The transgendered tail wagging the feminist dog

The issue of transgendered men or males just claiming to be women is a great example of the insanity that has exploded within our society due to PC and the socialist agenda driven by progressives.  The latest, but not the only, example of the madness is the high school runner who decided that being last on the men’s side wasn’t as much fun as being state champion on the girl’s side.

Imagine this: Your daughter has been training and running track for four years. She’s a senior and she’s made it to the state finals. College recruiters are in the stands and this is her day to shine (and possibly get a scholarship so you don’t have to go bankrupt trying to fund her education). Except that doesn’t happen for her because a boy, claiming to be a girl, handily steals the title from her. She’s devastated, but when asked how she feels about it, she’s terrified to be truthful that she (rightly) feels she was robbed by someone who shouldn’t have been competing against her.

“I can’t really say what I want to say, but there’s not much I can do about it,” Kate Hall said after the race, alluding to the fact that she had to compete against Andraya Yearwood, a biological boy.

This was the moment when feminism died. You could argue that it was when the feminist left refused to stand up for the rights of Muslim women who are stoned and beaten for being raped. That is a valid point. But for sure, any surviving remnant of the movement is now just as dead as the spider I encountered in the car while driving today — beaten mercilessly with a shoe (to much screaming). How can a movement that claims to be for women survive staying silent (and even siding with the man) in this scenario? That boy (who couldn’t even bother to shave his mustache) may have stolen a girl’s very future, and no one cares. I searched the usual places, like the Huffington Post and Jezebel, for articles on this travesty and came up empty. Dead silence. Are they all in an emergency meeting with Gloria Steinem and Lena Dunham, planning how they’ll explain this one away? You can’t find one feminist perspective on this story on a Google search. Why not? 

Here’s the kid.

Transgender freshman sprinter, born a male, wins two girls state championships

The new normal. It’s biting feminists in the ass.

You can tell by his grin he isn’t serious.  His dad’s comments confirm it.  You have to watch the video where the reporter is doing back flips to make sure he stays PC.  If he didn’t he would get fired or punished right? (It’s a Maoist technique. See the recent dust up over the St Louis Cardinals and the LGBT anger of a “Christian day”.)

As you might imagine, Yearwood’s dad has a different opinion.

Rahsaan Yearwood, who played college football, told the Courant “there are guys who were 350 pounds. It wasn’t fair that as a 225-pound linebacker, they came to block me, but that’s the nature of the beast.”

“As her father, I never think about it as competition,” he told the Courant. “This is not about winning and losing races. This is about the health of my teenage daughter. In terms of the fairness aspect, I don’t think about that as a father. I only think about, is my daughter happy, healthy and able to participate in what she wants to do? I don’t care if she wins or loses. I don’t care if she wins and gives the medals back. She got to compete as a girl where she feels she should compete. That’s all that matters to me.”

He told the Courant that his daughter will begin consultations about hormonal treatment in June.

Riiight…in June. AFTER the track meet. After he picks up his trophies.

Now nobody will touch this because the trangendered community has seized the “rights” argument from women feminists, just as the gays took the mantle of “civil rights” from the blacks. After years of struggle from the original group  the LGBT gangs swooped in and stole it. It’s that simple. The blacks are none to happy and neither are the feminists, but they FEAR telling the truth.  The reporter refers to the mustache wearing freshman as “she” and “her” all through the video piece.

The transgendered mess is a no go zone and nobody wants to say anything, expect Camille Pagila that is. In a long interview she addresses many issues, one of them is the ongoing battle between feminists and transgenders in Britain.

CP: Feminists have clashed with transgender activists much more publicly in the United Kingdom than here. For example, two years ago there was an acrimonious organized campaign, including a petition with 3,000 claimed signatures, to cancel a lecture by Germaine Greer at Cardiff University because of her “offensive” views of transgenderism. Greer, a literary scholar who was one of the great pioneers of second-wave feminism, has always denied that men who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery are actually “women.” Her Cardiff lecture (on “Women and Power” in the twentieth century) eventually went forward, under heavy security.

And in 2014, Gender Hurts, a book by radical Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, created a heated controversy in the United Kingdom. Jeffreys identifies transsexualism with misogyny and describes it as a form of “mutilation.” She and her feminist allies encountered prolonged difficulties in securing a London speaking venue because of threats and agitation by transgender activists. Finally, Conway Hall was made available: Jeffrey’s forceful, detailed lecture there in July of last year is fully available on YouTube. In it she argues among other things, that the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers who will need to take prescribed hormones for life.

Although I describe myself as transgender (I was donning flamboyant male costumes from early childhood on), I am highly skeptical about the current transgender wave, which I think has been produced by far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows. Furthermore, I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.

It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from women’s studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.

The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one’s birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.

In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity. The categories “trans-man” and “trans-woman” are highly accurate and deserving of respect. But like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a “woman” or a “man” simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it. We may well take the path of good will and defer to courtesy on such occasions, but it is our choice alone.

As for the La Leche League, they are hardly prepared to take up the cudgels in the bruising culture wars. Awash with the milk of human kindness, they are probably stuck in nurturance mode. Naturally, they snap to attention at the sound of squalling babies, no matter what their age. It’s up to literature professors and writers to defend the integrity of English, which like all languages changes slowly and organically over time. But with so many humanities departments swallowed up in the poststructuralist tar pit, the glorious medium of English may have to fight the gender commissars on its own.

Palgia is an honest broker of feminism.  Not a PC culturalist at all.  She sees the threat of Islam and the threat of Transgenderism as endangering feminism and by extension all the good work women have done to obtain and keep an equal footing.

What I found interesting was Palgia’s reference to the battle between feminism and transgenderism. She appears to imply that the battle is further along than what we are just starting to see here, but if you asked anyone who watches the MSM, you would not hear one story about it.  That’s because the agenda here is not to reveal what might be trouble down the road as they just continue to push something that does not fit logic or nature.

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Mueller has a problem. And why the incestuous nature of Washington threatens us all. Trump’s existence there exposes so much.

Let’s cut to the chase.  Mueller, if a truly ethical man should resign. (and he’s a inside DC lawyer…so don’t hold your breath.) Why?  Because Comey told us he leaked to the media HIS version of the truth in order to force a special counsel- which happened to turn out to be his buddy Mueller. (By accident I’m sure…hahaha!)

At this point, I want to see the email/phone logs of the acting AG in this matter- Rod Rosenstein!  That is how bad it has gotten.

