_________________
I don't mean to be impolite, but is English your 2nd language?

nwtk2007 (a regular here) (online) Joined: Sep 19, 2014 Posts: 15265

At wee, on OPP, beeeng envadid bi a bench oh englesh second langwedge alleins?
------------------------
Good one!

Most Americans knowledge of the Ukraine's problems are what they hear in main stream news reports. As Global Research's review of this film states "Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see-ukraine-on-fire-by-oliver-stone/5574843

[quote=DJRich]So flynn is gone, now the question is who is next, conway? the spice-boy? preibus?

All of them should be gone, followed quickly by trump
--------------------
DJ - you are so partisan and biased, that no matter what positive accomplishment that Trump would achieve, you would not find it possible in your heart to acknowledge or give him the appropriate credit. All you are capable of is criticism and negativism. Constructive criticism is one thing. What you offer is criticism for criticism's sake. You don't realize it, but people tune you out for this reason.

That's why the issue of unnecessary "base closings" (http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/compose-post-screen?topicnum=94941&rpostnum=1881870) and wasteful pentagon big ticket spending items must be addressed.

Here is a start:
1. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

The program for developing the F-35 has cost taxpayers $400 billion over 12 years of intense development and engineering. And that's not even half the real price tag: building and maintaining a fleet of 2,443 planes for 30 years (their approximate lifespan) will cost more than $1 trillion. It remains to be seen if the F-35 is worth even a fraction of the development cost. The planes currently aren't able to fly in bad weather or at night, and none have been used in combat.

2. Littoral Combat Ship

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program was designed to create a next-generation asset for the Navy as it shifts the bulk of its fleets to the Pacific Ocean. So far LCSs have been plagued by numerous problems, including structure cracks, computer system failures, generator meltdowns, burst pipes, propulsions problems, and potentially disastrous communication errors. And to boot, naval officials are skeptical that they will do well in combat. The Pentagon may cut down the planned fleet size of 55 ships, but if they don't, the LCS program will cost taxpayers more than $30 billion dollars.

3. "Green Navy"

In a nod toward sustainability, the U.S. Navy has been attempting to create a "green fleet" by adopting alternative biofuels. The catch is that the cleaner fuel costs $26 per gallon, which is much more expensive than the $2.50 the Navy pays for each gallon of petroleum. Despite reports that there isn't a clear long-term cost benefit of adopting biofuel, the DoD has spent millions on private companies that are developing alternative fuels. And green projects aren't confined to a single branch of the military; last year the Air Force paid for 11,000 gallons of biofuel at a rate 10 times higher than the price of regular jet fuel.

4. Human Terrain System

The Human Terrain System (HTS) is a $600 million program that helps service members develop a greater understanding of the cultures where they are deployed. A recent investigation criticized HTS for chronic mismanagement, incidents of racism and sexual harassment, serious fraud. Anthropologists have derided it for militarizing their field without producing useful fieldwork — an opinion shared by some military officers, who dismiss HTS reports as useless. As Congress goes through the motions of debating the National Defense Authorization Act, they are poised to approve an additional $15 million for the program.

5. USS Gerald Ford-class Carriers

The U.S. Navy recently launched its first Ford-class aircraft carrier — the first new carrier designed in over 40 years. Although the carrier's sleeker equipment will require lower maintenance and reportedly save the Navy billions, it cost roughly $15 billion to construct, including $1 billion in overrun. A Government Accountability Office report from September noted that the combination of cost problems, engineering obstacles, and untested technology systems was alarming and should be addressed by Congress. Some experts have also pointed out that in an age of long-range and heavy-yield precision missiles, aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete (but still incredibly expensive) strategic assets.

How about wasting $58 Billion in cancelled weapons systems as reported in this article from the DOD http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dod-report-58-billion-wasted-in-canceled-weapons/article/2605600

Congress is just as guilty in the wasteful spending process by pushing for weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn't want or need.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/20/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want.html

Everyone has heard and knows of sport celebrities and movie stars that make millions and millions during their career, but go bankrupt, because no matter how much money they earned, they spent much more. Unfortunately, that is the problem with an unchecked federal bureaucracy. Very little accountability, and not enough oversight. Add to that corrupt politicians in bed with lobbyists from the defense industry, and you have a recipe for disaster. Actually, you have most of the answer for why the "US Military Readiness is at such a Dangerous Low"!

Don said: *TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!
------------------------
Good point Don. Let's see who comes out against these cuts. I would hope the public takes part and encourages this effort, and puts the requisite pressure on those fighting such cuts. We all have a vested interest in seeing tax dollars spent wisely.

Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
Top Trump Aide Says White House Has 'Enormous Evid... (show quote)
---------------------------
Read the Post "What Voter Fraud" http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-94756-1.html#1879800

I do not know if all states follow procedures like Texas and Washington, but the fact of the matter is that if you do not require proof of citizenship to vote, you, I, or the man in the moon will be unable to determine the extent of non-citizen voting.

Read the Pew Report (https://web.archive.org/web/20120303020411/http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=85899370596) which lists many problem with voters that are registered in multiple states, and dead voters who still remain on active registers.

Watch the video "Hacking Democracy" https://youtu.be/t75xvZ3osFg

Watch the short video called "Fraction Magic" here: https://youtu.be/8ezmpqwVEnM

You should also check out the site BlackBoxVoting.org ( http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/ ).

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who feels that there is not a huge potential problem with voting in this country has their head in the sand, or some other unmentionable place.

The fact of the matter is that unless, and until, our country has a thorough, bi-partisan investigation into the voting process, and how votes are tallied, recorded, and tabulated across the country, we wil NEVER know for certain the extent of the problem.

[quote=lpnmajor]Some political candidates were obsessed with Al Qieda swarming across the southern border to commit mayhem in the US. That was in 2010.

----------------------
I don't know if you call 72 cases of terrorism since 9-11 swarming across the border, but Trump is not incorrect in his concern to establish a sound vetting process for people from those seven terror associated countries.

By Jessica Vaughan, February 11, 2017
http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

---------------------
Pretty funny, actually. But all kidding aside, do you have a problem with a legal requirement that all voters submit proof of citizenship prior to casting their vote, and if so, why?

