“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, May 13, 2017

What is the bet that Mr. Comey goes to Washington?

2007



2009

2020?


Comey’s firing is a gift to the FBI

Comey’s firing is a gift to the FBI
Let’s cut right to the chase: James Comey should have been fired immediately following his disastrous press briefing last July, in which he candidly laid out the case against Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information and then refused to recommend charges. Overstepping his authority while radiating sanctimony, arrogating power while clumsily intervening in the election, Comey deserved to be sacked on the spot.

Everything since has been one long slow twist in the wind for Comey, a former US attorney in Manhattan, where his most notable accomplishment was sending Martha Stewart to jail.

Ignore for the moment Comey’s series of missteps resulting from the Clinton investigation and his increasingly erratic and unconvincing public fan dance as he sent the nation into electoral paroxysms over the past 10 months.

On his watch, the FBI continued its politically correct, see-no-evil attitude toward radical Islam and thus failed to prevent the atrocity in San Bernardino; it also investigated the Orlando nightclub shooter for 10 months before closing its case, allowing him to kill or wound 102 people. Meanwhile, the federal office of personnel management was hacked by the Chinese, resulting in a serious data breach. That’s failure on an unacceptable level.

Now the bureau’s tied up and bogged down in the almost certainly chimerical “Russian hacking” fantasy, which bubbled up out of the leftist fever swamp in the wake of Clinton’s loss in November, and for which there is exactly zero evidence.
So when President Trump finally put Comey out of his — and our — misery last week, it was the best merited cashiering since Truman fired a showboating MacArthur.

Ignore the political firestorm that’s followed. Trump could cure cancer, solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and appoint Oprah as his special envoy to Mars and the Beltway press corps would still howl for his head. The fires fueling this politically motivated hatefest will abate only when the Democrats accept that they lost an election they fully expected to win.
As the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, the FBI director shouldn’t be a political figure.
And that’s the key word — political. As the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, the FBI director shouldn’t be a political figure.
The bureau began as a financial-crimes investigatory arm of the justice department in 1908, and grew to maturity under J. Edgar Hoover, monitoring domestic Bolshevik radicalism in the early 1920s, then tackling interstate violent crime during the wild and woolly ’30s: the birth of the “G-Men.”

Yet the temptation to be a Washington player is always present. Hoover, who served under eight presidents and whose reign lasted until his death in 1972, amassed a storehouse of inside dirt on politicians, which made him essentially unfireable and which led to congressional insistence on Senate confirmation of future directors and 10-year term limits.

What’s needed now is a restoration of what should be the FBI’s primary mission, as it was in the early Hoover days: counterterrorism. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it’s far less important for the bureau to be chasing bank robbers in Burlington and Butte than it is for it to function as the nation’s first line of homeland security defense.

The country doesn’t need another politician, jurist or prosecutor at the bureau. It needs someone dogged, determined, experienced, impartial and fearless. 
Although the parallels are not exact, historical circumstances have demanded that the FBI now function in relation to the CIA and NSA similar to the way Britain’s MI5 (domestic) and MI6 (foreign) intelligence services work together. Nearly 16 years on, the Washington establishment still hasn’t accepted that 9/11 really did fundamentally change our notions of crime, prevention and punishment.

But the American people have, which is one of the many reasons Trump won the election. Further, far from damaging the president in the eyes of his supporters, Trump’s decisiveness in canning Comey will only endear him to them even more.

So who should replace Comey? The rumor mills are already churning out names of the usual suspects: a judge (Michael J. Garcia), a prosecutor (Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher), a politician (Sen. John Cornyn of Texas) and a veteran fed (Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe)
But the country doesn’t need another politician, jurist or prosecutor at the bureau. It needs someone dogged, determined, experienced, impartial and fearless. Someone sworn to protect and serve, who will follow the evidence wherever it leads and make the appropriate recommendations in the name of justice. Incorruptible and impartial.

In other words, a cop — the best one we have.

Michael Walsh is an author, screenwriter and contributing editor at PJ Media. His most recent book is “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace.”

65 comments:

  1. "Ignore the political firestorm that’s followed. Trump could cure cancer, solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and appoint Oprah as his special envoy to Mars and the Beltway press corps would still howl for his head."

    ===

    According to Quirk, this is of no consequence.

    All else is "whining."


    .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quirk has deeper concerns.

      Colgate, or Crest ?

      Peppermint, or Regular ?

      It's tough choosing a tooth paste for a mutt.

