Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“Why Are the Western Middle Classes So Angry?”

Because reasons.

What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s election and the “yellow vests” protests in France? What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?

Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.

Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist or nativist middle classes. Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools and safety from sudden, massive and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia into their communities.

As for trade, few still believe in “free” trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn’t elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming, or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights and patents?

The middle classes became nauseated by the constant elite trashing of their culture, history and traditions, including the tearing down of statues, the Trotskyizing of past heroes, the renaming of public buildings and streets, and, for some, the tired and empty whining about “white privilege.”

If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?

How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence, and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system—benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?

It’s long past time for folks to realize that it’s better to be pissed off than pissed on. And with the advent of Trump the Disrupter and his peeling back the lid on the can of greasy grubworms that have misruled us for lo, these many years, it’s finally beginning to happen. But if one wants to seriously delve into the reasons why anger has boosted Real Americans into apoplectic orbit, look no further than the outrageous hypocrisy of double-dealing blowflies like Adam Schitt.

Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff appears to have reversed his position on the ethics of using “stolen” information against political foes.

“It’s not OK to use materials they stole from your opponent, or to make it part of your campaign strategy,” Schiff tweeted on Sunday.

Schiff was responding to a Sunday morning interview during which Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani argued that, while he would have advised against it, “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”

But when “the Russians” contacted Schiff in 2017, offering him information that they promised would prove compromising to President Donald Trump, he had a very different reaction.

Two Russian comedians, known as Vocan and Lexus, placed a prank call to Schiff pretending to be Andriy Parubiy, the chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament. They claimed to have recordings proving that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an effort to force Trump to relax sanctions, was blackmailing the president with photographs of him and a model named Olga Buzova.

Schiff responded by asking, “What’s the nature of the kompromat?”

After being told that there were naked photos of Trump and the Russian model, Schiff instructed members of his staff to follow up — which they did, attempting to set up a meeting with Parubiy in order to move forward.

Because of course they did. After all, it’s diff’runt when Democrat-Socialists do it. Right, Schiff-for-brains?

Vocan and Lexus provided a copy of that email to The Daily Mail, at which point Schiff and his staffers claimed that they had known it was a hoax all along.

Uh huh. SURE you did, you suppurating pustule.

Y’know, I fret now and then over the horror that Civil War v2.0 will indubitably bring down on us. Then I read about some outlandish shit like the above, and suddenly a small, dark part of me just can’t wait for the ball to drop—when it will become open season, no bag limit on oxygen thieves like Schitt and his loathsome ilk.

New category, in honor of Schitt and pals: Kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out.

Share

School daze

A forgotten past will bury the ignorant.

Many of us do not know that senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures—and this change was made not that long ago. In 1913, around the beginning of the Progressive Era, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution tossed aside this critical feature of the Framers’ design, replacing it with the direct election of senators we have today.

The Founders would certainly have opposed the 17th Amendment because they would have understood that it would throw the system they gave us completely out of balance, as it, in fact, has done. It was perhaps the single change that would do the most to undo what the Founders had accomplished by means of the Constitution.

Hrrmmm; “…around the beginning of the Progressive Era,” you say? Must be a coincidence.

The Senate was once a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but the Senate has abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election. Because the state governments no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the federal government, the power of the federal government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states. State governments increasingly are relegated to functioning as administrative units of today’s gargantuan central government.

The Founders would say we no longer have a federal system, that the 17th Amendment in effect overthrew the 10th Amendment. Here is the 10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 10th has become a dead letter. Instead of retaining many of their powers and responsibilities as the Framers intended, the states are more and more entangled in administering federal programs and in carrying out federal mandates. These mandates are often not even funded by the federal government; the costs of unfunded mandates fall on the states.

The many new departments of the federal government that have accumulated in Washington, D.C. during the Progressive Era in which you and I now live, such as Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, involve themselves in, and even direct, functions the Framers left to the states.

Direct election of U.S. senators undermined this critically important protection of liberty. The erosion of Americans’ individual liberty that has resulted is no doubt the most important consequence of the change. Many of our troubles today are self-inflicted, the result of us forgetting how the Founders’ system was designed to work and the unwise changes we have made because of our forgetting.

This ignorance is no more coincidental than the insidious 17th; it was painstakingly wrought according to a plan spelled out by a whole Progressivist pantheon of treacherous villains like Alinsky, Gramsci, and Marcuse, among many others. The doom it foreshadows is a feature, not a bug. And don’t think for a minute they’re done yet, either.

Tragically, because of our forgetting, we may be on the verge of making another mistake like the one Americans made in 1913. There is a powerful movement afoot to get rid of the Electoral College, an essential constitutional safeguard of American liberty.

As you know, each state is allotted as many electoral votes as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives. To become president of the United States, one must win election state by state. Eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president by direct vote, as the progressives are determined to do, would transform the office. Its occupant would in effect become the president of the Big Cities of America, and the last vestiges of autonomy guaranteed to the individual states by the Constitution’s electoral system would be swept away.

One more time: NOT by accident, NOT coincidence. Doubt that? Don’t.

The near sole purpose of present-day academia is indoctrination. This is a fairly bold thesis, but the evidence is in its favor.

A “bold thesis”? Really? It’s nothing more nor less than established, incontrovertible fact, seems to me, but YMMV. Onwards.

The increasingly progressive leftist agenda is sweeping through academia and conservatives are passively watching it happen.

The main indoctrination stories you hear are those of radical professors on college campuses, outlandish majors created to forward social justice movements, and, on occasion, a political outburst by a high school teacher.

Although these issues need addressing, by far the biggest – and the one that should scare everyone the most – is the silent indoctrination.

Indoctrination is no longer dependent upon the political beliefs of teachers. We are now past that. Course material is blatant political propaganda. Not just the course material for gender studies and similar. The core curricula of grade school through college.

I completed my first two years of high school at Oxbridge Academy, a private school in south Florida. My last two years at were at Laurel Springs, an online private school. This gave me a whole new perspective on bias in academia.

Although I had teachers and access to tutors, I seldom interacted with either. I thought removing interaction with an individual would reduce if not eradicate bias.

I was very, very wrong.

The removal of an instructor allowed me to see just how biased course materials are. And the discussion boards with fellow students showed me just how unaware of this others were. Unless you are involved with politics to a degree, it can be easy to miss politically motivated material.

The lack of political education in combination with the demand that students trust their textbooks as reliable sources allows the left to silently indoctrinate students.

She includes some truly appalling examples from actual textbooks that ought to be deeply shocking—but aren’t. Not anymore. Which is in itself a big problem. Bottom line:

Conservatives once laughed at radical campus politics, imagining that upon impact with the “real world,” blue-haired social justice warrior activists would have to grow up and confront the hard realities of the capitalist marketplace. Instead, what’s becoming increasingly clear is that academic leftism is metastasizing off-campus, spreading into some of the world’s largest corporations as well as institutions of culture, with graduated millennial employees as its carriers.

While the right wrestles with how to deal with big technology companies’ hostility to conservative voices on their platforms, the source of that enmity goes mostly unremarked upon: Google’s highly credentialed workforce has roughly the personal politics of a faculty lounge. Regrettably, universities don’t live up to the Las Vegas adage–what begins on campus definitely does not stay there. It spills over into every aspect of our broader culture, from complaints about actors not precisely matching the intersectionality profile of the characters they portray, to the leftward tilt of America’s corporations.

Say it with me: NOT coincidence. NOT by accident. They’re working a plan…and the plan is working.

Share

Pretext for impeachment

That’s all the Mueller witch-hunt ever was, and Mr Integrity himself just inadvertently confirmed it.

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.

Mueller’s performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn’t an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus. Mueller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes he charged against Republicans. Paul Manafort was charged with unregistered lobbying for foreign governments, while Mueller left alone long-time Democrat donor Tony Podesta and former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators, while Clinton campaign cronies Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele’s false statements to Congress and the FBI were ignored. Trump’s nonexistent Russian connections were plumbed while a dubious Clinton campaign-funded dossier sourced directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial roadmap rather than rock-solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin.

Mueller claimed his report spoke for itself, then put together a completely unnecessary press conference more than a month after his report’s public release, in which he not just spoke for the report, but expounded on the new legal standards he created to govern its conclusions.

These are the actions not of an impartial and independent investigator, but of a scheming political operative.

Well, I mean, DUH. What Mueller was doing with his presser was simply passing the impeachment ball along to the Democrat-Socialists, prodding them in the direction they’ve wanted to go from the beginning.

Mueller’s equivocation and inconsistency tell you all you need to know. This was always a political hit job with two alternatively acceptable goals in mind: either they were going to impeach the president or damage and undermine him going into the 2020 elections. To be clear, I don’t think Democrats truly care which one it is so long as Donald Trump does not win reelection next year.

The fact is, Democrats have always wanted to impeach Donald Trump. From day one, unable to accept the results of the 2016 elections, they have sought to nullify them.

Now, with a strong economic tailwind at his back and a collection of Democratic Lilliputians clamoring to be the nominee against him, all of their election models are showing Trump winning re-election in 2020. Democrats, in defiance of common sense, knowing that a Republican Senate won’t remove him, want to impeach him because they think that might be the only way they can cripple him and keep him from winning again in 2020.

They keep blabbering about principle and a supposed constitutional crisis, to which I say: it’s hardly principle to launch oneself off a political cliff, but by all means, stop talking, find the nerve and do it—and be prepared to accept the political consequences for your actions at the ballot box in 2020.

Not likely; they’d much prefer to have their cake and eat it too, if a way can be found. In fact, dodging the political consequences for the destruction they’ve intentionally wrought on the country for so many decades now is a first-option MO for them by now, underpinnning a great deal of what we see them doing currently.

But I couldn’t agree more with the call for them to impeach. As I’ve already said plenty of times: JUST DO IT, you posturing, cowardly blowhards. If Trump is such a dire threat to Constitutional order, the US government, the rule of law, and the people themselves, how on earth could you possibly justify your apparent reluctance to save the country from this monster? If you truly believed your own unhinged shrieking, you wouldn’t hesitate a moment—in fact, had you an ounce of integrity and patriotism you’d have impeached him already. Duty, along with your own solemnly-sworn oaths of office, demand no less in confronting the menace to the Republic a tyrannical grotesquerie like Trump poses.

The problem being that “had you an ounce of integrity and patriotism” bit, natch. Once again, Democrat-Socialist rhetoric is belied by Democrat-Socialist conduct. They are without honor, decency, or shame. They have the moral probity of a weasel in rut; the judiciousness and restraint of a half-starved boar-hog at a full slop trough; and the courage of a crippled hyena. They are pathetic, deceitful, and utterly despicable—and that is absolutely all.

