Meaning that they are leaking stuff that they are finding in the files. Stuff that has nothing to do with Russia. But the raid itself had nothing to do with Russia.
In other words, this was a political raid to help Democrats in the upcoming election.
What a bunch of creeps.
Another thing that I hoped for was that Trump's lawyer would have anticipated the raid. If this was the case, the early indications are that this raid was not expected.
Not good.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Friday, April 13, 2018
Obligatory, 4.13.18
Friday the thirteenth. Do you have tris a dick a phobia? Sorry, but I don't know how to spell it, and I won't look it up. Sue me for a refund of your subscription price.
It's weird today. I thought I might have something to write about, but it vanished into the nether.
Maybe it is my unlucky day????
Changing the subject a bit... GOP voters may be turning against Bob Mueller. Well, duh! I should hope so. But who knows. The school system is so bad in this country, we may need twenty years of remedial reading so that people can learn basic civics that our school system doesn't seem to teach anymore. If you ask anybody today if civics is taught, you might get the question: "what's that"?
One last thing... The number one thing that our system of "education" teaches nowadays is how to be a mucking foron.
Now what I mean, Vern?
Who's Vern? Bwah, hah, hah!
It's weird today. I thought I might have something to write about, but it vanished into the nether.
Maybe it is my unlucky day????
Changing the subject a bit... GOP voters may be turning against Bob Mueller. Well, duh! I should hope so. But who knows. The school system is so bad in this country, we may need twenty years of remedial reading so that people can learn basic civics that our school system doesn't seem to teach anymore. If you ask anybody today if civics is taught, you might get the question: "what's that"?
One last thing... The number one thing that our system of "education" teaches nowadays is how to be a mucking foron.
Now what I mean, Vern?
Who's Vern? Bwah, hah, hah!
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Bill of Attainder
Someone asks ( in the comment section of this post ) if the proposed bill to protect Mueller's job is not a Bill of Attainder. Such a bill would be unconstitutional, which is generally the pattern of the Mueller gambit.
It is also wrong in a number of other ways, you know. Like the one in which somebody accused has a right to an attorney (http://time.com/5237454/donald-trump-relied-on-michael-cohen-to-weather-the-storm/ ) Cut and past the link, I won't make it easy for anybody. The left is bragging now that Trump doesn't have an attorney. ( woof! )
You have to click the links to understand this post. Not going to spoon feed anybody anymore. Either you are motivated enough to understand, or you are not.
It is also wrong in a number of other ways, you know. Like the one in which somebody accused has a right to an attorney (http://time.com/5237454/donald-trump-relied-on-michael-cohen-to-weather-the-storm/ ) Cut and past the link, I won't make it easy for anybody. The left is bragging now that Trump doesn't have an attorney. ( woof! )
You have to click the links to understand this post. Not going to spoon feed anybody anymore. Either you are motivated enough to understand, or you are not.
The Hero We Don't Deserve
This is a very long video by my standards, so I may not watch it. As of this writing, I may not post it either. If I change my mind, then I will post it.
I will wait awhile and think about it.
... a day later...
Okay, I checked it out. It will be posted.
Anyone who watches this will have to conclude that Trump is not the bad guy here. The people after him are the bad guys. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
The attempt to save Mueller by Congressional Act is unconstitutional
This refers to the proposed law that aims to prevent Trump from firing the Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
If the law passes, it should be overruled as unconstitutional because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court opinion Myers v. United States. This opinion declared that the Tenure of Office Act, which was used to impeach President Andrew Johnson, was invalid.
The proposed law's passage invites scrutiny that will likely cause it to be voided as well.
Does Lindsey Graham ever bother to read history?
Now, to further comment: If the law passes the Senate, it may be interesting to see if it can pass with enough votes to override a veto. Same for the House. It is hard to imagine that Trump would sign it into law.
Why would they introduce a law that has little chance of success, either on a vote, or a challenge before the courts? Are they testing their political strength? My guess is that they will be embarrassed by the outcome.
