Friday, May 25

DOJ/FBI "redact" price of a conference table ordered by McCabe...cuz, national security

Democrats, echoed endlessly by the Lying Mainstream Media:  The only reason FBI and DOJ have "redacted" documents is to avoid the grave damage to our national security that would occur if they turned over the unprotected documents to the House or senate.  You can totally trust both us and the FBI/DOJ, because none of us would ever lie to the American public.  Swearsies.

Well...two days ago Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed that in one of the docs the senate had demanded that the FBI produce, the FBI had "redacted" (blacked out) the cost of an expensive conference table ordered by former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was fired for lying under oath. 

Cost of the conference table?  $70,000.

Ah, so this is what the FBI considers a "national security issue," eh?

But you can totally trust them, citizen.  Blacking out this number was just an accident.  The FBI and DOJ only black out something in a document did that go again?  Oh yeah: "to avoid doing grave damage to national security."   Yeh, dat's it.  But of course accidental "redactions" do happen.  Cuz we're all just human, right citizen?  And besides, the task of redacting was left to some low-level minor bureaucrat, just like the guy in Hilliary's State Department who signed off on the sale of 15% of our uranium leases to a company controlled by Russia.  Cuz we can't expect top people to do that sort of trivial scut-work.

Oooh, wait: Grassley said many of the redactions within the documents made no sense, and clearly were not made to protect national security secrets. can totally trust the DOJ under the fabulously ethical Rod Rosenstein.  Yep yep yep.

Former Attorney-general: Mueller's appointment violated DOJ regs, was legally defective

Former Attorney-General Mike Mukasey has written an opinion piece for a national paper claiming that Rod Rosenstein's appointment of special counsel Robert Muller violated DOJ regs.  Here's the crux:

Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.

Because Attorney General Sessions had worked on the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy A-G — Rod Rosenstein — made the decision to appoint a special counsel. 

The regulations require that all such appointments recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, Rosenstein's initial appointment of  Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.

Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to publicly disclose a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.
BTW, right in the middle of Mukasey's hard-hitting piece, USAToday inserted this piece of anti-Trump propaganda:
OUR VIEW: Mueller's investigation is so serious, let's hope he finishes soon
So how does this affect us now?  If Mueller had found any evidence of "collusion with Russia" that would have been leaked to the Lying Mainstream Media within two days.  OTOH, if he finds no evidence of any collusion, does anyone believe his final report will say that?  Of course not.  Instead the report--which will almost certainly be released a month before the mid-term elections--will say something like this:
"Despite overwhelming evidence *suggesting* collusion, and our doing everything possible to get members of the Trump campaign and administration to admit that the campaign colluded with Russia, no one would confess.  Thus we *reluctantly conclude* that recommending impeachment or indictment would be a waste of time. 
So 'for the good of the country' we will close this investigation by saying that while the president almost certainly did collud with Russia to rig the election and thus steal it from his overwhelmingly-favored Democratic opponent, any penalty for these likely acts must be left to congress or voters.
And with that deft bit of propaganda, the Trump administration will be hamstrung.

Mission accomplished.
Now: Surely some upper-level FBI agents know what happened.  They could come forward, first in secret, telling what they know.  Then once the tale of total, rampant corruption in the FBI had been completely revealed, their roles as honest men of integrity would be secured.

But as far as anyone here in flyover country knows, no such agent has come forward.
242 years ago the most forward-thinking men on the planet pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to found this nation.

Today the most important consideration is "muh pensionz."

Sad.  And it speaks volumes about what's happened to American society.

In the dim, distant past editors often quoted this phrase: "Our nation is a nation of laws, not of men." What that meant was that no one--regardless of power--was above the law.  The law was to be applied equally to all, regardless of a person's wealth or power.  Obviously that didn't prevent corruption, but as far as we can tell it worked reasonably well.

But today we have two sets of laws--one for Connected people and a second for Ordinary people.  If you're part of the Connected class you can get away with damn near anything, while members of the second group are hammered for breaking any of the 482,000 rules in the federal code.

Liberals seem to think there's nothing wrong with having two sets of rules/laws.  (At least no liberal "elite" has ever written anything critical of this condition.)  Never dawns on 'em that this could have any detrimental effect at all on our society.

Look around you, libs:  How's life in big cities?  Is crime up or down?  (In many cities the "official" stats say down.  Stories in the local papers suggest that's not true.  Say, you don't think Democrat rulers of the big cities would possibly be lying about crime rates to make themselves look better, do ya'?  Why, that's like claiming Dem-run school districts deliberately avoid charging young offenders of Preferred Pigmentation with crimes to curry favor with the Obama administration. Un-possible, citizen!)

If our society is getting more lawless, how do libs explain it?  Are incomes down?  Cost of living going way up?  People being forced to steal to survive?  ("Tale of Two Cities")  No to all.

So how so Dems and liberals explain it?

Can't possibly have anything to do with corruption, and "two sets of laws," right?  Cuz, how in the world would any member of the criminal class figure out that the elites--including top FBI and DOJ officials--were skating for crimes that would put anyone else in jail for 20 years?  I mean, it's just too, too esoteric.  No one could possibly make that connection.

