.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, May 27, 2017


"They're Liars!" Tucker GOES OFF on CNN, MSNBC, ABC for Manchester Coverage

Labels: , , , , , ,





Alan Dershowitz: Russia Probe Sounds Like Stalin's Secret Police

Labels: , , , ,


How Team Obama tried to hack the election

From the NY Post

New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic-spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.

The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election.

The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans.

Thanks to Circa News, we now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke administration officials.

The story concerns what’s known as “upstream” data collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under which the NSA looks at the content of electronic communication. Upstream refers to intel scooped up about third parties: Person A sends Person B an e-mail mentioning Person C. Though Person C isn’t a party to the e-mail, his information will be scooped up and potentially used by the NSA.

Further, the number of NSA data searches about Americans mushroomed after Obama loosened rules for protecting such identities from government officials and thus the reporters they talk to.

The FISA court called it a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue” that NSA analysts — in violation of a 2011 rule change prohibiting officials from searching Americans’ information without a warrant — “had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

A number of those searches were made from the White House, and included private citizens working for the Trump campaign, some of whose identities were leaked to the media. The revelations earned a stern rebuke from the ACLU and from civil-liberties champion Sen. Rand Paul.

We also learned this week that Obama intelligence officials really had no good reason attaching a summary of a dossier on Trump to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave to Obama just weeks before Trump took office.

Under congressional questioning Tuesday, Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan said the dossier did not “in any way” factor into the agency’s assessment that Russia interfered in the election. Why not? Because as Obama intel czar James Clapper earlier testified, “We could not corroborate the sourcing.”

But that didn’t stop Brennan in January from attaching its contents to the official report for the president. He also included the unverified allegations in the briefing he gave Hill Democrats.

In so doing, Brennan virtually guaranteed that it would be leaked, which it promptly was.

In short, Brennan politicized raw intelligence. In fact, he politicized the entire CIA.

Langley vets say Brennan was the most politicized director in the agency’s history. Former CIA field-operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was “known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says.”

Coyle noted that Brennan broke with his predecessors who stayed out of elections. Several weeks before the vote, he made it very clear he was pulling for Hillary. His deputy Mike Morell even came out and publicly endorsed her in The New York Times, claiming Trump was an “unwitting agent” of Moscow.

Brennan isn’t just a Democrat. He’s a radical leftist who in 1980 — during the height of the Cold War — voted for a Communist Party candidate for president.

When Brennan rants about the dangers of strongman Vladimir Putin targeting our elections and subverting our democratic process, does he not catch at least a glimpse of his own reflection?

What he and the rest of the Obama gang did has inflicted more damage on the integrity of our electoral process than anything the Russians have done.

Labels: , , , ,


Trump's budget

Trump’s budget is drawing howls of outrage from the Left. The Washington Establishment is screaming that 3% economic growth is impossible. The New York Times labels Trump’s budget projections merely “improbable” after calling it “austere.”

Before Obama The Lightworker took over, economic growth projections of 4% or better were common. Here are The Lightworker’s growth projections in 2012.
2013 = 6%
2014 = 5.6%
2015 = 5.8%
2016 = 5%
In subsequent years growth projections were lowered by a few fractions of a percentage point but never near the actual abysmal numbers that the economy actually produced. Through the whole Obama administration, there was never a prediction of GDP growth as low as 3%–the level that liberals now deem “improbable” if not “insane.”

The Obama administration was never about economic growth. It was about economic regulation, economic control and economic direction. It was about government control. It was rather miraculous that some parts of the economy escaped the stranglehold of Team Obama to escape and give us the small, struggling economic expansion we actually got.

Freeing the economy from the tentacles of the government has the Ruling Class in a panic. They may actually have to produce something that people want to make a living. That’s why they are working to destroy him.



Trump Faces the Fury of a Scorned Ruling Class

From the Wall Street Journal

A lobbyist friend who visited Capitol Hill recently came away horrified. “I now am ready to believe that the partisanship is so unhinged that it’s a threat to the Republic,” she writes in an email.

This Washington hysteria comes at a time of full employment, booming stocks, relative peace and technological marvels like an electronic robot named Alexa who fetches and plays for you songs of your choice. What’s the fuss about?

