On Wednesday, President Donald Trump leashed out an attack on Denmark’s prime minister because she won’t allow the purchase of Greenland — besides, she considered the notion ridiculous. Additionally, the rest of the world finds it absurd…but not the U.S. President.

Regardless of the fact that a major part of the world considered the whole thing preposterous, President Trump has a different opinion — in essence, he saw no humor in it, which is why he lashed out (something considered typical of Trump in such circumstances.) The President said that Denmark’s prime minister is “nasty” — an insult that people have come to expect, especially when he has issues with women such as Meghan Markle and Hillary Clinton.

He Didn’t Stop at Attacking Denmark

The president didn’t just stop at attacking Denmark, he included NATO on his list. President Trump pointed out that Denmark forms part of the Atlantic alliance. His decision to do this came only two days prior to going to France for an international summit — France is also a NATO member state.

Here’s the Main Question — Why Exactly is the United State’s President Interested in Greenland?

Put differently, what exactly is making this one of the most desolate places in the world worthy of US interest, to the extent that the most powerful man in the world would want to make such a purchase proposition? The President sees it to be “a real estate deal of a lifetime.” The land mass of this real estate is a quarter the size of the country Trump leads. Purchasing this land would secure his place in the history of the United States, just as President Andrew Johnson — in 1867, purchased Alaska from Russia and Thomas Jefferson who in 1803 acquired Louisiana from the French.

From Trump’s advisers’ perspective, the proposed multibillion dollar acquisition poses a challenge to China, in terms of their dominance in industrial metals and aids in obstructing renewed ambitions from Russia. Greenland is effectively an autonomous region, while its sovereign owner, Denmark, is responsible for foreign policy and defense.

Greenland is known to be richly endowed with significant rare-earth metal deposits, among them are dysprosium, praseodymium, neodymium and zinc byproducts.

Once upon a time, corporations in the United States considered China to be a benevolent supplier of rare-earth metals used in the construction of computers, mobile phones and electric cars. Chinese companies engaged in mining operations across southern and central Africa, with the aim of securing greater dominance in the world market, while the United States government was asleep at the wheel.

Trump says in his subconscious mind, that he considers Greenland to have a price

As he was readying for the G7 summit in France, President Trump, while on the tarmac to board Air Force One, clearly stated that he imagined Greenland to have a price, just the same way he concludes that everything has a price, including humans; as a result, he believed Denmark will be willing to sell.

According to President Trump, “Just as we do for large portions of the globe, we protect Denmark equally. Therefore, when the concept arose, I concluded it will push through without fail. Essentially, this real estate deal is a large one. It’s interesting…strategically interesting.”

This idea is not new. The president has floated this idea in times past. While Mette Frederiksen, Danish Prime Minister has termed Trump’s notion “absurd,” Trump’s interest is an indication that this island’s geographical importance is increasing. Even China is becoming interested in this piece of treasure. The increasing importance of this real estate, associated closely to North Atlantic shipping lanes made available due to polar ice melting, is also believed to be rich in yet-to-be-tapped natural deposits and resources.

In a mock assessment of the bid that Trump proposed, the Financial Times placed a value of Greenland’s mineral and defense assets; estimated at 1.1 trillion US dollars.

Freideriksen did not want to encourage any discussion on the sale. She plainly stated, “Greenland is not for sale.” According to President Trump, his number one priority is not the purchase Greenland. However, by merely floating the idea, it’s an indication of his intense interest in this untapped gem.

So, what is America’s goals for the acquisition?

Acquiring Greenland would make the United States the world’s largest nations in terms of land mass, second only to the Russian Federation. The acquisition would be a very significant territorial acquisition — the single largest one in the history of America —a bit larger than the Louisiana Purchase.

The United States has acquired Danish territory in the past

Territorial transactions between Denmark and the US is not a new concept. There have been US acquisitions of Danish territory in the past, including the Danish West Indies, circa 1917, which was then renamed the United States Virgin Islands.

Learn how to enhance your shooting experience right here.

Moreover, the first year of the Trump presidency did not bode well for the relationship between the two countries. Both Trump and Kim Jong-un insulted and threatened the other, seemingly not thinking about the repercussions their words might have.

Thankfully, we have yet to see any official statements regarding this matter or, far worse, an actual start of nuclear war. Given the number of nuclear warheads the US has, this won’t be some light shooting with air rifles as you’ve seen in the movies. Naturally, both countries are bound to give their best, so to speak, in the case of such an unfortunate incident. However, given the US’s massive nuclear advantage, it would not likely be a positive outcome for Pyongyang.

While the situation may have seemed tense in recent years, there has been no news involving threats or plans regarding this issue.

So, let’s see if the nuclear war between the US and North Korea remains a real threat. Even though what the two leaders say is important, it’s best to look at some well-founded statistics and consider the question, with facts.

The Beginning of 2018

Back in 2018, several people, including former US military leaders, warned that the US was closer than ever to a nuclear war with North Korea, largely due to Trump’s disruptive presidency.

It goes without saying that, in the first months of his presidency, Trump wasn’t trying to make new friends. In fact, he even went as far as to call the North Korean leader “Rocket Man,” and to imply that, if the US had to defend itself, it would “Totally destroy North Korea.”

Not the best start to avoid a nuclear war.

However, the two leaders met a few months later, at the now famous summit in Singapore. In the end, Trump stated that he and Kim will most likely have a “Terrific relationship.”

Before and after the summit, the issue of denuclearization was discussed. Initially, North Korea wanted to agree to do so, but Kim changed his mind – not once, but twice.

The 2019 Summit

As with the latest summit between the two – Vietnam, 27^th of February 2019 – a deal has yet to be done. North Korea is said to have wanted to stop all the nuclear material production facilities at the nuclear site in Yongbyon but the US had to lift all related sanctions and remove any threats.

Trump stated that, while the North Korean leader wanted all of the country’s sanctions lifted, Kim failed to offer sufficient dismantling of their nuclear program, per the rules of this exchange.

Still, the meeting ended on a rather positive note, with Trump stating that he is available for further talks regarding this matter and that the relationship between he and Kim is very strong – he even added that he trusts him.

Is Nuclear War a Real Threat?

Now that we’ve loosely covered the last almost three years of US/North Korea interactions related to the possibility of nuclear war between the nations, it’s time to focus on the statistics that detail what is happening behind the curtains, so to speak.

For this, consider some of the data provided by Siegfried Hecker, one of the nuclear scientists that has been tracking North Korea’s nuclear program for quite some time.

Given that he’s personally observed the North Korean nuclear facilities, it is safe to assume that his data can be trusted.

Things are Getting Better

According to his statements, the relationship between the two countries – mainly referring to the possibility of a nuclear war – was in the red, danger zone, by the end of the Obama administration. However, Hecker notes that the first year of Trump administration was far worse from a risk standpoint.

Naturally, this was caused not only by the insults the two leaders exchanged, but also due to the fact that North Korea had made significant progress on its missile and nuclear programs.

On the other hand, things improved in 2018, as the data provided by Hecker shows us exactly what North Korea lacks in terms of nuclear power.

· When it comes to the production of fissile material, North Korea was still producing plutonium and highly enriched uranium several months ago. This is seen as a deep red risk in regards to the possibility of a nuclear war.

· However, on weaponization, it seems that things are not going as planned for North Korea. Even if it was shown that they were making great progress in 2017 with a successful test of what is believed to have been a hydrogen bomb, the country has ended testing anything new. This means that it does not possess a militarily useful hydrogen weapon.

· In terms of missiles, once again, they were making progress with their Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and even had tested submarine-launched missiles. Still, they ended any missile testing, mainly because of the Singapore summit.

As you can see, the only concerning issue is the fact that North Korea is still producing nuclear material – even though it would seem they cannot weaponize it and hasn’t conducted tests.

Hecker also noted that the Singapore summit was the best thing that could have happened, as it made North Korea cease its missile development and nuclear testing. Therefore, while there were some missteps on the path to this summit, the result was still a positive one.

Concluding Remarks

As is evident, both the political situation and the relationship between the two leaders are in far better than in 2017. One might say that the two have now become friends and that there’s little chance for a nuclear war to happen.

Still, that’s not enough – which is the exact reason why we have Hecker’s data.

The most important aspect to take into consideration here is that North Korea has stopped testing missiles as well as ended nuclear weapons development since the Singapore summit. Furthermore, given the fact that there has now been a second summit, meant to address the issue, it is hopeful that the two countries could eventually reach an agreement.

