Late last night power was fully restored to Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport after an electrical switch was reportedly destroyed earlier in the day due to fire. Passengers roamed the airport in the dark for hours while others were stranded in planes on the runway or tarmac with nowhere to go. Thousands of flights were canceled or
Late last night power was fully restored to Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport after an electrical switch was reportedly destroyed earlier in the day due to fire.
Passengers roamed the airport in the dark for hours while others were stranded in planes on the runway or tarmac with nowhere to go.
Thousands of flights were canceled or diverted causing a massive domino-effect across the country, given that Atlanta serves as a major hub for Delta.
And now the big question is whether to what extent other airports across the country are prepared for a rather small incident.
Experts are now pointing out the obvious: the international news of Atlanta’s calamity is certain to have caught the attention of terrorists across the globe who now recognize that crippling a nation’s travel doesn’t require an elaborate airline bombing…a simple basement fire will do the trick just as well.
Well done, Homeland Security.
Here’s more from Daily Beast…
If a terrorist wanted to find the most vulnerable point in America’s airport network they could not have hoped for a better guide than what just happened at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson.
Just after 1 p.m. Sunday the whole airport, the world’s busiest, went dark. Thousands of flights were disrupted. For many hours nobody in authority attempted to explain—or even seemed able to explain—what had happened.
Just imagine this is a classic plan for phase one of a terrorist attack: Render the target blind. None of the defenses are operational. Thousands of people are trapped in restricted space without directions about how they can find an exit.
As chaos spreads nobody knows who turn to for information. The communications blackout is as complete as the power blackout.
Given this situation a small band of suicide bombers could roam freely and commit mayhem and massacre on an unprecedented scale.
Initial responses as the story broke were that the holiday season travel would be disrupted for days. That is true. The ripple effect of the paralyzed airport will be worldwide as thousands of international connections are canceled.
A handful of Democrat Senators are feeling remorseful after some of them have cited a rush to judgment in their calls for Sen. Al Franken to resign amid harassment allegations.
At least two have privately apologized to Franken and others are publicly urging him to rescind his pledge to resign.
And with Roy Moore’s recent loss in Alabama, Republicans might actually invite the reversal from Franken, if only because he’d have to sit through a severe ethics probe which would drag the Democrats through more scandalous mud.
Franken is in a political Catch-22 in that the Minnesota governor already announced his replacement, and the switch is set for early next month.
This is a no-win scenario for Dems ahead of next year’s elections.
Here’s more from Politico…
At least four senators are urging Al Franken to reconsider resigning, including two who issued statements calling for the resignation two weeks ago and said they now feel remorse over what they feel was a rush to judgment.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who urged Franken not to step down to begin with — at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation — said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats.
“What they did to Al was atrocious, the Democrats,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin in an interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast to post on Tuesday
Franken’s unusual timeline — in his departure announcement he said he’d go “in the coming weeks,” without setting a date — has fed the fleeting hopes that there’s still time to reverse course. However, Tina Smith, Minnesota’s Democratic lieutenant governor, was named last week as his appointed successor.
People familiar with Franken’s plans said he has not changed his mind and intends to formally resign in early January. He praised the selection of Smith and has begun working with her on the transition.
NBC is still reeling from the ousters of Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer for harassment on their respective media teams at a cost of credibility, viewers, and advertisers.
And, after breaking news this weekend, they may not be the last to fall.
MSNBC confirmed on Saturday that the network paid out tens of thousands in settlement cash to a producer for Chris Matthews after he was reprimanded for charges of harassment back in 1999.
The question that will almost certainly be asked in the following days is whether this was an isolated event.
And judging from the other scandals galore, where there’s smoke there’s nearly always fire.
Here’s more from Daily Caller…
An MSNBC spokesman confirmed Saturday the company made a separation-related payment to one of Chris Matthews employees after the woman complained about sexual harassment.
Two sources familiar with the situation told The Daily Caller that Matthews paid $40,000 to settle with an assistant producer on his show, “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” in 1999 after she accused him of harassment. An MSNBC spokesperson contested that claim to the Caller, saying the company instead paid significantly less as part of a severance package.
The woman complained to CNBC executives about Matthews making inappropriate comments and jokes about her while in the company of others.
The MSNBC spokesman said that they thoroughly reviewed the situation at the time and that Matthews received a formal reprimand. Based on people who were involved in the matter, the network concluded that the comments were inappropriate and juvenile but were not intended to be taken as propositions.
The woman received separation-related compensation when she left MSNBC and has gone on to work in a number of high-profile media positions. MSNBC declined to comment on whether the employee left because of Matthews or whether this was the only claim in Matthews’ history at the company.
Most of America has already moved beyond the pyrrhic victory by Doug Jones over Roy Moore in last week’s special election in Alabama.
But committed supporters of Judge Moore are insisting it’s not over until it’s over.
Nearly a week after the election, Moore still refuses to concede to Jones.