We all know the answer: Donald Trump. The Washington body politic has been invaded by an alien presence and, true to the laws of nature, that body is feverishly trying to expel it. These particular laws of nature demand rejection of anything that threatens the livelihoods and prestige of the permanent governing class.

The “threat” that has Washington quaking is the first serious effort in a long time to curb federal regulatory power, wasteful spending, and a propensity to run up mountainous budget deficits and debt. That’s presumably what the voters wanted when they elected Donald Trump. Democrats—accurately regarded as the party of government—seem to fear that Mr. Trump might actually, against all odds, pull it off.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and other apostles of the Democratic Party have apparently set out to prove that despite their shaky business models they can still ignite an anti-Trump bonfire. A recent headline in the Post. asserted that “Trump’s scandals stoke fear for the 2018 midterms among Republicans nationwide.”

What scandals would those be? There was of course the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Democrat Hillary Clinton went on TV to claim that Mr. Comey cost her the election. Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey. Did Democrats praise the president? No, they want him impeached. Devious logic, but devious is a good descriptor of much of what goes on in this fight.

Mr. Comey retaliated by leaking a “big scoop” to the Times—notes taken when Mr. Trump allegedly asked him to back off on the investigation of national security adviser Mike Flynn. But let’s recall the circumstances of this “investigation.” The Obama administration—possibly the FBI—tapped a phone conversation between Mr. Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Then Mr. Obama’s minions used the raw data to “unmask” Mr. Flynn and get the retired general fired for not giving a full account of the discussion. Given that sorry record of political involvement, was Mr. Trump so wrong if he asked Mr. Comey to go easy?

Then there was the Post’s “shocking” revelation that the president gave classified information to Russia’s foreign minister. The president is commander in chief of the U.S. military and conducts foreign policy. The intelligence agencies work for him, and he is responsible for using what they provide to further U.S. interests. Is it so unlikely that a friendly tip to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about an ISIS tactic was calculated to earn trust? A more interesting question is who walked out of the room and illegally handed the Post this “scoop.”

Russians aren’t popular in the U.S., for many good reasons. That has its uses for Trump baiters. Democratic claims that Mr. Trump conspired with the Russians to swing the November election led the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor, former FBI chief Robert Mueller, to investigate. But is this claim even slightly plausible? So far all we have are anonymous officials who claim that intelligence agencies know of individuals with connections to the Russian government who supplied WikiLeaks with hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s accounts. But these officials are still unwilling to go on the record.

The Washington community knows how to fight back when it feels threatened. Leakers are having a ball, even if it has taken a lot of journalistic imagination to turn the most notorious leaks into “scandals.” Almost everyone in town has a stake in fending off the Trump threat: government workers and the businesses that serve them, public unions, lobbyists and their clients, owners of posh hotels and restaurants that cater to well-heeled visitors seeking government favors, journalists whose prestige derives from the power center they cover, academics who show politicians how to mismanage the economy, real-estate agents feeding on the boom—to name a few. It’s a good living, and few take kindly to a brash outsider who proclaims it is his mission to drain the swamp.

Mr. Trump is on the attack and Washington is fighting back. Is the Republic in danger? Another question is how much danger will it be in if Mr. Trump loses?

Labels: , ,



The Fourth Circuit’s decision can only be understand as part of the left’s resistance to President Trump.

No one should be surprised that the federal judiciary has enlisted in the resistance. It is, to borrow Trump’s rhetoric, a swamp.

Labels: , , ,


The reputation of the judiciary is already sinking. If voters believe that it’s allowing voter fraud, it will sink much further.

Hundreds Vote Illegally in North Carolina after Court Bans Election Integrity Law

Stealing elections courtesy of the Fourth Circuit.

Ruling in favor of voter fraud ... (if you know any of these people public shaming is acceptable)

Roger Gregory
J. Harvie Wilkinson III
Paul V. Niemeyer
Diana Gribbon Motz
William Byrd Traxler Jr.
Robert Bruce King
Dennis Shedd
Allyson Kay Duncan
G. Steven Agee
Barbara Milano
James A. Wynn Jr.
Albert Diaz
Henry Franklin Floyd
Stephanie Thacker
Pamela Harris
James Dickson Phillips Jr.
Robert F. Chapman
Clyde H. Hamilton
Andre M. Davis

Labels: ,


Why did Hillary dress up like Monica Lewinski for the commencement speech?



