Thursday, January 22, 2026

new treatment

Daniel Jacob is the co-founder and CEO of Arista Recovery, a company specializing in addiction treatment and behavioral health services. In this role, he oversees leadership in the company's financial, operations, and clinical departments. His expertise spans multi-state and multi-site acquisitions, operational integrations, de novo development, revenue cycle and utilization management, payor relations, real estate, and finance. 
x.com
Beyond Arista, Jacob serves as President of Physicians Dialysis, a Florida-based national dialysis provider. In 2017, he led the acquisition of several dialysis centers from DaVita as part of an FTC-mandated divestiture, integrated those units with legacy Physicians Dialysis operations, and facilitated the sale of the combined portfolio to Fresenius Kidney Care. Prior to these positions, he was Managing Director at Meridian Capital and Vice President and Team Leader in M&T Bank's Commercial Real Estate Division. Sources describe his strengths in executive leadership and healthcare management.
Jacob is based in the New York City Metropolitan Area and maintains a professional network of over 500 connections on LinkedIn. No detailed information on his education, certifications, personal hobbies, philosophy, or early life is publicly available from the reviewed sources.
Recently, in November 2025, Arista Recovery expanded into Ohio with a new behavioral health campus in Hilliard, focusing on mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Jacob commented on the launch, stating, "We are thrilled to officially introduce Arista Recovery to Ohio. Our team is committed to providing compassionate, high-quality care to individuals and families in need." The company also operates facilities in Kansas and has outpatient services in Overland Park.
Jacob maintains an active presence on X (formerly Twitter) under the handle
@DanielJ44875748
, where he shares content related to Arista Recovery, such as praising the work at their Paola facility in supporting mental health and addiction challenges. His posts also cover a range of other topics, including replies on Jewish cultural content, political commentary (e.g., criticizing figures like Candace Owens), local news like shark incidents, tech preferences (e.g., endorsing a specific computer mouse), concerns about antisemitism, and opinions on work policies and federal employee productivity.


--
Henry McClure 
Time kills deals
785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live
on No comments:

Truth


The meme/image you shared attributes a quote to actor/comedian **Tim Allen** claiming: "President Trump's wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America."

This claim is **false** on two main fronts:

1. **The quote is not from Tim Allen.**  
   Multiple fact-checks (from Reuters, USA Today, The Washington Post, PolitiFact, and others) confirm the statement has been falsely attributed to the actor Tim Allen. His publicist has denied he said or wrote it. The phrasing has circulated as a viral meme since around 2019, sometimes misattributed to him (even shared by figures like Eric Trump), but it originated elsewhere in conservative social media circles. No evidence ties it to Allen himself.

2. **The underlying comparison is inaccurate.**  
   Costs for **HealthCare.gov** (the Obamacare/ACA website, launched in 2013) were high due to overruns and fixes after a disastrous rollout. Reliable estimates include:
   - An HHS Office of Inspector General report (2014): ~$1.7 billion total for the website and related systems.
   - Bloomberg (2014): Up to ~$2.1 billion (including broader expenses beyond core development).

   In contrast, **Trump's border wall** (focusing on new/replacement barriers built during his first term and estimates for full plans):
   - Initial DHS internal estimates (2017): Up to $21.6 billion for a full wall.
   - Actual spending identified by 2020–2021: Around $11–15 billion for roughly 400–500 miles constructed/replaced (much of it upgrades to existing fencing, with only ~80 miles in previously unfenced areas).
   - Per-mile costs often ran $20–30 million in tough terrain.
   - Full completion estimates historically ranged $15–25+ billion or higher.

   Even the highest credible figure for HealthCare.gov (~$2.1 billion) is dwarfed by the border wall's costs (billions more, even for partial construction). The wall's total expense far exceeded the website's.

This meme has been debunked repeatedly since 2019 as both misattributed and factually wrong—it's a persistent piece of misinformation. The wall project was significantly more expensive than the troubled (but much smaller-scale) website rollout.


Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:

Invented the internet

**Yes, this incident is real and accurately reported across multiple credible sources.**

During a private, invite-only VIP dinner at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (on or around January 20-21, 2026), hosted by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave a speech that was highly critical of Europe's economic performance, energy policies (pushing back on renewables in favor of coal), and global dynamics under the new Trump administration.

The speech provoked a strong negative reaction from parts of the audience:
- There was widespread jeering and heckling.
- European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde reportedly walked out.
- Former Vice President Al Gore booed Lutnick (described by some accounts as approaching him afterward and saying "Boo" in a mocking way, or booing from the crowd at the end of the speech).
- The event reportedly descended into enough chaos that host Larry Fink called for calm, and in some reports, it was cut short before dessert.

Al Gore directly confirmed his involvement in a statement to Mediaite, saying:  
"I sat and listened to his remarks. I didn't interrupt him in any way. It's no secret that I think this administration's energy policy is insane. And at the end of his speech I reacted with how I felt, and so did several others."

The U.S. Commerce Department (via a spokesperson for Lutnick) downplayed it, stating:  
"During Secretary Lutnick's three-minute speech, no one left hastily. Only one person booed, and it was Al Gore."

This matches the details in the image you shared from the Daily Caller, including Gore's quote to Mediaite. Reports appeared in outlets like:
- Financial Times (original detailed reporting)
- New York Post
- Mediaite
- People.com
- The New Republic
- The Daily Beast
- And others

The core claim—that Al Gore heckled/booed Lutnick at this high-profile private Davos dinner hosted by Larry Fink—is **true**, though accounts differ slightly on the intensity (e.g., solo boo vs. part of broader jeering/walkouts). It's a real clash highlighting tensions over energy policy, trade, and U.S.-Europe relations in the early days of the administration.



Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Refugees

The statement you referenced is **accurate** and directly from Rep. James Comer's official X post on January 20, 2026. He explicitly rejected a proposal from the Clintons' lawyers for an informal, off-the-record "conversation" in New York involving only Bill Clinton (not Hillary), limited to Comer (and possibly the ranking Democrat), with no other committee members and crucially **no official transcript**.

This came as the House Oversight Committee prepared to advance contempt resolutions against both Bill and Hillary Clinton for defying bipartisan subpoenas to appear for sworn, transcribed depositions related to the committee's probe into Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking network, federal handling of the cases, and potential reforms.

### Timeline and Key Facts
- **Subpoenas Origin**: Issued in August 2025 after unanimous approval by the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee (bipartisan voice vote in July 2025). They sought testimony on topics including the Clintons' documented social ties to Epstein (e.g., Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's plane), Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State in countering sex trafficking, and her acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell.
- **Non-Appearance**: Bill Clinton's deposition was scheduled for January 13, 2026; Hillary's for January 14, 2026 (after prior rescheduling due to cited reasons like funerals). Neither appeared, despite negotiations.
- **Clintons' Position**: Their legal team (including David Kendall) argued the subpoenas were invalid, politically motivated, lacked legislative purpose, and offered alternatives like public hearings or written declarations. They disputed some characterizations but proposed the limited, no-transcript setup as a compromise.
- **Comer's Rejection**: As detailed in his post, he called it "ridiculous" and "untenable," citing entitlement to special treatment, Bill Clinton's history (impeachment for perjury-related issues in 1998, law license suspension), the need for transparency (comparing to released transcripts from Bill Barr and Alex Acosta), and the insult to the public demanding answers on Epstein's crimes.
- **Contempt Proceedings**: A markup session occurred on January 21, 2026 (today in this timeline), to consider and advance resolutions recommending the full House hold both in contempt of Congress. Comer emphasized during the session that "subpoenas are not mere suggestions" and displayed materials highlighting Epstein connections. If passed by the committee (likely along party lines), it could proceed to a full House vote, potentially referring to the DOJ for criminal prosecution (fines/jail time possible, though rare and enforcement complex historically).

### Broader Context and Partisan Divide
The probe is ongoing since 2025, targeting various former officials. Republicans portray the Clintons' defiance as evading accountability and special treatment for elites. Critics (including Democrats on the committee) argue it's selective/political targeting, noting inconsistencies in pursuing other witnesses (e.g., DOJ records) and broader Epstein ties (including figures like Donald Trump). No accusations of wrongdoing against the Clintons have been made in this context—they maintain cooperation via other means and challenge the subpoenas' validity.

This aligns with coverage from the Oversight Committee's site, major outlets (NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, Guardian, Politico, Fox-affiliated), and real-time X discussions (including Comer's post and committee hearing clips). Developments could continue, such as the committee vote outcome or any appeals/legal challenges. If you're referring to a specific aspect or need more on updates, let me know!

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:

Clinton royalty

The post you shared is a **direct quote** from Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer), the Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. He posted this statement on X (formerly Twitter) on January 20, 2026, amid ongoing developments in the committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and associated networks.

### Key Details from Comer's Statement and Related Reporting
- The House Oversight Committee issued **bipartisan subpoenas** (approved unanimously by Republicans and Democrats on a subcommittee in July 2025) requiring **Bill Clinton** and **Hillary Clinton** to appear for **transcribed, under-oath depositions**.
- Both Clintons did not appear for their scheduled depositions (Bill Clinton's was set for January 13, 2026, and Hillary Clinton's around January 14, 2026, after prior rescheduling attempts).
- In response to looming **contempt of Congress** proceedings, the Clintons' lawyers (including longtime attorney David Kendall) proposed an alternative: an informal "conversation" in New York with only Comer (and possibly the ranking Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia), limited staff, **only involving former President Bill Clinton**, **no other committee members**, and **no official transcript**.
- Comer rejected this as "ridiculous" and "untenable," arguing it shows entitlement to special treatment, lacks accountability (no formal record), and contradicts the subpoenas' requirements.
- He highlighted Bill Clinton's past (impeachment for perjury-related issues in 1998 and suspension from law practice) as a reason for insisting on sworn, transcribed testimony.
- For Hillary Clinton, he cited her relevant knowledge: her role as Secretary of State on countering international sex trafficking, personal acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Clintons' family ties to Epstein.
- The committee has released other transcripts (e.g., from former AG Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta) for public transparency, contrasting with the proposed no-transcript setup.
- **Contempt proceedings** were scheduled to begin on January 21, 2026 (today in the query's timeline), with a markup session to vote on resolutions holding both Clintons in contempt. If passed by the committee, it could advance to a full House vote, potentially referring the matter for criminal prosecution (though enforcement is rare and politically complex).

### Broader Context
This is part of a longer-running Oversight Committee probe (starting in 2025) into Epstein/Maxwell's sex-trafficking network, federal handling of related cases, and potential legislative reforms. The subpoenas targeted multiple figures (e.g., former officials like James Comey, Merrick Garland), but the Clintons' defiance drew particular attention due to their documented social ties to Epstein (e.g., Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's plane, photos, etc.). The Clintons and their team have argued the subpoenas lack a valid legislative purpose, are politically motivated, and that they've cooperated in other ways (e.g., written declarations). One Clinton spokesperson disputed aspects of Comer's characterization, saying they "never said no to a transcript."

The situation remains highly partisan: Republicans frame it as accountability and no one being above the law; critics see it as selective targeting amid other ongoing political probes.

This matches breaking news coverage from sources like the committee's official site, The New York Times, ABC News, Fox News, The Hill, and others as of January 21, 2026. The contempt markup was set for today, so further developments (e.g., vote outcome) may emerge soon.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)