California: President Trump Signed Order Allowing Water to Flow to Farmers Instead of the Pacific Ocean. Governor Newsom Sues Trump.

Trump announced his administration had finalized an order removing regulatory roadblocks and enabling the giant Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta pumps to open the floodgates so that millions of gallons additional water can flow to urban Southern California and the Valley that supplies two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts and more than a third of its vegetables. The state should have control over its water resources that have been rationed by the feds. In response, Governor Newsom, following a repressive Agenda 21 environmental plan, sued the Trump administration to block new rules that would let farmers take more water, claiming it would push endangered populations of delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead trout to extinction.

Update: the headline was changed to reflect that Trump signed an order instead of a bill.

California sued the Trump administration on Thursday to block new rules that would let farmers take more water from the state’s largest river systems, arguing it would push endangered populations of delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead trout to extinction.

The federal rules govern how much water can be pumped out of the watersheds of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which flow from the Sierra Nevada mountains to the San Francisco Bay and provide the state with much of its water for a bustling agriculture industry that supplies two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts and more than a third of its vegetables.

But the rivers are also home to a variety of state and federally protected fish species, whose numbers have been dwindling since humans began building dams and reservoirs to control flooding and send water throughout the state.

Two massive networks of dams and canals determine how much water gets taken out, with one system run by the state and the other run by the federal government.

Historically, the federal government has set the rules for both systems. But recently, state officials have complained the Trump administration’s proposed rules don’t do enough to protect endangered species. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration threatened to sue the federal government in November, but delayed action in the hopes he could work out a compromise.

But the federal government finalized the new rules this week. Trump traveled to Bakersfield on Wednesday to celebrate them before a jubilant crowd.

“We’re going to get you your water and put a lot of pressure on your governor,” Trump told the crowd. “And, frankly, if he doesn’t do it, you’re going to get a new governor.”

Newsom responded on Thursday with a lawsuit, filed in partnership with state Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

“California won’t silently spectate as the Trump Administration adopts scientifically-challenged biological opinions that push species to extinction and harm our natural resources and waterways,” Becerra said.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, challenges the actions of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who oversees the bureau, warned Thursday night of unpredictable consequences that could result from the lawsuit.

“The governor and attorney general just launched a ship into a sea of unpredictable administrative and legal challenges regarding the most complex water operations in the country, something they have not chartered before,” Bernhardt said in a statement. “Litigation can lead to unpredictable twists and turns that can create significant challenges for the people of California who depend on the sound operation of these two important water projects.”

Wednesday, the U.S. Department of the Interior touted the new rules for pledging $1.5 billion of federal and state funds over the next 10 years to restore habitat for endangered species, scientific monitoring of the rivers and improvements to fish hatcheries.

But state officials say the rules would mean less water in the rivers, which would kill more fish. In particular, the low flows would hurt chinook salmon and steelhead trout, which once a year return to the freshwater rivers from the Pacific Ocean to spawn.

Read full article here…

Additional sources:

China Leak: Top Excuse for Locking Uyghurs in Concentration Camps Is ‘Too Many Babies’

China: It is estimated that three-million people are languishing in more than 1,000 concentration camps across the country. Leaked government documents reveal that China’s communist government chooses members of its Uyghur Muslim minority population to lock up based on their adherence to Muslim customs and, in one county, the top cause for arrest was violating China’s official birth-control policy by having too many babies. Most of those in concentration camps are young men from rural areas. Taking a significant portion of young men from a village puts a ‘pause’ on population growth, and critics say the brutal camps are part of a genocide plot. Women in the camps report being sterilized. -GEG

A 137-page document detailing China’s systematic repression of Uyghur and other minority Muslims in western Xinjiang province listed that the top reason for sending Muslims to concentration camps in one county as “having too many babies,” Deutsche Welle revealed on Monday.

