Diplomat James Jeffrey Lied to Pres Trump about Syria

JTN:

A former infantry officer in the U.S. army, Ambassador Jeffrey served in Germany and Vietnam from 1969 to 1976.

>> Think of it <<

James Jeffrey—who is retiring from his posts as the Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS — reportedly said that “shell games” have been used to avoid telling U.S. leaders the true number of American troops in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said, according to Defense One.

Jeffrey reportedly said that when President Donald Trump was interested in withdrawing from Syria, arguments against a withdrawal were presented to the commander in chief.

“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey told the outlet. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

The president last year officially agreed to maintain some troops in Syria, according to Defense One.

While Jeffrey in 2016 prior to the presidential election signed onto an anti-Trump letter with other individuals who had previously served under Republican administrations, Defense One noted that Jeffrey’s advice for the Biden administration is to persist in the course set by President Trump’s team.

Legislation on Supreme Court Term Limits

Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish 18-year terms and nominations every two years

Supreme Court Examines When Juveniles May Be Sentenced to ...

Introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17)

Context

Two of the three most recent Supreme Court justices were appointed because a member died. As the comedian Bill Maher recently put it, in practice this country has “Supreme Court nomination by fluke.”

In the past 44 years, Republicans have held the White House for 24 years versus the Democrats’ 20 — not much difference. But during that same period, Republican presidents confirmed 12 Supreme Court justices versus the Democrats’ four.

As the most recent example, Republican Donald Trump confirmed more justices in four years alone than his Democratic predecessors Barack Obama or Bill Clinton each did in eight. (And Democrat Jimmy Carter didn’t even get the opportunity to nominate a single justice.)

This discrepancy — and its disconnect from election results — has produced proposals for ways in which presidents get a consistent number of justice appointments, regardless of party.

In Upcoming Case, Supreme Court Should Uphold Separation ...

What the bill does

The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish several reforms to change the existing process for selecting the top judges in the country.

The existing nine justices would be grandfathered in, and not subject to the bill’s requirements. From then on, a justice would be nominated by the president every two years, specifically during odd-numbered years. As usual, the Senate would hold a vote to confirm or deny the nomination. And once those justices were confirmed, they would serve for 18 years.

In response to Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, for whom Senate Republicans refused to hold a vote for almost a year, the bill adds an interesting twist. If a justice hasn’t received a Senate vote within 120 days, that justice would automatically be seated on the Court. In other words, had this bill been in effect in 2016, Garland would have joined the Court. (Or maybe not. Under that scenario, presumably the Republican-led Senate wouldn’t have let that outcome happen by delaying Garland’s vote for that long.)

What about if a justice dies, as Antonin Scalia did in 2016 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in 2020? In that case, the living former Supreme Court justice who most recently retired would temporarily fill the seat, until the next odd-numbered year when a president could nominate someone new again.

How would that have played out if this bill was law during the two most recent deaths? Ginsburg would have been temporarily replaced by Anthony Kennedy, who was more conservative than she was, though not as conservative as her actual replacement Amy Coney Barrett. And Scalia would have been temporarily replaced by John Paul Stevens, who leaned much more left than Scalia did, as well as much more left than Scalia’s actual replacement Neil Gorsuch.

It was introduced in the House on September 29 as bill number H.R. 8424, by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the bill would add a level of regularity and predictability to the judicial branch, without the likelihood of massive potential change because of a single appointment, as Barrett seems potentially likely to usher in after Ginsburg’s death.

“We can’t face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court,” Rep. Khanna said in a press release.

“No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders. No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance,” Rep. Khanna continued. Most importantly, our country’s top constitutional questions shouldn’t be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It’s time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that lifetime tenure serves a purpose by insulating the Supreme Court from political pressures.

“It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist №78. “Nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

Opponents also include some top Democrats. “No. There is a question about whether or not — it’s a lifetime appointment. I’m not going to try to change that at all,” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in October.

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted seven cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate. But this bill, while it seems Democratic given the current political reality and recent history, is in theory nonpartisan. Although a Republican president and Senate happened to get to confirm the two most recent Supreme Court justices following deaths, perhaps the next two — or more — such vacancies will be confirmed by Democrats.

