[Townhall] It looks right now like bad guys are getting away with attempted election larceny. But, events are still unfolding and the dark of night precedes dawn, even in politics.
To those paying attention, rot and corruption at the highest levels of government are painfully visible. The problem is that "visible" does not mean the same thing as "entered into public awareness."
The most malignant political abuses in American history are lodged in shady DC hallways, government memos, thousands of texts and emails, and partisan dossiers that are staring us straight in the face. But, it would take an honest and capable media to make the public care.
Unfortunately, we go to civic war with the media we have. Most national outlets are staffed by packs of Democrat cheerleaders and bodyguards. Their mission is to unite and howl in harmony about whatever is the current attack on Donald Trump. The subject has bounced from fictional Russia collusion to imminent nuclear war with North Korea to the horrors of policing illegal border crossings under the same conditions and constraints that were in place‐and separated families--under the Bush and Obama administrations.
Nary a reporter at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NYT, or WAPO will lift a finger or stir a tongue to inform Americans of the malice of FBI Agents Strzok or Page, or other accomplices yet unnamed. No producer or executive in the Alphabet Cartel will allocate news minutes to exposing the machinations of James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, or others.
So, the biggest political scandal there ever was, still isn't. But that doesn't mean the story dies here or that no chickens will eventually roost and in due course, boil.
Even the hefty reports of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz‐loaded with explosive revelations‐are delivered soggy and quickly defused.
Horowitz has been notably thorough digging up ugly facts. But, he has been unreasonably agnostic‐even disingenuous‐about connecting, interpreting, and reporting the damning dots. As Andrew McCarthy explains, the IG report presents copious evidence of intense hostility and dripping contempt for Trump, as well as bizarre departures from standard law enforcement methods during the Clinton investigation. Yet, the Report blithely concludes no harm, no foul, no bias, because it would take a mind reader to understand why FBI officials made the decisions they did.
The Inspector’s insouciance in turn excuses media lies or neglect about the disclosures’ real import. That’s how a long running trickle and sometimes torrent of news about troubling, possibly criminal behavior by government gets dismissed as unrelated, unimportant matters.
A unique, mostly unnoted development offers hope to break through the blockade of blasé. Last March, Attorney General Jeff Sessions advised Congress by letter he had previously deputized United States Attorney for Utah John Huber and other "senior federal prosecutors" to consider and act on information coming from the Inspector General. When a federal prosecutor "acts" it means he brings warranted criminal cases. Without Horowitz’s swamp background or ties to the Obama administration, Huber is positioned to look independently and apply legal scrutiny rather than political excusery to a number of issues. These include:
#1
The reason Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Maxine Waters, their CBC cohorts, and the left are fighting POTUS so viciously; their affirmative action icon Soetoro is at the bottom of all of this. Soetoro, Brennan, and Clapper are ultimately responsible.
#4
My biggest worry is we still have no clue as to whose hand was controlling the puppet, never mind how the puppet even came to be.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
06/25/2018 7:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
we still have no clue as to whose hand was controlling the puppet
Does there have to be a controlling mastermind, Michael? Doesn't an aggregate stupidity and lack of consequences - except personally positive ones - enough?
#6
The coordination we see in terms of passing laws trans nationally that funnel money to the establishment imply a controlling group is masterminding this somewhere.
#8
I did say "except personally positive ones", BP. After all, the current western econ. sys. have to support hundreds of thousands (if not millions) "white collar workers" that are no more competent in their jobs than I would as Confucian scholar.
#9
While the search for the 'control group' continues.....please hand us the scalps of Soetoro, Brennan, and Clapper. We need a morale booster about now.
If you make the small fry pay the price for their crimes it might discourage other small fry.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/25/2018 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Hi G(r)omguru, thanks for the response. I'm with Besoeker and BP on this. I want the small fry, fried. Transnational progressivism is directed I think, from where or from whom I do not know.
(Also, Whiskey Mike is an old call sign I had for almost a year, not a name per se, but thank you for being polite. It is appreciated.)
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
06/25/2018 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Nary a reporter at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NYT, or WAPO will lift a finger or stir a tongue to inform Americans of the malice of FBI Agents Strzok or Page, or other accomplices yet unnamed.