Update! RPJ shares a few concerns.

So of course the Left is talking impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. They desperately need something to fill the headlines and TV shows to drown out what’s coming. They know the coup failed, so they need to gin up their base. I was at a doctor’s appointment the other day and the TV in the lobby had some show – don’t remember which one – where they went over things and said “So, it’s not over yet”! And the smiles on their faces…giddy at the thought.

So it will be 24/7 talk of impeachment. And then, and I have no doubt, they’ll do it. Mueller gave them the pretext in his testimony. More investigations, more marinated tofu for the base (I’d say “red meat” but that might trigger any Leftard vegans reading this). All to provide something, anything, to keep the drip-drip-drip revelations from seeing the light of day.

They’ll file impeachment, and with the House being majority “D” – plus that Michigan moron Justin Amash who is currently getting the enemedia kneepad service full-on and doubtless a few other RINOs who see a chance to join in the enemedia orgasmatron – it will pass, and will go to the Senate.

Conventional wisdom is that it will die there. I’m not so convinced. We have RINO’s RINO “Mittens” Romney who, in praising Amash’s courage, seems to be sending a signal that there are GOP Senators who would go along. In parallel, I have zero doubt the Deep State-Left-Enemedia axis has been scurrying down every possible rat-hole to get leverage on enough Senators to force it through.

Eh, not so sure about all that myself. I still hold to the fervent wish they’d go ahead and pull the trigger; all the polling I’ve seen indicates that, except among the very-most-batshit of the Loony Left fringe, impeachment is hugely unpopular. I think Pelosi’s obvious ambivalence can be taken as a sign that she has access to some poll numbers that make her very, very nervous about it. If she really believed she could get away with it, can anybody seriously doubt that she’d have done it already?

I’ll stipulate that certain Vichy GOPe turncoats like Flake or Mittens could conceivably vote to convict in the Senate. In fact, I’d be surprised if one or two of the usual suspects DIDN’T. But Dov Fisher is thinking positive:

The clock ticks towards 2020. There still seemed to remain a chance that the Democrats might try doing something constructive, if only for political survival. Just as a Joe Manchin becomes a rock-ribbed conservative in the Senate, backing Trump judicial selections and initiatives during the months preceding an election in conservative Republican West Virginia, it was to be expected that the Democrats would be pausing cynically from their Trump Derangement Syndrome as 2020 approaches. However, Robert Mueller’s nine-minute press statement now has changed all that. With one nine-minute statement, he has assured that the Democrats, like the rabid dog that races in frenzied frothing madness after its tail to no end, will lose sight of all else but impeachment. They will pursue impeachment, investigate impeachment, draft articles of impeachment. Impeach, impeach, impeach.

In the end, even if the thing passes the Democrat-majority House, it will die in the Senate. By 53-47, Republicans control a majority of the United Senate. RINOs like Jeff Flake are gone. Trump-haters like Bob Corker are gone. Sen. McCain has passed away. Mitt Romney will end his political career with Utah voters if he even thinks of voting for impeachment. Any House impeachment resolution will die in the Senate. It takes two thirds of the Senate to convict. Sixty-seven votes? No way. It will not even be close. Indeed, the majority will vote to acquit. Yet, thanks to Mueller, this impeachment nonsense now is revived and will consume the rest of the political air through 2020. Then, when the first-term “moderate Democrats” go back to their centrist and moderately conservative swing voters and ask to be reelected, they will have nothing on which to run, except for impeachment and Nancy Pelosi.

Voters’ monthly mortgages or rent is not paid with impeachment. Nor their home insurance, life insurance, health insurance, car insurance, automobile gasoline, electric, gas, water, phone, or other utility, medical, or educational bills. Impeachment does not pay for food — not even for peaches. This President and his party have given America a strong economy, almost full employment, record employment in the Black and Hispanic communities, steadily higher wages, a stronger military defense posture without embroiling the country in new regime-change adventures overseas, and they have made a better country with academically documented less racial bias than existed during the Wasted Obama Decade of Ferguson’s Michael Brown, Baltimore’s Freddy Gray, and Florida’s Trayvon Martin amid a stultified economy that could not get beyond sputtering.

Robert Mueller’s press event will prove an example of the law of unintended consequences.

T’is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Only then will this conniving, double-dealing Swamp slime’s self-beclownment be complete. Toni Williams calls a spade a spade:

Robert Mueller is a cunning coward. Every word in his speech was carefully crafted. He said nothing that wasn’t in the released report. But, he chose to emphasize certain phrases.

Yes, he chose his words very, very carefully. Mueller and his team of cretins found nothing, nada, zip and zilch. If they had found anything, they would have shouted it from the rooftop of the Department of Justice building. The Mueller team found nothing, so instead, they used legalese to obfuscate and condemn in the report. Today, he gave his blessing to the Democrat fantasy of impeaching President Donald J. Trump.

Gordon Wysong says bring it, bitchez.

The predicate for his investigation was an allegation. Who made the allegation? What was the evidence? Can we simply verify this evidence, and succeed in our mission? That is the starting point, and all the rest of this dog and pony show is frou-frou.

But Mueller didn’t do that. It’s enough to discredit anything he did do. All his machinations were not to verify the allegations, but to obscure them. It is a piteous report he filed, followed by a contemptible series of lies to Barr and others at the DOJ and a self-serving and cowardly press conference he held. As special counsel, the rules are pretty much understood to be the same as a not so special prosecutor. When that didn’t serve his ends, Mueller violated those rules. Publicly, we saw that he had no such respect for the traditions of our system of justice. Privately, it is quite likely much worse.

The attempt to placate the Left, and to protect associates who were involved in violations so egregious that they amount to at least sedition, has put Mueller on the wrong side of history. The only way this will not be widely known, is to let the report die a quiet death. Yet Mueller is so vain that he is just beginning to realize this — hence his attempt to opt out of the plot.

For The Impeachers, the assistance they need is not to be found in the Mueller report. So they must turn to Aesop if they are to have their bloodlust quenched. This will be the spectacle of spectacles. Unable to coherently frame high crimes and misdemeanors, they will thrash about for an invented transgression or misname the nature of an etiquette faux pas. Doing so, they will rely on the usual cast of characters, drawn from the ranks of the bureaucracy. And that will be their biggest mistake of all.

Do it, Demonrats. Stop running your fat yaps and just do it. Until such time, the bottom line remains unchanged:

Much has been written already about the sheer pettiness of what Mueller did and said on Wednesday morning. Many actual legal scholars have commented; Alan Dershowitz, Sean Davis, the guys at Powerline and of course Mark Levin. Given their analyses, it is safe to say that Mueller stepped in a tar pit that may well fossilize this pathetic man. He has sacrificed his entire career on the altar of the unscrupulous politics of the Democrats, who refuse still to accept the results of the 2016 election. 

Since Obama took office, the Democrat party has been transformed into a criminal enterprise, police-state in nature. Obama’s spies assumed they would never be exposed, that their pulling the strings of government would be their unimpeded mission in perpetuity, passed on only to their chosen successors.

But exposed they have been and now they are desperate to change the narrative. Maybe that was Mueller’s goal Wednesday morning, an attempt to derail the declassification of documents that are sure to embarrass if not prove criminal acts by many denizens of the deep state. 

I saved the best for last: bad off as they are, these scurvy little Potomac pissants may wind up with more problems than they might think.

The executive director of Rolling Thunder, the annual military event that features hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists traveling to Washington to call for full accountability for prisoners of war and missing in action service members, said that the entire membership would arrive in the nation’s capital if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom he called an “arrogant little b****,” decides to try to impeach President Trump.

Artie Muller, 74, who served as a U.S. Army sergeant in the Vietnam War and is listed on the group’s website as a co-founder, spoke at the National Mall on Monday and posited that Pelosi should be ousted from Congress for the series of investigations she is involved with. He stated, “I would like to see Nancy Pelosi and her hypocrites work on the POW issue instead of bulls***ting [and] aggravating the President of the United States, who’s doing a fantastic job.” He added, “When the hell are they going to wake up? It’s not their children, their mothers, their fathers that are left behind in the POW camps.”

The Washington Examiner noted, “The numbers involved in a pro-Trump rally could be large. More than 1 million bikers are believed to have traveled to D.C. for this year’s Rolling Thunder rally. And infrequent, unrelated biker activism has drawn large numbers, including a 2013 ride that brought thousands of bikers to counterprotest a 9/11 event originally billed as the Million Muslim March.”

Oh, how I would enjoy seeing Comey, his thousand-dollar slacks all a-pissy and reeking, slink quietly off into the bushes to hide from all the mean, scary bikers.

Share

Down, not out

Karen McQ sounds the cautionary note.

Do not mistake the Democrats for a joke, no matter how ludicrous their actions look from this side of the reality divide.

Byron York pointed out long ago that the Democrat “resistance” is not mindless hysteria, but a proven strategy that wins them elections. “Their actions, taken together, have a number of strategic intentions. The first is to distract, and do whatever damage it can . . . Second is to constrain the White House and create a sense among voters and potential Trump supporters that enacting the president’s agenda will come at an enormous cost in peace and public safety.”

The Democrats are purposely fomenting anarchy, a good old Marxist strategy. Trump derangement was planned and funded immediately after the inauguration and dubbed the Resistance, as if they were opposing a Nazi. Trump Derangement Syndrome is deliberate. Nice suburban women remain loyal Democrats, thinking they are voting against racism and tyranny.

If Democrats can equate Trump with constant unrest and agitation, they win. When so much mud is flying, bystanders aren’t fussy about who’s flinging it. They are just as likely to blame Trump, and take the chaos as proof that he is radical and doing bad things.

Democrats boast they won the popular vote in 2016, which is of debatable significance, given that their lead came entirely from the biggest cities in California and New York. The Democrats’ real strength isn’t in the numbers of people who support them. Their strength lies in the seats of high power that Democratic Party activists occupy.

Democrats have an army of identity grievance officers, drawing six-figure salaries, ensconced in corporations and campuses across the land, who are paid to intimidate political dissenters and threaten their careers. They crucially dominate education from kindergarten through college. They would not have the Millennial vote without these powerful propagandists.

