It seems like the name is popping up lately. Just a week ago, it was being discussed around here.
Well, it does appear to be a derivative of cannibis. Yup, mary jane kinda thing.
It has gone mainstream. Does that mean that it is safe? Just to be sure, I'd wait before using it.
As for opioids, I've used them myself as prescription drugs. That was for pain relief due to my chordoma. I tell you what. From what I hear, the reaction to this is way the hell over the top. Shoot, they told me at the hospital, that the injection I was getting, when I was getting the MRI, was 7 times more powerful than morphine. But it didn't make much difference in controlling the pain, I assure you. It took a couple weeks out of the hospital for the pain to get under control. If you are in a lot of pain, you need something. But it needs to be controlled by competent medical people.
This CBD thing is an unknown quantity. So, I looked it up. One look at cannibis, and I'm getting leery.
Who knows, you may have been clear of drugs your entire life, only to get sucked into it by something like this. People get caught up in fads. Maybe that is what this is.
Be careful out there.
Saturday, May 4, 2019
Hillary says let the Chinese get Trump's tax returns
Hello?????
It seems that Trump saying something similar with respect to Russia was evidence of "collusion". So, what exactly does this mean?
Odd thing for Hillary to say. Maybe she's losing it. That assumes she didn't lose it a long time ago.
It seems that Trump saying something similar with respect to Russia was evidence of "collusion". So, what exactly does this mean?
Odd thing for Hillary to say. Maybe she's losing it. That assumes she didn't lose it a long time ago.
Friday, May 3, 2019
Snowden and NSA
Just a quick observation that the NSA is now mixed up in two significant scandals, which both belong exclusively to the Obama Administration.
To wit, the Snowden Affair and now the abuses of the NSA 702 about queries in the run up to the 2016 election.
Both are proven facts.
But both seem to get swept under the rug. Maybe that will change.
To wit, the Snowden Affair and now the abuses of the NSA 702 about queries in the run up to the 2016 election.
Both are proven facts.
But both seem to get swept under the rug. Maybe that will change.
Too pooped to pop
Collyfornia's economy is all pooped out.
Contacted on the Poop Deck of the failing ship of state, the governor blamed it on a lack of good help these days. Nobody wants to come in and do the cleaning anymore. Americans won't do that kind of work, but neither will the undocumented undocumented.
The guv blamed Trump, and told him he needs to get his shirt together. But the President replied on Twitter that Collyfornia has no shortage of that commodity. They are full of that, he tweeted.
However, the illegal weed business is doing well. Nobody knows what the world is coming to, but in their state, as they say, it always falls down.
Contacted on the Poop Deck of the failing ship of state, the governor blamed it on a lack of good help these days. Nobody wants to come in and do the cleaning anymore. Americans won't do that kind of work, but neither will the undocumented undocumented.
The guv blamed Trump, and told him he needs to get his shirt together. But the President replied on Twitter that Collyfornia has no shortage of that commodity. They are full of that, he tweeted.
However, the illegal weed business is doing well. Nobody knows what the world is coming to, but in their state, as they say, it always falls down.
Seinfield politics: It's about nothing
Comment:
Cruz points out that the Dems are complaining about a 19 page summary that Mueller wanted included in Barr's original report that wasn't released at that time, but a couple weeks later. Barr released the entire report, which included the 19 page summary. Nothing has been withheld.
A whole lotta nothin'.
Cruz points out that the Dems are complaining about a 19 page summary that Mueller wanted included in Barr's original report that wasn't released at that time, but a couple weeks later. Barr released the entire report, which included the 19 page summary. Nothing has been withheld.
A whole lotta nothin'.
AG BARR BUSTS OUT LAUGHING After Ted Cruz Hilariously Exposes Democrat Senators “Exceptionally Weak Argument" https://t.co/dy44lPCGOc via @100percFEDUP— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 3, 2019
Empty threats
The threat that Congress can jail Barr, because he didn't show for testimony, appears to be an empty threat. If not an empty threat, it would be unprecedented, according to this link.
Yet, this House may try it. They want the drama for political purposes. Not to mention that Barr has his own threats, and they are feeling the heat themselves.
From the Constitutional perspective, members of Congress are exempt from arrest, except for felony, treason, or breach of peace. In a confrontation, it would be hard for Congress to enforce its will this way, but it would be bad optics to start jailing people. That would be especially be true for cabinet officials, such as Barr.
The one expedient that they have is impeachment, but the Senate would have to try the case and convict.
Barr is not likely to removed from office for not complying with an unreasonable subpoena.
Yet, this House may try it. They want the drama for political purposes. Not to mention that Barr has his own threats, and they are feeling the heat themselves.
From the Constitutional perspective, members of Congress are exempt from arrest, except for felony, treason, or breach of peace. In a confrontation, it would be hard for Congress to enforce its will this way, but it would be bad optics to start jailing people. That would be especially be true for cabinet officials, such as Barr.
The one expedient that they have is impeachment, but the Senate would have to try the case and convict.