Word is Mueller is hiring to help him “find the truth” former Obama and Clinton supporters. One an actual Clinton Foundation lawyer! How do you think people who believe Trump are going to react to that????

 

Robert Mueller Stacks Special Counsel with Clinton Foundation Lawyer and Deputy Assistant AG Under Obama

How can she be impartial?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeannie Rhee served for two years under Eric Holder.

According to Wilmer Hale, Jeannie Rhee served for two years, up to 2011, as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel for the US Department of Justice, where she advised the Attorney General, the White House and senior agency officials on constitutional, statutory and regulatory issues.

Lifezette has more on Mueller’s partisan picks:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.

“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”

He’s not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.

Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.

Jeannie Rhee set her Twitter settings to private.

 

They are all in this incestuous soup together and all want Trump gone.  We don’t really see this daily, as the media does not cover it. But this is how Washington works.  Do you think an impartial outcome will the the result here? Worse, do you think Mueller will close down an investigation that will grow and grow without one scalp? (Think the Plame investigation and the “lying to the FBI” conviction of Scooter Libby.)

Powerlineblog and other have pointed out there are specific laws pertaining to Mueller and Comey, of which they are in violation.

In my post about Robert Mueller’s conflict of interest in investigating “obstruction of justice” claims based on the testimony of his friend James Comey, I ducked the legal question of whether the conflict requires Mueller to withdraw or be removed. My argument was that it provides President Trump with sufficient grounds to remove Mueller if he so chooses.

Let’s now look at legal provisions dealing with conflicts of interest in this context. 28 U.S.C. 528 provides:

The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.

The statute does not address “special counsel.” However, in my view they are brought under its scope by 28 CFR 600.7.

Based on the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. 528, the Attorney General promulgated 28 CFR 45.2. It provides:

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:

(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and

(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and

(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.

The threshold question is whether Comey was “substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. Comey’s conduct is not the subject of Mueller’s investigation, in the sense that he isn’t the target of the investigation (though he could be if the investigation spills over into leaking). But Comey’s conduct is a partial subject, in the sense that Mueller will apparently investigate went transpired between Comey and the president — a subject that goes to the heart of any “obstruction” claim.

In any case, it seems to me that Comey has a specific and substantial interest that likely will be affected by the outcome of the investigation. Mueller may well determine whether Trump is lying, as Comey says, or that Comey is lying, as Trump insists. Comey has a specific and substantial interest in not being found to be a liar.

The next question is whether Mueller has a “close and substantial connection” with Comey “of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality?” I think so. As I have argued, they are friends and former colleagues who stood side-by-side in at least one very important legal struggle.

If the requisite personal relationship exists, the question for purposes of removal becomes whether: (1) the relationship will have the effect of rendering Mueller’s service less than fully impartial and professional or (2) Mueller’s participation would create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

Whatever one concludes about the first prong of this test, I think it’s plain that Mueller’s participation in the investigation of “obstruction of justice” would “create an appearance of conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation.” If Mueller adopts Comey’s version of the facts, large segments of the population will question whether this is an impartial assessment, given his close relationship with Comey.

That last part is important.  Comey has testified already in public that he felt Trump did not cross into obstruction (and legally the President can’t, so there is that).  Comey testified- like a scared whiny girl- that he was too weak to resist Trump’s attempt to do nothing illegal.  Then testified he thinks Lynch did do something wrong.

I swear to God if Rod Serling came out from stage left, holding a cigarette and revealing we are all in the Twilight Zone I would not be surprised.

Image result for rod serling twilight zone

Ahhh, nope. Nobody’s going to believe this crap!

So why is a friend of Comey’s handling and investigation of Trump, which has produced no evidence during several other investigations, and the same guy- Mueller- is hiring attorneys who have a vested interest in scoring a revenge win for HRC?  Just how screwed up is that? The goal is to cripple and sideline Trump until they can get him out of office. It’s akin to the defensive player aiming at the knees of the other team’s star running back.  One good hit and he’s out for the season.

There’s a reason.  And here it is. Unelected bureaucrats, who think they are wiser than the rest of the populace, are running things and they do not want to give up the power.

Watching the ongoing clown show in Washington, Americans can be forgiven for asking themselves, “Why did we give this bunch of clowns so very much power over our nation and our lives?”

Well, don’t feel so bad, voters. Because you didn’t actually give them that much power. They just took it. That’s the thesis of Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger’s new book, The Administrative Threata short, punchy followup to his magisterial Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Both deal with the extraordinary — and illegitimate — power that administrative agencies have assumed in American life.

Hamburger explains that the prerogative powers once exercised by English kings, until they were circumscribed after a resulting civil war, have now been reinvented and lodged in administrative agencies, even though the United States Constitution was drafted specifically to prevent just such abuses. But today, the laws that actually affect people and businesses are seldom written by Congress; instead they are created by administrative agencies through a process of “informal rulemaking,” a process whose chief virtue is that it’s easy for the rulers to engage in, and hard for the ruled to observe or influence. Non-judicial administrative courts decide cases, and impose penalties, without a jury or an actual judge. And the protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (like the requirement for a judge-issued search warrant before a search) are often inapplicable.

As Hamburger writes, “Administrative power also evades many of the Constitution’s procedures, including both its legislative and judicial processes. Administrative power thereby sidesteps most of the Constitution’s procedural freedoms. Administrative power is thus all about the evasion of governance through law, including an evasion of constitutional processes and procedural rights.”

In the early days of the Republic, the franchise was limited. But as the mass of voters became larger, more diverse, and less elite, those who considered themselves the best and brightest looked to transform government into something run not by those deplorable unwashed voters but by a more congenial group. As Hamburger says, “They have gradually moved legislative power out of Congress and into administrative agencies — to be exercised, in more genteel ways, by persons like … themselves.”

 It has been, in essence, a power grab by what Hamburger calls the “knowledge class,” or what others have called the New Class: A group of managers and intellectuals who, although they may not actually be especially knowledgeable or elite in practice, regard themselves as a knowledge elite.

These “knowledge elites” are the same ones that lost us Vietnam, gave us a failed healthcare system and blew up the Middle East.  You would think they would take a pause and reconsider their approach. But no. That’s not how things are done in today’s America. They are working for themselves and the politicians who are smart enough to play along. Remember Chuck Schumer’s warning to Trump, he’d be crazy to take on the bureaucracy, they have a hundred ways to get him. We are seeing just a few.

