Can The Center Hold?

dnc-hq-dailybeast

Image From Daily Beast

Not “centrists” in the traditional sense, they’re an endangered species. I mean the “center” of the Democrat Party. The ones who are trying to bring all the conflicting ideologies together. The ones who are trying to bring the different identity-politics aggrieved groups together. We’re told there’s more uniting (Senator Klobuchar’s remarks) Democrats than dividing them, but listen to what’s uniting them: a hatred of Trump and Republicans. So what will happen when Democrats have no more external rivals?

We Already Saw That

It seemed certain Dems would be in power forever. Hillary was going to be President, Obama bypassed Congress and proved you only needed the presidency and bureaucracy to run the country, and the Republicans cowered from resisting anytime a journalist so much as looked in their direction. Now that the country was unified it was time for the factions to address their grievances. Time for Obama to be for gay marriage after being

obama_stern-face

Yeah, this pic again. I’m doing another “bottle article“- no new images.  Image from evil.news

against it when he was running for President after he was for it while still in Chicago, time for black lives to matter, there is no such thing as radical Islam, there is no such thing as voter fraud, there is no such thing as someone living in this country who can’t vote, there is no such thing as a southern border and the government will sue if you try to enforce one, and there is no such thing as a socialist government that failed (a question I like posing: if trickle-down economics doesn’t work because the people at the top are evil and keep all the money, how would trickle-down government, ie socialism, work any better? What is Government but a corporation with a gun pointed at you?).

Democrats eventually rallied behind Hillary to try and defeat the evil Trump, but before Trump was the candidate, when it seemed certain they’d win, Democrats were tearing each other to pieces.

  • Someone dared challenge Hillary Clinton on her superpredators remark.
  • Bernie was able to give the party elders a run for their money
  • the current Deputy Chairman of the DNC endorsed Bernie, and so did members of the national committee.
  • the party was divided on policy issues, like gun-grabbing and socialist policies.
  • Black Lives Matter, which only 12% of the black community opposes and which most Democrats support, fought the LGBTQ community (because they weren’t black-centric)
  • Even Vox, in March of 2016, saw fit to publish “American politics has reached peak polarization”, which indicates that internal divisions in the DNC were at their highest ever

Fragmentation Grenade

This fragmentation briefly disappeared in time for Democrats to unite behind Hillary at the voting booth, but when that effort failed their coalition collapsed. Open hatred of whites became even more mainstream, socialism is now their new platform, open borders is their future (DNC Chair Perez claimed that open-borders socialist Alexandria “right of passage” Ocasio-Cortez was the future of the party, interestingly enough she also wants to make sure every person in this country whether legal or otherwise,

patent-medicine-ad-yesterday's papers

No, really! Socialism totally works! It’ll do all this great stuff for you. Trust us. Image from Yesterday’s Papers

without paying a dime, gets free money and the government gives them free medical care, an interesting proposition to bankrupt the working people because the rich will do what they do in all hightax situations and flee to another country (like say one of those socialist European paradises the Left always mentions which actually abandoned socialism, and even if Ocasio-Cortez seized every penny our millionaires owned there wouldn’t be enough to pay for all these socialist programs, just ask Bernie) leaving the workers to pay for her programs and the new non-working residents the programs attract from poor countries, some socialist she is! Democrats, including her, in total have asked for $42.5 Trillion in new spending over 10 years. They suggest cutting funding from the military to finance this… except we’re already almost $20 Trillion in debt, our total GDP in 2017 was just shy of $20 Trillion, we’re expecting only $3.4 Trillion in tax revenue, our budget calls for about $4.1 Trillion already on domestic spending, and defense spending will only be just under $700 billion in 2018, while if only Ocasio-Cortez’s guaranteed-jobs plan were in place this year it’d cost $680 billion, basically the ENTIRE military budget. If all Democrat plans are put into place, we’ll be spending $8.35 Trillion with a tax revenue of only $3.4 Trillion. So what will Ocasio-Cortez do for the rest of her stuff, print money? Tax the rich whether legally or otherwise (helpful hint- it won’t help, you’d net maybe another $700 Billion even if you took every cent they had, barely enough again to pay for JUST ONE program she proposed)? Do we get Official Ocasio-Cortez Wacky Bucks? Will she seize the means of production and use our full $20 Trillion GDP? But hey, she’s very representative of millennials in general, who believe socialism like this is ideal and cutting military spending and raising taxes and getting the wealthy to pay their fair share are magical goodies makers and that these goodies need to be funneled from the government to the population, where the government takes a cut to fund the new bureaucracies created to give you that money when the IRS is all that’s needed, giving you money is already part of their job if you overpaid on taxes. Sigh. Does anyone remember back when Democrats were cutting taxes on the wealthy, to beneath what Republicans did? Because anyone who says the economy does better under Democrats and their high taxes only gets half the picture.). Meanwhile, party elders like Senate Minority Leader Schumer are being protested by their own voters, and House Minority Leader Pelosi seems like she missed a memo when she said that we should be strong on borders, sounding a lot like a Republican. Why isn’t Univision calling her a racist?

As for other elements of the Left’s coalition:

  • Pelosi’s latino angels are firebombing black families
  • Nancy Pelosi herself admitted that she does not believe in gender equality, rather, she believes women should be dominant. In fact, Pelosi in her own words believes women are entitled to such dominance. Anyone paying attention to South Africa, where with Obama’s support (note that Obama praised this guy, who talked of targeting whites until they had nothing left, much like the Nazis with the Jews, and doubtless with a similar eventuality- I mean after all, what do you think people like him will do with whites once they have nothing more to give, give them a “universal basic income”? HA! Sure, a basic income of watered-down soup and moldy bread crumbs) we’re seeing what a previously oppressed group does when it’s told it’s entitled to lead.
  • white people, of course, must shut up, the same whites who put money into that little girl’s campaign coffers. (Yes, I standby characterizing her as a little girl, because only children rebel like that against their parents- in this case, donors)
  • the DNC told its staff that whites, again: their money bags, should not apply for jobs with them
  • and stuff like this, again targeting whites… where are we, South Africa? No wonder Trevor Noah has a show…
  • Liberals love to hate PACs and the rich. Well, guess who uses them way more. The same party that received more money in campaign contributions (Democrats, for those who didn’t follow the link). Biting the hand that feeds you!
  • #MeToo has been harsh on Dems. Most of the Hollywooders involved, like big donor Harvey Weinstein, are Dem donors of course. And several Democrats in office were taken out.
  • the black community still hates homosexuals (even the politicians love homophobe Farrakhan, as do 50% of blacks as of March this year)
  • …and the hatred is mutual
  • a third of American Muslims openly don’t like homosexuals (the numbers are improving, but I still wouldn’t suggest asking one to bake your cake, and I reeeally would be skeptical of a Congresswoman who repeatedly says her Palestinian heritage of “gays get 3 bullets to the chest” keeps her going)
  • speaking of mutual hatreds, how the donors and the socialists?
  • And of course we have the wild shift to the Left, which left Rep. Crowley in the dust and will consign more moderate Dems to the dustbin of history, and which as mentioned led to Democrats actually turning against their party elders re: Bernie.
  • Such a shift to the Left that the lefties now think “liberal” is a pejorative because it means someone who isn’t far enough to the Left

Don’t Rock The Boat, Baby

donald_trump_official_portrait

Evidently, Trump is unifying and energizing the party in a way Hillary and Obama failed to do. You should thank him. He was a Democrat after all, maybe this is some kind of infiltration thing he’s doing. Image from wikimedia.org

I’d say the media are doing a good job, by praising the socialists and not publishing anything bad about the establishment. Trump has been a hero to the media on that account- they can fill their news cycle 24/7 with stories about him, and ignore Democrat divisions. And also ignore 66 people being shot in one weekend in Chicago, 30 of them in 3 hours, but as Family Guy pointed out no one cares about blacks shooting each other. (Don Lemon seems to agree, he spent his programs immediately after the shooting calling Trump a racist for daring to call Lemon an idiot.) Oh yeah, and ignore how it was Muslims that were responsible for the starving kidnapped kids in Arizona. Funny how that detail slipped by in all the anti-Trump rage.

Stuffing it under the carpet that you hope your female demographic licks is one tactic. Another is the above notation on Senator Klobuchar, who acknowledged there are divisions but say their common enemy unites them. Of course AFTER Trump is through, that common enemy would be either capitalism or whites in general.

Then you have the Pelosi tactic of trying to say you agree with both sides, even if that leads to a contradiction between demanding strong border security as shown above and championing open borders. But like we saw with RINOs such as Dean Heller and Susan Collins, it’s easy to take positions opposite of what you truly believe when your party is in the minority thus not allowing you to act anyway.

You Uh… You Didn’t Answer The Question

Can the center hold? Nope. If Republicans win, the Dems shift even farther Left with the centrists either becoming radicalized or splitting from the party. If Republicans lose, the Democrat coalition falls apart because it still has all of that anger and hatred, but now doesn’t have a satisfying target, except the other folks on their team who suddenly seem quite different now that it comes time to pick apart America’s corpse and decide who gets the biggest share. Should it be women who’ve been oppressed by everyone for all of history? Should it be blacks who had to suffer through America’s “African Holocaust“?(I’m a little confused by this lady’s remarks- no one confronts the horrors of slavery? That’s news to me, it seems every day some Lefty, every other day a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, throws that in the face of a white GOPer, and certainly Trump has been attacked with it. Maybe she’s one of the millions that don’t watch CNN.) Should it be illegal immigrants who we all hate because they’re brown rather than because they broke laws and expect special favors for it, and who we stole the Southwest from before they could finish killing the natives? Should it be Muslim-Americans whom we’re all racist against because of Bush or something? Should it be the LGT community (which has about twice the membership of the Muslim community, is barely half the size of the official illegal immigrant community of 11 million that we’ve magically had for over 10 years despite repeated border surges, but is only a fraction of the Black and Hispanic communities- I’m not counting bisexuals because the L’s, G’s, and T’s hate them) because this group too has historically been oppressed, even in the socialist utopias that the liberal news outlet of choice New York Times praised (with one article praising how heterosexual women had better heterosexual sex under communism, ignoring how they’d be arrested for having lesbian sex- kind of homophobic to talk about how great heterosexual sex is in a country where being homosexual is illegal, isn’t it.)? That’s a lot of different groups that are going to want the biggest slice, and that already didn’t turn out well for the women’s march

 

 

Advertisements

Strzok Strikes Out, or, Democrats Applaud Claim That Law Enforcement Can’t Be Racist

strzok-zerohedge

According to Democrats, he’s the hero. In the ~27 minute clip I watched of the hearing, I think I saw each face here except the middle one. Image From Zerohedge.