---------------------------------------
Here is the complete list:
Individuals From the 7 Danger Countries Convicted of Terror Crimes Post 9-11
Charge Date Conviction Date Defendant Defendant's Age at Conviction Terrist Organization Affiliation or Inspiration
10/22/10 2/22/13 Issa Dorch Al-Shabaab
10/22/10 2/22/13 Basaaly Saeed Moalin Al-Shabaab
1/14/11 2/22/13 Ahmed Nasir Taalil Mohammud Al-Shabaab
10/22/10 2/22/13 Mohamed Mohamed Mohamud Al-Shabaab
11/29/10 1/31/13 Mohamed Osman Mohamud 21 Al-Qaeda
7/14/11 11/27/12 Siavosh Henareh 58 Hezbollah
8/20/09 10/18/12 Mahamud Said Omar 46 Al-Shabaab
10/20/11 10/17/12 Manssour Arbabsiar (aka Mansour) 58 Qods Force (Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
5/26/11 8/21/12 Mohanad Shareef Hammadi 24 Al-Qaeda in Iran (AQI)
6/7/11 2/6/12 Ahmed Hussein Mahamud 27 Al-Shabaab
6/30/11 12/21/11 Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
5/26/11 12/16/11 Waad Ramadan Alwan 30 Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)
11/12/10 12/1/11 Nima Ali Yusuf 25 Al-Shabaab
10/21/10 11/3/11 Mohamud Abdi Yusuf 31 Al-Shabaab
7/6/10 10.20/2011 Amina Farah Ali 35 Al-Shabaab
7/6/10 10/20/11 Hawo Hassan 64 Al-Shabaab
11/17/09 7/18/11 Omer Abdi Mohamed 26 Al-Shabaab
1/22/10 10/14/10 Mohamed Mustapha Ali Masfaka 47 Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
2/17/05 9/9/10 Pirouz Sedaghaty 52 Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation
3/6/07 7/7/10 Abdel Azim El-Siddig 51 Islamic American Relief Agency
10/13/09 5/4/10 Abdow Munye Abdow 26 Al-Shabaab
3/6/07 4/6/10 Ali Mohamed Bagegni 56 Islamic American Relief Agency
3/6/07 12/16/09 Ahmad Mustafa 55 Islamic American Relief Agency
9/29/06 12/7/09 Zeinab Taleb-Jedi 54 Mujahideen-e-Khalz (MEK)
5/7/08 8/28/09 Mohamed Al Huraibi 52 Hezbollah
5/7/08 8/28/09 Yehia Ali Ahmed Alomari 28 Hezbollah
5/7/08 8/28/09 Saleh Mohamed Taher Saeed 30 Hezbollah
1/4/03 8/7/09 Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad 60 Hamas
1/4/03 8/7/09 Mohammed Moshen Yahya Zayed 35 Hamas
2/19/09 7/28/09 Salah Osman Ahmed 26 Al-Shabaab
1/20/04 5/20/09 Mohammed Abdullah Warsame 35 Al-Qaeda
9/9/05 2/26/09 Wesam Al Delaema 36
5/29/07 11/20/08 Monzer Al Kassar 63 FARC
5/11/05 1/11/08 Emadeddin Muntasser 43 Mujahideen-e-Khalz (MEK)
6/14/04 7/31/07 Nuradin M. Abdi 35 Al-Qaeda
8/6/04 10/11/06 Yassin Muhiddin Aref 36 Ansar al-Islam
7/18/05 5/11/06 Saleh Alli Nasser
4/12/05 5/11/06 Monassser Omian
4/6/05 5/11/06 Sadik Omian
4/6/05 5/11/06 Jarallah Wasil
11/10/04 11/10/04 Elmeliani Benmoumen
10/7/04 5/31/05 Ahmed Hassan Al-Uqally 33
2/4/03 9/21/05 Abad Elfgeeh 30 Al-Qaeda and Hamas
2/3/03 9/21/05 Aref Elfgeeh Al-Qaeda and Hamas
7/28/04 12/29/04 Ali Mohammed Al Mosalch
12/19/03 10/28/05 Omar Abdi Mohammed 45
2/19/03 2/10/05 Rafil Dhafir 57
4/9/03 2/18/04 Numan Maflahi Al-Qaeda
6/25/03 1/16/04 Ibrahim Ahmed Al-Hamdi 26 Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET)
10/21/02 5/19/03 Mukhtar Al-Bakri 23 Al-Qaeda
10/9/02 2/10/03 Enaam M. Arnaout 41 Al-Qaeda
12/17/02 6/23/06 Mohamed Albanna 55
10/16/02 12/24/02 Nageeb Abdul Jabar Mohamed Al-Hadi 36
7/25/02 7/25/02 Hussein Al Attas 24 Al-Qaeda
11/2/01 7/2/02 Mohadar Mohammed Abdoulah 24 Al-Qaeda
12/6/01 6/8/02 Nabil Al-Marabh 34 Al-Qaeda
11/14/01 4/30/02 Mohammed Husssein 33 Al-Qaeda
2/20/02 4/10/02 Mohammed Ibrahim Refai 40
1/4/02 3/29/02 Omer Salmain Saleh Bakarbashat 28
12/17/01 12/17/01 Hadir Awad
12/11/01 2/13/02 Mustafa Kilfat
10/23/01 12/13/01 Mohamed Abdi 44
10/4/01 4/16/02 Kamel Albred 33
10/4/01 4/15/02 Haider Alshomary 29
10/4/01 4/10/02 Wathek Al-Atabi 25
10/4/01 3/25/02 Hatef Al-Atabi 36
10/4/01 3/15/02 Fadhil Al-Khaledy 33
10/4/01 2/15/02 Mohammed Alibrahimi 32
10/4/01 2/1/02 Haider Al Tamimi 27
10/4/01 1/14/02 Ali Alubeidy 34
10/4/01 12/13/01 Alawai Hussain Al-Baraa 33
10/3/01 3/20/02 Mustafa Al-Aboody 24

Attached file:
(Download)

-----------------

My guess is that the US Attorney did not have access to this information, and did not read this post!!!!!

FYI
By Jessica Vaughan, February 11, 2017
http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

Somalia: 20
Yemen: 19
Iraq: 19
Syria: 7
Iran: 4
Libya: 2
Sudan: 1
Total: 72
According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.

These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump's order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.

Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.

Some opponents of the travel suspension have tried to claim that the Senate report was flawed because it included individuals who were not necessarily terrorists because they were convicted of crimes such as identity fraud and false statements. About a dozen individuals in the group from the seven terror-associated countries are in this category. Some are individuals who were arrested and convicted in the months following 9/11 for involvement in a fraudulent hazardous materials and commercial driver's license scheme that was extremely worrisome to law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, although a direct link to the 9/11 plot was never claimed.