Most dangerously, the Democrats have Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Amazon, and all the rest of social media actively twisting their algorithms, their advertising dollars, and their rules to shut out conservative opinion. They are demonetizing conservative videos and news sites, to put them out of business. Facebook put Candace Owens on a list of “hate agents,” inviting their employees to discover some dirt they could use to block her. Google searches purposely exclude plain vanilla news sources like The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.

Democrats have millions of thought police, creating conformity to their ideas through peer pressure, vicious bullying, social ostracism, and blacklisting. Democrats have succeeded in politicizing every Hollywood event, weekly sports casting, and even family holidays. They keep conservatives out of the most influential careers in the country, those in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, academia, and mainstream journalism.

Blacklisting is why the Democrats win the culture wars. Without it, they would not win elections.

On the bright side, the longer-term trend is that they’ve been winning fewer and fewer of them—assuming, of course, that the 2018 catastrophe was an anomaly and not a harbinger of things to come. McQuillans ends her piece on a positive note; let’s just hope that’s the one that reverberates, and endures.

Share

“WashPo Warns of Politicized Intelligence: Hilarity Ensues”

Democracy dies in dumbass.

The American news media need a collective neck brace to halt the self-inflicted whiplash now endemic among journalists following President Trump’s order to declassify materials related to “surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election.” Fresh off the heels of demanding that Attorney General William Barr release a fully-unredacted Mueller report, including grand jury proceedings and all underlying evidence, news organizations are freaking out that Barr might release classified information that will expose the corrupt FBI counterintelligence probe into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

“Barr could expose secrets, politicize intelligence with review of Russia probe, current and former officials fear,” blared a May 24 headline in the Washington Post. Reporter Shane Harris quoted “current and former U.S. officials” who fretted that Barr’s actions could damage the reputation of the FBI (LOL) or be used as political weaponry to exact revenge on Trump’s foes. (One of Harris’ quoted sources is Comey’s former general counsel James Baker, who currently is under criminal investigation for…wait for it…leaking classified information to the media. NO, I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.)

You couldn’t, any more than you could parody it. That’s how far around the bend these foamy dingbats have driven themselves.

All of this outrage is particularly ironic coming from the Post, the newspaper responsible for reporting two damaging leaks of classified information in 2017: The disclosure of details from an intercepted call between former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and the FISA order against Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Way back when, in early 2017, the Post did not object to government officials revealing classified information as long as it helped advance the phony narrative that Trump and his people were in the tank for Vladimir Putin and his election was illegitimate.

Umm, helloooo? The Pentagon Papers? Woodward and Bernstein? Who even knows how many other examples of the Post toasties jizzing themselves in their autoerotic lust for illegally leaking classified info for purely partisan purposes?

Aww, never mind. Liberal outrage is, as always, highly selective and case-dependent. The rules apply exclusively to their adversaries, not to them, and are subject to reversal at a moment’s notice, according to whim and political usefulness in that particular moment. Flexible and temporary for them, eternal and unyielding for us. Once you get Woke to that it all makes sense, of a sort.

“Enemies of the people,” per Trump? You better fucking know it.

Share

Purest propaganda

Every bomber pilot knows that when you’re catching flak, you’re over the target.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday granted Attorney General William Barr new powers to review and potentially release classified information related to the origins of the Russia investigation, a move aimed at accelerating Barr’s inquiry into whether U.S. officials improperly surveilled Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Trump directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully cooperate” with Barr’s probe. The directive marked an escalation in Trump’s efforts to “investigate the investigators,” as he continues to try to undermine the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe amid mounting Democratic calls for impeachment proceedings.

Everybody catch the near-non sequitur bushwa there? Here, let me lay some emphasis on for ya: “—undermine the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe” etc.

They actually said this.

Come on, SRSLY, you guys? UNDERMINE the Mueller findings…of NO “Russia collusion.” I mean, this is getting just pathetic at this point.

Trump is giving Barr a new tool in his investigation, empowering his attorney general to unilaterally unseal documents that the Justice Department has historically regarded as among its most highly secret. Warrants obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, for instance, are not made public — not even to the person on whom the surveillance was authorized.

Uh huh. This, after the Democrat-Socialists are throwing kicking, screaming tantrums demanding the (completely illegal) exposure to public view of grand-jury testimony from the Mueller witch hunt, at the same time they’re also insisting on the (completely illegal) release of Trump’s IRS and financial records going back to the 1930s, just hoping against hope to find something they can use to manufacture some kind of case against him.

Trump explicitly delegated Barr with declassification power — noting it would not automatically extend to another attorney general — and only for use in the review of the Russia investigation.

Which, as Chief Executive, despite the AP’s feeble attempt at painting it as something dark, unusual, and forbidden, is Trump’s indisputable right to do. In fact, making decisions on classification and declassification is, y’know, an integral part of his fucking job, one of his duly-delineated powers.

Trump has frequently claimed his campaign was the victim of “spying,” though the intelligence community has insisted it acted lawfully in following leads in the Russia investigation and conducted surveillance under court order.

Yep. Curiously, the NYT seems to agree with the Prez. I say “curiously,” because it’s true. Which would be damned near a first for the Old Grey Whore.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff accused Trump and Barr of trying to “conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.”

Which, funnily enough, is EXACTLY what Ogabe and Drunk Hillary did. Strange, innit, how not a peep has yet been heard from Congresscocksucker Schitt demanding an investigation into THAT abuse of power.

Typically, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence coordinates declassification work by contacting various agencies where classified material originated to get their input on what should be released or not disclosed based on legal exemptions. The president, however, has the authority to declassify anything he wants.

Damned skippy he does. And don’t you forget it when the docs that will haul a whole slew of Swamp rats before a fucking judge by next summer finally get dropped by Trump.

A former senior intelligence official who served in the Obama administration said their principle concern is that the attorney general, hand-picked by Trump, could declassify and release selective bits to make the previous administration and former senior officials look bad. The former official spoke on the condition that the official would not be named in order to describe the concerns of intelligence professionals.

Oh, I bet they ARE concerned. Here’s hoping that their “concern” over the prospect of having their little virgin buttholes banged into the slammer for a spell turns out to be entirely justified. This next is particularly tasty:

Thursday’s move further solidifies Barr’s position in Trump’s eyes as a legal warrior fighting on his behalf.

Let me repeat that: “Barr’s position in Trump’s eyes.” Mighty impressive, that. The all-seeing, all-knowing authors of this pathetic tripe would seem to be gifted enough in the mysterious arts of mind-reading and clairvoyance to know how Trump sees anything at all. That “legal warrior fighting on his behalf” business is a special brand of tommyrot too, but I’ll leave that one alone.

After Mueller submitted his report to Barr in March, the attorney general released a four-page summary to Congress. Barr’s letter framed the debate about the probe over the next few weeks and, White House officials believe, allowed Trump to declare victory before the release of the full report, the contents of which are far more ambiguous.

My baggy white ass they are. You slippery, slimy Goebbels wannabes can insinuate, imply, and weasel-word all you like, but let me just offer up a direct quote from the Mueller report itself, bolded so’s you won’t miss it: “…the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Now, shitlibs can try till the cows come home—and will, and are—to pretzel that into “NOT an exoneration,” but to sensible sorts it seems plain enough to forego wasting any more breath arguing further about it with you mulish blockheads. Despite the suppurating pustule Mueller’s own desperate efforts, both investigatory and weasel-word-wise in the above, “did not establish” amounts to “COULD NOT establish.” And that, in turn, translates to “NOT FUCKING GUILTY”. Which is a synonym—sorry for any disappointment or discomfiture—for “EXONERATED,” for people not absolutely batshit insane with Trump-hate.

Look, fellas, I do hate to rain on y’all’s little parade and all, but here t’is: you lost this one. You really, truly did. You’re just making yourselves look foolish by bitterly clinging to it, trying to weave something out of a whole lot of nothing. You’d all do yourselves a world of good, in all sorts of useful ways, by just getting over it and moving on to your next phony “scandal.” Really.

Share

So much of what they “know” isn’t so

The great Thomas Sowell returns.

In this era when there has been more information available to more people than at any time in the past, it is also true that there has been more misinformation from more different sources than ever. We are not talking about differences of opinion or inadequate verification, but about statements and catchwords in utter defiance of facts.

Among the most popular current catchwords are “climate change deniers.” Stop and think. Have you ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read even one human being who denied that climates change?

It is hard even to imagine how any minimally knowledgeable person could deny that climates change, when there are fossils of marine creatures in the Sahara Desert. Obviously there has been quite a climate change there.

The next time someone talks about “climate change deniers,” ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called “climate change deniers”? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of “global warming.”

There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.

Well hey, with their decomposing ideology having failed so miserably to produce the results they claim to desire every time and everywhere it’s been tried, what else do they have? The ol’ bag o’ tricks is just about empty, the well has gone dry. Must be especially frustrating for them now that we finally found ourselves a pugnacious President temperamentally inclined to fight back, instead of folding like a cheap accordion every time some shitlib calls him Hitler.

This is a whole new experience for them; no matter how they shriek and freak, he just doesn’t show a whole lot of interest in their tantrums, beyond egging them on to even wilder paroxysms of purple-faced rage. They can’t lay a glove on him, he won’t knuckle under or play by the old Vichy GOPe rules, and they don’t know what to make of it. No wonder they surpass themselves in bug-fuck nuttery each and every day.

Share

A herd of swine

Y’all might notice a new addition to my small notable-quotes section at top-sidebar-right, an Immutable Truth I gleaned here.

The devious relationship between one party and its willing accomplices in the media has moved beyond the point of eye-rolls and shoulder-shrugs. It has reached a tipping point for our nation. Joseph Goebbels famously stated, “Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine.” This has become the incestuous relationship the Left lustfully pursues with increasing reliability. Through decades of permeation, the media have been given over to the Left, and for leftists, our society has become the herd of swine.

Not surprisingly, the playbook isn’t limited to the national mainstream media. Media technology group AllSides published a report that Google News results lean heavily toward media outlets with a “left” bias. The author of the study, John Gable, stated that the bias is a result of “most news outlets and most news consumption online being from a left perspective.” The purveyors of Google News are well aware of this egregious bias, but because Google’s corporate culture sways heavily left, we can hardly expect the company to create an algorithm that provides a fair and balanced narrative.

Indoctrination of the masses by the Left used to come in the form of opinion pieces. During the Reagan administration, White House network reporters certainly reported the news. However, they steadily began introducing the technique of ending each report with strongly worded opposing viewpoints from critics of the administration. Who were these unnamed critics? The ones holding the microphone.