So, why isn’t Mueller stepping down on his own, now that we all know what he already knew- he cannot be impartial.  Because that’s not part of the plan. The plan is to keep digging until they find a weak spot and attack.  You can bet old Hillary and Obama lawyers will do just that. But as Powerlineblog points out, that will lead to a civil war because half the nation will know the fix was in all along.

Trump’s presence in DC isn’t causing a blowup, it is the reaction TO his presence that is revealing the true nature of the people there.  They are willing to throw off the mantle of respectability and start cheating and lying and abusing right in front of America.

This is a war that they started.  It will be revealing and damaging.  Americans across the nation voted not just for Trump but for a chance to regain some control over their lives. Those voters are a serious bunch.  To spit in their faces, as Washington has done, may not work out they way they think it will. Somebody ought to lend them a copy of the Hunger Games series.

Image result for Hunger games city burning

Is this what they want?

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

I was wrong. The real Comey showed himself, and it isn’t pretty. No hero, just a clown.

The self massaged reputation of James Comey made me believe when he stepped out last year and told America the fix was in on the HRC investigation that he was doing the right thing for the right reasons.  His FBI had been compromised.  It had been under assault for years due to the post 9/11 PC drive started by GWB. It accelerated into political decay when Obama was elected.   (And by the way during which Mueller- now special counsel- was the head of the FBI. Yes, an incestuous pool of corruption.)

Comey was no help.  It has turned out he’s that guy who spends a career maneuvering within a bureaucracy, not quite at the top- more like number three or four- who uses his position to time moments where he can shine, by mostly criticize those above him for making mistakes.  And when the story is told by him, he’s always the hero.   The Ashcroft in the hospital and Comey as the acting AG incident is a good example.

Yet, when these types get in charge of a department, company or division, their proven methods of moving UNDER the surface don’t work well. They get exposed, and are often found wanting.  A year ago, I would have never believed this of Comey, which goes a long way to proving how effective his public reputation is.

However, today is today. The the whining, vengeful, weak man we saw in front of Congress is not a leader, and certainly not a leader of an organization like the FBI.  He said he was cowed, confused, unsure, and mystified when dealing with Trump.  He says Trump is a liar. But Lorettea Lynch, who actually did demand Comey change his wording in the HRC investigation to “matter” in order to be in line with the Hillary campaign, is not a criminal or a liar.  Nor did he admit to keeping notes on Obama, Lynch, Hillary (who WAS a target of a criminal investigation) or anyone else in the last administration.  And we know they were ALL liars!

Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in by Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., foreground, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Thursday, June 8, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, Pool)

No honest man in that crew. Or they would not be there.

That is the inner workings of the “ethics” that drives Comey. I watched his testimony in part. He came across as a whining, but sanctimonious, disgruntled ex-employee.  It was painful to watch.  As a retired cop, I felt sorry for the crew in the bureau that had to look at him every day.

During Thursday’s showdown Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, fired FBI Director James B. Comey came across as less as a fearless crusader for the truth and more as a disgruntled employee upset with the boss who unceremoniously let him go.

He deliberately shared his memos about his talks with President Trump with his friend Daniel Richman, a former FBI agent and Columbia Law School professor, explicitly hoping it would lead to the appointment of a special counsel, a ploy that succeeded brilliantly. The decision to share the sensitive memos is troubling because of Mr. Comey’s “unauthorized disclosure of privileged communications,” as Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, was quick to point out.

Strangely, Mr. Comey decided not to share that same memo with Attorney General Jeff Sessions or the acting deputy attorney general, holding his information close while waiting for the right moment to strike. He felt “defamed” by the Trump administration and took direct action against the president. This was Mr. Comey’s personal revenge after losing his job.

Liberals cheered Mr. Comey when he loosely denounced the president a liar, and revealed he began compiling the memos after their very first meeting out of concerns the president would lie about what happened.

“I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but to protect the FBI,” Mr. Comey said.

But during the hearing, Mr. Comey repeatedly appeared unsure of himself. He reflected that he should have acted more firmly in his dealings with the president. Mr. Comey’s indecisive and self-described “cowardly” actions are now on record and further justify why the president was right to dismiss him.

Mr. Trump fared well on the legal question on the obstruction of justice. The ex-FBI chief had to admit that he was never directly ordered to end the investigation of Russia or of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Mr. Comey did feel uncomfortable meeting with the president alone, and the president’s staff should have advised him against meeting with Mr. Comey during an ongoing investigation.

Mr. Trump expects loyalty and is transparent about his actions and motives. He felt he could confide in Mr. Comey and be honest his feelings concerning Mr. Flynn, but a “hope” is not the same thing as a direct order to an FBI director to stop an investigation.

What was particularly shocking was to see Mr. Comey play by a different set of rules depending on the president he was serving. Were there memos associated with Mr. Comey’s meetings with President Obama, or with former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch when she told Mr. Comey to describe the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter” rather than what it plainly was — an investigation? Why not write up memos on these private comments if he was uncomfortable with Ms. Lynch’s characterization of the Clinton probe? Yet Mr. Comey clearly distrusted Mr. Trump and began his career as a memo-writer only when Mr. Trump was heading to the White House.

This is good writing. It summarizes what happened and why Trump was right in firing him.  At this point, I don’t think it would have made a difference if Comey was fired with some deference to his position or just shot out of the cannon like the way Trump did it. Comey would have done the same thing- because this is who he is.

Mercedes, who is a great reporter, gets to the real issue here. That the vaunted “deep state” has to be handled carefully.  Comey testified in open session UNDER OATH that his leaking of privileged conversations with the President was to force a special counsel- who happens to be his frigging friend. Again- incestuous.  When you hear the professional class say “This guy is respected by both sides.” What that really means is he won’t rat out or chase down any of them.  Which is frankly sad.

Even if he missed most of his targets Thursday, Mr. Comey in his testimony still represented a needed political stress test for the president and his team. The president’s learning curve is over. Another misstep could potentially cripple this administration beyond repair.

Mr. Trump needs to understand the sensitive nature of dealing with the FBI and the intelligence community, including the need to tread carefully on issues under active legal investigation. The Comey controversy has created a dark cloud over this White House, at a time when Mr. Trump badly wants to move on to his legislative agenda.

Mr. Comey did not have the strength of character to confront the president and explain how a president should interact with a top law enforcement officer. And the president should have known better and gotten better advice from his team on how to properly interact with the FBI.