Barr is not likely to removed from office for not complying with an unreasonable subpoena.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
How Trump could say he was cleared 100%
Updated,
2:00 pm:
This supports the notion that Mueller wanted an open-ended investigation for obstruction on the basis of what might have happened in the future. According to Barr, Mueller said he wouldn't have prosecuted Trump as a private citizen. There's literally no "there", there.
10:30 am:
Trump knew what he was talking about.
Mueller's legal theories would have him continuing his investigation indefinitely based upon "potential" proceedings that hadn't even taken place yet. This is tantamount admission from Mueller and Co.. that Trump didn't obstruct, but that they were hoping that he would, and therefore must be allowed to watch him forever.
This turns the Constitution upside down. Anyway, that is my take on this. Always has been. Looks like Barr took that path, according to this article, and now Mueller is finished.
2:00 pm:
This supports the notion that Mueller wanted an open-ended investigation for obstruction on the basis of what might have happened in the future. According to Barr, Mueller said he wouldn't have prosecuted Trump as a private citizen. There's literally no "there", there.
Barr Bombshell: Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President https://t.co/idlTr68Fdd— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 2, 2019
10:30 am:
Trump knew what he was talking about.
Mueller's legal theories would have him continuing his investigation indefinitely based upon "potential" proceedings that hadn't even taken place yet. This is tantamount admission from Mueller and Co.. that Trump didn't obstruct, but that they were hoping that he would, and therefore must be allowed to watch him forever.
This turns the Constitution upside down. Anyway, that is my take on this. Always has been. Looks like Barr took that path, according to this article, and now Mueller is finished.
Checkmate. - Human Events https://t.co/b9ALUxvPQi— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 2, 2019
Alleged spying? Nope. Admitted to, and on video.
Remember this lady? Evelyn Farkas? Actually, I looked around for this cuz I didn't remember this lady completely, just a little, and when she said what she did. Now I got it. Blog on!
To refresh one's memories, this Evelyn Farkas.
What I strongly suspect what Farkas is talking about, is all those unmaskings of US person from those illegal FISA 702 about queries that Admiral Rogers stopped. Yeah, that Evelyn Farkas. This caused some stir at the time, but I don't think I blogged about it. Well, time to correct that now.
Here's what Mark Levin had to say about it at the time. A "smoking gun", he says. Also, he said it was swept under the rug. This video is made early in the Trump administration before Mueller was hired. Two years later, and it might as well be down the memory hole. People are acting as if the whole thing didn't happen even though it did.
Evidently, Farkas is a big blabbermouth. In this Hannity video, the discussion of Farkas continues. She tries to walk it all back, but then she mentions Flynn. She claims to know nothing, but then she mentions Flynn. The leaking of Flynn's identity would be a crime. Obviously, she knows something, and she says people are leaking, and she seems to know. Somebody is breaking the law, it should be obvious from her own words. Note: This video was made before Flynn was charged. It was made before Mueller was hired.
Incredibly, she blames fake news and Russians for her own disclosures. She seems to be a liar as well.
All this took place on Sessions watch, while he recused himself, he should have been convening a grand jury, says Hannity. Maybe we will get one now.
To refresh one's memories, this Evelyn Farkas.
What I strongly suspect what Farkas is talking about, is all those unmaskings of US person from those illegal FISA 702 about queries that Admiral Rogers stopped. Yeah, that Evelyn Farkas. This caused some stir at the time, but I don't think I blogged about it. Well, time to correct that now.
Here's what Mark Levin had to say about it at the time. A "smoking gun", he says. Also, he said it was swept under the rug. This video is made early in the Trump administration before Mueller was hired. Two years later, and it might as well be down the memory hole. People are acting as if the whole thing didn't happen even though it did.
Evidently, Farkas is a big blabbermouth. In this Hannity video, the discussion of Farkas continues. She tries to walk it all back, but then she mentions Flynn. She claims to know nothing, but then she mentions Flynn. The leaking of Flynn's identity would be a crime. Obviously, she knows something, and she says people are leaking, and she seems to know. Somebody is breaking the law, it should be obvious from her own words. Note: This video was made before Flynn was charged. It was made before Mueller was hired.
Incredibly, she blames fake news and Russians for her own disclosures. She seems to be a liar as well.
All this took place on Sessions watch, while he recused himself, he should have been convening a grand jury, says Hannity. Maybe we will get one now.
Don Surber: Lawyer up, Jim Comey
Updated,
5.2.19:
Lots of the quotes in the original post are to be found in this video snippet. Of course, this is going down the rabbit hole, so to speak. Anybody who watches Fox News already knows this, or should know. Obviously, I don't watch much TeeVee.
What he is saying here checks out. That's the whole point.
5.1.19, 9:50 am:
Don Surber: Lawyer up, Jim Comey: I do not know much about federal judges. I do know that they have enormous power. I also know that they do not like to be lied to. Jimmy t...
Quotes:
5.2.19:
Lots of the quotes in the original post are to be found in this video snippet. Of course, this is going down the rabbit hole, so to speak. Anybody who watches Fox News already knows this, or should know. Obviously, I don't watch much TeeVee.
What he is saying here checks out. That's the whole point.