Oh, they started a long, long time before that, buddy—certainly no later than Cronkite’s notorious post-Tet declaration of defeat, probably well before. By Reagan, their bias-insertion techniques were as highly developed as they were ever gonna get. After that, it was less a matter of refining them and more one of brazenly, relentlessly deploying them.

Thus began the stepped up infiltration of political views into national news. Subsequently, what began as infiltration has become full-on partisanship. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and various other “news” outlets used to portray themselves as impartial. Reading an opinion piece masquerading as a news story in a national news publication no longer seems brazen. It has become the new normal.

Opinion pieces masquerading as news is hardly their only ploy. A more subtle and insidious one is the calculated selection of which stories get reported, and which get buried. It’s a sneaky little subterfuge, that one; call it stealth-editorializing.

On any number of subjects, building a wall between Mexico and the United States being a current topic of the day, there are literally dozens of video recordings of Democrats contradicting themselves from the position they took even a decade ago. Joe Biden once pounded the pulpit demanding that we build a wall. With Joe Biden as the Democratic frontrunner for U.S. president, you’ve seen that contradiction reported all over the national mainstream media, haven’t you?

Contrast that with anything and everything Donald Trump says. The media are quick to pull any quote, any tweet out of context or bend it out of shape to promote the narrative that the president is an unhinged liar. With very few exceptions, how can one not be entirely cynical of our news sources and online media?

A: one can’t, without being either a liberal red in tooth and claw, or a total moron. Anybody who still believes in their integrity and honesty isn’t fit to tie his own shoes or feed himself without assistance, and should be kept well away from sharp objects…and voting booths. The first, for their own good. The second, for everybody else’s.

Share

An inconvenient shooting

Not politically useful to the gun-grabbin’, goosesteppin’ Left.

School shootings are terrible events — except for the left where they represent opportunities, as in Rahm Emanuel’s “Never let a crisis go to waste” modus operandi.

CNN, for example, wasted no time in politicizing the latest school shooting in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

After the shooting, other than some virtue signaling by the media, the story has left the front pages, as the narrative may be inconvenient for the leftist agenda. CNN and MSNBC have lived up to their reputation as “drive-by media” by quickly moving on. No interviews with David Hogg or other gun control fanatics. So, what are some of the inconvenient aspects to this story that the media would prefer to drive by without any discussion or analysis?

Oh, there are lots of them listed here, each and every one pushing precisely the wrong Progtard buttons, thereby guaranteeing the story’s speedy interment. In fact, this one was apparently deemed to be so potentially damaging to our Leftist lords and masters that Enemedia’s usual tacit agreement to quietly abandon further reporting wasn’t enough. The courts got involved, Soviet-style, to make sure those pesky facts STAY buried.

The case of two anti-Trump leftists, one of whom is transgender, who shot up a school in Denver last week has been placed under seal by a judge, banning the public from seeing it.

Devon Erickson, 18, and Alec McKinney, 16, opened fire on two classrooms at the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) charter school in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, on May 7, killing one student and injuring eight others.

16-year-old Alec McKinney identifies as male but is biologically female, having been born Maya Elizabeth McKinney.

Following the shooting, it emerged that his accomplice Erickson had posted anti-Christian and anti-Trump messages on social media while praising former President Barack Obama.

It is now being reported that details of the case will remain secret to the public after it was sealed by a judge.

Via Komrade Bill, who adds: “As near as I can tell, it’s still up in the air whether the magenta-haired Easter-Worshiper hater was gay or not. If he was, that makes it even more imperative for the left to shove this one right down the memory hole.” I’m sure you meant “she” though, right Bill? Watch out with those unacceptable (if factual) pronouns there, buddy. That hate-crime shit can get you in all kindsa trouble.

So this is where we are in Amerika 2019, folks: a judge is suppressing information in a case that would ordinarily be receiving blanket, 24-7 Enemedia coverage nationwide, in close enough detail as to require the use of an electron microscope. I mean…just…wow. Since we’ve descended so far into propaganda wonderland, and myself having just deployed the obvious Soviet reference, it might be helpful for us to keep the old Soviet-era joke foremost in mind from here on out: there is no Pravda in Izvestia, and there is no Izvestia in Pravda.

Share

Asked, answered

Roger Simon asks the silliest of questions:

Should Journalists Go to Jail for Spreading Russia Lies?

A: Yes. Just on the off-chance he’s being serious: HELL yes.

As a First Amendment maximalist, I am inclined to reply an automatic “no” to my own headline – should journalists go to jail for spreading Russia lies? But a penalty of some kind, indeed a serious one, should certainly be levied for misinforming the public on the most important subject of our day, which has happened repeatedly over the last few years concerning the Russia probe. And when these prevarications can be shown to have been deliberate, to have been done knowingly, difficult as that may be to prove, the line to sedition may have been crossed and there is an argument the reporters involved should face legal consequences. They should also be fired.

Unfortunately, because reporting is an occupation with no official standards like law or medicine, no professional organizations to disbar them, and because, as A. J. Liebling wrote long ago, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” with media operations like CNN and NBC often encouraging those very lies, this is unlikely to happen.

Nevertheless. As Kimberly Strassel indicated in “For Fear of William Barr: The attorney general gets attacked because his probe endangers many powerful people,” heads of those who instigated the Russia probe are likely soon to roll. Shouldn’t members of the press who gave them voice be more than unindicted co-conspirators?

A: YES. These nothing-of-the-sort “journalists” weren’t reporting; they were participating, providing active, enthusiastic assistance in the most outrageous, brazen scandal in American history. High among the reasons they should be locked up for it:

Will these journalists have learned a lesson and change their habits? Not likely. For the most part, they are moral narcissists, primed to feel confident of the righteousness of their cause even when faced with countervailing reality. And in any case, to change would lead to personality disintegration, loss of friends and family and, worse, to being fired by the profiteers who run their companies. That’s the way of the media world today.

It is that. But it shouldn’t be, and Americans should no longer be willing to put up with it. The way to change things is to deal out some seriously painful consequences. Anything less must be flatly rejected by We, The People, by whatever means we must use to get that message across. Treason and sedition should be returned to their proper status as the most serious of crimes; let every Leftwit coup-plotter, in government and out, tremble at the mere contemplation of such heinous acts.

As for our degenerate Propagandist Class, a good, long stretch in the hoosegow ought to be a distant second in their list of worries, with hanging by the neck until dead comfortably in the lead. Otherwise, we will surely have to confront more of this nonsense from these charlatans, and worse, before very long.

Share

Cornered, like rats

Lest anybody forget, there’s more going on than just Barr’s thang.

Many of us have believed for the last several years that a small, but extremely powerful cabal within the intelligence community and law enforcement felt – because of their self-righteous arrogance and partisan leanings – that they could use the immense power of the surveillance state to conduct a partisan attack on a political opponent.

These officials felt justified in their actions because they believed Donald Trump was not a suitable person to be president of the United States and because they had policy differences with Trump.

In addition, it appears that some in that cabal feared Trump becoming president because they believed he would demand great accountability and transparency inside of the intelligence and law enforcement community.

I hope that investigations likely coming out of the inspector general’s report will lead to answers regarding former CIA Director John Brennan’s role in giving credence to the Steele dossier.

And I hope the inspector general’s report will provide answers to why the initial FISA application authorizing surveillance of Page was approved and then renewed three more times.

I suspect that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges took the FBI at its word and that someone who is guilty at a minimum of the crime of falsifying by omission did not admit to the court that the applications were based on a piece of partisan propaganda.

All of these things are deeply troubling because our surveillance and law enforcement regimes are based primarily on trust. Trust that those seeking FISA applications to surveil American citizens are being honest, and trust that they are above reproach.

The problem that we now confront is that the trust placed in these people and in the process has been shattered. We must remember that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted in response to abuses at the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover, who headed the bureau from 1924 until his death in 1972.

All of what we have seen over the last several years has revealed the FISA safeguards are an utter sham. If FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers are willing to lie and falsify information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – and more importantly, if there are no consequences for those actions – then FISA is a joke.

This also means that our civil liberties are a joke and we will have accepted a police state that can use a piece of partisan propaganda or anything else as a justification to spy on private citizens.

The only way we can deal with this abuse is to have serious consequences for these actions. People must go to prison for breaking the law.

Absolutely, positively, one bazillion percent correct, to the very last syllable of it. But really, why don’t we all just cut to the chase here and do something these shrieking Democrat-Socialists seem to desire above all else:

The details of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, that some combination of Russian Facebook trolling, most of which took place after the election and targeted black people, and the hacking of the emails of Hillary’s campaign chair, whose contents no one outside the media and political activists cared about, somehow swung the election, are gibberish. But the facts don’t matter in the paranoid style of politics.

Hillary Clinton, whose people invented the Russia conspiracy theory and used it to convince Obama officials to spy on Trump allies and staffers, compared it to 9/11. Other Democrats and media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times compared it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

“This was an act of war, in my view,” Senator Richard Blumenthal said. Senator Tim Kaine also thought it was an act of war. Senator Ben Cardin said that the election conspiracy amounts to an “act of war”. Rep. Steven Cohen also agreed that it was an act of war.

An “undeclared, but very real, ‘war’ has already come to the United States,” Senator Chris Coons claimed.

If they really believe that Facebook trolling is an act of war, then they should declare war on Russia.

President Trump can’t declare war. Only Congress can do that. President Trump should ask Democrats to put up or shut up with a declaration of war. If they truly believe in their conspiracy theories, if they really think that what happened was as bad as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that it was, in their own words, an “act of war”, they should have no problem voting unanimously for a declaration of war against Russia.

If they truly believe that what happened was an act of war, why won’t they defend America?

The only thing they REALLY believe is that they should be in power: unchecked, unchallenged, always and forever.

Share

Chickens, roost, all that

As the man himself has reportedly said, they’re poking the wrong Barr.

Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.

Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and countered the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.

It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt ­president.

It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.

“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.”

No better, more concise statement has been made about the bankrupt nature of the Democratic Party and its leaders. They bet everything on Mueller validating their Big Lie of Russia, Russia, Russia, and now they have nothing.

Barr’s comportment as AG so far has been exemplary: quiet, judicious, and straightforward. Exhibit A:

In mid-February, shortly after he was sworn-in, Barr instructed Mueller’s team to identify any grand jury material in the final report “so we could redact that material and prepare the report for public release as quickly as we could.” Barr confirmed his order during his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. But Mueller did not abide by that request, and instead submitted a raw report without suggested redactions.

Since the report had not been vetted by the special counsel’s office, Barr explained, and it would have taken at least three weeks to protect sensitive information in the document, he decided to compose a summary of the report’s conclusions in order to partially satisfy the public’s interest.

