GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

At last, some in Controlled Media slam the Alt Left

by

Let’s hope this becomes a trend.

  • Associated Press, Black-Clad Anarchists Swarm Anti-Hate Rally in Berkeley.

    Berkeley, Calif. (AP) — An anti-hate rally was disrupted when scores of anarchists wearing black clothing and masks stormed the demonstration in Berkeley and attacked several supporters of President Donald Trump…

    “Anarchist” is the wrong word for Antifa, AP; try “communist” (by philosophy) or “fascist” (by their actual behavior). But, baby steps.

  • The Washington Post, Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.

    Their faces hidden behind black bandannas and hoodies, about 100 anarchists and antifa— “anti-fascist” — members barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park…

    Shortly after, violence began to flare. A pepper-spray-wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself. A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray and screamed, “Fascist go home!”

    All told, the Associated Press reported at least five individuals were attacked. An AP reporter witnessed the assaults…

Not to be suspicious, but all this has only been going on for the past 18 months, so… Why report it this time? Why now?

How hypocritical and low is the Left? This low

by

Bakers refuse a pro-Trump 9-year-old’s cake request.

When it becomes a thing, The Washington Post reveals the kid’s name, his hometown and his mother’s name. Also known as doxxing.

To be clear: I believe in freedom of association. I think the bakers should be able to refuse. Just like Christian bakers should be able to refuse the wedding cakes of gay couples.

But the Left takes the opposite view: that bakers shouldn’t be able to refuse any of the public. Fine, except for one very big thing.

Lefties care ONLY about making Christian bakers serve gays. When it comes to making ordinary bakers serve a kid who likes the President, the Left is nowhere to be found; or even doxxes the poor kid. Disgraceful!

Is Trumprussia boomeranging?

by

As Rush, Hannity, etc. have been pointing out lately, eight months of baseless Trump-Russia collusion allegations seem finally to be blowing up in the faces of the Democrats, Controlled Media and Deep State.

In a recent poll, 73% of Americans said the investigations are causing Congress to lose focus, 64% said they’re hurting the country, 56% said it’s time to move on, and 52% said they don’t believe Trump did any collusion.

And the story itself is taking a few turns. First, I’d like to give the background on something called the Trump Dossier.

  • It’s a salacious report on candidate Trump that was put together (in 2015 or 16?) by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele.
  • His work was sloppy, containing (among other things) provably-false tales of Trump associates meeting Russians in Europe, and probably-false tales of Trump doing bizarre sexual practices. (OK, tame practices by gay standards.)
  • Steele was paid to produce the dossier by a company called Fusion GPS.
  • Many suspect that Fusion GPS was paid ultimately by Democrats and/or #NeverTrumpers, and was hired precisely to do a hit piece (something shoddy and salacious).
  • The dossier was passed to the FBI and other U.S. agencies. Although they knew it was false in its most serious claims (or should have known), they appear to have used it as a basis for investigations on Trump and as a roadmap for questioning witnesses.
  • Also, some suspect that the Obama administration may have used the dossier to obtain their secret FISA warrants and/or NSA surveillance on Trump, during and after the 2016 campaign.
  • We need to know on that last point because, *if true*, it would be explosive: one would have to “connect the dots” of Hillary or DNC paying a foreigner for a bogus report on Trump, Obama using the report as a bogus reason to spy on candidate Trump, Susan Rice “unmasking” the data and distributing it within the Obama government, and then leakers possibly leaking Trump campaign secrets to media, DNC and/or Hillary. Quite a trick.

It’s backfiring on the Democrats because at long last, the Senate Judiciary committee is investigating Fusion GPS and who was behind the bogus dossier.

Next, I’d like to discuss The Washington Post’s blockbuster article last Friday on Russian election hacking, a game-changer.

WaPo is known for “burying the lede”: putting a title/frame on a story that tries to mask the important revelations within it. This article is titled “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault”. Thus, WaPo’s frame is: Russian election hacking is real and isn’t Obama a lonely hero for having tried to punish Russia?

But the article’s details tell a different story.

  • Everyone agrees, still, that Russia didn’t change a single vote. In that respect, the 2016 election was perfectly fair and un-hacked.
  • The CIA did report to Obama in 2016 that Russia was trying to do cyber-crime on various U.S. targets, including both the DNC and RNC.
  • For five months, Obama dithered and considered various responses and, in the end, he did…nothing. Until after the election (when he expelled some Russian diplomats, tightened some sanctions, and fanned the flames of protest and questioning Trump’s legitimacy).