Unfortunately, the political intensity surrounding Mr. Comey is not about to end. But it will now be special counsel Robert Mueller who will be the one to decide Mr. Trump and his team’s fate — despite Mr. Comey’s failed effort to defame the president.

Robert Mueller is one of the gang. Mueller will chase down someone like Flynn for lying to the FBI, only because Flynn is also NOT one of the gang and stood against Obama’s lying (yes really lying) ways and backdoor deals with Iran.  This is how bad it is in DC.  The outsider guy who really wants to do the right thing is crushed by the insider corrupt people.  And the media rejoices.

However, Trump’s mere presence as President is making some of the DC insiders- who are comfortable sneaking around and causing problems by leaking and undermining their enemies- go simply insane. And crazy people make mistakes.

There is a growing number of lawyers and others pointing out that Comey simply cannot create work product on government time, on a government computer, concerning a privileged communication with the FREAKING PRESIDENT! and claim those memos are private.  He has to to know this. Yet where are they?  And is it legal to leak those communications to a private third party in hopes to undermine the President?  The first part is easy- they are not his.  The last part may trip Comey up. He whined his intentions were good, because after he got unfairly fired (in his, and a dwindling number of others, opinion) and he thought that he had a right to FORCE a special counsel on a lawfully elected President because he didn’t like him.

In a nutshell this is the end destination of James Comey’s long career playing the part of Diogenes, a guy looking for the last other honest man.  He carefully massaged his reputation, carefully maneuvering his way through DC. He carefully crafted out of a shaky moral center this image of a man above it all, the hero.  But  instead, he became, in his mind, the judge, jury and executioner of everyone HE thought didn’t live up to his standard, a standard that moved as needed to suit his personal gain.  He became corrupt. He became dangerous to associate with. He crafted all his stories to end with him being the hero in the final scene. Instead, he became the clown in the final play of his career.

The star of the show, James Comey, came off as a disgruntled former employee trying to save face after losing the confidence of leading Democrats and Republicans over the last two years. In fact, the account Comey gave at the hearing corroborated what President Trump has said from the beginning of this witch hunt.In the first scene, Senator Richard Burr questioned Comey about whether President Trump had ever asked him to stop the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. Comey’s response was clear: “Not to my understanding, no.”

Comey made clear that the president never impeded the FBI’s Russia investigation, nor asked him to end it, and neither had any White House staff. There goes the first of the Democrats’ conspiracy theories.

In scene two, Comey put to rest media speculation that he might use his testimony to refute the president’s account that he was told three times he was not under investigation. The former FBI director confirmed repeatedly that President Trump was never under investigation, even going so far as to recall the direct quote where he told him that at no point was he personally under investigation.

While those two crucial moments totally undercut the left’s anti-Trump narrative, Comey’s testimony also shined a light on his motives that led to some revealing admissions.

In scene three, and the most personally damaging to Comey himself, he admitted to giving his written memos about conversations with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with clear instructions to leak the information to the media. Comey acknowledged that he did so after being angered at a Tweet by President Trump, and the leak was aimed at trying to force the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the president. The blatant political hackery at play here is truly astounding coming from a man who once led an agency that holds independence as a high imperative.

Following that account, Comey gave a series of awkward “I don’t know” answers when he was repeatedly pressed about why he didn’t bring it to the president’s, or anyone else’s, attention that he thought the discussion of Michael Flynn was inappropriate.

The most significant takeaways from the entire hearing did not, in fact, involve alleged inappropriate conduct by the Trump administration, but rather by the Obama Justice Department. Though we’ve long known about Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s interfered in the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, this was the first time that Comey admitted under oath that Lynch gave him directives about how to handle that investigation. According to his testimony, Lynch asked him not to call the investigation an “investigation” but simply a “matter” – language that identically mirrored the messaging coming out of the Clinton campaign at the time. That the head of the Obama Justice Department attempted to get the FBI to use Clinton talking points is a gross abuse of power and the real obstruction of justice.

By the time the hearing concluded, the reviews were already in. Even liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews had to admit that the left’s TrumpRussia collusion theory “came apart” in Comey’s testimony.

What pisses me off the most was I believed the guy.  I should have known better.

There are no heroes left anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Single payer- the Democrats plan all along.

Hillary was supposed to win. Obamacare collapses and the democrats would demand a single payer solution- by force is necessary- and with the help of the establishment Republicans.  Why? Because if they own your health, they own your life. They own your kid’s health…well what would you do for your kids?

But Trump won, and those who would seize even more control are thwarted.  The Republicans will just slow things down to cause trouble. The democrats will just out and out demand the change.

For years, Republicans savaged Democrats for supporting the Affordable Care Act, branding the law — with some rhetorical license — as a government takeover of health care.

Now, cast out of power in Washington and most state capitals, Democrats and activist leaders seeking political redemption have embraced an unlikely-seeming cause: an actual government takeover of health care.

At rallies and in town hall meetings, and in a collection of blue-state legislatures, liberal Democrats have pressed lawmakers, with growing impatience, to support the creation of a single-payer system, in which the state or federal government would supplant private health insurance with a program of public coverage. And in California on Thursday, the Democrat-controlled State Senate approved a preliminary plan for enacting single-payer system, the first serious attempt to do so there since then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed legislation in 2006 and 2008.

. . . . In a sign of shifting sympathies, most House Democrats have now endorsed a single-payer proposal. Party strategists say they expect that the 2020 presidential nominee will embrace a broader version of public health coverage than any Democratic standard-bearer has in decades.

A prominent labor union leader and Bernie supporter notes that there has been a “cultural shift” on health care since ObamaCare was passed.

The NYT continues:

RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association, powerful labor groups that back single-payer care, said the issue had reached a “boiling point” on the left.

“There is a cultural shift,” said Ms. DeMoro, who was a prominent backer of Mr. Sanders. “Health care is now seen as something everyone deserves. It’s like a national light went off.”

No, not really. This is a forced change in our society by the pressure of liberal media and political lies.  The Republicans who don’t want it should push British NHS horror stories every day with the lead- “And this is what socialized medicine looks like.”

Image result for problems with the nhs 2016 waiting room pics

Waiting for services they cannot get. Welcome to single payer.

But they don’t, which makes you think they may want to foist it upon us.

Part of that effort is to convince people healthcare is a right.  Access to healthcare in America should be available to all.  Coverage should not be mandatory or expensive.  Somehow, the democrats have managed to force one on us and by doing so, created the other.  And at the same time convince many stupid Facebook/social media types that the mess is a “right.”