Deutsche Welle, in cooperation with other media outlets, translated the leaked government documents, which it noted added clarity in how the Chinese communist regime chooses who to institutionalize in the over 1,000 concentration camps built to torture, enslave, rape, and kill Muslim minorities. Reports citing eyewitnesses and document leaks have for years exposed a system that punishes Chinese citizens in Xinjiang for wearing beards, refusing to eat pork, keeping fasting hours during Ramadan, or wearing hijabs. In 2017, China also published a list of banned names for children in Xinjiang, most of them traditional Islamic names common among Uyghurs.

The Deutsche Welle documents listed individuals in Xinjiang’s Karakax County, many of them in concentration camps, but others simply being monitored incessantly through advanced surveillance technology and espionage via private messaging services and social media. The document lists contact with people in Muslim-majority countries, applying for a passport, and other legal activities as red flags in the eyes of the Communist Party that could result in imprisonment in a concentration camp.

“However, the top cause for arrest of Uighurs from Karakax County was violating China’s official birth control policy by having too many babies,” Deutsche Welle reported.

The Communist Party bans all people from having more than two children, an expansion of the long-time one-child policy that has triggered a population crisis in the country. In rural areas, Beijing has exempt religious and ethnic minorities from that limit for years; Uyghurs are allowed three children if they live outside of urban centers. The one-child policy exemptions have resulted in Chinese minorities being among the few not currently in danger of seeing population crashes that could devastate the economy in the next two generations.

Adding to mounting evidence that the concentration camps are part of a broader genocide campaign against Uyghur Muslims, the Karakax County documents show Chinese officials punishing Uyghurs for having large families. Most of those locked into concentration camps, the documents indicate, are young men, both for allegedly violating birth laws and for crimes like being “untrustworthy.”

“This has major implications for demographics and the birth rate,” Rian Thum, a University of Nottingham Uyghur policy expert, said. “If you take a portion — or even the entirety — of a village’s youth, you basically put a pause” on population growth.

Survivors of the concentration camps and human rights groups have accused China of a genocide campaign against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Muslim ethnic minorities in the west of the country. In addition to making the building of families more difficult, Chinese officials have razed dozens of Muslim cemeteries, many of them with hundreds of years of family history. Chinese officials have claimed that destroying ancient historical sites like cemeteries is necessary to make Uyghurs more “civilized.”

Read full article here…

UN World Health Organization Holds Secret Talks With Tech Giants To Stop Spread of Coronavirus “Misinformation”

California: Facebook reportedly held a secret meeting with the World Health Organization to combat the spread of information on social media about the coronavirus that they claim is misinformation and conspiracy theories, characterizing it as an ‘infodemic’. Both Facebook and Twitter already announced that they would remove content deemed to be misinformation regarding the virus, however, what is considered “misinformation” is totally subjective. Amazon, Twilio, Dropbox, Google, Verizon, Salesforce, Twitter, YouTube, Airbnb, Kinsa and Mapbox were all at the meeting.

The World Health Organization has held talks with tech giants to stop the spread of coronavirus “misinformation,” despite the fact that some things once labeled “misinformation” have since turned out to be true.

The meeting was organized by the WHO but hosted by Facebook at its Menlo Park campus in California. Attendees included representatives from Amazon, Twilio, Dropbox, Google, Verizon, Salesforce, Twitter, YouTube, Airbnb, Kinsa and Mapbox.

According to the WHO’s Andy Pattison, an “infodemic” of misinformation has accompanied the coronavirus outbreak and big tech giants need to respond by censoring “fake news” content.

Both Facebook and Twitter already announced that they would remove content deemed to be misinformation regarding the virus, a dangerous new lurch to mass censorship given that what is considered “misinformation” is totally subjective and beholden to partisan bias.

Read full article here…

Virginia Democrats in the House Pass Expansive Bill Banning ‘Assault Weapons’. Update: State Senate Delays Bill for 1 Year

A new Virginia law bans so-called assault weapons, including the AR-15, one of the most popular guns in America. It also makes it a crime to possess or transfer magazines holding over 12 rounds. Virginians would have a year to turn in any such magazines or face serious prison time. The National Rifle Association responded by saying the bill “will turn law-abiding Virginians into criminals overnight. Anyone who owns a standard-capacity magazine and does not turn it in within a year of the bill,  will face one year in prison for each magazine they have.” Banning “assault weapons” did not reduce gun violence when it was tried under Bill Clinton. -GEG

Update: Four moderate Democrats joined Republicans in Monday’s committee vote, rejecting the legislation. Senators voted to shelve the bill for the year and ask the state crime commission to study the issue.

It’s no longer hyperbole: Virginia Democrats want to take your gun rights. At least, that’s what a new bill passed by the Democrat-controlled Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday would do.

The law bans so-called assault weapons, outlawing future sales. This bans popular models such as the AR-15, one of the most popular guns in America. Yet, the wide-ranging ban also makes it a crime to possess or transfer certain magazines. Virginians would have a year to comply and turn them in. If they don’t, they could face jail time.

It’s a radical bill and one that’s arguably unconstitutional and undoubtedly ineffective.

Critics have largely focused on the draconian punishments Virginia Democrats would impose on residents who don’t kneel to magazine confiscation. The National Rifle Association, for instance, said in a statement that “[the bill] will turn law-abiding Virginians into criminals overnight. Under this bill, anyone who owns a standard capacity magazine must submit to mandatory confiscation or face one year in jail for each magazine they own.

And the libertarian-leaning, Republican state Rep. Nick Freitas pointed out to the Washington Examiner that “this bill creates an environment where you could receive up to 12 months in jail for every magazine you have over 12 rounds.” He’s right to sound the alarm. Do Democrats seriously want to imprison people over breaking ammunition regulations?

But even more to the point, the Democratic proposal would undoubtedly limit the rights of otherwise law-abiding gun owners and even subject them to criminal penalties, yet it wouldn’t actually stop mass shootings or do much to make Virginia safer.

Remember: We’ve already tried the whole “ban assault weapons” fearmongering and policy fiasco, under President Bill Clinton. The Democrat president signed such a ban into law in 1994, and it expired in 2004. Experts almost universally agree that it was not effective and did not reduce gun violence.

Read full article here…

Additional source:

Britain Allows the Internet to Be Censored, A Major Warning for the US

UK: Prime Minister Boris Johnson revealed new rules that will censor the internet by punishing internet companies with fines and imprisonment if they fail to ‘protect’ users from so-called harmful content – which means content contrary to what the government approves. The new guardian of the internet will be the Office of Communications (known as Ofcom), that already regulates television, radio, and the postal service. -GEG

The United Kingdom has become the first Western nation to move ahead with large-scale censorship of the internet, effectively creating regulation that will limit freedom on the last frontier of digital liberty. In a move that has the nation reeling, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has unveiled rules that will punish internet companies with fines, and even imprisonment, if they fail to protect users from “harmful and illegal content.”

Couched in language that suggests this is being done to protect children from pedophiles and vulnerable people from cyberbullying, the proposals will place a massive burden on small companies. Further, they will ultimately make it impossible for those not of the pervasive politically correct ideology to produce and share content.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

The new guardian of the internet will be the Office of Communications (known as Ofcom), a government-approved body that already regulates television, radio, broadcasting, and even the postal service. This group has been accused on many occasions of “acting as the moral arbiter” for the nation, and perhaps unsurprisingly, tends towards a very left-leaning position.

Speaking to, Matthew Lesh, the head of research at The Adam Smith Institute, warned:

“Make no mistake: free speech is under threat. The Government is proposing the most censorious online speech regime in the Western world. We must not be fooled by platitudes about freedom of expression. The inevitably woke bureaucrats in Ofcom will be deciding what sort of speech is and is not allowed across much of the internet. They will have extraordinary discretion to decide who to target and what is harmful.

This is a recipe for disaster for anyone that thinks differently to the Notting Hill set — any correct but unpopular opinions will not just come under attack from the Twitterati, but the law itself.”

Ofcom has a new boss in place to go along with the new powers: Dame Melanie Dawes. Dawes has been a career civil servant for her entire working life and was most recently the Civil Service Gender and Diversity Champion from 2015 to 2019.

The Rules

Among the sweeping and censorious powers awarded to Ofcom are:

  • The ability to create guidelines that instruct content-hosting companies (YouTube, Facebook, etc.) on how to manage online censorship of “user-generated content.”
  • Create rules for content that is “not illegal but has the potential to cause harm.”
  • To have the remit for deciding, writing up, and adapting rules on how internet regulation works.

Read full article here…

Elementary School Calls Cops on 6-Year Old with Down’s Syndrome for Using Her Fingers as a Gun Gesture

Pennsylvania; Margot Gaines, a 6 year-old-girl with Down’s syndrome, who made her hand into the shape of a finger gun and pointed at her teacher, was questioned by the police over the incident. The school district’s threat assessment on little Margot concluded nobody was in harm’s way as a result of Margot’s gesture. The mother is angry because her daughter now has a police report on file. -GEG

In today’s hysteria over guns and potential school shootings, administrators at Valley Forge Elementary School in Pennsylvania called police on one of their students for a threat assessment.

The student in question? Margot Gaines, a 6 year-old-girl with Down syndrome who made her hand into the shape of a finger gun. The girl was questioned and police eventually concluded that there was no substantial threat.

Penn Live reports:

The mother of a six-year-old girl with Down syndrome is fuming over the fact her little girl now has a police report on file.

This, after the girl’s mother, Maggie Gaines, tells CBSPhilly that the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District in Chester County overreacted when her daughter pretended to shoot her teacher with her finger.

The classroom incident dates to last November, 6-year-old Margot, a student at Valley Forge Elementary School, made the finger gun shooting gesture that triggered a disciplinary investigation by the school.

The Tredyffrin-Easttown School District called the probe it conducted a “threat assessment” – and told CBSPhilly that its policy mandated local police to be called.

Ultimately, the district’s threat assessment on little Margot concluded nobody was in harm’s way as a result of Margot’s statement and gesture, CBSPhilly reports. The girl’s actions were labeled a “transient threat,” which Gaines explained was an expression of anger.

Now the mother is the one who is angry because her daughter now has a police report on file as a result of the incident.

“I was fine with everything up until calling the police,” Gaines told CBSPhilly. “And I said, ‘You absolutely do not have to call the police. You know, this is ridiculous.’”

Read full article here…

New Privacy Law in California Could Stop Big Tech from Collecting and Selling Your Personal Data. Article Includes Links to Remove Your Data, Even If You Don’t Live in CA.

California’s Consumer Privacy Act allows users to request a copy of the data that tech companies have on them, delete the data when they no longer want a company to have it, and demand that their data isn’t sold to third parties. A number of large companies are extending the new law to users outside of California. Consumers must contact each company individually to exercise their rights under the new law. This article contains a list of dozens of large companies and their contact links to take control over the collected data. -GEG

Excerpt from Washington Post:

Okay, let’s do it! Where do I click?

The list below includes many of the companies where I’ve submitted CCPA requests, with the best links I could find to exercise the rights to opt out of sale, access and delete data. I’ve separated out the companies that have indicated they’ll offer CCPA rights to all Americans. As I find more, or discover that companies change their forms or policies, I’ll update the list.

There are more resources available: A crowdsourced list stored on GitHub, an online resource for coders, has an even longer list of links to company-specific CCPA information pages. Common Sense Media is also building out the website as a resource for CCPA requests, as is, run by one of the authors of the law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a simple guide on its website, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center has a handy draft form letter to use in cases where companies don’t offer web forms.

If you’re looking for a company not included in any of these resources, I recommend finding the privacy policy on its website and searching for the word California — that’s typically the best place to start.

Updated Feb. 6, 2020. (Thanks to all the readers adding to this list.)

These companies accept CCPA requests from all Americans

These companies accept CCPA requests from California residents:

Read full article from the Washington Post here…

Additional source:

Iowa Caucus: Buttigieg Wins Iowa, But Bernie Tops Popular Vote. Critics Predict He Will Be Cheated Again

Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg won Monday’s Iowa caucus with 26.9% of the state delegates, followed by Senators Bernie Sanders with 25.1%, Elizabeth Warren in third with 18.3%, and Joe Biden placing fourth with 15.6%.

Democrats used a new voting app from Shadow, Inc, that malfunctioned and prevented many caucus site leaders from uploading their results. Buttigieg was a financial contributor to Shadow, the maker of the app. Bernie Sanders, who was cheated out of the nomination last year, reportedly sent five lawyers to meet with party officials after he sent field workers to polling locations to gather an independent count. -GEG

Tucker Carlson interviewed Jimmy Dore, a liberal, who said the Democratic party is against candidates who represent workers and that Bernie Sanders will be cheated with the help of the media that pushed the story that Buttigieg won. He further explained that both parties follow the same agenda as they are beholden to their donors

Update (02/05 01:30 p.m.): Buttigieg maintained a slim lead in Iowa after the second round of results from Monday night’s caucus were released, according to The Hill.

The results, which accounted for roughly 71 percent of the precincts that voted, showed the former South Bend, Ind., mayor with 26.8 percent of the delegate share. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) nipped at his heels with 25.2 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden rounded out the top four with 18.4 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively.

The Iowa Democratic Party earlier Tuesday released results for 62 percent of precincts, showing Buttigieg and Sanders in the lead. With the substantial number of precincts left to count and the margin so slim, the race remains too close to call.

* * *

Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg won Monday’s Iowa caucus with 26.9% of the state delegates, followed by Sens. Bernie Sanders in second (25.1%) and Elizabeth Warren in third (18.3%) according to Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) Chair Troy Price, after 62% of statewide precincts were finally counted.

Read full article here…

Canada: Blowback Against Prime Minister Trudeau’s Proposal to Require News Websites to Obtain Government Licenses

Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said that he planned to follow a panel report recommending that Canada’s broadcasting laws for radio and television should require government licenses for all media content including online media, news sites, and social-media companies. After an uproar on the internet, both Trudeau and his minister began to waffle on their statements, but Trudeau remained firm that news sources must be “credible” and “trustworthy”. [Who will decide what is “credible and trustworthy? Trudeau and his comrades, of course.] -GEG

It’s one of the fastest reversals of government policy that I’ve ever seen.

On Sunday, the Trudeau Liberals were promising to bring in a licensing regime for news outlets and podcasters, by Monday they were singing the praises of a free press.

It all started last week when a panel struck by Justin Trudeau himself to examine the future of media in Canada released their final report.

Called “Canada’s Communications Future: A Time to Act,” the report called for new media to be required to register with the government and be licensed. On Sunday, Trudeau’s culture minister told CTV’s Question Period that he agreed with that idea.

“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe in a strong, free and independent press,” Trudeau said when questioned by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.

Well, let’s be honest, a “strong, free and independent press,” isn’t one that has to register with the government and obtain a licence. To do that would be to give the government control over what media outlets could say, print or broadcast.

That’s bad for democracy and a complete violation of the ideal of freedom of speech.

Thankfully, Trudeau went a step further in saying he will not go forward with this idea.

“I want to be unequivocal, we will not impose licensing requirements on news organizations, nor will we regulate news content,” Trudeau said.

The only troubling part of Trudeau’s response is that he said his government’s priority is to ensure that Canadians have access to, “diverse, high-quality and credible news.” Who decides what is “high-quality” or “credible” when it comes to news?

I hope it’s not Justin Trudeau or any other politician. Politicians are the biggest purveyors of “fake news.” They’re the people who try to spin everything.

It was just about one year ago, Feb. 7, 2019, that I stood in a commuter parking lot north of Toronto as Trudeau reacted to the first story on SNC-Lavalin and lied to the world.

“The allegations in the Globe story are false,” Trudeau said.

Of course, we would come to learn that the allegations were true and then some. Yet, for weeks, the government’s line was that the media outlet was lying.

If we lived in a licensed system, would the Globe see their licence revoked for publishing something the government claimed was a lie? Would they have even published it in the first place or held back out of fear of irritating the authorities?

And make no mistake, the report tabled last week called for registration and licensing of media outlets more than once.

In recommendation 56, the report calls for online media to be registered by the CRTC, meaning any news outlet, any podcaster, any content creator — a recipe blog — could be registered by the government.

“This would require a person carrying on a media content undertaking by means of the Internet to register unless otherwise exempt,” the report states.

And at recommendation 74, the report called for the CRTC to be given the power to, “impose codes of conduct, including provisions with respect to resolution mechanisms, transparency, privacy, and accessibility regarding all media content undertakings.”

Read full article here…

Connecticut Democrats Propose New State Police Department to Combat Alleged Hate Crimes

Democrats in the Connecticut Senate want a new state police department that will specialize in combating “far-right” extremists, which is how they categorized conservatives. Republican Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano says: “when they put a right-wing label on extremism, they do that to elicit a political response.” Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney says his caucus has no intention of persecuting people for their political beliefs. [Of course not. Politicians wouldn’t dream of doing that, would they?] – GEG

Senate Democrats want to create and fund a new department within the state police focused on combating hate crimes and violent right-wing extremism.

Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said his caucus has no intention of persecuting people for their political beliefs, but they are increasingly concerned about contemplated, hateful actions.

“Unfortunately, people who entertain hateful beliefs … are protected as long as [those beliefs] don’t result in hate-crime actions. That’s what we’re talking about,” he said Wednesday at a news conference at the Legislative Office Building. “We want to be more aggressive in enforcing our laws and identifying likely sources of potential domestic terrorism acts against religious institutions and ethnic institutions.”

The proposal was included as part of Senate Democrats’ “A Just Connecticut” agenda. The new department would “specialize in investigating far right extremist groups and individuals,” according to a news release.

In 2017, state police reported 111 “bias crime” incidents across Connecticut, up slightly from 2016. About 60% of the crimes were motivated by bias against a particular race, ethnicity or ancestry, while about 20% were motivated by religious bias. The statistics matched national trends. Most of the racially biased crimes were anti-black, while most of the religiously bias crimes were anti-Jewish. Intimidation and vandalism were the most common forms of these crimes, officials said.

Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said there is “strong bipartisan support against any type of terrorism” but he took objection with the language Democrats used in announcing their proposal Wednesday.

“When they put a right-wing label on extremism, they do that to elicit a political response,” he said, calling the label undefined and inappropriate. Still, he said Republicans are “on the same page” as Democrats when it comes to protecting Connecticut residents against hate crimes.

Bipartisan legislation passed in 2017 made several changes to the state’s hate crime laws, “including modifying the elements of some of these crimes, broadening the protected classes, and enhancing certain penalties,” according to a state police report.

“Protecting the state from hate crimes is one of our greatest concerns,” Brian Foley, executive aide to the commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, said Wednesday. The department oversees the state police.

“We work closely with many groups, faith-based as well as community groups, to ensure their safety and keep an open line of communication,” Foley said. While state police “vigorously monitor, investigate and track” this issue, Foley added that police are always looking for ways to improve their service.

Besides committing acts of violence, it is also a crime to deprive someone of any legally guaranteed right, intentionally desecrate religious property or use burning crosses or nooses to intimidate others.

Looney said he recently attended a conference with representatives of Connecticut’s Jewish federations in New Haven, where religious leaders shared “grave concerns” about the security of places of worship. As part of the effort to combat hate crimes, the legislation would also call for funding to enhance security features at religious facilities across the state.

Laura Zimmerman, senior vice president and chief operating officer of the Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford, described the meeting in New Haven as a show of bipartisan support against hate crimes.

Read full article here…

‘Extraordinary’ Revelation: Two Out of Four Carter Page FISA Warrants by FBI Declared ‘Not Valid’

The FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] admitted in a secret order that at least two out of four of the spy warrants against Carter Page, dated April 7, 2017 and June 29, 2017, were not lawfully authorized. The June 2017 FISA warrant was signed by former DAG Rod Rosenstein and Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe. The FISA law states that American citizens cannot be secretly spied on by the US government absent probable cause, based on valid evidence, that an American is unlawfully acting as a foreign agent. The FISC has ordered the FBI and government to reform its procedures to apply for a FISA warrant. FBI Director Christopher Wray this month submitted a list of reforms, but the court blasted the changes as “insufficient.”

The FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] admitted in a secret order that at least two of the spy warrants against Carter Page were not lawfully authorized.

Presiding FISA judge James Boasberg wrote in a January 7 order which was not declassified and released until Thursday, that the last two FISA warrants on Carter Page dated April 7, 2017 and June 29, 2017 were not valid.

The June 2017 FISA warrant was signed by former DAG Rod Rosenstein and Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.

Rosenstein signed the June 2017 FISA warrant a month after he wrote the memo authorizing the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller — and 20 pages of this FISA application are STILL REDACTED.

Did Robert Mueller actually use information gathered in real time by the illegal wiretaps on Carter Page?

If so, this could pose a huge problem for Mueller’s cases against Trump officials because the wiretaps are now officially invalid.

“The final three-month authorization to spy on Page was signed nearly six weeks after Mueller was appointed, meaning that Mueller may have had real-time access to and utilized nearly five months worth of surveillance of Page during the course of Mueller’s investigation. If his office used any of the information in subsequent cases, the declaration that the final two spy warrants against Page were invalid could potentially nullify previous or future convictions sought by Mueller’s office,” Sean Davis of The Federalist wrote.

The Federalist reported:

Judge James Boasberg, the current federal judge presiding over the FISA court, wrote in his order that at least two of the four FISA applications against Carter Page were unlawfully authorized. Additionally, according his order, the Department of Justice similarly concluded following the release of a sprawling investigate report on the matter by the agency’s inspector general that the government did not have probable cause that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. The FISA law states that American citizens cannot be secretly spied on by the U.S. government absent probable cause, based on valid evidence, that an American is unlawfully acting as a foreign agent.

In his January 7 order, Boasberg directed DOJ to retain and sequester all information and evidence relevant to both the Carter Page applications, the inspector general investigation of FISA abuse, and any additional DOJ investigations related to or spawned by the inspector general’s report. Boasberg told DOJ to provide all of the required information to the FISA court no later than January 28.

“DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,’” Boasberg wrote, referring to the final two of the four FISA applications to spy on Page. “The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court’s authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid.”

According to Boasberg, the DOJ is still assessing whether the first two FISA warrants on Carter Page were also obtained illegally.

Read full article here…

Additional source:

Florida Sheriff: “I Will Not Enforce Assault Weapons Ban, Neither Will Most Sheriffs”

Florida state lawmakers have proposed a gun control ban on assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.” In response, Seminole County Sheriff Dennis Lemma, an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, vowed that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban, and further stated that “the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it.”

Dennis Lemma, who is the Sheriff in Central Florida’s Seminole County, told a group of 2nd Amendment activists recently that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban that could soon become Florida law if the “Ban Assault Weapons Now” amendment passes in the Sunshine State.

According to News965, the ban has the following specifications.

The amendment proposed in the state legislature would ban possession of assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.”

Lemma, an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a first term sheriff who is running for re-election, said this about whether or not he would enforce such a law.

“It’s not only that I wouldn’t, the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it,” Lemma said in the video.  It’s up to the sheriffs what they are willing to enforce.”

Read full article here…