5.1.19, 9:50 am:
Don Surber: Lawyer up, Jim Comey: I do not know much about federal judges. I do know that they have enormous power. I also know that they do not like to be lied to. Jimmy t...
Quotes:
- ....Comey may have lied to Judge Rosemary Mayers Collyer, a senior judge on the D.C. Circuit who just happens to be the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which just happens to issue those FISA warrants to spy on American citizens. [comment: mentioned yesterday on this blog. it is those abuses of the NSA 702's that Admiral Rogers stopped.]
- But diGenova also said, "There’s another report that everybody has forgotten about that involves James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks
- "The FISA Court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power. The Chief Judge of that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the [Obama] Justice Department — [former Deputy Attorney General] Sally Yates, John Carlin, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, all knew about it and lied to the court, the FISA Court, about it."[ comment: Then they had better lawyer up too.]
- The FISA Court has already told the Justice department who lied to that court and that has been given to Bill Barr already.[ ... yep, more of them in the crosshairs so to speak ]
- The U.S. attorney working with the Department of Justice's inspector general will soon issue his report. Barr is investigating. And that FISA court report is coming sometime this month.
"Mr. Integrity" may the canary in the coal mine. If he falls, the whole thing can come crashing down.
4:00 pm:
Who is Rosemary Mayers Collyer? A few quick facts:
4:00 pm:
Who is Rosemary Mayers Collyer? A few quick facts:
- Senior District Judge of US District Court for District of DC
- Appointed by POTUS George W. Bush in 2002.
- Presiding Judge of the FISA court, appointed by Chief Justice Roberts
- Approved one of the warrants issued for wiretapping of Carter Page.
If these intercepts are related in any way to Carter Page, and she said that the FBI broke the law and several Obama Administration officials were lying about it to the court, then it could be a big deal.
They may skate on this, but they won't be cleared of anything. They have already been caught. You just don't seem to hear about that.
Which makes me wonder why Sally Yates would have any credibility to be going on television talking about Trump. Actually, I didn't know that she had already been called out by the judge, and for all I know, could be under investigation. Does that mean that Andrea Mitchell doesn't know this?
Come on!
Once you get past the phony tinsel...
....you get to the real tinsel.
The word "bombshell" is much overused word. But this is worth a read anyway.
Quote:
An interesting link, from a comment about this tweet, was posted on Free Republic. In fact, it is worthy of a tweet embed:
The word "bombshell" is much overused word. But this is worth a read anyway.
Quote:
In the next several weeks, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to issue his summation of the potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by top officials in the Obama Administration and holdovers in the early Trump Administration who were overseeing the investigation of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.[comment: not potential, but actual abuse. It has already been investigated by another IG report, for heavens sake.]
REPORT: The Real Russia Hoax ‘Bombshells’ Are About to Hit Their Targets... - https://t.co/hcssAAIT4m https://t.co/PkvUVXIUh4 via @realdcwhispers— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 2, 2019
An interesting link, from a comment about this tweet, was posted on Free Republic. In fact, it is worthy of a tweet embed:
Since this i suspect publishing this thread was one of the driving reasons Ramses Goat was suspended I think I will not allow the censorship and silencing to stand. I stand by my work, and this is ACCURATE. Other peoples' panic be damned. W/o further preamble..— RamsesGoatII (@goat_ramses) May 1, 2019
How deep down the rabbit hole can we go?
I've discussed the red pill/blue pill Matrix analogy so many times, that to do so again would only be ad nauseum repetitiveness.
But there's nothing to bring home the reality of this more than to have the revelation that I really haven't gotten very deep down into the rabbit hole myself.
Fer instance, I didn't know much about the FISA 702 abuses, and so I have been reading Judge Rosemary Collyer's findings on that. Even though I have been reading CTH's discussions on the topic, evidently I have been nodding off as he went down into the rabbit hole.
Well, anyway, I went back and dug a bit deeper and confirmed CTH's words on this. Essentially, we already have proof of Obama's political spying, but even I had not gotten that deep down into the rabbit hole.
Does anybody reading this grasp the significance of knowing, and still not knowing the truth? Seeing it, and still not seeing it?
"We the People" are not even close to getting to the bottom of this rabbit hole, and those who are deeper aren't getting the message out well enough to bring the rest of us along.
Something has to change, or we will be back to business as usual within a short time. The "matrix" will win unless we get a lot more focused and determined. It is one distraction after another. The distractions are a type of lying in order to direct your eyes away from the truth.
But there's nothing to bring home the reality of this more than to have the revelation that I really haven't gotten very deep down into the rabbit hole myself.
Fer instance, I didn't know much about the FISA 702 abuses, and so I have been reading Judge Rosemary Collyer's findings on that. Even though I have been reading CTH's discussions on the topic, evidently I have been nodding off as he went down into the rabbit hole.
Well, anyway, I went back and dug a bit deeper and confirmed CTH's words on this. Essentially, we already have proof of Obama's political spying, but even I had not gotten that deep down into the rabbit hole.
Does anybody reading this grasp the significance of knowing, and still not knowing the truth? Seeing it, and still not seeing it?
"We the People" are not even close to getting to the bottom of this rabbit hole, and those who are deeper aren't getting the message out well enough to bring the rest of us along.