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia [in the months before the election]. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

I want to make clear that I still do not take this “Russia hacking” narrative at face value. My reasons:

  • Still no evidence. The WaPo article doesn’t actually provide any.
  • After Wikileaks Vault 7 (including revelations that the CIA itself routinely hacks things and leaves Russian fingerprints), there is no reason to take the CIA’s word on anything – without evidence.
  • Also, Russia could have tried to hack into stuff – but with little or no effect.
  • In regard to the “DNC emails”, at least, it is still very plausible the leaker was Seth Rich, a DNC insider. Because Wikileaks dropped many hints about it. (At this point, yes I trust their hints more than the CIA’s.)
  • And it still doesn’t matter who leaked the “DNC emails” because they were 100% true and relevant information that American voters deserved. If it was Russia, they did not attack our nation or our democracy; only our 2 major-party Establishments. (Big difference.)
  • It is still exceedingly odd that the DNC denied FBI investigators access to their computers after the leaks. Instead, the DNC spoon-fed the FBI a report on supposed Russian hacking from another shoddy, DNC-paid company, CrowdStrike.

But let’s say it’s all true. Most observers agree that the major countries all try to hack each other (or spy), and to influence each other’s elections. And that Russia and the U.S. have been doing it to each other for 70 years or more. Why should 2016 be an exception? In that case,

  1. It is all the more strange and inappropriate that the DNC didn’t let the FBI in to look at their servers and network, after the alleged “DNC email” hack.
  2. It is strange and inappropriate that Obama didn’t defend the U.S. constitution (as his oath requires) by telling the American public. Obama was no stranger to stirring up trouble with Russia (see: Ukraine coup, 2014). Why wouldn’t he, here? Some guesses:
    • He’s just ineffectual?
    • The Russian interference was routine (see above); much less of a deal than WaPo is now making of it?
    • Obama didn’t want to draw attention to Hillary’s corrupt Russia dealings?
    • He didn’t want to draw attention to Democrats having serious problems with security; like, you know, Hillary’s e-mail scandal?
    • He didn’t want to draw attention to Hillary’s hypocritical interference in Russian elections?
    • He thought Hillary would win, and didn’t want any Russia messes tainting her presidency in the public’s mind? (This is WaPo’s theory. But then, when Trump won, Obama was suddenly OK with tainting the next President?)
    • Or: Deep down, Obama didn’t want Hillary to win? (This is Rush’s theory.)
  3. It is still strange and inappropriate that leading Democrats want to blame Republicans – and the American people – in all this. For example, from Rep. Adam Schiff:

    He said many groups inadvertently abetted Russia’s campaign, including Republicans who refused to confront Moscow and media organizations that eagerly mined the troves of hacked emails.

    In other words, damn the American people for opening their eyes and reading those 100% genuine DNC emails!

In short: If WaPo’s story is true, then instead of Trump-Russia collusion, we should be looking at Obama-Russia collusion and Obama-Hillary collusion. This is the game-changer.

Trumprussia was always “mostly bullsh*t”, as we learned Tuesday. The real story would be if the Russian government interfered in U.S. elections – and President Obama let them. Then made a big deal of it later – just to undermine President Trump. Now *that’s* attacking American democracy.

In every plausible version of this mess,

  1. Someone in the government spread around the fake Trump dossier (when they should have ignored/discredited it).
  2. The DNC hid an alleged crime scene from FBI investigators.
  3. Susan Rice wrongly “unmasked” data on domestic political opponents.
  4. Obama failed to do a thing about Russian interference; until it was time for him, and various Deep State leakers, to undermine a lawful new President whom they just didn’t like.

Cernovich on the intel leaks

by

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.

Another media football

by

The Washington Post claims that President Trump leaked classified info in a meeting with Russians.

NSA McMaster then denied the story. “The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.”

I’m not sure what to make of this. (So, feel free to tell me in the comments.)

From what I can gather, Trump was discussing a particular threat posed by ISIS. He is accused – by anonymous, off-the-record sources – of letting slip a certain city name that, in Allahpundit’s words, would “let the Russians figure out how a U.S. ally was getting its information on ISIS. He didn’t reveal who the source was or how that info was obtained and WaPo isn’t claiming that he did.”

