Gay Patriot Header Image

Feel the Bern

Bernie Sanders’ wife is under FBI investigation for possible fraud after she exaggerated (some would say lied) to get her employer a $10 million bank loan.

It’s less clear if Bernie himself is under investigation; but he could be, as the question of whether he improperly pressured the bank also needs looking into.

I have to say, I’m not surprised. Here at GP, we notice endless examples of left-wing hypocrisy. And I’ve long seen through the self-serving nature of Bernie’s behavior and comments. For example, in 2016 I noticed that he would condemn left-wing political violence – in a superficial way that deflects the blame to others; not meaning it.

How racist is CNN? Possibly this racist

Here’s a story that I’m late in mentioning; in part because I never saw it on CNN. 175 people are involved in a class-action lawsuit against CNN for racial discrimination.

(I apologize, if you have problems with the Daily Wire link. On my computer, it’s OK with an ad blocker. But without an ad blocker, DW eats all the computer’s resources, slowing things to a crawl. The story was also at Newsbusters and Breitbart.)

DW says this story gets even less coverage than the 13 people suing Fox News for racial discrimination.

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as “It’s hard to manage black people” and “Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?,” according to a complaint by former workers Celeslie Henley and Ernest Colbert Jr. filed in Atlanta federal court.

Colbert Jr. also claims he was paid thousands less than white colleagues as a manager at the affiliated Turner Broadcasting System.

Henley, a former CNN executive assistant, says she was fired in 2014 for complaining that black employees were being paid less than white counterparts.

Writes The Hollywood Reporter: Unlike the lawsuit against Fox News, the one against CNN and sister companies is much broader, claiming among other things that African-Americans receive lower performance ratings in evaluations, that there are dramatic differences in pay between similarly situated employees of different races and that the promotion of African-American employees is blocked by a “glass ceiling.”…

According to The New York Post, The New York Times is also being sued for racial discrimination:

The Times plaintiffs claim in a suit filed last year by New York lawyer Douglas Wigdor that “the Gray Lady” prefers to hire white employees to help target a white audience.

“Unbeknownst to the world at large, not only does the Times have an ideal customer (young, white, wealthy), but also an ideal staffer (young, white, unencumbered with a family) to draw that purported ideal customer,” a complaint states.

Staffers from the staid broadsheet charge that Times CEO Mark Thompson, hired in 2012, created an “environment rife with discrimination based on age, race and gender.”

These stories are from April and May. If you know anything more recent, please update us in the comments.

Radicalized by a Culture of Hate

Transgender person murdered co-workers because xe hated men.

Pennsylvania supermarket shooter Randy Stair left behind a trove of material explaining his motivations for gunning down three of his co-workers. In his recorded suicide notes, released just hours before Thursday’s rampage, the 24-year-old talked extensively about his depression and about who he was as a person—a transgender woman who hated men and toxic masculinity.

“And I just started hating guys more than anything. I hate guys, I think they’re [expletive] disgusting—the facial hair they have, the body hair, the muscle build, and all that [expletive] body structure [expletive]. I hate. Everything about guys I hate,” continued Stair.

I’d like to say the dude had some serious mental issues, but that would be transphobic.

The sentiments that men are disgusting, that masculinity is toxic, and that all men should be put to death are not uncommon in radical feminist circles.  The idea that masculinity is toxic has wide credence on the left, to the degree that  some universities now indoctrinate male students that they should be ashamed of maleness and strive to be more feminine.

But the anti-masculinity left need not worry about censorship. No one is going to ask them to tone down their rhetoric. It’s not like they’re white southerners or some other animals who are less equal than other animals.

The Face(book) of Evil

The Right-o-sphere is rife with personal stories of Facebook, Google/Youtube and Twitter either de-monetizing, restricting, throttling, censoring or banning conservative and libertarian voices.

Facebook seems happy to do it – while allowing Islamists the run of the place, to the point where PM Theresa May called for Internet censorship after the recent Islamist mass murders in Manchester.

Earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg said:

[Terrorist attacks are] carried out with a goal to spread fear and distrust, and turn members of a community against each other. I believe the only sustainable way to fight back against those who seek to divide us is to create a world where understanding and empathy can spread faster than hate, and where every single person in every country feels connected and cared for and loved. That’s the world we can and must build together.

