Paul Pelosi update
This is a post that may require stitching together of many sources. Beginning with the link above, the tendency towards projection is duly noted. It seems to be everywhere for anyone to notice. But some folks may need some nudging. The above goes over all the pecularities of this case. Rather than expound upon them one by one here, just watch the video, and continue on with this post. Without doing so, you'll miss the point of this post.
Back again? If you wished to note, the FBI agent who took the affadavit, is practically a newly minted agent. This particular agent looks to be someone that is investigating J6 type cases. What does THAT have to do with THIS? It is a simple case of break and entry with intent to do harm, so we are to understand. But now, it is somehow been elevated to an insurrectionary plot. What's going on here?
Hillary Clinton did the same kind of thing, if you recall. ( She tweeted it and Elon Musk piped in with his own thoughts) By the way, Hillary should keep quiet, and the whole thing goes away. She could have done that with the Paul Jones case when Slick Willy was in the White House, and there wouldn't have been an impeachment. Is there a method to the madness?
A bit of speculation here. Hillary then as well as now, is trying to protect someone at the top from embarrassing revelations. However, she's going about it in the most unusual way. Instead of being quiet, she is making a lot of noise. This doesn't make it go away, it fans the flames of controversy. Why would she do that? Is she a genius, or is she a fool? Well, she's still around, and some say she's running for President again, so there's that.
Here's another link about the Bushes, who came after Bill Clinton. It is about Bush's daughters. Barbara Bush the Younger
Please note that the 43rd President's daughter is involved in same-sex marriage activism. If this was known, would it have made a difference in the 2000 race? It may have. I sure didn't know about it. It was kept under the radar, so to speak. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN GOOD POLITICS FOR THE BUSHES at the time.
There's a pattern here that I've think I've detected. A pattern of dishonesty and fakery. The Bushes got into office by pretending to be more conservative than they really were. It is meant to deceive conservative voters out there. So, the thing I'm getting at is that there is this very concerted effort at concealing some embarrassing truth from the public for political reasons. This Pelosi business may have a connection. The Pelosi's don't want any attention being drawn to this, and Nancy is asking for privacy. However, it is too big now for that.
One more link from the Bongino show yesterday shows the pattern of censorship. There was something I wished to point out how there was a distortion worth noting that shows the intent to deceive for political gain. He claims that nefarious types are doing the lying, but he does a whopper himself. The whopper is about the man "in shorts". This guy says that it was all normal because it was only Pelosi in shorts, but what is being said is that the guy who allegedly broke in was the one wearing in shorts. It was unusal to have someone in shorts breaking in, don't you think. That's what he leaves out. Bongino quotes him at about the 29 minute mark.
How does a guy in underwear get past security in a gated community? This is the richest area in San Francisco. How do they not have security out the wazoo? A guy in shorts gets past security? Of course there should be questions, but these guys want to censor Twitter ( and force Musk to change his stated intentions). They are doing this for political reasons. BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO POLTICIZED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Hillary kept her mouth shut, this all goes away. The Pelosi's desire for privacy is kicked to the curb.
All of this is being done for a reason, but it seems crazy. If it works, then they win. All anyone with an independent judgement ought to ask why would they want to take Twitter down now that Musk has taken it over? Why would they politicize this just before an election? Who's the target?
You can bet it isn't the Bushes. Nope, it is probably those that they are trying to protect. As in the 2000 election, when embarrassing information about the Bush's daughters may have influenced the outcome to this latest business with Pelosi, the people being deceived is who you should be looking at. Who are they trying to fool with this? The neo-con voters? The true blue bluest types? Who would believes this nonsense after all we've been through lately?
This is the topic de jour these days. If the political left didn't try to politicize this in their favor, it might have gone away on its own. Because of the likes the major media taking up the cause in favor of Democrats, it draws people in. Now there's plenty of other sources of info to weigh in. Thank goodness for that.
What's the moral here? In a free society, you can get both sides. In an unfree society, you'll only get a one-sided story. The story that you'd get without the free press ( to the extent that it actually exists) is that a bunch of right wing wackos came after the Speaker's husband in order to cause him harm. The other side of the story is that this was no break-in, and that Pelosi actually invited the dude into his house. Those two sides of the story are as far apart as it gets.
Give me the free society that would actually cover this story in its entirety and faithfully, and I guarantee you that the Democrats wouldn't be talking the way they are right now. The political left has something to hide. That's the second moral here. To put it succinctly, that moral is that the left will make the most noise in their accusations when they have the most to hide.
A third moral is that to hide the truth from the public, they political left will try to censor the other side of the story. That is evident of a guilty mind. There are so many examples of this today. The amazing thing is that the Democrats have any political support left.
What is the other side? That Pelosi is a homosexual, who was seeking the sexual favors of a male prostitute? In a former time, much less than this was enough to force a Houston mayor out of office. This was back in the seventies, when Mayor Fred Hofheinz was alleged to have frequented a certain kind of bar (aka "gay" bar).
When the left tries to hide stories, it means something. That something is probably pretty bad, and they know it. Perhaps it is a sign that the virtue that was once commonplace is still out there, because they have to lie about so much. The truth is not on their side, and they know it.
The downside is that too many people believe the lies. What would it take to finally put down this house of cards?
No comments:
Post a Comment