If the answer to their funding problem is the typical leftist go-to of higher taxes, they may be in for a surprise.  Voters may support single-payer health care in theory, but when they find out how much it costs, their support dwindles.

Reason reports:

There’s one other thing that’s fairly consistent among the states that have proposed single-payer systems in recent years: When voters find out how much a single-payer system will cost, they are much less likely to support one.

Single-payer advocates learned that lesson last year in Colorado at the ballot box, as the state turned blue for Hillary Clinton even as 79 percent of voters said “no” to single-payer health care.

Other polling bears out that relationship. A recent poll commissioned by the California Association of Health Underwriters, found that 66 percent of California residents are opposed to single-payer health care. Opposition increased to 75 percent when those polled were told the price tag for the system is $179 billion annually—which is actually lower than what the legislative analysis suggests.

Democrats are aware of this, of course, and as Reason notes, their idea for bypassing these pesky fiscal and public support issues is to regain control of Congress and the White House.

A single-payer system at the federal level would have the same fiscal problems, of course, but unlike state governments that are required to balance their budgets annually, a nationally single-payer system would just be added to the federal government’s ever-growing tab.

That’s not necessarily better, but it would offer something of a solution to the problem of how to pay for a hugely expensive new entitlement. Until Democrats control the federal government, though, state-level efforts like the ones in New York and California are likely to continue percolating.

This may be their goal, but it does not play well with voters who don’t like the idea of crushing new taxes and/or of adding trillions to our national debt.  Who can forget Bernie squirming unhappily when pressed on how he’d pay for his “Medicare for All” boondoggle?

All about the taxes and the control. The government taxes you for bad healthcare thus keeping billions of your money, but makes it the only girl at the dance, so you submit.

We see the politics of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare. We see the struggle of states and the nation trying to figure out how to cut costs and save money, because eventually they will run out. Do you want that politics and pressure getting between you and your family’s healthcare?

That’s the trouble with all of this.  You hear single payer, start running and take your family with you.

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Run, Hide, Die”…The British government’s advice to the public.

During another terrorist attack.  This is the UK Daily Mail headlines.

BTW- nothing prevents this from happening here.

Terrifying moment three Jihadis were shot dead after killing seven and hurting 48: Gang yell ‘This is for Allah’ after mowing down crowd on London Bridge then going on stabbing frenzy

  • Seven people were killed and at least 48 others injured in the attack on London Bridge and Borough Market 
  • The men drove the white van in an ‘S shape’ across the bridge at 50mph, mowing down up to 20 pedestrians
  • They continued driving to Borough Market where they left the vehicle and began ‘randomly stabbing’ victims
  • Attackers stabbed revellers with 12-inch hunting knives at busy pubs and bars as others ran for their lives 
  • Witnesses described seeing victims with their throats cut while others fought off attackers with pint glasses
  • Police shot dead the terrorists – one of whom was wearing an Arsenal shirt – within eight minutes of initial call
  • Today armed police raided a block of flats in Barking, east London, as a major investigation was underway 
  • Terror attack comes just 12 days after the Manchester attack and 10 weeks after the Westminster atrocity

The British government, unwilling or unable at this point to do anything about the surging murderous rampages by the “peaceful Asians” of Britain, have told the people under attack “To run, hide, tell.”

Petrified bystanders were pictured fleeing the chaos after the jihadists started the rampage at 10.08pm on Saturday night 

Just run, then hide, then die.

Taxi driver Radoslav Petrov witnessed injured pedestrians receiving assistance from passers by, left, moments after three jihadis ploughed through them on London Bridge last night 

Taxi driver video of injured and the dead on the bridge.

 

Here is the tweet.

As God as my witness my first thoughts were this.

“If the terrorists ran over members of Parliament and stabbed the uber rich, who want to disrupt the world society for a cheap labor, then you would see the reaction people demand. But until then, run little sheep and hide and then die in place.”

In America- we uncivilized heathens as the Brits believe- have this thing called the Second Amendment.  True it does allow for people of all types- including criminals- to have access to weapons.  On the other hand, the VAST majority of citizens in our nation are good, brave and willing to shoot bad guys in the face before the police can eventually show up.

But in Britain, their politicians took away their rights for self defense, slowly but persistently, for decades. Now, when confronted by the Evil the same politicians refuse to address, the people have no choice but to run, hide and die.

Jamie, a witness who was in Black & Blue in Rochester Walk said: ‘We hid under the table and people came into the restaurant and knocked a bunch of stuff over, like the till.

‘And then we ran into the the kitchen, where there was a bunch of other people and a guy had been stabbed and he was cut and he was bleeding quite a lot.’

He added that they waited in the kitchen for ‘quite a while’ before they were evacuated.

A woman, who did not want to be named, added: ‘We were in the restaurant and we just saw three guys come in, stabbed someone in the face and someone in the stomach.

‘One of them had a big knife, then he came in and walked around the restaurant, I guess they just kind of stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and then we just hid.’

Gerard Vowls, 47, who was in a pub near London Bridge, said he threw chairs and glasses at the attackers in a bid to stop them entering.

He told The Guardian: ‘They kept coming to try to stab me – they were stabbing everyone. Evil, evil people.’

One witness reported seeing a van crash into a lamppost by the Barrowboy and Banker pub past the bridge. She added: ‘Just trying to get away at the moment. There are no trains leaving so we’re just panicking a little.’

Barman Alex Martinez was forced to take shelter in a bin when a knifeman stormed the Borough restaurant in which he worked.

I don’t want to end up in a Second amendment debate, because this is soooo much bigger. But here is what happens in our country when a bad guy shows up.

Back to the real problem.

In the eighties I had the opportunity to meet and work with a commander from the London Metropolitan Police.  A really nice guy sent over to review one of our programs. During that time, he had a chance to see how our city patrolled the streets.  His comments were enlightening.  He asked why our patrolmen were armed.  I said it was our way of policing. He took a rather haughty attitude and suggested “Perhaps you should try to patrol without your firearms!”

To which I said, “Well we would, but we don’t want to end up robbed and in the trunks of our cars BECAUSE we would be the only unarmed people out there!”

To this day, I wonder about this commander or his replacement, and if their arrogant attitude has changed a little because their world has changed a lot.