Now that president Trump seems to be offering a positive view of Kim and actively work on improving the bi-lateral relationship, it may be possible to say that the risk of a nuclear exchange between the nations might no longer be an actual threat.

So, check out our guide, take the proper precautions before getting ready to shoot, and apply our solutions to the first 5 problems you’ll experience as a handgun shooting novice.

The Solutions to the First Five Problems You’ll Experience as a Handgun Shooting Novice

After starting frequenting shooting lessons, you might realize that shooting a gun accurately might not be as easy as it appears in the movies. You must know the fundamentals, have a proper attitude, take a lot of precautions and practice hard to improve.

With all these taken into consideration, you might still need some useful advice, as there are many factors and variables regarding these aspects. Here are some of the most common problems that handgun shooting novices have experienced in time and the proper solutions for each of them:

1. Inaccurate Hits

Inaccurate hits represent one of the most common problems novices meet with during their shooting training, even after they’ve practiced a lot. It is definitely difficult to focus on the target or focus on rear sight, as you need a lot of practice to be able to master this skill. Novices find combining proper sight alignment with proper sight picture difficult and this is another aspect that makes accurate hits harder to obtain.

Solution: In order to be able to master this skill, you need to consider taking small steps that will get you where you want to be. To make hits accurate, try focusing intensely on front sight only and your aim will definitely become clearer and easier to achieve. Try combining both dry-fire and live-fire practice.

What’s more, you can gradually improve your shooting by initially viewing the target quickly and after that, you can perform sight alignment and front sight only focus. The latter is compulsory if you want your hit to be successful. Don’t forget to keep movement minimal and not jerk the trigger or the handgun while focusing on the steps above.

2. Hitting Low on Target

As a novice, you might be under the impression that you hit too low on the target. This is probably because you anticipate recoil, jerk the trigger and tighten your fingers when shooting. Improper grip-low on the back strap can make you miss the target, and this is why you need to solve this problem as soon as possible.

Solution: The solution to this problem is easier than you might think. You should maintain focus on front sight and always minimize trigger and finger movement. Try to grip the handgun smoothly, consistently, but not to the side.

To avoid missing the target, you should not squeeze or pull the trigger, but only press smoothly, without pushing the gun forward or down. This way, success is guaranteed and you’ll see improvements from one session to another.

3. Pushing the Trigger

Sometimes, the simple act of pushing the trigger can be a challenge for you. If you do not control the trigger press straight rearward, you use too little pressure on the trigger or push the trigger back and to the side rather than left, you might not manage to shoot well. With the proper tips, nothing is impossible.

Solution: In order to manage this aspect, try to contact the trigger between the midpoint of the first pad and first crease of the trigger finger. You’ll notice a fast improvement if you simply know how to handle the handgun. Avoid using the tip of the trigger finger and instead, press the trigger straight back smoothly and not intermittently, without anticipating recoil.

4. Thumbing

One of the probable causes of this issue can be rotating the thumb clockwise during trigger press. Another problem can be squeezing your thumb too much or exaggerating with too much trigger finger. You’ll see above how the result of these bad habits can be changed for the better.

Solution: In order to avoid thumbing and have successful shooting sessions, there are some important aspects that your shooting trainer might forget to tell you. First of all, try to rest your shooting hand thumb firmly on top of the support thumb. You need to be relaxed and you need this act of shooting not to be a stressful one for you. Do not bend the distal joint reflexively, as it might cause your strong hand to rotate clockwise along with the barrel muzzle. By doing this, you’ll be more prepared to become a better handgun shooter.

5. Fighting the Recoil

As a handgun shooting novice, you might think that the gun must be held down in order to control recoil. You are probably tempted to push the gun down, against recoil and this might also cause your shots to hit lower than you’d wish.

Solution: Instead of fearing the recoil, you should be prepared to embrace it. Allow it to occur naturally and do not fight it. Recoil occurs after the shot, not before, therefore you do not need to think about it before taking your best shot! Ride the recoil, allow it to go up and recover back down the sight line and your shooting skills will become better very fast.

Conclusion

As you can see, many problems can appear when you’re a handgun shooting novice, but none of them is impossible to get over when you have the right solutions at hand. Make sure you follow the simple rules you could find in this article and you’ll notice fast and efficient results immediately.

It’s true that some of us call shooting an art, but these skills can be learned rapidly if you have the right guide that helps you evolve from one shooting training to another.

Here is a breakdown on the most important reasons passionate shooters need to invest in gun safes:

1. Safe Storage

Gun safes, both wall-mounted and standing, are the safest possible place for weapon storage. They are not only specifically designed to keep your weapons in the best shape, but they also prevent unauthorized access.

Most gun safes are specious enough for you to store any gun-related equipment, such as bullets, permits and shoulder straps that are designed specifically for concealed carry. Some gun owners keep other valuable items in them as well, as they are a theft deterrent due to their size and weight. A thief cannot carry them out easily and cannot open them on the spot – which makes them the perfect place for safekeeping.

2. Adhering to Child Access Prevention Laws

If there is one thing everyone can agree on it’s that children should not have unsupervised access to any type of firearm. There are laws in place to ensure that gun owners are keeping their weapons safely away from children, and investing in a gun safe helps comply with them.

Gun safes are not easy to open or break into, thanks to combination locks technology. It doesn’t matter if your gun safe comes with an electronic or mechanical lock – no child will be able to get in it and accidents will be prevented.

3. Adhering to Locking Device Laws

Some states have laws that require that all guns on your property need to be locked up, with no regard towards if children are present or not. Always check your local laws regarding gun storage, just to be on the safe side.

4. Fireproof Storage

In addition to presenting a safe storage space, gun safes are made of fireproof material and will keep all stored valuables flame-free in case a fire breaks out. Safe manufacturers usually include the temperature which a specific gun safe can handle in their product features.

Knowing this, it’s not hard to see why people choose to store more than guns and connected equipment in the safes.

5. Insurance Requirements

Insurance companies have coverage limits when it comes to firearms and some policies require your guns to be appraised prior to coverage.

If you’re passionate about shooting, chances are you have more than one gun. With the increased value of your gun collection come new insurance company requirements and your insurance company may start requiring you to keep your guns in a certified safe, sometimes with an alarm as well.

The good news is that insurance discounts are available for taking security measures such as purchasing a fire-rated safe. It varies from company to company, but be sure to check with your insurance agent to see if you’re eligible for a discount. If you are, a good gun safe will save you money spent on insurance premiums in the long haul.

6. Lawyer Protection

In the event of your gun collection being stolen despite all efforts to prevent it, owning a gun safe will both help your insurance claim and prevent you from having to face legal action of your own.

To put it simply, you need to be able to prove that you have taken all necessary and available measures to safely and securely store your weapons. Proving that you did your due diligence spares you from responsibility in case your stolen weapon is used in a crime.

To Sum Up

It doesn’t matter if you are an ardent collector or a casual hunter, you have invested in your guns and it would be a shame for them to be damaged in any way. They are precious and expensive, and should be cared for properly.

This is why gun safes provide the perfect answer, fulfilling safe storage, fire safety and theft prevention requirements. Keeping your guns, bullets, scopes and other equipment safely locked up will give you peace of mind at all times and that’s a good enough reason to start looking into acquiring a gun safe for your collection.

Think about your favorite artistic medium. For some of us, it’s cinema; motion pictures can be incredible works of art and some of the most masterful examples are, also, the most divisive. When it comes to memorable films, we are never underwhelmed or even neutral. The very best films are ones that place the viewer firmly on one end of the spectrum or other; you either love them or you hate them.

President Trump inspires this same kind of passion in both the public and the people on the Hill. We’ve seen the poll out of Monmouth University which demonstrates that 61% of people who support the president believe there is nothing that could make them disapprove of his job in office.

That same poll found that both Republicans and Democrats were unlikely to change their minds about President Trump, reinforcing the notion that you either love the president or you hate him. Opponents of the president have gone to great lengths and sunk to new lows in their efforts to protest his first term.

Whether it’s washed-up FemiNazi comedienne Kathy Griffin snapping a photo of her holding the fake decapitated head of our Commander-in-Chief or desperate middle-aged white rapper Eminem recording a diss track about POTUS that clumsily rhymes “for” with “orange,” Trump has penetrated pop culture like no other leader in US history.