Peter Strzok, for those who don’t know, was the anti-Trump FBI agent who exonerated Hillary and originated/was lead investigator for/was point of contact for one of the investigations into Trump over collusion with Russia, which began right after Hillary was exonerated, all in the midst of the 2016 Presidential race. During the Clinton investigation, Strzok texted that Hillary should win “100,000,000 – 0” before he had even completed the investigation, before a lot of the interviews had even taken place for it. He and his mistress Lisa Page were concerned that they were being too harsh to Hillary despite giving her a one-of-a-kind softball interrogation that Strzok himself was part of: they did not record the interview which is normal, didn’t make Hillary take an oath to tell the truth which is abnormal, and allowed her to have two previously-interrogated witnesses to be present, which is usually a no-no so that the government has a better chance of catching the accused in conflicting statements. One previously interrogated witness herself got a good deal- she got an immunity deal, then handed over her laptop which contained classified information when it should not have, then was allowed to walk out in the middle of her own interrogation because it went into an area she didn’t want it to go into! Strzok also altered the exoneration letter for Hillary, drafted months before Hillary was interviewed, so that the original text of “gross negligence”, which is a crime, was changed to mirror Obama’s phrasing, that Hillary acted carelessly. Yes, you heard right. The same President who said he does not talk to anyone in the DOJ about pending investigations, who said he hadn’t really been tracking the situation, said that Hillary was not guilty of a crime before the investigation had concluded, despite Hillary having illegally deleted emails (and lied to Congress about it, which usually means a contempt charge if say some unknown like you or me did it), broken a bunch of other laws, and exposed our sensitive info to hackers.

Why do I say Obama’s “careless” statement is an exoneration of Hillary? Because the FBI made a one-time-only-for-Hillary-and-her-aide interpretation of the law: that Hillary and her aide had to deliberately want to endanger national security to be guilty. FBI Director Comey admitted this, saying Hillary needed “criminal intent”.

You hear “oh if someone else did it they’d be locked up” a lot, so let’s give a real-life example  A Navy sailor had no criminal intent (he had no intention to show the pictures to anyone until AFTER their contents were declassified) in a contemporary case that violated security and involved sending classified info to private sources. Guess what? He was jailed, his Hillary defense thrown out. (On the other hand we have Kate Steinle’s killer, who the jury determined had no malicious intent, so he was let off despite conflicting testimony from him about the incident. Because the Left thinks their candidate and their murderous illegal alien angels need proof of intent while an honorable sailor who made a mistake should be locked away for years offhand. Welcome to the Left’s vision for America).

As for the difference being that the sailor knowingly did something while Hillary unknowingly did something wrong, I’ll point out that A: ignorance is no excuse as we’re always told, B: Hillary MUST HAVE KNOWN because emails in her private server were MARKED classified, something Hillary’s apologists at CNN and Snopes fail to acknowledge, lest it makes the Left-proclaimed “most qualified candidate” look like a reckless idiot, C: Hillary at various points demanded classified markings be removed from items that were to be sent to her, so she DID knowingly receive such info, her own words show that she DEMANDED it! Which also means D: Hillary knowingly lied to Congress, and pretty much everyone.

Back To Strzok

Since we’ll get into Strzok’s bias, let’s start with a quote.

“Several of their text messages also appeared to mix political opinions 
with discussions about the Midyear and Russia investigations, 
raising a question as to whether Strzok’s and Page’s political opinions 
may have affected investigative decisions”
--Inspector General Report on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

Strzok went before Congress on July 12, 2018. The result was an appalling display of hypocrisy by the Democrats… as usual. So I guess forget that appalling part, it’s happened so much we’re numb to it. But let’s break down one of the incidents- when Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) tried to question Strzok.

The Democrats put up a magnificent struggle to run interference for Strzok. They tried to deny Gowdy the ability to even question Strzok. Idiot Congressmen, I guess keeping their end of the bargain by protecting Strzok in exchange for his tipping the scales in favor of Hillary and starting the anti-Trump investigations, pulled out some real headscratchers.

  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) raised a point of order, repeatedly, that was not valid (and implicit in his point of order was that Congress has no oversight of the FBI, or at least SHOULDN’T have oversight of the FBI).
  • To Nadler’s point, a Congresswoman (camera wasn’t on her, but I think Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)) said the point of order could be that Gowdy was asking for a violation of attorney-client privilege. Firstly, it would be up to JERRY, not Sheila, to have a valid point of order since Jerry was the one raising it. Second, the circumstance for this was that Strzok refused to answer a question because FBI counsel said he shouldn’t. Strzok had his own lawyer, and evidently they weren’t
    strzok-post-and-courier

    “Hey Jerry” “Yeah Sheila?” “I think it would look great if we defended this guy. He looks all-American, great for photo-ops to show we love this country.” “You’re right. Let’s do it!” Image from Post And Courier.

    co-counsel (even if they were it would be stupid because at some point Strzok’s self-interest might conflict with the FBI’s). Strzok did not invoke his own lawyer’s advice, he just said that the FBI lawyer told him what he couldn’t say (he later consulted with his own lawyer, after all this, but not before the attorney-client privilege was raised as a point of order). Under these circumstances there is no attorney-client privilege. On top of that, such privilege doesn’t even relate to the matter at hand. It relates to communications between client and lawyer, like say if the client said he was guilty as sin the lawyer can’t be compelled to testify against his client due to this privilege. So basically- the female Congresswoman got it so completely wrong you’d wonder if she just heard the words when she flipped past Matlock while channel surfing. (especially sad since, if it was Jackson-Lee, she had served as a judge, though that was 28 years ago so maybe she forgot a few details). But then the same Left that tried to invoke attorney-client privilege to protect Strzok celebrates when a possible violation of that privilege leads to a leaked tape of a conversation between Trump and his attorney that tells us exactly nothing, so there you go.

  • After the above farces failed, Nadler attempted to have a vote on adjourning the committee. They were that terrified of letting Strzok continue.
  • Democrats, in a total reversal of their hero worship when Kamala Harris badgered someone testifying before the Senate and refused to even let him finish answering a question (with sexism accusations against the Senators that wanted her to behave herself), demanded that Gowdy stop asking a question so that Strzok had a chance to answer. Except Strzok WASN’T answering the question, and Gowdy was trying to keep him on point. Unlike Harris, who was just screaming because she knew CNN and MSNBC would give her airtime, and apparently already had a story ready to go because the NYT and WaPo published the same talking points about fake sexism in the stories linked above. The Dangerous Kamala was just following a tried-and-true tactic: spew so many accusations at someone that they’re stuck trying to defend one when a dozen more interrupt them so that they’re unable to defend themselves and look either slow or guilty when trying to keep up. Liberals HATE IT when someone can defend themselves (just look at their position on the 2nd Amendment, and look at 10/16 of the states that make it illegal to defend yourself when attacked and compare to the states that have stand-your-ground laws).
  • The same Democrat that interrupted to say that Gowdy wasn’t letting Strzok answer the question (since the whole party backed Harris, there’s no way this Dem isn’t being hypocritical here) also exclaimed that Gowdy’s time for questioning had expired. She might have been right if these were normal rules. I may have missed it, but the Chairman could’ve restored Gowdy’s time because of the interruption, in which case he still had 30 seconds. Later on, maybe that same Congresswoman (I’m bad with voices, I know this latest one was Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), but don’t know if she was the earlier one) interrupted again about the time. But it doesn’t matter, because the chair of the committee and the ranking member (Chair is always from the majority party, ranking member is always from the minority party, so Coleman’s party was in on this) agreed that the Chairmen and Ranking Members of each committee present would have whatever time they needed. Coleman of course, in typical spoiled brat SJW fashion, said that everyone should get that extra time. Just a puff of smoke while she fumed that her own party didn’t grant her a special privilege… and that her objection was partly squashed by her own party’s actions so her chance for a spotlight grandstand was denied.
  • While Gowdy was asking a new question, a Democrat interrupted to try and get him to stop asking it, by claiming he had asked it already

They succeeded in delaying Gowdy’s questioning by 15 minutes and interrupting a few times throughout.

Strzok himself had quite a performance during Gowdy’s segment.

  • He had a nice sneer throughout, about the only time he had a smug smirk was when Democrats were protecting him. Notice how he’s practically spitting out his statement about respecting the American electorate and Democracy? If that’s respect, I’d hate to see what contempt from him looked like.
  • Strzok repeatedly denied recalling having written the text messages, yet he was able to recall the exact provocation and the exact conditions under which the “we’ll stop it” text was written. What a coincidence that out of the 50,000 texts he claims to forget, he’d remember the circumstances around this one that he claims to have forgotten, and claims during the hearing that he needs a transcript to remember it, saying that the transcript had not been provided to him before (thus he could not have been prepared beforehand with knowledge of what this text he does not remember related to, since he didn’t even have it according to him). He keeps saying the context needs to be taken into account, but if he never wrote them or doesn’t remember writing them then how the heck can he testify to the context? (Go ahead, have a friend scroll through your text history and ask about a random text from even 6 months ago (Strzok had to recall from 2 years ago), see if you can figure out its context based on the date). He could at best say “I think maybe at the time I was”, but certainly he could not make the definitive statements he made about context if his “I can’t remember” testimony is to be believed.
  • After Gowdy, correctly, paraphrased a statement Strzok had made earlier, Strzok says A: that he, Strzok, stated that he testified that he was kicked off the Mueller Probe BECAUSE of his bias, and B: next says he was not kicked off the Mueller Probe for his bias, and C: says he does not appreciate Gowdy mischaracterizing their exchange earlier. Except Gowdy didn’t, if anything Strzok had the biggest screwup on that point.
  • The context Strzok named for his “we’ll stop it” (“it” being the Trump campaign) text was what Strzok characterizes as Trump’s “disgusting” attack on Khizr Khan. You remember him, the anti-gay (sharia is quite anti-gay) Muslim that Democrats paraded. Strzok says it was just awful how Trump attacked the family of a dead soldier. Well, the family became fair game when they made themselves political. Also, Hillary herself and her lackeys referred to plenty of similar families of fallen soldiers as liars or fame seekers when they criticized her. Hillary herself denied anyone was killed at Benghazi. Strzok was ok with all of that, he didn’t care about the families of dead soldiers then. And as for disrespecting service members in general, the candidate that Strzok thinks
    strzok-ap

    That’s the smile he had whenever Democrats interrupted Gowdy. Image from AP

    should’ve won “100,000,000 – 0” demanded that military personnel not wear their uniforms in the White House, and this prized candidate for whom he arranged a softball interview that NBC’s “do you get your feelings hurt” pro-North Korea Lester Holt would be jealous of also HATED the Secret Service agents assigned to save her life, and routinely disrespected them. Yet only Trump, attacking some homophobe who was politically attacking him, is “disgusting”, according to Strzok. I guess that means that gold star families whose relatives were victims at Benghazi seeking the truth, Secret Service agents doing their job, and military personnel doing their job are turds and a homophobic Muslim getting political is holy and protected according to Strzok. (Now granted, compared to Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, and Frederica Wilson, Hillary Clinton might actually be palatable because at least in public Hillary gives a reserved appearance, unlike these others who are more unhinged than a door laying on a floor). And of course we have blonde-haired blue-eyed Hillary Clinton praising the “vision” of the Nazi-esque totally racist eugenecist Margaret Sanger who wanted to kill blacks, and Hillary praising her “friend and mentor” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV, KKK Chapter Founder and recruiter of 150 members- yes he renounced his membership, in 1993 saying it was a mistake (despite letters from his time as a Klansmen in which he says he didn’t want to be in the military because he’d have to work with “race mongrels”, despite in his 2005 memoir praising the Klan in a way remarkably similar to Trump’s “good people on both sides” remark that liberals used to call him a racist, despite Byrd having been the only Senator to vote against Clarence Thomas and Thurghood Marshal, despite having voted against civil rights in 1964, despite having opposed an end to segregation in the military), before Hillary was mentored by him, but if the Left’s Scalise Precedent of “speaking in the same building as a Klansman 15 years prior means you should be shot for being a racist” is in play, then certainly Hillary’s love of the founder of a KKK chapter can be considered fair game for racist accusations, particularly in light of Hillary’s praise of Margaret Sanger and her Gandhi joke and this next item)- and wrapped up her disdain for blacks with her “super predators” remark that is very much the 1994 equivalent of Trump’s “animals” statement that we’re supposed to accept as evidence of Trump’s racism, but apparently none of that was “disgusting” either so I guess my spiel in a moment about lily-white Strzok supporting our salacious title makes all the more sense.

