Tuesday, February 20, 2018
CNN and MSNBC Helped Russia Sow Discord by Promoting Fake Anti-Trump Rally
As I said HERE, the American media are actively aiding the Russians divide the country.
One of the revelations in Friday’s indictment handed down by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was that alleged Russian attempts to sow disunity in 2016 included the organization of both pro- and anti-Trump rallies in New York City on the Saturday after Election Day.A check of their November 12 coverage showed both CNN and MSNBC gave enthusiastic coverage to the Russian-organized anti-Trump rally that day, with live reports every hour. Correspondents celebrated the idea that it was “a love rally,” and repeated the marchers’ anti-Trump mantras, such as: “We reject the President-elect.”While the two liberal anti-Trump networks offered heavy coverage of the anti-Trump rally throughout the day, a check of coverage between noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern found that the Fox News Channel offered only a short re-cap (66 seconds) at the start of their 4:00 p.m. Eastern hour.Of course, none of the networks were aware of who was allegedly behind the march, but CNN and MSNBC reveled in the inflammatory messages of the march. At one point, MSNBC anchor Alex Witt credulously responded to the ridiculously alarmist rhetoric: “That woman, when she’s saying she’s concerned that black people will be shot in the street....Is that a legitimate concern for her? Because, that’s scary.”Correspondent Morgan Radford cheerfully played along: “Alex, it’s not only a legitimate concern for her, it’s a legitimate concern for a lot of people I’ve spoken to....They’re wondering if this [Trump’s election] is almost a license to carry in terms of hate.”If the goal of the secret Russian organizers was to inject nonsense like that into the American political dialogue, then their unwitting helpers on CNN and MSNBC certainly gave them plenty of assistance that day.Both CNN and MSNBC talked about who they thought was organizing the rally. On MSNBC a few minutes before the march began, anchor Alex Witt asked Radford: “Hey, Morgan, can you tell who has organized this rally?...Is there someone in charge here?”“Right now, this is lots of different groups of people who have come together,” Radford explained, “with no, necessarily, official leader, and that’s been some of the criticism.”An hour later on CNN, correspondent Brynn Gingras said the rally had been organized by “a 20-year-old student from St. John’s University here in New York....We’ve seen him several times shaking hands with police officers....It is the most organized protest that I’ve seen here in New York City.”A little after 3:00 p.m. Eastern, Gingras marveled at the crowd size, saying she had been “texting with the person, a 20-year-old college student here in New York City who organized this protest. I’ve been texting with him, and I asked, ‘Are you impressed with the size,’ and he says ‘It’s amazing what the collective voices can spread.’”
WHY SPECULATE? A talk by Michael Crichton
Read more »There are two times in a man’s life when he should not speculate: when he can’t afford it and when he can. —Mark TwainMy topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media. What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we do something about it? If so, what? And why? Should we care at all? Isn’t speculation valuable? Isn’t it natural? And so on.I will join this speculative trend and speculate about why there is so much speculation. In keeping with the trend, I will try to express my views without any factual support, simply providing you with a series of bald assertions.This is not my natural style, and it’s going to be a challenge for me, but I will do my best. Some of you may see that I have written out my talk, which is already a contradiction of principle. To keep within the spirit of our time, it should really be off the top of my head.Before we begin, I’d like to clarify a definition. By the media I mean movies, television, Internet, books, newspapers and magazines. Again, in keeping with the general trend of speculation, let’s not make too many fine distinctions.First we might begin by asking, to what degree has the media turned to pure speculation? Someone could do a study of this and present facts, but nobody has. I certainly won’t. There’s no reason to bother. The requirement that you demonstrate a factual basis for your claim vanished long ago. It went out with the universal praise for Susan Faludi’s book Backlash, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award for General Nonfiction in 1991, and which presented hundreds of pages of quasi-statistical assertions based on a premise that was never demonstrated and that was almost certainly false.But that’s old news. I merely refer to it now to set standards.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Ann Coulter: ANATOMY OF A COUP
Read more »Every place you look in Robert Mueller's investigation, the same names keep popping up: FBI agent Peter Strzok and sleazy, foreign private eye -- or "British intelligence agent" -- Christopher Steele.So it's rather important that they both are Trump-hating fanatics, and one was being paid by Trump's political opponent in a presidential campaign.Steele is the author of the preposterous dossier that sparked the special counsel investigation, and Strzok is the FBI agent involved at every crucial turn of both the Trump and Hillary investigations.As we found out from the House Intelligence memo, Steele told Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." (Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS, and, like Steele, was being paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.)In the hands of Trump-obsessive Peter Strzok -- he of the estrogen-dripping texts to his Trump-hating FBI lawyer mistress -- the dossier was used to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Trump's alleged "foreign policy adviser," Carter Page.The FISA warrant against Page constitutes the last crumbling piece of the "Russia collusion" story.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Mueller Indicts MSM
Mueller Indicts MSM
The Mueller indictment states that the purpose of Russia’s efforts surrounding the last general election was to sow discord. The indictment states that the Russians made use of “divisive U.S. political and social issues,” to set Americans against each other and “sow discord in the U.S. political system.”
