Thursday, April 27, 2017

The HUSH That Speaks Louder Than Words

You probably already know, that Conservative author, Ann Coulter, was prevented from speaking at Berkeley this past week, simply because a few spoiled brats from the Socialist Cult were willing to throw a violent tantrum to keep her from doing so.  Here's the gist:

She was invited by Republican Student groups.  Other groups that did not want her to speak threatened violent protests and demonstrations.  There were violent protests previously, when another Conservative had been invited to speak. The University essentially uninvited Coulter, but then re-invited her, when she said she was coming anyway, but they could not come to an agreement on what day or where she would be able to speak.  Finally Coulter said she would speak at Berkeley plaza, but there were more threats and the University said they could not guarantee her safety or the safety of students.  Finally the groups that invited her backed out of the deal, and she then canceled her speaking engagement.

If it has not already become perfectly clear to anyone that is even remotely, mildly, conservative, that unless you are a stark raving mad Socialist Marxist, inflamed with the schizophrenic, bipolar, transgender, sissified, snowflake, victim syndrome, you are not going to be able to speak reason and logic publicly (or privately for that matter) to anyone anywhere at at any time:  Certainly not at the University of California at Berkeley.

Congratulations are in order for the Berkeley masked, violent Marxist sissies. In loud, spit-lisp'ed-laced lingo, the faggot'ed fuming fascists announced to the world, especially those in it that may want to come to the U.S., that if you do not agree with the pansies' degraded, decadent Socialist "Utopia," you will get slammed with violent tantrums that will so scare the bejesus out of campus "conservatives," that they'll run to hide in their mommies' and daddy's basements, or hang out at the student union, until it's safely Socialist-Marxist again, or it's Sodom and Gomorrah Spring Break orgy-time, at Communist U.

While Ann Coulter (and Milo Yiannopoulos) have been silenced at Berkeley, it is highly unlikely that they will shut-up elsewhere for anyone.  They are simply not the silent quiet type of persons that let Life bull doze them into submission.

In fact, if anything was obvious, it was this.  While the masked fairies dance in thelebration to having bested the big, bad conthervative Ann Coulter, the real winner was Ann Coulter.

Without raising a finger, the dynamic blonde dynamo called attention to the brown-shirt Nazi tactics of the Looney Left, the capitulation and collusion of Berkeley University and the mayor and the town of Berkeley, and the lack of resolve of supposed Coulter student allies.

AND in so doing, Coulter accomplished, possibly much more than she would have, if she had merely been allowed to speak, for it telegraphs for everyone to hear and see, that America, though it was once freed by much blood, sweat and tears from a foreign colonial tyranny, this nation is once again occupied, yes COLONIZED, by a foreign culture, the Socialist Cult, that dominates not just the country's politics, but also its institutions, and although, until now, it has done so carefully by working from "within," it is now doing so by force.

Back in the day, when it was time for a little black girl to go to a white school, when the tyranny of racism kept our citizens segregated, violating our civil rights, soldiers were sent to ensure that no one, including the governor of that state, would discriminate against that little girl.

Well today it was an adult white woman that went, not to attend a University, but merely to say a few words to those that had chosen to listen.

However, now that the tables have been turned, where was the Liberal and Black turnout, the soldiers, the police, and the attendant national outcries to insist and to ensure the the white woman's civil rights were not violated?

Apparently civil rights are a one-way trek in Stalinist America.  Where were the legions of Black or Hispanic grateful ministers and their congregations marching to form a barrier against violence, to ensure that now, another American, Coulter, could have her moment at Berkeley?  Where was the National Guard?  Where was the Police?  Where were the Libertarians?  Where was the ACLU?  WHERE are YOU?

It is far-fetched to have expected a massive turnout in support of Ann Coulter, because America today only protects the civil rights of those that the Socialist Cult deems need protection.

That despicable event at Berkeley also demonstrated that Americans were not in explosive outrage, massively out in the streets protesting in favor of Ann Coulter, because American culture is now dominated by the Socialist Cult.