Regardless of where one lands on the presidential spectrum, one thing is undeniable. His supporters are every bit as passionate as his detractors. Among those supporters who have done their part to endorse Trump’s presidency is 11-year old Frank Giaccio who wrote to the president last year to request the “honor” of mowing the White House lawn.

As we all know, the president has courted plenty of controversy since his inauguration. His executive order denying entry into the US to citizens of certain countries was met with plenty of resistance by advocacy groups and Democrats on the Senate floor. And his appointment of ultra-conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was met with similar ire.

But this polarity is not a bad thing, rather it is a surefire sign of his effectiveness as Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, Trump is an artist and his canvas is the United States of America. His paint brush is an iron fist. Like all great artists, the president is a visionary, but unlike other presidential candidates who posit a vision for the country, President Trump doesn’t stop until that vision is realized.

This is why his constituents love him and why they stand by him, regardless of how much mud the media sling at him. They stand by him because he is emblematic of everything we have been promised by the GOP that they then fail to deliver.

When the president promised to fill scores of federal court vacancies with conservative judges, he made good on that promise by confirming appellate judges at a historic speed. When he pledged to recognize Israel’s claim to the city of Jerusalem, he kept his word. The same is true of his tax overhaul, his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, his repeal of the Obama-era roadblocks on the Keystone XL pipeline, his withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and his call for identification of foreign trading abuses that hurt the American worker.

One of the things that makes President Trump a true visionary is his eye toward the future. When we think back on his presidency, we will be able to recognize him as the archetype for the 21st Century President.

His embrace of Twitter as a platform for communicating with the people of his country is just one example of how the Commander-in-Chief is molding the presidential image to suit the modern age. His early adoption of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to circumvent China’s internet restrictions and his commitment to military cybersecurity programs demonstrate his comprehension of where the world is heading and how we can get there.

The president’s assertion that gun control could have left “hundreds more dead” in last year’s Las Vegas shooting shows that POTUS understands the absurdity of the Democrats’ efforts to ban AR-15 furniture and accessories. It also suggests that he is dedicated to preserving Americans’ Second Amendment right.

Finally, President Trump’s stance on North Korea and its tyrannical leader tells us that he has something few contemporary presidents have had…balls. This is why he inspires so much love and so much hate. Those who adore him are able to see that he means business. Those who oppose him are resentful and jealous because they envy his determination.

Naysayers call Trump stubborn when he refuses to cave to pressure. They call him unstable when he calls for a second government shutdown until the liberals agree to work in concert with their Republican counterparts.

When his accomplishments get in the way of their agenda, the president’s haters fall back on his alleged record of sexual misconduct. They dream up infantile stories about Russian pee-pee prostitutes and hotel trysts with fame-seeking porn stars.

What they fail to grasp is that these fairy tales don’t give his supporters pause. On the contrary, they only serve to cement his reputation as the man’s man this PC country needs now more than ever. If nothing else, President Trump represents a tangible change that is vital for the GOP in these times of increasing self-censorship and emasculation.

The liberals can disagree about the need for that kind of change, but they can’t disagree when it comes to the progress the president has made.

With a thriving economy and record-breaking job creation, it is likely that Americans will have better credit and better opportunities in the next three years than they’ve had in ages. That’s what’s called making America great again, which is yet another promise President Trump has kept. That’s a whole lot to love.

The Westgate Las Vegas Resort and Casino was opened in 1969 as the first in a series of unique Y-shaped buildings to be built on the Las Vegas strip, and is home to the largest sports book in Las Vegas. Its location next to the Las Vegas Convention Center and the Las Vegas Country Club has made it one of the more familiar resorts on Paradise Road, and despite changing hands many times and suffering a fire in in 1981 in which eight people died, it has remained a feature of the Las Vegas landscape for almost half a century.

What is it and how does it work?

However, in November 2017, Westgate began testing new surveillance technology – a discrete weapon sensing device called the Patscan Cognitive Microwave Radar (CMR), distributed by a company based in Canada, PatriotOne Technologies. Patscan CMR combines short-range radar with machine learning algorithms to scan individual guests for guns, knives, and bombs in real time.

Patscan units are small, and can be hidden inside existing infrastructure such as walls, doorways, turnstiles, and elevators. They are composed of a service box and two antennae, which cumulatively have a footprint of a movie poster.

The first antenna emits 1,000 pulses of electromagnetic radiation per second, at frequencies between 500 MHz and 5 Ghz – enough to scan for materials but not enough to cook anyone, or even interfere with a cell phone’s signal. Operating at such a weak level limits the detection range to about two meters, however, within choke points in the building’s architecture, this is more than enough.

The second antenna monitors for electromagnetic patterns inside that two-meter range. When you hit an object with electromagnetic radiation, it resonates according to its shape and material composition. Pistols, grenades, rifles, knives, machine guns, and explosives all resonate in the frequency range that Patscan emits, however prosthetics, laptops, and almost everything else does too.

Electrical engineer Natalia Nikolova, director of McMaster University’s Electromagnetic Vision Research Laboratory and the woman whose research Patscan is based on, says each object resonates differently, creating what she calls “an object’s radar signature.” The Patscans will be updated with newly identified radar signatures in a manner PatriotOne CEO Martin Cronin compared with antivirus software, and, in future, the device’s machine learning algorithms will allow Patscans to differentiate between normal and abnormal signatures – essentially learning how to identify an unusual situation.

Westgate’s security personnel and a team of engineers from PatriotOne are currently testing Patscan devices on the resort’s employees before rolling them out across the resort, and hope to deploy the device more broadly in 2018.

A necessary evil or a breach of privacy?

Recent mass shootings in Las Vegas have clearly led to demands for increased security and for guns to be specifically targeted. The shooting at a country music festival on the Las Vegas strip in February 2017 left 58 dead and more than 500 wounded.

When police entered gunman Stephen Paddock’s hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino they found 23 firearms, some of which were modified to fire more rapidly – essentially circumventing the 30-year old automatic weapons ban that makes it almost impossible for a civilian to legally acquire one. Faced with such terrible events, it comes as no surprise that resorts want to tighten security, reassure guests, and keep business ticking over.

However, resorts such as Westgate should remember where they are. The State of Nevada guarantees the right of its citizens to open-carry, and with a permit it’s perfectly legal to hide a weapon on or near your person.

A whole range of paraphernalia exists on the market to facilitate concealed carry, and many shoulder holsters are designed specifically for concealed carry, and make much of the fact that they hide your pistol very well. Scanners like this completely undermine that ability. Furthermore, the city of Las Vegas represents freedom, excess, and as the city so famously advertises—unaccountability.

Hidden scanners that invade an individual’s privacy and contravene state-given rights are the antithesis of what Las Vegas represents. If this technology proves successful and the trend is to spread, legislation may be required to limit the use of devices like this in order to protect people’s rights, or privacy-enabling technology must develop in tandem.

Take a look at the “mainstream” media after each mass shooting, and you’ll see a depressing pattern emerge. The left tends to seize on one aspect of these incidents, and exclude all of the others; the recent tragedy in Las Vegas is no exception.

In recent weeks we’ve seen the formation of a crusade against bump stocks. Though the incident was a complex one, raising questions about mental health provision and hotel security, the left cannot to see the woods for the trees: to hear the NY Times tell it, bump stocks were almost entirely to blame, and should now be banned entirely.

There is certainly a debate to be had. However, what is so infuriating about campaigns like this is that many of those now claiming that bump stocks are dangerous had not even heard of them one week ago; this, too, is a repeated pattern.

The ongoing debate about suppressors, items which some on the left continue to wilfully misrepresent as “silencers”, is a case in point. Without everyday experience of owning and using guns, many on the left are susceptible to powerful myths about them. It is a sad fact that those charged with making firearms policy are often the people with the least experience of guns.

With regard to bump stocks, three pieces of legislation have so far been filed in the House. The most recent is bi-partisan, a rare achievement for a gun control measure. A ban on bump stocks is certainly popular with the public. The NRA opposes new legislation in this area, but is open to a review of bump stocks to see if they comply with federal law.

While this might sound surprising, it is only so until you remember that the NRA’s primary concern is to represent responsible gun owners. In truth, a ban on bump stocks will make little difference to hunters or competitive shooters, because they don’t use them. The problem is that it won’t prevent mass shootings either.

“Until now, bump stocks have been a non-issue in firearm homicide (mass or not),” April Zeoli, an associate professor at the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice, told the NY Times.