      Let us pray that Quirk makes the correct choice, and gives the mutt a bone.

      Delete
    2. Mitch McConnell told US that the Republican priority, back in 2008, was to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.

      The GOP stonewalled most all of President Obama's initiatives, especially in providing the President an Authorization to Use Military Force against the Islamic State.
      Stonewalled the nomination of Judge Garland, for a year.

      Now there is indignation that the Democrats will not roll over for Mr Trump, but have taken a page from the GOP playbook and obstruct, obstruct and obstruct some more.

      There will be no ObamaCare Repeal and Replace, No Tax Cuts and the Trump stock market rise ... will, at best, stall.

      Senator McCain will back stab Mr Trump every chance he gets.

      TrumpCare will likely provide US with Speaker Pelosi, whether it moves forward or dies in the Senate. There will be no win in it for the GOP.




      Delete
    3. .

      According to Quirk, this is of no consequence.

      All else is "whining."


      More whining from old pineapplehead. And more lies.

      I've credited Trump here with wise decisions when he makes them, the Gorsuch choice (conditionally) and his pulling out of TPP for instance.

      I've already stated here that if Trump does get a deal on Israel/Palestine I will be the first to call him the king of all dealmakers.

      If Trump cures cancer, I will take back every nasty comment I've ever made about him.

      I would have to think about the Oprah thing.

      The trouble with Trump is that he promises so much and delivers so little.

      .

      Delete
    4. I was talking about the destructive and corrupt MSM, not Trump.

      Delete
  2. The fact that O'Reilly was ousted by a Soros backed industry in league with the MSM, among others, is also of no consequence.

    Long live all the incestuous left-wing press!

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2013/09/07/mainstream-media-honchos-related-towhite-house-officials/

    https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+news+anchors+spouses&rlz=1CAACAO_enUS720US720&oq=left+wing+news+anchors+spouses&aqs=chrome..69i57.19631j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. O'Reilly was ousted by Rupurt Murdock, no one else.

      Delete
    2. O'Reilly as J. Edgar

      Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly used his police contacts to have his former wife's new boyfriend investigated by officers, it has been reported.
      After the couple allegedly separated and his wife of 15 years started seeing a Long Island police officer, Mr

      O'Reilly is said to have pulled strings to have the man officially investigated and warned to back off.
      Sources claim officers were instructed to collaborate with private investigators to dig dirt on Mareen McPhilmy O'Reilly's new boyfriend in the hope of Mr O'Reilly donating money to the police department in return for the favor.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031915/Fox-News-anchor-Bill-OReilly-wifes-boyfriend-investigated-police-contacts.html#ixzz4gzoaogg8

      Delete
    3. .

      O'Reilly says his firing was in fact an alt-left hit job. (His accusers would likely disagree.)

      Glenn Beck offered him a job


      .

      Delete
    4. His accusers could be right about his transgressions, and would be wrong about Soros and others involved in his ouster.

      Delete

    5. The person that fired O'Reilly was Rupurt Murdock, no one else.

      Anything else is "Fake News", an O'Reilly specialty, the buck starts and stops at Ruport's desk.

      Delete

  3. What’s needed now is a restoration of what should be the FBI’s primary mission, as it was in the early Hoover days: counterterrorism.


    Pure foolishness.

    Financial fraud is much more destructive to US society than is 'terrorism'.
    Yet, after all the FRAUD that was part and parcel of the "Great Recession", not one banker was tried.
    Who was scapegoated to be the public face of Wall Street financial fraud, none other than Martha Stewart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Good point.

      Recent events would seem to indicate the tens of billions of dollars spend annually on our 17 investigative agencies have been rather ineffective and possibly counterproductive in a number of areas.

      .

      Delete
  4. If you want to understand why the mainstream media is so in love with the Obama administration, this can in part be explained by the fact that a number of big shots who control levers of media power actually do love high-placed officials within the Obama administration. By blood and through marriage, there is more than just a shared belief in left-wing politics that ensured the American media became a mouthpiece for the Obama administration.
    David Rhoades, the current president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhoades, a White House national security advisor. If Ben’s name sounds familiar, that is likely due to his reported role in the editing of the now infamous Benghazi talking points.

    Claire Shipman, a senior national correspondent at ABC News, is married to no other than Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary.

    If those ties between the Obama White House and ABC News aren’t disturbing enough, the president of ABC News, Ben Sherwood, is brother to Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a special advisor to Barack Obama.