This is so misguided that, coming from a nominally-intelligent man, one must almost wonder if some evil force possesses him? Because it happens to be what the wolf would say to the hounds if it could; or what Satan might say when cornered.

Newsflash, Mr. Zuckerberg: terrorist attacks are carried out with a goal of killing infidels and establishing the supremacy of Islam. Period. You have to admit a problem’s true nature, before you can solve it.

I don’t want to “fight back against those who seek to divide us.” Because that makes zero sense. Anyone who ever does anything good or new, or who takes a stand (be it true or false) on anything, “seeks to divide us.” It happens. It makes much more sense to fight back against those who seek to subjugate and/or kill us.

The terrorist losers use your own platform, Mr. Zuckerberg, and it’s not clear if you make much effort to stop them. Much less, an effort greater than what you put into stopping U.S. conservatives, or other critics of Hillary or the Big Government that you love so much.

Recently, a Pakistani man was sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy – on his Facebook page. Facebook claims innocence; “we do not provide any government with direct access to people’s data. We will continue to protect our community from unnecessary or overreaching government intervention.”

But I don’t know if I can believe that. Because:

Is Facebook an accessory to Pakistan’s judicial murder of Taimoor Raza? We need to know. I couldn’t find any recent statement about it.

And of course, that Facebook would ever give a hoot about anti-Jewish or anti-Christian blasphemy is unimaginable. (As it should be; the point here is Facebook’s extreme double standard.)

Right now it appears that Facebook puts WAY more into stopping conservatives and libertarians – people who stand for life and liberty – than it puts into stopping various kinds of Islamic murderer. That’s evil.

Hat tip Steven Crowder. By the way, his Painting Muhammad video is must-see.

Freedom for Me, But Not for Thee

Posted by V the K at 6:38 am - June 9, 2017.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy

A Pro-Donald Trump gay group was denied an application to host a float in a gay pride parade.

A spokesperson for Charlotte Pride issued a statement to Fox 46 defending its right to “decline participation at our events to groups or organizations which do not reflect the mission, vision and values of our organization.”

Gee, too bad Christian bakers and florists aren’t accorded that same right.

Anyone enough to remember when gay rights groups sued to force other people to let them march in their parades?

Much ado, part II

I wanted to capture some details for future reference.

  • Comey affirms that NYT has been publishing false stories of Trumprussia collusion.
  • Comey admits to maliciously leaking his own memos.

    Hmm – does this put Comey in legal jeopardy? (UPDATE: Seems more and more like it should. Comey’s formal memos of what happened on his job are government property. Could they be privileged information? Even classified? Then who was Comey to take them out of the office when he was fired; much less, to leak them?)

  • Senator Jim Risch dismantles any ‘obstruction’ case against Trump:

    Risch: ‘I hope’, this is [Comey’s version of] the President speaking, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go…I hope you can let this go.’

    […]

    Comey: “Correct.”

    […]

    Risch: “Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go.”

    Comey: “Not in his words, no.”

    Risch: “He did not order you to let it go.”

    Comey: “Again, those words are not an order.”

    Risch: “He said ‘I hope’. Now, like me you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases charging people with criminal offenses…Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?”

    […]

    Comey: “I don’t as I sit here.”

  • In other comments, Comey said that he interpreted Trump’s words as a direction, but that is, of course, B.S. Because
    1. Comey affirms above that he knew it wasn’t a direction, AND
    2. If Trump had given Comey a direction that Comey felt to be unethical or illegal, then Comey is in legal jeopardy for not having reported it sooner.
    3. Furthermore, per HotAir, Tom Cotton got Comey to acknowledge that he never threatened to resign over Trump’s behavior, as Comey did in a famous 2004 confrontation in John Ashcroft’s hospital room. Instead, and by his own admission, Comey told Trump “that I would see what we could do.”

    This exchange is stunning…ly bad for Comey:

    Rubio: Did you object to or inform the WH counsel about Trump’s “I hope” statement?
    Comey: “No.”
    Rubio: “Why not?”
    Comey: “I don’t know.”

  • We also have Comey and Trump both calling each other liars on certain points, which makes it he-said-he-said.

    Ever read Trump’s book? He has been dealing with lawyers day-in, day-out for DECADES. Figuring out how to influence people, without actually committing legal or ethical violations. His sister was a big-time Federal judge. The notion that President Trump would make inappropriate remarks to the likes of Comey, was always shaky.