And so we find ourselves in a familiar situation: the left has rushed to politicize one incredibly narrow aspect of a mass shooting – bump stocks – despite expert advice to the contrary. Of all the insults which have been slung at conservatives over the years, this is not one; we do not lurch from one issue to the next after every incident, but have instead stayed remarkably consistent in our position.

Indeed, any dispassionate observer would have to conclude that when it comes to firearm legislation, one side is consistently better informed, and more willing to listen to expert advice, than the other. That side is the conservative right.

Ultimately, sensible gun legislation can only be implemented by those willing to take the broadest possible view, and by those with everyday experience of guns themselves. So by all means let’s have a discussion about what led to the atrocity in Las Vegas, and that includes bump stocks, but let us do it in a way that takes into account more than the left’s current obsession.

Sam Bocetta is a retired engineer who worked for over 35 years as an engineer specializing in electronic warfare and advanced computer systems. Past projects include development of EWTR systems, Antifragile EW project and development of Chaff countermeasures. Sam now writes for Gun News Daily as an independent correspondent, and teaches at Algonquin Community College in Ottawa, Canada as a part time engineering professor.

In past years, stories of the corruption in the government of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych caused many in this country to question if the money was just being spent to line the pockets of the Ukrainian elite. The U.S. government applauded the installation of a new government in 2014 when Petro Poroshenko came to power in Ukraine, with hopes that the corruption was a thing of the past; sadly that appears not to be the case.

One man stood to take the corruption head-on. Former Minister for the Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius brought accusations against then First Deputy from the Petro Poroshenko regime, Igor Kononenko, claiming that he interfered with oversight of the most profitable state-owned companies.

As the new government was installed, ministers assured the people of Ukraine that they would look into schemes used at state-owned companies during Yanukovych’s presidency. Representatives from the Ministry for Economy during Aivaras Abromavicius’ term in office said that the heads of 42 key state-owned companies had been replaced. A controversy between Abromavicius and Ihor Kononenko, a lawmaker and partner of Petro Poroshenko, identified other state-run companies, including Naftogaz, Ukrhimtransammiak and Powder Metallurgy Factory as still practicing the corrupt methods of the prior administration. The head of Powder Metallurgy Factory remained in charge until only a few months ago.

Some of the heads of corrupt companies remain in power, such as the CEO of Ukrhimtransammiak (UHTA). Abromavicius pursued the former member of the Party of Regions, Viktor Bondyk, for more than six months. Bondyk has served as the head of Ukrhimtransammiak for nearly a decade, during some of the darkest days of corruption in Ukraine’s history.

Yet Mr. Bondyk does not appear to be concerned about the focus on his activities and continues working while maintaining a close relationship with the Yanukovych family. Several criminal cases are pending against Bondyk.

Bondyk rose to lead UHTA in 2007 surviving seven relevant ministers. Bondyk’s questionable tactics are legendary. Bondyk’s spending habits are widely questioned, including the acquisition of pumps and lifts for liquids with a price tag of 55.4 million hryvnia in 2013. That, in itself, might not raise eyebrows, but when you dig a little deeper you find that identical equipment cost the company 15.2 million hryvnia in 2010. Where did the 40 plus million hryvnia go? In a time of economic hardship equipment doesn’t triple in cost. Perhaps the most infamous scheme which has drawn scrutiny was the company’s move to secure two loans totaling $42 million from Amsterdam Trade Bank NV and Alfa-Bank, and considered to be the most high-profile scandal of his tenure.

According to People’s Front deputy, Tatiana Chernovol, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine opened an investigation for abuse of power and inappropriate use of credit funds procured by Bondyk. Tatiana Chernovol said that the Office of the Prosecutor General filed the cases against Bondyk only after she made personal pleas.

“Moreover, it was only after a personal conversation that Arseniy Yatsenyuk had with Abromavicius, when the Ministry for Economic Development raised the tariff for the transit of ammonia via Ukraine by nearly 30 percent in September 2015. See for yourself: in 2010, pumping one ton of ammonia was  $2/100 km, while during Bondyk’s stay in office the price was $0.5/100 km.  Bondyk had lobbied such tariffs at the Economic Development Ministry for taking bribes from the Russian co-owner of JSC Togliattiazot, Sergei Makhlai, who transits his ammonia via Ukraine,” according to sources at the Cabinet.

Sergei Makhlai, a known player of questionable repute, was born in Russia, but obtained several U.S. passports for Serge Makligh and George Mack. In the U.S., where tough penalties exist for tax evaders, fraudsters and corrupt individuals, Makhlai is seen as a respectable businessman. Makhlai conducts his business in his homeland, Russia, though he moved to the United States in 1994. It wasn’t until recently that Russian law enforcement agencies showed any interest in the dubious schemes Makhlai used to withdraw $1.5 billion in cash and assets from the Russian chemical company Togliattiazot.

In December 2012, a criminal case was filed under Article 159.4 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation, identified as large scale fraud. A decision of the Russian court stated that Makhlai and several of his associates be arrested in absentia and added to Interpol’s most wanted list. Yet, Togliattiazot continues to operate, albeit in a diminished capacity. Its only export channel, the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, is controlled by Ukrhimtransammiak and explains why Makhlai expends large amounts of money to bribe Bondyk.

Non-governmental organization Maidan Anti-Corruption Committee took steps to see that Bondyk meets justice at some point; while at about the same time an attempt was made on the life of the vice chairman of the organization, Ruslan Kalashnikov. Kalashnikov survived but the criminal case was swept under the carpet.

Minister Abromavicius tried to terminate Bondyk, but Bondyk kept himself hidden, claiming to be away on vacation or on medical leave. Abromavichus decided to move ahead to change the head of UHTA, at least officially, in early September, when he  posted on Facebook: “Ukrhimtransammiak CEO has outlived seven ministers.  And there is a plethora of questions to him. More than a month ago, I asked him to write a resignation letter (i.e, it was July – Ed.). He’s gone on  vacation.”

According to sources with the Petro Poroshenko administration, Victor Bondyk was repeatedly seen at the presidential headquarters, although it remains unclear what he was actually there for. One of the ways that Bondyk may be able to operate in the shadows is that he is conveniently close friends with the sitting head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasily Gritsak.

Sadly Aivaras Abromavicius has now left Ukraine and returned to homeland of Lithuania, having done his best to set Ukraine on a path of honesty and fairness; but his efforts were impeded by continued corruption.

As long as the heads of Ukrainian state-owned companies serve as accessories to international corruption schemes, led by criminals such as Makhlai, any attempts to expose these companies are doomed to failure and so are the efforts to hold fair and transparent privatization. The U.S. government is an enabler of this corruption, funding a government that not only allows, but participates in the lawlessness. The American people want to help the Ukrainian people move towards fair and just privatization, but unless U.S. lawmakers threaten to withhold tax dollars to Ukraine until they take documented and provable steps to clean up their act, we are effectively funding a criminal enterprise.

Federal judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple Computer to assist the FBI by disabling the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. The judge didn’t ask Apple to disable this function across its product line, or even on any other phone other than the phone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2. The FBI wishes to crack the password of the terrorist using “brute force,” a method of attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.

Here are some key points from the judge order:

Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

Apple’s reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.

If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.

Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, responded to the media that Apple would not comply with the judge’s order, saying doing so would create a “back door,” allowing the access to encrypted personal data, violating the privacy rights of its users. The response by Cook is a bit confusing, since repeatedly the order references the “subject device.”

One might wonder if Apple’s attorneys have offered Cook an incorrect interpretation of the judge’s order. Nothing in the order demands that Apple remove this functionality across its product line, or provide any access to data on any device other than the specific iPhone 5c of Syed Farook.

There must be some reason for Cook’s resistance to help the FBI access the data that could potentially identify other radicalized individuals or trace the “mastermind” behind the San Bernardino attack. Why would Apple want to hinder the actions of the FBI in what could save lives?

Some have suggested that Cook’s reticence is an attempt to avoid a “slippery slope,” where the government uses this single situation as precedence to future attempts to access personal data. It could be opined that Apple is standing with its customers to protect them against a prying government. This is why we have a court system. The FBI had to argue to a federal judge that, in this specific instance, the data of a known criminal was not protected by privacy rights. It’s no different than a search warrant. The judge concurred, hence taking the matter out of the civil arena into the criminal investigation domain.