If the law passes, it should be overruled as unconstitutional because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court opinion Myers v. United States. This opinion declared that the Tenure of Office Act, which was used to impeach President Andrew Johnson, was invalid.
The proposed law's passage invites scrutiny that will likely cause it to be voided as well.
Does Lindsey Graham ever bother to read history?
Now, to further comment: If the law passes the Senate, it may be interesting to see if it can pass with enough votes to override a veto. Same for the House. It is hard to imagine that Trump would sign it into law.
Why would they introduce a law that has little chance of success, either on a vote, or a challenge before the courts? Are they testing their political strength? My guess is that they will be embarrassed by the outcome.
Erik Erikson: Never Trumper in Trump land
Erikson claims to be a Republican. He probably claims to be a conservative. However, how can he say this if he quotes this from a GOP House member, who is blaming his expected defeat upon Trump?
The link is from Gateway pundit, btw.
My recollection is that during 2016, these same bozos were claiming that Hillary would win 40 states, and that they would lose both houses of Congress. Neither of these outcomes resulted.
Instead, the worse thing happened for these people, who never wanted Trump in the first place. They are happy to lose if that means they can stay in the minority, kiss up to the left, and pretend they oppose the Dems. That's why this clown, who pretends to be a Republican, talks like a Democrat, and may as well be one.
He is losing because everybody can see he is lying sack of shit. Even the liberals hate his sorry ass, because he is a "coward".
Better for us to lose these jerks because we're better off without them. Fire Mueller's ass! Do the right thing and face the consequences, dammit.
Incidentally, the best way to keep his seat would be to defend Trump. They don't want to win.
The link is from Gateway pundit, btw.
My recollection is that during 2016, these same bozos were claiming that Hillary would win 40 states, and that they would lose both houses of Congress. Neither of these outcomes resulted.
Instead, the worse thing happened for these people, who never wanted Trump in the first place. They are happy to lose if that means they can stay in the minority, kiss up to the left, and pretend they oppose the Dems. That's why this clown, who pretends to be a Republican, talks like a Democrat, and may as well be one.
He is losing because everybody can see he is lying sack of shit. Even the liberals hate his sorry ass, because he is a "coward".
Better for us to lose these jerks because we're better off without them. Fire Mueller's ass! Do the right thing and face the consequences, dammit.
Incidentally, the best way to keep his seat would be to defend Trump. They don't want to win.
This is so wrong
Here's someone arguing for the peaceful breakup of the USA. This is bad, and to show why, you always need to question the basic premises of any argument. The basic premise here is the one of "peace". If you break up the country, you will lose a lot of your military power. With that comes the likelihood of being invaded from countries that will no longer be overawed by the immensity of this country. Therefore, even if the breakup is peaceful, the long term outlook for peace is much diminished.
That is not all. If you think you've got border problems now, you haven't seen anything yet. Just look at the guy's proposed map. These borders cannot be defended. A defensible border includes one with natural boundaries which can be defended. These borders are wide open. If one country or another get on bad terms, wars will be fought over these territories.
Actually, the current border of the US is quite secure, thank you very much. With the Rio Grande forming much of the border with Mexico, you stand a much better chance of securing that than with the one he proposes. What we lack today is the will to enforce ANY border.
What could really happen here is that his breakup wouldn't last. The real problem is that the left wing is concentrated in the big cities. These city states would be even more vulnerable than his map implies. Consequently, the only way they can hold their oppressed conservative minorities into check is to stop being what they are--- which is pacifist.
This may seem to contradict what the left projects, which seems violent. But the left isn't violent. They cannot become militarily adventurous unless they change their very natures. Their hatred of the so-called right is real, but that doesn't translate into military effectiveness. In other words, if the country splits up, the red zones in the Blue Country will secede, and want to join the Red Country. How does the new Blue Country enforce its new borders? It can't without changing its nature. It would have to change its very reason for existence. ( Another premise squashed. )
We have problems, no doubt. But this is a really bad idea.