The indictment goes on to say that:
Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants'' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of the -candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S> persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
If sowing discord was the object, any objective observer would conclude that the Russians were spectacularly successful. For roughly half the country, Donald Trump is an illegitimate President, soon to be impeached, a Russian puppet manipulated by Putin, and the second coming of Hitler.
How did that happen if, as asserted by the Mueller indictment, most of the Russian effort was to disparage Hillary? The indictment is a banal recitation of the use of social media, primarily Facebook and Twitter to call Hillary names and to promote “flash mobs” for Trump. It is alleged that two of the thirteen people indicted actually came to the U.S. There is literally nothing in the indictment that would lead anyone to conclude that the Russians had any effect on the election …. at all. Because that was not the objective.
In the face of a billion dollar Hillary Clinton campaign here are examples of what the Mueller alleges the Russians did:
a. In or around June through July 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased advertisements on Facebook to promote the "March for Trump" and "Down with Hillary" rallies.
b. Defendants and their co-conspirators used false U.S. personas to send individualized messages to real U.S. persons to request that they participate in and help organize the rally. To assist their efforts, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through false U.S> personas, offered money to certain U.S. personas to cover rally expenses.
c. On or about June 5, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, while posing as a U.S. grassroots activist, used the account @March_for_Trump to contact a volunteer for the Trump Campaign in New York. The volunteer agreed to provide signs for the "March for Trump" rally.
There is no reference in the indictment to the number of real Americans who participated or who attended. It’s doubtful that it persuaded anyone to change their vote and there is no assertion that it affected the election.
What’s totally missing from the indictment is the real reason that the 2016 election has divided the country more than any time since the Civil War. The Russians set off a few damp squibs. Meanwhile our very own Liberal media, with the apparent support of a politicized FBI, CIA and DOJ began lobbing nuclear bombs in the direction of Donald Trump, claiming that his election was illegitimate. The entire Liberal Establishment joined “The Resistance” as if they were French freedom fighters opposing the Nazis. It wasn’t the Russians calling Trump Hitler, Mussolini and worse. It wasn’t the Russians who claimed that Trump conspired with Putin to steal the election. It wasn’t the Russians who called Trump insane. It wasn’t the Russians who went on late night TV to tell dirty jokes about Trump fellating Putin. And it wasn’t the Russians who were demanding the end of the Trump administration via impeachment, a White House coup or assassination. That was the hysterics in the Liberal Establishment (along with the #NeverTrump Right).
There may be more indictments to come. The question needs to be asked: was there another group of unidentified Russian operatives working behind the scenes to influence American opinion makers? What made the Democrat Party operatives, member of the media, and the entertainment industry refuse to acknowledge that they lost an election? Posting on Facebook and Twitter, getting someone to hold up a sign, paying someone to dress up as Hillary in prison is all very well. But the biggest weapons in a culture war are found in newsprint or over the airwaves.
“Regular” people, as Kurt Schlichter calls them are really not the object of a sophisticated attack on a culture like ours. If you want to really move the needle you influence the influencers: the press, the talking heads, the comedians … and the educators who will influence the young “skulls full of mush.” If we really want to dive down and see what’s causing this country to rise up against itself, this is worth examining in detail. And this is not what Robert Mueller and his merry men are interested in doing.
CNN: North Korea Dept. of Propaganda
And:TruthRevolt friend Christian Toto over at HollywoodInToto.com has helpfully rounded up a sample of movie reviews of openly conservative director Clint Eastwood's new terrorism drama The 15:17 to Paris. The film is based on the true-life Islamist attack on a Paris-bound train in 2015 that was quickly thwarted by three American heroes who happened to be passengers on that train.
"A few critics hated how Eastwood didn’t give enough screen time to the terrorist in question, Ayoub El-Khazzani," wrote Toto, such as this reviewer from The National Post:
15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.
