The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

The "Professor"

There is no longer any doubt that the FBI used an operative to attempt to penetrate on the Trump campaign during his presidential run (the FBI admitted as much in a conveniently leaked document to the New York Times). There is also no longer any doubt that a concerted intelligence operation focusing on Trump began in 2016 while the presidential campaign was underway. Since this explosive information came out (consider for a moment how Democrats would react if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has suffered the same thing), there has been a concerted effort to normalize and quash it.

The campaign is being conducted by the Democrat's trained hamsters in the media. The intent is to normalize what is, in all likelihood, the biggest political scandal in United States history. The hamsters at the Washington Post, used the audacious headline, "If the FBI used an Informant, It wasn't to Go After Trump. It was to Protect Him."

Yeah ... riiiight. I suppose that Trump's absolutely justified characterization of the vicious Latino gang, MS-13, wasn't to criticize the gang, but to give them a path for a better future. OMG!! The hamsters have literally crossed over into self-caricature.

But it continues. Here are the trained hamsters at the Washington Post, a once repected journalistic source (my comments are in indented italics), describing the FBI spying on Trump:
For years, the professor has provided information to the FBI and the CIA, according to people familiar with the matter. He aided the Russia investigation both before and after special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s appointment in May 2017, according to people with knowledge of his activities ...
So ... we use the "professor" label, rather than a name (more on that in a moment) not so much to identify the man/woman, but to soften his activities ... after all ... professors are harmless academics, right?
The FBI plant first met with Carter Page, a Trump campaign aide. Here's a excerpt from WaPo:
Page and the FBI informant stayed in touch after the conference, meeting several times in the Washington area, Page said. Page said he did not recall exactly what the two men discussed.

“You are asking me about conversations I had almost two years ago,” he [Page] said. “We had extensive discussions. We talked about a bunch of different foreign-policy-related topics. For me to try and remember every nuance of every conversation is impossible.”
Interesting technique here. The hamsters sort of put the person who was spied upon on trail. First, the hamsters ask Page ... not the 'professor' about the conversation, and when Page says he can't remember every detail, there's the subtle implication that he is hiding something. Remember, Page was the target of the FBI via the professor.
Later in their apologia, the WaPo hamsters write this about a young, unpaid assistant, George Papadopoulos to the Trump campaign:
“Please pardon my sudden intrusion just before the Labor Day weekend,” the professor wrote to Papadopoulos in a message described to The Post.

He said he was leading a project examining relations between Turkey and the European Union. He offered to pay Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a paper about the oil fields off the coast of Turkey, Israel and Cyprus, “a topic on which you are a recognized expert.”

It is a long-standing practice of intelligence operatives to try to develop a source by first offering the target money for innocuous research or writing.

The professor invited Papadopoulos to come to London later that month to discuss the paper, offering to pay the costs of his travel. “I understand that this is rather sudden but thought given your expertise, it might be of interest to you,” he wrote.

Papadopoulos accepted. While in London, he met for drinks with a woman who identified herself as the professor’s assistant, before meeting on Sept. 15 with the professor at the Traveler’s Club, a 200-year-old private club that is a favorite of foreign diplomats stationed in London, according to the emails described to The Post.

After Papadopoulos returned to the United States and sent his research document, the professor responded: “Enjoyed your paper. Just what we wanted. $3,000 wired to your account. Pls confirm receipt.”
It's worth noting that the hamsters do not comment on any of this and simply end the piece ... the implicit bribery, the subterfuge, not to mention the impropriety of it all. After all, it's Trump, and that justifies any means necessary.
Like the New York Times piece on Crossfire Hurricane, the writing is matter of fact, bland even. Activities that would have created screams of outrage if perpetrated agains a Democratic candidate are implicitly defined as "long standing practice." The spy is framed as a benign, studious investigator. He "reached out" to a Trump operative. The "professor was a good soldier who "for years ... provided information to the FBI and the CIA, according to people familiar with the matter." Nothing to worry about here, just another case for "the professor.

And then, of course, the coup de grace, that the "professor's name cannot be revealed* because ... "following warnings from U.S. intelligence officials that exposing him could endanger him or his contacts." Conveeeenient! The only people endangered here are senior appointees of the Obama administration.