The Left insists Strzok’s bias did not impact his investigations, probably because he’s just as biased as they are. Maybe his bias did, maybe not. No one really can tell what was going on in his mind during the process and what evidence he may have dismissed or decisions he may have made based on his biases.

But we do know this: the Left clearly judges what’s in the mind of Republicans based on THEIR statements. The opinions expressed under the First Amendment rights of President Trump in his TWEETS are enough to qualify as obstruction of justice. Ok, then why aren’t 50,000 text messages DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER PERSON INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS enough to show bias affected Strzok’s investigation? Trump’s travel ban must be racist because of tweets, so the liberal courts say. Ok, then how does Strzok’s bias not affect his investigation? Steve Scalise is apparently a racist and deserved to be shot because he once spoke in a building that white nationalists later used for a meeting, such is the nature of the hate the Left wants us to feel. Ok, so then how come Strzok’s clear bias didn’t affect his investigation? (for that matter, why isn’t Hillary a racist for praising Margaret Sanger and for saying Klansmen Senator Byrd was her idol? That’s a bit more to go on for a racism accusation than sharing a speaking location on the same day) You liberals claim the shooting of Michael Brown was an unjustified racist incident, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the contrary findings of the black-led DOJ under a black President, despite the evidence that Michael Brown was aggressive and threatening the officer’s life which led to Darren Wilson being found “not guilty” by a jury. Ok, if you believe this despite a lack of evidence, how come you can’t even see the possibility that Strzok’s actions were biased?

Title Shot

strzok-twitter-glen-campbell-youtube

You could tell Strzok thought he was a Rhinestone Cowboy… and truth be told, he did receive cards and letters from people he didn’t even know. Strzok image from Twitter, Glen Campbell image from YouTube.

Bringing up the racial sting of Michael Brown is a clever way to arrive at the clickbait subtitle for this article. At the end of the YouTube clip, Strzok gave a self-righteous speech and received a ton of applause from Democrats who were present. Except his self-serving speech basically is summarized as “even if I was biased, it was impossible for my bias to affect my work”. He reasoned that his subordinates and superiors and colleagues would’ve spotted it and overruled it.

By that measure, isn’t it ALSO totally impossible for bias to exist in a police force, or even in one police officer? Doesn’t this mean it’s impossible for Michael Brown’s shooter to have been a racist? Police too have a chain of colleagues, superiors, and even subordinates reviewing their findings, arrest patterns, patterns of brutality, etc. So if we’re to believe any of the moderates in the Democratic Party who says not all cops but some are biased thus we should not be in a state of anarchy and respect some laws, if we are to believe the DOJ’s findings about racism in the Ferguson department (because surely someone overseeing that department from the state capital overseeing the department would’ve noticed), if we are to believe the Left’s demands that we nationalize the police forces because the local  branches that states and the DOJ already have oversight over are racist, that MUST MEAN that Strzok’s safeguards CAN’T prevent bias from affecting one’s work. So unless we go with the mantra that everyone in the criminal justice system is racist, from the local precinct to the black-ran DOJ under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to the black-ran country itself under President Obama, Strzok’s argument is already disproven if we’re to assume the Left’s narratives on racism in law enforcement is true.

By the way, the Left’s narrative that cops are hunting blacks is pure fiction, probably designed to energize blacks into voting for Democrats, and maybe energize them into buying newspaper subscriptions and providing cable ratings. Definitely helps in making blacks feel like they are separate from whites (a Democrat Congresswoman, in that link, says that blacks are shot by police when they don’t elect black government officials), and whites are painted as being the sole race present in the GOP, thus discouraging blacks from joining the white party.

Down To Cases

Let’s talk a particular case- Freddie Gray. We had the accusation that in a city with a black police chief, black district attorney, and black mayor- under a black DOJ under a black President- racism was afoot. Well, clearly based on the Strzok grandstand that Democrats applauded there couldn’t be any racism there, especially under the conditions outlined presently.

There was a zealous prosecutor, whose husband was on the city council representing the district Freddie Gray was from (9 out of 13 members are black, ALL are Democrats, and it has been that way since 1942, and since 1942 they only had two Republican mayors with the last leaving office in 1967,  so any systemic racism could ONLY have come from the Democrats), who received campaign contributions from Freddie Gray’s lawyer, who was in such a fervored furor to attack the police that she totally botched the case so badly that the arrest warrants had the wrong names and addresses.

Marilyn-Mosby-Fox-News

Coincidentally enough, in the background when I put this picture in, was Ray Lewis’ Hall of Fame induction speech. By the way, despite her failure with the Freddie Gray case, which should’ve been easier than getting Tom Robinson convicted, she’s pretty much won another term in office as Prosecutor. Guess that means no one in Baltimore thinks what happened was racist, otherwise they’d make sure someone who could get a conviction replaced her, right? Guess they don’t mind that she pretty much helped cause a spike in the murder rate either. Oh well. I’d have been on the trucks with the Colts, so you know I don’t really care what happens there.

This prosecutor, who wanted a conviction so badly she tried to say the police had no reason to arrest Freddie Gray when in fact they did, this prosecutor who tried to hide evidence, couldn’t even get a conviction and had nothing on racism, a fact which further confirms to liberals the notion that Strzok is wrong about how there are checks on bias like his. If you believe the cops were racist and maliciously acted on it, you must believe Strzok is wrong because no evidence of bias was found. If you believe Strzok is right, then you must conclude that there was no racism in the Freddie Gray case. These are your only two options, an impossible conundrum for a liberal… which is probably why they usually riot and scream instead of thinking logically and debating rationally (go ahead, try to apply your whataboutism and give me an example of the Republican riots after Obama won… yeah, that’s what I thought. How about the “violent” Tea Party protests? Oh wait, no such thing, just claims of the N-Word being used that not even $10,000 could encourage evidence of). Now I know that no self-respecting liberal would believe that the prosecutor was blatantly biased herself, so I didn’t think it worth the time to mention how her handling of the case is a close-to-home example of how Strzok’s bias could’ve impacted his own dealings.

Since the Left STILL maintains the Freddie Gray matter was an example of racism, despite there being no finding of bias by said zealous prosecutor seeking any crime she could use, couldn’t the Right at least be forgiven for assuming Strzok’s bias influenced his behavior too? Afterall, with Freddie Gray it was kind of nebulous what motivated the officers involved, as far as what facts we have. You on the Left can all claim to be mindreaders and tell me the officers were racist, but we have no direct evidence of this (otherwise the prosecutor would’ve had them on at least one charge of misconduct), whereas we have the evidence for Strzok’s bias: his own written statements. Yet, with MORE evidence that Strzok may have acted improperly because of his hatreds, you insist that he did not, while we don’t even have evidence the Freddie Gray police officers were biased at all, and you claim they’re racists. Think about this objectively, liberal- which one sounds more like a conspiracy theory? The one with or without evidence backing it up?

Furthermore, if you contend there was racism there, that there is racism in all police departments and all law enforcement branches, then you must naturally believe Strzok was lying with his moralizing speech that clearly meant racism cannot interfere in the law enforcement process, and you must be horrified that your own elected officials chose to applaud him for his statement. And you probably think Strzok was a racist, going back to my notes about some of Hillary’s disgusting behavior and why such an interpretation would be a logical conclusion regarding Strzok.

But How COULD Strzok Have Acted Improperly?

Ignore or dismiss vital evidence, give softball interviews, draft the exoneration letter based on the wording of President Obama, the head of Hillary’s party, saying that Hillary was innocent, draft said letter months before Hillary has been interviewed, months before the investigation had interviewed everyone it needed to, give sweetheart deals to Hillary and her team in exchange for easy questioning just so that you can say you questioned them (or so I assume, based on Strzok’s July 31 text that indicated he was just going through the motions with the Clinton Investigation, that it only mattered in the sense that they didn’t want to have a procedural error, contrasted to how he says the Trump investigation matters because it is “momentous, and the later treatment under Mueller of Trump’s team, who find themselves staring down the barrels of police guns), and of course starting an investigation into the opponent of your preferred candidate.

If the concern was election interference or collusion, how come Strzok didn’t investigate Hillary when we learned the Fusion GPS document she paid for came from the Russians themselves, with Hillary money going right to Russian oligarchs? Why was said Russian document used to get a FISA warrant to spy on a Trump campaigner? The Russians supposedly tried to hack the RNC too, how come Strzok didn’t investigate Hillary’s ties to Russia, like when she said “[America’s] goal is to strengthen Russia” and that she would be “thrilled” if Russia had its own “Silicon Valley”, ie a group of Russians with the skills to hack into the RNC? Nope, Strzok ONLY investigated Trump, after conducting a piss-poor excuse of an investigation into Hillary’s email use, and constantly during the Clinton and Trump investigations, he held firm in his devotion to Hillary and disdain for Trump. How’s THAT for an example of bias affecting your judgment?

And as for the alleged checks Strzok had, let’s test that. James Comey was the FBI Director. The same James Comey who lied about FBI agents believing Lt. Gen. Flynn was lying. The same Comey who claims to have had severe concerns about both the Obama and Trump Administrations, but only attacked the Trump Administration and had nothing but glowing support and love for Obama and Hillary Clinton. The same Comey who leaked memos he wrote about Trump (not having written any on Loretta Lynch) to a university professor so that he could trigger a special counsel investigation into Trump, the one that Strzok ended up serving on. The one staffed by Democrats.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was another of Strzok’s superiors, whom Strzok cited as being someone that’d stop him if his bias affected the investigation. McCabe is also known for holding court in his office, on one such occasion discussing with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page how Trump couldn’t win the election, a conversation that took place only two weeks into Strzok’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. Meeting in his office where his own legal counsel says Trump can’t win, in a conversation with the man investigating Trump. Sooooo not biased! McCabe’s wife is known for running as a Democrat in Virginia, with $675,000 worth of help from Clintonite Terry McAuliffe.