  • Comey reveals that the Obama administration pressured him to downplay Hillary’s scandal. Call it a “matter”, not an “investigation”:

    LANKFORD: …the previous attorney general [Loretta Lynch] asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that?

    COMEY: Well, it concerned me because…the campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on.

    We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don’t call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter…that concerned me because that language tracked the way the [Clinton] campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning…the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way [the Clinton campaign] was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the federal bureau of investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling.

    Where’s the outcry on that? Or, might it be coming? 🙂

UPDATE:

  • Alan Dershowitz – hardly a conservative – makes the interesting point that, if Trump ever had ordered Comey to stop an investigation, his actions would be totally constitutional. Worth viewing.

    Here’s what I got from it. A President can’t interfere with a judicial process. For example, he can’t tamper with juries or witnesses, end a prosecution (short of doing a presidential pardon), defy a subpoena or destroy evidence. But an FBI investigation is NOT a judicial process. Constitutionally, the FBI Director takes orders from the President. Past presidents have ended investigations they didn’t like. If Congress smells a rat, Congress can impeach the President; but that, too, is a non-judicial process (separate and political).

  • These exchanges settle a lot. Flaming skull time!

    Senator Burr: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?
    Comey: I’m confident. By the time I left, I had seen no indication of that whatsoever.

    Senator Burr: Did the President, at any time, ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 elections?
    Comey: Not to my understanding, no.

    Senator Burr: Did you ever have access to the actual [DNC e-mail] hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
    Comey: In the case of the DNC…we did not have access to the devices themselves. [ed: which means, and as I’ve stated before, the FBI relied on a report by CrowdStrike, a discredited DNC-paid company]

    Senator Risch: While you were director, the POTUS was not under investigation [at any time], is that a fair statement?
    Comey: That’s correct.

    Senator Collins: I’m trying to understand whether there was any kind of investigation of the President under way.
    Comey: No.

    Senator Rubio: …the president agreed with your statement that it would be great if we could have an investigation…
    Comey: Yes, sir. He actually went farther than that. He — he said, “And if some of my satellites did something wrong, it’d be good to find that out.”

    Lefties: You are not living in reality, if you think Trump is in trouble on this set of issues.

The Ongoing Integration of Mosque and State

Christian prayer is banned from American public schools. Islamic prayers, on the other hand, have been deemed worthy of accommodation. (Another concession to the Islamic Supremacists.)

A New York high school has transformed two vacant rooms into areas where Muslim students can pray during Ramadan.

A spokesperson for Shenendehowa High School said the decision to offer Muslim prayer rooms on public property is part of their effort to be culturally proficient.

“The school is trying to do a lot more to be culturally inclusive and so is the district,” school spokesperson Kelly DeFeciani told the Saratogian newspaper.

So, the district is claiming this is a cultural accommodation, not a religious one, and that makes it OK.

You buying that, ACLU? Oh, you are? OK, how about you, Americans United for Separation of Church and State? You’re OK with it too. Well, surely the Freedom from Religion Foundation must have an objection? No, guess not.

So, all of this “separation of church and state” stuff you’ve been spouting is complete horsecrap and it was really about bullying Christians this whole time.

Just as I thought.

Flashback – guess who said it?

And on National TV, no less.

The jobs they [“illegal aliens”] hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. It is wrong, and ultimately self-defeating, for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

(more…)

Is Bernie Sanders Going to Share His Wealth?

Posted by V the K at 7:54 am - June 6, 2017.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy

No.

Bernie Sanders made more than $858,000 in royalties for two new books last year, according to the 2016 financial disclosure the senator quietly filed on Sunday.

And he’s keeping the money.

Comrade Sanders is also not opening up any of his three large, comfortable dachas to take in refugees or homeless people.

Socialism for them, but not for me.

It’s a bit like that other Socialist hero, Elizabeth Warren, railing against the cost of higher education while making nearly half-a-million dollars a year to teach a single class. Or, railing against predators taking advantage of foreclosed properties and flipping them, which was something she also did.

Will dimwit leftists ever wake-up to the fact that they’re being scammed?

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Let’s take the hypothetical cases of Billy, Alex, and Fatima. All of them are pre-teen children living in blue-state America.

Billy has just started puberty and thinks he may be attracted to other boys. Billy’s parents are deeply religious and concerned about this both for religious reasons and because they don’t want to see him ending up as the featured sling-bottom at a bareback chemsex party, and they would like him to talk to a therapist about changing his orientation or behavior. Current social status: Billy’s parents are worse than Hitler and what they want to do is illegal.

Alex has begun painting his nails, dyeing his hair pink, and told his mom he wants to be a girl. Alex’s mom immediately found a doctor who’ll be happy to begin flooding his body with artificial hormones to thwart the natural process of puberty so that when he turns eighteen, he can have breast implants and his genitalia mutilated into a crude facsimile of a cervix. Current social status: Alex’s mom is the toast of her wine and book club ever since she announced, “Alex is becoming Alexa, and we are being totally supportive.” She pitched an article to the Huffington Post, but they said, “No thanks, we’ve fulfilled our quota of ‘Supportive Parents of Transgender Youth’ for this month.”

Fatima’s Mohammedan Somali-Immigrant parents want to have her genitalia ritualistically mutilated so that she can never enjoy sexual pleasure. Current social status: Approved and defended by the ACLU and feminist groups, because to oppose such a thing would be Islamophobic and racist.

And that’s where we are in the Culture Wars in America. Good night.

Even Snowflakes hate socialism

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 12:07 pm - June 1, 2017.
Filed under: Academia,Liberal Hypocrisy,Socialism in America

…when it comes to dip into their pockets.

YouTube Preview Image

Via Ace.

Kathy Griffin fired, but is that enough?

CNN has fired Kathy Griffin from their next New Year’s Eve program. As V noted earlier, she posed for a so-called ‘artist’ with herself holding a blood-drenched, beheaded effigy of President Trump. In a single image, she managed to align herself with Islam (or ISIS imagery), Satanism (or satanic imagery), and assassination of the President of the United States.

To his minor credit, Anderson “Vanderbilt” Cooper tweeted “For the record, I am appalled by the photo shoot Kathy Griffin took part in. It is clearly disgusting and completely inappropriate.” (Minor because it’s something he should have done hours faster, and perhaps an understatement.)

It remains to be seen whether Hollywood and the Left will actually shun Griffin, or rehabilitate her once the dust settles? After all, the first reaction of a CNN panel (led by Jake Tapper) was a dismissive “We’ve got much bigger issues to focus on.”

And indeed, they do. After all, CNN is the Home of Fake News, such as:

  • proclaiming that Hillary is somehow healthy and a lock to win the election;
  • pushing the fake/scripted views of a seven year old as a serious reason for the U.S. to make war in Syria; and
  • pushing evidence-free, anonymously-sourced innuendo against Trump.

But maybe CNN’s dismissive, first reaction didn’t focus-group very well?

The whole thing got me thinking about denunciations in general. After all, conservatives and libertarians are supposed to denounce every little thing done by every little kook – or else we somehow are that thing. Recently,

  • Jacob Schwartz was arrested for child pornography. He isn’t a nobody. He is a longtime Democrat activist and staffer. His father is a huge Democrat donor and insider, having served as an Obama delegate and a lawyer for Bernie Sanders, the SEIU and ACORN (remember them?).

    Young-ish Jacob allegedly possessed graphic images of a 6-month old baby being raped. He was a top staffer to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio. Schwartz also appeared on Chris Cuomo’s program on CNN (them again!). Hillary’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, can be seen standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Schwartz – or at least he could, before Schwartz’s arrest triggered Democrats into disappearing the inconvenient photo.

    My question is, has Robby Mook denounced Schwartz, in no uncertain terms? Has Hillary Clinton? Or the DNC? Or CNN? Has Chris Cuomo indicated his regret at having Schwartz as a guest? I couldn’t find any such statements.

    Each of them, who has not yet done such a statement, therefore supports pedophiles and pedophilic rape – if we apply the Left’s usual logic about these things.

  • Marina Abramović is another left-wing “artist” who promotes imagery and practices that are awfully reminiscent of Satanism, with that Spirit Cooking thing she’s into.

    John Podesta is, of course, one of THE top Clintonites, as he was Hillary’s campaign chair and her preference for Secretary of State.

    It’s known that Podesta was invited, on warmly intimate terms, to a private Spirit Cooking “dinner” that his brother Tony probably attended, and which Podesta himself may have attended.