But by all means, vote Dem in November.  We really, really need to reign in this awful, raaaacis' orange president and his party of scoundrels, so we can keep the "two sets of laws" principle on which this nation was founded.

Thursday, May 24

WaPo: "IF the FBI use an 'informant' it was to *protect* Trump, not to go after him"

Actual headline in the totally Trump-hating Washington Post:
IF the FBI used an informant it wasn't to go after Trump; it was to protect him
Seriously.  And of course one day later James Clapper admitted they had indeed placed a "spy" in the Trump campaign.  Of course he quickly stammered that he really hated using that term, and preferred the term "informant."

Oh, yes, certainly.  The word "informant" instead of "spy" changes everything, from "Wow, this looks very nearly criminal" to "Hey, no problem."

And certainly, surely, all dumb deplorables who voted for Trump totally believe the Post's claim that IF the FBI did the campaign, it was totally to protect Trump.

Uh-huh.  Yep yep yep.  Sure do believe that, libbies.  I mean, it just sounds so logical.  So reasonable.  So believable.  Especially if we conveniently ignore the thousands of emails between FBI special agent Peter Strzok and his mistress saying "We need an insurance policy" against the million-to-one chance of Trump winning--unless "we" take action to block even that tiny possibility.

Yeah.  You bet.

Y'know, I think every single shithead on the Post has been eating their own propaganda for so long that they really believe those of us outside the Beltway are as dumb and gullible as their incessant propaganda says we are.

Reported two-thirds of students aren't proficient in reading. But back in 1910...

You may have heard that two-thirds of the students in American high schools reportedly tested "below proficient" in reading.  But you may be more surprised to learn that back in 1910, in most states over 99% of school kids were reportedly proficient in reading. 

So what happened to make the percentage of proficient readers plunge so sharply?  Has the average intelligence fallen that much, maybe due to CO2 or pesticides in the air, or fluoridated water, or PCB's in drink containers?

Maybe.  But another theory blames a teaching method called "sight reading."  Introduced in the 1930's as THE hot new way to teach reading, its proponents wanted it to replace the "old" (thus allegedly inferior) way--called "phonics"--with rote memorization of the shape and length of words.

Seems crazy, eh?  There are so many times more words than just phonetic sounds that this supposedly NEW, IMPROVED! method would seem to all but the most committed ideologue to be far worse than the way people had learne to read for centuries.

But when the "experts" at the nation's allegedly top universities reaffirmed this new method, amazingly almost all local schools fell in line to do it the "improved" way.  Of course some school boards didn't surrender right away but argued with the "experts" that the new method was dumb.  As in, incredibly, obviously, screamingly stupid.  But the experts wouldn't relent....cuz, see, they were professors at prestigious schools like Hahvahd and Yale, so they must be right.  HAD to be right, eh?

It would be fabulous if some agency *not* associated with the federal government would survey, say, 10,000 random school systems and see how many had an official policy on this, one way or the other.  That would enable people to compare, y'know, actual results of the two teaching methods.

Somehow I suspect the school systems in big, Democrat-controlled cities would order their people not to respond.  Can't imagine why.

Dems claim the U.S. too tough on crime; do you agree?

Is the U.S. too tough on criminals?  Depends on who you listen to.  The Lying Mainstream Media say yes, and I suspect most liberals and Democrats agree.  Similarly, I suspect most Republicans say no.

So how often would you guess that a convicted felon is sentenced to more than, say, a year in prison?

You may be surprised to learn that in 2009, in the 75 largest U.S. counties by population, only 36 percent of convicted felons in 2009 were sentenced to prison.  Another 37 percent were sentenced to jail, where sentences top out at one year--but the felon is usually released in a few weeks or months. 

The other 27 percent of convicted felons got probation or "treatment."

And note that these aren't the percentage of those merely charged with a felony, but of those actually convicted of one.

What's even more astonishing is the number of people walking around free with 5 or more felony convictions who've managed to avoid all but a few months of jail time.  The system has left them free to rob and kill again and again, and can't seem to get around to putting 'em away for, say, 20 years as incorrigible, repeat offenders.  This despite 28 states having "repeat offender"/"three strikes" laws designed to do just that.

It would be great if someone would ask all politicians "Do you believe repeat violent criminals should be imprisoned for life after the 3rd or 4th offense, or do you think such laws should be abolished?"  Gosh, if only there was some sort of vocation that paid people for asking things like this.

"World Scout Movement" requires condoms be provided at U.S. scout jamboree; what sort of sex are they expecting?

This post will indeed get to the title point, but some background is vital:

For decades, Communists have been using a brilliant strategy:  Use liberals in target nations to destroy their own society.  One of the most successful ways to do this is to push the following idea:
We're all One World, all one people.  Since that's true, obviously there's no need for nations to have armed forces, because why would any nation want to go to war when we're people, one world?  And in an era of "one world," 'nationalism' is totally...provencial.  Backward.  Primitive.  Stupid.  Instead, enlightened people--and you are enlightened, right?--need to demand more sophisticated ways of thinking:  All your national organizations should become "World organizations."
And as you might have guessed, when liberals agreed that "world" organizations were, y'know, so much more sophisticated, guess who had the rules and staff for every such organization already selected, written up and ready to go?