CNN pays for the privilege to be in all the airports and many hotels, maybe it's time for Fox News to up the ante and capture this spot. Many uninformed voters only watch the anti Trump MSM, it would be good to inform them of all issues. Or at least it would be fun to see the lefties minds explode. I hate seeing CNN on constantly and watching those absorbing all of it sickens me.
Posted by: Jan ||
06/25/2018 23:42 Comments ||
Top||
[The Hill] As former top FBI official Peter Strzok faces congressional requests to testify, it’s worth examining who he is.
Strzok is the subject of what I see as one of the most damaging conclusions in the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general report: As the nation’s top FBI counterespionage official, he indicated "a willingness to take official action to impact [Donald Trump’s] electoral prospects."
Specifically, while working on the Hillary Clinton classified email investigation in August 2016, Strzok wrote that he and unnamed others would "stop" Trump from getting elected. He shared his intentions with at least one other FBI official, attorney Lisa Page.
Strzok isn’t just any rank-and-file guy spouting off in one ill-advised email. His fingerprints were on every FBI investigation that stood to impact Clinton’s presidential candidacy or to hurt Trump before and after the 2016 election.
He was chief of the FBI’s Counterespionage Section and number two in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. He led the team of investigators in the Clinton classified email probe and led the FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election. He was involved in the controversial anti-Trump "Steele dossier" used, in part, to obtain multiple secret wiretaps. He was the one who interviewed Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI only to later learn that agents reportedly didn’t think he’d lied. And Strzok was the "top" FBI agent appointed to work on the team of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion.
The earth-shattering finding on Strzok by the inspector general (IG) confirms a citizenry’s worst fears: A high-ranking government intel official allegedly conspired to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.
It’s also directly relevant to the FBI investigations of Trump-Russia collusion, which the IG did not examine in this report. There are multiple allegations of FBI misbehavior in that inquiry, including conspiracies to frame Trump, and improper spying on Trump associates. Investigating those allegations takes on an added sense of urgency with news that the FBI’s top counterespionage official expressed willingness to use his official position against a political enemy.
Yet, for all of that, Strzok is still collecting a salary, courtesy of taxpayers, at the FBI Human Resources Department. And here’s the chilling part: If it weren’t for the IG's investigation, requested by Congress, he’d likely still be helping lead special counsel Mueller’s investigation of Trump today.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Texas Republicans by reviving electoral districts drawn by the state legislature that had been thrown out by a lower court for diluting the influence of black and Hispanic voters.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court’s conservative majority ruled that the challengers had not done enough to show that the Republican-led Texas legislature acted with discriminatory intent when it adopted new electoral maps in 2013 for state legislative and U.S. congressional seats. Republican President Donald Trump’s administration had backed Texas in the case. The court did rule, however, that one of the state legislature districts was unlawful.
Last September, the high court put on hold two lower court rulings from earlier in 2017 that had invalidated a series of Texas electoral districts. The justices then, as they were in Monday’s ruling, were divided 5-4, with the conservative justices backing the Texas Republicans and the liberals dissenting.
In the ruling, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said the lower court had "committed a fundamental legal error" in the way it had analyzed the dispute.
[Hot Air] Andrés Manuel López Obrador, referred to as AMLO, is certain to be Mexico’s next president and that is not very good news for the United States. Our neighbors to the south are poised to elect a populist who leans heavily on liberal nationalism while sometimes slipping into socialist leanings. AMLO has run twice previously for president and is a former mayor of Mexico City. His anti-Trump rhetoric inspires and motivates his supporters.
Election Day is July 1, and AMLO is polling a healthy 20 points ahead of his nearest opponent. He is running as an Independent, not as a candidate for either of the two traditional parties. Known as "Juntos haremos historia" ("Together we will make history"), Americans should be wary that he may accomplish what he sets out to do. He is feared to be the next Hugo Chavez, remaking Mexico into the next Venezuela with his "radical revolution".
#3
"I’d caution Mexico that the tide is already turning, and if they keep pushing it will be ugly. Sooner or later you run out of other people’s patience as well as their money." - Sarah Hoyt
#4
Just what difference will be being to the country run by the Institutional Revolution Party? Or however they phrase it -- Mexico is already a socialist (read corrupt, oligarchic) shithole.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/25/2018 6:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mexico needs a revolution. If that means years of socialist failure first, so be it. Go full america hate and watch the border get sealed tight and remittances dry up. 1/3 of the Mexican economy gone and that safety valve that has prevented revolution suddenly doesn't work.