Legally (and again following Allahpundit), leaking even such a small detail would be a big deal for anyone else in the government, “but because the president has the power to declassify classified information, he can blab all he wants…” If that’s true, then there’s no legal issue. But that does not answer the substantive questions:

  • Did Trump let something slip, that he shouldn’t have?
  • Or is The Washington Post merely extending its campaign of “Russia!” innuendo in trying to destroy a constitutionally-elected President?
  • Or perhaps both? (Picture every President being prone to an occasional indiscretion; and then The Washington Post choosing to bury the story if it’s Obama, but make a huge story if it’s Trump. I mean, for political reasons. What were Obama’s slips, that they never told us about?)

IF this story reflects something that really happened: Is McMaster now saving Trump’s rear end? Would McMaster, reportedly a proponent of the U.S. invading Syria, then gain an upper hand in the Trump administration?

UPDATE: Yes, for the Left to fuss is hypocritical. In the past, CIA Director Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden have blurted out classified information, resulting in deaths.

… it was [Panetta’s] loose talk after the Osama bin Laden raid that exposed a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, who helped locate the Al Qaeda leader. As a result, Afridi was imprisoned on fabricated charges and will live under fear of assassination for the rest of his life…

Panetta did not reveal that critical intelligence in a private meeting with a foreign emissary, but to the entire world, on CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

Even worse was the Obama White House’s decision to reveal that it was U.S. Navy SEAL Team 6 that carried out the bin Laden raid.

As Jeffrey Kushner recalled in the Washington Times: “On May 3, at an event in Washington, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did the unthinkable: He publicly revealed the identity of the special-operations unit responsible for bin Laden’s killing…”

The response came on August 6, 2011, when the Taliban shot down a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, killing 30 soldiers. Among the dead: 15 members of SEAL Team 6. Years later, the fallen heroes’ families remain outraged at the Obama administration: “In releasing their identity, they put a target on their backs,” one of the fathers told U.S. News and World Report in 2013.

Aftermath of Emperor Barack’s immigration move?

by

First off, we here at GayPatriot are in favor of legal immigrants and controlled, legal immigration from other countries. We simply oppose *illegal* immigration because of the importance of border security in the age of terrorism; and because it’s illegal. The people who have done it began their American journey by consciously breaking America’s laws.

As President Obama unilaterally suspended deportations of certain illegal aliens in 2012, and then last week expanded it to millions more, he has made clear what his priorities are not:

  • Enforcing the law, as passed by previous Congresses and signed by previous Presidents: Not a priority.
  • Defending U.S. borders: Not a priority. (Has Obama seriously tried to improve border security? Of course not.)
  • Following the Constitution: Not a priority.
  • Saving taxpayer money: Not a priority.
  • Being true to his own previous statements and promises: Not a priority. Per link above, “In a Telemundo interview in September 2013, for example, Obama said that if he were to broaden the exception he made in 2012…’then essentially, I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally.'”
  • Racial and/or human sensitivity: Not a priority. Obama publicly reduced the people affected by his order to their supposed roles as people “who pick our fruit and make our beds.” (Guess he never makes his own bed, or cleans his own home? I do.)

Any of the first three points above – and certainly, all of the first three together – are violations of the President’s oath of office and grounds for impeachment. But let’s face it: as V has suggested, impeachment will never happen.

I blame the media because this is what you get, when a biased media covers for an egotistical President relentlessly: Hubris. Lawlessness. Government that is willfully, impeachably unconstitutional. With no accountability.

But speaking of the media, I must give some credit where it’s due. In the past, I’ve often noted that Jay Carney was Obama’s paid liar, and he probably still is, on some level. But even he admits that Obama is “literally” doing what he promised not to do. Also, credit the Washington Post for noticing how Obama’s pretense of innocence happens to be a lie.

So, what do you think Congressional Republicans will do with the illegal-immigration issue, from here? Up to now, GOP leaders have been soft on the issue of border security.

They’ve also been eager to be perceived (in the media, etc.) as pro-Latino. But I’m thinking that Obama just took all of that ground away from them: there is no possible way, now, that GOP leaders can ever be perceived as more pro-illegal immigrant or pro-Latino than Obama.

In that sense, Obama just took away any incentive that GOP leaders would have for compromising with him. I think that will blow up in Obama’s face. And I think he has just proven to the voters that Democrats truly don’t give a hoot about border security.(*)

NB: The first version of this post misquoted Obama slightly; the quote has been corrected.
(*) Again, because of its glaring absence from the Democrats’ real set of concerns.