The staffers chosen for such organizations weren't Russian but were third-world nationals.  They didn't have any obvious ties to communism, but many had been educated in the Soviet Union and in fact were reliable assets.

Point of the above is, any organization with "World..." in its title is almost certainly controlled by the communists.  World Council of Churches, to name one of many examples.

Which brings us to a thing called the "World Scout Jamboree," to be held in West Virginia from July 21 to Aug. 1, with the theme “Unlock a New World.”

According to the official promotional material, the "World Scout Jamboree" is an "official event" of the World Organization of the Scout Movement--so your alarms should be going off.  The Boy Scouts (soon to be renamed "Scouts BSA") are co-hosting this event with scouting organizations of  Canada and Mexico. 

With "World..." so prominently featured, liberals are totally excited about this international festival.

But buried deep in the "World Organization of Scouting Movement" handbook is a...curious...requirement:  the host organization "must ensure that condoms are readily and easily accessible for all participants AND [International Service Team staff] at a number of locations on the site.”

Andy Chapman, vice chairperson [the World Organization used that PC term] of the "World Scout Committee," quickly tried to trivialize this bizarre requirement.  In a written statement Chapman wrote that this requirement has "been in place" for the past two World Scout Jamborees.

Ah, well, nevermind then.  If it's been a requirement for the past two "Jamborees" it must be perfectly innocuous and you shouldn't question it.  Because "settled, longstanding policy."

I just wish some reporter would have asked Andy Chapman (or any of the other dipshits in the "World Organization of the Scout Movement" this question:
Other than the joke use as water balloons, condoms have only one purpose:  to make sex safer.  Since there are not, as yet, any girls in this organization, tell us, Mr. Chapman, what kind of sex the World Organization of the Scout Movement thinks may or will occur at this event?
And why the specific requirement that condoms be "readily and easily accessible for...the International Service Team staff"?  This implies that the staff will be using same.  Can you explain why this is a reasonable thing for your organization to encourage?
One of the most effective ways to defeat a nation is to convince most of its young men that their way of life--their nation--isn't worth defending.  Oviously this requires a long time to do, but it does work.  And one of the ways you accomplish this is by convincing young men that many of the admired institutions around them are corrupt, fraudulent, not what they profess to be.

At that point they're "easy pickins."

Most Americans think this is tinfoil-hat stuff--simply nutty conjecture, without a shred of evidence.

If you agree, I suggest you study recent history:  In the period before WW2, "internationalists" had so thoroughly taken over the prestige universities of Britain that the leaders of the Oxford student union openly declared that if war came, they would refuse to fight.

There's a reason highschools don't teach real history anymore.

Wednesday, May 23

16-year-old runs over officer in suburban Baltimore

Americans, meet the future.  This particular future is named Dawnta Anthony Harris, and he is allegedly 16.

Young D's claim to his 15 minutes of infamy is that he and three of his homies--ages 15, 16 and 17--were robbing a home near Baltimore at 2pm.  Neighbor spotted 'em and called the cops, reporting the perps arrived in a black Jeep Wrangler. 

Minutes later officer Amy Caprio--four years on the force--arrived and ordered Dawnta out of the vehicle.  Instead he ran over her, fatally injuring her. 
 The Jeep was later found abandoned nearby, and officers found Harris about a block away. Prosecutors said Harris had the keys to the Jeep in his pocket when police questioned him, and when they left, he tried to hide them under the seat.

Harris later admitted he was the driver while his three homies were robbing the house.  He told officers he saw the officer drive up, and when she got out of her car and ordered him to get out of the Jeep he said he “drove at the officer."

The officer’s body camera clearly shows the Jeep accelerating toward her. She fired one shot and was then run over by the vehicle. She was taken to the hospital and died about 30 minutes later.

Astonishingly, when Dawnta ran over the officer Caprio he was on house arrest for car theft, and was wearing an "ankle bracelet."  This didn't deter Dawnta a bit, and thus worked about as well as you'd imagine.

At his bail hearing prosecutors said Harris had stolen not just one but four cars just since December, and vanished from his mother's house days before he allegedly killed the officer.

So, how do you think BLM, Antifa, Democrats, social justice warriors and similar will react to this story?  At the moment they're silent, trying to decide how to spin this.  My guess is these organizations will hail Dawnta as a hero of the left, who was simply "fighting for social justice" against brutal, raaacis' cops.  They'll claim the Jeep accelerated on its own.  Or that he tried to step on the brake but accidentally hit the accelerator instead.

But when the cameras are turned off they'll praise him for killing someone who was impeding him from exercising his right to commit crimes.

As I said at the top:  Meet the future.

Illegal-alien driver flees from traffic stop, crashes; ACLU blames ICE

In Kern County, California, agents pulled over a car.  The driver initially stopped, then floored the accelerator and took off.  A short distance away the driver lost control and struck a power pole, killing Marcelina Garcia Profecto and Santo Hilario Garcia--both of whom "are believed to be undocumented Americans."

Surprising no one, pro-illegal-alien activists immediately blamed...ICE.

Using amazing telepathic powers, the president of the United Farm Workers union said "Once the family realized it was ICE, they got scared, more than likely, and took off."  He said the deaths wer "a result of these aggressive actions by ICE."