It's also interesting that the WaPo hamsters don't ask the really important questions, not to mention answering them:

1. Given the obvious sensitivity of the professor's actvities, who in the Obama administration authorized it?
2. How was he/she compensationed for his/her spying and how much as she/he paid? Was it US taxpayer money?
3. What was done with the intelligence he/she gathered? Who was on the distribution list?
4. Was the legality of the spying run by DoJ lawyers and who among them said it was lawful?

Ooops! None of that is the least bit important, at least as far as the hamsters are concerned. This is just routine stuff. Nothing more to see here ... move on.


* The conservative Daily Caller reports:
Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered — and he would accept — during the presidential campaign.

The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned.

Papadopoulos now questions Halper’s motivation for contacting him, according to a source familiar with Papadopoulos’s thinking. That’s not just because of the randomness of the initial inquiry but because of questions Halper is said to have asked during their face-to-face meetings in London.

According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?”
Hmmm. I guess "the professor," if in fact Halper is the guy, was either fishing or leading his target. Stay classy, FBI.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

2013, 2014, 2015 and 2018

The denizens of the anti-Israel left, along with far too many progressive followers in the USA and Europe, supported by their trained hamsters in the main stream media, are doing what they always do when Israel defends itself against violent attacks by Hamas.

Wrapping themselves in moral outrage, the Left ignores Hamas' long and sordid history of lies and deception, violence and disregard for their own people. Leftists wail about "war crimes;" they demand UN investigations; they characterize acts of was as "protests" or uprising" giving them a revolutionary patina that they so adore; they lament the deaths on "innocent palestinian civilians" and reject subsequent evidence that those civilians are neither "innocent" nor "civilians." They demand "proportionality" implying that an Israeli must die for each Hamas attacker killed. They are useful idiots in an Islamist war to eradicate Israel.

Nothing changes. Hamas becomes violent; Israel protects itself, and the Left wails and spews its own form a bias and hatred ...

Don't believe me? Here are three excepts from posts I made after/during other violent Hamas "uprisings" over the past five years:

I wrote this as palestinian violence escalated in 2015:
No one has been paying much attention to the palestinians lately, so like a small child that demands that his parents give him time, the palestinians do the only thing they're really, really good at. They throw their version of a violent tantrum. Their leaders incite the populace using phony claims, their imams incite further anger from the mosque, and street gangs use violent attacks against Israeli civilians, police, soldiers and infrastructure to emphasize their "plight." Their intent, of course, is to provoke an aggressive response from the Israelis, after which, they will wail about the disproportionality of the response, the resultant physical damage to their "refugee camps," (actually cities with shopping malls, gas stations, hospitals and the like), the inevitable occurrence of civilian injuries, and the "war crimes" that have resulted.

Leftist politicians and their trained media hamsters in the West will cluck their tongues and condemn Israel for protecting itself, redouble their monetary support for the murderous Hamas regime, and look for UN sanctions against Israel. It's all so predictable, it would be laughable, if not for the carnage.


I wrote this as palestinian violence escalated in 2014:
As Palestinian violence escalates in Israel, the Obama administration and their fellow leftists in the worldwide media ramp up the rhetoric that condemns Israel rather than the palestinians who drive cars into civilian crowds or stab innocents on the street. This open letter by Dr. Arieh Eldad, an Israeli Plastic surgeon,(validated by Snopes) has been making the rounds. It presents a counter-narrative:
I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not ...


I wrote wrote this as palestinian violence escalated in 2013:
A cease fire in the current hostilities between Israel and Hamas was announced a few hours ago. It will accomplish nothing, except to give the Palestinian terrorist group a chance to re-arm by smuggling still more long range rockets from Iran. Incredibly, Hillary Clinton has "negotiated" an agreement that has the Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood policing the Gaza border to keep weapons smuggling from happening. Yeah ... right.

Throughout 2012 and prior to recent hostilities, Hamas and its sister terrorist groups in Gaza have launched almost 1000 rockets with the intent of killing Israeli citizens. I was in Eilat, Israel in April when one such rocket landed with a very loud explosion in an empty field. Israel did not respond to that rocket or hundreds of others.

Finally, it did something that Barack Obama has done dozens of times in Afghanistan—it used a weaponized drone to assassinate the terrorist leader of Hamas. When rocket fire escalated, Israel finally acted with precision air power, destroying missiles sites purposely embedded in civilian neighborhoods, next to schools, hospitals, and mosques. Even with precision weapons and great skill, collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths had to occur.