Having sent a fundraising letter to his most loyal donors, it appears Moore is pressing for a recount in hopes that military ballots plus some errors (and perhaps some illegal voting) might account for the more than 20,000 vote deficit.
The trouble is Jones is supposed to be seated in the Senate early next month, which doesn’t leave much time for a full recount.
This could quickly turn into a rerun of the 2000 Florida recount debacle.
Here’s more from Redstate…
Roy Moore doesn’t know when to quit. Tuesday’s results in the special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ Senate seat granted Moore a place in the history books as the first Republican to lose a statewide race in Alabama in decades, but Moore is still refusing to concede the race.
The vote totals, according to the Alabama Secretary of State are as follows:
Doug Jones (D): 671,151 (49.92%)
Roy Moore (R): 650,436 (48.38%)
Write-in: 22,780 (1.69%)
Jones beat Moore by over 1.5%. Alabama law allows an automatic recount if the margin of victory is less than 0.5%; any greater than that, and a candidate has the option to pay for a recount themselves, an expensive endeavor.
There simply aren’t enough provisional or military ballots to change this result, but instead of calling Jones to concede on Tuesday night, Moore refused to concede the race.
President Donald Trump, who came out strong for Moore in the final weeks of the campaign, acknowledged the election was lost, tweeting that “a win was a win” and congratulating Jones. Trump reiterated that sentiment Friday, telling reporters that Moore “certainly should” concede the race.
Even the Alabama Republican Party issued a statementadmitting the “race has ended” and that they “respect the voting process.”
It’s a chief tenet of conservatism that natural law dictates rights must necessarily come from God, not from government.
For if they come from government, they can most assuredly be taken away. But it’s quite obvious the Dutch government never got that memo.
In a story that’s getting wide attention across the web, a chief bureaucrat at the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health explains to a man with Downs Syndrome what his life is worth to the government in terms of the cost to citizens for his health care.
It’s with this analysis that he endorses the country’s policy of eradicating Downs Syndrome by simply aborting them all.
The presumption that the value of all human life can be reduced to a mere line item in a budget is tragically disgusting.
But this is the logical end that comes to a Western culture that embraces abortion-on-demand.
Concluding that grandma’s life is too costly not to terminate is just a step away, folks.
Here’s more from Redstate…
Is the life of a person with Down Syndrome (DS) as valuable as a person born without it? How do we calculate the value of that life? How do we decide whether or not that person is an asset to or drain on society?
If you’re the Dutch government you use a simple mathematical formula.
In recent years the Netherlands has begun a targeted “health” campaign to increase pregnancy screenings for Down Syndrome markers, perhaps in hopes of following Iceland’s example of almost completely erasing Down Syndrome humans from their population. The Dutch currently have an abortion rate of between 74% and 84% for babies identified as having the chromosomal condition.
An Icelandic councilwoman once told an interviewer when asked about her support for aborting DS babies:
We don’t look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended.
We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication… preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder — that’s so black and white.
Life isn’t black and white. Life is grey.
The FBI just released a tranche of internal emails between agents and DOJ officials concerning the public fallout over then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s happenstantial meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.
Virtually no one aside from Democrats really believes that all they talked about were ‘grandchildren and travel’.
Why go to all the trouble for both security teams just for a quick meeting unless there was something of substance.
But of course, there must have been because Comey’s announcement that the FBI was not recommending an indictment of Hillary came one week later.
And what these newly released emails reveal isn’t so much what’s said in them, but rather what isn’t said.
Namely, why were agents so enraged that someone had leaked the meeting to the press?
Clearly, it wasn’t for fear of a breach of security.
The bottom line is this was supposed to be a clandestine meeting and someone at the Phoenix Police Department let the squirrel out of the bag.
Here’s more from Townhall…
The FBI released a series of email documents Friday afternoon detailing the Department of Justice response to the fallout of the secret Phoenix tarmac meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016. The dates on the emails range from July 1-3, 2016. On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not face criminal charges for mishandling classified information.
A series of emails show one FBI official, whose name and email are redacted, fuming over leaks to the media about the meeting and what happened on the tarmac. The official received an email from a “layman” alleging a local Phoenix police officer who may have talked to a reporter “sounds like a security threat.” Officials went back and forth about finding out if the officer was SWAT or simply worked the motorcade and that “at a minimum” he should never work another detail again. One asked if local law enforcement assisting the FBI on motorcades should sign non-disclosure agreements in the future. Another official called an Observer article about the meeting, with details about how President Clinton got to Lynch’s private plane, “infuriating.
The saga over the FBI’s collusion with the Hillary campaign to ensure she, not Donald Trump, would prevail in the presidential election continues to dominate news on the Hill.
Disgraced former lead agent Peter Strzok is now known to have heavily edited James Comey’s memo to essentially move Hillary’s email server crimes below the threshold required for federal indictment.
And now the full transcript of his text messages to his mistress highly suggests that the collusion went all the way to the top.