Back then, unarmed police were all they needed. Most of Britain was very civilized.  In fact, back then if a SINGLE police officer was killed anywhere in the nation, the whole nation paused and mourned.  (Imagine that here!)

But that was before the surge of third world Muslims took over their cities and created mayhem.  I would laugh at the haughty Brit, but the victims aren’t idiots like him- but regular people like we see every night.  And now THIS is the British police response.

Armed police on St Thomas Street

Funny. They seemed REALLY armed to me!

I wonder if that commander thinks this is too much!

Of course PM May does the political thing-

Prime Minister Theresa May has just emerged from Downing Street to make her statement.

Mrs May said many of the 48 people injured in the London  terror attack have “life-threatening” injuries.

She said: “The police responded with great courage and great speed.”

She added: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones.”

The Prime Minister said there was “far too much tolerance of extremism in our  country” and called for it to be tackled head on.

Uh…yeah…right. This coming from a woman who runs a nation that elected a radical MUSLIM mayor in London. The same guy who publicly stated all Britain needs to get used to Muslim terrorist attacks.  It’s a “my peeps” moment. And he is still the mayor.

Terrorist attacks on major European cities are beginning to feel routine. But they shouldn’t be. This isn’t normal. The Islamic terrorist reportedly blew himself up with a device meant to send nails flying into human flesh. At the local children’s hospital in Manchester, doctors are removing shrapnel from the faces of young girls. This isn’t normal. It never was. It never is. And it will never be normal.

But that’s not what Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, thinks.

In September 2016, Khan actually had the gall to say that citizens in big cities should just get used to terrorism.

At a glitzy event in New York City called “Building Progressive, Inclusive Cities” alongside his counterpart in the Big Apple, far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio, Khan talked about the virtues of immigration and multiculturalism, explaining that some sacrifices had to be made.

Terror attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city,” Khan later told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.

Once hailed as a “progressive” Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan echoed the same excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France “will have to live with terrorism.” In other words, terrorism is the new normal.

Serving as London’s mayor for less than a year, Khan has a history of controversial remarks.

During the London mayoral election, Khan apologized after a video surfaced showing the Labour party official calling moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms.”

You reap what you sow.  This guy is practicing “kitman”.  Being the nice guy until his people- through immigration and demographics- can seize control of the general politics and population.  Now you see his REAL personality.

And yes, you are the idiots you that elected him in another attempted appeasement effort.

When..will…you…learn? Like I pointed out in an earlier post– this is akin to the WW2 government inviting 2.5 divisions of Nazis into the country to they could “assimilate” to the British way.  Who would think that would be a good idea?

There is only one way to fight a war between civilizations- win it.

Three Jihadi terrorists were shot dead by armed police after killing seven people and injuring at least 48 more during a horrific knife rampage in central London last night. This photo appears to show the suspects lying dead on the ground outside Wheatsheaf pub in Borough Market. The man in the centre of the image appears to be wearing an Arsenal football shirt

This is what happens when you meet terrorists with bullets.

Right now the other guys are winning. Not because of numbers or superior technology.  But because they have something they believe in and are willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill MORE of the infidels.

On the other hand, Europeans and Britains cannot figure out what they are even fighting for anymore (thank PC and multiculturalism), and they cannot understand that sacrifice is exactly what is going to be needed.

They will have to sacrifice their precious PC world and start deporting any potential threat and shutting down the anti western Muslim leaders.  Many are on the dole anyway, so just jack them up, send them back to some third world shithole.  If that doesn’t work, send them back to some shithole desert and drop them off.

Maybe on the walk out they’ll realize their way isn’t the best way.

Or maybe they just die of thirst.

Either way, it’s a win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary becomes Jake Blues. “It wasn’t my fault!”

Jonah Goldberg hit the nail on the head over at the NRO.  His description of Hillary’s excuse tour was perfect.  She was Jake Blues from the Blues Brothers.

She acts like a sprinkler system of excuses for her 2016 loss, spraying them all around.

In one of the great scenes in American cinema, Jake Blues (John Belushi) of the Blues Brothers explains — at gunpoint — to his ex-fiancée (Carrie Fischer) why he left her at the altar. “I ran out of gas! I had a flat tire! I didn’t have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn’t my fault! I swear to God.”

I kept thinking of that scene as I watched Hillary Clinton on Wednesday run through all of the reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential race.

At a conference hosted by Recode, Mrs. Clinton said, “I take responsibility for every decision I make — but that’s not why I lost.”

The real reasons for her defeat include, but are not limited to: FBI director James Comey’s handling of the investigation into her e-mail server, the institutional ineptitude of the DNC, Facebook, Macedonian “fake news” websites, real news (in the form of unfair coverage from the New York Times and other mainstream outlets), voter suppression in Wisconsin, low-information voters, the billionaire Mercer family, and the deep-seated sexism of the American people.

Read the rest.  He is spot on.  If you want to see a crazy person in action, find the interview.  It is almost painful.  Even CNN made fun of her. Fox made up a chart consisting of all the excuses.

For those who don’t know the Blues Brothers, here is the clip.

Bottom line is we really did dodge a bullet with her loss.  And more and more people are starting to see it.

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Apple-Tree. Tim Kaine’s son get arrested for being a fool.

Thank God Trump won, not so much for Trump but for what we avoided by not having HRC or Kaine in charge.  Don’t believe me? Look at what he created- his son.

Linwood Michael Kaine, a son of former 2016. Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, faces criminal charges for allegedly joining in an anti-Trump riot to attack supporters of President Donald Trump in March in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Authorities charged the 24-year-old Kaine with “fleeing police on foot, concealing his identity in a public place, and obstructing legal process,” according to a detailed Twin Cities Pioneer Press report. “When people seek to prevent others who are peacefully assembled from making their voices heard, it threatens the very foundation of our democracy,” a local attorney said Friday after the charges against Kaine and seven others were announced.

Police said Kaine was allegedly part of a violent, masked group:

Security officers saw five people dressed in black leaving the Capitol, including one who threw a smoke bomb inside, according to complaints filed by the city attorney’s office. They went to a nearby spot and “tried to change their appearance by doing things like taking off their black clothing, putting on different jackets or hats, and turning their clothing inside out,” the complaints said.

When police approached, they scattered and ran. Steve Frazer, who was then a St. Paul police senior commander, chased a man who was later identified as Woody Kaine.