These deaths are the fault of Hamas—and Hamas uses them in what Charles Krauthammer calls "Grief Porn." First, Hamas purposely puts Palestinian civilians in harm's way, then when injuries or deaths inevitably occur, it parades the results of its use of human shields to an all too complicit western media. As I mentioned a few posts back, this is standard operating procedure for Hamas.

Worse, far too many Western diplomats and virtually all Leftists condemn Israel for being "disproportionate" in their defensive response. Michael Goodwin discusses the idiocy of this position:
Double standards are par for the course in the Mideast and all the Jew-hating salons from Turtle Bay to Paris. While the hatred is shouted with a clenched fist on the smoldering streets of Gaza City, equally absurd claims are made by striped-pants diplomats and left-leaning sophisticates who insist Israel is guilty of “disproportionate” force because it uses its huge military advantage.

Their argument moves the goal posts. They tacitly accept Israel’s right to respond, but only up to a point. No matter its losses, the Jewish state must never “escalate” because that would be unfair.

Think about that: Affirmative action has come to the battlefield, where the results must be level for the sake of fairness. Coming soon, the demand that Israel turn over half of its weapons to its enemies. Perhaps Hamas would like an Iron Dome of its own?
But none of this comes as a surprise.It's all part of the Groundhog Day feel to this conflict. The only real outcome is more of the same, postponed until Hamas can smuggle still more weapons under the less-than-watchful eye of the Muslim Brotherhood. Someday, when Hamas' weapons become more deadly, Israel will act more forcefully—as it should. That will be the day that affirmative action on the battle field dies. It will also be the day that Hamas will finally meet its bloody end.

Only one thing has changed during all of this time. We now have an American President who is considerably less receptive to the anti-Israel bias of the Left. That won't change things in Gaza, but it certainly will change the American position toward the conflict.


I used the phrase "useful idiots" at the beginning of this post. Jonah Goldberg does the same thing, but provides a profoundly more detailed description:
The people who insist that the Palestinians are unalloyed victims remove human agency from them. [The soft bigotry of low expectations] According to this thinking, they are not making choices; they are playing their parts. How dare you ask why someone would bring a (very sick) baby to a riot? How dare you suggest that there is subtext to the story of Palestinian righteousness? [How dare you ask why a man on crutches in a palestinian propaganda video is shown running like a gazelle in an independent video?] ... Populists always tell a story about the righteousness of “the people,” but they invariably mean only “the right people”; the rest are barely people at all.
Oh ... how true that is.

Friday, May 18, 2018

Crossfire Hurricane

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, has been vilified by many Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media for well over a year. He has been accused of everything but treason for doggedly investigating then-alleged clandestine surveillence of the Trump campaign by the Obama administration. The reaction to Nunes' investigation by Democrats was so extreme (borderline hysteria) that only one conclusion could be drawn—he and his committee were on to something, and that something was big, very BIG.

In their unhinged efforts to negate the results of their upset loss to Donald Trump, the Dems have opened a pandora's box of scandalous behavior by the Obama-era FBI and DoJ, and the Clinton campaign (the only campaign proven to have indirectly colluded with Russians to create a phony dossier on Trump). By pressing an empty collusion investigation the Dems (and a few GOP #NeverTrumpers) have also demonstrated that in recent years, dishonest testimony by the senior officials in the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence services is commonplace.

Because of Devin Nunes' investigation, the dam of lies and deceit is cracking. It appears, based on very recent events, that the Dems understand that the truth will come out—that for the first time in modern history, a sitting administration tried to rig a national election by surveilling the opposition party candidate for president. That the Democrats, through an outgoing president from their own party, placed a "spy" inside the Trump campaign to provide intelligence. Was that intel passed long to the Clinton campaign? Stay tuned.

But the bigger question for the Dems is What to do?

