Security Staff, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisers, as well as such additional executive departments, agencies, and offices as the Secretary of Commerce may designate. Senior officials shall be designated by and report to the Deputy Secretary or official at the equivalent level of their respective offices, departments, and agencies.

(iii) The Working Group shall coordinate activities to promote business investment and respond to specific issues that affect business investment decisions.

(iv) The Department of Commerce shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

(e) Department and Agency Participation. All executive departments and agencies that have activities relating to business investment decisions shall cooperate with the Initiative, as requested by the Initiative's Executive Director, to support its objectives.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof, or the status of that department or agency within the Federal Government; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


June 15, 2011. 



This is 2014 article. With the US Government stealing land, and allowing bankers to sale our mortgages to foreigners, Americans will have no choice but to stand together to rid our country of the elite few bankers.....There is no gold to back our dollar.....I suggest the federal reserve print all the 'money' Americans need to be debt free........jt

10 countries racing to buy American homes
Alexander E.M. Hess, Vince Calio and Thomas C. Frohlich, 24/7 Wall St. 6:30 a.m. ET April 12, 2014

International homebuyers are attracted to the United States for a number of reasons. These include favorable housing prices, good weather, the country's relative economic stability and an attraction to America in general. As the housing market improved and home prices rebounded, the interest of foreign buyers in U.S. properties has soared.

Interest in U.S. property increased dramatically in a number of countries between 2009 and 2013. In all, interest in home buying, according to housing market firm RealtyTrac, increased by 95% or more in 10 countries, and at least doubled in nine of these nations. Interest in U.S. property by residents of the United Arab Emirates rose 352%, the most out of any country. Based on subscription data provided by RealtyTrac, these are the 10 countries where interest in buying American homes is on the rise.

Overseas buyers likely see value in the U.S. housing market. In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Daren Blomquist, vice president of RealtyTrac, said, "The U.S. real estate market is coming off of a rough patch and entering recovery mode. And so international buyers see it as a great time to jump in and catch the U.S. market on the upswing." According to the Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index, the U.S. housing market is just beginning to rebound from its lows set in March 2012.

While tepid growth may dissuade some potential homebuyers, these countries have many exceptionally wealthy residents. Three of these countries — Germany, the United Kingdom and China — each had more than 10,000 ultra high net worth residents last year and were in the top five countries globally in that measure. China's total number of ultra high net worth residents is even greater if the 3,180 ultra wealthy residents of Hong Kong are included.

Another key factor that drives many prospective homebuyers to consider the United States is common language. English-speaking countries accounted for 68% of international residents looking for homes in the U.S. Much of this interest came from U.S. neighbor Canada, which alone accounted for 45% of all international interest. The United Kingdom and Australia also each accounted for more than 10% of all interest, ranking second and third among all countries, respectively.

However, language does not explain the increased interest from countries such as the UAE and China, Blomquist noted. Additionally, much of the growth in foreign interest has come from European nations, including Switzerland and France. Six of the countries with the largest percentage increases in property seekers are located in Europe.

Another likely important factor in driving international interest in U.S. homeownership may be America's reputation as a relative safe haven for investors. For many buyers, Blomquist noted, the U.S. represents "the most stable country out there."

Concerns about the financial systems in Italy and China may contribute to demand for U.S. homes from those countries as well. Worries in China, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland and the U.K. about the local housing market may also be driving U.S. investment.

To determine the 10 countries where the interest in buying American homes is on the rise, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed subscriber data from RealtyTrac. We also reviewed figures on real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth, population and other macroeconomic factors from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) World Economic Outlook. Figures on the number of ultra high net worth individuals, defined as people worth $25 million or more, are from Wealth-X.

These are the countries racing to buy American homes.

10. Germany

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 95.2%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 2.6% (7th highest)
> GDP per capita: $39,468 (18th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 17,820 (2nd highest)

Germans accounted for 2.6% of all of RealtyTrac's international homebuyers looking for U.S. property between 2009 and 2013. During that time, home searches rose by more than 95%. Contributing to Germans' ability to afford international property was the country's high number of ultra high net worth individuals last year of 17,820, second only to the United States. Despite the weakness of the eurozone economy and Germany's own slowing growth, no major eurozone country grew faster in 2013. However, interest in U.S. properties has tapered off recently, despite the euro's gains against the dollar. Between 2012 and 2013, the number of German prospective homebuyers to RealtyTrac rose by just 3.4%, less than most foreign nations during that time.