Something has to change, or we will be back to business as usual within a short time. The "matrix" will win unless we get a lot more focused and determined. It is one distraction after another. The distractions are a type of lying in order to direct your eyes away from the truth.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Maxine Waters on Obama Database
In light of what we now know, this little snippet appears quite interesting.
She is admitting that Obama is spying on everybody, including Democrats. She didn't mention Republicans, but you know that isn't going to stop them. Evidently, it didn't stop them.
They've already been busted for it. Not charged, at least as far as what has been released to the public, but they've been caught.
It's just a matter of whether or not the system can police itself.
She is admitting that Obama is spying on everybody, including Democrats. She didn't mention Republicans, but you know that isn't going to stop them. Evidently, it didn't stop them.
They've already been busted for it. Not charged, at least as far as what has been released to the public, but they've been caught.
It's just a matter of whether or not the system can police itself.
Why Don’t Climate Activists Support Nuclear Power?
Comment:
It isn't telling why, but asks why. Actually, you have to wonder why they don't. But some do.
Why Don’t Climate Activists Support Nuclear Power? https://t.co/zmRFTw5pbE— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 1, 2019
Monday, April 29, 2019
Conspiracy equals collusion, some say
Updated,
4.29.19:
In the Mueller Report, there was a discussion about conspiracy v. collusion. This pretty much validates my criticism. The investigation was sold politically as collusion, but a prosecutor doesn't investigate "collusion", but conspiracy. Then why use the term "collusion"? To frame the narrative so that the public will treat it seriously. If they used "conspiracy" instead, it would have highlighted the fact that there was no crime to investigate in the first place. If there is no crime, then why is there a prosecutor????????
Therein lies the entire problem in a nutshell. There never was a crime, so why are they investigating this as if it were?
Here's the discussion in the Mueller Report.
7.31.19:
First thought out the gate is: so why not investigate a conspiracy then? What's the business about using the term "collusion" if conspiracy is your meaning?
Speculation alert here: The word collusion is an easier word to sell than conspiracy. People using the word "conspiracy" are often thought of as being a little off out in the weeds. Therefore, the word collusion is used instead in order to control the PR of a questionable investigation.
Here's the wikipedia entry on conspiracy. Interesting to note that in England and Wales, the courts were overreaching in the use of conspiracy. A new law was written in 1977 in order to address the issue.
Note that, in England, there needs to be an agreement. You would have to prove an agreement exists.
Reading on, there is a section about conspiracy against the United States.
commenting upon that now...
There needs to be an "overt act" by one of the conspirators. There has to be a crime. Richard Nixon was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Watergate Scandal. This was a burglary.
done with comments upon the article... now a few observations...
One observation that leaps out is where is the crime? You cannot just charge conspiracy. There has to be an underlying crime. Where is the crime?
It is progress in this discussion that they now admit that it was conspiracy that they are talking about. Now they have to name the fricking crime that is supposedly at issue.
4.29.19:
In the Mueller Report, there was a discussion about conspiracy v. collusion. This pretty much validates my criticism. The investigation was sold politically as collusion, but a prosecutor doesn't investigate "collusion", but conspiracy. Then why use the term "collusion"? To frame the narrative so that the public will treat it seriously. If they used "conspiracy" instead, it would have highlighted the fact that there was no crime to investigate in the first place. If there is no crime, then why is there a prosecutor????????
Therein lies the entire problem in a nutshell. There never was a crime, so why are they investigating this as if it were?
Here's the discussion in the Mueller Report.
 |
| "through the lens of conspiracy law" |
 |
| see 2nd paragraph, line 2 for "collusion" |
7.31.19:
First thought out the gate is: so why not investigate a conspiracy then? What's the business about using the term "collusion" if conspiracy is your meaning?
Speculation alert here: The word collusion is an easier word to sell than conspiracy. People using the word "conspiracy" are often thought of as being a little off out in the weeds. Therefore, the word collusion is used instead in order to control the PR of a questionable investigation.
Here's the wikipedia entry on conspiracy. Interesting to note that in England and Wales, the courts were overreaching in the use of conspiracy. A new law was written in 1977 in order to address the issue.
Note that, in England, there needs to be an agreement. You would have to prove an agreement exists.
Reading on, there is a section about conspiracy against the United States.
commenting upon that now...
There needs to be an "overt act" by one of the conspirators. There has to be a crime. Richard Nixon was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Watergate Scandal. This was a burglary.
done with comments upon the article... now a few observations...
One observation that leaps out is where is the crime? You cannot just charge conspiracy. There has to be an underlying crime. Where is the crime?
It is progress in this discussion that they now admit that it was conspiracy that they are talking about. Now they have to name the fricking crime that is supposedly at issue.
The Hillary Gambit
Updated,
4.29.19:
11:30 am :
Sundance needs to explain a bit better than this. If his conclusion is correct, then no doubt that a reasonable person would agree. But you aren't dealing with reasonable people, and this is rather complex stuff. You have to study this carefully to understand it.
Not saying that the doesn't proof doesn't exist. But you would need a Bugliosi type prosecutor to make the case. Even then, you might only get a hung jury in a place like DC.