The movie's not about him. The movie is about the three American heroes. And to the outrage of leftist reviewers, Eastwood apparently wasn't inclined to depict a sympathetic terrorist. This is a Clint Eastwood movie, not a Rolling Stone magazine cover.
It's bad enough for a law enforcement agency to be biased. It's even worse for it to be biased and incompetent.
For the last few weeks we have been digesting the nauseating probability that the FBI used a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and ginned up by an assembly of creepy political hatchet men and women (Blumenthal, Shearer, Steele, two Ohrs, etc.) with input from various "friends of the Kremlin" in order to spy on an American citizen and, undoubtedly, Donald Trump, before and after he became president.In other words, the FBI displayed the behavior of a Banana Republic in its bias (well, it's a lot more than that, sadly ) at the same time it demonstrated it's incompetence by doing so in a manner that would so easily—despite their myriad redactions—finally be uncovered. Many have stated they felt they could do this—play fast and loose—because Clinton's victory was assured, but even that was no guarantee. Documents exist. Did they think Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch would stop their FOIA requests? Eventually, the truth gets known. Whether anyone does anything about it is another matter.This "biased incompetence" has not gone away. It showed up again Friday in the supposedly momentous announcement by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been indicted for monkeying with our 2016 election via social media. Two of them even came to the U.S. to do it. Aiming to wreak havoc with our system, they are alleged to have done everything from exploiting minority groups (in the grand Soviet tradition) to instigating pro and con Donald Trump demonstrations on the same day.Disinformation, as most intelligence officials know, or should, has been a hallmark of Russian intelligence since the czars. (Remember The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?) These particular Russkies began their disinformation campaign back in 2014, two years before the election.Wait... 2014?Where was the FBI? Why did it take them so long to unmask a fairly paltry one million dollar Internet campaign using the most old-style Soviet front groups, although throwing them up online this time? Could it be because this all got started under Obama and he was the one who famously excoriated Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential debates for daring to point out that Russia was still a serious threat? Obama (busy cozying up to and ultimately enriching Iran) accused Mitt of being back in the eighties. The Cold War had been over for twenty years. No wonder the FBI wasn't paying much attention to Putin & Co.Evidently it took the Trump-Russia gambit to get them off their duffs to discover this giant espionage ring—this even though Rosenstein admitted during his press conference it had no impact on the election and did not involve a single willing U.S. citizen. At certain levels, it seemed almost like a practical joke.
Byron York is doing great investigative reporting.
Wouldn't you like to know? Who benefits from keeping them secret?
Gowdy has read the memos.
On the House side, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., among a few others, was allowed to read the memos under the same conditions: FBI minder, no copies, no notes.What struck Gowdy was the general absence of classified information in the memos or any other reason they should remain secret. Out of a total of seven memos, the FBI had marked four as classified at the "secret" or "confidential" levels — not the highest level — but even with those memos, it appeared to Gowdy that they could be released publicly with only minimal blacking-out."What would need to be redacted would be incredibly small and really would not interfere with the substance of the memos," Gowdy told me in a phone conversation Wednesday. "I read them a long time ago, and I still don't know why they're not in the public domain. If they were really helpful for the Democrats, they would have been leaked a long time ago."..."I have read the memos," Gowdy said on Fox News "Special Report" Monday. "They would be defense Exhibit A in an obstruction of justice case — not prosecution exhibit, defense Exhibit A. If Comey felt obstructed, he did a masterful job of keeping it out of the memos."
Dalhousie University says its search for a new senior administrator will be restricted to "racially visible" and Indigenous candidates, part of its efforts to increase underrepresented groups on the Halifax campus.In a memo to the university community, provost and vice-president academic Carolyn Watters said the prerequisite is in line with the principles of Dalhousie's employment equity policy."We have embarked on the process of selecting a new vice-provost student affairs," she stated in the memo last month, adding that the search "will be restricted to racially visible persons and Aboriginal Peoples at this time."
This isn't the first time this has happened in Canada. One needs to look no further than what the University of Victoria did, with justification provided here.
James Taranto has moved on from his daily online Best of the Web column and his recurring documentation of New York Timesthink under the catchphrase “Fox Butterfield, is that you?” Butterfield was the Times reporter endlessly befuddled by, or indignant over, high incarceration rates coupled with low crime rates. Invoking Butterfield, Taranto noted cases of reported contradiction where correlation was more like it.CBS Minnesota affiliate WCCO introduces Pat Kessler’s story on gun ownership with this classic of the genre: “More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low.” Kessler himself reports: “Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI. And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.”