That is not all. If you think you've got border problems now, you haven't seen anything yet. Just look at the guy's proposed map. These borders cannot be defended. A defensible border includes one with natural boundaries which can be defended. These borders are wide open. If one country or another get on bad terms, wars will be fought over these territories.
Actually, the current border of the US is quite secure, thank you very much. With the Rio Grande forming much of the border with Mexico, you stand a much better chance of securing that than with the one he proposes. What we lack today is the will to enforce ANY border.
What could really happen here is that his breakup wouldn't last. The real problem is that the left wing is concentrated in the big cities. These city states would be even more vulnerable than his map implies. Consequently, the only way they can hold their oppressed conservative minorities into check is to stop being what they are--- which is pacifist.
This may seem to contradict what the left projects, which seems violent. But the left isn't violent. They cannot become militarily adventurous unless they change their very natures. Their hatred of the so-called right is real, but that doesn't translate into military effectiveness. In other words, if the country splits up, the red zones in the Blue Country will secede, and want to join the Red Country. How does the new Blue Country enforce its new borders? It can't without changing its nature. It would have to change its very reason for existence. ( Another premise squashed. )
We have problems, no doubt. But this is a really bad idea.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
How did we get to this point?
It almost seems like the Rubicon has been crossed. But wait, the Rubicon was crossed during the Bush Administration, if not sooner.
That is to say, the appointment of Mueller was illegal, and thus insurrectionary. It is an abuse of power that disregards the rule of law. This is in favor of the rule of men--- in particular, leftists. The supposed opposition party does nothing to stop it, so it becomes the new law, even though that law is not on the books anywhere.
There is supposed to be a crime before a Special Counsel is appointed. No crime has been named as of yet, but there have been plenty of scalps taken. How can this be? If there is no crime, there so be no foul. But there it is--the scalps have been taken, and there are more to come. It happened during the Bush 43 administration, when Scooter Libbey was charged with a process crime. The fact that there was no underlying crime didn't stop the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, Bush did nothing to stop it. Was that the crossing of the Rubicon, or was this one?
The failure to stop it is what allowed it this time. Now the precedent has been established, and will now become standard practice unless it is stopped. But nobody is moving, so it appears that there will have to be a reaction elsewhere, because it won't happen in DC.
Trump was supposed to fight this kind of thing, but he is trying to make nice with it. Either he is getting bad advice, or he never intended to do anything about this at all.
In order to set things right, a confrontation must take place. Otherwise, the Republic is dead. Trump promised to restore the rule of law, or so it seemed.
After the Republic is overthrown, everybody will pretend that it still exists. But if the law exists only for the benefit of one faction, then it doesn't exist for anybody. How then can there still be a rule of law in a Republic? It cannot be so, therefore, the Republic no longer exists.
As in Rome, the Republic ended when the Rubicon was crossed. Will nobody learn from history?
That is to say, the appointment of Mueller was illegal, and thus insurrectionary. It is an abuse of power that disregards the rule of law. This is in favor of the rule of men--- in particular, leftists. The supposed opposition party does nothing to stop it, so it becomes the new law, even though that law is not on the books anywhere.
There is supposed to be a crime before a Special Counsel is appointed. No crime has been named as of yet, but there have been plenty of scalps taken. How can this be? If there is no crime, there so be no foul. But there it is--the scalps have been taken, and there are more to come. It happened during the Bush 43 administration, when Scooter Libbey was charged with a process crime. The fact that there was no underlying crime didn't stop the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, Bush did nothing to stop it. Was that the crossing of the Rubicon, or was this one?
The failure to stop it is what allowed it this time. Now the precedent has been established, and will now become standard practice unless it is stopped. But nobody is moving, so it appears that there will have to be a reaction elsewhere, because it won't happen in DC.
Trump was supposed to fight this kind of thing, but he is trying to make nice with it. Either he is getting bad advice, or he never intended to do anything about this at all.