Will Apple’s refusal to aid the FBI have an effect on their product sales? Probably not. However it does pose some interesting questions about whether a private company should or can refuse to assist the government in its investigations into criminal activity. Some will undoubtedly look at Apple’s approach to this very limited and device specific request as a stand where personal privacy trumps the welfare of the public. Others will view this as Apple seeing itself as above the law.

This could be Apple’s way of demonstrating just how secure data is on its iPhone. If the government’s most technologically equipped investigative agency cannot access your data on their products most Apple customers would feel their data is very secure. Is it just a play for attention, sales or an egomaniacal thumb in the eye of the feds?

In all likelihood Apple will be forced to comply; but not until they’ve made their point. How this will alter the public’s view of Apple the company is a story yet to unfold.

The report also detailed a slowing economy paired with huge increases in government spending will mean a return to the rising deficits of Obama’s early years.

Over the coming decade, the CBO predicts deficits totaling $9.4 trillion. That’s up $1.5 trillion just from this summer, mostly due to last month’s tax legislation, which permanently extended several tax cuts that Congress had typically renewed temporarily.

The deficit increase is due to numerous government spending increases, particularly the retroactive extension of tax cuts that had expired at the beginning of last year, additional money for the Pentagon, Obamacare and a spending windfall for domestic agencies. This is the type of irresponsible government spending expected under a Democrat controlled Congress, but not with both the House and Senate under Republican control.

The picture gets even dimmer as the years move forward. As deficits rise over the decade and the national debt grows, interest rates are likely to be forced up, economic growth could slow, and policymakers may have no choice but to raise taxes and cut spending more sharply than if they acted now. Increases in interest rates are even more problematic when the debt service on the nearly $19 trillion national debt further drives deficits.

The CBO predicts that deficits will rise to about 5 percent of gross domestic product within 10 years, further depressing the economy.

“Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the nation,” CBO said.

Sadly the the CBO forecast likely underestimates true deficits over the years since they are required by Congress to assume that current spending policies will remain despite history showing that government spending never stays constant. CBO’s estimates also don’t take into consideration the potential for recession even though recent downturns in Europe and Asia portend a much gloomier outlook.

Speaker of the House Ryan said, “Efforts to tangibly cut spending won’t be part of the 2016 agenda. The House will pass another nonbinding budget but won’t seek to deliver real, binding spending legislation to the president. Clearly that’s going to take a Republican president because this president has continued to kick the can down the road and I see no change in his behavior.”

Ryan’s logic that Congress should give the president what he wants because he’d veto a responsible budget is in itself an act of total irresponsibility. Congress is supposed to do what’s best for the nation, not what fits any president’s agenda. Ryan failed to acknowledge that prior to this omnibus budget prior stopgap measures have kept spending at more economical levels allowing the deficit to shrink. Clearly Mr. Ryan isn’t the man most GOP voters thought he was.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Harry Reid could care less about your safety; if there are political points to be scored, the hell with you and your family.

With the required 60 votes to move the bill ahead, the Democrats stood in lock-step to prevent further action. Perhaps this is the Democrats way of saying you should buy a gun, cause hell if they’re going to lift a finger to protect you.

The vote came in response to a bill in the House that requires new FBI background checks and individual sign-offs from three high-ranking federal officials before any refugee from Syria or Iraq could come to the United States. The American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act cleared the House in November but has been languishing in the Senate, as most bills do, until Majority Leader McConnell brought it up this week for a vote. Note that the bill passed in the house received 289 votes, a veto-proof margin that included 47 Democrats, despite President Barack Obama’s opposition. Harry Reid, the bastion of bipartisanship, wasn’t about to let agreement in the House get in the way of his dirty politics.

“This bill is just another step in the absolute wrong direction, the direction of Donald Trump,” Reid told reporters before the vote. “The Democrats are committed to opposing the hateful views of Trump and his Republican enablers.”

It is difficult, in not impossible, under the current circumstances to effectively vet immigrants from war-torn countries like Syria and Iraq, where record keeping is meager, if at all. There is intelligence that reports that the Islamic State (ISIL) has stated that they intend to exploit the refugee screening program; still nothing sways the elite Mr. Reid.

“So it is any wonder that the citizens we represent are concerned?” McConnell said. “No wonder dozens of Democrats joined with Republicans to pass this balanced bill with a veto-proof majority over in the House.”

Three of the Republican presidential candidates — Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky — left the campaign to return to Washington to vote to move the bill ahead.

Surprisingly, ultra-hawk Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who was campaigning for Jeb Bush in New Hampshire, missed the vote. Perhaps the most dedicated Republican on foreign affairs chose to stump for the failing Bush campaign over his responsibilities to his constituents. The message sent by Graham’s absence surely didn’t help move the bill forward. Shame on you Lindsey Graham.

Two Democrats from GOP-leaning states — Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — voted with Republicans to move ahead on the legislation. Only two. Harry Reid is nothing if not a solid hamster herder; he was able to get more than 90 percent of his flock to potentially commit political suicide in an election year. Harry Reid is a true pied piper.

Those Democrats facing tight 2016 elections are now in a position of having to defend the indefensible: opposing what many consider to be a reasonable anti-terror measure in the wake of several terrorist attacks. Does the mainstream media still wonder why the Democrats have been bleeding congressional seats and governorships for the last four election cycles?

This House bill, Reid said, “scapegoats refugees who are fleeing war and torture instead of creating real solutions to keep Americans safe.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the bill is a security test, not a religious one. “This reflects our values,” Ryan said. “This reflects our responsibilities.”

Cruz announced Tuesday he was canceling two events in New Hampshire and rescheduling two others in order to return to Washington to vote. While Republicans said the bill contains no religious tests for the refugees, Cruz and White House rival Jeb Bush have suggested giving preferences to Christians.

Obama scolded politicians for raising worries over taking in refugees fleeing the Islamic State’s harsh rule in Syria and Iraq, where it controls territory. “Apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” Obama said when the House voted last year. The White House has said Obama will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk, so Reid’s move was simply to give his master cover.

Nice move Harry. When you depart after this term, we’re going to miss you almost as much as your boss.

Michelle Obama offered advice which includes tossing proper grammar and punctuation, frequent use of emojis and focus on keeping content “raw and authentic.”

Imagine a simple request, such as, “You were supposed to be home by 9:00 PM. Where are you and why aren’t you home?” In Michelle Obama’s world that would be, “Past 9 what up homey .”

Michelle Obama went on to lecture us silly adults that “email is dead.”

Ironically, Michelle Obama offered these morsels of wisdom while rolling out a new initiative aimed at encouraging America’s kids to value higher education.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, even though rather silly, since her own kids are now teenagers; yet should we continue to cater to kids’ poor communication patterns, especially when discussing college and higher education? How will their college professors respond (in 140 characters no doubt) when those same kids text them, “report aint gonna make it…doh (face slap emoji.)”

“Don’t make the mistake of responding to a text using full sentences with proper grammar and punctuation,” Mrs. Obama said at the launch of her new “Better Make Room” initiative. “If you really want to get their attention, use symbols, little symbols. There’s the smiley face, the angry face, and all the other faces that can show any emotion that you may be feeling.”

God help us.

As much as this article might seem like some satirical exaggeration from my natural bias against Mrs. Obama, it is sadly a word-for-word portrayal of her actual words at the White House.

Let’s keep this in perspective; other first ladies set values and standards for their children, and by extension the children of the nation, not based on current trends, but on heartfelt values.

First Lady Laura Bush, suggested, “Young people need us in their lives,” Mrs. Bush told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 2014. “They need to know they are valued, that somebody believes in them and that their success matters. The problems are great, but greater still is our love for our children.” She also advised that that parents should, “Play outside with your kids and then read to them.”

Jackie Kennedy valued writing thank you notes, and shared that good habit with her children, making sure they immediately sent out proper notes after they received gifts or kindnesses from others. “If you bungle raising your children,” she once said, “I don’t think whatever else you do well matters very much.”

Eleanor Roosevelt tackled exploring the world when she spoke about children. “I think, at a child’s birth, if a mother could ask a fairy godmother to endow it with the most useful gift, that gift should be curiosity.”

Sadly, Mrs. Obama, on the other hand, tried to equate how all kids react based on her own experience with her teenage daughters.

“They usually stop listening to us after about six seconds,” she said. “Their eyes just glaze over as we blather on and on. We think we’re getting to them, but they’ve shut us off minutes ago.”

She wants us to believe that kids “want content that’s authentic and raw — nothing polished, nothing packaged.” What a wonderful example to send the leaders of tomorrow off to college with.