And just in general, maybe not Strzok’s own bias but just an example of flaws in Strzok’s theory of checks and balances in DOJ, we have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He would have authority over the FBI Director, who has authority over the Deputy Director, who has authority over Strzok. Rosenstein told Trump to fire Comey, Comey leaked memos to start a special counsel investigation into Trump for firing him, and Rosenstein started the special counsel investigation in part to look at Trump’s firing of Comey which Rosenstein himself demanded.

And of course, when it comes to Strzok’s colleagues who would keep his bias in check, we have FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who we saw in the texts wanted Strzok to stop Trump, who outlined to her boss and the man investigating Trump a hopeful scenario where Trump would lose the election.

What an effective system of checks and balances we turned out to have! No wonder Democrats clapped for Strzok’s speech, it’s just the kind of system of checks on their power they like- NONE

APP-Stzrok-Smirk

“I’m getting away with all this! AWESOME SAUCE!!!!” Image from OzarkNewsTalkRadio. Well, at least they eventually fired him.

 

.

California Attacks Islam

Islamic-Crescent-wikimedia

The “C” is for “California”, image from wikimedia

What a salacious headline! Bear with me while I establish the background on AB 2943

I know, I know. You read about this bill on Snopes or FactCheck or Politifact or in your favorite mainstream media outlet, and believe these groups. Despite the fact that they didn’t bother quoting the relevant parts of the bill; the only quotes were merely assurances from its writers. Just like the folks at the San Diego Tribune, who I guess think that the writers and proponents of any piece of legislation should be believed regardless of what the words in the legislation actually say. Well didn’t California’s own Nancy Pelosi once say you have to pass the bill to know what’s in it (you’ll notice that ol’ snopey gives Pelosi the benefit of the doubt, and even tries to interpret her words for her, to the point where they answer “did Pelosi say x” with a “mixture of fact and truth”, as if somehow you can say something but NOT say it, and then they try to prove that! A courtesy snopey does not extend to the other side of the aisle.)?

These Lefty groups want this thing to be made into law, or they simply don’t think they have to do any research because a liberal reassured them. Well, read the bill for yourselves. It’s rather obvious our fact checkers and media are lying once again. Pretty much any time a liberal says some rightwing claim has been debunked, no matter how allegedly respectable the propaganda rag they write for is, you can bet your bottom dollar that they’re lying or their idea of “debunking” is simply to say “it’s not true” without presenting any evidence. Which leads to embarrassing retractions, like when the New York Times said it was a rightwing conspiracy theory that the Palestinians paid millions of dollars in pensions to the families of terrorists. NYT had to issue a retraction for that, even though if the author and editors and fact checkers had engaged for even the briefest of intervals in the act of journalism they would’ve realized that their biased opinion didn’t reflect reality and that statement never would’ve been published.

From now on, when referring to “articles” written in liberal “news” outlets such as Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc I should refer to the reporters as “authors”, given how far removed from reality their “journalism” is. It’s like they took a cue from Obama, but instead of hiring an egotistical hack novelist who is neither experienced nor knowledgeable about national security to be National Security Advisor, the Leftstream media hired a bunch of egotistical novelist hacks as reporters. Meanwhile, the Left forgets Obama’s choice (and Obama’s pre-Presidential record) and constantly criticizes Trump for being inexperienced and picking inexperienced people. Psychologists call this “projection”- “humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”

A Step Into The Left’s Mind

russdem

Jackasses. Image from wikimedia commons

You see, to the Left, anything they say is the truth. That’s the rationale behind the protesters, whether it’s David Pigman or Sharpy Sharp And The Dull Bunch. Whether they’re protesting Trump’s victory or protesting the idea that people here illegally who had 6 years to register themselves with no penalty should’ve done so by now. Or a protesting mob of scientists who think faked data is grounds for worldwide communism and population control (I wonder what standards the Left will use to determine who lives or dies in their model, probably the same standard of who should be arrestedwhen legitimate, respected liberal thinkers start sounding like Bond villains you’d think that the Left might realize how far out they are, but nope, they simply double down and fight harder… guess that mentality explains all the nameless henchmen the Bond villains have). Doesn’t matter, liberalism today is about imposing your self-made factless reality on the rest of the world. That’s why we are told science is sexist because it deals in absolute truths. That’s why everyone gets their own truth that outweighs reality. In their minds, they might not actually be lying to you deliberately. Maybe the fact checkers and liberal media actually believe that if a liberal tells them something it must be the truth because liberals don’t lie. I mean, most women are liberal and we already know women can do no wrong, according to the feminists that liberals support. Lying would be included in that list of wrong things women can’t do.

 

''Panzer!''-AN-Ep06

The Left lives in a world just as magical, but a bit more trippy. Image from http://mahouka-koukou-no-rettousei.wikia.com

This denial of reality goes into why they are so violent towards anyone who opposes them. They KNOW they are right. They KNOW they are smarter than anyone else. If they truly believed there was another point of view, that would shatter their myth of superiority (so they want to ban anything that challenges how right they are, basically admitting that their worldview CANNOT hold up to scrutiny). Which is why they’re atheists too, by the way, they can’t tolerate the idea that they’re not at the top of the pecking order. But it’s also why they don’t listen- if they’re right, then you MUST be wrong if you disagree. For a group that supports more gender types than episodes of Star Trek that I’ve seen, they are EXTREMELY binary when it comes to worldview. You’re either with them, or against them. And you must be evil when you oppose them, because they know they are right, so if they’re right and YOU claim to be right too, that must mean you’re a liar, and since everything a liberal stands for is good, that must mean you stand for evil because you oppose them. That really is their worldview. Just ask. And there certainly aren’t any facts opposing my claim, in fact every day there is more support to my assertion that this childish reasoning is all they have. Diversity of flesh, but not diversity of thought, to the point that you are judged by the color of your skin rather than the content of your character… unless you have the appropriate skin color but DON’T think appropriately.

Or Maybe I Misjudged The Case Here

The other alternative of course as I mentioned is that the fact checkers read the bill, and LOVED what they saw, but that again goes towards the whole “we have our own truth that we’re imposing on you” thing. In the Left’s mind, religion is a blight on society (just read the comments section for any given YouTube video touching on religion). It’s the sole cause of wars and the Dark Ages and what holds everyone back from being peaceful communists living together. Ok, that’s overgeneralizing, CHRISTIANITY is a blight on society. Just ask Senator Cory Booker (D), who unilaterally did the very unconstitutional thing of giving a Trump nominee a religious test, and attacked his beliefs later… but seems fine with having an Islamic Deputy Chair. You know, Islam, the religion that’s usually MORE oppressive than Christianity. Liberals are cool with every religion* except Christianity, and also aren’t cool with a Jew that’s pro-Israel. Or rich. Or… ok, they hate Jews too but not as openly. They see Christians (and Jews) as ignorant savages and see religion as an oppressive force so naturally any bill that attacks it gets a pass, like say the bill I start this article with.

*for you Shintoists in the audience who might note that I only mention 3 religions above, the Left ignores your existence unless someone in your group runs counter to their ideology, much like how it treats Asian Americans when they talk about the prejudices they face– see the section above on skin color for more details on this pattern

They don’t see the bill or similar items as an attack; they see it as a means of educating the population, a means of suppressing misinformation (afterall, like everything else in the liberal world, religion is just caused by some outside condition, akin to their reasoning for why whites are always privileged and blacks are always oppressed). Which makes me wonder now if people in China and North Korea genuinely believe that “re-education” camps are merely learning institutions, because if liberals pulled that same thing here you can bet anything from dollars to navy beans that Snopes would believe whatever they’re told about the camps as long as the source was a liberal.

To The Bill At Hand

So I’ve established that the bill can be used in an extremely anti-Christian way if you read it rather than listen to its leftwing advocates, as the fact checkers and our allegedly free press did, and I explained why the Left wouldn’t bother reading the bill itself and just rest with the assurances of its authors, but I have yet to explain how the terrifying headline is anything close to accurate. Well, you see all this evidence about how the language in the bill puts Bibles on the chopping block and makes it so it would be illegal for churches to ask for donations or even be funded, all because of what the Bible says about homosexuals, can be used against Islam too. So let’s see what Imams and the Koran say about gays…

Islamic scholars overwhelmingly teach that same-gender sex is a sin.

The Muslim holy book, the Koran, tells the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom – and sodomy in Arabic is known as “liwat,” based on Lot’s name.

Men having sex with each other should be punished, the Koran says, but it doesn’t say how – and it adds that they should be left alone if they repent.

The death penalty instead comes from the Hadith, or accounts of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The accounts differ on the method of killing, and some accounts give lesser penalties in some circumstances. “

Noble Verses 26:165-166, 27:55, 29:28-29 were sent to me by brother Bassam Zawadi, may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

“Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!  (The Noble Quran, 27:55)”

“And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: “Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. “Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?” But his people gave no answer but this: they said: “Bring us the Wrath of God if thou tellest the truth.”  (The Noble Quran, 29:28-29)

Also, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

‘Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:  “A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering.   (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0667)” “

Gee, under this bill you wonder how anything Islamic involving the exchange of money wouldn’t be banned. And no, that part about gays repenting is NOT enough to let Islam get a pass if it were treated equally, because if you’d read the sources you’d know that the bill dealt with anything that attempts to say homosexuality is wrong. Repenting is the act of admitting you are wrong. (I’m going to love reading the comments that say my use of Koran quotes means I’m a bigot for explaining this detail about Islam in its own words. As if liberal Marie Harf dictating what a group of Muslims believe contrary to what the group itself said wasn’t bigoted. And as for repenting, California already has a bill that makes it illegal for heterosexuals who were molested by someone of the same sex to obtain psychological treatment for any homosexual feelings that may have come from that trauma, so it’s rather obvious California wouldn’t look kindly upon repenting either)

So Where Are The Outraged Muslims?

hijab-american-getreligion

Intersectionality works because Muslims have a thing called “taqiyya“- they can lie to infidels and pretend to have beliefs which they really don’t so long as it advances Islam. Kinda explains Linda Sarsour, either that or she is functionally illiterate. Image from GetReligion

Well, this is where we get into something called “selective enforcement”. There are way too many laws on the books to enforce against everyone who violates them. Due to the amount of regulations on the books, we’re all guilty of a crime whether we know it or not. We all probably commit one every day whether we know it or not. Your kids aren’t safe either, 12 year olds in the U.S. have been handcuffed for eating french fries. Heck, I bet none of you reported your eBay purchases to the IRS this past tax day. That leaves the government with a disturbing option- all of its opponents are guilty of something, so go after them while ignoring the violations of its friends.