Never at a loss for sleazy strategies, the Dems will rely on their trained hamsters in the media to suffocate the story, through spin, omission, and lack of coverage. Here's the scheme going back 15 - 20 months:

  1. Deny, deny any wrongdoing. That didn't work because facts got in the way.
  2. Ridicule anyone that suggests that malfeasance or worse did occur under Obama's watch. That was tried, but didn't work.
  3. Vilify the investigators who (unlike Robert Mueller) did find hard evidence of wrongdoing and demanded more information from the FBI and the DoJ. That almost worked, but Nunes prevailed.
  4. Stonewall. Requests for additional information were slow-walked or outright denied for "national security" reasons. That worked, but only for a while. The threat of contempt of congress broke the stone wall.
  5. Provide a "leak" to the Dem-friendly New York Times, that on its surface, makes the NYT seem to have produced an objective investigative report, when in fact, it is simply acting as conduit to allow the Obama-era intelligence community and DoJ holdovers to get ahead of the story for a few days or weeks. That happened two days ago.
Molly Hemingway discusses the NYT piece:
The New York Times‘ story, headlined “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation,” is a dry and gentle account of the FBI’s launch of extensive surveillance of affiliates of the Trump campaign. Whereas FBI officials and media enablers had previously downplayed claims that the Trump campaign had been surveiled, in this story we learn that it was more widespread than previously acknowledged:
The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said…

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.
This is a stunning admission for those Americans worried that federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies might use their powers to surveil, leak against, and target Americans simply for their political views or affiliations. As Sean Davis wrote, “The most amazing aspect about this article is how blasé it is about the fact that the Obama admin was actively spying on four affiliates of a rival political campaign weeks before an election.”
Yeah ... the NYT gets all agitated about an $130K payment to a porn star who is alleged to have had a one night stand with Donald Trump over a decade ago. They do deep investigation and do so with more than a little enthusiasm. But their own reporting about a conspiracy among high government officials to destroy a presidential campaign of the opposing party (or provide an "insurance policy" if Trump should win) reads like a bad book report written by a disinterested fourth grader. Not a shred of the usual NYT editorializing, not a scintilla of added information, not a hint of investigative enthusiasm—flat and detached.

But that's all part of the master strategy. Now that the 'newspaper of record' (LOL) has reported (well, more like recited) what their Dem masters have given them, any future revelations—and those revelations are coming—will be waved off with a yawn, "old news, already covered in our 'groundbreaking' article, nothing more to see here, move along."

So to add to the Dem strategy noted earlier:
6. Make any future revelations "old news" so that the trained hamsters have an excuse for not covering them.
Hemingway goes on to cite (read the whole thing) a number of "takeaways" from the NYT article. Here are the three most important in my view: First, FBI officials admit they spied on Trump's campaign. Second, the Dems are terrified about the looming Inspector General Report, and third, the surveillance involved wiretaps, National Security Letters, and at least one spy.

The interesting thing to watch is how the Dems and their trained hamsters apply their strategy to cover-up what may very well be the biggest scandal in American political history. If recent history serves, they'll succeed. And if for some reason you're rooting for their success, you don't give a damn about our democracy, about the rule of law, about the weaponization of major government agencies, about the politicization of intelligence, and about basic fairness.

Inadvertently, the bland NYT article, written to temper the blow of coming revelations, gives us a window into the reprehensible activities gladly executed by rabid partisans in the Obama administration. The perpetrators should be indicted and jailed, but our intrepid special counsel is nowhere to be seen.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Wrong Again

Regular readers of this blog already know my opinion of the vast majority of the main stream media—they are ideologically left-wing, biased in favor of the Democrats, dishonest in their reporting of the news*, utterly devoid of objectivity when it comes to Donald Trump and his many substantive accomplishments on both the domestic and foreign policy front. But there's one more thing—the majority of the trained hamsters in the main stream media are not very bright. Their comments are often uniformed and piece-meal, shocking for "journalists" at the pinnacle of the "profession."

Daniel Henninger comments on the current media meme that Trump has alienated "our closest allies" by (1) abrogating the Iran deal between Barack Obama and the Mullahs in Iran (a deal never approved by Congress) and (2) moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. He writes:
No one has suggested yet that the Trump withdrawal from Barack Obama’s nuclear-weapons deal will cause the sea level to rise, but we’re almost there. The chain reaction of post-withdrawal disasters cataloged by the global media includes the possibilities that Iran will race now toward building a nuclear weapon, that a war between Iran and Israel could engulf the Middle East, and that America has become “divided” from its allies ...

“America’s three closest friends in Europe,” the Washington Post reported, “are near-bursting with anger and exasperation at the United States.” A rule of thumb suggests itself: Might European anger correlate directly with the correctness of U.S. policy, such as this decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and restart the sanctions regime? And when does an ally become something less than that?