Yeah without migrant workers the US will be forced to mechanism our farming but Australia managed, I'm sure the US could as well even if that means lefties pay super-high prices for Kale.
[USA Today] President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.
In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.
"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Of course, Obama and Bush are the most recent presidents; historians will tell you that it takes decades to truly measure an individual president's performance.
Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).
Obama received only 8% in the best presidents poll.
The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.
#7
Big Obama fans have to face the fact that it was him specifically that led to resident Trump. that's gotta be a hard pill to swallow. Then add the fact nearly everything Obama did he did using executive orders so it was easily undone.
#9
I'll have to think about it but I suspect that if "worst" equates to the damage done to the US system of gov't. I'm inclined to give Woodrow Wilson the nod.
[AmericanThinker] The past week featured well-known cable news hosts in tears over the separation of children from their parents at the border, a practice that was common in the Obama administration, drawing little notice and no weeping. And every day in the United States, when the head of a single-parent household is arrested, children of American citizens are separated from their family and placed in the custodial care of others.
Were Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell entirely ignorant of this reality? Was last week the first time they realized that parental criminality breaks up families?
I sincerely doubt that either of them was so ignorant of the realities of the criminal justice system. So what accounts for their total loss of composure on air?
Continued on Page 49
#5
Gorb, it's not about winning elections for them -- it's about making sure their zampolit know they have the Right Thoughts. It's about keeping their status, and especially keeping their over-paid sinecures.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/25/2018 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Dear Legacy Infotainment Enterprises, lines are being drawn. The reason so many are not listening to you is because of those lines. If you had a modicum of knowledge you would understand the last time this happened on this scale was around 1860. So, keep pushing that hate. While history doesn't exactly repeat itself, it follows patterns, like the flow of a river.
[DONSURBER.BLOGSPOT] So let me explain why the Resistance That'd be the Hezbullies, but in the U.S. it's used by anti-Trumplings... is futile.
1. The Resistance comes from the top down. The Tea Party was more organic, less organized, and seemed more sincere.
2. The celebrities are not helping the Resistance in part because of all the baggage they carry. Maybe it is just me, but I laugh when an actress who shed her clothes in a film complains that the President Trump used the P-word. Indeed, the all-too casual use of vulgarity undermines the message.
3. The attacks are personal. Yes, the Tea Party did attack Obama (every president endures that to some extent) but the protesters eight years ago also has an issue: the fear of nationalized health care. What is the issue besides the way President Trump looks?
4. The focus is not on any issue. The Resistance simply is against everything President Trump does. He figured out more than a year ago how to work this to his advantage. The Resistance now opposes tax cuts, a booming economy, and peace in Korea. The Resistance also now supports MS-13, open borders, and Kim Pudge Jong-un ...the overweight, pouty-looking hereditary potentate of North Korea. Pudge appears to believe in his own divinity, but has yet to produce any loaves and fishes, so his subjects remain malnourished... 5. President Trump has proved them wrong. He is not Hitler. In no way, shape, or form is he. The pile of profane pejoratives is staggering. Calling him a cock holster and his daughter the C-word on national television makes him the victim, and totally blows away any argument that he is a despot because if he were both Stephen Colbert and Samantha Bee would be pushing up daisies.
6. The Tea Party was American. The Resistance was French.
Alas, as part of the Resistance, the New York Times
...which still proudly displays Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... cannot look at their position objectively. The Times staff is setting itself up for an unpleasant November Surprise -- again.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/25/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
h/t Instapundit
For all their smarts, Asian Americans can be pretty dumb.
They support Democrats in droves, and Democrats support race-based affirmative action. Last week, a lawsuit revealed just how discriminatory that kind of decision-making can be. At Harvard, racial balancing ‐ in the guise of a personality score for applicants ‐ appears to be systematically reducing the admission of Asian American students to the university.
...In recent presidential elections, Asian Americans have consistently voted Democratic. In 2012, exit polling shows that 73% of Asian voters turned out for Barack Obama, second only, among racial/ethnic groups, to African Americans. In 2016, two-thirds of Asian voters supported Hillary Clinton, again second to black Americans and this time tied with Latinos. Asian Americans last voted for a Republican for president way back in 1996, when they went for Bob Dole (about the only voters who did, it seems).