In order to set things right, a confrontation must take place. Otherwise, the Republic is dead. Trump promised to restore the rule of law, or so it seemed.
After the Republic is overthrown, everybody will pretend that it still exists. But if the law exists only for the benefit of one faction, then it doesn't exist for anybody. How then can there still be a rule of law in a Republic? It cannot be so, therefore, the Republic no longer exists.
As in Rome, the Republic ended when the Rubicon was crossed. Will nobody learn from history?
No shur , shirtlock
Powerline attorney says Trump and his administration should assert themselves and their authority.
Uh-huh. Maybe better late than never, but it really could be too late now. If the illegal raid on Cohen office and home finds something, it will be political in nature. That has been the point all along. Trump should have fired Mueller and Rosenstein immediately after Rosenstein hired Mueller.
The reasons Trump gave for the toleration of this "witch hunt" sounded naïve to me. Unless he is much more wily than that seemed to me, Trump is going to receive the Chicago treatment. It just may work, and if it does, Trump won't survive.
Uh-huh. Maybe better late than never, but it really could be too late now. If the illegal raid on Cohen office and home finds something, it will be political in nature. That has been the point all along. Trump should have fired Mueller and Rosenstein immediately after Rosenstein hired Mueller.
The reasons Trump gave for the toleration of this "witch hunt" sounded naïve to me. Unless he is much more wily than that seemed to me, Trump is going to receive the Chicago treatment. It just may work, and if it does, Trump won't survive.
The FBI Escalates Its War on the Trump Administration https://t.co/5v98H1BPId via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 10, 2018
Monday, April 9, 2018
The children of Satan
Does a wild bear crap in the woods?
The evidence is plain to see. The left will not allow the truth to be told, nor will they search for truth, nor will they hear it, nor will they ever pursue it.
The left is only interested in self-aggrandizement.
Knife-control? Are you kidding me? Raiding the office of Trump's lawyer, when there is no crime? This is Orwellian. But to liberals, it is normal. Crazy is the new normal, sanity is now crazy. Only in a twisted mind is such a thing possible.
Crazy or evil, neither one is good. But the crazy ones may be possessed, so what's the diff?
The evidence is plain to see. The left will not allow the truth to be told, nor will they search for truth, nor will they hear it, nor will they ever pursue it.
The left is only interested in self-aggrandizement.
Knife-control? Are you kidding me? Raiding the office of Trump's lawyer, when there is no crime? This is Orwellian. But to liberals, it is normal. Crazy is the new normal, sanity is now crazy. Only in a twisted mind is such a thing possible.
Crazy or evil, neither one is good. But the crazy ones may be possessed, so what's the diff?
Is Progressivism Satanic? https://t.co/NLS1kkm2NO— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 9, 2018
Knife control means white control
Seems like the Muslim mayor of London wants to ban knives. This is reaction to the latest news that knife attacks are making London more unsafe than New York.
But who does the knife attacks? The white folks in London, or the Muslims? Bet you will never get an answer for that, and even asking the question will get you accused of racism.
Just goes to show you that the truth is not respected. The left wins in darkness. Let the lights shine brightly, then.
Once everybody is completely disarmed, their conversion to Islam will be forced upon them at the point of a knife. For they will never go after the real perpetrators, and the knives will still be out there. If it isn't a knife, it will be something else. Just like if it isn't a gun, then it will be a knife. Killers gotta kill.
That is why we keep our weapons, including knives!
Leftism delenda est!
But who does the knife attacks? The white folks in London, or the Muslims? Bet you will never get an answer for that, and even asking the question will get you accused of racism.
Just goes to show you that the truth is not respected. The left wins in darkness. Let the lights shine brightly, then.
Once everybody is completely disarmed, their conversion to Islam will be forced upon them at the point of a knife. For they will never go after the real perpetrators, and the knives will still be out there. If it isn't a knife, it will be something else. Just like if it isn't a gun, then it will be a knife. Killers gotta kill.
That is why we keep our weapons, including knives!
Leftism delenda est!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)