For example, he is saying that the FBI altered the "302" so that they could trap Flynn. He also said that they wiretapped Flynn, so that they knew what he said, and could match what he said in the meeting with the Russian and what they would ask him in the interview. In other words, they were entrapping him.
If you could prove that, you have something.
Keep in mind that this post is about Sally Yates, who brought up the Flynn case. Flynn was said to have not been lying by the FBI agents at the time of the interview. They did something to make it look like he was lying, in other words. This is so that they could pry a guilty plea out of him, and then they used his son as leverage.
8:00 am:
I wanted to mesh together the Last Refuge link below with what I wrote previously on the subject of the Hatch Act.
The abuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes could well be a violation of the Hatch Act. However, if there is to be any accountability for this abuse, it would have to be provable. Even if you did have a provable case, the criminal justice is set up to favor the defendant. Consequently, it would be hard to prosecute a Democrat in a Democrat-dominated governmental jurisdiction, such as DC. But the opposition, meaning the GOP, would be in a very biased and hostile environment in DC. If a government controlled by the Democrats wanted to spy on the opposition party, the GOP Presidential candidate in 2016, how could they be held accountable in a hostile environment like DC? The best chance would be the Hatch Act, but it won't be easy. DC is very, very Democrat.
The link below is about Sally Yates, who could up to her eyeballs in the abuse of the criminal justice system for political goals of stopping the election of Trump, or destroying his Presidency if elected. It is a very lengthy post, and I didn't follow all of it. This re-post of the Hillary Gambit is going to be linked up with two prior posts about the Hatch Act, and how the two mesh together. Having not read all of the linked post below, I don't know how it meshes, but it would have to mesh closely in order to have any chance of success in DC of a prosecution. Under the Constitution, a defendant has a right to trial in the jurisdiction in which the crime is alleged to have taken place, which would mean DC.
8.28.18:
Think of an ongoing struggle as a chess match. Apply it to the current state of US politics, and what do you come up with? In my opinion, a gambit has been played. A gambit in chess sacrifices a valuable piece in exchange for positional advantage. The position obtained needs to result in a quick win, or it could also result in a quick loss. Such a situation faces the country in the current political situation. The winner may win it all, or lose it all.
The Democrats seem to be "all in" on this impeachment gambit. It was started by none other than Hillary herself when she commissioned the Steele dossier. The dossier is, according to Mr. Integrity James Comey, "salacious and unverified". But Mr. Integrity signed off on it, which resulted in the phonied up FISA surveillance warrant. The warrant was then leveraged into Special Counsel when Comey was fired. Comey illegally leaked his discussions with Trump, which he claims to have been pressured into going easy on Flynn. As for Flynn, he was charged with making false statements even though not everyone thought he was lying. In other words, a railroad job has been in the works. A frame up from the get go.
As for Felonia von Pantsuit, she was a student of Alinsky. These tactics being employed against the POTUS are pure Alinsky. One of Alinsky's tactics is to make you live up to your own standards. Thus, by donning the "rule of law" mantle, the Alinsky- guided prosecution is making the so-called conservatives live up to their law and order pretensions. This freezes them. They cannot fight back. This is a pure Alinsky - like tactic to freeze your opponent, and then isolate him. Make them the bad guys. Criminalize them for no other reason than opposing them. The so-called conservatives will play their part in this kabuki theater of failure. They won't defend themselves. But they could.
As for the prosecution, it is a violation of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act prohibits using the color of the law for political purposes. The record is well established now that there is a conspiracy within the previous administration to cause Trump to lose the election of 2016, or to have an "insurance policy" in case he won. This insurance policy is a violation of the Hatch Act. It continues to this day in anticipation of the results of the Mueller investigation, which will result in impeachment. There are Democrats on the record who say that Trump does not have to violate the law in order to impeach. Mueller's investigation will give the fig leaf that would allow them to pretend that Trump is guilty of something, so he could be removed and replaced legally. The so-called conservatives are playing along with this theater of the absurd.
But it isn't legal. That is what makes it a gambit. A gambit can backfire if it is not successful in gaining the advantage sought. In order for it to backfire, there would have to be failures on the road to impeachment. The "jury is out" on that one. The closing arguments may be made in court and out on the campaign trail.
Therefore, it is not "rule of law", but politics. That is the bottom line. In order to win, the argument must be made, and it must persuade the audience. The audience for this political theater is the public. Who wins? You decide. If that isn't political, nothing is.
4.29.19:
11:30 am :
Sundance needs to explain a bit better than this. If his conclusion is correct, then no doubt that a reasonable person would agree. But you aren't dealing with reasonable people, and this is rather complex stuff. You have to study this carefully to understand it.
Not saying that the doesn't proof doesn't exist. But you would need a Bugliosi type prosecutor to make the case. Even then, you might only get a hung jury in a place like DC.
For example, he is saying that the FBI altered the "302" so that they could trap Flynn. He also said that they wiretapped Flynn, so that they knew what he said, and could match what he said in the meeting with the Russian and what they would ask him in the interview. In other words, they were entrapping him.
If you could prove that, you have something.