 

The Muslims know that the Left is their bestest good buddy. Muslims won’t bite the hand that feeds them. Not yet. Remember- the Left claims slavery is freedom when it comes to Islam. The Left declared Islamist Linda Sarsour, who believes in an oppressive version of Islam and called for a jihad against Trump, to be a feminist celebrity. The Left almost fetishizes the oppression of women under Islam, claiming that symbols of such oppression are symbols of liberation (contrary to the opinion of people who had live with said oppression, but the Left loves dictating what people should think from its guarded fantasy world). Heck, liberals think so much of Islam that they cheered Palestine’s flag being waved at the Democratic National Convention, whereas no American flags were even present. At first, but the physical ones wheeled in were kind of off to the side in the shadows. Liberal anti-Israeli protesters did bring an Israeli flag too, but they burned it. They burned American flags too.

More importantly and pertinently to the “selective enforcement” argument, consider this: how many Muslim bakers have been forced out of business over discrimination? None. How about Christian ones? Get the picture?

And of course we have the liberals Europe, the ones that the Left tell us we should be more like, letting the Muslims get away with rape gangs that had thousands of victims, blaming the victims of said rapes, because the police and government are too scared of being labelled as racists. In fact, they’ve even said that people reporting on these crimes were racist and gave the rapists lighter sentences because they were not white and their victims were. UK’s government believes that rape is not a serious crime if the victim is white and the rapist is not, that is what their own internal conclusion is. Germany took the approach of siding with the Muslims and saying the rape victims were responsible for what their attackers did. So Muslims know that if the Left literally will let them get away with raping the Left’s own kids (or let a Muslim get away with assault because in the Judge’s mind, a judge who threatened the victim, Islam takes precedence over the First Amendment… and for you women out there, even in America those liberal activist judges I alluded to think a Muslim should be allowed to rape you), then they’ll certainly give the Islamic faith a pass when it comes to this bill.

peace-symbol

So I guess Democrats and Islam have something else in common- peace is so old school for both of them.

You’ll notice I didn’t distinguish between “radical” Islam and ‘regular’ Islam. That’s because I’m trying NOT to insult the Muslims. I’m not Muslim, so I have no right to make that distinction. The whole sectarian struggle in the Middle East is about what version of Islam is extremist and which is not. I can say I like certain brands, but I’m not going to decide which one is radical because quite frankly if you ever read the Koran ALL THE WAY THROUGH and the hadiths too you’d notice that ISIS is acting mostly as an adherent to the rules (later, violent sayings and stories overrule older and peaceful ones, so Islamic scholars of Islam currently and historically said- this is called “abrogation”), whereas if you stopped reading while Mohammed was still in Mecca you’d think that the peaceful Westernized vision was the true way. Me saying “radical” here is no different than if a Muslim were to say Protestants had it right and Catholics were the radicals, from a Christian point of view.  I don’t want to encourage certain groups by saying “radical” Islam is bad, because to each group there’s another group that IS radical Islam (even non-Muslims disagree on what “radical” is, with the SPLC saying someone who is against “radical” Islam is in fact a “radical” Islamic extremist), so instead I’ll encourage them all to clean house and get their defecation consolidated by lumping the bad and good together as simply Muslims, much like the Left always does with Christians.

The point is: if this bill is passed, there will be legal grounds to attack your religion, Mr.-or-Mrs.-Muslim-what-reads-this. Once the Right is gone, if you think the Left’s not going to put up a fight against you, you’re very naïve. Just like any liberal who doesn’t think that the Alliance To End Republicans (or Hulkamania) will fall to pieces once that common enemy is obliterated. I mean come on, do you seriously suspect that your whole intersectionality idea will hold you together with all those ideologies competing against each other? The only glue holding you together is your common hatred for certain groups, so you will desperately try to find one boogeyman after another to hate against in order to maintain your power. That’s probably also why the only emotions we see from you are hate-based: if you didn’t spend every minute of every day filling your mind with hate for your common enemy, differences between you and your allies might just enter into your mind.

I’ll cover what happens with that in another piece, but Harvey Weinstein was just a preview, as was the mention of Asians earlier. You can also look at how your side treats blacks from Africa to see the state of your so-called tolerance. You see, apparently there was an “African Holocaust” in the U.S., and according to the Left and the few african americans who claim to suffer from said holocaust (obviously they feel black Americans are superior to Jews or anyone else who experienced a real genocide), folks from Africa are wealthy (compared to the holocaust-stricken  African Americans) and never had any problems. Ever. So I guess these conflicting worldviews that will come to blows once there isn’t a common enemy are what happens when we each have our own truths, like African Americans who think they’re worse off than folks in Darfur (and liberal women who think Islam is a model for achieving a feminist utopia).

If You Still Believe The Bill’s Authors And Media, Even Over The Language Of The Bill Itself

And for those on the Left, who would be glad the above lies were told and see no problem with them nor the results of the laws that came to pass because of these lies, I present the below so that you may have empathy for my position:

You don’t believe Trump, you claim he’s a liar, well I just outlined how YOU TOO are a liar, so why would I EVER believe the assurances of your lawmakers on this matter, ESPECIALLY when the freakin’ BILL ITSELF says the opposite of what its writers and your “fact checkers” are telling us! “Fact Checker” is now an Orwellian euphemism, they belong to the Left’s “Ministry of Truth”. This bill does not target Christians/Muslims, chocolate rations are up 20%, and we’ve always been at war with Eurasia (a terrifying example of life imitating art thanks to the DNC’s sudden anti-Russian-warmongering furor, and remember: it’s been nearly 2 years and we STILL don’t know if the Russians hacked the DNC! And no, 17 intel agencies DID NOT say that Russia did it no matter how much liberals want to memory hole the truth. Read the news sometime! And ask the DNC why it destroyed evidence if it’s so eager to show Russia is behind its hacking, and ask why the DNC ironically set itself up for being accused of the crime of destroying evidence by claiming that hacking its servers was a criminal act by Trump and Russia).

 

dnc-hq-dailybeast

CRIMETHINK
    Minitrue mark article doubleplusungood crimethink.                         Miniluv remake goodthink fullwise.                    Image from DailyBeast, doubleplusgood bb duckspeak friend

The Ol’ ULTRA Violence

CIA-Seal-wikimedia

Image from wikimedia commons

“Of course I was a very minor missionary, actually a heretic, but I toiled wholeheartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill and cheat, steal, deceive, rape and pillage with the sanction and blessing of the All-Highest?” -CIA Agent George White, in a letter to agency chemist and poison expert Sidney Gottlieb.

Well, if we elect more Democrats, I’d say anywhere in the country Mr. White so long as you remained in good standing with the party. But we’ll circle back to this in a moment. As the CIA did here, we know that Dems just love victims that can’t fight back.

ULTRA Man

Project MK ULTRA was the CIA’s attempt to understand mind control. What could go wrong? In the wake of the Korean War we saw supposedly brainwashed American POW’s and our government was curious about this. So instead of starting a fake war with aliens like any normal government the CIA decided to learn about how our POW’s could be brainwashed by trying to brainwash people themselves. They tried a bunch of stuff, from drugs to electroshock therapy. The tests were done at hospitals, prisons, and universities.

The CIA also conducted business at CIA safe houses. Government-employed prostitutes would lure people to those safe houses, slip them a mickey, and CIA agents would watch and record. This is what Mr. White was referring to above. CIA agents would often get a little carried away in the merriment, all on the taxpayer’s dime. Like when the IRS went to Disneyland. As you can imagine, this phase of the program (appropriately called “Operation Midnight Climax”) had very little oversight.

Not Quite Legal

The CIA abducted and spied on people while dosing them up with drugs, without their consent. They hired prostitutes. The CIA is limited to what it can do domestically, but I guess hiring prostitutes, kidnapping, drugging, and spying on the results doesn’t technically violate their charter, since it only forbids them from doing law enforcement or internal security work domestically. After revelations of these activities from the Church Committee, President Gerald Ford signed an executive order saying this was totally not cool guys.

wp-1473803210459.jpg

Frank Church wanted this guy to like him.

And before you point out that the head of the Church Committee, Frank Church, was a Democrat thus proving that my snarky remark at the top of this piece is invalid, let me remind you that he was one of those EEEEEVVVIIILLLLL Democrat racists who you tell us switched parties to become Republican (Church reportedly didn’t care about black people, and only pretended because he wanted a favor from President Johnson later), so this is not a valid means of criticism for you unless you want to admit that the Leftwing narrative about the great Republican racist switcheroo is a lie.

 

ULTRA Apathy

Why should any of this matter? Government agency in charge of protecting our lives endangers them instead, no oversight, party-like atmosphere with prostitutes. Remind me again which political party wants us to trust the government in all things? Which party abhors oversight (or at least thinks it has no usefulness when a Democrat is in the White House)? Which party doesn’t even pay lip service to the idea of ending wasteful spending? The same party that tried to keep the American flag from being displayed at their convention for determining their Presidential candidate. I wonder why.

Trust The Government

Do you trust the government? This goes into why we should remember MK ULTRA; it seems we never quite learned the proper lessons of government accountability and transparency from it.

Let’s take a look at the Secret Service under President Obama. Incompetent, to say the least. The White House ended up taking a few bullets, and a man with a knife made it all the way into the building after hopping the fence. A member of the President’s last line of defense was found passed-out drunk in a hallway. The White House itself ignored some of these issues. Literally the life of their hero and boss Obama was on the line, but they ignored the problem.

Let’s take a look at the IRS scandal under President Obama. Conservatives are targeted. There’s one token firing. Years later, Conservative groups STILL don’t have tax-exempt status that was originally held-up by the IRS. And yet during all of this, even after hearings on IRS waste, the IRS demands more money from sympathetic Democrats, while Democrats dismiss and downplay claims of targeting (there’s a piece at verdict.justia.com titled “The Damage In The Wake of the Non-Scandal At The IRS” that Google saw fit to place as the second result of a search I did in which not only is the IRS case is dismissed as a non-event while perpetuating 5 year old myths that had been debunked, but the piece also denies the existence of the deep state, and Google result number 4 was a Newsweek article from 2017 saying the IRS scandal was fake news created by Republicans despite the IRS apologizing for it just 17 days after the Newsweek article was published, as well as several other scandals, while telling tried and true lies- like by saying the targeting stopped and telling the lie that Democrats are timid, it’s typical of bullies like the Democrats to pretend to be the victims. I also want to point out that this Newsweek article levels the criticism of “the investigations took forever and found no evidence yet they still believed the myth” at the Republicans, which Newsweek and doubtlessly the political hack author Neil Buchanan who has less credibility than his idols at Glavlit are reluctant to bring against Democrats over the Trump-Russia tale).

Let’s take a look at the DEA prostitution scandal under President Obama. The head of the agency said she didn’t have the power to discipline employees. It was up to an internal committee of unelected/unappointed (by Presidents) bureaucrats to police this agency.

Or how about that time the Obama Administration forced an Inspector General to stop looking into a friend of Obama’s who misused government funds, which sent a clear message to the rest of the Inspector Generals not to do anything unfriendly towards the President or his allies.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration claims there were no scandals during it, and no one in the Leftstream media challenges that narrative. Do you think the CIA would be handled differently if caught in a scandal?