“I made the determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line,” Barr told the committee. “The body politic was in a high state of agitation. There was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of Bob Mueller’s investigation was, particularly as to collusion. Former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. So I didn’t feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks.”

A wise move by an honest man, in stark contrast with the worm Mueller’s greasy slithering. In light of Barr’s above statement we now return to Goodwin for another excellent, penetrating Barr quote, leaving no reason to wonder why the Democrat-Socialists hate him so much.

At one point, he talked of possible “overreach” by top officials, then added: “But what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting into their heads that they know better than the American people.”

Perfectly, entirely correct. The trouble being, this attitude is the very cornerstone of Progressivism. It always has been; it underpins absolutely everything they do and say. Without it, they have no real reason to exist at all.

At another point, he said, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”

Which is a tactic every bit as fundamental to Progressivism as the sacrament of “rule by expert” is. Barr appears to be a no-nonsense sort of man with a crystal-clear understanding of what his duty as AG is, what his oath to uphold the Constitution means, and no intention whatsoever of brooking any interference from “higher loyalty” types who are in reality nothing more than shifty, corrupt weasels maneuvering in support of a hyper-partisan agenda. It’s like this:

Barr had apparently masterminded the most inept cover-up in history, first by accurately laying out the outcome of the special counsel’s investigation. Then, after some light redactions (none instigated by the president), by releasing the report to the public so the entire world could read it.

Now, if a fresh observer to the Russia collusion circus only heard from Democrats, he might not know that the Mueller report had been public for weeks — sifted through and debated extensively. He certainly wouldn’t know that no criminality was uncovered. But most people heard something else. And Barr’s greatest sin had been preempting the collusion spin for the first time.

In his initial letter, the attorney general informed the public, before media was able to manipulate and confuse the core findings, that, despite its best efforts, the special counsel — an open-ended, unimpeded investigation with virtually no oversight — couldn’t find evidence to corroborate the prevailing myth that had been perpetuated for more than two years by Democrats and the political media.

By accurately conveying that the investigation had exonerated Trump and his administration of criminal conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, two years of ostensibly serious reporting was exposed as little more than resistance fan fiction. Rather than take a moment’s self-reflection about how their actions had caused unprecedented political chaos, undermined trust in the electoral system and crowded out legitimate coverage of the presidency, the entire collusion industry just moved its frenzied focus onto obstruction.

Well, under oath, the attorney general confirmed that he had spoken to Mueller on the phone and that the special counsel had been “very clear” that the AG’s letter laying out the conclusions was not inaccurate. There’s been no evidence to contradict his claim.

The AG’s letter had also accurately conveyed that Mueller, who it seems spent a lot of his efforts ferreting out unseemly Trumpian outbursts rather than finding nefarious Russians, punted on charges of obstruction. Volume II of the Mueller report, on the issue of obstruction, reads like a political document meant to incite Democrats into doing what the investigation did not. And that is Barr’s other sin: refusing to play Mueller’s game.

Anybody still wondering why they hate him? The most effective endorsement for Barr, though, comes from none other than the irredeemable scumbucket Adam Schittforbrains:

The attorney general of the United States misled the country about an investigation implicating the president. Then he lied to Congress. Then he did something worse: He effectively said that the president of the United States is above the law.

William Barr should resign.

When Mueller finished his nearly two-year investigation, Barr could have released Mueller’s own summaries. He instead chose to write his own summary, and one that mischaracterized Mueller’s findings and conclusions.

Not according to Mueller it didn’t, Schittbag.

In his March 27 letter, Mueller stated that Barr’s actions had undermined a central purpose of the special counsel regulations, to “assure full public confidence in the outcome” of the investigation. Mueller was right, but Barr’s actions and statements have done far worse than that. They have undermined public confidence in the independence of the DOJ and the fair administration of justice.

Nope, not hardly. That was already taken care of by Comey and his filthy crew, scrambling around desperately to get Ogabe and Hillary!™, among plenty of others, clear of a due and proper reckoning for election-tampering by using the DoJ to illegally spy on Trump. Among plenty of other things.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, Barr gave no convincing defense of his actions, nor his false statements to Congress, nor why the obstruction of justice laws do not apply to a president who instructs those around him to lie in an effort to conceal his actions. Instead, he said the president can end a criminal investigation simply because he thinks it’s “unfair” or unwarranted: “I think the department’s position would be that the president can direct the termination or the replacement of a special counsel.”

Seems a little Constitutional refresher might be helpful for ya, genius: the DoJ is part of the Executive branch, which is run by and subordinate to, y’know, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. He can fire, hire, direct, initiate, terminate, or rearrange anyfucking thing he wants in the branch he is in charge of—within the Constitutional constraints placed on his own office, of course.

That’s more than enough of that garbage, I think; whenever we want any more shit from Schitt, we can always squeeze his enormous head. The day I’m willing to humbly sit back and take lessons on the Constitution from a devious Democrat-Socialist mediocrity like him is…well, I assure one and all that that day just ain’t coming.

Go get ’em, Mr Barr. Go get ’em all, each and every one; let the guilty parties be brought to justice, and cram it all right down Schitt and Co’s throats until they choke and fucking die.

Update! “Lied to Congress,” was it? Bullschitt.

The real problem is that Mueller wanted Barr to execute a public-relations hit on Trump and wasn’t happy that Barr confined the summary to the bottom-line conclusions. Barr said he didn’t want to attempt to summarize the entire report and would let the report speak for itself. He has never deviated from that explanation and Mueller’s letter points to no inaccuracy or misleading information.

Thus, Barr’s answer was 100 percent accurate.

Barr has now revealed that Mueller made a conscious choice to salt the report with unsegregated grand jury material. It wasn’t until after Barr released his March 24 summary that Mueller redacted the summaries from the report. Barr wasn’t interested in making a press release for the president’s enemies. That makes him an enemy of the juggernaut. That’s his real crime.

We just learned that the Justice Department sent a less-redacted Mueller report to Congress and that the Democrats haven’t bothered to read it. Instead, they now want a legal battle over Barr’s refusal to turn over a completely unredacted report.

To be clear, they don’t want the report, which is 98 percent unredacted in the public form. They want the fight.

They’re all in a very deep hole, and have no clue how to get themselves out other than to just keep right on digging.

Share

They will NEVER stop

Hey, remember back when Enemedia’s credibility was forever destroyed by the Mueller Bellyflop, and Democrat-Socialists/shitlibs would be forced to eat a heapin’ helpin’ of humble pie for the two-year rain of bullshit they had pimped?

Nope, me neither.

Bill Maher mocked Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff over his obsession with President Donald Trump and Russia: “But this [Mueller] was our big gun. Now it just looks like you’re stalking him.”

Schiff began by clinging to his false claim that the Mueller report said: “that the Trump campaign welcomed it [the Russian interferece], embraced it, built it into their plan, made full use of it, lied about it, covered it up, and then obstructed the investigation into it; and, if we had any doubt before about this president’s fitness for office, there is no doubt remaining: he is unfit for the presidency.”

Actually what the Mueller report says was there were various attempts by Russian operatives to assist the campaign their origin was unknown, and each attempt was turned down or ignored. But Schiff would never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

Of course not. That’s because he’s a Lying Left piece of shit—just like Maher, just like all the rest of them.

(Via VP)

Update! Apparently, the Obama cabal high crimes haven’t stopped yet.

It has been brought to my attention by a former CIA station chief of some prominence and who has a legendary reputation inside the community of pre-Brennan operators, that Hillary Clinton’s loss did not curtail the worst activities of the outgoing Obama team. In fact, through the use of a walled-off team of contractors working inside the Intelligence Community, and for political realms alone, with no FISA-authorization or other national security justification, the Trump White House was spied upon after the January 20 inauguration. (Those responsible for this on-going crime are known to more than one investigative journalist and I have been told that the first of the new revelations will be published in the coming week).

Simply put: the Obama Administration used the most powerful intelligence capabilities in the world to attempt a penetration and subversion of the presidential campaign of the the opposing party. When that failed, they used a special prosecutor to divert attention away from that activity, log-jam the work of the new president, and clean up the evidence of what had been done to him and his team. And most un-American of all: the former intelligence leadership of the Obama Administration continued to spy illegally on Donald Trump and his closest advisers after they had moved into the White House.

Many take offense at the way President Trump uses language, at his tweets and at what they see as his hyperbole. But this week when he called the operations against him and the will of the people who chose him, a “coup” and an “attempted overthrow” of the government, he was making a simple statement of fact.

The central irony remains: the conniving curs who so piously demanded that Trump guarantee to “accept the results of the election” should he lose are refusing to accept defeat themselves. And I say yet again: they will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped, most likely by being stood up against a wall or swung from a gibbet in large groups.

Share

Grotesque

Yes, they really ARE this dumb.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate and director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, called out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and The New York Times for promulgating the notion that Jesus was a Palestinian.

Omar re-tweeted an April 20 tweet from Omar Suleiman, an adjunct professor for Islamic Studies at Southern Methodist University, who said a Palestinian relative told him regarding the “Christian right”: “Don’t they know we’re Christian too? Do they even consider us human? Don’t they know Jesus was a Palestinian?”

Similarly, an April 19 New York Times piece focusing on various depictions of Jesus Christ’s skin color stated, “Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was most likely a Palestinian man with dark skin.”

Cooper told the Journal in a statement via email that it’s a “grotesque insult to Jesus born in the land of Israel and to Christianity” to say that Jesus was a Palestinian.

“Palestine was a name made up by Romans after they crucified thousands, destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the People of Israel from their homeland,” Cooper said.

Myself, I’m somewhat puzzled by Suleiman’s “Palestinian relative” misnomering Easter Worshippers with the recently-forbidden term “Christians,” but what the heck. More knowledge for stupid Leftwits:

The name “Palestine” wasn’t even applied to the land of Judea by the Romans until 100 years after Jesus, after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 134 A.D. The Romans plucked this name out of the Bible (it’s a variant of “Philistine”) as the name of the Jews’ ancient enemies, just to taunt the Jews as they barred them from living in the area. And when they did apply this name, it was the name only of a region, never of a people. There were never any “Palestinians” until they were invited by Yasser Arafat and the KGB in the 1960s. And now the entire Western establishment political class and media expects us to kowtow and repeat this lie.

Yep. But that’s just Proggie SOP, see. Truth is to them as garlic is to vampires.

Share

Lies, damned lies…

And Gropey Joe’s campaign blah-blah.