Kids are going to do what kids are going to do; we can’t change that; yet they expect parents to define rules that they can always fall back on. It’s difficult enough to teach children how to speak properly, write correctly and act appropriately without the first lady of the nation telling us to go with the flow. We try to instill the values we learned from our parents while Michelle Obama would prefer we just adapt to the speed and casualness of social media.

The media sheet for Mrs. Obama’s education initiative reads: “That is why, as part of her Reach Higher initiative, the First Lady is announcing a new public awareness campaign, Better Make Room, to target Generation Z, or young people ages 14-19, to celebrate education, change the national conversation, and reach students directly where they are and give them a space to create content while also navigating the college-going process.”

Mrs. Obama says teens would rather text than have a conversation, but nothing good comes from parents removing two-way communication from their parental duties and some conversations demand actual talk. If Michelle Obama has her way, the concept of a heart-to-heart will join punctuation on the list of outdated notions.

Mrs. Obama’s campaign calls on teens to use social media sites such as Vine, a partner in the initiative, as well as Twitter and Instagram to show off the accomplishments of their peers.

Though Michelle Obama doesn’t even understand how many of these social sites work, or the value of using them to our children, she doesn’t mind pushing it out to the parents of America as gospel.

“The truth is, I probably won’t understand everything we’re doing with this campaign and neither will many of you. But that’s OK — we’re old.”

President Obama told an audience of students, lawmakers, ex-offender and radical left-wing activists Monday that, “We’ve got to make sure that people who’ve paid their debt to society can earn a second chance. We can’t have the criminal justice system carrying the entire load of society’s ills.”

Obama has issued an order to federal agencies to “ban the box” and delay asking applicants about their criminal history until later in the hiring process. Activists have for years called on an end to the question at early stages of hiring, arguing that it fosters discrimination against ex-offenders who are trying to rebuild honest lives.

Isn’t it a wise move to allow potentially violent or mentally unstable persons into positions where they might cause havoc?

Obama urged Congress to follow the example of his executive action and address what he believes is an injustice.

When hundreds of thousands of innocent unemployed persons cannot find work, why not open the doors to those that have broken the law to compete on an equal basis?

The president also said that he had expanded education grant money for ex-offenders, one of several executive actions to improve re-entry programs for former inmates who often find themselves alone and unable to find housing or work. Nearly one of three American adults has a criminal record, and a 2009 study found that 60-75% of ex-offenders were jobless up to a year after release.

Yet in Obama’s America following the law is no reason for preferential treatment.

“A lot of the time that record disqualifies you from being a full participant in our society, even if you’ve already paid your debt to society,” Obama said.

Instead of shuttling mostly black, Latino and poor people through a system of cells and poverty, Obama said repairing the criminal justice system’s many parts would help create “a virtuous cycle”.

“It means less crime, it means less recidivism, it means less money spent on incarceration,” he said, noting that more than 600,000 people are released from prison each year, and that it costs about $80bn to incarcerate more than 2.2 million inmates.

In the bizarro world in which this president lives, much like the streets of Chicago, he doesn’t think keeping criminals segregated from society is necessary. As innocent people die by the scores in the streets of his home town, it isn’t necessary to take precautions to keep evil from invading our government or schools. Even the slew of shootings by mentally unstable individuals that seems like a regular part of the nightly news, this president seems oblivious to it all.

Now had the president said that he felt those convicted of white collar crimes, drug possession or non-violent crimes, perhaps there might be a smidgeon of logic to his decision. No, even drug dealers get a pass with Mr. Obama.

“Instead of peddling drugs that are destroying lives, he’s saving lives,” Obama said.

Sure, who wouldn’t want someone with a pension for selling drugs to work for, say, the TSA?

While we live in a world of his creation, where the job participation rate is the lowest since the Carter days, Mr. Obama is most concerned about giving criminal re-entry programs more attention and finding increased funding to focus more on life after prison.

Representative Elijah Cummings, a Democrat behind a bill to lower or eradicate minimum criminal sentences, praised Obama’s actions. The president’s steps would help “to reduce recidivism, break generational cycles of crime, and make our communities safer”, Cummings said.

The president, who is quick to blame police in nearly every instance, has for months toured the nation in a loose campaign for criminal sentencing reform.

Obama’s speech followed a weekend during which about 6,000 drug offenders were granted early releases thanks to policy changes by his US Sentencing Commission, which made the revisions retroactive to last year.

Republican senators have proven amenable to reasonable reform bills, but Obama’s opponents on the national stage have seized it as an opportunity to criticize him. Chris Christie, New Jersey’s governor and a presidential candidate, has accused the president of not supporting police, saying in September that “lawlessness has been the rule of the day” under Obama.

The report states that Obama deployed an additional aircraft carrier to the region after it was found that Israeli aircraft had tested Iranian air defenses in what the U.S. government suspected was a test run for an attack on Iran’s Fordow plant. Mr. Obama sent carriers with attack aircraft on board that were directed to respond to any Israeli attacks against Iran.

If this doesn’t make it crystal clear that Mr. Obama, despite his claims to the contrary, is no supporter or Israel, then the leak by U.S. officials to the Journal that Israel was responsible for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists should seal the deal.

The same government officials that revealed the supposed assassination attempts also stated that Israel had plans to strike Iranian nuclear sites as early as 2012, but the Obama Administration pressured the Israeli government to hold off.

Mr. Obama kept the details of The U.S./Iran nuclear negotiations hidden from Israel because of strong disagreements over the extent to which Iran might, and eventually was, allowed to pursue a nuclear program in the resulting agreement. Israel had made it clear to administration officials that Iran’s abundance of energy resources made it apparent that the Islamic State had no peaceful purposes for a nuclear program.

If these revelations don’t convince the Jewish community in the U.S., that has overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party, that the interests and security of Israel are of no consequence to the President, nothing will.

Lozhkin openly supports the Russian tobacco company Megapolis, which monopolized 90 percent of tobacco product sales in Ukraine under former President Viktor Yanukovych. Megapolis under Yanukovych managed to monopolize cigarette sales on the Ukrainian market. The company signed longterm contracts for almost all products produced in Ukraine by the so-called “Big Four” – British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco, Inc., Imperial Tobacco Group and Philip Morris.

Megapolis sells to large and small retailers, taking a large part of the profit. Megapolis behaves in the same way monopolistic companies in the United States did during the 20th century before anti-trust laws were passed. Retail chains which do not agree with its draconian terms are shut out of the market altogether. It’s not possible on the Ukrainian market to purchase cigarettes directly from producers, according to contracts which grant Megapolis exclusive sales rights.

The Ukrainian distributor Megapolis is a subsidiary of the Russian distributor Megapolis, which controls 70 percent of the Russian tobacco market. According to Forbes, the principal owners of the group are Igor and Sergei Kesaev.

In 2013 they sold a 40 percent share in the international cigarette companies Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Philip Morris International for 1.5 billion USD. According to Forbes, a portion of the sale receipts were invested in weapons production companies and notes that this includes the “principle owner” of the Degtyarev factory which produces automatic Kalashnikov firearms (AK-47 through AK-103).

“The tobacco market is the fourth largest taxpayer and its influence on the country’s economy and domestic market is enormous.”

At the same time, when the entire world is imposing sanctions against Russia, a Russian company is exacting monopolist rent on the Ukrainian market. In addition, proceeds are directly funneled to a weapons producing Russian company, which directly supports pro-Russian separatists in an armed conflict in east Ukraine.

The interests of Megapolis in Ukraine’s political world are represented by Boris Kaufman, who has on numerous occasions been linked to the Ukraine’s Presidential Administration chief Boris Lozhkin.

Ukrainian media on several occasions earlier reported on ties between Megapolis and Yanukovych family members.

It is worth noting that the Austrian bank account of Boris Lozhkin was frozen last month. Some 130 million USD had been deposited in the account from fugitive Ukrainian oligarch Serhiy Kurchenko.

Many people in Ukraine connect the fact that even after the victory of the democratic revolution in Ukraine two years ago there continues to exist a monopoly created by Russian traders of weapons with the Ukrainian partner Megapolis represented by businessman Boris Kaufman. It was namely Kaufman who was able under the previous administration to arrange protection from the family of the former president Yanukovych and with Lozhkin when he became the head of the new Presidential Administration.