So How Would MK ULTRA Go Over Today?

obama_stern-face

“We’re your government. We’re the good guys!” Watchers, 1983, and apparently Barack Obama, 2013. Image from evil.news

Well, we already know the CIA Director can lie to Congress under oath and get away with it. We already know that Democrats can get away with saying there were no scandals in their Administrations. We know the NSA can get away with spying on Americans, Obama just has to tell us we can trust the government, maybe in a soft appearance on our favorite late-night shows.

We actually can kind of guess the rest, using Hillary Clinton’s email scandal as a model. Hillary wiped her servers to remove the evidence. It’s the 21st century afterall, the age of MK ULTRA and their Ollie North-brand file shredders is long over, but the firm that cleaned Hillary’s service lacked the CIA’s common sense and bragged about it. Some sympathetic deep staters would investigate and find no wrongdoing even before they interview half the witnesses, including the star one. The Democrat President would say people acted carelessly, and an exoneration letter would be drafted around that same time saying exactly that. Then the media would tell us there was no scandal, just hysterical Republicans.

So if Hillary can destroy evidence, endanger lives, lie under oath to Congress about possession of classified materials and various other things, threaten to fire the Inspector General investigating her, and be cleared of all charges in time for the election then surely the CIA would too have been given nary a slap on the wrist.

How Come You’ve Never Heard Of MK ULTRA?

It’s almost like it never happened. You’d think even the Republicans would be referencing it as an example of the deep state gone rogue, what with the CIA committing illegal acts against thousands of Americans. This didn’t even hit the headlines when the Unabomber was caught- he was one of the subjects of the CIA’s experiments. Take a look at this article from The Atlantic- NOTHING is mentioned about the CIA’s possible involvement.

Unabomber-sketch-wikimedia

But remember kiddies- the government will be your friend throughout your life! Image from wikimedia commons

The Unabomber was only 17 years old, a math prodigy studying at Harvard. One of his trusted professors put him through this. The CIA experiments, which consisted of sessions held across 3 years, were designed to destroy his core beliefs. Well it worked: after the experiments he was mentally warped and thus 6 years after the experiments would’ve ended he started his nationwide bombing campaign.

The casual disregard for lives exhibited by government agents, scientists, doctors, and psychologists during all of this is rather stunning, though I guess after all that human experimentation in World War II I can’t say I was surprised. Just disappointed that it happened here, especially since our intellectual elite loves to tell us how superior they are. Definitely something to consider the next time you hear a climate scientist demand we adopt a totalitarian government, and demand control of how/whether people live. Since most of these professionals are Democrats anyway, I can’t say I’m surprised. It just confirms some of the worst stereotypes about them and their chosen party.

Speaking Of Democrats

russdem

Only a conspiracy theorist believes in MK ULTRA. By the way, did you hear how Trump is really a Russian agent?

Over at Leftwing rag “The Daily Beast”, we have Rick Wilson telling us that Republicans who defend Trump against the Russian Collusion accusations are engaging in “wild-eyed MK-ULTRA paranoiac raving”. For one thing, he only presents insults to back his claims (whereas my insults usually orbit around facts, pardon the preening acknowledgement of my own flaw). Claims which clearly can’t be trusted, as his choice of presenting MK ULTRA as something only a crazy person would believe in demonstrates. He does not even have the knowledge which fellow liberals have of those events, thus it is doubtful that for his rambling chain of ad hominem attacks there could be found a factual basis. It also appears he is impugning the credibility of said liberals.

Moreover, if Republicans are really as deluded as this screaming tantrum indicates, then surely after a year the Mueller investigation would’ve produced something against Trump. Right? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told us in March 2017 that they already had beyond circumstantial evidence of Trump colluding. Surely that would’ve been leaked by him, master leaker that he is, or at least released out of spite once the GOP ended the House’s investigation, and Mueller certainly could use that tipoff. At the very least the GOP would’ve debunked said evidence in their summary. And let’s not forget- a crippled GOP with only Fox News to help managed to prove malfeasance by the IRS in 2013 within several months, much less than 12. Surely the Mueller probe with the full apparatus of the mainstream media and its legions of journalists at its disposal would’ve produced some smidgen of evidence by now. But instead it seems all they’ve produced is an army of Rick Wilsons with their tales told by idiots full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Aside from the form of insults and a scattered few articles, there isn’t much in the way of widespread talk about MK ULTRA. At the time of the revelations of course the networks covered it, but this bit of deep statism was memory holed pretty quick. Perhaps because the program allegedly ended (can you really trust the CIA to obey an executive order after breaking several laws to begin with?), it just isn’t considered a noteworthy pursuit.

Or maybe because it’s a grim reminder of what happens when the government gets too much power. Maybe it’s Plan B if this Mueller thing doesn’t produce anything useful. We already have an army of anti-Trump bureaucrats leaking secrets left and right just to spite the President, we have an admitted conspiracy by anti-Trump law enforcement officials to take out Trump (their insurance policy), we have the Obama Administration spying on Trump’s campaign, you have liberals all over the spectrum calling for Trump’s death and other forms of violence against both him and Republicans in general (while those in charge of handling such matters ignored it because they were Democrats), so would another Strzok still stuck in the government deciding on dosing Trump’s morning coffee with some surplus LSD really be such a far-fetched thing?

 

Rai-Code-Geass-Lost-Colors-Kennedy

Forgettable 1961 CIA Spokesperson Rai (pictured center) was unavailable for comment on if the mind control experiments really worked. Records of his tenure are lost to history due to a tragic shredding mishap. Original images from jfklibrary.com and artbooks

Total Idiocy: Democrats and the obsession with Gun Control

I am going to start this off with a harsh truth, a very nasty but nonetheless true. Liberals like to claim groups like the NRA and legal Gun Owners are the problem with gun violence in this country. That is an egregious lie and a deflection of responsibility. And so here we go ahead with this bold statement of truth, if you support gun control it is YOU who have blood on your hands. You are responsible not just for the deaths of children in school shootings, you are responsible for the deaths of countless mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who were killed by someone who illegally obtained a firearm because they were unable to exercise their legal right to bear arms and defend themselves.

Those of you for gun control will make your emotional arguments as to how I am wrong that just do not add up, and in the end, you will make character attacks and attempts to vilify me. And even some in the pro-second amendment crowd will say I am sinking to the level of the liberals who make these pleas to emotion. I frankly do not care, after so much death at the hands of total fucking retards who watch the same thing happen and push for more of the same policy causing it, I feel it is time to take the kiddy gloves off. You gun control supporters are remorseless murderers with your hands drenched in the blood of so many Americans who you shed crocodile tears for. And that isn’t like one of your pathetic pleas to emotion that have proven themselves to be deadlier than bullets, that is a statement of the reality of the situation backed by facts.

Gun Control Kills

Holocaust_Victims_gun-control

These are the original victims of Gun Control, the nearly 6 million people killed in the holocaust, and hardly any of them were killed by a bullet.

Gun Control is not about making people safer at all. Just look at Chicago and Baltimore, jurisdictions that have had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and still do. I will, of course, explain later why this is, but the question now is why they still double down on these policies every time despite the fact they are clearly not working? To formulate one answer, all you have to do is look back at history and see who else touted gun control as such a glorious solution and why they did so. Look at the actual consequences of gun control and what atrocities it was used to commit and which heinous extremist groups committed them and you will begin to see reason #1 why gun control is dangerous and why we were given a right to bear arms.

 

gun-contol-joseph-stalin

Joseph Stalin and other dictators relied on new or existing Gun Control Laws to consolidate their power

In 1929 when Stalin declared all of the privately owned farms in the USSR state property he relied heavily on gun laws passed shortly after the 1917 communist revolution, laws that made it hard for anybody but party members to own firearms. And in Italy before Mussolini and his Blackshirts rise to power, the Italian government had banned Firearms and Canes to restore order, a move which left no resistance from those opposing the squads of Blackshirts and their formation of a fascist government. Most chilling of all, however, was the series of gun control laws passed by Adolf Hitler and the SS during the 1930’s. These laws placed heavy restrictions on gun ownership especially for jews and used a gun registry to identify and confiscate guns from Jews and other political opponents of the SS leaving them with no means to resist, the ultimate goal being the nearly effortless slaughter and terrorizing of Jews during the Kristallnacht incident. The moral of the story kids is that gun control is the go-to method which dictators and murders use to take control. Still feel safe calling for more restrictions? If you do then you are pretty retarded.

Just Like Weed

gun-control-pot-leaf

Even though marijuana is deemed illegal by the federal government, it is still easily obtainable and widely used across the US.

There is no coincidence that over the past 20 years as private gun ownership has risen, gun violence has been on the decline. Well there is one exception, while gun violence has been universally on the decline, there has been a sharp increase of shootings in so-called “Gun Free Zones”. This has a lot to do with the fact that only 6 percent of gun crimes are committed with guns obtained legally by the offender, an overwhelming 94 percent of the time guns used to commit mass shootings and other crimes were stolen and/or obtained through illegal channels. To put it in terms many of the jackass anti-gun hipsters can understand, it is a lot like how even though pot is illegal you dope fiends somehow get it. The law and threat of consequences did not stop you from obtaining the pot you freaks desire, it only stops the citizens who abide by the law. In the same way, gun control laws do not stop shooters like the Columbine shooters from illegally obtaining firearms and killing a ton of innocent people, it only ensures law-abiding citizens who are afraid of the consequences are easy targets for criminal psychopaths.

gun-control-NRA

The NRA promotes and protects the 2nd Amendment and encourages responsible gun ownership.

Oddly while groups that promote the legalization of pot never face criticism for drug addiction and violent drug lords (and rightly so because the connection is so loose you would have to be mentally retarded to make that connection), whenever there is a mass shooting in the US in one of those gun free zones where citizens cannot legally carry their firearms, the blame is stuck on the NRA. (Unsurprisingly that connection is always made by hysterical retards.) Much in the same way mature adults should be able to consume marijuana as long as they accept the consequences, the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms as long as we accept the consequences that accompany it. Unlike pot, of course, the consequences of not being allowed to carry guns is a lot graver. Our 2nd Amendment exists to allow us to protect ourselves from criminals and also from the possibility of individuals like Hitler or Mussolini coming to power and committing atrocities. Thus banning guns only makes us easy victims, not only to those who do not follow the law but potentially in a worst case scenario to our own government as well.

When facts don’t work, just cry a lot

gun-control-david-hogg

Looking like a badly tanned meth addict, David Hogg has been the lefts newest “useful idiot” to throw on-air tantrums for them since the tragic Parkland Shootings.