    Has either of the Podestas denounced Satanism, or at least Abramović? Has Hillary Clinton denounced either of the Podestas? I don’t think so.

    Again, apply the Left’s typical logic of you-are-clearly-for-that-bad-thing-if-we-don’t-agree-that-you-have-denounced-it-enough, and see where it would go, here.

  • And don’t get me started about Antifa – and the failure of many lefties to denounce their violence.

So, firing Kathy Griffin from a New Year’s Eve program that was going to happen in 7 more months: is that enough? Or should we call for more? If yes, what?

UPDATE: She says “I went too far, and I was wrong.”

Umm, “too far” in what? When I go too far, it’s because I love something. I ate too much chocolate or lemon pie. I tried to power clean too much weight. So, if Kathy “went too far” in making visible her fantasy of beheading the President and soaking his head in the blood, then deep in her soul, she loves…??? Something about this is still “off”.

Violence comes from the Left, part II

Hat tip to GP commenters for the stories here.

In Portland OR, a guy attacked people on a train, killing two and injuring a third. Naturally, the left-leaning coverage emphasizes his anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim views and his claims of being Christian, using them to call him a “white supremacist.” Which seems to be a leap.

“According to some preliminary witness statements, he was kind of spewing hate about a lot of different things,” said [police Sgt.] Simpson. “So not specifically and exclusively anti-Muslim. … So that’s why it’s hard to say at this point was he directing it at any one person, or was it just kind of in general to everyone around him.”

“We don’t know if he’s got mental health issues, we don’t know if he’s under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or all of the above,” said Simpson…

Court records show that [the attacker, Jeremy Joseph] Christian was convicted in 2002 of robbery, kidnapping and a weapons charge, according to the AP.

Ohhh…they’re saying it just because someone else said it:

The Portland Mercury reports that the suspect was a “known local white supremacist.”

The Echo Chamber at work. Now, maybe it’s true? Could be. I have no skin (so to speak) in that game.

But here’s what they’re not telling you. What they’re conveniently leaving out. The guy is anti-Trump and a supporter of Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders. He tweeted, “I gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!”

Which kinda makes him a leftie. Hmm. Maybe that’s why media have not covered this incident much, overall?

Likewise for Linwood Kaine, the son of Democrat VP nominee Tim Kaine (whom I presume is a Clinton-Kaine supporter).

Prosecutors are filing criminal charges against 8 counter-protesters who disrupted the “March 4 Trump” rally at the Minnesota State Capitol on March 4. Among those charged is Linwood Kaine, the son of former Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine…

The permitted rally inside the Capitol Rotunda was interrupted by protesters that Saturday, some of whom turned violent. A group of Trump supporters described the scene to Fox 9.

“They brought in pepper spray and tasers, and went after anyone with a Trump sign,” said Sandra Trater, a supporter of President Trump.

The charges are misdemeanors. But hey, at least they’re happening. Jazz Shaw notes:

Kaine’s son Linwood has only been charged with the more benign sounding counts of fleeing on foot, concealing identity in a public place and obstructing the legal process. But he was definitely part of the group that was attacking and not one of the “peaceful counter-protesters” as they are being described in many media outlets.

Flashback: Hillary’s Big Russia Deal

…in which Our Brrrrrrrrave Gal approved the transfer of 20% of the U.S. ongoing supply of uranium to Russian control, while taking millions in Russian- and/or deal-related donations.

I’m following this New York Times article from April 2015:

…the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, [took] over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal…brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States…the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among [them] was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns…Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show…

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. [ed: Riiiiiight.] But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors…

The article continues with pages of details. One tiny sample:

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

…several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Did the Clintons hide some large donations, possibly showing consciousness of guilt? Yes. Example:

To judge from [Clinton] disclosures…the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.

By the way, I didn’t know that “While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves…”

Exit questions:

  1. Why would NYT publish such an article? Why in April 2015? On whose hidden agenda?

    To be clear: I’m glad they gave us the info. But NYT is usually pro-Hillary. Why would they do something that undercuts her? Because Schweizer’s book was about to come out anyway?