    Virginia Moseley is a CNN Vice President and Washington Bureau Chief married to Tom Nides, a Deputy Secretary of State under Barack Obama.

    What is especially interesting is that three of the White House officials listed here, who are related in some way to mainstream media big shots, have ties to the Benghazi scandal. Tom Nides is at State, Ben Rhoades was part of the talking point debacle, and Jay Carney spent over a week repeatedly making false claims about terrorists not being behind the September 11th anniversary attack on our diplomatic outpost.

    This might help to explain why the media spent the better part of a month in the run up to the election blasting Mitt Romney for his comments on Benghazi as opposed to the Obama Administration for their bungling and lying about Benghazi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    2. and ...


      This is all "Old News".

      Why wouldn't the politically active go into "Show Business"?

      Show Business certainly intrudes on politics.
      Usually chosen by the GOP, the top three, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Donald Trump.
      Media stars gone political, big time.

      The historical reality provides US with a lesson.
      The GOP puts Media darlings up for election while the Democrats keep theirs in the bedroom.

      Delete

    3. The GOP has the White House, the Democrats have emasculated him, with their media assets.

      The Democrats having what the Republican opponents of Donald Trump did not, a sympathetic media. The game has changed for "The Donald" and he has not adjusted to it.

      His proposal to end the White House 'pressers' and give a press conference, himself, every two weeks, part of his tactical adjustment.

      Delete
    4. .

      Right.

      Seeing Trump continuously refusing to answer questions and then storming out of the room because the press is picking on him would be worth seeing.

      Now, that's entertainment.

      .

      Delete

    5. That's how he said he may proceed, to that Judge lady from FOX News ...

      It would certainly be entertaining, along with leaving Trumpsters with no else to blame for the lack of clarity emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

      Delete

    6. They, and Mr Trump, would all behave like Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson when he is quoted.

      Drives him loco, running, like you say, from the room when his past remarks are quoted.
      All while he deliberately refuses to answer the simple questions arising from those previous statements...

      Admittedly, our "Draft Dodger" does not have the mental capacity of Mr Trump, but I do believe that their behaviors would provide mirror images.

      Call the questioner names, then leave the podium.
      SOP

      {;-)

      Delete
  5. Merkel may meet Trump’s defense spending goals after all
    POSTED AT 4:01 PM ON MAY 13, 2017 BY JAZZ SHAW

    Earlier this month we heard some grumbling coming out of Germany about President Trump’s expectations that they should be paying their fair share of the defense burden in the region, particularly in terms of their commitments to NATO. Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing some opposition in the upcoming elections from players who are insisting that such a thing is neither feasible or desirable. For her part, Merkel was still sounding as if they planned to spend more on defense, but she wasn’t going to commit to a full 2% of GDP in that area because she wanted to count money Germany spends on diplomatic aid into the total.

    That’s really not in keeping with the spirit of the agreement and it seemed as if it was going to turn into another sticking point between Germany and the United States in the era of Trump. But on Thursday Merkel came out with a new statement which at least hints at the possibility that she’s changing her tune. (Daily Caller)

    Germany intends to increase its defense spending in coming years to meet NATO’s target of 2 percent of gross domestic product, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday.

    President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism of Germany’s defense spending since taking office. The country currently allocates about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense, and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel recently said Germany has no intention to increase it. (RELATED: Trump Allegedly Handed Merkel A $370 Billion Bill For NATO)

    Merkel said the government intends to stand by the Cardiff agreement from 2014 and gradually invest more resources in defense.
    That all sounds good in a headline, but at the same time we don’t seem to be hearing any firm commitments. The comments from both Merkel and the Secretary General of NATO toss around the 2% figure, but they include words and phrases such as eventually, “sooner or later” and gradually. At one point a target date of 2024 was mentioned, but that doesn’t seem to be put down anywhere in writing yet. And it’s also a rather convenient date for another reason. Do you know what else happens in 2024? Even if we were to assume that Donald Trump runs for and wins a second term, that would be his lame duck period on the way out the door. If there’s a much less militaristic or aggressive president on the way in by then, Germany could be off the hook.

    But even if this is the new policy and she’s good to her word, what prompted the change? Nobody seems to be saying, but two possibilities come to mind. One is that Merkel is looking ahead to her own election and believes that her voters aren’t in line with the less defense oriented plans of her opponents so she’s trying to put some daylight between herself and them. If that’s not the case, was there a phone call from Washington in the past week that we didn’t hear about? It would be in both Trump’s and Merkel’s best interests to keep any such discussions private. But it would allow Trump to eventually point to Germany and say that he got his way without Merkel looking like she was bending the knee for him.