Hopefully the monopolist control of the Russian company on the Ukrainian tobacco market will serve as the basis for a serious investigation by the Ukrainian Anti-Monopoly Committee and that top Ukrainian bureaucrats supporting the scheme are punished.

Ms. Clinton’s weak excuses started with a poorly crafted story of wanting to avoid carrying multiple devices in her worldwide travels. Within days it was revealed that Hillary carried multiple devices the entire time she had her own private server: a Blueberry and an iPad. Though it’s hard to imagine, in this day and age, where nearly everyone has multiple email accounts going to a single device that this story would do anything other than get heads shaking in pity across the country. Come on Hillary, you can do better than that.

Shortly after that first misstep, Hillary began claiming that other secretaries of state also had private email systems; however none used a private email server for government business. Targeting Colin Powel, a man steeped in the concrete rules of the military, is a horrible ploy; of course David Petraeus, a revered general, allowed his love life to lead him astray of the laws, exposing classified data and for that he paid with a federal conviction.

Hillary’s story seems to change from day to day. Ms. Clinton kicked off her obfuscation tour by claiming that she had never sent or received classified material on her private email server; her only email source for her entire four years as secretary of state. Evolving further Ms. Clinton later argued that nothing in her emails was classified at the time it passed through her server. When faced with the charge by Obama appointed inspectors general that four of the first 40 emails that they sampled were in fact classified at the time they were on her server, she tried to assert that none were marked classified at the time (not a legal defense.) Now she’s trying to argue that the inspectors general are wrong.

The Wall Street Journal released an article this weekend by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who stated clearly that: “It is no answer to say, as Mrs. Clinton did at one time, that emails were not marked classified when sent or received. Of course they were not; there is no little creature sitting on the shoulders of public officials classifying words as they are uttered and sent. But the laws are concerned with the sensitivity of information, not the sensitivity of the markings on whatever may contain the information.” Mukasey went on to say that Ms. Clinton’s decision to delete all emails on her server may put her in further legal jeopardy for obstruction of justice.

Now before some of you jump on this article claiming that nothing of significance was included in these emails, so anyone might have sent this material without “knowing” it was classified, take note of the Inspectors General for the Intelligence Community who found the four classified emails, announced that two of those four were Top Secret, perhaps even special compartmented information that reaches the highest levels of classification. If anyone, including Ms. Clinton was handling Top Secret information without knowledge of its sensitivity they are at best incompetent and most likely facing criminal charges. Marking, in itself, of lack thereof, isn’t an excuse for exchanging classified data in an insecure manner; that is a felony. Does anyone believe the Secretary of State, someone who routinely handles classified information, wouldn’t recognize the sensitivity of information, including potentially devastating information on intelligence community sources and methods?

“Clinton’s argument ignores her actual misconduct,” wrote Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi member and former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing on August 13. “The reason the documents were not marked is because she never submitted them for clearance.”

“The reason government officials with security clearances are required to keep their correspondence on the appropriate government server is so the material can be vetted and classified prior to hitting ‘send’ to an uncleared recipient,” Hoekstra and Toensing wrote for The New York Post on August 11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj2UKZmCXOw

Last week the FBI took possession of Mrs. Clinton’s email server. While Clinton claims that she handed it over, implying voluntarily, it was, in fact seized from a third party that was holding the server. The Washington Post reported that it was stored at Platte River Network, the company hired by the Clintons to manage their server for security since mid-2013, in New Jersey. Platte River said it “was blank” and contained no usable data because everything on it was transferred during a 2013 upgrade.

Sadly for Ms. Clinton, the story doesn’t end there. ABC News reported this weekend that Platte River claims that “it is ‘highly likely’ a full backup of the device was made and that the thousands of emails Clinton deleted may still exist.”

Despite pleas from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Ms. Clinton had refused to hand the server over to a neutral party since it was first requested in March of this year.

The Daily Beast, hardly a vast right-wing media outlet reported, “Hillary Clinton had little choice but to hand over her server to authorities since it now appears increasingly likely that someone on her staff violated federal laws regarding the handling of classified materials. On August 11, after extensive investigation, the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General reported to Congress that it had found several violations of security policy in Clinton’s personal emails. Most seriously, the Inspector General assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of ‘TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,’ according to the Inspector General’s report.”

In 2008 Hillary was the assumed Democratic nominee for the presidency; we all know how that turned out. As we head into 2016, Hillary has again been the odds-on favorite to represent the Democratic Party in the upcoming election. Once again it appears that Ms. Clinton is her own worst enemy.

While much of the network news coverage has treated the email story as largely a “distraction” for Ms. Clinton, and another vast right-wing conspiracy, the drip, drip, drip of information is beginning to get traction. Even Meet the Press host Chuck Todd declared Sunday how surprised he was to find so many Democrats at the Iowa State Fair expressing great concern about Hillary being their nominee, in light of these recent revelations.

All the turmoil has many in the Democratic Party looking elsewhere for a nominee, invigorating calls for Vice President Joe Biden to join the race and even igniting rumors of a possible Al Gore run. Aside from the jitters emanating from back rooms in Washington, socialist Bernie Sanders is being greeted by Obama-like crowds on the campaign trail.

Perhaps even Ms. Clinton will find she can no longer deny the danger she finds herself in, not from an elect-ability standpoint, but from the potential serious legal jeopardy she may face and depart the race; or perhaps she’s told the lies so many times she will sing and dance all the way to a federal criminal prosecution.

If somehow she cleared of all allegations she is surely the Democrats only hope for 2016; but if Vegas is taking odds you can bet she’s drifted from favorite to long-shot. Echos of Richard Nixon can be heard everywhere. We might not have Hillary Clinton to kick around any longer.

“Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off,” Mr. Obama said in an early morning address at the White House. “This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification.”

Yet the deal struck with Iran is far different from what was described to the Congress earlier this year, which included anywhere-anytime inspections and a snap-back of all sanctions should Iran fail to abide by the agreement; both are absent from this agreement.

The president said the lack of an agreement would lead to a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. He asked Congress, which will have 60 days to review the agreement, to “consider what happens in a world without” the deal.

It is likely that this deal will meet with bipartisan challenges and will almost certainly be voted down by a majority of both houses; however while Mr. Obama said he welcomed “robust debate” by lawmakers over the deal, he vowed to veto any effort to unravel the agreement. Upon a veto it would take a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to override Mr. Obama’s veto and would likely fail. The Iran deal will likely survive any attempts by the Congress as hard left Liberals will stand with the president no matter what they think of the agreement.

https://youtu.be/3B9svYKrff8

“We give nothing up by testing whether this problem can be solved peacefully,” Mr. Obama said. “No deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East. No deal means no lasting constraints on Iran’s nuclear program. The world will not support an effort to permanently sanction Iran into submission.”

What a number of members of his own party have stated is that an agreement that allows Iran a roadmap to join the nuclear powers will incite Iran’s foes in the region, namely Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates and Yemen to seek nuclear capabilities to allow them to stand up to Iran.

The president said the agreement “demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change.”

“We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region,” he said.

The facts simply don’t support Mr. Obama’s assertions.

“I will remind Congress that you don’t make deals like this with your friends,” Mr. Obama said. “I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

The president cautioned lawmakers not to engage in a reckless escalation of rhetoric against Iran.

“We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict, and we certainly shouldn’t seek it,” Mr. Obama said. “Precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing. Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems. Hard-nosed diplomacy, leadership that has united the world’s major powers, offers a more effective way to verify that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.”

The agreement is likely to also add fuel to the Trump campaign that centers on the inability of the Obama administration to strike deals that favor the United States interests. The man behind The Art of the Deal, a book that still holds the record for business books on New York Times bestsellers list, Amazon and Barnes and Noble, couldn’t ask for a better talking point than the Iran nuclear agreement.

Sadly this is just one more example of how the Obama administration focuses on achieving a stated goal even if they have to give away the baby with the bathwater; worst of all, America’s greatest enemies know Mr. Obama’s goals are like Jello and given enough push back he always yields.

A key tenet of jurisprudence is that no judge ruling on a case should have a personal bias or have taken a personal role in a matter before a court. Such an example would be a former executioner ruling on whether the death penalty was supported by the constitution. You wouldn’t want someone who spoke in favor of undocumented alien deportation ruling on the constitutionality of a state’s immigration laws. When one’s personal involvement in a matter brings into question their objectivity it falls upon that judge to recuse themselves from the case to avoid just what we experienced this week.