Friday, February 16, 2018
This is the kind of thinking that the Democrats and the Press, - but I repeat myself - hates.
“I oppose politicized science,” she writes, “in which researchers cannot study certain subjects -- or even ask certain questions -- for fear of a career-ending backlash and persecution.” Noting that America “was founded on the principle of open discourse” and that “[i]ntellectual diversity and vigorous, reasoned debate have been fundamental to America’s success, making us the freest, most prosperous, and most innovative society in human history,” Rebekah Mercer warns that “we have lost our way” and that “America is now a society that threatens, pillories, and harms those who dare to question the status quo.”
The anti-science Nazis in the media march on.
When you're too busy trying to overturn the last election ....
This is a good time to quote The Onion on another "...massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States."
Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the “Nunes Memo” could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. “Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale,” said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. “If we take away the people’s faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that’s left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons.” At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating constitutional rights.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Victor Davis Hanson
We can't allow this to end with a standoff, where the people who committed crimes and tried to remove a freely elected President get away with it. It's not good for the country.
...The FISA-gate, Clinton emails, and Uranium One scandals are sort of reaching a consensus. Many things quite wrong and illegal were done by both Hillary Clinton and her entourage and members of the Obama agencies and administration — both the acts themselves and the cover-ups and omissions that ensued.Remember, in the FISA-gate scandal such likely widespread criminal behavior was predicated on two premises: 1) certainty of an easy Clinton victory, after which the miscreants would be not only excused but probably rewarded for their zeal; 2) progressive hubris in which our supposedly moral betters felt it their right, indeed their duty, to use unethical and even unlawful means for the “greater good” — to achieve their self-described moral ends of stopping the crude and reactionary Trump.The wrongdoing probably includes attempting to warp a U.S. election, Russian collusion, repeatedly misleading and lying before the FISA courts, improperly surveilling American citizens, unmasking the names of citizens swept up in unlawful surveillance and then illegally leaking them to the press, disseminating and authenticating opposition smears during a political campaign, lying under oath to Congress, obstructing ongoing investigations, using federal funds to purchase ad hominem gossip against a presidential candidate, blatant conflicts of interests, weaponizing federal investigations, trafficking in and leaking classified information . . . The list goes on and on.The State Department is now involved. Apparently anyone who was a former Clinton smear artist can pass fantasies to a sympathetic or known political appointee at State. And if the “dossier” fits the proper narrative and shared agenda, it gains credence enough to ensure that it is passed up to senior State officials and on to the FBI. Perhaps a private citizen with a grudge against a rival should try that as well. These scandals will grow even greater before various congressional investigations expire....I think the Democratic fallback position will be to point to the career carnage at the FBI and DOJ as punishment enough.Director Comey was fired. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was forcibly retired. FBI lawyer Lisa Page was reassigned and demoted. FBI general counsel James Baker resigned. Senior agent Peter Strzok was reassigned and demoted. The former FBI director’s chief of staff, James Rybicki, resigned. Mike Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, took retirement. Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr was reassigned and demoted. Justice Department’s counterintelligence head, David Laufman, resigned. A cadre of others “unexpectedly” have left, allegedly (or conveniently) for private-sector jobs. Such career implosions do not happen without cause.Voters would only grow more cynical if some Americans were allowed to abuse constitutionally protected civil liberties, and to lie to the Congress, the FBI, and the courts, while the less connected others go to jail for much less. Without a judicial accounting, it will be impossible to clean up the hierarchies of the FBI and the DOJ.Indeed, absent accountability and punishment, the new modus operandi would be for any lame- duck incumbent administration to use federal agencies to enhance the campaign of its own party’s nominee. It would be only logical to conclude that criminal acts used to help a successor would be forgotten or rewarded under the victor’s tenure.
We can't allow this to end with a standoff, where the people who committed crimes and tried to remove a freely elected President get away with it. It's not good for the country.
Attorney General Sessions must find muscular, ambitious, and combative prosecutors (preferably from outside Washington, D.C., and preferably existing federal attorneys), direct them to call a Grand Jury, and begin collating information from congressional investigations to get to the bottom of what is likely one of gravest scandals in post-war American history: the effort to use the federal government to thwart the candidacy of an unpopular presidential candidate and then to smear and ruin his early tenure as president.Only another prosecutorial investigation, one way or another, will lead to resolution, take the entire mess out of the partisan arena, and keep the anemic Mueller investigation honest — with the full knowledge that if its own investigators have violated laws or used tainted evidence or in the past obstructed justice, then they too will be held to account.