Joe Biden says his proudest moment of Obama’s presidency was ‘not one whisper of scandal’

And if you don’t believe it, why, just ask them.

So let’s get this straight here: The Benghazi coverup never happened. The IRS targeting of dissidents never happened, either. The Gold River pollution on traditional Native American lands by the EPA never happened. Solyndra never happened. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never had an illegal private server in some guy’s bathroom. She never sold 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia, and her bleachbitting of her subpoenaed emails was perfectly scandal-free, as well as her smashing of Blackberries with hammers. The fact that top-secret emails turned up in Anthony Weiner’s perverted computer, for the New York cops to read, was a nothingburger. And if you like your doctor…

Even that voluminous list is only the tip of a damned ginormous iceberg.

Now we are coming off more Obama scandals from the Mueller report – with President Obama in possession of Clinton’s deleted emails, and questions raised about unmaskings and bad uses of FISA warrants, and Joe Biden brings up the years-old baloney about Obama being scandal free?

Something tells me this is about trying to reset a ‘narrative’ now that the walls are closing in on Obama. 

Could be, could be. But if AG Barr does his job right, Gropey’s happy horseshit ain’t gonna be nearly enough to cover the rising stench of treason and corruption wafting off himself and the rest of the Obama junta entire.

Share

The exception that proves the rule?

Apparently, not ALL Millennials are stupid, shallow, and spoiled rotten.

I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”

Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth.

Which, given what the Enemedia has become, is saying something. I’ll hold off on excerpting further, but trust me: there’s more, it’s all great, and you’re gonna love it. So get yourselves on over there and read the rest. Hats off to you, Alyssa, and best of luck with your writing career. You’re obviously quite talented, but given the incredible tide of bias you’ll be swimming against in the publishing world you’re probably gonna need all the luck you can get.

Via Insty, who throws in: “Indeed. It is essential for Democrats’ objectives that things be awful. Or, failing that, that people think that things are awful.” The REAL hell of it is that, when they’re in charge, things ARE awful. Must be coinkydink, or maybe more of that Heinleinian “bad luck,” maybe.

Update! You’ll want to read all of this one, too.

This is no “sugar high” for the U.S. economy. To the great shock and disappointment of liberals who have been desperately hoping for an economic downturn, the U.S. economy once again blew away expectations, recording a 3.2 percent GDP growth rate in the first quarter of this year.

Even MSNBC described the quarterly growth as “extraordinary.”

Liberals have been predicting an impending recession for months. Frustrated with the obvious success of President Trump’s sweeping middle-class tax cuts – which they had claimed would result in “Armageddon” – Democrats next argued that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would only produce a “sugar high” for the economy. With each successive quarter that their predictions have failed to materialize, they’ve only become more frustrated with the economy’s long-term prospects.

This isn’t a one-time anomaly, either. GDP growth has been increasing steadily throughout Trump’s presidency, and the most recent data bring us to three consecutive quarters in which year-over-year growth has been 3 percent or higher. In fact, GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent over the past four quarters.

When Trump predicted this economic outcome more than three years ago, the Washington establishment snickered and scoffed, convinced that the pathetic economy Obama presided over was simply the “new normal.”

And it would have been the “new normal” for every bit as long as the American people allowed Obama-types to run things. It’s a testament to the remarkable resilience of capitalism that it’s capable of so speedily bouncing back once the socialist shackles are…hell, not even removed, just loosened up a mite.

All of us, even the freshly-minted Trump skeptics among us, badly need to remember one crucial thing: bad news for the country is good news for the Democrat-Socialists—and very much vice the versa.

Share

It’s “complicated”

As complicated as they can possibly make it.

Let’s say a fire breaks out at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris at the start of Holy Week, and just after two of the city’s other most prominent houses of worship – St Sulpice and the Basilica of St Denis – have been attacked and vandalized.

Well, I think we can all confidently say as the first flames are beginning to lick the ceiling that it’s undoubtedly an accident. Cigarette butt. Or maybe computer glitch. Probably just an overheated smart phone. We don’t need to get in there and sift through the debris. We can just announce it.

On the other hand, when there are coordinated attacks on Easter services at several churches in Sri Lanka, it becomes a little more challenging to pass off multiple suicide-bombings killing nearly three hundred people as an electrical malfunction.

So, in contrast to the confident declarations of a week ago, on Sunday morning the media opted for a subtler narrative. Lead sentence from The Economist:

IT HAS BEEN nearly ten years since the guns fell silent in Sri Lanka’s civil war. But bloodshed returned with a vengeance…

So it’s something to do with the Tamil Tigers? Their guns fell silent, but now they’ve returned with a vengeance, eh?

Let us turn to The New York Times:

Religious Minorities Across Asia Suffer Amid Surge in Sectarian Politics

Gotcha. This is all part of a general problem of various unspecified religions in unspecified countries suffering in a general sort of way. But could you be a little less general and more specific?

Okay. Opening paragraphs:

The deadly attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday highlighted how easily religious coexistence can be ripped apart in a region where secularism is weakening amid the growing appeal of a politics based on ethnic and sectarian identity.

In India, the country’s governing right-wing Hindu party is exploiting faith for votes, pushing an us-versus-them philosophy that has left Muslims fearing they will be lynched if they walk alone.

In Myanmar, the country’s Buddhist generals have orchestrated a terrifying campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country’s Rohingya Muslims.

And in Indonesia and Bangladesh, traditionally moderate Muslim politicians are adopting harder-line stances to appeal to more conservative electorates.

So Hindus are attacking Muslims, and Buddhists are attacking Muslims, and “hard-line” Muslims are attacking moderate Muslims. Thank God for some clarity on the situation. But what were all these Muslims doing in church on Easter morning?

Well, as we said, it’s all very complex – not like “Edelweiss” being an obvious white-supremacist dog-whistle by a notorious Nazi Jew composer. Best not to think about it.

The lights are going out on the most basic of journalistic instincts: Who, what, when, where, why. All are subordinate to the Narrative – or Official Lie. All day yesterday and into today, if you had glanced at the telly, switched on the radio or surfed the big news sites of the Internet, you would have thought the Tamil Tigers were back “with a vengeance”, as The Economist put it – even though with one exception (the 1990 police massacre) the death toll was higher than any individual attack the Tigers had ever pulled off.

Meanwhile, back in that fast shrinking space known as the real world, from the very first hours the headline of this story was completely straightforward:

Islamic Suicide Bombers Slaughter Three Hundred on Easter Morning

But apparently that can no longer be said.

Perhaps not. But try as they might to keep us in the dark, we all know it just the same. While we’re on the topic of being mushroomed by the Left (ie, kept in the dark and fed shit)…ummm, “Easter worshippers“? SRSLY?!?


Ahh, but we all know what the REAL problem is, right?


Yep, you got it: “far-right anger.” Ace says of this pathetically inept display of propagandizing and narrative-pimping:

The pace of this game has accelerated. It used to be that the media would spend a day or two at least noticing that Islamists had murdered a bunch of people again before claiming The Real Crime is any possible hypothetical speculative future side-eye a woman in a hijab might get at Wal-Mart.

Now, they start claiming that Muslims Are the Real Victims here while they’re still gathering up the limbs sheered off of the victims.

They’re now so utterly transparent they just don’t seem to care anymore whether they’re fooling anyone or not. They’re just phoning it in at this point.

HEARTBREAKER update! Poor ol’ Hils just can’t catch a break.

On a special politicians’ episode of Wheel of Fortune, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton nearly took home the grand prize. She was on the last puzzle of the regular rounds of the game, which read, CHRISTI_N. The audience began to cheer as it appeared Clinton had finally won something.

But, as is usual for Clinton, she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and shouted “Easter worshiper!” instead of the obvious answer, which was “Christian.”

I’m betting on Russian collusion as the culprit behind this latest bitter defeat for Her Herness. Nothing a fifth or two of Ol’ Popskull can’t ease the pain of, of course.

Share

History, revised

Ask a silly question.

We’re all heard stories about young children being punished at school by their socialist teachers for drawing or cutting out pretend handguns, or even for pointing a finger on the playground and saying “Bang! Bang!”

And some of us did sound the alarm about the “slippery slope,” years ago, when the forces of political correctness realized how easy it was to start rewriting history by “digitally editing” old historical photos. After all, why NOT remove the cigarette holder from old photos of President Franklin Roosevelt? You don’t want today’s kids to think it’s OK to smoke, do you?

But surely we’ll never reach the point where gun haters in a U.S. government agency will actually start doctoring images to remove the rifles (the arms with which Americans won and have long defended our freedoms) from the hands of American COMBAT SOLDIERS, will we? — altering an image of a soldier in combat, removing the piece of equipment on which his survival depended, to make it appear that U.S. soldiers CARRY NO NASTY RIFLES when they go to war?

They’ll never go THAT far. Right?

Gee, that’s a toughie all right.

Standing in line at the post office the other day, I noticed a poster on display showing eight newly issued commemorative stamps, along with a sheet of 20, behind glass, of one of the new stamps, called “World War I / Turning the Tide.” In the background of this stamp can be seen a biplane, a shell burst, and some barbed wire. In the foreground, a uniformed and helmeted U.S. doughboy strides bravely ahead, holding close to his chest an American flag.

I have nothing against featuring the American flag on a stamp, mind you. But look at the way that soldier’s arms and hands are positioned. You’ve seen men on combat patrol holding their arms and hands in that position plenty of times. But they weren’t holding flags. 

Does it get worse, you ask? Guess.

I emailed artist Mark Stutzman in Maryland, who designed the “Turning the Tide” commemorative and who had earlier drawn the Post office’s popular 1993 “Elvis” and “Buddy Holly” stamps. In his original design, as submitted, had the American doughboy held a rifle in his hands?

He replied: “Hi Vin, Thanks for writing. Interesting that you should bring this up. My original proposal was with a rifle.”
A source familiar with the back-and-forth between artist Stutzman and the Postal Service told me the USPS “Stamp Advisory Committee” was “a little ‘gun shy’ about the rifle being so prominent.” Stutzman declined to confirm that for the record.

“We debated a few options and settled on him holding the flag instead,” Stutzman told me. “It seemed to bring some patriotism forward and helped identify him as American more immediately. Since stamp images are so small, there’s a need for immediate comprehension. In this case the read of hierarchy is WWI soldier, America, and war (barbed wire, plane, smoke)…I am somewhat speculating on the reasoning for why the decision (to remove the rifle) was made since I got information about committee meetings second-hand through the art director. He may be a better source for info and also have a direct line with the Postal Service. Greg Breeding is his name. . . . Super guy and easy to talk to.”