9. Sweden

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 100.0%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 2.0% (9th highest)
> GDP per capita: $40,870 (14th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 1,070 (25th highest)

The number of Swedes interested in buying U.S. real estate doubled between 2009 and 2013. Much of this growth happened last year, when the number of Swedish home searches to RealtyTrac rose by 43%. Like many countries with many residents looking for homes in America, U.S. property may be considered an especially good investment, especially as their country's economy has been stagnant. Sweden's gross domestic product has grown less than 1% in each of the past two years. Additionally, many Swedes might find U.S. home prices more affordable. U.S. home prices remain below last decade's highs, while many market followers believe Swedish home prices are precariously high.

8. Canada

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 107.7%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 45.0% (the highest)
> GDP per capita: $43,146 (9th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 4,980 (8th highest)

Canadians make up the largest share of international U.S. home-buying interest, accounting for 45% of total international RealtyTrac subscriptions between 2009 and 2013. The U.S. geographical proximity to Canada and the cultural similarities between the two nations may explain the interest of Canadian investors. The strength of the Canadian economy may have also given residents more opportunities to invest. Last year, the average Canadian household's net worth, the total value of all assets minus all debt, exceeded that of the average U.S. household. Residents may also find U.S. properties attractive because some consider Canada's housing market to be overvalued by some.

7. Australia

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 121.9%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 11.0% (3rd highest)
> GDP per capita: $43,042 (10th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 3,405 (11th highest)

Australians accounted for 11% of all of RealtyTrac's international subscribers, third most after the United Kingdom and Canada. The country's strong economic growth — at least when compared to other major developed economies — likely contributed to the increased interest in buying U.S. property. Australia's economy grew by 3.7% in 2012 and an estimated 2.5% last year, according to the most recent IMF figures. By contrast, countries in the developed world grew by just 1.4% in 2012 and 1.3% in 2013. Despite recent declines, the Australian dollar has also gained considerably against the U.S. dollar in the past few years, also potentially contributing to the increased interest.

6. United Kingdom

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 153.8%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 12.1% (2nd highest)
> GDP per capita: $37,299 (21st highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 10,910 (4th highest)

U.K. interest in owning American property has jumped in recent years, including a 34.6% increase in the number of residents looking for property on RealtyTrac alone. Economic reasons could influence prospective homebuyers — residents may see U.S. homes as a safe or profitable investment. The U.K. government's Help to Buy program, which provides financial help to prospective homeowners in the U.K., has drawn controversy. Detractors of the program have expressed concerns that home prices in the U.K. could rise to unsustainable levels. According to a June 2013 study by the National Association of Realtors, U.K. residents primarily buy single-family homes in suburbs and resort towns in the United States.

5. Italy

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 178.4%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 1.9% (10th highest)
> GDP per capita: $29,598 (34th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 2,075 (14th highest)

Italian interest in U.S. homes rose considerably in recent years. Residents looking for homes in the U.S. rose by 178% between 2009 and 2013, despite Italian GDP falling by 2.4% in 2012 and 1.8% last year. In fact, the faltering economy may encourage many Italians to consider U.S. property as a relatively good investment. Italy is also home to a number of extremely wealthy citizens with the resources to invest globally. As of last year, there were more than 2,000 ultra high net worth individuals in Italy — 14th most globally — despite the fact Italy's population totals an estimated 61 million, 24th most in the world.

4. France

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 190.0%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 2.8% (6th highest)
> GDP per capita: $35,680 (24th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 4,490 (9th highest)

Interest in the United States from French residents has soared recently. Searches for homes on RealtyTrac from France nearly tripled from 2009 to 2013, and rose by nearly 60% last year alone. One reason for this may be that France had nearly 4,500 ultra high net worth residents as of last year, more than in all but eight other countries globally. However, France's economy has also flatlined in recent years, which can often prevent foreigners from buying U.S. property. Simultaneously, many observers and residents have criticized President Francois Hollande's socialist policy decisions and the resulting high taxes. A number of reports indicate that residents may be leaving the country due to high taxes and tough regulations.