Once the media takes ownership of any fixed thought—here that the U.S. withdrawal from the Obama agreement will drive Iran to build a nuclear weapon—no other fact or consideration is permitted to intrude.
The media doesn't provide honest and accurate analysis, they promote a predefined and often dishonest narrative.

Henninger does provide a level of analysis that should be commonplace in the NYT and WaPo, but never is. The reason, it conflicts with the prevailing left-wing narrative, not to mention TDS:
Europe became an economic power whose interests are solely commercial. Despite the Middle East’s continued strategic importance, Europe’s view of it is entirely bloodless—a region that is merely a dependable trading partner for Europe’s biggest companies.

When in 2013 Mr. Obama raised the possibility of a deal that would lift the Iranian sanctions regime, the Europeans were all in. Whatever Mr. Obama’s nuclear dreams, the deal’s primary attraction for Europe—and Iran—was always overwhelmingly about money.

Recall that in 2012, the European Union’s growth rate had fallen below zero. Europe was also dealing with an existential threat in the Greek debt crisis, which required several multibillion-euro bailouts.

Once the Obama nuclear deal became final in 2015, Europe’s deal makers were inside Iran like a shot. European Union members, led by Germany, quickly became the mullahs’ main trading partners.

Bear in mind that the agreement’s flaws were recognized at the time, such as ignoring Iran’s messianic and imperial projects. Just days after the agreement was reached in July 2015, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, was in Moscow, no doubt discussing the Russo-Iranian alliance in Syria, which quickly drove torrents of refugees into Europe. In other words, the Obama-Kerry deal with Iran helped to destabilize Europe’s politics. The European publics should demand a new deal.
The same Euros who allowed their continent and their culture to be overrun by a slow motion invasion from the Middle East now suggest that Iran can be mollified and that a very bad deal should be continued (so they can make money). They're wrong again.


* Just last night, the vaunted New York Times hit a new low in fake news. Donald Trump on a visit to California was commenting on the Mexican drug gang, MS-13, a group that routinely murders innocents, kills the entire families including children of its opponents, and has been known to behead them either before or after they are murdered, hanging the corpses from light poles. With that gruesome information, Trump rightly characterized MS-13 members as "animals." Here's what the NYT (and WaPo and CSPAN among others) tweeted:
Trump lashed out an undocumented immigrants during the White House meeting, calling those trying to breach the country's borders "animals"
The level of dishonesty here is breathtaking. The NYT purposely omitted context so that it could reinforce the leftist meme that Trump thinks all immigrants are "animals"—a flat-out distortion and lie.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018


As a person, Donald Trump can be hard to like—that's a fact. He is pompous and narcissistic, brash and inexact, often blunt and insulting to a fault. There's only one qualifier—as President of the United States, he has been remarkably effective. The list of his actual, measurable accomplishments on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts is growing longer by the week, and that creates cognitive dissonance for those who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. How can a man who is so un-woke, so crass, so icky be so effective?

In response to Trump's many important wins, the #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers have focused solely on character assassination of both Trump and everyone around him. Sure they've also been able to get a special counsel appointed, but even that now has morphed into a "witch hunt" with no relevance to the original phony allegations that precipitated the original investigation.

For example, Trump's daughter, Ivanka, goes to celebrate the historic opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and The New York Daily News front page headline in 148 point type is: "Daddy's Little Ghoul." Seems that the trained hamsters at the Daily News are outraged that palestinian "civilians" have been killed doing what they always do—throwing a hyper-violent tantrum. Following a palestinian script that has been their go-to strategy for over 40 years, these "civilians" were largely Hamas terrorists, those injured were cynically put directly in harm's way by Hamas, who produced fake news videos depicting the carnage which as then protoed by the useful idiot trained hamsters of the main stream media. Those palestinians killed were in the process of attacking the border fence with the obvious intent of killing the Israeli soldiers behind the fence.

Funny that no one among the #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers are "outraged" by the Daily News headline and no one has asked th editors of The New York Daily News to apologize for publicly suggesting that somehow Ivanka Trump is a ghoul who celebrates death. But never mind.

Over the past week, those same hypocrites among the #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers have become "outraged" over a leaked private comment about John McCain in a closed meeting by Trump advisor, Kelly Sadler. Hours upon hours of "reporting" at mainstream media outlets have been expended on what is essentially a non-story. Kurt Schlichter does what he does best when he writes:
And then there is the case of Kelly Sadler, the White House political advisor who the mob is seeking to decapitate for the fake sin of telling the truth in private in the course and scope of her job duties.