Keep in mind that this post is about Sally Yates, who brought up the Flynn case. Flynn was said to have not been lying by the FBI agents at the time of the interview. They did something to make it look like he was lying, in other words. This is so that they could pry a guilty plea out of him, and then they used his son as leverage.
8:00 am:
I wanted to mesh together the Last Refuge link below with what I wrote previously on the subject of the Hatch Act.
The abuse of the criminal justice system for political purposes could well be a violation of the Hatch Act. However, if there is to be any accountability for this abuse, it would have to be provable. Even if you did have a provable case, the criminal justice is set up to favor the defendant. Consequently, it would be hard to prosecute a Democrat in a Democrat-dominated governmental jurisdiction, such as DC. But the opposition, meaning the GOP, would be in a very biased and hostile environment in DC. If a government controlled by the Democrats wanted to spy on the opposition party, the GOP Presidential candidate in 2016, how could they be held accountable in a hostile environment like DC? The best chance would be the Hatch Act, but it won't be easy. DC is very, very Democrat.
The link below is about Sally Yates, who could up to her eyeballs in the abuse of the criminal justice system for political goals of stopping the election of Trump, or destroying his Presidency if elected. It is a very lengthy post, and I didn't follow all of it. This re-post of the Hillary Gambit is going to be linked up with two prior posts about the Hatch Act, and how the two mesh together. Having not read all of the linked post below, I don't know how it meshes, but it would have to mesh closely in order to have any chance of success in DC of a prosecution. Under the Constitution, a defendant has a right to trial in the jurisdiction in which the crime is alleged to have taken place, which would mean DC.
Sally Yates -vs- Michael Flynn... https://t.co/33tGuhNbaq via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 29, 2019
8.28.18:
Think of an ongoing struggle as a chess match. Apply it to the current state of US politics, and what do you come up with? In my opinion, a gambit has been played. A gambit in chess sacrifices a valuable piece in exchange for positional advantage. The position obtained needs to result in a quick win, or it could also result in a quick loss. Such a situation faces the country in the current political situation. The winner may win it all, or lose it all.
The Democrats seem to be "all in" on this impeachment gambit. It was started by none other than Hillary herself when she commissioned the Steele dossier. The dossier is, according to Mr. Integrity James Comey, "salacious and unverified". But Mr. Integrity signed off on it, which resulted in the phonied up FISA surveillance warrant. The warrant was then leveraged into Special Counsel when Comey was fired. Comey illegally leaked his discussions with Trump, which he claims to have been pressured into going easy on Flynn. As for Flynn, he was charged with making false statements even though not everyone thought he was lying. In other words, a railroad job has been in the works. A frame up from the get go.
As for Felonia von Pantsuit, she was a student of Alinsky. These tactics being employed against the POTUS are pure Alinsky. One of Alinsky's tactics is to make you live up to your own standards. Thus, by donning the "rule of law" mantle, the Alinsky- guided prosecution is making the so-called conservatives live up to their law and order pretensions. This freezes them. They cannot fight back. This is a pure Alinsky - like tactic to freeze your opponent, and then isolate him. Make them the bad guys. Criminalize them for no other reason than opposing them. The so-called conservatives will play their part in this kabuki theater of failure. They won't defend themselves. But they could.
As for the prosecution, it is a violation of the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act prohibits using the color of the law for political purposes. The record is well established now that there is a conspiracy within the previous administration to cause Trump to lose the election of 2016, or to have an "insurance policy" in case he won. This insurance policy is a violation of the Hatch Act. It continues to this day in anticipation of the results of the Mueller investigation, which will result in impeachment. There are Democrats on the record who say that Trump does not have to violate the law in order to impeach. Mueller's investigation will give the fig leaf that would allow them to pretend that Trump is guilty of something, so he could be removed and replaced legally. The so-called conservatives are playing along with this theater of the absurd.
But it isn't legal. That is what makes it a gambit. A gambit can backfire if it is not successful in gaining the advantage sought. In order for it to backfire, there would have to be failures on the road to impeachment. The "jury is out" on that one. The closing arguments may be made in court and out on the campaign trail.
Therefore, it is not "rule of law", but politics. That is the bottom line. In order to win, the argument must be made, and it must persuade the audience. The audience for this political theater is the public. Who wins? You decide. If that isn't political, nothing is.
2016 Trump Campaign Speech
Wow.
I didn't see many of his speeches, but this one is a doozy. It is saddening to consider that so many people didn't see that what he was saying was true, and it is still true.
Hillary was wondering why she wasn't winning big. She should have lost big, even in the popular vote. What is there to vote for with those people?????
He can use that same speech next year on the campaign trail, and it would still be fresh.
I didn't see many of his speeches, but this one is a doozy. It is saddening to consider that so many people didn't see that what he was saying was true, and it is still true.
Hillary was wondering why she wasn't winning big. She should have lost big, even in the popular vote. What is there to vote for with those people?????
He can use that same speech next year on the campaign trail, and it would still be fresh.
Google is spying on you
No sher, shirtlock.