Facts are never on the leftists side especially not with the gun control debate, so rather than having a mature discussion they routinely pick an extremely stupid and easily manipulated poster child to throw a tantrum and cry so that other equally stupid people will get whipped into a frenzy while other easily manipulated people will get pulled into their meritless arguments or back down. After the tragic Parkland school shooting in which a cowardly sheriff’s deputy even refused to enter the school and stop the massacre, The left got its newest useful idiot in the form of the cowardly, childish, and incredibly deranged David Hogg. He represents another cute face and warped personality the left uses to make the argument an emotional one, using sickeningly fact devoid lines such as “2nd Amendment advocates are going to die out” (too bad there are going to be more of them than ever though since Gen Z is set to be more conservative than even the Baby Boomers.), and “The NRA controls Washington.” As usual, there is nothing of substance, not facts and only tantrums, but this is nothing new. The left always plays stupid games like this that blow up in their face.

wguns1

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., holds a gun magazine as she calls for a debate on gun control measures during a press conference on Capitol Hill, on May 6, 1999. (AP Photo/Khue Bui)

Remeber those warm New England summers? Remeber ice cold glasses of Lemonade on the porch? Remeber when Democrats passed an “Assault Weapons Ban” in 1994 that classified weapons as assault rifles based on cosmetic features that did not really enhance the performance of the gun and in fact made some harder to use according to experts? Well Peppridge Farms remembers, and Pepperidge farms isn’t gonna keep it to Pepperidge Farms self. But then again Peppridge farms ain’t no idiot, Pepperidge farms knows the term Assult Weapon is a made up term meant to scare idiots like the boogeyman scares children. Pepperidge Farms knows liberals lie about the “AR” in AR-15 standing for Assault Rifle so they can scare idiots. Pepperidge Farms knows it stands for ArmaLite, the name of the manufacturers. Now I better stop while I am ahead before I kill this Pepperidge Farms joke, but I think I made my point here, liberals cannot actually find a legal or factual basis for attacking the 2nd amendment so they always resort to misinformation and emotional arguments made to play upon fear or outrage in place of anything of substance.

It’s a Racial thing tho….

gun-control-nat-turner

During the Nat Turner Slave Rebellion of 1831, rebel slaves in the Democrat-Held State of Virginia massacred plantation owners.

Now honestly, I really feel that it is appropriate to submit the possibility that there is a racial component to the Democrats opposition to gun ownership as we have proven it is in no way about safety. As I have covered in the past, the Democrats have a long history of racism dating back to the decades before they founded the CSA. This made me remember the famous Nat Turner Rebellion, an 1831 rebellion where Nat Turner and a group of slaves killed 55-65 people, mainly Plantation owners. In the aftermath the Democrats went into a total frenzy, they made it illegal to teach black people to read and making it illegal for them to hold religious congregations without the supervision of a white preacher. Similar laws with widespread restrictions on the Civil Rights of black people were passed across the South and held their legacy for nearly a century in the form of Jim Crow Laws and other discriminatory policies. So it is entirely possible, in fact highly probable that Democrats still have some fear of black people or other parties of oppressed Americans exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in a way similar to Nat Turner. Gun Control isn’t just about taking Guns away since these laws are most prevalent in the cities I would say Democrats are especially passionate about keeping guns out of the hands of black people more than any other Americans.

Lots of reasons, None of them safety

Whatever the reason, secret ambitions to resurrect the fascist socialist order or fear that black people will rise up and kill them for their racist past, we know for sure that Gun Control has never been about safety. Gun Control only creates a set of easy targets for psychopaths with no regard for the law. The tragedies at Parkland, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, Charleston, Orlando, they all could have been avoided if just one teacher or churchgoer or movie usher or bartender were legally allowed to carry a firearm and could have stopped these insane shooters in their tracks. The blood of all these victims from the innocent school children to the club goers who were just there to dance, their blood is on the hands of the Democrats and their puppets who push the Gun Control policies that make easy targets for criminals and other despicable individuals. That is not what makes me angry though, what makes me angry is that these morally bankrupt monsters like David Hogg or Dianne Feinstein have no remorse for all the blood that is on their hands. They would rather blame the people looking for real solutions who promote responsibility and solutions that do not violate our civil rights. We can only hope though that they do not get their way and create a larger pile of bodies in their ignorant wakes.

The Case for the Deep State

(*Update: Even as I wrote this article, Andrew McCabe resigned from his position at the FBI.)

 

A year ago, if you told me there was some kind of Deep State within our government I would have probably laughed at you. Even with the DNC and Media trying to influence the election, the thought that there was an internal force influencing things was just too much for me to believe. A year later however, it has become clear to me that the external forces I just mentioned act in concert with an internal force within our government that is dedicated to advancing a certain agenda. The idea that a cabal of unelected officials is making decisions with no respect to the will of the American people is a scary thought, but the evidence is there. And the scariest thing is that they are seeing an unthinkable amount of success working against our president.

How Did it Start and to Whom do They Answer?

obama_stern-face

Barack Obama Image from evil.news

Make no mistake, there is no mystery as to who the Deep State works for. The Deep State really started to form in 2009, during the first term of President Barack Obama. The very nature of the Deep State itself is that it is composed of officials appointed by Barack Obama and the people they hired within multiple government agencies. As such, there is no question that the Deep State serves the political agenda of the Democratic Party, and they are willing to go as far as undermining our Republic and committing criminal acts to make sure the ill-gotten gains of the past 8 years are not undone. This includes the dismantling of their own power structure within the government agencies. The Deep State has operated with very little opposition for the past 8 years, and so like roaches that can survive a nuclear apocalypse, they are very hard to uproot.

georgewbush

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States

So how can I pinpoint when the Deep State was formed with such certainty? That is quite simple, looking at the 2 previous administrations as well as the current administration, one can observe the differences in resistance to the executive office’s agenda. During the Administration of George Bush, he faced average resistance, however he was able to operate a functional government and at no time were whole agencies working against him. This is typical of a presidential administration, Bush had individuals within those agencies go rouge but never an entire agency. During Barack Obamas Presidency however he did not have any agencies work against him, however they were too cooperative and acted as his cronies to attack political opposition. This is not normal at all for a Presidential Administration and it constitutes a severe breach of ethics that borders on criminal behavior. Finally, during the Trump Administration, we see whole agencies leaking partial information designed to damage the president, engaging in wasteful and clearly partisan investigations against the president, colluding against the president, dereliction of duty, all things that are so totally abnormal.

State of Unintelligence

Deep-State-Insincere-Promises

Intelligence Agencies have done a huge amount of dirty work for the Deep State.

As I mentioned before the culprits are political appointees and those hired by them, and nowhere is the behavior more brazen and more dangerous than in the intelligence communities. This first became apparent in February when reports came out that along with agents leaking information to damage the president, Intelligence agencies like the CIA were actually withholding intelligence information from President Trump. The next scandal to arise involved the fact that intelligence agencies under the Obama Administration illegally acquired FISA warrants to wiretap the phones of Trump’s Associates, using a widely discredited dossier which was paid for by the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. What is really scandalous to me is that figures like FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who knew about this and lied under oath about it are still allowed to hold onto their positions*. Even chronically dishonest Chuck Schumer Puppet James Comey was fired for his corruption.

Deep-State-Peter-Strzok-Lisa-Page

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had exchanged a huge volume of text messages expressing their hatred of Trump before and during their involvement in the farcical Russian Collusion investigation. -Image from breitbart.com

Another big scandal involving the Deep State ridden FBI also involves the fraudulent Russia Investigation and the inadequate Clinton Email Investigation. FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who had both worked on Robert Mullers Russia Probe were found to have expressed a clear bias against Donald Trump in messages found on their FBI Mobile Devices. This beautiful scandal has blossomed like a Bloomin Onion at Outback Steakhouse, with missing texts which were mysteriously recovered when the heat was put on the FBI. Some choice material within those texts were not just plain anti-Trump talk but also talk of a secret society to take Trump down after the election and efforts to hamper the Clinton Email investigation. Of course, predictably the Alt-Left Media continues to poo-poo the investigations and the accusations even as it blows up in their face.

Ministry of Love

Deep-State-Derrick-Watson

Derrick Watson was appointed to the Federal Bench by Barack Obama.

In George Orwell’s masterpiece about fascism “1984”, there was a so-called “Ministry of Love” that was supposed to deal out justice but instead furthered the corrupt machinations of “Big Brother”. During his 8 years in office, Obama through a series of judicial and departmental appointments managed to turn our judicial system, including the DOJ, into the Democrats own private Ministry of Love. Even now that rot exists, especially in the corrupt 9th Circut of the federal courts which have routinely tried to prevent the Trump Administration’s agenda with a series of rulings that ignored the laws of this country and served only the politics of this countries political left. Take for example the case of judge Derrick Watson, a political appointee from the Obama Regime who ruled against the Trump Travel ban 3 times based off of cases with a flimsy pretext, and has been overruled by the Supreme Court every time an appeal made it to their desk. Even after having his ruling overturned by the Supreme Court the first time, Judge Watson tried to effectively invalidate the Supreme Courts decision by presenting an opportunistic interpretation of the language of their ruling, an interpretation which also got overturned.

Deep-State-Robert-Mueller

Robert Muller was appointed to be the supposedly impartial Special Counsel into allegations of Collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia, however, his probe has only lead to a scandal surrounding his own actions.

Next, of course, we have the phony Russian Collusion probe headed by Robert Muller, a hardcore leftist and longtime friend of James Comey. From the start of this farce, he has shown that he never intended to perform an impartial probe, opting to appoint a cavalcade of far left anti-trump judges and lawyers to his investigation team. He has also violated normal courtesies afforded to a cooperative suspect when he ordered an early morning armed raid on Paul Manaforts home where agents manhandled him and his wife, a clear attempt at intimidation. And of course, it doesn’t help that the only indictments he has filed so far are against Trump aids and their associates for alleged crimes that have no connection to the 2016 election, prompting one of them to file a lawsuit against Mueller and the DOJ. Luckily this corrupt behavior will hopefully result not just in Mueller’s Probe being ended as well as his own prosecution, we may even see other officials who have lied or contributed to the corruption going down with Mueller.

Goebbels Wet Dream

Deep-State-Mainstream-Media-Propaganda

The Mainstream media has managed to become a running joke.

“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own will.” When Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels said this I am sure he never dreamed it would apply so well to the American Mainstream Media. Then again, due to how ridiculous they are he may have been a bit dismayed that they have undertaken the task of being the propaganda mouthpiece of the Democratic Party in such a crude manner. After all, there is no way to effectively push propaganda when your headlines revolve around how many scoops of ice cream somebody gets. When you peddle stuff like that as well as easily debunked lies, well you just aren’t peddling effective propaganda to the masses.

journalists-wiki-tw

Most “Mainstream Media” Outlets colluded with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Election

Of course, thanks to the WikiLeaks dump of the DNC and podesta emails, only the most willfully ignorant can pretend that they are impartial agents of truth. Thanks to the WikiLeaks dumps of the DNC and Podesta emails, we know for a fact that the DNC and Hillary colluded with the Media in an inappropriate manner. Thanks to Julian Assange, we now know who colluded with the Clintons and what networks they were a part of, but sadly we also have reason never to trust the mainstream media again. Notable outlets and publications, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Hill, The New York Times, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, CNN, these supposed trustworthy scoursed were in direct contact with the Clinton Campaign to ensure coverage of her was positive and even to coordinate stories. In addition to them were biased Alt-Left outlets like The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Vox, Buzzfeed, Vice, Now This, outlets only popular with the most radical leftists and which we never expected honesty from. The additional issue though is how unprecedented it is for a political campaign to direct the media during an election year about what to report and how to report it. Then again though, Democrats resorted to Fascism for the past 8 years, it was only a matter of time before they took a page from Goebbels playbook.