A Mar. 7 Twin Cities Pioneer Press report states that Kaine allegedly fought with police after being part of a group that threw a smoke bomb in a government building during a rally for President Trump:

Clad in black and wearing a mask, the youngest son of Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine wrested himself from the cop and then “squared off” with him.

Woody Kaine, 24, was among five masked, black-garbed people suspected of lobbing a smoke bomb minutes earlier inside the Minnesota Capitol rotunda Saturday afternoon.

Officers had chased him down, but Kaine wasn’t about to submit, according to a more detailed account provided Wednesday by St. Paul police.

In the end, it took three officers, a “knee strike” and a chemical spray to subdue Kaine after he was identified as one of the counterprotesters [sic] who allegedly used fireworks or a smoke bomb to disrupt a rally in support of President Donald Trump at the Minnesota State Capitol, according to police spokesman Steve Linders.

Less than two months before his son was arrested after the anti-Trump and anti-free speech riot, Kaine said on MSNBC that progressives must “fight in the streets” after Trump’s election.

 

Think this through. Tim Kaine was a radical in his youth and not any different as a grown man.  This shows a bit of an unstable personality.  His son learned from his father’s behavior and is being told, along with thousands of others, to “fight in the streets” to stop a sitting President of the United States. This war is promoted- instead of debating the ideas and policies like grown men.

Ramsey County Sheriff's Office

Hey Dad, did I do good?!

And this guy, Kaine, was going to be a VP… We got lucky.  Here’s his statement about his son’s arrest. (PS. If I did this, my dad’s total statement would be “Kid went bad, had to put him down.”

“What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box, and now there’s the momentum to be able to do this,” Kaine told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski on Jan. 31.

After his son’s arrest, Kaine issued a statement that did not appear to condemn his son’s alleged actions.

“We love that our three children have their own views and concerns about current political issues. They fully understand the responsibility to express those concerns peacefully,” Kaine said, as reported by Breitbart News.

Seriously, we got lucky.

Another PS.  Will Tim feel the same if Woody goes too far and hurts someone or a cop has to put him down like my dad would have done to me?  It’s all fun and games until someone take a rubber bullet to the noggin!

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The reason the Brits are freaking. It’s a numbers game.

Let’s say for fun this is WW2.  The plan for the British to defeat the Nazis is to import 23,000 Nazi soldiers-  or two and a half divisions of trained warriors – and send them to all parts of the nation.

What could possibly go wrong?

Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday.

The scale of the challenge facing the police and security services was disclosed by Whitehall sources after criticism that multiple opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber had been missed.

About 3,000 people from the total group are judged to pose a threat and are under investigation or active monitoring in 500 operations being run by police and intelligence services. The 20,000 others have featured in previous inquiries and are categorised as posing a “residual risk”.

A military division is around 10,000 soldiers.  Britain has 2.5 divisions of potential fighters and support units of terrorists.  This is why the leaders of Britain are afraid to tell the truth. They screwed this up with unrestricted liberal immigration and submitting to a culture that hated the West.

Now they have no solution.  That is why they lie, why they say everybody has to get along and accept there will be violence and death to innocents.  At some point the death in Britain will drive the leaders to stop their efforts in the Middle East, thus allowing for the victory of the Islamic extremists- or at least that is the bad guy’s plan.

Imagine how long ANY British government would last in WW2 if this was the visual walking down a London highway.

Image result for army division photo on parade ground arieal view

And yet, here we are.  I expect Americans can learn from the mistake of Europe and Britain and not end up with divisions of terrorists among us.

But then again.

Yesterday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order that found President Trump’s second travel ban to be unconstitutional. This is one of those news stories that make me sad rather than angry.

The decision is ridiculous. The court’s majority relied heavily on candidate Donald Trump’s stump speeches in which he talked about a ban on all Muslim immigration. The court found that this “context” demonstrated a discriminatory intent. The decision’s implication is that a different president could have issued the same order, and it would have been constitutional. The ACLU’s lawyer made this explicit during his oral argument, saying that the order under attack may well have been constitutional if it had been issued by Hillary Clinton.

This is idiotic. For a court to say that a presidential order may or may not be constitutional depending on who the president is–constitutional if issued by a Democrat, unconstitutional if by a Republican–is the ultimate repudiation of the rule of law. Moreover, the president’s order didn’t ban all Muslim immigration. It is absurd to condemn the order the president issued by arguing that he really wanted to issue something different.

It is also worth noting that the idea that a president can’t “discriminate” with regard to travel to the U.S., or immigration, is ridiculous. Of course he can, and so can Congress. For most of our history, our immigration policy has been explicitly discriminatory. It arguably still is. Under federal law, the president has blanket authority to suspend immigration or travel, wholly or in part, from any country or group of countries, on the ground that it is in the national interest. The suggestion that a random Yemeni has a constitutional right to enter the United States is untenable, and flies in the face of all precedent.

Decisions like those we have seen on Trump’s travel orders can’t be viewed as legal rulings. As such, they are absurd. They can only be understood as part of the establishment’s war on the Trump administration. The Democrats (the 4th Circuit is now heavily Democrat) simply refuse to accept Trump’s authority as president.

We sadly do not lack for the same kind of idiocy in our leadership. We are a big, but soft, nation.  If a few thousand organized attacks we’d be seeing carnage unlike since the Civil War.  The question would be what would McCain, Pelosi, Schumer and the judges say then?

Update: Seems the FBI warned the Brits of the bomber’s intent MONTHS earlier. The Brits investigated (also having their own intelligence about the guy) and then didn’t do anything and pushed him lower down the threat list.

UK security chiefs were warned in January that Salman Abedi was planning an attack in Britain, it was claimed last night.

According to a security source, the FBI told MI5 that Abedi was part of a North African Islamic State cell plotting to strike a political target in the UK.

The information came from a US investigation into Abedi and his links to terrorist groups in Libya. The Mail on Sunday has also been told that US security services put him on a terror watch list – used by agents to identify key suspects – in 2016.

‘The information came from the interception of his communications by US federal agents, who had been investigating Abedi since the middle of 2016, and from information unearthed in Libya, where his family was linked to terrorist groups.

‘Following this US tip-off, Abedi and other members of the gang were scrutinised by MI5. It was thought at the time that Abedi was planning to assassinate a political figure.

‘But nothing came of this investigation and, tragically, he slipped down the pecking order of targets.’

Holy Boston Bomber Batman. Same scenario  but we are the Russians and MI5 is the FBI!  Even liberals have to see this right? (quick somebody check online CNN and see if it is even mentioned!)