The information in this report was compiled by Senate staff from open sources, and certainly could have been found by the judges if they or their clerks had looked for it. Another example that should have come to mind is that of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked and wounded 11 people on the campus of Ohio State University in November 2016. Artan was a Somalian who arrived in 2007 as a refugee.

President Trump's vetting order is clearly legal under the provisions of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that the president can suspend the entry of any alien or group of aliens if he finds it to be detrimental to the national interest. He should not have to provide any more justification than was already presented in the order, but if judges demand more reasons, here are 72.

What I find most disturbing about this story is not that one or two people were caught and convicted of voter fraud. What I find disturbing is that voting officials (at least in Dallas) are not allowed to verify whether a potential voter is an actual citizen, and therefore allowed to vote. Someone please explain to me why voting officials should be required take someone's word that they are a citizen, and not required to provide proof. Why should getting a driver's license require more documentation than a vote to choose the next president of the United States?

This case was prosecuted only because Ms. Ortega was foolish enough to fight back after being refused to be allowed to register. Her argument was that she should be allowed to vote, even thought she was not a legal US citizen, because she had voted previously, and should be allowed to vote again. If Ms. Ortega had not admitted to not being a US citizen, apparently voting officials would have been required to let her register. Question: How many others lied about their citizenship status? Question: Should it not be mandatory to require proof of citizenship in all 50 US States before our next election?


Rosa Ortega, a Mexican citizen, has been convicted of voter fraud and sentenced to 8 years in prison in Texas after inadvertently admitting to election officials that she had been voting in Dallas County for years.

Apparently the voting fraud was discovered by chance after Ortega tried to register to vote in Tarrant County but was rejected after she admitted that she was not actually a citizen of the United States. While she should have probably just accepted the rejection, Ortega pushed back by arguing that she had already been voting in Dallas County, an argument that drew the attention of investigators.

Ortega’s voting privileges were approved in Dallas after she falsified her application by claiming to be a citizen. Of course, liberal lawyers, have done a masterful job convincing courts around the country that verifying things like a person’s identity and citizenship status prior to allowing them to vote is unconstitutional. Per CBS:

Prosecutors say the reason officials at the elections department in Dallas didn’t stop the voter fraud from happening is because Rosa Ortega claimed she was a citizen on her application.

Now the Tarrant County D.A.’s office is calling for those claims to be verified before handing out registration cards.

Prosecutors said whether this case prompts elections officials to verify citizenship is an issue for the legislature.

As you may recall, we wrote about a similar incident back in September in which the Cascade Mall shooter, a Turkish citizen, who killed 5 people in the state of Washington was found to have also been illegally voting for years. And, just like the case above, Washington’s Secretary of State noted that there was no way to prevent the voter fraud because “we don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship.”

We don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship. So, we’re in this place where we want to make sure we’re maintaining people’s confidence in the elections and the integrity of the process, but also that we’re giving this individual, like we would any voter, his due process. We’re moving forward, and that investigation is really coming out of the investigation from the shootings.

The penalties are very serious. That’s why we want to make sure we’re very measured, and this is why we want to make sure we’re very calm and purposeful in how we move forward. The stakes are very high on both sides. You want to keep the confidence level high, but you also want to protect the voting rights of everyone.

Our hands are kind of tied, but make no mistake, we want to make sure that everybody has confidence that people casting ballots are eligible. This is certainly going to be a topic at next legislation.

Of course, Ortega’s lawyer tried to argue that a learning disability made it impossible for her to comprehend the complex laws that allow only U.S. citizens to vote in U.S. elections…Sure, because why wouldn’t Mexican citizens be allowed to vote in the U.S.?

Her attorney said she has a learning disability and was confused about the difference between being a citizen and a legal resident, so she thought she was allowed to vote.

“The jury didn’t believe that story. They believed that the defendant knew exactly what she was doing, and they responded accordingly,” Prosecutor Jonathan White said.

“Once she gets out of prison and she’s deported, does she bring her four minor children to Mexico? As a mother I think that would be a difficult choice for her,” Birdsall said.

We’re currently awaiting confirmation from Democrats and MSNBC that there is still no concrete evidence of voter fraud and that Trump’s vow to conduct a “major investigation” into the topic is still just a political sham.