Not so much. 

Imagine my surprise. Then begins the hem-hawing, slithering-squirming, slip-sliding evasion of the old Bureacrat Shuffle.

After several days of ducking my emails and phone messages, art director Breeding, in Charlottesville, Virginia, finally sent me his polite refusal to talk:

“Hello Vin, Thank you for your interest in the World War I stamp. It was my deep privilege to art director this issuance to commemorate America’s role in bringing World War I to an end. Such an incredible part of our history. Regarding your questions, it is the policy of the Postal Service to direct these types of inquiries to Public Relations…”

Said PR guy “will be happy to assist you and, sometimes, he will subsequently involve the art directors and other Postal employees as well.”

Not so much.

Suprynowicz soldiers manfully on in his bootless quest for a simple, straight answer to his query, but the bobbing and weaving from our putative “civil servants” just continues on and on from there. Y’know, like it does. I guess we can maybe take some small gratification from the fact that even these insensate bureauweasels seem to know that their airbrushing of history is something to be ashamed of, cold though that comfort may be.

(Via MisHum)

Share

They lie

Regulate ’em, enforce the law against ’em, break ’em up.

As we now learn from the Daily Caller, The American Spectator has been blacklisted by Google. The DC’s headline, in a post by J. Arthur Bloom, is this:

EXCLUSIVE: DOCUMENTS DETAILING GOOGLE’S ‘NEWS BLACKLIST’ SHOW MANUAL MANIPULATION OF SPECIAL SEARCH RESULTS

And oh yes. There was also this reminder in the Daily Caller story:

(Google CEO) Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11 of last year. Democratic California Rep. Zoe Lofgren asked why a search for the term “idiot” returned a photo of President Trump. In response, Pichai said, “This is working at scale, we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result.”

Which is to say, Mr. Pichai looked a congressional committee in the eye and insisted that “we don’t manually intervene on any particular search result” — while the Daily Caller revelations revealed that “Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate.”

There is a name for doing that. It’s called lying to Congress. A federal crime with jail time attached.

This is no longer some minor bug in the tech world.

The fact of the matter is that the American Left is waging a full scale war against fellow Americans who have the audacity to disagree with Left Wing orthodoxy. They are not interested in debate, discussion, ideas, free speech, or a free press. They are the enforcers of their own iron-fisted, totalitarian, Mao-style cultural revolution. The targets can be Fox News or individual Fox hosts with names like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. It can be conservative speakers invited to college campuses — with the mere appearance of conservative Ben Shapiro requiring the University of California at Berkeley forced to lay out $600,000 to protect the speaker. It can be a Media Matters campaign to remove Rush Limbaugh from the air. Or, yes, me.

On and on and on this kind of thing goes. This is no longer a debate about ideas in the tradition of America. It is a war of personal destruction.

No, not merely a war “of personal destruction,” although at ground-level it is that too. In the larger sense, it’s a war to determine who will control, who will be controlled, and how that control is to be implemented and maintained. Ultimately, though, it is the same old war—the eternal, the forever war—between the despot and the subject, the tyrant and the freeman, the overbearing master and the discontented, determined, not-quite-conquered slave.

Google, its fork-tongued evasions to the contrary notwithstanding, is in no sense an impartial, disinterested bystander. It is a corporate combatant, a willing rank-and-file partisan in one side’s army. They, among so many others whose poorly-hidden agendas have been recently exposed of late, need to be held to account. Which presents me with another fine opportunity to repeat my usual recommendation to you folks: Duck ’em. Duck ’em all!

Share

Lies, lies, nothing but lies

It’s all they have, and all they’ve ever had.

Shortly before Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed his report on the Russia investigation last month, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., alerted Attorney General Bill Barr to what they described as the “selective” use of emails in Mueller court filings — as well as potential “improper political influence, misconduct, and mismanagement” in the FBI’s original Russia probe.

In a March 8 letter, Grassley and Graham referred Barr to a letter sent to Mueller in late 2017 that alleged his investigators had cherry-picked details from emails to include in court documents, urging him to review the materials. They also notified him that they had asked DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz a year earlier to review the original FBI probe.

Fox News has also obtained the 2017 letter (above) from Grassley to Mueller, which spelled out the lawmakers’ concerns about the “absence of additional context” in the court filings — as well as concerns over how those documents were covered in the media. “The glaring lack of [context] feeds speculation and innuendo that distorts the facts,” Grassley wrote at the time.

That court filing said Papadopoulos emailed another campaign official in May 2016 with the subject line, “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump.” The document said the email stated that Russia “has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss,” adding in a footnote that the official forwarded the email to another campaign official asking to discuss: “We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

The senators said media outlets then seized on the fragments to report a “Campaign official suggested ‘low level’ staff should go to Russia.” However, they said the full emails — obtained from the Trump campaign — tell a different story.

“In full context, the emails in question actually show that the Trump Campaign wanted someone ‘low level’ to decline these types of invitations,” Grassley and Graham wrote in the letter to Barr.

Anybody surprised? If so, may I ask why, exactly? The remarkable thing is that they were so confident that none of this base deception would ever be unearthed that they were willing to resort to it in the first place. Then again, though, that might have been more a matter of panic and desperation than it was confidence.

(Via GP)

Share

Take ’em down, take ’em down, take ’em ALL down!

This, too, is a mea culpa we shall never, ever see.

On Sunday a vindicated president tweeted “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

So now what?

For starters, Twitter, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley tech companies should remove all Russian collusion conspiracy theorists from their platforms.

After all, social media networks didn’t hesitate to ban Alex Jones of Infowars and others for spreading misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, so why not ban House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Schiff, Eric Swalwell, John Brennan, Beto O’ Rourke and scores of media hacks who’ve all done the same?

And what about Google? Will it continue to allow search results that yield now-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding Russian collusion and the Trump campaign? Or will they do the right thing and scrub misinformation and lies to stop the hoax from perpetuating?

Via Ace, three guesses on that one.

Google search is hiding auto-completed text related to the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Using Google search on multiple browsers and on private-browsing mode, the Free Beacon found Google search had an aversion to the search term “indictment.”

Using either “Trump” or “Mueller” as the subject, the following word “indictment” was not suggested even after spelling out most of it. For example, putting “Trump indi” into Google’s search bar does not lead to “Trump indictment” but rather to “Trump India,” “Trump India Pakistan,” Trump India tariffs,” and “Trump Indiana.”

Searching specifically for “Trump indictment,” the Free Beacon found Google preferred the result “Trump indictment advent calendar,” which leads to a humorous story in which indictments of Trump family members are seen as gifts around Christmastime. (The Free Beacon had not previously searched for such a calendar and it was not on our search history.)

As with most things in life, though, there’s a workaround.

Update! Greenwald, bless the nefarious old sod, is still knocking ’em out of the park.


If I gave so much as a single shit about Twitter—which I don’t—I’d have to seriously consider laying aside the vitriolic blog-battles we fought here in the dim and distant past and following the guy at this point. In any event, Greenwald’s output on all this says very good things indeed about his personal and professional integrity, and my cap is duly doffed to him for that if nothing else. No, we ain’t likely ever to agree on just about anything. But I definitely, if somewhat grudgingly, have to confess to a degree of newfound respect for him.

Share

The Democracy question

Ruling the mob via bread and circus.

It is a worthwhile question to consider when watching the Brexit drama unfold over the next two weeks. The official version of this process is the British people had a referendum and they voted to leave the EU. The law put March 31, 2019 as the deadline for leaving and Parliament had until that date to work out a deal with the EU. If there was no deal, then Britain unconditionally leaves the EU. A deal to leave slowly and gently, however, would need to pass through Parliament. That was the orderly process laid out for Brexit.

As of this writing, the government of Theresa May has tried several times to get the deal she struck with the EU through parliament. The deal is an insult to the intelligence of the average British subject, so it has failed to get through parliament. The deal she cut is to leave the EU in name only. Britain would continue to allow Brussels to dictate terms on things like regulation, trade and most especially immigration policy. Those rooting for democracy have to be appalled by the craven cynicism of this ploy.

The Commons Speaker, which is like the head parliamentarian, ruled that Theresa May cannot submit her deal for a vote again, unless it is substantially altered, which is an impossibility at this point. That would mean Britain is headed for a hard Brexit at the end of this month. It would also mean that a responsible democratic government would now be moving to inform and prepare the public for that eventuality. Instead, the government is scheming with the EU to delay everything so they can have a second referendum.

Americans are familiar with this gag. Back in the dark days when marriage was linked to biological reality, left-wing agitators would get homosexual marriage initiatives onto state ballots. These initiatives would fail, but the agitators would get them on the ballot again the next election. The Left sees democracy as a bus. Once it takes you to your desired stop, you get off. That means they demand people keep voting on their issues until the people get the correct result. Once that happens, no more democracy.

This is the scheme the “Remainers”  have always had in their back pocket. It’s why they have been happy to drag out this process for years, right to the deadline. This week, they will argue that the country is not prepared to meet the legal deadline, so there has to be a delay in the process. Of course, the point of the delay is to then get a second vote setup for later in the year. If that vote goes their way, that’s it. If they lose again, then the whole process begins anew as they scheme to undermine the results.

Again: the one thing to keep foremost in mind about Brexit is the same as with Trump’s Big Beautiful Wall: ain’t gonna be none. The Power, here and there, has no intention of ever allowing such things to come to pass. Though they’d prefer to remain hidden behind the curtains quietly keeping the Great And Powerful Oz Show in Ordnung, they’ll step out and flex their real muscle if and when they must.

Unfortunately, such overt action to put the peasantry back in its proper place will eventually create problems for The Power, as folks slowly come to realize that their votes mean nothing, that self-government is a disgraceful sham. Then Da Peepul do one of two things: they either give up completely with a shrug, or they get pissed right the fuck off. With the docile, stump-broke Brits, it’s a depressingly easy guess which way they’re most likely to jump. On this side of the pond the question is still open, if only just barely.

Share

BLASPHEMY!!!

Nazism, Marxism: two peas, one pod, all Left.

“Conservative” and especially “liberal” have changed over time and have different meanings in the United States and Europe. Hayek himself, who had a more European view of conservatism, was wary of labels. He spurned both “conservative” and “libertarian,” and dedicated his most famous book “to the socialists of all parties.”