Now this is exactly what we are talking about here.  They have such a number of suspects and only so many police they cannot vet them all.  The problem is they have TOO MANY potential troublemakers already in the country.  Shades of the Trump travel ban.  As the courts here want to make their SJW buddies happy by violating the law, we see what happens when you do not apply common sense to a problem.  Literally the definition of government- power without common sense.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The outrage over the NYtimes crime scene photos is justified. What are they thinking?

Theresa May is upset.  British law enforcement is upset. The culprits are a leaker and the New York Times.  They have no excuse. I will not link to the story, but the NY Times gave out FAR TOO MUCH information about the  bombing. Then the outrage, because the NY Times overstepped.  So they attempted to justify their decision.  It’s a bad attempt, as they offer readers reactions instead of making a real argument as to why they released detailed photos of the trigger and the battery.  Now they will argue WE need to know.  I guess because maybe we are all bomb experts or the jihadis would look at the trigger and say “Oh golly, that looks like Ali’s work!  Let’s hurry up and call MI5!”

Riiight!

This is what happens when the wrong people get all excited about doing the wrong thing. In their zeal to harm Trump, they screwed up a serious investigation by giving away evidence that may create leads to wrap up other threats.  And they did it for only one reason- to get Trump.

PM May is unhappy.  She complained to Trump, Trump shrugged his shoulders and said, “You ain’t telling me nothing I don’t already know!”

The world’s closest intelligence sharing arrangement is in jeopardy after key details and photographs from the Manchester bombing were apparently leaked by United States’s law enforcement sources to domestic journalists, leaving Manchester Police and the British government — who are collecting and analysing the finds — “furious”.

The United Kingdom has now stopped passing intelligence gathered as part of the investigation into the Manchester bombing to the United States according to claims made by the British state broadcaster BBC.

Hopefully, Trump will come back, get some people identified and arrested and prosecuted for this one event.  The rest can wait until after the Russian mess is cleared up and then they can get fired.

Image result for PM May

Get your leaks stopped Donald!

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Post reveals many things- about itself- in its newest hit piece.

It will continue to hammer Trump and his close family and allies. Not with the truth mind you but with slanted, troubling “truths” that reveal more about them than Trump.

Here, we have the latest bullsh*t story.  Kushner wanted to open a channel with the Russians- the biggest “threat/ally/troublemaker- because that is what incoming administrations do.  In the article, the Post makes sure they remove any mention of this in the breathless first paragraph or two.

Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.

Let’ go over a few things.  First, Trump’s people already said this in March.  As reported in the article as a passing comment.  Second, EVERY incoming administration works with other governments setting up future communications.  You, as Americans, want that.  Did the Washington Post breathlessly reveal that in 2008 the Obama administration met with and told the Iranian government NOT to work with the GWB administration about any nuclear deal- because Obama promised them a better one. (And boy, did deliver a deal…for them!)

Washington Times, in 2008, wrote about the effort becoming public.

The incoming Obama administration plans to create a new position to coordinate outreach to Iran and is considering a number of senior career diplomats, State Department officials and Iran specialists say.

President-elect Barack Obama promised during his campaign to seek dialogue with Iran without preconditions in an effort to persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, but also has pledged to toughen sanctions.

A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month.

“The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework,” the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced.

A spokeswoman forMrs. Clinton declined to comment for this article. Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for the transition, also would not comment.

Huh…

Also, ask yourself WHY the Trump people were looking for extra secure backdoor communications?  Because the regular system was compromised by Obama/Never Trumper who were spying on the Trump people and leaking everything he does or say to the…Washington Post!

The Post uses more “officials” and other anonymous sources to create this hit piece.  The highlighted part is mine.

The White House disclosed the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest.

Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.

“People familiar with the matter”…  Who would that be?

Then the Post responds to the pressure they feel about fact the Obama administration was spying on Trump’s team.  Which- is a crime.

Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials said.

Let’s take this apart.  The Post insists we know that neither the meeting or the communications of Americans were surveilled!  How cool! Great! But then how do we know the DETAILS of this meeting including a personal impression gotten that Kislyak was shocked?  What source gave us that personal, immediate impression?

Here’s the obvious answer Five Eyes.

In recent years, documents of the FVEY have shown that they are intentionally spying on one another’s citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on spying. [7][8][9][10][62] Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the advocacy group Liberty, claimed that the FVEY alliance increases the ability of member states to “subcontract their dirty work” to each other.[63] The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden described the FVEY as a “supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn’t answer to the laws of its own countries”.[6]

As a result of Snowden’s disclosures, the FVEY alliance has become the subject of a growing amount of controversy in parts of the world:

  •  Canada: In late 2013, Canadian federal judge Richard Mosley strongly rebuked the CSIS for outsourcing its surveillance of Canadians to overseas partner agencies. A 51-page court ruling asserts that the CSIS and other Canadian federal agencies have been illegally enlisting FVEY allies in global surveillance dragnets, while keeping domestic federal courts in the dark.[64][65][66]

  •  New Zealand: In 2014, the NZSIS and the GCSB of New Zealand were asked by the New Zealand Parliament to clarify if they had received any monetary contributions from members of the FVEY alliance. Both agencies withheld relevant information and refused to disclose any possible monetary contributions from the FVEY.[67] David Cunliffe, leader of the Labour Party, asserted that the public is entitled to be informed.[67]

  •  European Union: In early 2014, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs released a draft report which confirmed that the intelligence agencies of New Zealand and Canada have cooperated with the NSA under the Five Eyes programme and may have been actively sharing the personal data of EU citizens.[68][69]

Edward Snowden pointed out the problem.

The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering infrastructure. … The result of this was over decades and decades some sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn’t answer to the laws of its own countries.

Edward Snowden[6]

So, to answer the question of how our guys didn’t “spy on Trump” but all the information from the meeting was given BACK to our spies, who then gave it to the Washington Post, this is how.  And much, much more.

Then The Post throws this in.

Russia at times feeds false information into communication streams it suspects are monitored as a way of sowing misinformation and confusion among U.S. analysts. But officials said that it’s unclear what Kislyak would have had to gain by falsely characterizing his contacts with Kushner to Moscow, particularly at a time when the Kremlin still saw the prospect of dramatically improved relations with Trump.

Uh, what, wait, is the Post admitting the entire source was someone spying on the Russians?  Which means their source gave up a means and method?

That’s a crime- again.

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment