Does nobody else find it fascinating that Senator Dianne Feinstein\u2019s (D) staffer for 20 years has been outed as a Chinese spy
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 10, 2020
Feinstein\u2019s husband invests in Dominion, the software used to count the disputed ballots.
Surely, that\u2019s news, no?
CBS local:https://t.co/iJ8mUfYJKB
THREAD:
Instead of attacking those of us raising it, why aren’t mainstream “liberal” journalists on here as outraged as we are about how many senior Democratic Party figures seem to have been compromised by Chinese spies?
Genocide is non-negotiable
#TAGG 🧿
See examples:
.@SpeakerPelosi (D) has named Representative Eric Swallwell (D), who only last month was caught in a relationship with a Chinese spy https://t.co/Ikx38ELKaB as one of her impeachment managers against President Trump (https://t.co/Qb7CMtx6cW)
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) January 13, 2021
See how far the rot has spread
Scoop: Biden\u2019s inaugural committee will refund a donation from former Sen. Barbara Boxer after the California Democrat registered as a foreign agent for a Chinese surveillance firm accused of abetting the country\u2019s mass internment of Uighur Muslimshttps://t.co/smnSaRCcW9
— Axios (@axios) January 12, 2021
megvii, a company that hunter biden invests in supplies technology for \u201ca china-wide surveillance program called the skynet project, which uses more than 20m closed-circuit tv cameras to monitor citizens\u201d
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) September 29, 2020
thank you for your integrity @buzzfeedhttps://t.co/GEXaMbGnTu#TAGG \U0001f9ff pic.twitter.com/SNkvsZzkSU
More from Maajid أبو عمّار
BREAKING
China’s Elite Capture:
- Over 600 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members at 19 branches of HSBC & Standard Chartered
- 123 CCP at Pfizer & AstraZeneca (coronavirus vaccines)
- Defence firms Airbus, Boeing & Rolls-Royce employed hundreds of
“In the nine months to September, 14 Chinese nationals were charged over alleged spying offences and the Trump administration last week changed its visa rules so members of the Chinese Communist Party and their families can stay or get travel documents for only a month.”
“Last week, John Ratcliffe, the US Director of National Security, warned that China posed the 'greatest threat to democracy and freedom' since the Second World War and was striving to dominate 'the planet economically, militarily and technologically'.”
it’s been 6 months since my 5 day hunger strike to highlight history’s most technologically sophisticated genocide in china (https://t.co/Vu8BVi2w4q)
yet still there’s not been a single mainstream UK newspaper frontpage on the Uyghur plight
never stop asking WHY?
Self-evident.
By @MichaelPSenger for @tabletmag
China’s Elite Capture:
- Over 600 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members at 19 branches of HSBC & Standard Chartered
- 123 CCP at Pfizer & AstraZeneca (coronavirus vaccines)
- Defence firms Airbus, Boeing & Rolls-Royce employed hundreds of
“In the nine months to September, 14 Chinese nationals were charged over alleged spying offences and the Trump administration last week changed its visa rules so members of the Chinese Communist Party and their families can stay or get travel documents for only a month.”
“Last week, John Ratcliffe, the US Director of National Security, warned that China posed the 'greatest threat to democracy and freedom' since the Second World War and was striving to dominate 'the planet economically, militarily and technologically'.”
it’s been 6 months since my 5 day hunger strike to highlight history’s most technologically sophisticated genocide in china (https://t.co/Vu8BVi2w4q)
yet still there’s not been a single mainstream UK newspaper frontpage on the Uyghur plight
never stop asking WHY?
Self-evident.
By @MichaelPSenger for @tabletmag
Texas is disputing US election results in 4 swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin & Georgia
Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states
Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after
Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules
On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly
But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not
The below is also worth noting:
There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.
Under Article III, US Supreme Court settles disputes between 2 or more states
Due to safe harbour, Trump’s remaining legal routes are narrow after
Brief analysis:
The Texas case is about the contested swing states’ executive & judicial branches VS their legislatures, on mail-in ballot rules
On Tuesday before safe harbour, SCOTUS rejected a similar lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly
But a 3rd & eerily similar case has been with Justice Alito (as circuit judge for PA) & the Supreme Court since before the election. It’s about this very same executive & judiciary VS legislature dispute. That case, PA Republican Party vs Boockvar, may be decided in time, or not
A pending Supreme Court judgement in the case of Boockvar decides Pennsylvania
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 11, 2020
That was not a fraud case. The number of votes is secondary
It is about auditing a temporary mail ballot ringfence, imposed till a constitutional case against alleged judicial activism in PA is heard https://t.co/ek8gkDibKZ
The below is also worth noting:
It is important for election heads following this story to note that in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Georgia the electoral college is *not legally obliged* to vote as their state did. If disputes about election integrity continue, what these electors think, will matter
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 13, 2020
There is also the issue of ‘safe harbour’ being said to only be “procedural”. This view rests on a reading of the Bush v Gore Supreme Court ruling.