John McCain is dying. That is not in dispute. I had plenty of beefs with him when he was well, and now my thoughts are with his family. I choose to forget my anger and remember his service. Others are not forgiving, and that’s between them and the senator. The consequence of being a maverick who steps on people’s toes is that sometimes people stay angry about their stomped piggies. For my part, I hope he finds peace and that his family is comforted during this difficult time (and I think the people trying to score petty points in his name are doing him a disservice. Stop it.).

But none of this relates to Kelly Sadler. Her job is to analyze the political situation based on the facts, and the fact that the senior senator for Arizona is passing away is hugely relevant to the issue at hand, the controversial nomination of a new CIA director, which McCain opposes. In a closed meeting where the family was not present and the media not invited, she told the truth - he is dying and his opposition is unlikely to derail the nomination. But some jerk decided to leak this private brainstorming to the press - that person is a dirtbag and needs to be fired.

The family was outraged, and I will not fault them. They are grieving. But a bunch of other people - many of whom called McCain a ‘Nazi” and a “racist” and all the rest of the usual slanders back in 2008 - pretended that this statement of fact was somehow outrageous. It was not. It was her job, and she did it behind closed doors where speaking harsh truths is not only necessary but laudable. She was under no obligation to qualify her statements or be sensitive in private chats; her job was to analyze the political situation and McCain’s condition was one of the key facts. She chose to apologize - I would not have - but, of course, the liberals and the Fredocons still demand her as a sacrifice to their fake fussy outrage.
The people who today are outraged about Sadler's inappropriate but otherwise accurate private observation were among the same Democrats who as Schlichter notes, publicly called McCain a ‘Nazi” and a “racist” back when he was running against their candidate—Barack Obama—way back in 2008. All of this is breathtakingly hypocritical, but what else is new.

What the #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers are doing is (in Schlichter's words) "ankle-biting." They will do anything, no matter how craven, to take down Trump. There's only one problem, as they snip at his ankles, the public watches and shakes its collective head. It isn't working, and it shouldn't.

Tom Wolfe

One of the premier observers of the American scene over that past 40 years died this week. Tom Wolfe was 88. Over his long life, Wolfe wrote essays and novels that were wicked in their depiction of the hypocrisy and pretension of the glitterati, the literary elite, the intelligencia, all politicians, and other of the country's movers and shakers. He defied political labels.

In an homage to Wolfe, Roger Kimball characterized him this way:
Wolfe was a profound observer of culture, a sort of super-sociologist who could emit singing prose and deliver deadly characterizations.
Wolfe's skill was that he was never strident and rarely preachy. He told a story and you just had to smile as his characters made his sociological points for him.

He reveled, I think, in pointing out much of the idiocy of many aspects of political correctness, but at the same time, was fearless in pointing out social injustice, not as the current progressive movement thinks it is, but as it actually exists.

We need more Tom Wolfes, but his breed is increasingly rare. In Kimball's words:
With the passing of Tom Wolfe we have lost one of our greatest, if not our greatest, men of letters. He was—to cite the title of one of his novels—a man in full. His many friends will miss him. Our culture is the poorer for his absence.

Sunday, May 13, 2018


In the criminal world, if you hold up a convenience store, are caught doing it on CCTV, and subsequently arrested by the police, the evidence is both simple and obvious. That's why junior assistant district attorneys love to prosecute such cases. They're a slam dunk -- in fact, they're normally settled with a plea bargin and a light sentence without a trial.

But what if there's a high level white collar conspiracy directed at an opponent of the then-current president and his preferred successor? What if the conspiracy is perpetrated in secret meetings by senior government officials and politicians? What if it's justified using sham evidence of Russian "collusion", or reports derived from clandestine spying?

Things get very complicated very fast. There is no single event that one can point to indicating that a crime has been committed. There is little hard evidence, but copious circumstantial evidence. There is considerable complexity and lack of clarity—and that's what protects the perpetrators.

The Clinton campaign paid a Democrat smear shop, Fusion GPS, to create an opposition research dossier that contained salacious slander that they hoped would destroy the candidacy of Donald trump. Nothing new there—that's Washington hardball politics. But things got very interesting when the phony dossier was used by the FBI as grounds for FISA surveillance on the Trump campaign. Even more interesting, senior FBI officials knew the provenance of the dossier but never let the FISA court know where it came from. As if that weren't bad enough, things get much, much worse.

