Garland Illegally Appointed Weiss as Special Counsel by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19889/garland-illegally-appointed-weiss

“The special counsel shall be selected from outside the United States government.” — Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Chapter VI, § 600.3(c). [Emphasis added]

This requirement is the law. The regulations were authorized by Congress under 5 U.S.C. 301, 509, 510, 515-519.

The attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. It is certainly expected that he would obey the law in its entirety.

If he feels that somehow there is an applicable exception to this requirement, he is obliged to explain why.

Special counsel is supposed to be independent of the current government, not an employee….

Democrats frequently say that no one is above the law. Yet they have been silent about Garland apparently placing himself above the law in choosing Weiss in violation of governing legal regulations.

[I]t is within the powers of Congress to summon Garland and ask him to explain why he believes he is justified in ignoring a federal regulation that seems to limit his authority to appoint special counsels.

Fred Fleitz: Fight Over New FBI HQ Part of Larger Debate on Draining the Federal Swamp The FBI HQ relocation proposal is a fraud

https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/11/fight-over-new-fbi-hq-part-of-larger-debate-on-draining-the-federal-swamp/

As of now, House Republicans have removed funds from the FY 2024 budget for the controversial $3.5 billion proposed relocation of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. headquarters to a new complex at one of three locations in the D.C. suburbs of Virginia or Maryland.

Some House Republicans want to keep the FBI headquarters at its current location and view the relocation proposal as unwise and wasteful. Others want to downsize, defund or eliminate the Bureau – and not to reward it with a sprawling new headquarters complex – because they believe it has been weaponized against conservatives.

There also is growing support by Republicans to save money and depoliticize U.S. government agencies by decentralizing them and moving most of their personnel out of the “Washington swamp” (the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area) to locations across the U.S.

The Political Battle Over a New FBI HQ

The FBI’s current headquarters, the J. Edgar Hoover building, has been used by the bureau since 1974. It occupies a city block on Pennsylvania Avenue across the street from the Justice Department and equidistant between the White House and the U.S. Capitol.

FBI leaders have been fighting for a new headquarters building for over two decades because they claim the Hoover building is old and crumbling. They contend that a new and larger headquarters complex in suburban Maryland or Virginia will enhance the bureau’s operations and still be close enough to D.C. for its work with Congress, the White House, and federal agencies and courts.

President Trump opposed the FBI giving up its prime headquarters location and canceled the relocation. Instead, he ordered the FBI headquarters to be rebuilt at its current site. Congress blocked funding for this decision.

Scientific Censorship Reaches New Heights By Guy K. Mitchell, Jr.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/scientific_censorship_reaches_new_heights.html

On February 15, 2023, David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, announced that he would retire one year early on June 1, 2023.  On July 21, 2023, Pablo Moreno, the director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, read the flyer that described the address that Dr. John F. Clauser was scheduled to give to the IMF on July 27, 2023.  As a result, he summarily canceled Dr. Clauser’s planned address.

What do Malpass and Clauser have in common?  They have both acknowledged that they do not believe in the global warming hypothesis.  What do these two organizations have in common?  Historically, they have both loaned substantial amounts of money to developing countries to fight health crises, hunger, and conflict.  What do certain U.S. and world politicians want to see changed to the lending practices of both organizations in the future?  A dramatic shift to funding alternative energy investment initiatives “to fight climate change.”  The United States has contributed $117 billion to the IMF quota.  In addition, the United States has contributed $44 billion to funds at the IMF that supplement quota resources.  As of February 11, 2022, the IMF had total lending commitments of around $239.2 billion (67% funded by the U.S.).  U.S. paid-in capital in the World Bank is $3.5 billion, and callable capital is $47.8 billion.

Who manage the sourcing of capital, the development of the loan packages, the processes to effectuate these loans, and get a fee for their efforts?  Global investment firms.  Want to understand the motivation behind the promotion of the global warming hypothesis?  Follow the money.