For precision, I refrain from using “conservative” or “liberal” unless through quotation and use “left” and “right” as generally accepted in modern America. The right consists of free-market capitalists, who think the individual is the primary political unit, believes in property rights, and are generally distrustful of government by unaccountable agencies and government solutions to social problems. They view family and civil institutions, such as church, as needed checks on state power.

These people don’t think government should force a business to provide employee birth control or think law should coerce bakers to make cakes against their conscience. They think the solution to bad speech is more speech, and the solution to gun violence is more guns. These people talk about freedom—the method of individual decisions. (The counterexample might be gay marriage but that is a positive right—“give me something”—instead of a negative right—“leave me alone.”)

The left believes the opposite. They distrust the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. They give primacy to group rights and identity. They believe factors like race, ethnicity, and sex compose the primary political unit. They don’t believe in strong property rights.

They believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social problems. They call for public intervention to “equalize” disparities and render our social fabric more inclusive (as they define it). They believe the free market has failed to solve issues like campaign finance, income inequality, minimum wage, access to health care, and righting past injustices. These people talk about “democracy”—the method of collective decisions.

By these definitions, the Nazis were firmly on the left. National Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by “social justice warriors.” This brand of “justice” benefited only some based on immutable characteristics, which perfectly aligns with the modern brand. The Nazi ideal embraced identity politics based on the primacy of the people, or volk, and invoked state-based solutions for every possible problem. It was nation-based socialism—the nation being especially important to those who bled in the Great War.

But hey, you don’t have to take my word for it—or the above author’s, or even Hayek’s. You can get the skinny straight from the original horse’s mouth.

Yet the evidence the Nazis were leftists goes well beyond the views of this one scholar. Philosophically, Nazi doctrine fit well with the other strains of socialism ripping through Europe at the time. Hitler’s first “National Workers’ Party” meeting while he was still an Army corporal featured the speech “How and by What Means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?”

The Nazi charter published a year later and coauthored by Hitler is socialist in almost every aspect. It calls for “equality of rights for the German people”; the subjugation of the individual to the state; breaking of “rent slavery”; “confiscation of war profits”; the nationalization of industry; profit-sharing in heavy industry; large-scale social security; the “communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low costs to small firms”; the “free expropriation of land for the purpose of public utility”; the abolition of “materialistic” Roman Law; nationalizing education; nationalizing the army; state regulation of the press; and strong central power in the Reich. It was also racist and anti-immigrant.

Gee, the more things change, the more they really DO stay the same.

It wasn’t only theoretical. Hitler repeatedly praised Marx privately, stating he had “learned a great deal from Marxism.” The trouble with the Weimar Republic, he said, was that its politicians “had never even read Marx.” He also stated his differences with communists were that they were intellectual types passing out pamphlets, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

It wasn’t just privately that Hitler’s fealty for Marx surfaced. In “Mein Kampf,” he states that without his racial insights National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.” Nor did Hitler eschew this sentiment once reaching power. As late as 1941, with the war in bloom, he stated “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that the Nazis would install “real socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir became an international bestseller, wrote that Hitler viewed Joseph Stalin as a kindred spirit, ensuring his prisoner of war son received good treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on Great Britain’s Winston Churchill and the United States’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.

If, as has been said, the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing us he didn’t exist, then it could equally be said that the greatest trick ever pulled by the devils of the Left was convincing the world that Naziism was somehow a Right-wing phenomenon. Although the pitiful handful of present-day Hitler wannabes might argue otherwise—I don’t know, I don’t care—it ain’t, and it never was.

Share

Not fragile

No, I don’t mean the BTO song.

Leftists constantly preach such nonsense as “The world that we live in is beautiful but fragile.” “The 3rd rock from the sun is a fragile oasis.” “Remember that Earth needs to be saved every single day.” These and many other statements, along with apocalyptic predictions, are stock in trade for environmentalists. Worse yet, this fragile-earth indoctrination is fed to the nation’s youth from kindergarten through college. That’s why many millennials support Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

Let’s examine just a few cataclysmic events that exceed any destructive power of mankind and then ask how our purportedly fragile planet could survive. The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, in present-day Indonesia, had the force of 200 megatons of TNT. That’s the equivalent of 13,300 15-kiloton atomic bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II. Before that was the 1815 Tambora eruption, the largest known volcanic eruption. It spewed so much debris into the atmosphere that 1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer.” It led to crop failures and livestock death in the Northern Hemisphere, producing the worst famine of the 19th century. The A.D. 535 Krakatoa eruption had such force that it blotted out much of the light and heat of the sun for 18 months and is said to have led to the Dark Ages. Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind’s activities during our entire history.

Our so-called fragile earth survived other catastrophic events, such as the floods in China in 1887, which took an estimated 1 million to 2 million lives, followed by floods there in 1931, which took an estimated 1 million to 4 million lives. What about the impact of earthquakes on our fragile earth? Chile’s 1960 Valdivia earthquake was 9.5 on the Richter scale. It created a force equivalent to 1,000 atomic bombs going off at the same time. The deadly 1556 earthquake in China’s Shaanxi province devastated an area of 520 miles.

My question is: Which of these powers of nature could be duplicated by mankind? For example, could mankind even come close to duplicating the polluting effects of the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption? It is the height of arrogance to think that mankind can make significant parametric changes in the earth or can match nature’s destructive forces. Our planet is not fragile.

Occasionally, environmentalists spill the beans and reveal their true agenda. Barry Commoner said, “Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.” Amherst College professor Leo Marx said, “On ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”

Excepting a handful of misguided ninnies, the whole thing is nothing but a scam—a pig in a poke, a false-flag op—and it was never anything but. As Williams notes at the end, it’s a subterfuge intended to cloak the promotion of communism, the redistribution of American wealth, and world government. The climate changes, ever since the Earth first got itself one, and is going to go right on doing so with or without any nudging of any kind from puny humanity. Full stop, end of story.

Share

De-meaning

A tried-and-true tactic originating with the Soviets, now brought to its fullest flower by their American understudies.

Even before the manipulation of numbers became commonplace, the manipulation of words was a major tool in keeping the fear alive. Simple words in common usage, like “risk”, “known”, “similar” and “equivalent” were given esoteric meanings that bore little resemblance to their definitions in Webster’s Dictionary and of which the general public was completely unaware.

Thus, unbeknownst to the average citizen, EPA’s so-called quantitative cancer risk assessments have never quantitatively assessed the true risk of potentially carcinogenic exposures. In EPA’s 1986 Risk Assessment Guidelines, the following, uncharacteristically honest, and seldom quoted (except by me) statement was made: “The true risk is unknown and may be as low as zero.” Obviously, if the “true” risk is unknown, then the “risk” that is supposedly quantified in EPA risk assessments cannot be the “true” risk. Throughout my career as an ATSDR toxicologist, I routinely quoted the “zero true risk” statement in all of my toxicological evaluations for health assessments that addressed potential cancer hazards on site. And, it never failed to irritate agency management, and even some of my colleagues.

Originally, EPA classified chemicals as “known”, “probable” or “possible” carcinogens. These classifications were strictly defined. In particular, a substance could be classified as a “known Human Carcinogen” only if sufficient epidemiological evidence existed to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between cancer and exposure to that substance. However, in 1996 (the date of the first draft), EPA rewrote its Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines (CRAGs) to allow it to classify substances as known human carcinogens in the absence of any epidemiological evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. The final draft of EPA’s new CRAGs was not actually published until 2005, but, 5 years earlier (2000), dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-tetradichlorodibenzodioxin) became the first chemical to which the new CRAGs were applied, resulting in that chemical’s re-classification as a “known” human carcinogen. 

On November 28, 2006, late in my career as an ATSDR toxicologist, I delivered an in-house lecture entitled “Frank’s Last Word on Dioxin” to a very small audience. I concluded my lecture by predicting that the next “bogus human carcinogen” would be trichloroethylene. Just 5 years later (September 2011), TCE was, indeed, declared by EPA to be a “known” human carcinogen, notwithstanding all of the toxicological & epidemiological data to the contrary.

When they were originally created, both federal agencies had legitimate problems to solve. But, EPA quickly became a victim of its own success. As the environment became cleaner, there were fewer and fewer real environmental problems to address. So, they began inventing them, initially by just making their dose-specific health guidelines and media–specific comparison values smaller to create the impression of increased “risk”. Then, they would make the unsubstantiated and over-used claim that chemical X “is now more toxic than previously thought”. But, it was almost never true.

If all this is confusing, it was meant to be. Because, when something unintelligible is expressed mathematically and claims to be “scientific”, the tendency is for most people to assume that it is just “over their heads” and accept it uncritically. However, in this instance, as Seven of Nine said in Star Trek Voyager (Season 6, Episode 2), “You are being confused by irrelevant data; Ignore it.” In reality, the sole purpose of EPA’s scientifically bankrupt HEC method for evaluating the “risk” associated with “equivalent” inhalation exposures was to rescue the cherished (but counterintuitive) bureaucratic assumption that humans are more sensitive to the adverse effects of chemical exposure than are experimental animals.

It is an entirely defensible argument that, in order to protect the public health in the face of unresolved uncertainties, it is often necessary that agencies charged with that responsibility should “err on the side of safety”. However, that argument does not justify intentionally erring on the side of the absurd. For, there is with all things a point of diminishing returns. And, when we start basing expensive public policy decisions on the mere possibility that an implausible thing might happen, then we may as well start building airports for UFOs.

Don’t give them any bright ideas, buddy, they’ll get around to it soon enough. But the EPA is hardly alone in their ongoing campaign to sow FUD via rejiggering the mother tongue:

Two parties, two vocabularies. One positive, one negative — very bad, evil in fact.

Consider the testimony by Michael Cohen last week in front of various Congressional committees.

For example, since he worked for Donald Trump, Cohen was described about a million times as a “fixer.” Democrats, on the other hand, have lawyers.

Hillary Clinton paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat operatives who then bought or made up false Russian dirt on Trump — that was opposition research. Republicans, on the other hand, “collude!”

Republicans lie, Democrats misspeak.

Democrats plan, Republicans scheme.

If a Democrat changes his or her position on an issue, they have evolved … grown. Republicans “flip-flop.”

Whenever an unfamiliar politician is ensnared in some scandal, you naturally wonder which party he or she is a member of. If the “embattled” pol is a Republican, affiliation is usually noted in the headline, or at the very latest in the first paragraph.

If, however, you reach the third paragraph of the story without his party being identified, you can be absolutely certain you are reading about a Democrat miscreant.

A lot more to both of these articles, all of which you should read.

Share

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix