On the Syrian Bombing…

The motivation for Great Britain, France and the United States to use their air power to downgrade Assad’s capability to use chemical weapons is to send a message to the other rogue states that in this, on this earth we cannot permit, the Western powers, cannot permit chemical weapons or nuclear weapons and we just can’t permit them to be used.

Now, there are a number of people who doubt that Assad the dictator of Syria, is using chlorine and the other chemical weapons. There is no one else on the planet that has the delivery system to place chlorine gas in a suburb of Damascus, no one, it’s either Assad or nobody. Now, he’s got a history all the intelligence agencies agree that he’s doing it. Macon of France and Theresa May of Great Britain never in a million years would have signed on with Donald Trump to bomb Syria had their intelligence services, not said it’s Assad. So, the bombing to downgrade the chemical situation was lawful and legitimate.

Now, whether we should do it or participate you can debate that all day long. But if we’re not going to send messages throughout the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable if we the United States are not going to do that. Who’s going to do it? So, then you’re going to have every tinhorn Decatur having chemical weapons because they’re not hard to develop. That’s what led to the Iraq war that everybody thought Saddam Hussein had this big cache of chemical and biological weapons, it’s turned out to be false by the way. And the intelligence agencies turned out to be wrong, I’ll see that. But now we have a number of attacks in Syria. A number of attacks on the ground the medical people say this baby died from chlorine ingestion. All right, the doctors aren’t lying, so it’s who’s putting the chlorine in? Who’s putting the chemical weapons in as nobody else has a delivery system to do it. It’s not like Syria is a place where you can just drive around with big trucks full of chemical weapons and dump them. You know the military controls Syria. So, if you know anything about this there isn’t any doubt that Assad is the villain and he’s protected by Putin in Russia and Iran.

So, he feels he can get away with it, see he would love, Assad would love to have America and Russia slug it out. Assad would love that so that’s one of the reasons that he continues to do this to try to get a bigger conflict going. Assad is a real evil guy. Now, you turn on the television and you hear the dishonest charlatans say oh this is “wag the dog”. That means the movie, Wag the Dog, where Dustin Hoffman was in. And it’s about a president who gets in trouble and then creates falsifies a military conflict, to get people’s minds off the trouble that he has.

So, immediately these charlatans go out on cable television, network television, “oh it’s Wag the Dog”. So, I’m saying to myself to believe that you would have to believe that Macron of France and May of Great Britain are colluding with Trump to save him from the Mueller investigation, they’re all in it together. The big, big drive to save Donald Trump’s butt. Who on earth would believe that? Who? It’s so moronic, so stupid, so insulting to anyone’s intelligence, yet there they are being paid millions of dollars sitting there by major corporations spouting this gibberish and I’m just sitting there going how much are people going to take? And you know what, there’s an audience for it, there’s an audience for, you would think that these people who are bereft of honesty who all day long, their agenda is to destroy people with whom they disagree including Donald Trump. You would think that people, everybody would say you know what enough I’m going to waste my time watching that. I’m not going to waste my time reading that newspaper. I know everything in that newspaper is already a foregone conclusion. The journalistic industry no longer is searching for the truth, they don’t care from the top down. A narrative is put forth to all the journalists who work in the company, and they know that their editors, producers whatever it may be, want to get Trump (awfulness from MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Stephanopoulos, and other countless outlets) or in some cases want to protect (awfulness from Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Fox & Friends, just to name a few) Trump, then rank and file know that. So, when they’re given an assignment, it’s implied, this is what we’re looking for.

So, the people reporting know what is expected of them if they want to keep their job and get good assignments. Same thing on cable TV, the pundits know what their role is, what they’re expected to say, if they don’t say it, they’re not going to be on. So, these people they go on television oh it’s Wag the Dog, So, there wasn’t anything necessary to do in Syria, it is just Trump wanted to do it to get away from the Mueller investigation and, and Macron and Theresa May, they’re helping the what kind of a moron. I mean really a 6-year-old wouldn’t say that, if they if you gave them the facts they would go, no that doesn’t really sound right, but these people are paid millions of dollars to spit this stuff out every night. It’s unbelievable, and they and people watch all right.

So, summing up the message was to the world you can’t use chemical weapons to kill anybody, much less women and children and if you do the major Western powers are going to hurt you. I don’t object to that message, I do not, even though I know the history of Iraq and how we got involved in something that we should not have gotten involved with based upon wrong information and whatever, I will see that but each situation has to be taken on its own merits.

Advertisements

If Congress Isn’t Going to Defund Planned Parenthood, Then We Have to Do This Instead

Pro-life conservatives have been frustrated with the ongoing failure to defund Planned Parenthood, and for good reason. America’s largest abortion provider markets itself as a defender of “women’s health,” but performs zero mammograms, willfully covers up statutory rapes, and has had to pay multimillion dollar settlements for Medicaid billing fraud.

All while ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn children for massive profits every year.

So when the latest omnibus spending bill passed with half a billion dollars of funding for Planned Parenthood intact, even with Republicans in control of the White House and both the House and the Senate, conservatives were enraged. And not just because omnibus bills happen because Congress is stupid.

Watching Republicans campaign as pro-life champions every election cycle and then continue to send half a billion freaking dollars — that’s five hundred million dollars, $500,000,000.00 — every year is extremely infuriating.

Now, I don’t believe that Congressional Republicans are secretly pro-choice and actually want to continue providing funding to abortion clinics. What’s far more likely is they are wary of the backlash from Democrats and the media, who would complain that those mean ol’ Republicans are heartlessly cutting medical care to poor women.

Fine. Here’s an easy solution.

Don’t defund the budget for Planned Parenthood. Transfer the money. 

Take all of the money we send to Planned Parenthood clinics, and instead, send the money to medical clinics that provide services to the poor.

Congress has proven they have little appetite for cutting spending, so fine, just take the money we are giving to these abortion clinics and instead, send it to other health clinics in the exact same towns. Dollar for dollar, take it from the abortion clinic and just send it down the street.

The communities will still have the exact same amount of federal funds coming their way, but the money will go much further since it will be going to actual health clinics, and not Planned Parenthood, with its lavish budgets for its political activity, lobbying, contributions to candidates, executives’ salaries and benefits, travel, and events — not to mention all those flashy advertisements, graphics, and videos all over their social media.

And let’s be very clear: there is an abundance of choices for where these funds could be sent.

Drafting the bill should be an open and bipartisan discussion. Members of Congress should take into consideration the clinics in their own districts that are providing excellent care to the needy in their communities. If the Democrats truly care about women’s health, they should participate in the debate and offer amendments with their suggestions.

Some ideas for qualifying for the funds could include accepting Medicaid patients, providing a certain percentage of services pro bono or at reduced costs, being in operation for a certain number of years to prove stability, providing comprehensive prenatal and gynecological health care, and so on.

A similar program was adopted in Texas in 2013. The state cut funding to abortion providers and created the “Healthy Texas Women” program, providing low-income women with birth control, family planning services, and other health care. A Daily Signal report called the program a success, with the state’s pregnancy rate remaining relatively stable and abortions dropping.

There was also a massive drop in Medicaid and contraceptive claims, which liberals attempted to frame as a negative, but a federal civil suit was brought against Planned Parenthood for Medicaid billing fraud from 2003 to 2009 and eventually settled for $4.3 million dollars. Plus, the enactment of Obamacare during this period meant that women with those policies were entitled to free contraception. In other words, when another government program provided contraception coverage and the fraud spigot was cut off, that made the number of claims go down, not women forgoing necessary medical care.

“The data belies the claim that Planned Parenthood was necessary to women’s health care in Texas,” said Casey Mattox, a senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom.

The Democrats say they care about women’s health care. The Republicans say they don’t want to send money to an abortion provider. Fine. This solution lets both parties do what they say they want to do. 

If we can’t get our Republican-controlled Congress to cut spending, let’s at least quit sending money to America’s largest abortion provider, and send it somewhere it can still help women.

The House Memo Reveals Disturbing Facts About the Misuse of FISA

Now we know why the FBI tried so hard to block release of the House Intelligence Committee memo. And why Democrats and the media want to change the subject to Republican motivations. The four-page memo released Friday reports disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath.

The White House declassified the memo Friday, and you don’t have to be a civil libertarian to be shocked by the details. The memo confirms that the FBI and Justice Department on Oct. 21, 2016 obtained a FISA order to surveil Carter Page, an American citizen who was a relatively minor volunteer adviser to the Trump presidential campaign.

The memo says an “essential” part of the FISA application was the “dossier” assembled by former British spy Christopher Steele and the research firm Fusion GPS that was hired by a law firm attached to the Clinton campaign. The memo adds that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December 2017 that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.

This is troubling enough, but the memo also discloses that the FBI failed to inform the FISA court that the Clinton campaign had funded the dossier. The memo says the FBI supported its FISA application by “extensively” citing a September 2016 article in Yahoo News that contained allegations against Mr. Page. But the FBI failed to tell the court that Mr. Steele and Fusion were the main sources for that Yahoo article. In essence the FBI was citing Mr. Steele to corroborate Mr. Steele.

Unlike a normal court, FISA doesn’t have competing pleaders. The FBI and Justice appear “ex parte” as applicants, and thus the judges depend on candor and truthfulness from both. Yet the FBI never informed the court that Mr. Steele was in effect working for the Clinton campaign. The FBI retained Mr. Steele as a source, and in October 2016 he talked to Mother Jones magazine without authorization about the FBI investigation and his dossier alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The FBI then fired Mr. Steele, but it never told the FISA judges about that either. Nor did it tell the court any of this as it sought three subsequent renewals of the order on Mr. Page.

We don’t know the political motives of the FBI and Justice officials, but the facts are damaging enough. The FBI in essence let itself and the FISA court be used to promote a major theme of the Clinton campaign. Mr. Steele and Fusion then leaked the fact of the investigation to friendly reporters to try to defeat Mr. Trump before the election. And afterward they continued to leak all this to the press to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s victory.

No matter its motives, the FBI became a tool of anti-Trump political actors. This is unacceptable in a democracy and ought to alarm anyone who wants the FBI to be a nonpartisan enforcer of the law.

We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.

Democrats are howling that the memo, produced by Republican staff, is misleading and leaves out essential details. They are producing their own summary of the evidence, and by all means let’s see that too. President Trump should declassify it promptly, along with Senator Chuck Grassley’s referral for criminal investigation of Mr. Steele. But note that Democrats aren’t challenging the core facts that the FBI used the dossier to gain a FISA order or the bureau’s lack of disclosure to the FISA judges.

The details of Friday’s memo also rebut most of the criticisms of its release. The details betray no intelligence sources and methods. As to the claim that the release tarnishes the FBI and FISA court, exposing abuses is the essence of accountability in a democracy.

Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is doing a service by forcing these facts into the public domain where the American people can examine them, hold people accountable, and then Congress can determine how to prevent them in the future. The U.S. has weathered institutional crises before—Iran-Contra, the 9/11 intelligence failure, even Senator Dianne Feinstein’s campaign against the CIA and enhanced interrogation.

The other political misdirection is that the memo is designed to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible Trump collusion with Russia. I doubt Mr. Mueller will be deterred by any of this. The question of FISA abuse is independent of Mr. Mueller’s work, and one that Congress takes up amid a larger debate about surveillance and national security. Mr. Trump would do well to knock off the tweets lambasting the Mueller probe, and let House and Senate Republicans focus public attention on these FISA abuses.

If all of this is damaging to the reputation of the FBI and Justice Department, then that damage is self-inflicted. I recognize the need for the FBI to sometimes spy on Americans to keep the country safe, but this is a power that should never be abused. Its apparent misuse during the presidential campaign needs to be fully investigated.

Toward that end, the public should see more of the documents that are behind the competing intelligence memos to judge who is telling the truth. President Trump and the White House should consider the remedy of radical transparency.

Robert Mueller and His Credibility Problem

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces my doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

Mr. Mueller’s media brigade argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive.

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.

Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports my view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

In Response To Mounting Criticism, President Trump Comes Out As Gay (Satire)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In what is being perceived as a possible attempt to deflect months of declining poll results and mounting criticism over his policies, inappropriate behavior, and investigations into possible corruption in his presidential campaign, President Trump came out as gay Monday morning.

“I owe you all the sincerest apology for my deeply inappropriate, deranged behavior, and I am sorry for the sense of dread you have all been forced to live with these past ten months,” President Trump said during a solemn video address as he choked back tears.

“I choose now to live as a gay man,” he announced, causing the camera crew to break out in applause.

Immediately after the announcement, Trump’s poll numbers skyrocketed, with unprecedented support for his policies erupting throughout the nation and media as the news broke. Trump’s all-time low approval rating of 38% almost instantaneously exploded to 97%, while the vast majority of his outspoken critics on the left voiced their support for his courage and bravery.

Furthermore, the shrewd political move of coming out as gay ended federal investigations into Russian influence on the 2016 election, with FBI special investigator Robert Mueller apologizing for ever looking into the matter.


Disclaimer: The above story is satire. It is completely fictitious.

Yep, It’s Definitely Donald Trump Who’s the Tyrant Here

Hitler. Mussolini. Stalin. Pol Pot. al-Assad. Hussein. Gaddafi. Franco. Kim Jong Il. Each one is considered a dictator, a tyrant who’s greed for power is only surpassed by their cruelty and inhumanity.

If you were to wade into the depths of #TheResistance on social media (which I don’t recommend), you’d also see a movement to brand Donald Trump a dictator and his administration a lawless tyranny over the nation.  To be sure, the Trump administration has done itself no favors is coming across as inept, overly ambitious and yet clearly out of its depth. They have said things that, yes, are frightening.

But let us be absolutely honest here. When it comes to tyranny in America, there is no tyranny except for that of the mob.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse. The instant communication of thoughts to the world allows for breaking news to break faster and hard-hitting news to hit harder. The downside is that it opens you and everyone you know and love up for ridicule, petition, and even expulsion from society.

Case in point, the lad from Google who wrote what is being called a “manifesto” opposing Google’s diversity policy. It seems that, virtually instantly, this person was the target of a mob whose sole purpose was to flush him out of The Collective.

It worked, too. Google fired the man (interestingly, a new social media platform called “Gab”, which touts itself as an ad-free, free speech platform, offered to hire him), and the Left was delighted that the wrongspeak was punished.

This is not the first time, however, that someone’s livelihood was destroyed over thinking or believing the “wrong” thing. We’ve covered countless times the bakers, photographers, and other business people whose lives were ruined and their businesses shuttered because they dared to not conform with the Left’s ideology.

“But Mr. Reagan Conservative,” some on the Left might cry, “this isn’t tyranny because mobs aren’t the government.” If you think that, you are wrong. It is with the help of the courts that these attacks on private businesses have flourished. It is the politicians who speak out and encourage this behavior that ruins the lives of people whose only crime is thoughtcrime.

For another example, take Chelsea Handler, the so-called comedienne who actually suggested we criminalize speech.

Where, exactly, does this type of legislation begin and where does it end? By the Left’s standards, virtually everything is racist, so that means if you laugh at something someone else deems is racist, you’re going to (at best) be fined. This is an actual proposal from someone who thinks there is no problem with criminalizing what someone finds funny. There is no end to this slippery slope, either.

Or take the case of Dana Loesch, who is under attack from journalists and Leftists because she appeared in an NRA video ad and says she wants to fact-check the media. The number of people who want to silence her by reporting her to the feds, threatening her husband and her children, and making graphic, sexual threats to and about her is appalling.

But this is the new norm. This is the world we live in now. We have to deal with the tyranny of the mob before we can move on to the tyranny of any White House occupant.

So, forgive me when someone calls Donald Trump a fascist dictator with one breath and turns around to advocate banning speech because they don’t like it.

 

Man Who Identifies as 6-year-old Dominates CrossFit Kids Class (Satire)

Local CrossFit enthusiast Anthony Neff walked out of his local CrossFit affiliate with a smile on his face after his 4pm class on Tuesday. He had just dominated another workout, not only setting a personal record in the snatch, but besting the next strongest athlete in the class by over 185 pounds.

Neff, who works as a sales associate at Target, was born in 1983 but is currently transitioning to a birth year of 2011. He is the first transaged individual to participate in his gym’s CrossFit Kids program.

“I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for everyone who has been supporting my transition,” Neff told The Associated Press as he boosted a fellow athlete up to the gym’s water fountain to help him take a drink. “Science has come a long way in recognizing that age isn’t just a matter of how old you are. ”

Neff began to publicly identify as a six-year-old three years ago, but didn’t tell his wife Angela until months later.

“Anthony has always been a little immature, but I thought he would grow out of it,” She explained. But over time, Angela noticed her husband playing with toy trucks instead of going to work, watching hours of Octonauts, and laughing at the words like ‘poop’ and ‘booger.’

“This is who he is, and celebrating that is more important than pressing him to conform to reality.”

The change hasn’t been easy, but Neff says he’s been treated “well and kind” at his affiliate. “The coaches are all very supportive,” he said. His treatment has included increased growth hormones to match the levels found in the bodies of growing children.

“If he has been taking hormones, or steroids, he should be training and competing against actual children,” said Melissa Jones, mother of one of the other children in Neff’s CrossFit Kids class.

Jones is not alone in her concerns, but Neff’s coach, Travis Miller disagrees.

“I asked him if he thought the growth hormones were giving him an unfair advantage against the other children in the class,” Miller told the Associated Press. “He looked right at me and said he ‘didn’t identify’ as someone who was taking growth hormones. What kind of hateful bigot would question that logic?”

At time of press, Neff was consuming a bowl of Fruit Loops and looking forward to a CrossFit Kids session consisting of front-squats and a game of burpee dodgeball.

“All I know is when I get the ball everybody on the other side better watch out.”