Andrew McCarthy writes:
Something tells me Glenn Simpson did not make a mistake. Something tells me the co-founder of Fusion GPS was dead-on accurate when he testified that Christopher Steele [author of the Trump dossier] told him the FBI had a “human source” —i.e., a spy — inside the Trump campaign as the 2016 presidential race headed into its stretch run.

When he realized how explosive this revelation was, Simpson walked it back: He had, perhaps, “mischaracterized” what he’d been told by Steele, the former British spy and principal author of the anti-Trump dossier he and Simpson compiled for the Clinton campaign.

Simpson gave his testimony about the FBI’s human source at a closed Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on August 22, 2017. He did not try to retract it until the uproar that followed the publication of his testimony on January 9, 2018. The latter date is significant for reasons we’ll come to.
So ... the FBI had a "source" inside the Trump campaign. Ya think that might be a little bit unethical? Ya think that some of the intel gathered might have been funneled through cutouts to the Clinton Campaign or leaked to the Democrat's trained hamsters in the media? Ya think when the FBI's Peter Strzok texted this:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [McCabe, now disgraced second in command at the FBI) office - that there’s no way he [Trump] gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
to his lover, lawyer Lisa Page, he just might be referring to a conspiracy within the FBI. Exactly what "path" and what "insurance policy" was he referring to?

But back to the funneling of the FBI intel to the trained hamsters. McCarthy explains:
Simpson’s testimony was released to the public on January 9, 2018. That was just a few days after the New York Times had published its big New Year’s weekend story claiming, based on anonymous intelligence officials, that the Russia investigation had been opened sometime in July 2016. The catalyzing event, we were told, was a report to the FBI that Papadopoulos, a young Trump- campaign adviser, had alleged that Russia possessed thousands of stolen Hillary Clinton emails. According to the story, Papadopoulos had been informed of this by Joseph Mifsud, a London-based academic who professed to have Kremlin connections. A few weeks later, while drinking in a London bar in May 2016, Papadopoulos blabbed the news to Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat.
McCarthy explains (read the whole thing) that that story falls apart when the time line of events is considered. But never mind.

Here's the thing. This is a complex story, and it's the media's job to unravel the complexity so that the American public better understands what happened, and through its elected representatives, corrects any governmental wrongdoing that did occur. But in this case, the trained hamsters revel in the complexity and make no effort to investigate and simplify it. They smirk and talk about conspiracy theorists.

Why is that? Because if they did investigate and simplify, they just might lead the public to the conclusion that the Obama administration knowingly or unknowingly allowed an FBI operation to be conducted on a candidate for the presidency to provide "an insurance policy" against a win by Donald Trump. That's wrong ... that's big ... that's a MAJOR scandal ... and that's why the Democrats trained hamsters would prefer the complexity to continue.


You know something is up when the Democrat smear shops and their trained hamsters in the media go into overdrive in an effort to smear one of the few Washington politicians, Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who has doggedly pursued this complex and growing scandal.

In an article aptly entitled, "The Deep State Mob Targets Nunes", Julie Kelly reports:
The Deep State Mob is continuing to squeeze the California congressman after he again threatened to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for ignoring congressional subpoenas and withholding crucial documents from Congressional investigators. Nunes has minced no words about how the Justice Department and FBI have been “stonewalling” his committee’s investigation for months. And as Nunes inches closer to revealing the stinking core of what is potentially the biggest political corruption scandal in U.S. history, the Deep State Mob is trying to close in on him first.

Nunes and other House Republicans want to find out exactly how and why the FBI’s counterintelligence operation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government began in the summer of 2016, and what intelligence sources either aided or instigated that probe. The latest showdown, according to the Washington Post, is because Nunes has issued a subpoena demanding that the Justice Department provide information about an unnamed individual referenced in a classified letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month.
The closer Nunes and his collegaues get to the truth, the more the Dems' smears escalate.

The Dems get so, so angry at any mention that special counsel, Robert Mueller, might be biased and should bring his "investigation" to a conclusion. "Let him do his job!" they proclaim.

But when Nunes gets far closer to the truth that Mueller ever will, the Dems don't seem as inclined to let him do his job. Heh.