What a great idea!
Read more »Scott wrote this morning about the extraordinary email that National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017, within minutes of when President Trump was inaugurated. It must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?If you read the email, which Scott posted along with Senator Grassley’s letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being C’d?
Sabo hung a phony street sign at the spot where the talk-show host crashed his BMW.
This is why the Trump administration is a new broom that sweeps away the old.
The Trump administration recently announced that it will “reassess” American aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA). That’s the agency charged with overseeing Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948 and, of equal importance, their descendants. The United States will now voluntarily contribute to the agency only $60 million rather than the expected contribution of $360 million, with all subsequent funding subject to further consideration...And UNRWA is hardly the “relief” and “education” organization portrayed in Western and Arab media. During Israel’s 2014 war with Hamas, its hospitals and schools were commonly used to stockpile Hamas weapons and explosives. The agency “strongly condemned” the use of its hospitals and schools in this way, but these condemnations somehow didn’t stop the practice. In the past two years, moreover, illegally built tunnels have been found beneath UNRWA schools in Gaza. By propping up the UNRWA, the United States was helping to fund anti-Israel terrorism while at the same time helping to fund Israel’s defense against that terrorism.
The wife-beater, the witch and the White House: Why the hell did Trump ever tell Rob Porter and Omarosa ‘you’re hired’?
Piers Morgan answers the most important questions
'Shut the f**k up, a**hole,’ snarled Omarosa Manigault-Newman at me. ‘How are your kids going to feel when they wake up and discover their dad’s a f**king f*gg*t?’Yes, this is the same Omarosa Manigault-Newman who just spent a year inside Donald Trump’s White House.I’ve met a lot of vile human beings in my life, from dictators and terrorists to sex abusers and wicked conmen.But I’ve never met anyone quite so relentlessly loathsome as Omarosa; a vicious, duplicitous, lying, conniving, backstabbing piece of work.Omarosa sidled up to me at the New York Mercantile Exchange and said, quite seriously: 'Piers, do you want a showmance?' 'A what?' I replied. 'A showmance. You know, a romance on the show - we get it on together. Happens all the time on Apprentice. Everyone has sex together. Then we can make lots of money out of it.’ I stared at her grasping, ferociously ambitious little eyes, and laughed: 'You must be joking, you deluded woman.' She didn't take it well. 'What are you? Gay?'From that moment, she turned on me like a viper.
But would you want to child to wear one?
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Where's the truth?
... lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning....In any event, much happened after the FBI director's March briefings of Congress. In May, the president fired Comey. The Justice Department, under Trump-appointed deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, chose Robert Mueller to be the Trump-Russia special counsel. Mueller gathered a number of prosecutors known for tough, take-no-prisoners tactics. And on Dec. 1, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.Yates went on to become a heroine of the Trump resistance (and at least one of Mueller's prosecutors) after she refused to enforce the president's travel ban executive order, and Trump summarily fired her. Her legacy lives on in United States v. Michael T. Flynn.But to outside observers, mystery still surrounds the case. To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway. The Flynn matter is at the very heart of the Trump-Russia affair, and there is still a lot to learn about it.
Monday, February 12, 2018
The syrupy slogans promulgated by the ruling class, ruling class wannabes, and fellow travelers on the Left aren’t fooling anyone, not even, I would guess, the people who say, wear, and post them. Truth is, they really don’t like the rest of us. No problem, we have our own lives and families. But it’s only not a problem until such disdain is combined with a sense of political entitlement and the coercive power of government.Which brings us to the political and cultural union of the Democratic Party and the permanent political class called the deep state, that forms the unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government that wields so much power up to and including the police power of the FBI.In private texts recently made public, FBI “super-agent” Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were quite candid. Their open disdain for a wide variety for groups including Italians, Russians, Romanians, gypsies, Virginians, Texans, and pro-lifers should surprise no one. The leaders of their party have been saying the same thing in public for years....The RhetoricLove trumps hate.Hope and change.“Hate is not a family value.”Tolerance.DiversityCoexistThe RealitySleazyEntitled“Buttf*** Texas”HillbilliesBitter clingersDeplorablesIrredeemableThe sense of entitlement and open disdain of this country’s counterfeit elites is dangerous. Early in the Obama Administration, it led to weaponizing the IRS against political rivals. That manifest wrong was never punished and it emboldened ruling class Democrats in the FBI to lie to the FISA court so they could spy on the Trump campaign for the benefit of Hillary Clinton.
Labels: ruling class