Democrats are desperate to cover up IT corruption in Congress

Few public answers to puzzle in Congressional IT investigation

Labels: ,


Ever notice that the “it’s compassionate to provide less care” thing sure seemed to pick up as soon as ObamaCare passed.

Have you noticed that it's becoming good medicine to let people die?   From NPR.    That the number of tests for things like breast and prostate cancer are being reduced?   When the government is in charge of your health care, death is cheaper.

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 26, 2017


Former professor arrested in beating at Berkeley Trump rally

Why did it take so long?

Labels: , ,


What you won't learn in the press: the Nazis were Socialists and hated capitalism

The Big Lie Press would have you believe that the Nazis were right wing.  It's a great example of the Big Lie.  They were Socialist, lie Bernie Sanders and so many in academia, the press and the media.

Here are a few things they believed:

England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished, socially enslaved, and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs. Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.

“Englands Schuld” (“England’s Guilt”), Illustrierter Beobachter, Sondernummer, p. 14. Goebbels' article is not dated, but is from the early months of the war, likely late fall of 1939.

We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!

Written by Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). Translated as “Those Damned Nazis,” (propaganda pamphlet).

The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.

Claudia Koonz , The Nazi Conscience, London and Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University (2004) p. 13. Quote from March, 1933.

Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.

As quoted in The New York Times, “Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,” November 28, 1925 (Goebbels' speech Nov. 27, 1925)

Labels: , , , , ,


How the MSM became Joseph Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels: On the "Big Lie"

Labels: , , ,


Feminists want you to shut up

And Social Justice Warriors always lie.

Labels: ,


I thought the science was settled.

It seems that every week we hear of a new study that tells us something completely different from the study before. One week eggs are harmful. The next, they're all but the elixir of life. A week later, they might as well be cyanide. It's difficult to keep up.

One constant has been that eating too much dietary fat is bad for your health. In fact, one could call it a scientific consensus.

However, one of the great things about science is that everything is supposed to be questioned, including the accepted notion that dietary fat is bad for you. In fact, Legal Insurrection reports on one study that did and found that fat may not be the poison we've been led to believe.

It turns out that after the low-fat dietary guidelines were published the incidence of obesity and diabetes has exploded.

As LI points out, so many government dietary shibboleths have come crashing down that it's probably a good idea to just ignore whatever Uncle Sam trots out next as the way to eat.

Ditto for government "science" on global warming.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, May 24, 2017


You just can't make this stuff up!

Two ABC News reporters were worried about a potential ‘anti-Islamic backlash' on Tuesday morning, hours after the Manchester terrorist attack.

A suicide bomb attack killed at least 22 people and injured more than 50 others after an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Several of the victims were children, including eight-year-old Saffie Roussos.

The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the assault.

ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos told network correspondent Martha Raddatz hours after the attack on "Good Morning America" that it would most likely spark anti-Islamic sentiment across the United Kingdom and Europe.

Labels: , , ,


Obama intel agency secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans for years

Obama's culture of corruption.  This is why Obama's intelligence leaders lied to loudly and so often that Trump was not wiretapped.  This is why the press keeps insisting that Obama did not spy on Trump.  This is what they wanted to hide.

Labels: , ,


Why as Trump Elected? Mark Steyn reminds us.

The Republican base voted for Trumpism: an end to illegal immigration, an end to one-sided trade deals, an end to the spiraling cost of and dwindling access to health care, an end to decade-and-a-half unwon wars, an end to the hyper-regulation of every aspect of American life, an end to freeloader "alliances" like Nato, an end to the toxic bargain of "globalism" wherein all the jobs in your town migrate to the Third World and all the Third World migrates to your town.

Every time I hear someone on the "conservative" side tell Trump to shut up, stop tweeting and become "more presidential" I remind myself that's not what got Trump to where he is and that's not where the people who elected him are.  

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, May 23, 2017


Of Anointed and Laymen

Have you noticed how many things we have been told about what we should and should not eat are wrong?  A generation of people who were told by "science" how to eat are now FAT. 

In the book Tales of New America, there is a scene which stuck with me. In it, an intelligent, educated man of some stature is attempting to sneak in to the “red state” half of a Balkanized America. The man is wealthy, powerful, and possesses the self-confidence of such folks.