3. Hong Kong and China

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 254.2%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 4.1% (4th highest)
> GDP per capita: $52,687 (7th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 13,855 (4th highest)

China's residents are a major source of international interest in U.S. real estate. China and Hong Kong, collectively, accounted for 4.1% of all international searches on RealtyTrac, more than any other non-English speaking country. One factor that may contribute to this demand is the high number of ultra wealthy residents in mainland China and Hong Kong, where a total of 13,855 such individuals live — more than in all developed nations but the United States, Germany and Japan. In recent years, many wealthy Chinese citizens have considered, or expressed interest in, moving to the United States. Additionally, while China's economy remains one of the fastest growing in the world, concerns about slowing economic growth and rampant shadow banking activity in the country are considerable. A relatively wealthy population, and concerns about wealth protection, may encourage Chinese residents to consider U.S. property.

2. Switzerland

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 269.7%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 2.1% (8th highest)
> GDP per capita: $45,999 (8th highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 6,330 (7th highest)

The number of Swiss residents interested in U.S. property has risen dramatically in recent years. Only the United Arab Emirates had a larger increase in the number of prospective homebuyers than the small Alpine nation. Swiss residents accounted for 2% of all international searches despite a population of just roughly 8 million — smaller than New York City. Despite its size, Switzerland was also home to more than 6,300 ultra wealthy residents last year — more than all but a handful of countries. Also helping to make U.S. properties more appealing, or at least more affordable, is the considerable appreciation of the Swiss franc against the dollar over the past five years, up nearly 27% in that time.

1. United Arab Emirates

> Growth in prospective homebuyers: 352.2%
> Share of int'l prospective buyers: 1.1% (12th highest)
> GDP per capita: $29,877 (31st highest)
> Ultra high net worth population: 1,050 (26th highest)

While UAE residents accounted for just 1.1% of RealtyTrac's international searches, interest in U.S. property from the country has boomed. Between 2009 and 2013, the number of UAE subscribers rose by 352%, the largest percentage increase of any country. One reason may be the relatively high number of residents who can afford international property ownership. While the country has just 9 million residents, it had more than 1,000 ultra high net worth residents last year. Much of this wealth is likely connected to the country's oil industry. Roughly 40% of the emirates' GDP was tied to oil and natural gas output, according to OPEC, and oil prices have risen considerably in recent years.

24/7 Wall St. is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

Nolan meets with Trump Cabinet officers in bid to revive BWCA-area copper mining
The DFL congressman sees a chance that the administration will undo Obama decision.
By Maya Rao Star Tribune MAY 19, 2017 — 9:32AM

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan, a DFLer, hasn’t let his party affiliation stop him from pushing the Trump administration to reverse a late decision by the Obama administration blocking a proposed northeastern Minnesota copper mine that’s raised concerns about proximity to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

Nolan met recently with Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to seek support for renewing mining exploration leases for Twin Metals Minnesota. Nolan called the meeting “very good” in an interview and said the appointee of President Donald Trump “said he would give it the most serious consideration.”
read more:

Patton Speech

Uploaded on Feb 11, 2010
Patton speech in Los Angeles 1945 and death. Narrated by Ronald Reagan



John Wayne on liberals

Uploaded on Sep 5, 2010
Audio excerpted and condensed from, 1975.
Interview conducted by Tony Macklin. Audio interview originally published on February 15, 2009 on


Be careful not to judge blindly.

The eyes of a guilty man have no shine..   jt



It looks to me like we will soon have two Americas. One part  all the land belongs to those running the government. And the other a free America where people own public property without dictators telling them how to live, how to raise their children, what to eat and what to think....It's coming.....  jt

The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of
land in the United States. Four major federal land management agencies administer 610.1 million
acres of this land (as of September 30, 2015). They are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the
Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the
Department of Defense (excluding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) administers 11.4 million
acres in the United States (as of September 30, 2014), consisting of military bases, training
ranges, and more. Numerous other agencies administer the remaining federal acreage.

The lands administered by the four major agencies are managed for many purposes, primarily
related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet the agencies have
distinct responsibilities. The BLM manages 248.3 million acres of public land and administers
about 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM has
a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of activities and programs, as does
the FS, which currently manages 192.9 million acres. Most FS lands are designated national
forests. Wildfire protection is increasingly important for both agencies. The FWS manages 89.1
million acres of the U.S. total, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National
Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife
coordination units. In 2015, the NPS managed 79.8 million acres in 408 diverse units to conserve
lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove
resources from NPS lands generally are prohibited.

The amount and percentage of federally owned land in each state varies widely, ranging from
0.3% of land (in Connecticut and Iowa) to 79.6% of land (in Nevada). However, federal land
ownership generally is concentrated in the West. Specifically, 61.3% of Alaska is federally
owned, as is 46.4% of the 11 coterminous western states. By contrast, the federal government
owns 4.2% of lands in the other states. This western concentration has contributed to a higher
degree of controversy over federal land ownership and use in that part of the country.

Throughout America’s history, federal land laws have reflected two visions: keeping some lands
in federal ownership while disposing of others. From the earliest days, there has been conflict
between these two visions. During the 19th century, many laws encouraged settlement of the West
through federal land disposal. Mostly in the 20th century, emphasis shifted to retention of federal
lands. Congress has provided varying land acquisition and disposal authorities to the agencies,
ranging from restricted (NPS) to broad (BLM). As a result of acquisitions and disposals, from
1990 to 2015, total federal land ownership by the five agencies declined by 25.4 million acres
(3.9%), from 646.9 million acres to 621.5 million acres. Much of the decline is attributable to
BLM land disposals in Alaska and to reductions in DOD land. By contrast, land ownership by the
NPS, FWS, and FS increased over the 25-year period. Further, although 15 states had decreases
of federal land during this period, the other states had varying increases.

Numerous issues affecting federal land management are before Congress. These issues include
the extent of federal ownership and whether to decrease, maintain, or increase the amount of
federal holdings; the condition of currently owned federal infrastructure and lands and the priority
of their maintenance versus new acquisitions; and the optimal balance between land use and
protection, and whether federal lands should be managed primarily to benefit the nation as a
whole or to benefit the localities and states. Another issue is border control on federal lands along
the southwestern border, which presents challenges due to the length of the border, remoteness
and topography of the lands, and differences in missions of managing agencies.

The new Cherokee morning song with translation


There are some stories that should stay before the public-eye. Until those in higher places stop abusing their power ,as public office holders, Americans  natural and constitutional rights are not safe.... Remember the truth is often dictated by those who controls the news. When possible I will post the legal documents, when posting..... I posted this article to show the propaganda being fed to the public about this heartbreaking case.    jt


District of Oregon
You are here
U.S. Attorneys » District of Oregon » News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Oregon
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison

EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.

The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.

By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.

“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.”

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman handled the prosecution of this case.


I thank God for this day .... jt

Conway Twitty - Goodbye Time (1988) High Quality





John Lamb ~ Sheriff's Department contradicts themselves
J Grady
Published on May 19, 2017
May 18, 2017
Day 14 at Camp Liberty in Pahrump Nevada protesting prisoner abuse at CoreCivic know formally as CCA Nevada Southern Detention Center.
CCA has been abusing and torturing prisoners that are awaiting on trial, and are being held there without bond or pretrial release. One of the forms of torture is that they practice corporal punishment on prisoners by locking them up in a 3 foot by 3 foot shower cell for up to 72 hours. Most recently a prisoner was locked in this 36 inches by 36 inches shower sell for 13 hours without food or water with his hands handcuffed behind his back the entire time. and forced to go to the bathroom while being left inside of this small confined area, unable to lay down or rest during this whole 13 hours.
Copyright Disclaimer:
Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.



The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

May 19, 2017
President Donald J. Trump Approves Idaho Disaster Declaration

Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump declared that a major disaster exists in the State of Idaho and ordered Federal assistance to supplement State, tribal, and local recovery efforts in the areas affected by severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides from March 6 to March 28, 2017.

Federal funding is available to State, tribal, and eligible local governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides in the counties of Bonner, Boundary, Clearwater, Idaho, Kootenai, Latah, Shoshone, and Valley.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.

Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Timothy B. Manner as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected areas.

Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the State and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.