    Either way, it’s a worthwhile goal which the President talked about repeatedly on the campaign trail. Here’s hoping that Merkel makes good on this pledge and starts carrying more of the load.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/13/merkel-may-meet-trumps-defense-spending-goals/

    Illegal border crossings from Mexico are way down since The Donald took over just by enforcing the laws already on the books.

    And NATO members may begin coughing up more for their own defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Illegal border crossings from Mexico are way down since The Donald took over just by enforcing the laws already on the books.


      So, Robert "Draft dodger" Peterson, is that not evidence enough that the "Wall" is nothing but a waste of money. The "threat" can be handled with the assets already in place.

      Proof positive there is no need to waste billions of dollars on high cost engineering.

      Delete
    2. .

      Add to that the fact that we are going on four months after Trump had initially asked for three to establish his extreme vetting procedures and we must be in pretty good shape.

      .

      Delete

  6. A total of 48 NHS trusts were hit by Friday's cyber-attack, of which all but six are now back to normal, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said.


    Typically, "O"rdure blamed the victims of the cyber-terrorist attack.


    ReplyDelete
  7. For Quirk

    If Fido Kicks The Bucket It's All On YOU, Moron

    This is very important. Do NOT use regular human toothpaste for your dog. Most human toothpastes include fluoride, which is extremely poisonous to dogs. You can find toothpaste formulated for dogs at most good pet stores.

    How to clean your dog's teeth | Cesar's Way

    https://www.cesarsway.com/dog-care/dental-care/7-tips-for-doggie-dental-care

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just give your mutt a bone, Nitwit, let him chew.

      The Vet will just rip you off for the fool you are.

      Delete
    2. The Vet, and/or the Pet Food Store.

      Always looking for suckers.

      Delete
    3. Bob Thu May 27, 12:52:00 AM EDT
      ...
      It was tough, in them days. They couldn't do a damn thing about it, I put her in the rest home, age 96. What you going to do, when she is institutionalized?


      Then she died, because of it.
      Much more than dog ... you killed your Auntie.

      A one man "Death Panel"

      Delete
    4. No she didn't. She got pneumonia, and I could no longer care for her.

      I was with her when she died, 98 1/2.

      And, she was placed in a rest home after consultation with her own lawyer.

      They cared for her for 2 1/2 years or so, then she died.

      Towards the end, she washing expressing desire for her death, just like her sister, who died at 101.

      She got better late in life care in the rest home than I was able to give.

      She and I helped one another our entire lives.

      You, on the other hand, abandoned your very own daughter.

      Go back to your mom's basement, asshole, self confessed criminal, Jew hater, and liar.

      Ciao

      Cheers to all you others



      Delete
    5. Right, "Draft dodger", right ...

      bobal Sat Sep 06, 09:22:00 PM EDT
      If cousin Sally dies, I'll joyfully let ya all know.


      There's the TRUTH, your family hates you, by your own admission

      Delete
  8. rat is psychotic and abandoned his own daughter lucky for her

    ReplyDelete
  9. This place always has and always will go straight to hell when Jack Hawkins shows up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Debbie, are you another one of the Islamic State supporters, you know, like Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson and his buddy, "O"rdure?

      Delete

    2. Do you, Debbie, think like Donald Trump, President of the United States and support the expansion of the "Rat Doctrine" in Syria?

      Delete

    3. Do you, like the Government of Israel, support al-Qeada operatives taking power in Syria?

      Delete
    4. Here you go, Debbie, opine on this ...

      When asked about his thoughts on deepening military ties between the United States and the PKK Syrian affiliate Democratic Union Party (PYD), Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani said: "Any support to the PYD means support for the PKK. They are exactly one and the same thing."

      The U.S., Turkey's NATO ally, drew harsh criticism from Ankara for its close relations with the PYD, which enjoyed U.S. weapons support while fighting DAESH and Syrian opposition supported by the West.

      In an interview with Al-Monitor on Wednesday, when Barzani was asked if the Americans believe that the PKK and PYD are the same, he said: "They know very well, but they don't want to say they know very well."


      Now, Debbie, the PKK is a known terrorist organization, on the same lists as Hezbollah.
      The PKK and the PYD are "one and the same", yet the US is going to provide arms to the PYD, so they can continue the battle against the Islamic State, fighting side by side with Hezbollah operatives and the Syrian Army against the Islamic State.