Similarly, the "director of immigrants’ rights" at the ACLU of Southern California blamed ICE for the crash, citing “inhumane tactics and the fear it provokes in hardworking people who stand to lose everything if they are deported."

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said "This tragedy is entirely a result of the extremist, raacist policies of the Nazi president Trump, who has given his raacist ICE thugs permission to terrorize innocent undocumented Americans, under the guise of 'enforcing' unfair, outdated, Republican immigration laws.  We need to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here and vote Democrat."

Some of that last 'graf may have been garbled in transmission.  Hard to tell anymore.

Leftist loon writing for fashion mag praises Rosenstein and his refusal to comply with congress's demand

If you think the Left isn't trying to depose president Trump, here's an article that may convince you.  It's from the mens' fashion mag Esquire, by one Charles Pierce, titled
For Now, We'll Trust That Rod Rosenstein Is Playing the President* Like a Five-Cent Violin
sub-head: "The indications are the Deputy AG is a crafty bureaucrat."

Before we start, you'll note Pierce's cute use of asterisks every time he uses "president" or "administration."  He doesn't explain the meaning, but undoubtedly it's an inside joke for regular readers of the rag.
Every day that Robert Mueller and his tunnel rats continue to labor under the foul mire that is this administration* is a day when the White House loses. Every day in which Mueller goes home at night still in the same job is a day when the president* is one day closer to possibly losing his.

So it’s easy to read too much into the meeting late Monday afternoon when deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI director Chris Wray dropped by the White House to talk to the president* in response to the latest administration* fever dream about how the previous administration had gone all Gordon Liddy on the Trump campaign—and just because that campaign was lousy with crooks, mountebanks, and influence-pedding in a dozen different languages.

So, Rosenstein and Wray dropped by and, when the meeting was over, the three principals issued a very curious statement. It stated that the DOJ’s inspector-general will expand his ongoing investigation to include “tactics” employed by the FBI in its investigation of the Trump campaign. Further:
"It was also agreed that White House Chief of Staff Kelly will immediately set up a meeting with the FBI, DOJ, and DNI together with congressional leaders to review highly classified and other information they have requested."
Nobody seems to know what that second part means. The intelligence community would be out of its mind to hand over material vitally important to its investigation to the leakiest White House since before they put the roof on the joint. At the same time, it seems that Rosenstein have agreed to give to the administration* material that the FBI has fought tooth-and-claw to keep from the congressional Republicans. 

For the moment I’m going to give Rosenstein credit for being a gifted bureaucratic infighter and survivor who has played the president* like a five-cent violin.  There are a dozen ways for Rosenstein to slow-play the review of any classified documents. I think the president* got played on behalf of all of us. [italics added]
You really have to laugh at that last italicized phrase.  By "all of us," of course, he means all the insane Dems and leftists for whom no act is off-limits if it deposes the president.

Total venom.  And note that Pierce wrote this after the WaPo and NYTimes printed the name of the (first) FBI spy planted in the Trump campaign, yet he's wailing about how awful it would be for "the intel community" to give material vital to its investigation to the White House because there have been so many leaks from the White House!

Wow.  Hypocrisy much?  

These are the ravings of a totally deranged Leftist.  But then, that's the norm for the Lying Mainstream Media.  And while the WaPo would snark that a fashion mag doesn't belong in that category, the thinking is certainly all too common.

Writer in mens' fashion mag tips Dems' hand: "I actually do want to take your guns--all of 'em."

For years liberals and Democrats have been lying that they don't actually want to take everyone's guns away, just what they cunningly, ignorantly, falsely call "military weapons."  Like, you know, weapons that fire one round per trigger pull.  Cuz gun owners call those "automatic," even though they're really just "semi-auto."

But I digress.  Point is that girly-man magazines--those designed to sell expensive clothes to fops--have long been far left.  They hate guns.  And now one has dropped the pretense of Leftists and Dems not wanting to actually ban private gun ownership.

Here's the article by a wuss by the name of Dave Holmes, in fashion mag Esquire:
Hey there, NRA:
Listen, I know the moments after a gunman opens fire in a school are hectic for you. You have to get your talking points together, you have to mentally prepare to debate a traumatized yet sensible child, you have to look at yourself in the mirror and practice saying that more guns would have made the situation less deadly. It’s a busy time! And since we are always either in the moments after or the moments before a mass shooting, you’re pretty much always busy, I have noticed!
Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I now actually do want to take your guns.
All of your guns.

Right now.
Isn't it amazing, Dave, that guns have been available to ordinary teenagers for over a century, yet mass school shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon?  Rational people would take that as proving that guns aren't the cause.  Instead, it's young, deranged copycats, who know they'll get their 15 minutes of fame.

But of course the idea of private gun ownership as the ultimate defense against criminals, abusive spouses or an abusive government never crosses your mind, eh?  Cuz you aren't a woman (um, maybe we need to investigate that a bit more) and you don't mind a leftist government that controls everything.

So we're not surprised, Dave.  It's just the way you creatures roll.