Alabama - Feels So Right


It appears Atheists and Christians have something in common

In July 2013, a group of atheists unveiled a monument to their non-belief in God to sit alongside a granite slab that lists the Ten Commandments in front of the Bradford County courthouse.

The atheists celebrated what they believe was the first atheist monument allowed on government property in the United States.

"When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

It also serves another function — a counter to the religious monument that the New Jersey-based group wanted removed. It's a case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

American Atheists sued to try to have the stone slab with the Ten Commandments taken away from the courthouse lawn in this rural, conservative north Florida town. The Community Men's Fellowship erected the monument in what's described as a free speech zone. During mediation on the case, the atheist group was told it could have its own monument, too.

At one point, Eric Hovind, 35, of Pensacola jumped atop the peak of the monument and shouted his thanks to the atheists for giving him a platform to declare Jesus is real. Atheists shouted at him, and he stepped down after about a minute. One man yelled that religion is a fairy tale.

"The problem is it's not a fairy tale," Hovind said. "We definitely have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

Hovind and others said they respected the right of the group to install the monument, even if they disagree with the message behind it.

           These Judges Get it Wrong

In 2015, a 4,800-pound Ten Commandments monument on the Oklahoma Capitol grounds was removed by workers in the dark on Monday and transported to the offices of a private conservative think tank.

The move followed a decision in June from the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the statue violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support “any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.”

The monument, a 6-foot-tall, 3-foot-wide slab of stone shaped into two tablets, paid for with private donations and approved by the legislature, was installed at the statehouse in Oklahoma City in 2012.

In the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s June ruling, seven of the nine justices noted that their opinion “rests solely on the Oklahoma constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence.”

The justices wrote, “As concerns the ‘historic purpose’ justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Because the monument at issue operates for the use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion, it violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution and is enjoined and shall be removed.”

Family's not about being together all the time. Family is about being there when you're needed.-jt


The Sun Reflecting off of Nanoparticles


Jan Tetstone took this picture May 18, 2017  Lawtey, FL



Court footage shows Deputy U.S. Marshals tackling Ammon Bundy’s lawyer (FULL)

Published on Feb 16, 2017
Court video shows Deputy U.S. Marshals tackling Ammon Bundy’s lawyer Marcus Mumford October 27, 2016. Video courtesy: U.S. District Court.



16 30080 USA v. Ammon Bundy

Published on Nov 19, 2016
Five defendants charged in the District of Oregon with conspiracy to impede federal employees at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge appeal an order allowing .



Donald Trump's Argument For America
Team Trump
Published on Nov 6, 2016


The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 18, 2017
President Donald J. Trump Announces Key Additions to his Administration

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Appoint G. Keith Bryant to the Department of Homeland Security

President Donald J. Trump today announced his intent to appoint G. Keith Bryant to the Department of Homeland Security.

G. Keith Bryant of Oklahoma will serve as the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. Chief Bryant is the past president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), past president of the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, and past president of the Oklahoma Fire Chiefs Association (OFCA). He is also a member of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Currently, he serves on the National Fallen Firefighters Advisory Committee and Advisory Board for the Municipal Fire Protection Program (OSU-OKC). He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Central Oklahoma Chapter of the American Red Cross, YMCA of Greater OKC, and chairs the Oklahoma City National Memorial Conscience Committee. Governor Brad Henry appointed him to the Oklahoma State Fire Marshals Commission in July 2006.


President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Elizabeth Erin Walsh to the Department of Commerce

President Donald J. Trump today announced his intent to nominate Elizabeth Erin Walsh to the Department of Commerce.

If confirmed, Elizabeth Erin Walsh of the District of Columbia will serve as Assistant Secretary and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service, Department of Commerce. Ms. Walsh currently serves as Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Presidential Personnel. She has had an extensive career in the international arena in both the private and public sectors. Ms. Walsh has served more than 12 years in the Federal Government, including at the Department of State, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and the Department of Energy. She also worked at the United Nations, serving 18 months in Bosnia, during the war. At the Department of State, Ms. Walsh was a senior advisor in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Ms. Walsh has spent 12 years in the private sector at Cisco and Goldman Sachs. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government and International Relations from Georgetown University and a Master of Science degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science. 

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseMay 17, 2017
President Donald J. Trump Signs H.J.Res. 66 into Law

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017, the President signed into law:

H.J.Res. 66, which nullifies the Department of Labor's rule on Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees.

Doctor Linked to Senator Menendez’s Corruption Case Is Convicted of Fraud

A Florida eye doctor was convicted on Friday of running a vast scheme to defraud Medicare of more than $90 million in a case that could have significant ramifications for Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

The doctor, Salomon E. Melgen, a prominent ophthalmologist, has been the longtime political benefactor of Mr. Menendez, a Democrat. Both face federal corruption charges in an unrelated case scheduled to go on trial in September in Newark. The senator is accused of trading political favors for free trips on the doctor’s private jet, lavish vacations to his resort home in the Dominican Republic and a stay at a five-star hotel in Paris.

A jury in Palm Beach County, Fla., found Dr. Melgen guilty on all 67 counts of Medicare fraud, and according to prosecutors in the case, he could spend at least 15 years in prison. The conviction and the sentence he now faces could increase pressure on Dr. Melgen to cooperate with the authorities in the case against Mr. Menendez, his co-defendant in their pending trial.

After he is sentenced in the Florida case in July, Dr. Melgen, if he should choose to cooperate, could seek to have that sentence reduced. A provision of federal law allows a judge, upon a motion by the government, to reduce a defendant’s sentence if the defendant is found to have provided “substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.”

A lawyer for Dr. Melgen in the Florida trial, Kirk Ogrosky, said the doctor views the two cases as completely separate.

“It will have no impact on what will happen in New Jersey,” Mr. Ogrosky said in a phone interview. “He intends to go to trial in New Jersey in September, and nothing about the Florida case changes that.”

A lawyer for Mr. Menendez said that the senator was “saddened for his longtime friend” but that the conviction in Florida would have “no bearing” on the bribery charges against his client.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey at a hearing on Capitol Hill last month. Credit Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters
“This verdict will have no impact on him,” the lawyer, Abbe David Lowell, said in a statement. “Dr. Melgen’s case focused solely on the day-to-day operations of his medical practice and the private care of his patients — specifics of which the senator could not be aware, nor has it ever been suggested otherwise.”

Mr. Menendez and Dr. Melgen have pleaded not guilty to the bribery charges, and Mr. Menendez has spent two years aggressively fighting them. They have been close friends since the 1990s, and the bribery charges revolve around their relationship.

Dr. Melgen gave $700,000 through his company, Vitreo-Retinal Consultants, to the Senate Majority PAC, a so-called super PAC to support Senate Democrats, and instructed that the contributions aid Mr. Menendez’s 2012 re-election campaign.

For the help Mr. Menendez received, prosecutors contend, the senator urged the Obama administration to alter the Medicare reimbursement policy in a way that would make millions for Dr. Melgen. In 2012 alone, Dr. Melgen received $21 million in Medicare reimbursements.

In addition, prosecutors said, Mr. Menendez tried to push a port security deal that involved Dr. Melgen and worked to obtain United States travel visas for the doctor’s foreign girlfriends.

Mr. Menendez was rewarded for his help, according to prosecutors, and received free trips on Dr. Melgen’s jet and spent three nights in an executive suite in Paris for a trip valued at nearly $5,000. After an ethics complaint was filed against Mr. Menendez for not reporting trips to the Dominican Republic as gifts, he wrote a $58,500 check to reimburse Dr. Melgen’s company.

Federal investigators started to look into Dr. Melgen’s billings to Medicare because he was charging a significantly higher rate for a medication to treat macular degeneration than his peers were. The government said he billed for one vial of the medicine for each patient when he had in fact used one vial to treat three or four patients.

Mr. Menendez came under federal scrutiny when he sought to help Dr. Melgen in the billing dispute, calling the Medicare director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2009 and mentioning it at a meeting with the acting administrator in 2012.

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.


