Meghan McCain Says Trump Admin Using West As ‘Slush Fund’ For Putin

H/T Flag And Cross.

Meghan McCain is suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Meghan McCain, co-host of “The View,” is making some rather strange allegations against the Trump administration, claiming that she believes they are using their positions to create a “slush fund” for Russia and its president Vladimir Putin.

Here’s more from The Washington Examiner:

McCain, 35, made the comment during a brief moment on Monday’s show in which she addressed her presentation of the Magnitsky Award to Oleg Sentsov, who was imprisoned in Russia for coming out against Russia’s annexation of Crimea, last week.

“I was at the Magnitsky Human Rights Awards in London, and Sergei Magnitsky was someone who found corruption in Russia, was subsequently tortured and killed because of it, and there is now an act that is in the United States, and we’re trying to make it expand globally where basically Russia can’t use the West and democracy for their dirty money, that they can’t launder it in countries that love and utilize democracy and freedom every single day,” she said.

Before the show went to a commercial break, she added, “I believe there are people in the Trump administration that are trying to use the West as a slush fund for Vladimir Putin and Russia, and we cannot let it happen.”

Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya stated previously she discussed the reexamination of the Magnitsky law with President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., here referenced by McCain, during a meeting that took place back at Trump Tower back in 2016 before Trump won the election.


Exclusive — Jeff Sessions Explains How GOP Can Dominate for Two Generations with America First Immigration Vision

H/T Breitbart.

This is one of the very few times I can say I agree with Jeff Sessions.

Former U.S. Attorney General and former Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who is again running for his old seat in the U.S. Senate in Alabama, told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview last week that Republicans can dominate electorally for generations if they stick to what President Donald Trump campaigned on in 2016 when it comes to immigration and trade.

“I’m going to push the Republican Senate conference hard,” Sessions said when it comes to immigration, should he win back his old seat in Alabama. “And I’m going to push the House Conference. The American people want a lawful system of immigration. They want to protect the national interest of the United States. They’re not globalists. They want us to protect American manufacturing interests against global trade competition. China is the worst offender. We have this monumental trade deficit with China. So, also, the world is always wanting the United States to join some organization in which other people get to vote on what should happen around the world, and then we’re expected to support what they vote for. This is why the Brits want to Brexit, and to get out of the E.U. because the E.U. has taken over their sovereignty.”

We need to protect our sovereignty.” Sessions continued. “We are a nation state, not an idea. We had leaders in the Republican Party say we are not a nation state, and that we are an idea—this is ridiculous. We have got a constitution, we have got a border, we have got a history that’s ours, a legal system that’s ours, a political system that’s ours—it works. To jeopardize this all is ridiculous. I’m not saying 500 years from now there won’t be—there will be changes I’m sure. But right now we need to defend our sovereign interest.”

Where does power lie?” Sessions said. “It ultimately lies with the American people. The American people support those ideas—and they are Donald Trump’s ideas. If we will clarify, we will welcome the people’s ideas, and advance them, and expose the Democrats as the party that’s trying to block it then we have an opportunity to lead the country for the next two generations—for the next 20 years. But there’s been some diminishing in my view. You’ve got 24-hour news channels, you’ve got Breitbart, you’ve got a series of multiple sources from where people get information. But they’re on our side, and we need to show them we respect them and do what they’re saying is right and that we’re going to get it done.”

Before Sessions joined Trump’s administration at the outset as his Attorney General, he spent 20 years in the U.S. Senate fighting for this vision on immigration. Sessions fought efforts by both political parties to jam amnesty down America’s throat, thwarting multiple major political class attempts at amnesty for illegal aliens in 2006, 2007, and 2013, and stopping many other smaller ones along the way. He was also instrumental in helping positive reforms on immigration, such as pushing for the Secure Fence Act which helped build the first border barriers and laying out a vision for the GOP on the issue over the years.

“My election will say something about that because I’ll be front and center,” Sessions said. “Polling data shows that substantially immigration is significantly the biggest issue in Alabama. And I think it’s an issue for just average American working people, and they’re not happy that we haven’t delivered. So if I were able to return to the Senate, we’re going to push this issue.”