Oh, but Dave isn't finished yet.  Here he is again:
I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives. I want Ted Nugent to roam the halls of his gunless house, sighing wearily until he dies. I want to end this thing once and for all, so that all of you who have prioritized the sale of guns over the lives of children have to sit quietly and think about what you’ve done. God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.
You really want to take my guns by yourself, personally?  Somehow I doubt you would really have the stones to try that, even if the Democrats made it the law of the land.  Oh, I don't doubt you have the desire to do that, just that you wouldn't have the stones to do it yourself.  Instead your party would order big, armed cops to take the guns, so that you wouldn't be at risk of being killed.

Cuz that's the way you creatures roll.

Isn't it interesting:  Illegal and unprescribed drugs kill something like 60,000 Americans per year, many of them barely out of highschool.  Yet we don't hear you calling for illegal drugs to be further criminalized.  Cars kill more people each year than guns, and many of those killed or horribly injured are helpless children, but because cars have a useful purpose, we don't see you demonizing cars.  You reserve your girly-man tantrum solely for another thing that has many hugely useful purposes.

You just don't see what those are.  And you don't agree with the usefulness of some of those purposes.  Nevertheless, you insist that we listen to you, and do as you demand.

In that case, come and take them.  Yourself.  Personally.

In Venezuela, prices are doubling every 17.5 DAYS; U.S. media refuse to cover it

People under about 60 don't have any real idea about how utterly, totally destructive inflation is, or what causes it.  And that's not your fault, cuz the Lying Mainstream Media totally ignore the whole topic.

And why does the media ignore inflation?  Because it's what eventually happens to countries that go all-in on what might be called "full socialist mania."

Many older Americans learned about one example of hyperinflation, and how it destroyed one of the most civilized nations in the world and set the stage for WW2:  In Germany after WW1 politicians foolishly believed governments could print as much currency as they wished, without consequence.  Didn't work out well:  inflation was so awful that companies ended up having to pay employees every DAY, because prices were doubling in a week.

One of the many horrible effects of high inflation is that it wipes out the value of saving money, and makes saving money foolish.  If no one saves, banks have no money to loan, making it impossible to get a mortgage, or start or expand a business.

Oooh, who could have foreseen those results, eh?

Fortunately politicians learned from Germany's horrible experience.

Hahahahaha!  Just kidding!  Politicians and learning?  Never happens.

And thus we segue to the ghastly train wreck that is...Venezuela.  Which in 1980 had the highest per-capita income in all of Latin America.  Now utterly wrecked, by idiot socialist dictators and their dumb socialist policies.  So now you can see why the Lying Media doesn't cover Venezuela:  Hurts the Democrats' narrative.

Thanks to the policies of socialist dictator Nicholas Maduro, prices in Venezuela are doubling every 17.5 days.
So inflation has totally wiped out Venezuela's middle-class.  (Hey, no big deal: Marx said the middle-class were all  "bourgeous shopkeepers" who should be killed when the revolution came.) 

And yet the lower classes--who don't have any education and know nothing of history or economics--still seem to support Maduro.  At least the alleged results of the country's recent election (which may be fraudulent) showed Maduro getting about two-thirds of the vote. 

See, the huge attraction of socialism for politicians is that stupid, uneducated voters--what we call "low-information voters"--love socialism, because it gives 'em "free stuff."  And in shithole countries so many people are poor and uneducated that pushing socialism is a sure winner for wanna-be dictators.

Which brings us to...the U.S.  Bernie Sanders is a self-admitted socialist.  Has never held a job outside of government.  An articulate, somewhat charismatic scammer--except he probably doesn't realize socialism is a disaster.  And is unable to learn from the experience of other countries.

So Bernie has proposed 1) free college for everyone; 2) a "guaranteed national income" (i.e. free money without having to work); 3) forgiving all student loans; and so on.  Who can be surprised that a huge number of young Americans--including college students--support him and his policies?

So how does he propose to, um, pay for all these so-called "freebies"?  Frankly no reporter has asked him--cuz they don't want to put him on the spot.  But surely he'll find a way--after all, the government owns the printing presses, right?  Why can't they just print off as much money as they like?

Why indeed.


Tuesday, May 22

Democrat congresstwirp claims idea of a spy in Trump's campaign is "nonsense"

Submitted for your consideration, a "tweet" from one of the more obnoxious Democrat congresstwits, Adam Schiff, just two days ago, in which he claims...

As you see, Schiff claimed "Trump's claim of an embedded 'spy' is nonsense. His 'demand' [that] DOJ investigate something they know to be untrue is an abuse of power....DOJ has warned that lives and alliances are at risk. [apparently Schiff means at risk if investigation reveals a spy, though the mechanism isn't clear]

The hoot is, Schiff tweeted this two days ago--after FBI leakers had told the Washington Post and NY Times "informant's" identity-- which they had already revealed before you tweeted your scathing opinion.

So which is it, Adam:  Is the president's claim of an FBI spy in his campaign "nonsense," as you claimed, or are the WaPo and Times wrong about the "informant"?

And if, as you so chillingly claimed, "lives and alliances are at risk" by this revelation, will you now blame the WaPo and Times?  I'm absolutely sure you won't. Yet you were eager to blame Trump if he'd done the same.  How...typical.

Can you say "hypocrite," Adam? Can you say "Typical Democrat double-standard"? Sure you can.