Still, it is quite amazing to view how much they got on you. That is, if you have an android. For that matter, just about any phone can and will be tracked. Everywhere you go, everything you do is tracked. The only way to stop may be to get rid of your phone.
Anyway, I saw a link on Insty that shows how to delete some of this info. Closing the barn door, so to speak.
My phone is really hard to use with this delete function. That could be deliberate, ya know.
Still, it is quite amazing to view how much they got on you. That is, if you have an android. For that matter, just about any phone can and will be tracked. Everywhere you go, everything you do is tracked. The only way to stop may be to get rid of your phone.
Anyway, I saw a link on Insty that shows how to delete some of this info. Closing the barn door, so to speak.
My phone is really hard to use with this delete function. That could be deliberate, ya know.
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Listen Carefully - Senator Lindsey Graham Outlines Deep State Exit...
Comment:
What the deep staters say, just take it with a huge grain of salt. There never was an independent investigation of the Democrat servers, according to my understanding. Without that, Mueller and the DNC can say anything they wish. There was no proof of a predicate for starting the investigation. If Barr is sincere about that, he will check it out.
I don't trust Lindsey Graham anyway.
Listen Carefully - Senator Lindsey Graham Outlines Deep State Exit... https://t.co/slAL5ZjeMn via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 28, 2019
The Seven Deadly Sins
Update:
4.28.19:
With respect to standards, if you do as they advocated back in the sixties, ie. "to do your own thing", and "define deviancy down", then you invite anarchy.
2.20.16:
Hey, not another one of those long winded type posts? Perhaps this won't be a longer post either.
On the other hand...
I've covered this topic before on this blog, but not of and by itself. That is to say, it is not a post on this blog that is about the Seven Deadly Sins. There are four posts which mention it, though
No late start today
Time is running (out ) again, drat it ---corrected
Sleepless night
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
Now, my point isn't necessarily to bring up that I've covered this before. My point is something else entirely.
I was thinking about the Seven Deadly Sins and which one was my worst. I had thought of it as laziness ( sloth), but it may not be the case if it ever was the case.
Why? Well, because I realize that I actually work rather hard. I am more industrious than I give myself credit. But the reason that I found fault is that I realized that I had become a "disgusting fat body" like Private Pyle in the movie Full Metal Jacket.
Comparing myself to Private Pyle may have been a bit too harsh, but that is the way I am with myself all too often.
If sloth is not my worst sin, then what is? I have to think that over again. Maybe it still is, but not as much as it once was. Maybe I have to work a bit harder at becoming truly industrious.
Now Ann Barnhardt has a prayer for those who don't pray. I am of the tendency to say that I never pray. But I have prayed before. I just don't make a habit of it. I remember her suggestion to pray to God that I don't want to go to hell. I will remember to continue to remember that and I will pray that.
By the way, when I pray, I pray the Lord's Prayer, which used to be part of the school day until 1963. I memorized it because we all recited it every morning before classes began.
Once again, I point to leadership,. There ain't any. For this, these people have much to answer for.
4.28.19:
With respect to standards, if you do as they advocated back in the sixties, ie. "to do your own thing", and "define deviancy down", then you invite anarchy.
2.20.16:
Hey, not another one of those long winded type posts? Perhaps this won't be a longer post either.
On the other hand...
I've covered this topic before on this blog, but not of and by itself. That is to say, it is not a post on this blog that is about the Seven Deadly Sins. There are four posts which mention it, though
No late start today
Time is running (out ) again, drat it ---corrected
Sleepless night
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
Now, my point isn't necessarily to bring up that I've covered this before. My point is something else entirely.
I was thinking about the Seven Deadly Sins and which one was my worst. I had thought of it as laziness ( sloth), but it may not be the case if it ever was the case.
Why? Well, because I realize that I actually work rather hard. I am more industrious than I give myself credit. But the reason that I found fault is that I realized that I had become a "disgusting fat body" like Private Pyle in the movie Full Metal Jacket.
Comparing myself to Private Pyle may have been a bit too harsh, but that is the way I am with myself all too often.
If sloth is not my worst sin, then what is? I have to think that over again. Maybe it still is, but not as much as it once was. Maybe I have to work a bit harder at becoming truly industrious.
Now Ann Barnhardt has a prayer for those who don't pray. I am of the tendency to say that I never pray. But I have prayed before. I just don't make a habit of it. I remember her suggestion to pray to God that I don't want to go to hell. I will remember to continue to remember that and I will pray that.
By the way, when I pray, I pray the Lord's Prayer, which used to be part of the school day until 1963. I memorized it because we all recited it every morning before classes began.
Once again, I point to leadership,. There ain't any. For this, these people have much to answer for.
Tower of Babel
Update:
4.28.19:
A thought occurred to me after hearing that the Muslims do not always require standards with regards to certain kinds of conduct. Conduct is a kind of standard, is it not? If there aren't any standards, then anything goes. Anything....
When it comes to conduct, people may prefer the standard that is easiest to follow. Which is what I have done myself.
When it comes to Christianity, that mode of conduct may lead to a type of hierarchy. For example, there is multiple mentions of being great in the Kingdom of Heaven, being lesser in the Kingdom, or being condemned to Hell. It seems to have an order based upon merit.