And on top of that, it is dominated by force.

What now of the rest of us?  Do we now go back to our televisions, our internet, our phones, our devices, and wait for the next transgression?  Do we just wait for that fateful knock at the door, when it's our time to be locked up and silenced?

Or have the brown shirts figuratively already been here?  Is your silence and inaction the result of the Socialist Cult's domination over you?  Is your abode already a prison, a concentration camp?

How is it that you surrendered to them, and were imprisoned, silenced and shackled, and didn't even notice?

And to all those that I and others that worked, both in military service and as civilians to guarantee our Freedoms; to those who now can live without the burden of suppression, racism, discrimination, and with, at least, the ability to fight tyranny, you're welcome.  We'd do it for you and for ourselves again, but it is painfully obvious, at least today, that the favor will not be returned.

Thank you Ann Coulter.  Your resolve has shed the light of reason once again upon a deadly darkness, and with that beam you have penetrated, if briefly, that curtain of tyranny that once again has brought night to what once was the dawn of Freedom.  Who else will join you in doing so?

Vanguard of Freedom

Red Clix Headliners

Advance of Freedom


Wednesday, April 26, 2017


In what appears to be an affirmation that there is no free speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Ann Coulter, who vowed to deliver a speech that she was asked to by a Berkeley student group, abruptly cancelled her university appearance after students supporters chose not to back her.

According to a Reuter's report  Coulter said today that there would be no speech. "... I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team ... "

The cancelation came after controversy erupted earlier this week, when opponents of conservatives appeared to be gearing up for violent protests to keep her from speaking at Berkeley.

Coulter had said she had agreed to meet all the requirements the University had imposed on her for the event, and the University still chose cancel her appearance, asserting that they could not guarantee there would not be violent protests.

When Coulter insisted that she would go anyway, and use instead Berkeley Plaza as the venue, the students, who were backing coulter's right to speak, pulled out of the deal, ostensibly because of the threats of violence, and Coulter then cancelled her appearance.

Earlier this year another Conservative was prevented from speaking at Berkeley, when violent protesters caused severe damage and severely threatened the security of Milo Yiannopoulos and students in attendance at that event.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017


One of the sticks that President Trump gets whacked with quite often is how he is going to pay for THE WALL, and how he is going to make Mexico, as he promised, pay for THE WALL.

Like many of the other political attacks on Trump and his administration, the constant badgering regarding this issue is as incessant as it is aggravating and annoying.

In response to this, let me offer this observation, since I see no one with a proper defense or offense anywhere on this matter, and let me be clear, this is not rocket science, and one need not extend one's faculties, nor stretch one's imagination, nor resort to long and extreme justifications in order to see the relevant daylight:


First, ILLEGAL border crossings are DOWN 67 percent. Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times put it at "over" 60 percent, back on April 4. That was "...even before the first new agent is hired or the first mile of his promised border wall is constructed..."

That statistic is clear:  There are over 60 percent LESS illegal immigrants coming across the border.  Dinan's article makes a point of mentioning that it means that there are 67 percent more JOBS available to Americans that would otherwise be taken by illegal aliens.

But there is more to it than that, and for those that are not necessarily in the groove in these matters let me define a term and some actions that illegal aliens do that go beyond them taking Americans' jobs.