WaPo does total reversal in two weeks. Someone wants to protect something big

Washington Post, May 8:  "Revealing the name of the 'informant' the FBI put in Trump's campaign could endanger his life, do grave harm to national security!"
     subhead:  "Just demanding that the FBI provide unredacted information to congressional oversight committee would risk the life of FBI source."

Washington Post, two weeks later:  "Let's Talk About This Stefan Halper Fellow In Detail"
     subhead:  Here's the 'informant's' name & bio that FBI sources leaked to us. 

For the Post to totally reverse themselves in just two weeks--going from dutifully pushing the FBI/DOJ claim that revealing the name would do grave harm to national security, to revealing the guy's identity (which they claimed just two weeks earlier would do grave harm...), suggests they're willing to lose tons of credibility with undecided/independent voters.

Now think:  What would prompt them to reverse their oh-so-dramatic position so sharply and so soon?  My guess is that they're following orders from their friends/sources at FBI/DOJ.  And for those sources to demand this large a loss of face from the Post, the sources must be trying to conceal a much more important secret--and they're trying hard.

Either that or the editors at the Post don't read their own bullshit--i.e. they're incompetent.

And y'know, that is a tough call.

Democrat leaders Schumer and Pelosi outline their party's midterm strategy; wow!

When Democrat party leaders want to get propaganda out to voters, all they have to do is announce a "press conference" and invite their supporters from the various Democrat media outlets that masquerade as "entertainment networks."  The scribes will ensure that their bidding is done perfectly.

Sure enough, two days ago Nancy Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer held court on the capitol steps, and their media allies at NBC faithfully conveyed their propaganda to the peons.  (That would be us.)

NBC's website posted the astonishing performance under the title
Turning up the heat on Trump: Dems say 'culture of corruption' to be focus of midterms

Subhead: "The party has decided to go full drain-the-swamp on the president's administration, after debating whether to target economic issues or alleged wrongdoing in the coming elections.

The first thing one notices is, what are the Democrats doing echoing one of president Trump's most popular campaign slogans? You know they don't actually have even the slightest intention of "draining the swamp"--the cesspool of unelected, permanent "deep-state" left-wing bureaucrats that ensure the federal government just continues to do what the Left wants, no matter who's president--since it's exactly this pool of treasonous rat-bastard leftist holdovers that keep the Dems in power no matter who wins.

Then you finally realize that the Democrat whores didn't actually use that term.  Instead, NBC used it for them, knowing full well it was one of Trump's most popular campaign slogans.  Now why would the rat-bastards at NBC do that?

You don't suppose they did it to try to fool low-information voters into thinking the Democrats actually supported the president's efforts to get rid of the haughty, unelected, overpaid, over-pensioned super-bureaucrats who daily run roughshod over your rights, do ya?

Oh, but the malicious, lying sacks at NBC are just getting started!  To emphasize the fiction that the Dems are gonna "drain the swamp," NBC added they're promising they're going to
...make prosecuting what they called a "culture of corruption" in President Donald Trump's administration a central theme of this year's midterm elections.
You think I'm kidding. You can't imagine the useless liars at NBC would be so brazen, so dishonest, as to steal one of Trump's most popular ideas and put it forth as if it was the Democrats' idea.  It's just too, too brazen, too huge of a deception.  But sure enough, here's Chuckie:
"The swamp has never been more foul or more feted than under this president," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at a news conference on the Capitol steps.

The strategy is a bit of a departure for Democrats, who have so far focused more on advancing their own economic ideas and middle-class pocketbook agenda rather than taking on Trump.
Really?  NBC wants you to believe "Democrats...have so far focused more on advancing...middle-class pocketbook agenda"?  Wow, that's a whopper!  Guess that's why not a single congressional Democrat voted for the Trump tax cuts, eh?  Cuz they're so focused on...what was that again?  Oh yeah: "advancing middle-class pocketbook agenda."

See, that last phrase is so stilted,"circumlocutory" (avoids saying something in a straightforward way)...that two minutes after you read it, you've forgotten what it meant.  Which of course is the entire point.

To drive the point home that the Dems are all about helping regular folks, here's another senior Dem congresswhore:
"The problem is that a lot of people hear that (economic) message, they agree with that message, but they're not convinced that we can actually get it done because they view Washington as captured by special interests," Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., who helped craft the new strategy, told NBC News.
Ummm...yessss, I can certainly see how a lot of Americans "view Washington as captured by special interests."  Kinda like why emperor Obama invited 50,000 Muslims to live in the U.S., while leaving virtually all Christians in the war zone to fend for themselves.
He added at the news conference: "The people know what happens when a culture of corruption takes hold. Government works for somebody else and not for them."
Yeah, congressman, I think we've all got that one figured out.  And better yet, we know who's been running that "culture of corruption" for decades.  And it's not conservatives.
It's an effort to provide an overarching framework of the myriad scandals in Washington, from Scott Pruitt's Environment Protection Agency to the Trump-Russia saga, arguing that they all come back to a culture in which donors are rewarded, not voters.
"Instead of delivering on his promise to drain the swamp, President Trump has become the swamp," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Republicans in the White House and the Congress are cravingly beholden to big money interest and the American people are paying the price."
Oh yes, certainly, dahling.  We believe you.  Really.  But the real howler came from Chuckie:
"Too many Americans don’t know what we stand for," Schumer said.
No, Chuck, I'm pretty sure we know what you stand for.  You still want to undermine American values, give illegal aliens more rights than citizens, trash our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, coddle and release terrorists, line your bank accounts in ways that would get normal citizens arrested, break laws that would put most of us in jail, undermine a duly elected president and spy on citizens who say things you don't like. 