Sessions was known in the U.S. Senate as the force who held the line on immigration, ensuring that border security, enforcement, and American workers’ interests were front and center as other senators had other priorities during immigration negotiations. He discussed this history in his exclusive in-person interview with Breitbart News in Washington, DC, late last week.

“Just to give a little example, I remember when we blocked the first amnesty bill back in 2006 or 2007,” Sessions told Breitbart News. “So we worked and got a bill passed that would have built 700 miles of fencing, which would have been a tremendous step forward. And then when the bill came out to fund the government, it had no money for the fence. So I pointed out that people went home and bragged about voting to build a fence, but they didn’t put any money in it. It was a sham, and it was dishonest and unacceptable. They did go back and we passed it, money for it, but it allowed them too many loopholes in it—vehicle barriers were counted as fencing—and we didn’t end up with nearly as much progress as we should have made. With somebody in there watching and pushing for this, things would be different. Congress has proven it waffles on it, and does not follow through and close the loop.”

Sessions has proven throughout his history both in the U.S. Senate and his multiple stints at the Justice Department, first as U.S. Attorney and later as Attorney General, that this issue is his highest priority, and he has a track record of winning on immigration against all odds. The biggest amnesty push that Sessions nearly single-handedly thwarted was in 2013, in the wake of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s terrible performance against now former President Barack Obama during Obama’s 2012 re-election. Romney, now a U.S. Senator from Utah, had lost so many states in that election that many Republicans thought the only pathway back to legitimacy with the voters was a wide-scale amnesty. Sessions fought it, hard, and was for a time the loneliest voice on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Despite more memorable filibusters that year from Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), it was Sessions who actually spent more time speaking on the U.S. Senate floor in 2013—systemically in multi-hour chunks making the case from the minority of the minority party in the U.S. Senate against what he considered a great betrayal of American workers.

It worked: While the amnesty passed the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, Sessions had slowed it significantly enough that enough Republicans in the House majority questioned whether it was the right pathway forward. Despite some efforts by some in GOP leadership—among others, now former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor tried to get it moving, but it cost him his seat in a primary he lost to now former Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)—the Republicans heeded Sessions’ dire warnings and let the Senate-passed amnesty that Obama would have signed into law fade off into irrelevance. Political consultants screamed that it cost the GOP dearly for doing that, but it didn’t: Republicans took the majority in the U.S. Senate in 2014, and then in 2016 in a whirlwind of a campaign against the same pro-amnesty globalist forces that pushed this amnesty Donald Trump first won the GOP nomination and then the White House.

“The American people have been stiffed for years,” Sessions told Breitbart News. “People have been running for years saying they’re going to fix immigration. When the chips are down, they don’t weigh in, they don’t take strong stands and we ended up not doing much. President Trump is doing everything he and the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice can do but there are loopholes—and some funding has got to be passed. Congress has not stepped up to the plate and we have not made the progress I would have hoped. The last few months, the numbers have looked better finally but it’s not—it’s just not fair to the Border Patrol officers to leave them so subjected to loopholes and lack of funding and support. So I blame Congress for not being supportive enough—and they need to be pushed and they can’t just be holding their hands out to big business and pretending to the voters that they’re going to do something. That’s basically what’s happened.”

Sessions was, as he points out in his first round of campaign ads for his 2020 U.S. Senate campaign, the first U.S. Senator to stand side-by-side with Trump and endorse the now president. Part of the reason why Sessions endorsed Trump in early 2016 at a rally in Madison, Alabama, from which Breitbart News made a live report, is because Trump tapped into that same distrust the American people have for political elites who have screwed over American workers on immigration time and time again. In particular, Trump’s pledge to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico was something that Sessions said demonstrated the public’s dissatisfaction with Washington. Sure, Trump intended to build an actual wall which he is doing now, but it was much more than that too: It was about highlighting the fact that the career politicians in both parties failed to deliver for Americans on immigration enforcement and border security.


Yes he did. He raised it clearly and directly,” Sessions said of Trump’s 2016 campaign pledge to build a wall. “The building of the wall is important in itself but it also was his way of saying ‘I’m serious about this, you have been hearing promises before that they didn’t deliver on, I’m going to deliver, I’m going to make this happen.’ He has fought hard for it, but golly the courts have been a nightmare and Congress whenever the chips are down has failed to deliver in my view. There’s not a strong enough advocate even within the Republican conference about it. I think most people are for it, but they just haven’t pushed it hard enough. I have some theories about how we can highlight the issue. It’s just going to have to be brought up and people are going to have to choose. Are you for open borders and are you for sanctuary cities? Or are you going to say enough is enough and we’re going to back the president and fix it? We’re not saying we won’t have immigrants. Of course. We’re not going to end all immigration, but this illegality is a great embarrassment to any nation that wants to be respected in the world it seems to me.”

The relationship between Trump and Sessions later soured when Sessions as Attorney General recused himself from the Russia case. Sessions has said in multiple interviews he has no regrets, but Trump has expressed frustration with him over it. Nonetheless, Trump has also said he does not plan to intervene against Sessions in Alabama. Despite this tension that still exists between them over that decision as Attorney General, one of the biggest under-told stories about Sessions’ tenure in the job is all the actions Sessions took as Attorney General to help implement President Trump’s immigration vision from the Department of Justice. That story, which Sessions told to Breitbart News in this exclusive interview, could be an even more critical point in the case Sessions is making about immigration to retake the U.S. Senate seat he gave up, which now Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) won in a 2017 special election fraught with peril over the personal life of former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

In other words, if Sessions can help get the Republican Party refocused back on the issues that win for the party, in particular immigration—as evidenced by 2014, 2016, and other major GOP winning years—and to turn the page away from the politics of personality, he could significantly help the GOP nationally heading into the 2020 elections and beyond to build that generations-long electoral dominance he speaks of for the GOP. With recent electoral setbacks for Republicans throughout the South, including in Louisiana’s and Kentucky’s governor’s races as well as for this particular seat where Democrat Jones currently sits, it’s likely even despite Sessions’ rough patches with Trump that the GOP will again heed his dire warnings on this and other issues just like they did in the past. In fact, Sessions already has a dozen Republican U.S. Senators standing at his side having endorsed his campaign, and top conservative movement leaders are rushing to his side to help facilitate the return of the man who was fighting for an America-first vision as that lonely voice on the floor of the U.S. Senate long before there even was a Trump candidacy, never mind presidency.

But first Sessions has to win his own primary, in which he is polling ahead of everyone else upon his entrance into the race, and tell this story of what the GOP needs to do on immigration. The way he does that is talk about what he did in the Senate before, and what he did at the Department of Justice on this issue, as he did in this exclusive interview with Breitbart News.

“We sent additional prosecutors to the border offices,” Sessions said of his time as Attorney General. “We told Homeland Security that we will prosecute every case you bring to us—‘I will find the prosecutors,’ and I found them. We went up over 50 percent of the people who—we increased substantially the prosecutions of illegal entrants. Enforcement is the Homeland Security, Border Patrol and the ICE officers, but you don’t need them bringing cases and the U.S. Attorneys not be willing to prosecute. We doubled the number of immigration judges that are on the border or throughout the country to hear these cases. I issued a series of opinions. It’s just like administrative law judges in other agencies at like Department of Labor and others, these immigration judges are Department of Justice employees.”

“Homeland Security brings the cases and defends them, and then the immigration judges decide the cases.” Sessions continued. “We got a lot of new judges, a lot of good ones, we replaced a lot that had retired, but they had some bad opinions out there. One of the opinions that had been established out there were things like if you had been subject to spousal abuse in Brazil that would be a basis to ask for asylum in the United States. That’s absurd. Brazil is a huge country. If somebody was subject to spousal abuse in Chicago, they’re not entitled to be admitted to Liechtenstein. Go to Atlanta or go to Seattle. They don’t have to demand entry to another country. So this is just an example of the idiocy of much of what was happened. I reversed that. We reversed a series of those kinds of cases so that our officers can decline an unjustified asylum.”

Sessions also noted that he, as Attorney General, defended the president’s travel ban order, a case the Department of Justice eventually won when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We defended the president’s travel order,” Sessions said. “We are litigating aggressively against sanctuary cities. A lot of people accused us of not winning but they were able to file cases in favorable jurisdictions and get initial rulings winning but we’re reversing a lot of those cases. The big one, the initial one, the travel ban it was called, they [the Supreme Court] gave an emergency order allowing 90 percent of it to be in effect. It’s in effect right now. We lost that in district court. Sally Yates, who was for less than a week Acting Attorney General, refused to defend that. We got her terminated and defended the president’s orders.”





Borneo – a world forgotten / Lt. Gen. E.M. Flanagan Jr.

Pacific Paratrooper

Australians landing on Borneo

Part of the wider Borneo campaign of the Pacific War, was fought between 10 June and 15 August 1945 in North Borneo (later known as Sabah). The battle involved a series of amphibious landings by Australian forces on various points on the mainland around Brunei Bay and upon islands situated around the bay. Japanese opposition to the landings was sporadic initially, although as the campaign progressed a number of considerable clashes occurred and both sides suffered relatively significant casualties. Ultimately, however, the Australians were successful in seizing control of the region.

Codenamed Operation Oboe Six, the battle was part of the second phase of the Allied operations to capture the island of Borneo. Previously in May a brigade-sized force had been put ashore on Tarakan. A total of 29,000–30,000 men were committed to the operation by the Allies, with the majority of the ground forces being…

View original post 954 more words

VA Healthcare and the Failure of a Government-Run System

H/T Town Hall.

I have friends and family that are veterans and I saw the way the Veterans Healthcare system failed them.

I have Medicare due to disability and it is a giant cluster fu@k.

In less than a year, Americans will choose a president who will chart the course for the country, with ramifications that could affect many future generations. Healthcare is one such issue. Every Democrat presidential candidate advocates for more government involvement in healthcare. Most endorse some variation of socialized medicine. The most extreme candidates, like Senators Warren and Sanders, call for an end to private healthcare insurance, meaning that 180 million Americans who receive this through work, would lose it. Some candidates want to return to failing Obamacare and prop it up by introducing a government run health insurance option. This veiled attempt to offer greater flexibility in coverage is nothing more than a Trojan Horse which would ultimately lead to a single government run system. This is because over time, private insurance cannot compete against a government sponsored competitor and will be squeezed out.

Americans have been ‘hoodwinked” already with promises that we could keep our doctors if we liked them; keep our insurance if we wanted; go wherever we wanted to receive healthcare. These guarantees were as unrealistic and disingenuous as the promises now being made by the Democratic hopefuls. Who can take seriously claims that a government run system which will cost $52 Trillion would actually save Americans money in the long run?

Socialized healthcare is failing around the world. Waiting lists for doctor appointments are measured in months, not days. The wait for surgeries can be even longer in systems that have made the calculus that money can be saved if the patient dies in the interim. That is the only way that a government run system can exist- by rationing care. More than 4.5 million Brits languish on waiting lists for care. Last year, almost 1 million surgeries were cancelled in the UK for non-health related issues. One needs to look no further than at our very own Veterans Administration Health System for a glimpse of what is in store for Americans if the government runs our entire healthcare system.

The problems at the VA paint an ominous picture of how the government has bungled healthcare. Customer service is non-existent because there are no repercussions for bad behavior. Employees cannot be fired. The institution runs like all government bureaucracies. There are equipment and material shortages. Red tape and employee indifference lead to compromised patient care. Veterans continue to die on waiting lists for care. The Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) utilized throughout the VA system looks like it could have been created by a third grade student in its uselessness as a healthcare tool. It actually compromises care.

At the VA in Iowa City, hundreds of diagnostic tests were cancelled in an attempt to shorten the waiting list. The Baltimore VA has been cited for excessive surgical wait times. At the Atlanta VA, surgery has been cut back over 50% because of personnel shortages. Of the 170 VA hospitals around the country, 40% had ER wait times that exceeded 5 hours.

The VA Mission Act was passed in 2018 to address the problems, but the problem is the system itself. Veterans who could not be cared for at their VA could petition for care at a private facility in the community, but this plan is falling short of the stated goals, which were to ensure that a patient gets care within 30 days. At the Phoenix VA, where the scandal erupted over excessive wait times in 2014, the problem continues, with veterans still in many cases waiting over 70 days to “choice out” of the system.

The VA should serve as a warning about the government running healthcare. They have failed a great number of the 9 million veterans enrolled in the system. How can we entrust the government to take over healthcare and manage 327 million people?

There are only 2 individuals who care about your healthcare- you and your doctor. Not some bureaucrat in Washington. Patients should expect and demand more. Not empty promises from politicians who have lied to the public before.







Are We Headed Toward a Second Civil War?

H/T Town Hall.

Some times it seems we are as divided as we were in 1860.

Next to a nuclear strike, foreign invasion, or global pandemic, it’s hard to imagine something as bone-chillingly terrifying as a second hot Civil War. The first one was bad enough, what with the endless carnage and the deaths of over 620,000 soldiers in a time when the U.S. was sparsely populated and wartime technology was in its relative infancy, at least compared to today. Even if the military withheld its most destructive weapons, a modern hot civil war would be disastrous on a scale that’s barely imaginable.

It’s a prospect no sane person wants, even on the fringes of the right or the left. Yet, in today’s polarized age, most people now genuinely believe civil war to be a very real possibility. An October Georgetown Institute poll found that the average American believes we are “two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war,” while a solid majority believes that “political, racial, and class divisions are getting worse.”

From where I’m sitting, it sure seems that way, and it’s a topic that’s getting an increasing amount of coverage in the media from both conservative and liberal perspectives.

The Atlantic devoted its entire December issue to the topic of “How To Stop A Civil War.” Interestingly, it includes an article relating how marriage counseling techniques can help bring some sense of mutual understanding to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Because in truth, the kind of ‘contempt’ that research says ends marriages for good, the kind that left and right clearly have for each other these days, could very well end our nation.

In an article for The American Conservative titled, “Civil War Begins When The Constitutional Order Breaks Down,” Michael Vlahos writes of a “daily torrent of unfiltered evidence” that suggests that “our constitutional order is fissuring before our eyes.”

Leftist author Joseph Natoli, writing for CounterPunch about the “Looming Shadow of Civil War,” sardonically but accurately described how conservatives see the ideological opposition: “Liberals retain the old tax and spend/baby killing on demand profile, taking from working Americans and giving to lazy shirkers and on the way killing babies. The profile grows darker: gay marriage, gender choice, LGBTQ rights, amnesty to illegal aliens, open borders, confiscation of guns, cars, cattle, Jesus, Robert E. Lee and white privilege. The ‘extreme Left’ and Progressives have a thinner profile: Communists.”

The left, then, according to Natoli, sees Trump supporters as being motivated by “ignorance and stupidity at the top of the list, followed by racist, bigoted, misogynist and homophobic. In brief, if you voted for Trump, you were a troglodyte with a gun.”

Now, which of those characterizations appears more accurate and which are just a personal attack? Does the left not favor abortion, tax and spend, gun confiscation, and open borders? Don’t they, for example, incessantly yammer on about the ridiculous, nonexistent concept of “white privilege?” The only thing slightly offensive to some might be the “Communist” label, but many on the more extreme left likely only publicly eschew that label for fear of turning people off.

Trump supporters, of course, don’t cotton to the idea of being labeled as “racist, bigoted, misogynist and homophobic,” not to mention “ignorant” and “stupid,” by condescending, virtue signaling leftists full of their own self-defined “morality.” Yet, at least for now, we are all in the same boat, as HBO host Bill Maher pointed out in a somewhat-joking, mostly-serious “Real Time with Bill Maher” segment on Friday night. To Maher, the “single shining truth about democracy” is “sharing the country with assholes you can’t stand” in the same way families don’t typically choose their Thanksgiving dinner guests. (Sure, we all know who he’s talking about when it comes to “assholes,” but that doesn’t negate the overall point).

“You don’t get to choose the guests, because those freaks are your family,” Maher joked. “Think about that the next time you think you can own someone politically. Think about how you can see politics so differently from people who share your very blood.” The HBO host lamented the desire, on both sides, to “own” the opposition – a tactic that never actually changes minds – before grimly observing that, while a second civil war may sound “impossible,” it is actually “is not.”

Then the comedian, like Natoli, juxtaposed how both sides see each other: “We all talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. And when both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war.”

“We are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood,” Maher soberingly concluded.

Is he right? It’s a bit lengthy, but I highly recommend read this article titled “How America Ends.” In it, Atlantic senior editor Yoni Appelbaum acknowledges both the demographic plight faced by the political majority in America – something “no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced” – along with the fact that democracy is imperiled when one or the other side feels hopeless at the prospects for future electoral victory. A 2020 Trump defeat, writes Appelbaum, would “only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them.”

“When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost,” he continued. Appelbaum’s ‘solution,’ as it were, is for the rise of a center-right party that embraces immigrants and minorities in the same way the Democratic Party expanded its tent in the 30’s.

The article truthfully lays out the landscape in a way that few liberal publications have acknowledged, but the ‘solution’ it offers is simply more of the same. Can America survive when its elites are, against the will of a majority of Americans, importing millions of immigrants from cultures that have little to nothing whatsoever in common with that of the current citizenry? To Maher’s analogy, we may not “choose” our family any more than we “choose” our country-mates, but imagine the tension at Thanksgiving if said “family” included different members every year brought in at random with absolutely nothing culturally in common with the original members. At what point does the concept of assimilation, something that predictably isn’t mentioned in the article but has always been the key to a stable country, become impossible? Still, just turn some into right-of-center conservatives, Appelbaum smugly advises, and all will be well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for recruiting minorities of any stripe into the conservative tent. Hispanics and African Americans who are courageous enough to outwardly support President Trump, despite the pushback they get from their own communities, have my unending respect and gratitude. However, when has ANY conservative leaning party been able to recruit even Hispanics, the group with which they have arguably forged the greatest inroads, at a level that could equal electoral victory in a Hispanic-dominated state? Even George W. Bush, for all his pandering, only managed to win 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Most political analysts concede that even Texas will go blue by 2024, if not sooner. What chance will Republicans have on a national scale then?

Thus, the apocalyptic concerns of Michael Anton mentioned in the Atlantic article, laid out in his seminal 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election,” are even more concerning now than ever. And contrary to Appelbaum’s contention, it is in fact Trump and his supporters who are trying to save America from collapse by curbing immigration to manageable levels. Because as daunting as the prospect of a civil war may be, many conservatives would choose that and all that goes with it – if some form of extreme federalism or non-violent secession doesn’t work – any day of the week over the even more disturbing prospect of being dominated by the political left for the foreseeable future.

Private Thomas Croft Neibaur

H/T Home Of The Heros.

War / Conflict World War I
Bio Thomas Neibaur entered active duty in the U.S. Army from the Idaho National Guard.
Date of Birth May 17, 1898
Where Born Sharon, Idaho
Action Date October 16, 1918
Battle-Incident Landres-et-St. Georges, France
Citation The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pleasure in presenting the Medal of Honor to Private Thomas Croft Neibaur (ASN: 98595), United States Army, for extraordinary heroism on 16 October 1918, while serving with Company M, 167th Infantry, 42d Division, in action at Landres-et-St. Georges, France. On the afternoon of 16 October 1918, when the Cote-de-Chatillion had just been gained after bitter fighting and the summit of that strong bulwark in the Kriemhilde Stellung was being organized, Private Neibaur was sent out on patrol with his automatic rifle squad to enfilade enemy machinegun nests. As he gained the ridge he set up his automatic rifle and was directly thereafter wounded in both legs by fire from a hostile machinegun on his flank. The advance wave of the enemy troops, counterattacking, had about gained the ridge, and although practically cut off and surrounded, the remainder of his detachment being killed or wounded, this gallant soldier kept his automatic rifle in operation to such effect that by his own efforts and by fire from the skirmish line of his company, at least 100 yards in his rear, the attack was checked. The enemy wave being halted and lying prone, four of the enemy attacked Private Neibaur at close quarters. These he killed. He then moved alone among the enemy lying on the ground about him, in the midst of the fire from his own lines, and by coolness and gallantry captured 11 prisoners at the point of his pistol and, although painfully wounded, brought them back to our lines. The counterattack in full force was arrested to a large extent by the single efforts of this soldier, whose heroic exploits took place against the skyline in full view of his entire battalion.
Award Authority War Department, General Orders No. 118 (February 2, 1919)
Award Presentation Presented at Chaumont, France, by General John J. Pershing on February 9, 1919
Company Company M
Regiment 167th Infantry
Division 42d Division
Date of Death December 23, 1942
Cemetery Sugar City Cemetery
Where Buried Sugar City, Idaho


Mark Kelly Receives Thousands of Dollars Through Corporate PAC Loophole

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Mark Kelly is getting a head start on becoming a swamp monster.

Previously called corporate PACs ‘one of the biggest problems in our politics today’.

Arizona Senate candidate Mark Kelly (D.) has pledged not to accept donations from corporate PACs but received tens of thousands of dollars from Democratic leadership PACs heavily funded by corporate entities.

Kelly, who faced scrutiny earlier this year for financially benefiting from corporate speaking gigs, received more than $55,000 from Democratic leadership PACs financially backed by corporate entities during the third quarter, according to his campaign’s most recent filing.

“I think Washington, D.C., is failing the state of Arizona on these things, and there’s structural problems with the way our system is set up,” Kelly said during a Fox 10 interview in early November. “As an example, corporate PAC money in our political system makes it so hard for people to get elected to Congress to do what they think is right instead of doing what some company wants. That’s why I’m not taking corporate PAC money.”

Kelly sent out several tweets from his official Twitter account over the last few months criticizing corporate PACs, calling them “one of the biggest problems in our politics today.”

While Kelly isn’t directly taking money from corporate PACs, his campaign is still benefiting from a loophole by which leadership PACs serve as a pass-through for corporate cash. The retired astronaut received over a dozen donations in September from leadership PACs, including the Country Roads and Blue Hen PACs. The donations ranged from $2,500 to $5,000.

Blue Hen PAC, which is affiliated with Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.), has made three $2,500 donations to Kelly’s campaign in 2019. Two of the donations were made on Sept. 30, and the other came during the second quarter. The leadership PAC received multiple $5,000 donations from the corporate PACs of Bank of America, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, and AT&T for the 2020 election cycle.

Kelly’s campaign also received two $2,500 donations from Country Roads PAC, which is affiliated with Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.). One of the donations was received on Sept. 30, and the other came during the second quarter. Some of the corporate PACs that donated to Manchin’s PAC were Altria, Comcast, General Motors, and Northrop Grumman.

The Kelly campaign did not respond to a request for comment about the PAC donations.

Since announcing his candidacy, Kelly’s campaign has received more than $140,000 from leadership PACs, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D., N.Y.) Impact PAC, which is funded by corporate PAC donations from Facebook, Bank of America, Delta Air Lines, Google, and Goldman Sachs. Impact made two $5,000 donations to Kelly’s campaign in May.

Kelly has received bipartisan scrutiny for his financial dealings since launching his Senate bid against incumbent Martha McSally (R., Ariz.). Rep. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) criticized Kelly in March for claiming he would not accept corporate PAC money while still taking corporate dollars for speaking gigs.

“It’s kind of weird, though, to say you’re not taking corporate PAC money, but then also directly taking corporate PAC money into your personal account,” Gallego said. “I don’t understand why [you would] even take that pledge if you’re not personally living that.”

The Washington Free Beacon reported in July that Kelly made over $1.8 million in speaking fees dating back 18 months. He has delivered 12 speeches since his campaign launched, making $290,400. Some of the corporate speaking gigs were sponsored by Goldman Sachs, Optum, and the Mortgage Bankers Association, according to the Intercept.