The Democratic Party has rewarded this unwavering support with an unyielding defense of race-based school admissions and government programs such as the one that’s been working against Asian Americans at Harvard.
Every Supreme Court justice appointed by a Democratic president has upheld race-based school admissions programs in the name of diversity. Democratic administrations have aggressively supported these same programs in court. In California, Democrats have sought repeatedly to overturn Proposition 209, the law that prevents UC Berkeley and UCLA from rescurrecting the use of race as a factor in their admission process. In New York City today, Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio proposes to end the standardized single-test admission system used by magnet schools ‐ because too many Asians do too well on the tests.
...Asian Americans can change their self-defeating politics simply by questioning their loyalty to the Democratic Party. The smartest voters keep themselves in play, choosing candidates who truly represent their self-interest, election by election. I believe politicians who support fair competition in the markets and in our schools ‐ most likely Republicans ‐ best represent Asian Americans. And Asian voters would benefit not only themselves but the American people as a whole by rejecting anyone who supports the use of race rather than merit to pick winners, losers and even Harvard students. And the same goes, IMO, double for Jews
[Daily Caller] Fox News host Tucker Carlson took the mask off the ultimate goal of America’s "elites" regarding immigration ‐ a country with no borders and "immigration without limit."
"Without much real public debate or even discussion, the elite left has reached a conclusion on the question [of immigration]," The Daily Caller founder said on his Friday night show. "It is that America needs more immigration. Much more. Immigration without limit. We shouldn’t worry about whether the people coming here have skills that we need. Whether they are educated. Whether they can speak English even or even whether they are violent criminals. In fact we shouldn’t even try to accurately count how many are coming here or how many live within our borders. Do you disagree with that? Well, then in the words of an MSNBC commentator, you’re pure evil."
After playing the segment from MSNBC characterizing those who disagree with the liberal immigration agenda as "pure evil," Carlson noted that "pure evil" can’t be reasoned or negotiated with, "It can only be destroyed by force."
Cheap labor is the key. Immigrants from regions with low life expectancy are preferred. These long-lived Anglo hangers-on cost a bundle on the back end, and clearly imbalance the Social Security pay-out schemes.
#2
The elite can have a residences in Bern, Lucerne, or Lake Geneva. Excellent schools, housing, shopping, and of course banks. The diamond dealers of Antwerp don't live adjacent the mines.
#4
Total Welfare State -or- Unlimited Migration, Pick ONE because the Laws of Bookkeeping says that you can't have both. The Elite are living in the same fantasy land as an avid subscriber to a Ponzi Scam.
[DiogenesMiddleFinger] We've already seen violent full-blown media driven liberal hate acted out at a baseball diamond in DC in an attempt to murder in mass Republican politicians. The media downplayed it as "an act of mental illness" and no Democrat, not one took to the microphone and said hey it's time to settle down people and solve our differences the right way. Not One.
And now the fully rabid political left having been pushed into the streets by the media's insane and irresponsible Hitler rhetoric and comparisons of illegal alien children to kids murdered at Auschwitz, along with the insane freak Maxine Waters continuously throwing around words like resist & revolt, the possibility that someone is going to end up dead is every increasing.
#3
If someone in the administration gets killed the left will not like the election results. Most of their side will stay home in shame and the conservatives will come out in droves.
And of course the left will start the conspiracy theories right away that Trump had the person killed in order to win the election, but that's another story.
#9
Not all democrats are insane, most barely pay attention to the day to day and believe the propaganda because it suits them. I think it's likely the over the top antics will reduce turnout anyway but if someone is killed or worse I thnk the Dems will have record low turnout.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[The Hill] As former top FBI official Peter Strzok faces congressional requests to testify, it’s worth examining who he is.
[Hot Air] Andrés Manuel López Obrador, referred to as AMLO, is certain to be Mexico’s next president and that is not very good news for the United States. Our neighbors to the south are poised to elect a populist who leans heavily on liberal nationalism while sometimes slipping into socialist leanings. AMLO has run twice previously for president and is a former mayor of Mexico City. His anti-Trump rhetoric inspires and motivates his supporters.
[USA Today] President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.