Beware of Biden’s New Virus Task Force

As the news breaks from Operation Warp Speed (Trump Administration) on the news of Pfizer’s vaccine. As announced by StatNews:

Pfizer and partner BioNTech said Monday that their vaccine against Covid-19 was strongly effective, exceeding expectations with results that are likely to be met with cautious excitement — and relief — in the face of the global pandemic.

The vaccine is the first to be tested in the United States to generate late-stage data. The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo. For months, researchers have cautioned that a vaccine that might only be 60% or 70% effective.

The Phase 3 study is ongoing and additional data could affect results.

In keeping with guidance from the Food and Drug Administration, the companies will not file for an emergency use authorization to distribute the vaccine until they reach another milestone: when half of the patients in their study have been observed for any safety issues for at least two months following their second dose. Pfizer expects to cross that threshold in the third week of November. More here.

Exactly what is presumptive president elect Biden’s plan and will he take full credit for the remarkable work of the Trump White House?

 

Well, let’s look at that shall we?

Source in part with additional context: The experts include Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) who said he was forced out his position earlier this year after opposing promoting unproven treatments.(Bright was fired from HHS and became a whistle-blower for fully disagreeing with hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Zeke Emanuel on concerns surrounding politicization of ...

Bioethicist and oncologist Zeke Emanuel, who served as former adviser to the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act and is brother of former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and Atul Gawande, a surgeon who served as advisor to the Clinton and Obama administrations, will also serve on the panel. (Emanuel was the cat that believes people — particularly the aged — who aren’t contributing materially to society should get out of the way for the benefit of the strong. And, Emanuel was a prime architect of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and remains one of the law’s most enthusiastic apologists. Readers may also recall his infamous 2014 article in The Atlantic, where he wrote that he wants to die at age 75 — implying that we should too — because people after that age become “feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.”

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel is the vice provost for global initiatives and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

He’s also a special adviser to the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. If asked to put a chip on the betting calendar as to when we return to at least a “new normal,” where are you willing to place yours?

I’ve been saying this for months and I’ll continue to say it: November 2021. Even if we get a vaccine and have to play out getting it out there, it’s November 2021. I’m sticking with it. Source

Other experts who will serve as co-chairs include Vivek Murthy, a former surgeon general who served under the Obama administration; David Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; and Marcella Nunez-Smith, an associate professor of internal medicine, public health and management and the founding director of the Equity Research and Innovation Center. (Marcella Nunez-Smith is at the core of blaming discrimination of healthcare and the pandemic on race.

The three also served as advisers on Biden’s campaign.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president-elect said in a statement.

Biden had announced plans shorty after being projected winner of the presidential election on Saturday to name “a group of leading scientists and experts as transition advisers to help take the Biden-Harris COVID plan and convert it into an action blueprint” that will start in January, when he is inaugurated.

“That plan will be built on bedrock science,” he said.

Meanwhile….the Biden operation is also drafting nominees for cabinet posts:

The Biden transition team, which has been working behind-the-scenes since Labor Day, also has preferred candidates in mind for major Cabinet posts that require Senate confirmation and positions inside the West Wing that do not. The Cabinet announcements are not expected for a few weeks, aides said, and some are likely to be delayed even longer until it’s known who will control the Senate following the January run-offs in Georgia.
Ron Klain, a longtime adviser to Biden and his chief of staff during the early years of the Obama administration, is a leading contender to be White House chief of staff, people close to the process tell CNN.
The Biden transition is a robust effort with two Biden advisers, Jeff Zients and Ted Kaufman, taking the primary lead in overseeing these ongoing efforts. Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to the Biden campaign and former White House communications director, is another one of the co-chairs, along with New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond.

Joe Will Force the U.S. into The Great Reset, Beware

We will be forced to change our behavior and every day common things around us that we rely on will fade away. Biden will put the United States back into the Paris Accord….but read on…

Read the website.

For decades, progressives have attempted to use climate change to justify liberal policy changes. But their latest attempt – a new proposal called the “Great Reset” – is the most ambitious and radical plan the world has seen in more than a generation.

At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs.

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Schwab also said that “all aspects of our societies and economies” must be “revamped,” “from education to social contracts and working conditions.”

Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP.

Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset.

Although many details about the Great Reset won’t be rolled out until the World Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.

Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans.

“We need to design policies to align with investment in people and the environment,” said the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, Sharan Burrow. “But above all, the longer-term perspective is about rebalancing economies.”