He is outsmarted by a lowly, unattractive border guard. The border guard explains that he was not a good-looking man, nor was he privileged to attend great universities. But that didn’t mean he was stupid. The assumption that a man employed in a lowly, backwater job is dumb is a mistake. In this story, it caught the interloper by surprise, and cost him his life.

And that is one reason Donald Trump is President.
For all their vaunted education and intellectual credentials, the intelligentsia was outsmarted by a boorish real estate developer. Note also the difference in payroll expenditure. The way things work in the anointed world, and I’ve seen it first hand, is everything is accounted in terms of the size of your demesne. The more people you have, the more powerful you appear. Their first instinct is always more. More money, more people, more media exposure.

Even a regular old construction worker can tell you that at a certain point, more people and more money won’t buy you a damn thing. In fact, in many cases, adding more people just means there are more folks getting in the way. Most laymen have an instinctive distrust of committees, and for good reason.

So what is the difference between the layman and the anointed, anyway?

It isn’t precisely college education, though that is related in some fashion. There are laymen who hold advanced degrees and do excellent work. And there are laymen who hold no degree, and nonetheless do great work, also. The primary difference may be the focus.

Laymen are job-focused. You have to build a building, or fix a car, or write software to do something. The anointed are power-focused. Whether or not anything gets built is of no concern. Indeed, it may even be the opposite, in that if an organization they control ever achieves its primary goal (like, say, eradicating breast cancer), then their power would be diminished. So often times, their goal is to prevent the work from being completed. This is heresy to the layman.

Sometimes it gets ridiculous.
The anointed are hyper sensitive to perceived political shifts. This has, in recent years, been used to embarrass them with planted political issues, like 4chan’s push of free bleeding, which led women around the world to bleed in their pants to protest the patriarchy.

And this shows the absurdity of it all. These people propose to rule the laymen, and yet no layman would have been fooled by such an obvious political ruse. He’d have said something like “well, if you want to bleed in your pants, that’s your own business, I guess. But seems kinda stupid and gross to me.” Even a construction worker with an IQ of 95 wouldn’t be quite that gullible.

This, of course, has led to colossal flip-flopping on political issues as the anointed try to gauge how best to play the power game at that particular moment.

So an anointed can believe, simultaneously, in an extreme example of doublethink, that evolution must be true, and evangelical Christians are stupid for believing in Creationism (and thus must be accounted as science deniers), while trying to tell us that biological gender doesn’t even exist. The fact that kindergartners can tell the difference, but Yale grads can’t, is telling. So much for the Party of Science, eh?

And the bottom line is ... power.

And, as O’Brien [1984] explained, it was all about power, nothing more. Truth was irrelevant and could be manipulated anyway. Accomplishment was meaningless. Everything served the feeling of power. There was no other reason to exist. This is how our anointed elites feel. Their entire lives are an endless pursuit of power over their fellow man, and the emotional high this provides.

Whether they really are more intelligent in some way or not may be irrelevant, because in the end it doesn’t matter if the person asserting that 2+ 2 = 5 is smarter than you. He is still wrong, and is trying to deceive you (and often himself, too). Sometimes greater intelligence only provides a man with a greater capacity for deception.

The Ruling Class will not give up its power without a fight to the death.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 22, 2017


The Truth About Viet Nam

We won the war in Viet Nam until the Democrats gave the victory away. We won the war in Iraq until the Democrats decided that they wanted the US to lose the peace.
For Democrats it's always party over the Nation. Why do Democrats hate this country?

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, May 20, 2017


Peggy Noonan’s cheap shot.

Donald Trump has been known to use hyperbole. Peggy Noonan is known for faithfully reflecting the conventional thinking of Washington DC, known by people outside the Beltway as “The Swamp.” By reading Noonan we find out what the alligators in the swamp are talking about. Her latest column questions his sanity and councils him to shut up and sit down if he wants to finish his term.

She quotes him as saying
“No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.”
And then snarks:
“Actually Lincoln got secession, civil war and a daily pounding from an abolitionist press that thought he didn’t go far enough and moderates who slammed his brutalist pursuit of victory. Then someone shot him in the head. So he had his challenges.”
This may be a good time to remind Peggy of a little history. The Civil War didn’t start at Lincoln’s election.  He wasn’t shot by a Democrat actor until he began his second term. Hollywood had not been invented yet but John Wilkes Booth would have been sympathetic to the way that SNL and late night comics attacked the current Republican President.