Not so Private Enterprise

Deep-State-Social-Media-Hydra

Social Media and Tech Companies have shown an extreme left-wing bias for a long time now.

A new social trend has been to get news from social media as these sites have convenient features that show you “trending” stories from sites tailored to your preferences. At least that is what they say, in reality, though they have demonstrated a long-term and established bias against conservative ideas and voices. Websites like Facebook routinely ban and block conservative-leaning accounts that post offensive memes.  while turning a blind eye to left-leaning accounts that promote criminal activity. Instagram banned a conservative comedy group without giving any explanation of what rules they violated if they violated any at all. And along with banning Milo Yiannopolous on a flimsy pretext, Twitter also was caught suppressing a hashtag critical of Hillary Clinton.

Deep-State-Tech-Bias

The thought that information or things like your phone can be used to try and manipulate your opinion is terrifying.

Other tech giants have been demonstrably biased, and this should really scare us as these tech giants I mention produce the software for that phone you are likely reading this on. One example is apple, in 2016 they rejected a game poking fun at Hillary Clinton despite having an overwhelming number of Anti-Trump games. Amazon’s Alexa digital assistant has been making rounds in the news lately as it was discovered the AI is programmed with a pro-leftist political agenda. What alarms me most is the behavior of Google, the worlds largest search engine was caught burying search suggestions critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Google is also currently facing a lawsuit from 2 former employees for wrongful termination, in which details highlighting googles systematic discrimination against heterosexuals, whites, men, and conservatives have come to light.

Pervers de Noblesse Oblige

George-Soros-1

Billionaire and Former Nazi George Soros

Among the outlying Deep State actors are a group of extremely rich people telling poor people what is best for them cause they are their allies and other rich people are the enemies. Shady and possibly Faustian Power Broker George Soros is a prime example. Known for his funding of the criminal “Community Activism” group A.C.O.R.N. which engaged in numerous criminal acts, he has an extensive resume of trying to influence politics worldwide. Of recent interest, he has also been caught giving funding to an ANTIFA domestic terrorist group. The DOJ is now investigating this as well and hopefully, this will lead to an indictment against Soros. He was also one of the largest campaign contributors to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential run.

Deep-State-Moby

Artist Moby Lectured the Electoral College on decency. He is one to talk right?

Soros is not the only Billionaire putting his pen in the Deep State ink, a prominent sufferer of TDS Tom Steyer has dumped millions of dollars into an ad campaign calling for Trumps Impeachment. The impeachable offense he invokes is Treason, the Treasonous act of pulling out of the Paris Climate accord which asked our country to take a hit to our economy while leaving the worlds highest polluters to go on with business as usual. Speaking of TDS, remember how a bunch of celebrities who donated millions to Clinton pleaded for Republican members of the Electoral College to ignore the choice of the people they are supposed to represent? Luckily America is sick of their hypocrisy though, especially considering their seedy underworld of rapists and perverts they shelter. The damage they have done though is innumerable as for decades they have been putting their money behind corrupt politicians and acting as mouthpieces for the agenda of the American left wing. If there were ideological diversity in Hollywood this would be a different matter entirely. Sadly this is not the case, Hollywood Conservatives often face rejection and blacklisting from the “open” and “tolerant” Hollywood Left.

How do These Dots Connect?

Deep-State-Swamp-Monster

The Deep State Runs Deep within the DC Beltway

Believe it or not, while some of these are seemingly unrelated they are connected in one way or another. From top to bottom, The rich fund the politicians who appoint the officials who work against the opposition while the media ignores the scandals and the famous instruct the masses what to think and the tech companies control the flow of information. I know it sounds convoluted. To simplify it, all of these things are connected to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the root of the Deep State, because as you will notice all of the actions of the Deep State benefit them from the Uranium One Deal to the bogus Russian Collusion Probe.

wp-1473130401396.png

Thanks to their hypocritical bullshit along with greater awareness, younger people have begun to reject the Democratic Party which created the deep state more and more.

How do we fix the Problem? Well first would be to purge the Government agencies of Obama Era Appointees, the elements within the government are the only part of the deep state that poses an actual threat and ties it all together. But as Mr. F.L.A.G. covered in his piece about political appointee’s, this is very hard to do. Since the Democratic Party is the real problem and since they have engaged in criminal behavior with criminal elements, a Federal RICO case resulting in arrests and their dismantlement would work. This would also take care of Deep State elements in other area’s I mentioned if they are found to have knowingly contributed to criminal behavior. The best part of this is that it does not really harm our Democracy, another party like the Green Party or Libertarians can fill in that political void. But this is all a moot point as we are a long way off before any solution is possible, but the good news is that it looks like we are winning the battle.

History Is Written By Who?

histwriter

History being written. From “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (EMI Films, 1975)

A curious thought crossed my mind. The Left plays the long game. As LBJ once observed when passing his Great Society policies “I’ll have those [not-so-nice-word for African Americans] voting Democrat for the next 200 years”. And so it has come

histbj

Fun fact: LBJ supposedly did not watch the moon landing. image from wikimedia commons

to pass, blacks always vote overwhelmingly Democrat even when the GOP candidate is black and the Democrat is white (I love this source, it’s a white history teacher telling blacks how to think and which party hates them!). Notice the gradual rewriting of history too- they say on their website that they were at the forefront of civil rights for two hundred years. How do I interpret that anyway? Are they saying their support for slavery equaled civil rights? Are they saying that George Wallace was a civil rights icon? Or are they pretending none of that ever happened, just like the blacks who vote for them? (In the case of George Wallace, they are.) We are told that all such Democrats are just Republicans in disguise, or if we examine closer we are told that the parties shifted and today’s Democrats are what the Republicans were at the time of Lincoln and during the Civil Rights movement. Except, of course, no such changeover took place. But that’s what we believe as a country.

 

It’s not just history that the Left is changing though, as we see right now the news media is making every move Trump makes- even ones Hillary herself said she would have done- into deplorable acts of evil that will destroy the world, kill American citizens, etc. The leftwing media operation is enormous. It’s not just the big three networks and major newspapers and CNN. It’s right down to your local newspaper. The internet (and its subunit social media) is full of lefties, probably more so since the tech-oriented youth with their popular blogs and webcomics tend to be liberal (just look at the darn things! Plus, this usage report indicates that liberals find plenty to… well, use.), so the conservative voice there is a whisper. Even more of one given how twitter, facebook, google, and youtube tend to censor conservative thought, not just on their services but in their companies too. (Speaking of re-writing history, my search for material, aside from showing forums asking these questions where every two out of three responses was an insult at conservatives, turned up this 2010 laugh riot here about how Republicans want “commanding leadership”, want to enforce speech codes, and stifle debate! HA!)

And My Point Is…?

Where am I going with this bleak portrait of conservatism’s inferior messaging ability? To the dustbin of history, like the rest of you. Think about it- what do historians use when trying to write everything from theses to textbooks? Contemporary reporting. Newspapers as well as TV and radio depending on what existed at the time. Literature, music, radio shows, movies, and TV programs are analyzed to determine what people thought was important. And what’s the one common thread today between all of the aforementioned institutions? They’re far Left and evidently in a race to see how much farther they can go.

In a hundred years, who’s going to think to look at Fox News or National Review? Will there even be records of their broadcasts or online publications? The Wall Street Journal with its preserved hardcopies might get a mention, but for every positive article, they do you can find negative counterpoints in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post. In the future, historians will see all this negative information about conservatism compared to one or two positive footnotes from the few rightwing outlets out there, and those historians will make the assumption that conservatives were wrong about everything and hated, and doubtless many research papers and theories about mass brainwashing will be developed to understand how Trump rose to power.

A Parallel Made So Often Today

Actually, this reminds me of how the history of Hitler coming to power is treated. We’re given a lot about charisma, crowd hypnosis, and mastery of groupthink and stuff like that. The assumption is made based on our current understanding of what had happened, which itself is not necessarily reflective of what really happened. Hitler was just another politician. He promised a chicken in every pot. Hope and change, in other words. So what if he seemed anti-semitic? The Left’s precious nursery of future leaders (college) is full of them today, as is the rest of the world! All those Hispanics coming in? Jew haters. Asians coming in? Maybe just the old man that rents a room in my building. The Middle East? Jew haters. Europe itself? Jew haters. The Democrat Party’s preferred base of blacks and Latinos? Jew haters. That’s TODAY, despite the Holocaust. Imagine how much worse it was back then, only thirty years removed from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

Anyway, my point is that Hitler was indeed a showman but historians (all are usually liberal) made him into much more, seemingly to justify the anomaly of what we now know to be a bad person being elected to run a country of what we thought were good people, because one thing the Left always assumes is that people (other than Republicans) are basically good. (Unrelated, but when trying to find more than lefties saying people are good, I found this astounding claim from 2008 that any given SJW disproves within seconds.) The same thing will happen to Trump. All the records the average historian might access would show Trump to be the root of all evil, just as most of the 1940s coverage of Hitler does thanks to World War II. Fox News will be likened to Goebbels and his propaganda network, and thus ignored except when studying the art of lying. Remember- newspapers publish (and retract) faulty statistics all the time that prove the liberal agenda. How many historians bother to look on the back page of later papers after finding the headlines they need for their research?

So… Did We Win?

histvictory

From “Cheers” (NBC,1982-1993)

Once again, the Left has us licked on the long game. They own the institutions of learning, the institutions of reporting, and the institutions that determine what is fact and what isn’t. They will see all this negative stuff about conservatism, regard it as fact and the interpretation of everyone at the time because let’s face it: the voice that yells the loudest has the longest echo through history. And so when future policymakers are learning history or studying past bills to see what works, they will see all of this negativity and assume that conservatism is hated and regarded as a failure, and the future will shift Left accordingly.

Blogs and other such things as this will only last until North Korea EMPs our power grid. Besides, most of the stuff I’ve seen referenced from the past that was outside the mainstream media in ages before blogs were enforcing the Left’s talking points. Unfortunately, like with climate science, today’s historians seem to be in pursuit of evidence backing their preconceived notions about how the Left has always been right. Guess that’s why the only jobs outside their chosen fields they can get involve mopping vomit off floors, fitting that they’d clean it up after a career of adding the equivalent to our knowledge-base.

Well, that was fun to write! Any non-violent solutions? Feel free to leave a comment. Just remember- the Left is good at spinning stuff. If anything bad happens to them they’ll just say we should pity them more and give more money and pass new laws.

The_Future

Fig. 1: The Future. At least it’s in widescreen…