One of the main themes of the June meeting was that the coronavirus pandemic has created an important “opportunity” for many of the World Economic Forum’s members to enact their radical transformation of capitalism, which they acknowledged would likely not have been made possible without the pandemic.

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” said Prince Charles at the meeting, adding later, “It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”

You might be wondering how these leaders plan to convince the world to completely alter its economy over the long run, since the COVID-19 pandemic most assuredly won’t remain a crisis forever. The answer is that they’ve already identified another “crisis” that will require expansive government intervention: Climate change.

“The threat of climate change has been more gradual [than COVID-19]—but its devastating reality for many people and their livelihoods around the world, and its ever greater potential to disrupt, surpasses even that of Covid-19,” Prince Charles said.

Of course, these government officials, activists and influencers can’t impose a systemic change of this size on their own. Which is why they have already started to activate vast networks of left-wing activists from around the world, who will throughout 2021 demand changes in line with the Great Reset.

According to the World Economic Forum, its 2021 Davos summit will include thousands of members of the Global Shapers Community, youth activists located in 400 cities across the planet.

The Global Shapers program was involved in the widespread “climate strikes” of 2019, and more than 1,300 have already been trained by the Climate Reality Project, the highly influential, well-funded climate activist organization run by former Vice President Al Gore, who serves on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees.

For those of us who support free markets, the Great Reset is nothing short of terrifying. Our current crony capitalist system has many flaws, to be sure, but granting more power to the government agents who created that crony system and eroding property rights is not the best way forward. America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe, not in spite of them.

Making matters worse, the left has already proven throughout the COVID-19 pandemic that it can radically transform political realities in the midst of a crisis, so it’s not hard to see how the Great Reset could eventually come to fruition.

When Institutions Fail, Consequences are Deadly

We know this to be the case in the United States as a result of sanctuary city policy. Politicians have sovereign immunity, meaning they are not accountable for their policy or legislative action when there are victims including death.

Intelligence agencies in the United States cooperate with each other with intelligence and detentions except when they don’t in hundreds of cities across America. U.S. intelligence agencies also collaborate with foreign services on warnings and cases of criminals and the associated backgrounds including judicial decisions.

While the United States was in the whirlwind of the election, very little was reporting was done on the terror attacks in Europe. Terror and militants are still out there, the war is not over. But for some additional details, read on.

AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SIGNALED on Thursday the beginning of a major overhaul of the country’s intelligence community, in response to this week’s terrorist attack in Vienna, which killed four people. Another 20 people were wounded by a lone gunman, who used an automatic weapon to spread panic in the Austrian capital before he was shot dead by Austrian police.

The gunman was named as Kujtim Fejzulai, 20, an Isis sympathiser who was able to stay on in Austria after attempts to strip him of citizenship were blocked

Armed with an assault rifle, a pistol and a machete, he injured 22 people on Monday night before being shot dead by police. He was named as Kujtim Fejzulai, 20, who had previously been jailed for attempting to join Islamic State in Syria.
Before his early release in December he had taken part in a deradicalisation course but “deceived” his handlers about his true intentions, Karl Nehammer, the interior minister, said.

The gunman was later identified as Kujtim Fejzulai, an Austrian citizen of Albanian extraction, who was born in North Macedonia and held citizenship there too. The shooter was known to Austrian authorities, as he had been previously convicted of trying to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State. He had been imprisoned as an Islamic radical, but had been released after allegedly duping Austrian judges, who believed he had reformed.

In the days following the attack, it emerged that Slovakian authorities had notified Austrian security agencies in July that Fejzulai had tried to purchase ammunition in Slovakia. On Wednesday, Austria’s Director General for Public Security, Franz Ruf, said that Austrian intelligence authorities “sent questions back to Bratislava”, but then there had been a “breakdown” in the system. Austrian Minister of the Interior Karl Nehammer added that “something apparently went wrong with the communication in the next steps”.

Nehammer and others, including Austrian Vice Chancellor Werner Kogler, called for the establishment of an independent commission to examine the Fejzulai case and “clarify whether the process went optimally and in line with the law”. The Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, said on Thursday that the country did not have “all the legal means necessary to monitor and sanction extremists”, adding that he would initiate the creation of a panel that would supervise a “realignment” of the intelligence agencies. He was referring to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism, known by the initials BVT. He did not provide details.