In Mr. Malpass’s case, in 2007, he made statements in which he said he did not believe that there is a link between carbon emissions and global warming.  In September 2022, when he was asked if he accepted the “overwhelming scientific consensus” that the burning of fossil fuels was causing global temperatures to rise, he responded, “I’m not a scientist.”  After his September 2022 remarks, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called for his removal.  “His support for fossil fuels and abject failure to fund climate action is unacceptable,” Mr. Markey said in a statement.  “Now, the World Bank must make up for his missteps and get ready to be part of the solution for a livable future.”  Former vice president Al Gore, who had also called Mr. Malpass a climate denier and campaigned for his removal, said in a statement that his departure “must be the first step toward true reform that places the climate crisis at the center of the bank’s work.”

Can Harvard Use Application Essays to Discriminate by Race? The University of North Carolina, meanwhile, has eagerly embraced the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action. By Steven McGuire

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-harvard-use-application-essays-to-discriminate-by-race-unc-fair-admission-5638086f?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

When the Supreme Court struck down the University of North Carolina’s affirmative-action program in June, the trustees of its flagship Chapel Hill campus were quick to respond.

Embracing the letter and spirit of the law, the board passed a nondiscrimination resolution in July that applies not only to admissions but to hiring and contracting as well. The resolution goes beyond race to prohibit discrimination based on “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, genetic information, or veteran status.”

UNC’s trustees were already trying to move the institution in this direction before the decision. Board member Marty Kotis began advocating a resolution forbidding discrimination in hiring and contracting in 2021. After the Supreme Court ruling, an overwhelming majority of the full board approved a more comprehensive version.

The resolution includes language from Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion to specify that “the University shall not ‘establish through application essays or other means’ any regime of or encourage heuristics and/or proxies premised upon race-based preferences in hiring or admissions. If the University considers the personal experience of applicants for admission, each applicant ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.’ ”

“This is a moment of humility,” said the board’s vice chairman, John Preyer. “For nine years, we’ve spent in the neighborhood of $35 million to lose a high-profile case. Why did we do that? Was that the right thing to do?”

Meanwhile, Harvard, UNC’s co-litigant, has looked for ways to keep discriminating, and so have many other institutions. They focus on one sentence of the court’s ruling: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Harvard responded to the decision by citing this line in isolation, suggesting it would treat it as a loophole. The university said it would comply with the law but reaffirmed its commitment to diversity, commenting, “we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.”

Merrick Garland’s latest dirty trick to protect the Bidens By James Bovard

https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/merrick-garlands-latest-dirty-trick-to-protect-the-bidens/

Attorney General Merrick Garland may have just played his last trick card to save Joe Biden: appointing a special counsel to delay prosecution of his son Hunter.

With any luck, the official Justice Department final report on Biden family shenanigans will be released in December 2024, one month after the presidential election.

Perpetuating an investigation is the most respectable Washington cover-up scam.

Federal agencies and the Justice Department dragged out for five years the investigation of Hunter’s gun, tax and foreign influence peddling.

The statute of limitations already expired on several of his crimes, but that was OK because of the spelling of his last name.

Despite a string of crimes that would have sent average Americans up the river for a decade, Biden’s Justice Department cut a deal in June that permitted Hunter to plead guilty to misdemeanors, not serve a day in jail and dodge any other federal charges.

That deal collapsed when federal Judge Maryellen Noreika asked a few questions after she was blindsided by a last-minute sweeping exoneration paragraph added to the plea deal.

With no deal, Hunter Biden faced a federal trial.

The Justice Department cut a deal in June that permitted Hunter Biden to plead guilty to misdemeanors while not serving a day in jail and dodge federal charges.

But Garland came to Hunter’s rescue Friday by appointing David Weiss special counsel.

US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago By Matt Egan

https://us.cnn.com/2023/08/11/economy/inflation-rate-spending/index.html

US inflation has had a snowballing effect on family budgets.

The typical American household spent $709 more in July than they did two years ago to buy the same goods and services, according to Moody’s Analytics.

That figure underscores the cumulative impact high inflation has had on consumer finances — even as price growth has cooled considerably in recent months.

“High inflation of the past 2+ years has done lots of economic damage,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Most of that increase in spending is driven by housing costs, which have surged, Zandi told CNN in an email on Friday. He added that families are also spending more at the grocery store; on buying, maintaining and insuring vehicles and on recreational services like cable.

Of course, paychecks have also grown over the past two years — but not by as much as the cost of living.

Inflation-adjusted earnings are stuck in 2019

Even though prices have soared, real earnings, which adjust for inflation, are stuck at late 2019 levels.

“Real earnings remain below what they would have been if not for the pandemic and the Russian war, which is weighing on the collective psyche,” Zandi told CNN in an email on Friday.

The good news is that wages are finally starting to outpace inflation and consumer price growth has eased significantly, so much so that many investors are betting the Federal Reserve is done raising interest rates.

Americans’ wages are finally outpacing inflation. Here’s why it may not last

Looking at just the last year, Zandi calculates that the typical household spent $202 more this July than they did a year ago to buy the same goods and services.

Charles Lipson:Hunter’s new special counsel also needs investigating As US attorney, David Weiss slow-walked the Biden case for years

https://thespectator.com/topic/hunter-biden-special-counsel-david-weiss-investigating-probe/

At long last, Attorney General Merrick Garland decided to appoint a special counsel to continue the investigation of Hunter Biden, his family and associates. His choice: US Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, who has been on the case for several years. He was originally appointed as US attorney by Donald Trump, a point Democrats always highlight without noting that he was promoted by both Democratic senators from the state. 

Being named special counsel gives Weiss some authority beyond that of a regular US attorney. In particular, he can bring federal cases outside his narrow territorial domain without consent from US attorneys in those other districts. That’s an important point, since Weiss was apparently denied the right to bring at least two other cases his office sought. 

His appointment makes sense in one way: any other choice would have added years to the investigation. Weiss is already up to speed. The question is whether he is speeding down the right road. 

Weiss might have been appointed special counsel during the Trump administration, but outgoing AG Bill Barr has said he thought that decision should be left to the incoming administration. His rationale was a strong one: he feared that appointing a special counsel as one administration went out the door would set a precedent for future administrations to begin investigating their successors. If a special counsel was needed, Barr concluded, that should be up to the Biden administration. 

Shockingly, the Biden administration did not want to appoint a special counsel to investigate itself or the president’s family. The new attorney general could have given Weiss those additional powers two years ago but declined. Garland actually made the incredible argument that Weiss, as a US attorney, had more powers than he would have as a special counsel. 

Both Garland and Weiss have also told Congress that Weiss had ultimate authority to bring cases wherever he wished. But those statements may not be true, since Weiss was apparently blocked from filing cases in other jurisdictions, and since he told multiple IRS investigators that he was not the ultimate decision-maker on these cases. The latter statement directly contradicts what he and Garland have told Congress.  

You say Taiwan; I say Korea-Francesco Sisci

http://www.settimananews.it/informazione-internazionale/you-say-taiwan-say-korea/

In theory, it is a peninsula, but actually, for all practical purposes, it is an island. South Korea is separated from the rest of the Asian continent by its intractable half-brother to the North, making any land contact with its neighbors impossible.

The gap between the reality (being an island) and the theoretical aspiration (being a peninsula) is compounded by being one of the world’s wealthiest and most dynamic locations, bordering one of the most backward and stagnant places globally, its northern half-brother.

This reality makes the Korean peninsula one of Asia’s most dangerous flash points for future strains.

Tempest on the South Korean Island

Tension is on the rise around China. Saber rattling has become frequent around Taiwan, the island de facto independent but, in theory, part of One China. Strategists’ risk assessments consider the possibility of a clash around Taiwan because the PLA might attempt to invade the island.

There are also risks of skirmishes that could get out of control in the contested waters of the South China Sea between China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. A fight that gets out of hand could also start in the high altitudes of the Himalayas between Chinese and Indian troops. Yet, the North Korean scenario could be the most significant jeopardy.

It is impossible to assess Chinese intentions on all these borders. However, a war in the Korean peninsula could be less risky and more advantageous to Beijing in the present situation.

Biden Administration Abandoning Israel for Ruling Mullahs of Iran? by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19872/biden-abandoning-israel-for-iran

“For the last year and a half, Iran stated clearly that its main strategy is to make the Samaria region [of Israel] another Gaza.” The Iranians… are “pouring money and smuggling weapons into the region. They are supporting Hamas and the PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] and other factions within the Palestinian Authority.” — Brig. Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi, former deputy commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division, Fox News, July 24, 2023.