Analysis
The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue
They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations
Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?
Read my THREAD:
1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one
2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)
Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied
ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate
Note: in the key swing states, this is legal
OR:
iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.
3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?
Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis
Trump wins that vote.
The US Supreme Court has ducked hearing the case of Trump, Texas & 17 other states, on a procedural issue
They did not comment on any recent newsworthy fraud allegations
Trump still refuses to concede, so what are his remaining long shot legal routes?
Read my THREAD:
....that, after careful study and consideration, think you got \u201cscrewed\u201d, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020
1) There is still this dormant PA Republican Party vs Boockvar US Supreme Court case, but it may remain dormant, since the Court already indicated yesterday that it (understandably?) simply doesn’t want the serious heat on this one
A pending Supreme Court judgement in the case of Boockvar decides Pennsylvania
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 11, 2020
That was not a fraud case. The number of votes is secondary
It is about auditing a temporary mail ballot ringfence, imposed till a constitutional case against alleged judicial activism in PA is heard https://t.co/ek8gkDibKZ
2) Mon Dec 14th Electoral College need to cast their votes alongside their states’ choice (the crux of the dispute)
Matters escalate if:
i) the Electoral College is tied
ii) “faithless” electors don’t vote for their state candidate
Note: in the key swing states, this is legal
It is important for election heads following this story to note that in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Georgia the electoral college is *not legally obliged* to vote as their state did. If disputes about election integrity continue, what these electors think, will matter
— Maajid \u0623\u0628\u0648 \u0639\u0645\u0651\u0627\u0631 (@MaajidNawaz) November 13, 2020
OR:
iii) the House rejects some Electoral College votes, resulting in neither candidate receiving a majority.
3) If the above long shot occurs (aren’t we already in unprecedented times?) what happens next?
Under the 12th Amendment, when the House meets Jan 6th they can refuse to approve the Electoral College votes. They instead vote on a 1 vote per 1 state basis
Trump wins that vote.
More from Journalism
@cjkink If you were a true journalist, you'd do your own research about the capitol riots. Instead, you focus on 'orange man cult'. The video used in the sham impeachment of a private US citizen was of JaydenX (AKA Jake Sullivan, a known Antifa). Jake has organized riots before.
He's been charged numerous times and released. He's probably being paid by Obama's terrorist networks. If you had done your research, you would have scoured JaydenX website https://t.co/OMU7vEzIKa It's quite simple...go to newsletter, then archive, then Jan 2021 and you'll see
Let me help you with a little bit of your FAKE JOURNALISM. Here's a few screencaps. JaydenX organized, advertised, and orchestrated the attack upon the Capitol. He wore a go-pro cam on his hat to help him fulfill/document his actions. He hated TRUMP and wanted to dump Trump!
JaydenX wanted the fascist out of the White House. He instructed his Antifa Comrades to dress like Proud Boys (he personally wore Trump gear while rioting, despite him hating Trump). He trolled MAGA people and knew where they were lodging in hotels throughout DC and VA.
It helped JaydenX and his vile crew to be staying in the same hotels as they mixed in nicely with the MAGA people. In addition, JaydenX ordered his Antifa comrades to bring tactical gear and wear bullet-proof vests. MAGA people NEVER bring umbrellas or crowbars to rallies.
He's been charged numerous times and released. He's probably being paid by Obama's terrorist networks. If you had done your research, you would have scoured JaydenX website https://t.co/OMU7vEzIKa It's quite simple...go to newsletter, then archive, then Jan 2021 and you'll see
Let me help you with a little bit of your FAKE JOURNALISM. Here's a few screencaps. JaydenX organized, advertised, and orchestrated the attack upon the Capitol. He wore a go-pro cam on his hat to help him fulfill/document his actions. He hated TRUMP and wanted to dump Trump!
JaydenX wanted the fascist out of the White House. He instructed his Antifa Comrades to dress like Proud Boys (he personally wore Trump gear while rioting, despite him hating Trump). He trolled MAGA people and knew where they were lodging in hotels throughout DC and VA.
It helped JaydenX and his vile crew to be staying in the same hotels as they mixed in nicely with the MAGA people. In addition, JaydenX ordered his Antifa comrades to bring tactical gear and wear bullet-proof vests. MAGA people NEVER bring umbrellas or crowbars to rallies.
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:
Hiring efficiency:
How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?
What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?
How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:
* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work
How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.
(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)
How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
Here's how I'd measure the health of any tech company:
— Jeff Atwood (@codinghorror) October 25, 2018
How long, as measured from the inception of idea to the modified software arriving in the user's hands, does it take to roll out a *1 word copy change* in your primary product?
Hiring efficiency:
How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?
What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?
How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:
* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work
How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.
(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)
How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