I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 25 January 2017

http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-voter-fraud-mexican-citizen-sentenced-to-8-years-in-prison-after-illegally-voting-in-texas/5574379

In the continuing theme of out of control Health Care Costs, this article presents the latest example of how our government, and the FDA in specific, are part of the health cost problem, and not the solution.

Question 1: why not simply continue to allow the import of the generic corticosteroid drug Deflazacortfrom overseas at $1,200 instead of the the $89,000 that Marathon Pharmaceuticals will now sell it under the brand name Emflaza?

Question 2: Even if the actual cost paid by the consumer is $54,000, and your insurance company pays for most of this cost, isn't that a reason for why insurance costs are escalating? And who pays for the cost of insurance, the consumer.

Question 3: Does the fact that insurance pays for most of this cost, doesn't that obscure the real problem here that the FDA is allowing drug companies to charge outrageous prices and make outrageous profits?

Question 4: If consumers had a health savings account and were responsible for managing their funds prudently to get the most bank for their health care dollar, do you think there would be more of a public uproar if the public became aware what the FDA and pharmaceutical companies were doing?

ARTICLE:

[A recently FDA-approved drug used in steroid treatments, which has been on the international market for years, will be introduced in the US at the inflated price of $89,000 a year.

In a Thursday press release, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for a drug by Marathon Pharmaceuticals, a US company focused solely on the development of new treatments for rare diseases. They may now begin selling the corticosteroid drug Deflazacort, under the brand name Emflaza.

With FDA approval, Marathon now has exclusive rights to sell the drug in the US for the next seven years, even though it has been available as a generic in other countries.

With exclusive rights, the company can increase the price from the $1,200 average that families were importing the drug from overseas to $89,000, an increase of more than 7,000 percent.

Deflazacort is used to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a rare genetic disease that causes heart and respiratory conditions, usually in younger men. As the disease progresses, patients lose muscle strength, and usually end up confined to a wheelchair by the time they reach their early teens.

Patients with DMD typically do not live past their 20s or 30s, according to the FDA.

“This is the first treatment approved for a wide range of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy,” Billy Dunn, director of the Division of Neurology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “We hope that this treatment option will benefit many patients with DMD.”

Since so few Americans are affected by the disease, only around 15,000, the drug was approved under an “orphan drug” status, which is a special status given to drugs that treat rare diseases or conditions.

Although the price has increased, Babar Ghias, Marathon’s Chief Financial Officer, says that drug is still in the bottom 10 percentile of rare disease drug prices.

Ghias also says that that after rebates and discounts, the price will drop to $54,000, and with insurance and financial programs most patients will pay “zero to low out-of-pocket expense,” according to the Washington Post.

In a press release, Marathon mentioned significant investments the company made in research and development to bring the drug through the approval process.

The company claims to have conducted 17 new preclinical and clinical studies, however, under their research, they cite a 196-person, 52-week study trial that was completed in 1995. The study cites Marathon's contribution as funding for editorial assistance.

Critics say that Marathon is simply taking an old drug for a rare disease, and increasing the price for their own gain. It is a practice that has prompted congressional investigations for other companies in the past, most notably, Turing Pharmaceuticals, the firm formerly run by one time hedge-fund manager Martin Shkreli, who took a drug used to treat AIDS patients, and increased 5,000 percent from $13.50 a pill to $750.

“It seems like it’s yet another example of gaming the system,” Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told the Post.

“Instead of making the price at a level that is reasonable for patients, they make it a very high price and offer this pathway that patients may not qualify for, they may not know about, there may be limitations on it. So it's a marketing move and not really a public health solution,” he said.]

https://www.rt.com/usa/377033-fda-approves-drug-emflaza/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

Last year, Apple refused to give its encryption software for the iPhone to the FBI who said they only wanted it to investigate a terrorist. Apple said that, if it did so, the encryption code eventually would be leaked. However, an Israeli tech firm, Cellebrite, did hack the iPhone for the FBI and gave the code to the FBI. In an ironical twist, Cellebrite reports that now it has been hacked and that its decryption tools have been put online.

Watch at the 4:40 mark of this video: https://youtu.be/NnP87e76kdw

As stated in a previous post, our new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions is a strong believer that Governments have a right to such "Back-Doors" to encrypted software such as Apple's Iphone. Doesn't that give you a real nice warm and fuzzy feeling?