  2. Why has no Special Counsel ever been appointed to look into all this?

UPDATE: Do the Clintons profit personally from the Clinton Foundation? (more…)

Violence comes from the Left

We’ve been having fun in the comments about Representative-Elect Greg Gianforte (R-MT). He body-slammed a reporter in rage, probably committing misdemeanor assault, then lied about what he did. Later, he apologized – but only sort of – because he never said what for and, to my knowledge, he has not yet corrected his false witness. (Feel free to update me in the comments)

His actions are bad. Both violence and lying are totally unacceptable, in our politics, from whatever side. And I think he’s just sorry that he was caught. If he merits prosecution (or censure or expulsion in the House), let the right thing happen.

He also needs to be seen in perspective. As usual, Tucker Carlson and V the K nail it. From V:

Gianforte doesn’t seem like someone I’d defend to the last, but I’m not going to let people who supported Ted Kennedy and Gerry Studds lecture me on who’s unfit to serve in Congress.

Also, is it just me, or has this one dust-up between a Republican congressman and a reporter gotten more mass media coverage than all the violence inflicted by Antifa, the Portlandia Anti-Trump mob, the Middlebury/Berkeley/UW-Madison college Democrats, and the woman in Tennesee who tried to run a Republican congressman off the road combined?

And Tucker Carlson for your enjoyment:
YouTube Preview Image
Tucker has a laundry list of recent, left-wing political violence – including threats and violence against at least 3 Republican Congresspeople.

Gianforte lost all control of himself – as a 56-year old man – and muddied the waters. For that, he has my contempt. But he’s a globule of mud, in a virtual La Brea Tar Pits of left-wing political violence in America today that many Democrats refuse to condemn.

As always, the Left and the Controlled Media (but I repeat myself) would rather pretend that the speck in Republicans’ eyes is the New Coming of Hitler, than look at the many logs in their own.

How the Establishment uses “special counsels”

The Obama administration used the IRS to target their domestic political opponents. AND they used the intelligence agencies as well (“unmasking”, “distributing” and leaking data from the U.S. surveillance apparatus) to target U.S. opponents.

Why has no special counsel ever been appointed, to investigate all that?

Or the Clinton Foundation corruption?

Or the innumerable classified-info leaks of recent months, many likely to be from Obama holdovers in the government?

Trump-Russia has been Fake News from minute one. My first reaction when a special counsel was appointed there was “Fine, let them spin their wheels on nothing”. That was too sanguine of me. It is indeed bad, for a couple of reasons.

First, as it is a witch hunt, they will keep looking until they entrap somebody in the Trump administration into a “process” crime. A la Scooter Libby, in the Plame affair. He ended up in jail, even though it was Richard Armitage who had illegally leaked Plame’s name.

Second and probably more important, it consumes DOJ and FBI resources that could and should be used to look elsewhere. And that’s the point of the thing. Democrats want to make sure no one will look at their horrific scandals.

Having a special counsel on the comparatively scandal-free President Trump, instead of themselves, is a huge coup. As in, coup d’etat against a lawfully elected President.

UPDATE: We could also talk about other types of investigation, such as complaints to the House Ethics Committee. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch asks, “Why the double standard?” against Rep. Devin Nunes.

  • Rep. Devin Nunes chairs the House Intelligence Committee. He blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s illicit “unmasking” of surveillance data. Democrats responded by filing an ethics complaint on him.
  • Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat of the same committee, has been all over the media for months, possibly leaking classified information (or at least confirming leaked info, improperly). Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint on him.
  • Guess Which the Ethics committee is acting on? And why?

I’ll say why: This is how the U.S. power structure works. By manufacturing (or at least spreading) one narrative; burying another. What you hear about, from investigations and the Controlled Media, is decided behind the scenes. Someone decides which thing you’ll hear about, and they decide because they have the hidden political power and it suits their agenda.

In this case, the House Ethics committee is run by Establishment Republicans. As such, they’re part of The Swamp; they are bedfellows to Democrats and the Deep State. Nunes sinned by bringing out a (true) story that strengthens Trump’s position. They would rather intimidate, mislead or weaken Trump into “playing ball”.

With every Deep State investigation and every Controlled Media “narrative”, you should ask: Why this one, not that other one? And why now?

(NB: Added and rewrote a lot, after first publication. Will stop now.)

The New Civil War

For the last 100 years – and, especially for the last 8 years under President Obama – more and more Americans have become feckless dependents of government.

They may be rich, middle class or poor. They may depend on government benefits, or on special favors written into our laws and regulations. Or they may be politicians and bureaucrats and government workers, deciding the fates of other people and taking paychecks a good deal larger than what most of them could get in the private sector. They may be journalists taking cash payments from the CIA, or billionaires with extensive government contracts.

And they are indeed feckless. They gladly believe and spread the most ridiculous things on zero evidence. For example, they choose a criminally dishonest politician (Hillary Clinton) to be president. When she doesn’t quite win the election, they gladly believe and spread rumors that the guy who did win is a Russian spy – on zero evidence, again – and chant “F*ck [him]!” at important political conventions.

On the other side are ordinary Americans who more-or-less believe in God, common sense, and supporting themselves through work. Again, they may be rich, middle class or poor. They choose 2 business people in a row to be president. The most recent one might not be a great role model in some ways, but at least he says sensible things in a forthright, unafraid manner. When he wins the election, he sets himself to the task of reviving America’s economy and manufacturing base – only to be undermined by the vast army and bureaucracy of the feckless government dependents, spreading their nonsense.

It’s a mortal conflict. And one side knows it: the feckless government dependents. Because America is fast reaching the point where it can’t afford to support them any longer. They, the cancer, are about to kill the host. They, the cancer, must be controlled and cut back – so that the rest of America can survive, and perhaps revive a little.

They, the feckless government dependents, know it deep-down. And, being out-of-control like any late-stage cancer, they are desperate to deny it and to continue a system – their own system – that promises to extract every last drop of life and treasure that can be extracted from normal Americans.

It’s Producers vs. Looters. Understand that the Producers are people of all classes and walks of life. Likewise, the Looters are people of all classes and walks of life.

And so we arrive at the political struggles of the last seven months. President Trump isn’t perfect. I did not support him. I still don’t support him, whenever and wherever I may disagree with him. But, somehow (and although I never wanted it), he became a leader for the Producers – or at least for the opponents of America’s looting, criminal Establishment. Imperfect Mr. Trump is the president we’ve got. And the vast army and bureaucracy of the feckless government dependents are determined to destroy him.

Thus the endless, utter nonsense they spew each day. I’m not sure what to do about it. I know that supporting Trump blindly will not help. But tolerating nonsense will also not help.

The only thing I know how to do, that might help in some tiny way, is to keep telling the truth as I see it unfolding around me.

Or posting links.

Schlichter sums it up well: “Someone came to Washington who wasn’t part of the club, and that’s intolerable. So they are desperate to expel him, and by extension, us. Every day will be a crisis, every action he takes will be the worst thing that has ever happened, and every step towards keeping his promises a crime.”

Each day, let us dedicate ourselves anew to rejecting the nonsense. And to offering truth, in its place.

DNC thinks it has a right to rig elections

JamPAC (at jampac.us) is a leftie group suing the DNC over the 2016 primaries. Some points from a recent update (hosted by Stefan Molyneux):

  • Class action filed in June 2016 on behalf of Bernie-supporting Democrats, alleging that Bernie-supporting donors were defrauded, in that the primary process was rigged unfairly to favor Hillary.
  • April 25 2017, the court heard the DNC’s second motion to dismiss.
  • DNC argued that the plaintiffs don’t have standing because the DNC has every right to pick candidates itself in back rooms, disregarding its own election rules.
  • DNC also argued that its rules (and its explicit promise to donors to enforce them fairly) is like a politician’s promise, not to be taken seriously.
  • Earlier, DNC had tried to dismiss the lawsuit by alleging that Shawn Lucas had not served it correctly.

Predictably, the Controlled Media has not given this story much coverage.

The original complaint is halfway-interesting reading. For one thing, it sticks with the “Russia hacked the DNC” narrative (ignoring Seth Rich). But, whatever; the plaintiffs clearly have other fish to fry.

The complaint goes on to mention the DNC’s plans to collude with the media “with no fingerprints” in the general election; to plant fake news and social media attacks to “muddy the waters” around Hillary’s vulnerabilities; to influence the selection of generals on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and more.

In view of the fact that Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas both seem to have died unexpectedly after crossing the DNC, you might want to include in your thoughts and prayers Jared Beck, the JamPAC lawyer.

Comey’s dirty track record

Former FBI Director James Comey once served the Bush administration and is supposed to be a “registered Republican”. But some gay guys marry women and are supposed to be straight. Sometimes, the declaration doesn’t matter – or is there for cover.

I’ll provide some highlights of Comey’s career, then details. First, the highlights. Or should I say lowlights? As I realized everything that Comey has been into and how political he is, my jaw dropped.

  • Comey helped the Clintons to escape justice over Bill’s pardon of Marc Rich.
  • Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Valerie Plame affair. (A bizarre mess that ended in the prosecution of Scooter Libby, and the political tar-and-feathering of the Bush administration.)
  • Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart. (This may be OK; but I will show that it sets up the irony/hypocrisy of his later saving Hillary from prosecution.)
  • Comey helped the Clintons in the Sandy Berger investigation, by limiting its scope.
  • Comey limited the government’s actions to punish a corrupt auditor, KPMG.
  • Comey obstructed the Bush administration’s post-9/11 efforts to do warrantless surveillance. That could be a great thing; except that
    1. his actions were surrounded by allegations of lying and usurpation of power; and
    2. he went on to happily serve an Obama presidency that did far worse things than Bush, in terms of warrantless surveillance.
  • Comey served as General Counsel of a scandal-ridden defense contractor, then a Director of a scandal-ridden bank. (I don’t have anything strong here; mentioned for completeness.)
  • And then as FBI Director, of course, Comey knew Hillary was guilty but usurped authority and blocked her prosecution, turning the statutes on their head in the process.

If I missed anything, please let us know in the comments. For example, did Comey play any part in Hillary’s Uranium One fiasco? (UPDATE: Yes, indirectly. It involved Clinton Foundation corruption. Charles Ortel points out that Comey has repeatedly been on-point to investigate that corruption and has refused to do so, giving it a pass.)

Some of Comey’s actions might be defensible. But looking at the overall pattern: I personally conclude that Comey is a longtime Democrat operative, as well as a liar-when-it-suits-him.

Now for details. (more…)

Cernovich on the intel leaks

This refers to Monday’s drama where The Washington Post alleged that President Trump had inappropriately leaked intelligence to the Russians.

First, why should anyone care what Mike Cernovich thinks? Because lately, he’s been breaking stories. He seems to have sources. His claims are outlandish; and then they turn out to be on the right track (though not 100% on all details).

So, here he is on the WaPo story. It’s a long video. Listening at 1.5x speed helps. Or I can just tell you his key points. Disclaimer – take this as his opinion and speculation. I’m interested mainly to see if it’s going to come true again?

  • Whoever leaked the story to WaPo, leaked way more classified information than Trump did.
  • At most, Trump revealed a location where some intelligence had happened. But WaPo was given far more detailed classified information, by its source(s).
  • As such, the leaks to WaPo were highly illegal, and have done far more damage to American security.
    • Because WaPo computers/networks can be hacked (and probably are).
  • White House and NSC staff have been on lockdown while they figure out who is the leaker. Cernovich’s top candidates:
    1. David Laufman, chief of counter-intelligence at the FBI. Obama donor. Was in charge of investigating Hillary’s emails; i.e., helped whitewash her. Has been involved in previous leaks. Fits the profile of someone who was not present at the meeting with Russians, but who nonetheless saw the meeting notes and all kinds of other classified info.
    2. NSA McMaster. Has a troubled relationship with Trump; potential motive would be to create a disaster, then be the hero who gets Trump out of it.
    3. Kris Bauman, a pro-Hamas / anti-Israel hire of McMaster’s; potential motive would be to disrupt the U.S. relationship with Israel.
  • One way or another, people will be going to prison over this episode.

As to Seth Rich: Per Cernovich,

  • Rich was the DNC leaker. (again Mike’s opinion/speculation – although I agree)
  • He was one of that rare breed: a Democrat staffer who was an American patriot. He was outraged by the Democrats’ rigged primary.
  • The Rich family spokesperson who denies all this (Bauman) is a political consultant paid by the DNC (not the Rich family).
  • When the DNC reported the hacking, FBI agents asked to look at the hacked servers – and the DNC refused. DNC hired CrowdStrike to concoct the narrative that DNC wanted (Russia hacking).

I do recall that former FBI Director Comey has been a strong supporter of CrowdStrike and their report; for example in his testimony before Congress. It is remarkable how many different actions of Comey’s over the years have helped Democrats and/or Clintons.