Illegal aliens not only work here, they send the money they earn back to their home country.  This money is called a "remittance," or "remittances."
"...A remittance is a transfer of money by a foreign worker to an individual in his or her home country. Money sent home by migrants competes with international aid as one of the largest financial inflows to developing countries. Workers' remittances are a significant part of international capital flows, especially with regard to labour-exporting countries. In 2014, $436 billion went to developing countries, setting a new record. Overall global remittances totaled $582 billion in 2015.[2] Some countries, such as India and China, receive tens of billions of US dollars in remittances each year from their expatriates. In 2014, India received an estimated $70 billion and China an estimated $64 billion..."  [WIKIPEDIA]
Patrick Gillespie's CNN report from last January 17, set forth some interesting details:
"...Between January and November of 2016, $24.6 billion flowed back to the pockets of Mexicans from friends and relatives living overseas, according to Mexico's central bank...
That's even higher than what Mexico earns from its oil exports -- $23.2 billion in 2015. And almost all of that cash comes from the U.S...
The average remittance from Mexico is about $300. Essentially, Mexico's most lucrative natural resource are the people who leave home...
Remittances help drive Mexico's economy, from paying for new home construction to schools, especially in low-income areas. The cash transfers from the U.S. have also been growing faster than wages and inflation. And it's a critical time for Mexico's economy, which is showing signs of weakness...
With Mexico's currency, the peso, near an all-time low, its economy only grew 2.2% last year, Mexico's finance minister says. Trump's threats are only going to make it worse -- the IMF estimates Mexico will only grow 1.7% this year...
On top of slower growth, the government hiked gas prices by as much as 20% at the start of the year as part of an energy deregulation policy. That's sparked widespread protests and looting...
All to say: Dollars mean a lot to many Mexicans and they're becoming more and more valuable. Taxing or halting that flow of cash could negatively impact millions of Mexicans..."
I am overlooking here (sort of) the fact that Mexico is "lending" out its people to work in the U.S. for money that benefits that government and those people.  Some are kind and call it indentured servitude.  I call it what it is: human trafficking and slavery.

Now, because Mexico (and other countries, as well) benefit from remittances, what would be those governments' interests in those illegal aliens becoming citizens of the U.S. via an amnesty or some other path to citizenship?  The illegal aliens would no longer be illegal, and very possibly, most likely, would import their families to the U.S. too.  Where would the remittances for the "home" countries be then?

I would argue that those countries that benefit from Remittances, most certainly, Mexico, would not want those illegal aliens to be legalized.  I suspect they are very happy with the status quo, despite any protests to the contrary they may advance.

But back to THE WALL:

Because there are 67 percent LESS illegal alien workers, there are, possibly 67 percent LESS remittances being sent to MEXICO.  You do the math. Since there is $24.6 BILLION (with a "B") leaving for Mexico BEFORE the reduction of illegal alien border crossings, then there is, accordingly, allowing for wiggle room, 67 percent LESS of that $24.6 billion going back to Mexico.

How much is 67 percent of $24.6 billion? I calculate:  $16,482,000,000.   That is sixteen BILLION four hundred eighty two million dollars. Yes, billion with a B.

That's almost Sixteen and a half BILLION less dollars going to Mexico, and staying here in the U.S.

Mind you, this does not even figure how much in dollars is not being spent in social services, i.e., food stamps, welfare, low income housing, etc. in order to "service" illegal aliens.  There are other factors that you can account for that we are not doing the math for.

Get the picture?  Mexico is ALREADY paying for THE WALL, and by default THE WALL must include that invisible wall that Trump has already set up, simply by stating that he was going to build it.

Vanguard of Freedom FACEBOOK

Advance of Freedom FACEBOOK "Friend"

Vanguard of Freedom Red Clix Headliners

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The Democrat's New Broom "Sweeps Clean"

A story at NBC NEWS makes much ado about the Democrat National Committee "firing" all staffers.

While the headline reads like a purge of unwanteds and a revision of their policies because of their catastrophic failure in the last election, the story by Alex Seitz-Wald says, it's all routine: No big brouhaha.
"...Immediately after [Tom]  Perez's selection as party chairman in late February, an adviser to outgoing DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile, Leah Daughtry, asked every employee to submit a letter of resignation dated April 15, according to multiple sources familiar with the party's internal workings..."
You could speculate that the Democrats are facing a formidable foe in the person of President Donald Trump.  That's what the rhetoric says.

"... 'This is longstanding precedent at the DNC and has happened during multiple Chair transitions,' said DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. 'The process was started before the election of the new Chair. From the beginning, Tom has been adamant that we structure the DNC for future campaigns. Current and future DNC staff will be integral to that effort. Over the last few months, the DNC staff has done incredible work under immense pressure to hold Trump accountable.' ..."