In short, Chuck, you and your party support exactly the opposite of the principles America was founded on. So yeah, we know exactly what you stand for.

View image on Twitter

Let's repeat that so everyone gets it: "Not a SINGLE Democrat voted for it."

"But...but...but...Democrats keep saying they're the party of the 'little guy' against the big corporations.  Why wouldn't they vote for a bill that would trigger such a massive benefit to the average working stiff?"

Yeah.  Why indeed.

It's with profound disappointment that I've come to the conclusion that most members of the Democratic party would rather see the U.S. conquered by Islam than support even a great Republican program.  To Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Hilliary Clinton, emperor Barack and Michelle Obozo and most others, any disastrous outcome is preferable to doing the 'right' thing, if that thing was proposed by Republicans.

More on massive Somali daycare fraud in MN

So, you've surely read about the massive ($100 Million) day-care-center fraud committed by an organized group of Somalis in Minneapolis to fund Islamic terrorism, right?

Oh come on, citizen.  How often does the nation see an organized fraud of $100 million that doesn't involve the federal government?  By all accounts this should have been a huge story.  Yet you never heard of it?  Why, that almost sounds un-possible, comrade.  Cuz our national media pushed it right to the front pages of all the big...

Hahahahahaha!  Just kidding.  The story got a little play in the Peoples' Republic of Minnesota, but quickly vanished because massive fraud by certain protected groups is just not a big deal, apparently.  Similarly, it barely made a ripple nationally.  Most people learned about it from the Net.

Here's a summary from the reliable City Journal:

In the past year airport authorities in Minneapolis noted that a stunning number of Somali passengers flying to that country had their carry-on bags stuffed with millions of dollars in cash.  This seemed to happen on a regular basis.

Surprisingly (to most of us ordinary folks, anyway), carrying millions in cash overseas is legal, but airport cops were curious to know the source of such huge amounts cash.  It soon emerged that the millions were from a scheme most people would think impossible:  fraudulent claims for state-subsidized daycare.

See, Democrats in Minnesota (as in many other states) decided to severely regulate day-care centers.  When that had the predictable effect of jacking up the cost of state-approved daycare to stratospheric levels, the same Dems had a very, very simple remedy ready to enable poor working parents to afford the cost:  Have the state pay the daycare centers for children of families making less than some arbitrary amount.

Of course by "the state" we mean taxpayers.  But then you probably knew that, right?

Last year the budget for taxpayer-subsidized daycare was a modest quarter of a BILLION dollars-- $248 million.

Now: Starting in the 1990s the U.S. State Department--directed by Bill Clinton--was keen to allow "refugees" from around the world to come to the U.S.  They paid various religious organizations hundreds of millions of dollars to settle thousands of refugees from Somalia’s civil war in Minnesota, which is now home to the largest population of Somalis outside Somalia itself--over 100,000.

State probably picked Minnesota because the native population is probably the most liberal outside of Berkeley.  No one was likely to complain.  And sure enough, no one did.

Then the law of unintended consequences started to kick in:  Left/liberal Minnesota had some of the most generous welfare and charity programs in the U.S.  And and endless number of leftist groups were eager to help the new arrivals take advantage of every possible taxpayer-funded program.

Minnesota's governor, liberal Mark Dayton, quashed public discussion by accusing critics of bigotry and intolerance. Indeed, he told native Minnesotans with qualms about immigrant resettlement “If you are intolerant, find another state.”  After that, smart state employees knew investigating scams by the immigrant community would be a career-ending move.

With all the pieces in place, a group of ten daycare centers (dozens more are suspected) began billing the state for taking care of kids from low-income (i.e. subsidized) families.  Search warrants show that each of these daycare centers billed and received several million dollars in state funds for this service.  But in many cases the children didn't exist.

According to public records and government sources, most of the centers are owned by Somali immigrants.  In some cases Somali investors helped fund new daycare centers for a cut of the huge profits.

Fortunately the financial damage is confined to Minnesota, whose residents arguably voted this on themselves.  Gosh, "elections have consequences," eh?

On the other hand, there are the absolutely certain deaths of thousands in Somalia because of half a billion dollars or so going to buy arms and pay fighters.  But hey, minor downside, eh?

New CIA director Gina Haspel is a Deep-State plant

Trump just spent lots of political effort getting his pick to head the CIA--Gina Haspel--confirmed by the senate.

The liberal press voiced mild opposition, claiming Haspel had been in charge of CIA operations in Thailand that may have used "extreme interrogation techniques."  But given the liberal press's constant bitching about such techniques (i.e. waterboarding) when Bush was president, this particular criticism of Haspel was strangely muted.  It's almost as if the media wanted to be seen as watchdogs, yet not really press an issue that could prevent the senate from confirming her as director.