When the matter of same-sex marriage was before the Supreme Court, how many people were aware that two of the justices that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage had actually presided over such marriages?

As recent as this past May 17^th, just as the Supreme Court of the United States was considering the same-sex marriage case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over a same-sex wedding.

Ginsburg pronounced two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States. Is there any doubt that she had a clear personal bias in the matter?

Court violates own rules

There is a Code of Conduct under which federal judges – including U.S. Supreme Court Justices – are bound to comply. (Justice Kennedy stated on March 14, 2013 that he and the other justices of the Supreme Court consider the Code of Conduct to be “absolutely binding.”) Canon 3A(6) of that Code of Conduct requires that a judge “not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” Canon 2A of the same Code provides that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Finally, a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

This wasn’t the first time Ginsburg had presided over a same-sex wedding. This most recent was at least the fourth time Ginsburg has conducted a same-sex wedding. How can she reasonably expect the public to respect a decision on such a matter when she has shown a clear bias? It makes one question whether Ginsburg advanced years is affecting her conduct as a Supreme Court Justice.

Alas, Ginsburg is not alone in her bias on same-sex marriage. In 2014 Justice Elena Kagan presided over a wedding of two men.

Yet even though Justice Kennedy has spoken out about the “absolutely binding,” canons of conduct, he himself sat by while Kagan and Ginsburg’s votes carried the day. Kennedy voted in the majority, writing the majority decision that included two votes that should never have been included by his own words. In this matter, at least, Kennedy is the most hypocritical of them all. Without Kagan and Ginsburg’s votes in the affirmative, Kennedy, Breyer and Sotomayor’s votes would’ve failed to form a majority.

Sadly, none of dissenters, Roberts, Alito, Thomas nor Scalia mentioned the conflict of interest two of the majority Justices demonstrated. All made solid arguments about the government’s role in marriage, but none spoke out on the validity of a ruling preceded by actual participation in the matter the court was ruling on.

Recusal is not a rare event; judges do so on a daily basis. When the highest court in the land disabuses itself of its own rules of conduct, how can anyone respect their opinions in future cases?

Court rules on Obamacare

Another decision released this past week was on government subsidies for individuals who live in states that chose not to set up their own healthcare marketplaces. How long will it be till we find out some of the justices have family members receiving subsidies from one of the 36 states that chose not to set up their own healthcare exchange?

No matter how you come down on same-sex marriage or Obamacare, it should strike fear into the hearts of the people that a case could come before the court and be decided by justices that have a stake in the outcome. How does a justice rule on the constitutionality of a law when they’ve personally participated in the matter at hand?

Not such a Supreme Court after all.

After the mess the Obama administration made of Libya, and with all the focus on what’s going on in Iraq and Syria, the forces loyal to the internationally-recognized government of Libya are simply running out of bullets. Facing down the jihadists in Benghazi with sticks and stones might seem like a valid strategy to Mr. Obama, but it’s surely a recipe for another Syrian nightmare.

Libyan Army Commander Khalifa Haftar told Reuters, “We are facing ammunition shortages in all parts of Benghazi.”

“We are fighting terrorism on behalf of the world,” he added, reportedly appealing for help from the international community.

Yet here we sit with a few hundred drones, planes that search the ground in Iraq for ISIS targets but often return fully loaded because of Obama’s losing rules of engagement, and those who are face-to-face with the terrorists can’t even count on us for bullets.

The Libyan government has been fighting extremist Muslim groups in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city, ever since the overthrow of Gaddafi nearly four years ago.

Reuters reported that the Libyan government troops have regained some territory lost last year, but progress has stalled as fighters of the Islamist Majlis al-Shura group are still holed out in several districts and the port area despite claims by army commander Khalifa Haftar that his forces control almost the entire city.”

While we sit back and do nothing, Libyan Premier Abdullah al-Thinni is begging the United Nations to allow his troops to purchase weapons because of the long-standing embargo against the Gaddafi government that was never lifted after his overthrow.

“If we cannot get weapons the legitimate way, we will form an alliance even with the devil to obtain weapons to defend our people,” said Thinni while visiting Moscow in April, The Christian Science Monitor reports.

Could it be that it’s not our involvement in the “wars” Mr. Obama has ended that has created more jihadists but rather our failure to support those that fight in our place?

As we ignore the plight of Libyans and participate in the misguided embargo, the terrorists our free to purchase whatever they need. The Majlis al-Shura group posted pictures on social media showing heavy arms they had been able to obtain locally.

Reuters reports that in May alone, 57 soldiers were killed and 170 wounded in Benghazi where fighting has been intense.

There’s always time for another round of golf, but dealing with the collapse of the Middle East is just too much for Mr. Obama. How sad that he can’t even lead from behind. Guess it’s time for him to head to another fund-raiser.

It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie “American Sniper” on campus as part of a social event for students. The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression and our respect for the right of students to make their own choices in such matters. The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time and location. We recognize, however, that some students are uncomfortable with the content of the movie, and appreciate that concern.

Therefore, the university also will show an alternative movie, “Paddington,” in another location on campus at that same time and date to provide our students with additional options that evening.

University of Michigan cancelled the planned showing of the movie after students, mostly Muslim and/or Arab, complained about it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=hAA0VgMw8jo%3Fhd%3D1

The university’s decision set off a maelstrom of criticism, including from head football coach Jim Harbaugh who tweeted: “Michigan Football will watch “American Sniper”! Proud of Chris Kyle & Proud to be an American & if that offends anybody then so be it!”Lamees Mekkaoui led the drive to get “American Sniper” banned claiming that the school should not play a movie that makes her uncomfortable and promotes what she and others have said are anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments. One would think Ms. Mekkaoui hasn’t seen the movie, not that that should have any impact on someone who favors symbolism over substance.

More than 43,000 students attend the university, but Mekkaoui’s drive produced a petition letter signed by only a few hundred fellow students, and yet that was sufficient for the university’s Center for Campus Involvement to pull the film from its lineup of events; clearly at U of M the needs of the few outweigh the interests of the many.

Shortly after the university’s decision to cancel the movie a second petition making its rounds through campus on Wednesday, accusing the university of censorship:

The movie American Sniper is not about a racist mass murderer or a criminal,” that petition said. “If the University prevents a movie like this from being shown, it promotes intolerance and stifles dialogue and debate on the subject and goes directly against the atmosphere UMix purports to provide. As adults at a public university, we should have the option to view this movie if we so choose and have the opportunity to engage on the topics it presents to come to our own conclusions on the subjects. Students should be trusted to interact responsibly on a movie no different than any other film depicting the lives of the troops at war, such as Saving Private Ryan.

The film, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper, is based on a true story. It is the autobiography of U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle who served in Iraq and has the most confirmed kills as a sniper in U.S. military history. However what Ms. Mekkaoui, and others who haven’t seen the film don’t realize Kyle’s return and the issues a returning soldier face after being in such an intense environment have as much to do with this film as Kyle’s time in Iraq.

Surprisingly, Mekkaoui, a sophomore at U-M, claim’s she’s seen the movie, which many on campus find difficult to believe.

“I felt uncomfortable during it,” she told the Free Press. “As a student who identifies as an Arab and Middle Eastern student, I feel that ‘American Sniper’ condones a lot of anti-Middle Eastern and North African propaganda.”

What exactly is this propaganda? If Ms. Mekkaoui feels like events portrayed in the movie are inaccurate or made up, she should say so and identify the falsehoods; of course she cannot. All events in the movie and the book it is based on were validated by other soldiers who served with Kyle.

Mekkaoui submitted the petition signed by a couple of hundred students, including some from the Muslim Student Association. Mekkaoui is a member of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality and the Middle Eastern and Arab Network at U-M.

Upon receiving the petition, the cowardly staff of the University of Michigan Center for Campus involvement responded, “Student reactions have clearly articulated that this is neither the venue nor the time to show this movie. We deeply regret causing harm to members of our community, and appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided to us by students. We did not intend to exclude any students or communities on campus through showing this film. Nevertheless, as we know, intent and impact can be very different things. While our intent was to show a film, the impact of the content was harmful, and made students feel unsafe and unwelcome at our program.”

You could scan the movie ads on any day of the week and find something offensive to someone. Our politically correct world says if anyone doesn’t like something espoused in any form of media it is unsuitable for us all; this is the definition of censorship.

If the university wanted to help their students grow, they should want them to get the broadest perspective possible or at least consider the needs of 99 percent of the students before caving to the politically motivated few.