 See?  Nothing to worry about.  Socialism isn't going anywhere, and probably will become SOCIAL-ISM!

Without going into the nether-world of speculation and/or conspiracy theory mongering, even a cursory historical accounting of Democrat politics will tell you that, more than a trend, the Democrat march to the Left is as certain as death and taxes, and as has been evident by some of their actions, they do not feel a need to effect any kind of correction.  In fact, they have dug their trenches deeper, and are digging in for the long fight.

Can they go any farther Left than they have already gone and risk alienating Americans even more?

Well, consider that the ObamaCare REPEAL will not happen.  Although the plan that the President so adamantly promoted "failed," and Republicans are now fighting over whose fault it is, and what a failure it's been, some sooth saying soothers are intimating that something more is coming from that direction. What pray tell, might that be?

Get ready for Single Payer Health Care.

Yup.  The Democrats had no intention of succeeding with ObamaCare.  Their roll-out was an intentional fiasco.  For all their whining about "Repeal" and about how it would be such a horrible thing if Americans lost their Health Care, have you seen any Democrat jumping frantically to fix it?  ObamaCare will implode and melt for all to see.  That was intended from the beginning.  It will be a fiasco, as much of it already is.  It will turn into a catastrophic emergency, and you watch.  Trump will ride in on his big Cadillac horse and save the day with single-payer Health Care, only it won't be called "single-payer."  It will be called the non-single-payer single payer health care: to mask the fact that it will be ... single--payer.

Why is that?

Because politicians, once elected, want to get reelected.  And Trump said he was going to appeal to Democrats, since, he believes, Republicans "blew it."  His spokespersons clarified that he meant to say he was reaching out to blue-dog Democrats, but the blue-dogs  have already been "on board."

Now, mind you, Trump has been in favor of a Single Payer system since... forever.  The following is from 60 Minutes back in 2015 as reported by Breitbart.  (SEE TRUMP)

Frank Camp at the Independent Journal Review notes "5 Times Donald Trump Praised Socialized Healthcare."  He wrote that article a year ago.  (Trump Pushes Single Payer)

Caleb Howe wrote an article about this last January, in which he quotes Trump saying:
"...We’re going to have insurance for everybody ... There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better..."  Read it here:  (Health Insurance for Everybody)
But that's about Trump.  Why are we talking about Trump, when we're talking about the Democrats going even further to the Left than Obama?

Because Trump is going to take them there.

The theme is that American Socialism is broken, and he's going to fix it.  He's going to streamline it, and make it the very best Socialism there is, and that ever has been.  It's going to be great and you are going to love it.

You might want to take notice that one of the lead stories yesterday was "Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner: Rising Powers at the White House," by Ali Vitali and Corky Siemaszko.  Ali and Corky wasted no time telling us that Ivanka and Jared, now rising power brokers at the White House are NOT Republicans:
"...She is an independent and called Chelsea Clinton a friend. He is a Democrat whose dad, Charles, was a bigtime donor to the Democratic Party, including Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign..."
Goodhearted, wise, Americans chose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton last November.  That was after Democrats crossed over in certain primaries in favor of Trump.  Liberal Establishment Republicans worked to undermine Conservative favorite Ted Cruz, pretending to dislike Donald Trump, but eventually capitulating and supporting him.  And he won.  And it was a wise choice, because if he had lost, and Hillary Clinton had won, you would now be living in the United Soviet Socialist States of America, and there would be a wall being built all around America, not to keep illegal immigrants out, but you IN.

You don't have to feel like you're between a rock and a hard place.  With the choice you had you won.  Now it's time to go back to enhancing and strengthening the conservative movement, because Mr. efficiency is going to make a wide Left Turn in his giant Cadillac, and it's going to be the biggest, best, most wonderful Left turn that's ever been, and you're going to finance it, and "you're going to love it. "

And while you're "loving it," unless you are building conservative political squads, platoons, battalions, regiments, flotillas, navies, tanks, bombers, etc., get your chains ready, because just as sure as you are reading this, Trump is going to streamline big government, and hand to Democrats, legions of Socialist political Panzer units to transform America into the Marxist hell-hole Obama could not bring to fruition.

We barely squeaked by in the last election.  We had to go with Trump to avoid Hillary. We still got a Democrat, who ran under the Republican banner.  And it feels strange that in many instances you find yourself defending Trump against the Democrats.

We made a "deal."  Did we preserve the Supreme court?  Did we get the Justice Department back? Are we getting back our Constitution?

We got SOME things.  We need to get more. Much more.

Vanguard of Freedom / Advance of Freedom @ Facebook

More: Vanguard of Freedom News

Thursday, February 23, 2017


If I am not mistaken...

The Justice Department can investigate instances of violation of federal law.
"A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he: 
  • assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
  • encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
  • knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
  • Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime."  (Federation for American Immigrant Reform; FAIR)
If upon investigation, an agency of the Justice Department finds violations of immigration law, its duty is to move forward with arrest of the suspects involved, the charging of them with a crime, arraignment, prosecution and trial, and if a conviction is obtained, sentencing.

If someone interferes with that process they can be charged with criminal obstruction of Justice.

This doesn't need to be done in every case found, but can be done enough to impact the convention that it is ok to violate immigration laws and statutes.

Does the Justice Department need to be notified of its duty?  Do they need to be nudged?  Do they not act because it is not politically expedient to do so?

Should the government's employers direct them to move aggressively on this?

That would be "WE" the People, would it not?

Post Replies HERE

Vanguard of Freedom

Advance of Freedom

Facebook Group

Facebook "Friend"

Thursday, December 15, 2016

C.I.A. Tampers With U.S. Presidential Election?

We know that government agencies are politicized. We know government has acted against its own citizens, sometimes in nefarious and murderous ways.

Today we learn that President Barack Obama is attempting to undermine the results of an election by utilizing the CIA claims of Russian hacking of American computers.

In alleging that the Russians are involved, the CIA,  has just admitted to election tampering.  It has been named as the source of allegations that the Russians hacked emails that revealed questionable and illegal actions by the Democratic Party National Committee, which led to the firing of DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and exposed inappropriate behavior by Hillary Clinton campaign operative, John Podesta.

While the controversy swirls about the Russians allegedly hacking into the emails of Americans and American organizations, the CIA appears to be effecting a cover-up of what those allegedly hacked emails contained.  Once again it appears that a government agency is being used to attack Americans, the will of the American people, and the institutions that they hold dear, in this case, the American election, the electoral college, and the results of an election process.

It is a matter of record that the former head of the Democrat National Committee tampered with the Democrat Party primary elections by targeting candidate Bernie Sanders.

Reports have revealed that a series of emails showed Democrat Party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of candidate Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont. (source:  New York Times)

The Interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile,  was also found to have been giving Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign advance notice of questions that would be asked during a Democratic primary debate between Clinton and Sanders, an action that caused Brazile to be fired from her position at CNN.

The actions of Brazile and Wasserman Schultz are clear instances of election tampering.  Might we now have a President-elect, Bernie Sanders instead of Donald Trump, if Brazile and Wasserman Shultz not acted how they did?

Again, there is no question that there was election tampering by the DNC in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders.

Those actions are illegal and are subject to severe repercussions, legally, financially, and politically.  Even without legal actions against the perpetrators the political ramifications are huge, since it is doubtful the Democrat Party can emerge unscathed from that fiasco.

It is no surprise, then, that the Obama administration, which appears to be frantically determined to save and continue his "legacy," and the legacy, therefore, of the Democrat Party,  would resort to using his politically appointed CIA Director,  John Brennan to advance the narrative that the results of the election were skewed due to Russian hacking.

How desperate must the Democrats be that they have to resort to using the CIA and John Brennan in order to cover their transgressions.

When there has been an incident involving hacking, or leaking of "secrets," there has been no hesitation to pursue and attack the perpetrators by the CIA.  Evidence abounds, but two very prominent actors that come to mind are Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.  However, in this case we do not get the names of alleged perpetrators.

The media, using the CIA as its source(s), is providing no evidence to support their Russian Hacking narrative.  Instead they advance generalities and innuendo.

In their zeal, passion and lust to negate the American voters' mandate of change, the Media ignore and distract from the obvious massive security breaches by Hillary Clinton, and therefore her associates in the State Department, her Aides, and her accomplices, including President Obama, when they communicated via an unsecured server that has undoubtedly compromised not just national security, but the lives and welfare of countless operatives and assets, who have now been exposed to possible torture and murder at the hands of our enemies.

So is the Obama administration now actively involved in covering up its felonies by using the CIA against its own citizens?

Is this effort nothing short of an attempted coup by the Obama Administration, an effort to undermine the will of the American people in a desperate attempt to hold on to power at whatever cost to our Republic?

Obama will not let this crisis go to waste.  The question is who will see through the fog to block Obama's opportunistic overreach for power, and have the insight and strength to thwart the attack?

Saturday, October 29, 2016

It has been reported today by numerous news sources that FBI Director, James Comey, has reopened the investigation into the Hillary Clinton Email probe. News outlets and commentators were quick to point out that the investigation had been reopened, but technically, that is not the case.

FBI Director Comey appears to be, in light of criticism from Congressional Committees about his handling of the case, trying to get ahead of any new information that might be forthcoming as a result of another FBI probe, specifically that of Anthony Weiner, Husband of Clinton Aide, Huma Abedin. Weiner is under investigation for allegedly texting illicit messages to a 15 year old girl in North Carolina.

FBI Director Comey has been both praised and lauded, and reviled and criticized for revisiting the Clinton Email Server investigation just eleven days before election day.

Conservative news sources are reporting Comey's action as a "bombshell" announcement, while their Liberal counterparts are crying foul, saying that Comey is interfering with the election.

Here is what Comey actually said to Congressional Committee chairmen:
"...Dear Messrs Chairmen ... In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server.  Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony ... In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.  I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation ... Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony ... Sincerely yours ... James B. Comey ... Director [FBI] ..."
Hillary Clinton's news presser came out with the following:

Donald Trump's response:

The responses from both campaigns were what could be expected from both campaigns, but speculation on what might be in the newly discovered emails by the news networks and in social media, is clouding what might be the FBI's tactful and sneaky way of shutting down any new revelations that may come forth from the Clinton Email Server probe.

Comey's apparent "reopening" or "supplementing," as he puts it, of its report to Congress provides the FBI with the ability to shut down any questions Congress, the media, or any other investigators might have regarding the scandal, due to an "ongoing investigation."

There is precedent for this, and specifically and especially in THIS investigation:

As everyone scurries about, one side concerned that Comey is interfering with election results, and the other celebrating the "reopening" of the investigation, what is being overlooked is the possibility that Comey is shutting down the release of any new revelations that might come as a result of other probes which would contain information related to the Clinton investigation.

It is interesting to note that, while the Clinton side may have exhaled in relief, after the apparent FBI and Justice Department collusion in refusing to bring charges against Clinton, and the Republican side's outrage and frustration in response to that apparent collusion, few, if any,  have noticed that Comey has delivered a resounding blow to any further flow of information about this case, because it is an "ongoing investigation."

If indeed there has been "collusion" to absolve Clinton of any wrongdoing, the Clinton outrage about Comey's most recent action would be clearly a pretense, since Comey has essentially prevented any new information from coming to light, as this also offers another distraction that media favorable to Clinton can argue and debate about, taking up valuable media air time and print space away from the Trump campaign's media dominance, less than two weeks before election day.

Has Comey essentially shut down any new reveals about the Clinton server scandal?

Comey writes to Congressional Committee Chairmen:

"...I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work ... I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony ... "

What do you think?