This has consequences in the organizing principles of a society. The fewer the standards, the greater the anarchy. Hell has no standards, and Heaven is an orderly place. In the Lord's Prayer, the Father's will is that Earth should be the same as in Heaven. Therefore, behavior is expected to improve.
4.26.19:
The Tower of Babel refers to the proliferation of languages in the world. But what if there is a proliferation of standards? For instance, if one wants to be called a Christian, then who decides what is a Christian? Without a standard, then anyone can make that claim.
Furthermore, without a standard as to what is male and female, there can be a proliferation of standards with regard to sex.
In general, if there is no commonly accepted standard of a thing, whatever the thing may be, then there can arise a proliferation of standards, each according to what is acceptable amongst those who agree to that standard. But since there such a proliferation, how can there be any standard at all? Or, to put it another way, there can be no common standards amongst various groups each adhering to their own standards. As such, then mankind gets into a Tower of Babel with regard to standards, just as the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel with respect to the proliferation of languages.
And I thought I was disorganized. The world is in such a situation. Particularly the Western world. But there isn't a commonly held standard elsewhere in the world either.
With respect to Christianity in the Western part of Europe, and then elsewhere as the New World was colonized, the commonly held standard was as it was in the beginning, that is to say, the church in Rome. That was in fact, decided by the Pope, was it not? The Pope and the rest of the clergy determined what the standards were in terms of what is Christian or not. But Christianity had already split off between East and West. The Tower of Babel pattern began with that schism. It continued with the Protestants and so forth. It doesn't seem to have an end. Give it enough time, there will be more and more schisms.
With Islam, they too have their schism.
The reason I bring this up is that I walked in on a conversation about religion, and there were a few things being said there that didn't stack up very well with my understanding. So what I was told was that everybody seems to have their own understanding. Which is another way of saying that there exists a Tower of Babel with regard to this subject.
I can generalize this out to the rest of the society as well. The left claims it is for the rule of law. But they are for their own idea of what the law is. Who decides that? Why, they do, of course. It is whatever they say it is.
It is said that we are a split society. If you cannot agree upon standards, how can you possibly agree on anything at all?
Update:
4:30 pm:
So, what is the authority with respect to Christianity? This may not be considered the authority of authorities, but it may be pretty close. Also known as the old Roman Symbol, it can be found here.
4.28.19:
A thought occurred to me after hearing that the Muslims do not always require standards with regards to certain kinds of conduct. Conduct is a kind of standard, is it not? If there aren't any standards, then anything goes. Anything....
When it comes to conduct, people may prefer the standard that is easiest to follow. Which is what I have done myself.
When it comes to Christianity, that mode of conduct may lead to a type of hierarchy. For example, there is multiple mentions of being great in the Kingdom of Heaven, being lesser in the Kingdom, or being condemned to Hell. It seems to have an order based upon merit.
This has consequences in the organizing principles of a society. The fewer the standards, the greater the anarchy. Hell has no standards, and Heaven is an orderly place. In the Lord's Prayer, the Father's will is that Earth should be the same as in Heaven. Therefore, behavior is expected to improve.
4.26.19:
The Tower of Babel refers to the proliferation of languages in the world. But what if there is a proliferation of standards? For instance, if one wants to be called a Christian, then who decides what is a Christian? Without a standard, then anyone can make that claim.
Furthermore, without a standard as to what is male and female, there can be a proliferation of standards with regard to sex.
In general, if there is no commonly accepted standard of a thing, whatever the thing may be, then there can arise a proliferation of standards, each according to what is acceptable amongst those who agree to that standard. But since there such a proliferation, how can there be any standard at all? Or, to put it another way, there can be no common standards amongst various groups each adhering to their own standards. As such, then mankind gets into a Tower of Babel with regard to standards, just as the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel with respect to the proliferation of languages.
And I thought I was disorganized. The world is in such a situation. Particularly the Western world. But there isn't a commonly held standard elsewhere in the world either.
With respect to Christianity in the Western part of Europe, and then elsewhere as the New World was colonized, the commonly held standard was as it was in the beginning, that is to say, the church in Rome. That was in fact, decided by the Pope, was it not? The Pope and the rest of the clergy determined what the standards were in terms of what is Christian or not. But Christianity had already split off between East and West. The Tower of Babel pattern began with that schism. It continued with the Protestants and so forth. It doesn't seem to have an end. Give it enough time, there will be more and more schisms.
With Islam, they too have their schism.
The reason I bring this up is that I walked in on a conversation about religion, and there were a few things being said there that didn't stack up very well with my understanding. So what I was told was that everybody seems to have their own understanding. Which is another way of saying that there exists a Tower of Babel with regard to this subject.
I can generalize this out to the rest of the society as well. The left claims it is for the rule of law. But they are for their own idea of what the law is. Who decides that? Why, they do, of course. It is whatever they say it is.
It is said that we are a split society. If you cannot agree upon standards, how can you possibly agree on anything at all?
Update:
4:30 pm:
So, what is the authority with respect to Christianity? This may not be considered the authority of authorities, but it may be pretty close. Also known as the old Roman Symbol, it can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)