Friday, May 11, 2018

1,826 Days

Today is the five year anniversary (actually 1,826 days) of the disclosure that the Obama administration either directly or indirectly weaponized the IRS to go after Obama's conservative opponents. During the five years that have passed, the Obama administration first denied any wrong doing; when that became untenable, they lied about the events and the breadth of the scandal; when that became a joke, they stonewalled all congressional attempts to uncover the truth. A senior IRS official, Lois Lerner, took the Fifth rather than testify, and the Democrats trained hamsters in the mainstream media were notably incurious about the entire thing.

No special counsel was appointed; no indictments occurred, no one went to jail. Of course, the Dems tell us there was nothing to see, so we better move along.

Bradley Smith, former chair of the Federal Election Commission writes:
Imagine if liberal groups discovered that President Trump’s Internal Revenue Service was targeting them for heightened scrutiny or harassment. The media and Democrats would decry this assault on the First Amendment and declare the U.S. on the brink of autocracy. The scandal would dominate the midterms, and the legitimacy of the election would be called into question.
But weaponizing the IRS, and it now appears based on Kim Strassel's Pulitzer Prize worthy reporting, the FBI, was S.O.P for the Obama administration. They did it, in part, because they were convinced that they were the truly righteous. More cynically, they did it because they were certain that another Democrat, Hillary Clinton, would follow Obama's reign, and everything would be swept under the rug. Showing incredible hubris when Hillary lost, the Dems opened the door to uncovering even more of their own dirt by specious claims of Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, and now, a combination of dirt associated with a porn star and Trump's sleazy lawyer.

CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, WaPo, etc. are obsessed with Trump-related non-stories. They have elevated an increasingly questionable special counsel investigation into a holy war. They are so biased and increasingly deranged that they repeatedly create fake news, and then become incensed when the president calls them on it. But those are sins of commission. Even worse are their sins of omission.

For five years they refused to do any real investigation of the IRS scandal. Oddly, there were no "leaks" from "unnamed sources," and no Pulitzer-Prize winning reports on myriad Obama-era scandals. Now, they outright refuse to report the ongoing mega-scandal that is enveloping the FBI at its senior levels. For details, read here, here, and here.

The trained hamsters of the main stream media have become a laughingstock, but don't realize it because they operate in a progressive echo chamber. They have done this country a great disservice.

In the meantime, the IRS scandal remains unresolved and the FBI mega-scandal? It'll probably die as well. The swamp has far too much to lose.


Ask almost any Democrat and they'll tell you that ... Donald Trump is a full-blown racist. He's anti immigrant and absolutely, positively, anti-Latino, given his position on the need to secure our southern border with Mexico.

It's odd, therefore, that under Trump, Latinos are doing well. In fact, amazingly well. Steve Cortes reports:
Among Latinos, the jobless rate has only registered below 5 percent for seven months total – in the history of this country. Six of those months have occurred with Donald Trump in the White House, including the April report released last week.

The jobs data was terrific news for Americans of all ethnicities. For the first time since the year 2000, the overall unemployment rate dipped below 4 percent. Just as significant, almost 1 million Americans who had previously given up on finding a job have rejoined the workforce since Trump was elected.
It appears that the thing that really frightens Democrats isn't Trump himself (although they'll tell you he's a monster) but rather, the successes he has achieved in improving the economy and helping people of color as a consequence. That tiggers hysteria among the Dems because they worry, I think, that people of color—African Americans and Latinos to name two, just might begin asking inconvenient questions.

Cortes continues:
This movement toward self-sufficiency is a notable achievement for all Americans, but particular focus should be placed on the gains for communities of color. Why? Because identity politics and Democrats’ Big Government policies have failed minorities. Only now, at long last, are those communities beginning to realize their potential, which has clearly been unleashed with help from the pro-growth Trump administration economic policies of deregulation, tax cuts, and border enforcement.
That's why the trained hamsters in the media offer us a daily ritual narrative of "white supremacy," all tied to Donald Trump's presidency. They hope that their cynical outrage drowns out the increasingly good economic news for people of color. That's also why they reacted viciously when Kanye West began asking the questions they hope that other people of color won't ask.

If people of color start to aggressively question why their personal economic fortunes have improved significantly under a "racist, white supremacist" GOP administration, while they didn't improve at all under the previous Democrat administration, the answers may not be the ones that Democrats what them to hear.