The attack on Fort Sumter, which set off the Civil War, began On April 15th of 1861, five months after the election.  Perhaps in Peggy's mind secession, rebellion, civil war, and Lincoln's assassination all blur together.  These things take time, Peg.  But the media and the Democrats - but I repeat myself - are working hard on it.  

Talk of secession is getting serious consideration today. Groups in California,  Oregon, Oklahoma, Maine, New York and  various speakers for Liberal, urban America are talking about it and it’s getting some serious money behind it, especially in California which considers Trumps voters to be sub-human troglodytes.  It's not that much different than the views of Democrats of 1860 regarding Black people. In terms of secession planning Democrats in 1860 were ahead of the curve, their modern counterparts are just getting their act together with a riot here and death threats there.

Of course, newspapers in 1860 were divided between those who supported Lincoln and wanted to abolish slavery and pro-Democrat papers who supported slavery. Today the press speaks with one voice.  It speaks for Democrats, wishing to overturn the election and remove Trump.

Before the election Democrats claimed Trump was "threatening our democracy" by refusing to accept the results of the election.  Today, having lost the election, the press and their allies in the Democrat party are refusing to accept the results of the election; a neck-wrenching reversal reminiscent of how Communists did a 180 following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.   

While I'm told that Lincoln was referred to as "Honest Ape,"  the most esteemed orator in 1860s America, Edward Everett, wrote in his diary:
"He is evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis."

From Washington, Congressman Charles Francis Adams wrote,
"His speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness."
Sound familiar?

If that kind of mild criticism of Lincoln led to a bloodbath, what does it mean for the future of the country when Democrats, the press and comedians accuse Trump of being the agent of America's enemies, giving oral sex to the Russian President and accuse his wife of prostitution.  His son Barron was attacked as a rapist and killer.

Democrats in 1860 were unhappy that a man was elected who believed in the dignity and freedom of all men, not just white men. They were happy to be the ruling class and were determined not to allow a mere election upset the status quo. So they took action and decided that secession and armed rebellion were the answer.   When they lost, they killed the first Republican President.

Of course in 1861 it was easier to stage an armed rebellion. Transportation was primitive and people were most loyal to their community and state. Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union army but, while opposed to secession,  decided his loyalty lay with Virginia. Today it's a little different.  This conflict is cultural.  Academia is rebelling against Flyover Country; it's the Coasts vs. Middle America.

Today, thanks to the unified combination of the press, the Deep State, the Democrat Party and the Never Trump contingent in the Republican Party the Ruling Class believes that they won’t have to begin an armed rebellion to retain their control of the organs of government.

Keep the Lincoln vs. Trump timeline in mind. It’s still in the first innings of their respective presidencies. It’s still possible that the street violence and secession talk with grow into something more deadly. 

Assassination? Several Presidents since Lincoln have been assassinated. Even Presidents who were not compared unfavorably to Hitler. Presidents much less vilified by the popular culture than Trump. He hasn’t even won a second term yet Peggy. Give the Democrats time. I’m sure they’ll get around to it.  I would caution Trump against going to the theater.


Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 19, 2017


“So far all the political violence associated with the election of Trump, from Inauguration to the latest campus rioting, has been on the Left. "

Victor Davis Hanson

So far all the political violence associated with the election of Trump, from Inauguration to the latest campus rioting, has been on the Left. No pro-Trump crowds don masks, break windows or shut down traffic. The crudity in contemporary politics—from the constant sick jokes referring to First Family incest, smears against the First Lady, low attacks on the Trump children, boycotts of the Inauguration, talk and dreams of killing the president—is on the liberal/progressive side. The entertainment industry’s obscenity and coarseness have been picked up by mainstream Democratic officials, who now routinely resort to profanities like s–t and f–k to attack the president. Almost every ethical code—television journalists do not report on air private conservations with their guests during breaks, opposition congressional representatives do attend the Inauguration, Senators do not use obscenities—have been abandoned in efforts to delegitimize Trump.

When Hillary Clinton assumed the mantle of the “Resistance,” she was deliberately using a metaphor to convey the idea that she is analogous to a French patriot under occupation and Trump is a veritable foreign Nazi belligerent.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , , , , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?