Nevada Bundy Protest - Jeanette Finicum's Jericho March - Tuesday 05/18/17 - Liberty Grows


Nevada Bundy Protest - March to end Prison abuse w/ Jeanette Finicum - Tuesday 05/16/17
Valley Forge Network



Are Those in the Abortion Industry pulling Rep Al Green's Strings
by Jan Tetstone
May 17, 2017

You know, I wasn't sure Donald Trump was President material until I took the time to do some research and saw the names of a few of his opponents. People like Maxine Waters,and Al Green. have helped me understand why President Trump was the best choice Americans could have made.

Maxine Waters is a disgrace to women and motherhood.
Voted NO on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Nov 2013)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Al Green is in the same class with Maxine Waters as his voting record will show.

Recently, the Trump administration said it would vastly expand the so-called global gag rule that withholds American aid from health organizations worldwide that provide or even discuss abortion in family planning.

Two US Representatives want President Donald Trump impeached after his administration said it was going to 'vastly expand' a rule that withholds American aid from organizations worldwide that provide or even discuss abortion in family Planning.

TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: 59,115,995 This is based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2014, with projections of 926,190 for 2015-16. GI estimates a possible 3 percent under reporting rate, which is factored into the overall total. [1/17]

Indeed, nearly every media accusation against Trump has been based on nothing but innuendo, misleading headlines, fake “anonymous sources” (a Washington Post favorite) or outright misrepresentations of hard facts. The New York Times and Washington Post have deliberately published fake news, then whipped it all into a “media circle jerk” frenzy where the same false stories are repeated across the ‘net, all hyped up by Facebook’s selective oppression of liberty-oriented news so that left-wing media lies are more easily shared.  I closed my FaceBook ,because of the censoring of anything FaceBook monitors didn't want to let out to the public. 

Pro choice politicians have the blood of over 50 million human beings on their hands and have the nerve to think the majority of American support their actions.

I'm waiting to see who wants to impeach President Trump.... Then American voters will know who not to vote for in future elections.

“President Trump is not above the law,” Green said in a written statement. “He has committed an impeachable act and must be charged. To do otherwise would cause some Americans to lose respect for, and obedience to, our societal norms.”

Someone should tell Rep .Al Green Americans have already lost respect for politicians who use their public office to expand the hold the abortion industry has had on American soil since 1973.


Congressman Al Green Calls for the Impeachment of President Trump
May 15, 2017
​Houston, TX (May 15, 2017) - Congressman Al Green (TX-9), released the following statement:

A bedrock premise upon which respect for, and obedience to, our societal norms is “No one is above the law.”

President Trump is not above the law. He has committed an impeachable act and must be charged. To do otherwise would cause some Americans to lose respect for, and obedience to, our societal norms.

President Trump has committed an act for which he should be charged by the U.S. House of Representatives. The act is the obstruction of a lawful investigation of the President’s campaign ties to Russian influence in his 2016 Presidential Election.

This charging, of the President, is known constitutionally as impeachment.

Impeachment, of the President, by the House of Representatives is not a finding of guilt. The House of Representatives cannot find the President guilty of anything. Only the U.S. Senate can do this after a trial.

Here are the acts committed by the President that, when combined, merit his being charged (impeached) for obstructing a lawful investigation:

· The President fired the F.B.I. Director overseeing a lawful investigation of the President’s campaign ties to Russian influence in the President’s 2016 Election.

· The President acknowledged he considered the investigation when he fired the F.B.I. Director.

· The President made the F.B.I. Director the subject of a threatening tweet – “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press.”

These acts, when combined, amount to intimidation and obstruction.

If the President is not above the law, he should be charged, by way of impeachment, by the U.S. House of Representatives. Whether he is guilty is a separate action for the U.S. Senate to decide. I have said on previous occasions, and do now say again, the President should be impeached. I also say that this can happen with a Republican-controlled House and Senate if the public weighs in by demanding that the Republican President be charged by way of impeachment.

Our mantra should be “I. T. N. – Impeach Trump Now.”




Texas Democrat Al Green Calls For President Trump's Impeachment On House Floor | TIME


US Congresswoman calls for Trump impeachment because Putin’s attacking... Korea?



ALERT    If the picture of Jan Tetstone and eagle appears anywhere but on my personal site thespiritwithinpoetry , my message forum or my chat site....DO NOT OPEN THE LINK WITH THE PICTURE. I apparently have made some hacker-owners upset. I will no longer use social sites...All of them are owned by control freaks. ...jt