More than 19 Iranian regime-backed groups that are targeting Israel and US interests in the region meet the U.S. “terror designation criteria, ” according to Joe Truzman, in the report, “Iran and its Network of Nineteen Terrorist Organizations on Israel’s Borders”. The Biden Administration, however, has not added them to the list of foreign terror groups.

“Over the last four decades, the Iranian regime has built a network of armed groups on Israel’s borders to create instability and foment terrorism. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and a mosaic of other terrorist organizations receive funding, training and weapons from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Quds Force (IRGC-QF).” — Joe Truzman, “Iran and its Network of Nineteen Terrorist Organizations,” fdd.org, 2023.

“Long War Journal has monitored the buildup of Iran-backed terrorist organizations on key fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. Israel has worked to limit the growth of these terrorist organizations, but they remain a significant threat on multiple fronts.” — Joe Truzman, “Iran and its Network of Nineteen Terrorist Organizations.”

What is mind-boggling is that the Biden Administration criticizes Israel but then turns a blind eye to Iran’s military buildup near Israel’s borders — all while Iran fires missiles into Israel from Syria, ships ballistic missiles to Israel’s self-declared enemy, Hezbollah, and continues to threaten exterminating Israel down the pike.

The Biden administration’s appeasement policies towards the ruling mullahs of Iran are empowering their Islamist and radical regime in the region, all while undermining America’s democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.

As the Iranian regime continues to sponsor, fund and arm terror groups on the borders of Israel, the Biden Administration is carefully looking the other way.

The Massive Transformation of India and the Middle East by Uzay Bulut

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19874/transformation-of-india-middle-east

“Since 1947… Pakistan has initiated three full-fledged wars with India…. In addition, Pakistan has consistently utilized cross-border terrorism in India as an official instrument of state policy, including the 26/11 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people…. Pakistan’s military and ISI spy agency also continues to support the Taliban, the Haqqani group, Lashkar-eTaiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and other affiliated militant groups in Afghanistan to undermine U.S. military operations and maintain its strategic influence there.” — Hindu American Foundation, August 2019.

According to the Hindu American Foundation, “India is one of the few countries in the world where Baha’is and Jews have never faced religious persecution.”

India first faced Islamist violence, dating as far back as the 8th century to the time of the Muslim Mughal invasions and rule through the mid-19th century. Countless Hindus and other non-Muslims were murdered or forcibly converted to Islam.

“[Historian Mahomed] Ferishtha lists several occasions when… sultans in central India… (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like “punishing” the Hindus…. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate…. research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in earnest…” — Koenraad Elst, The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, September 2, 2011.

“Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus…. [O]ne cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died [on the Hindu Kush, “Hindu-killer”] while on transport to Central Asia.” — Koenraad Elst, The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, September 2, 2011.

Islamist violence against Hindus and other non-Muslims who enjoy freedom of speech is an ongoing problem.

Ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Hindu people of Kashmir was one of the occurrences that drastically changed the demographic balance in the region. Starting in 1989, more than 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus were driven from their ancestral homeland in the Jammu and Kashmir region by a radical insurgency orchestrated and funded by Pakistan.

Where are the indigenous non-Muslim communities in what is today called the “Muslim world”? Where is their presence?

Today’s “Muslim world”, which used to be non-Muslim before Islamic invasions, conquests and massacres, is now demographically transformed. The indigenous non-Muslim communities there are now either dying minorities or extinct.

Today, the only religion that has freedom in Afghanistan is Islam.

Turkey, the site that used to be known as Anatolia for more than a thousand years, was the seat of the Christian Byzantine Empire. For centuries, Islamic invaders attacked Anatolia; in 1453, Muslim Turks from Central Asia captured Constantinople, now Istanbul. Today, Christians comprise only 0.1 percent of Turkey’s population.

Prior to the Islamic invasions, most of the entire Middle East and North Africa – countries such as Syria, Algeria, Egypt and Iraq — used to be majority-Christian. Today, indigenous Christians and other minorities — such as Assyrians, Yazidis and Alawites — in almost every majority-Muslim country where they remain, are severely persecuted.