The most likely reason is that Haspel is a plant--a corrupt protege of Obama's utterly corrupt former CIA director John Brennan.  She's a 30-year veteran of the CIA, and Brennan endorsed her for the directorship.  Think about that:  Would he have endorsed her without knowing she was a totally reliable ally who could be relied on not to root out corruption at the agency?

Obviously there was no down-side to Brennan saying nothing one way or the other about Haspel.  If he was concerned that she might pose a threat to him (i.e. if he had any concerns that she might be honest), he would never have endorsed her.

With Trump's nominee facing what everyone expected to be a tough confirmation battle, his endorsement arguably helped her win confirmation.  Would he have wanted a totally honest, independent director, who might well start cleaning out the corruption at the agency--and exposing Brennan's corruption in the process?  Of course not.  But he did endorse her for the top job.  QED.

Another interesting coincidence: Crossfire Hurricane was the codename for Brennan and Comey’s operation in London.  Strzok, Steele, Downer, Papadopoulos, Misfud, Halper, and Page meetings were all based in London.  Guess who was the CIA's London Station Chief in 2016?

Gina Haspel.  Meaning she had to have been aware of the operation.  Yet went along with the illegality.

As I said: a totally corrupt actor.  A plant. 

My guess is that one of Trump's "advisors" suggested the president could score points with women voters by nominating the first woman as CIA director.  Other presidential advisors would have assumed Haspel wasn't corrupt, because why would an honest advisor recommend a corrupt deep-state holdover for CIA director?

Ah yes, why indeed?

Keep in mind that all presidents are totally dependent on the accuracy of what their advisors tell them about suggested nominees.  No president has first-hand information about a nominee, so if advisors propose a corrupt nominee, how can a president know the person is corrupt?

He can't, of course.  I'm pretty sure that's what happened here.

But now, with Haspel confirmed, the only possible rescue is if some lower-level CIA employee decides he or she has had it with the corruption and decides to blow the whistle--and thus to sacrifice his or her career.  And chances of that are damn near zero.

How Democrat/liberal judges and pols are allowing illegal alien criminals to stay in the U.S.

Just in case you thought the U.S. was beginning to recover some sanity regarding illegal immigration, here's what leftist judges and city pols are doing to keep illegal aliens from being deported:

Begining about six years ago, judges in Democrat-ruled cities began using their power to give foreign criminals lighter sentences for crimes that would have seen them jailed for a year.  In Denver and  cities in California and Washington state, judges have begun sentencing many foreigners who have been convicted of serious harm to 364 days instead of a full year, since a one-year sentence would trigger deportation.

In Boston, a green-card holder from Guinea-Bissau was given a 364-day sentence after robbing two banks.  (He was also a suspect in a double-murder.)  Another illegal was deported nine times before he returned to Edmonds, Washington, where he dragged a woman into an alley and raped her.

Prosecutors and judges all over the nation are choosing to charge illegal alien perps with less-serious crimes than the offense would normally warrant, for the same reason.  The ACLU is advising local pols to instruct their police officers to keep information from federal authorities.  In some cases judges have even freed criminal aliens with no penalty after the perp's attorney claimed the perp didn't know rape was against the law in the U.S.  Seriously.

Washington State has ruled that state agencies can no longer ask people for their Social Security number.  If you think this was a move to protect privacy, think again: It was passed so illegals wouldn't have to get a fake SS number to do any of the myriad things that now require that disaster.

Point is that liberal judges and pols have found dozens of creative ways to allow the illegal aliens they love to stay in the U.S, even if it means using a different standard of the law.  After all, in the enlightened era ushered in by Obama, laws are merely suggestions.

Crazy guy scares kids at park; judge simply orders crazy not to do it again

The pic below is Otis Dawayne Ryan, a resident of Florida.  Last Sunday he went to a local park--one he often visits--climbed on top of a piece of equipment and started yelling vulgarities at young children.

So far, typical crazy-person story.  But that's not the point.  Point is how our vast, overpaid, moronic legal system responded:  The judge fined him and ordered him to stay away from the park.

Let's review:  The guy is obviously either crazy, evil or both.  How many of you think a judge ordering him not to do something will have any effect whatsoever?

Yeah, that's what I thought.  And yet that's what the judge did.  And one can imagine liberal parents telling their kids "Don't worry about the man with the tattoos on his face on top of the slide yelling at everyone--he's perfectly harmless."  He might be--just as a tiger may be harmless for some period of time.  But are you willing to risk your kid's life on that bet?

Monday, May 21

Now it all makes sense

Democrat/Mainstream Media thinking, in a nutshell:

1.  Because Democrats are so much more enlightened and thoughtful than Republicans, and so popular with a huge majority of voters, no Republican should ever be able to win an election;

2.  It follows that the only way a Republican can "win" is if he (in this case, Donald Trump) or the people in his campaign did something illegal, such as collude with Russians;

3.  Accordingly, anything Democrats do to try to stop such an illegal act should not only be legal, but should be considered a moral imperative;

4.  Thus everything we do to stop Trump is legal, even if slight technicalities of the law don't entirely agree...yet.

H/T Adirondack Patriot.