In the most infamous text, Strzok referred to an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump’s election discussed in ‘Andy’s office’, which most believe was a reference to FBI Deputy Chief Andrew McCabe.
Now Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, including Trey Gowdy, are openly speculating whether McCabe is “still an employee of the FBI” this time next week.
The dominoes are starting to fall.
Here’s more from Hotair…
McCabe has spent the past year popping up in the news for all the wrong reasons. In February 2016 he was promoted to deputy director and assumed oversight of the Hillary Emailgate investigation — after his wife had received nearly $700,000 from Democratic groups for a failed run for Virginia state senate. This past February he got caught talking to then-chief of staff Reince Priebus about an allegedly bogus Russiagate story in the NYT, a no-no since DOJ investigations are supposed to be independent of politics. His latest news cameo was (apparently) in the infamous text in August 2016 from FBI agent Peter Strzok to Lisa Page: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he [i.e. Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Who’s “Andy”? Almost certainly it’s Andrew McCabe.
What was the “insurance policy” against Trump’s presidency that was discussed in McCabe’s office? McCabe is scheduled to testify about it before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
A leftist enviro-fascist group called Natural Resources Defense Council is leading the way for a gaggle of fellow econut groups in plans to sue the EPA.
What’s their gripe? That the agency with whom they colluded for eight years under Obama in the ‘sue and settle’ scheme is now no longer playing the game, and that makes them really angry.
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has vowed to reorganize the agency and keep it well within the bounds of its congressional mandate, which means that it will no longer assume unconstitutional authority over the environment and the economy.
So, oddly, these lefty groups are going to sue in hopes they can force the EPA to regulate unconstitutionally again.
It’s funny: there were no leftists to be found when the Obama administration conveniently chose to selectively enforce gun and immigration laws.
Here’s more from Washington Examiner…
Environmental groups are looking at a new wave of lawsuits and pressure campaigns to counter Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s plans to reorganize the agency and get businesses to not cooperate with him.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is looking at options to sue Pruitt over his enforcement policy after last week’s reporting by the New York Times that showed the Trump administration is penalizing polluters at a much lower level than previous Republican and Democratic administrations.
The EPA said the Times “distorted” the facts. “The reality is that Administrator Scott Pruitt is committed to enforcement [and] has repeatedly underscored the need to continue to vigorously enforce against polluters.”
The NRDC cites a memorandum that lays out Pruitt’s enforcement strategy, which the group said could form the basis of a major new lawsuit charging that his new direction for the agency violates the Clean Air Act.
Well, well, well.
It goes without saying that President Trump has a less than angelic past when it comes to his dealings with women.
But that’s precisely the reason he was the perfect target for accusations by random females in the run-up to the presidential election.
And new revelations bear a fact pattern that suggests Hillary’s campaign operatives were in league with notorious ambulance chaser Lisa Bloom to pay accusers big cash to come forward with public grievances against Trump.
Email and texts transcripts show the lengths to which Bloom had gone even a few weeks before the election to entice women to come forward with claims of harassment in exchange for offers in the hundreds of thousands.
Is there anything Hillary wouldn’t do for power?
Here’s more from Redstate…
Lisa Bloom, along with her mother, Gloria Allred, are possibly the worst thing that could ever happen for victims of sexual harassment or assault.
Or parking tickets. Or anything, because they’re so unscrupulous and mercenary, that just having a victim’s name associated with theirs tends to conjure up the worst possible images.
Now, in fact, the latest revelation, regarding several accusers of President Trump, that point is savagely illustrated.
Lisa Bloom, the ambulance chasing hack that tends to poison everything she touches apparently set about to get compensation, either from donors or tabloid magazines, for women who either made accusations against President Trump during the run up to the 2016 election, or who were considering coming forth.
Yeah. That’s not bad, at all, right?
The Hill got an exclusive on the ugly details.
California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.
The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.
Judicial Watch is still on the hunt ensuring Hillary doesn’t escape reprisals for her criminal behavior.
A new report released by JW reveals that the State Department allowed Secretary Clinton to order Huma Abedin to remove files from the agency by claiming they were ‘personal’ in nature.
In total, at least five boxes of paper files were removed along with certain electronic documents that included meeting schedules and call logs.
So Hillary was investigated for use of a private email server but was let off the hook by the Obama FBI then her State Department allowed her to abscond with more files — in violation of federal law — without so much as a second glance.
And only after a FOIA suit did the agency bother to reveal the fact.
Nope, no criminal activity here whatsoever; business as usual. Carry on.
Here’s more from PJ Media…
The Obama State Department allowed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials,” according to new documents released by Judicial Watch today. The files Clinton was permitted to remove included her calls and schedules, which were not be “released to the general public under FOIA.”
These new documents show the Obama State Dept had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her calls logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws. When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes? https://t.co/WGIdpe9CeK
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) December 14, 2017
According to the records, Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department, including records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”
Judicial Watch obtained the reports about the removed materials through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.