      Opine, if you would on Donald Trump arming up known terrorists.

      Delete
  10. Foreign Enemies intimidated by Mr Trump, few if any ...

    South Korean military: North Korea launches projectile

    ...

    An armed Russian fighter jet flew alarmingly close to a U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft flying in the Black Sea on Tuesday


    Not afraid of The Donald, not at all.
    The World knows he's been emasculated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. For the second time in a week, a Russian fighter jet flew up close to a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane in the Black Sea, a U.S. official tells Fox News.


      Delete
  11. One sure bet is that Comey will make millions on a book deal.

    ReplyDelete

  12. He will need a publisher, doubt if the Crowns will pony up any cash for an advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why don't you be publisher you bullshitted you were big publisher you ratshitter

      Delete
    2. you even remember your big bullshit about being big publisher? so many lies

      Delete

    3. Book author, newspaper publisher, screen writer, horseman, veteran of the US Army.

      I remember it all, Mark, because I really lived it.

      Unlike you, I am not a homebody, one who allowed his cat to piss in his slippers.

      Delete
    4. I just have no need to discuss those things with a thief like Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

      He, and you for that matter, can read the books, if you all want.

      Gotta buy 'em though, at Smashwords.

      Border Wars - Aztlan Assault
      By Jack Hawkins
      https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/415470

      Ride Like a Trooper
      By Jack Hawkins
      https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/424313

      Only $.99 each.

      Delete
    5. i wait for a price reduction

      Delete
    6. $0.00 too much you have to pay me

      Delete

    7. Sorry, that's not going to happen, Mark.
      Gotta pay, if you really want to know the Jack Hawkins backstory.

      But I do not think that you do, because you do not seem to have the intellectual capacity of a worm.

      Delete

    8. I say that because you are unable, Mark, to respond to a simple question...

      Opine, if you would on Donald Trump arming up known terrorists.

      To tough a question for Mark to ponder, let alone respond to.

      Delete
    9. i with Debbie she wants you shut up moron creep

      Delete

    10. Opine, if you would on Donald Trump arming up known terrorists.

      Delete
    11. you were terrorist death squad central america

      go to hell

      Delete
  13. Tell you what, Mark, scroll up a tad and then ...

    Opine, if you would on Donald Trump arming up known terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The crapper needs an atomic wedgie. That would shut his stupid ass up for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Opine, if you would on Donald Trump arming up known terrorists.

      Delete
  15. From Forbes ...

    The results of this latest set of negotiations between America and China on trade tend me toward that latter explanation. Yes, sure, so China will now take American beef instead of banning it after that mad cow scare those years ago. But that's also a $2.5 billion market. Sure, that's real money but it's also trivial in the sense of the economy. It's 0.01% of the US economy actually. And it's about 0.5% of the bilateral trade deficit. Yes, sure, the journey of a thousand miles starts with but a simple step but still, there would have to be 200 more decisions like this to close that deficit and there just aren't 200 things like this to be discussed.

    So, my best reading of this so far is that Trump is being the inverse of Teddy Roosevelt, talk loudly and settle for a small deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now a quick look at Beef Industry Statistics ...

      U.S. beef production in 2016 (commercial carcass weight) was 25.2 billion pounds

      U.S. commercial slaughter in 2016 was 30.5 million head

      The amount of beef consumed in the U.S. (i.e. purchased by consumers in foodservice and retail) in 2016 was 25.668 billion pounds

      The amount of beef consumed in the U.S. Per Capita 55.7 lbs

      Average price of USDA Choice beef sold in retail in 2016 was $5.96/lb down from $6.29/lb in 2015

      Value of U.S. beef exports (including variety meat) in 2016: $6.343 billion, up from $6.302 billion in 2015


      Now if one looks at production and consumption, it is obvious that the US is a net beef importing country. So where will these exports to China come from, if not the US domestic supply, causing US consumer prices to increase, a net loss to the US consumer.

      The author thinks that China will consume as much US beef as the top two consumers do, today

      Top U.S. beef exports markets (including variety meat) for 2016 (in order):

      Japan: 258,653 metric tons; $1,510 million
      Mexico: 242,373 metric tons; $975 million


      China, projected to order $25 billion USD or 500,000 metric tons.
      Taken from our domestic supply of 12,600,000 tons or 4% of US consumption.

      Yep, a small deal.



      Delete
  16. Breitbart News -

    Fans of the so-called “Resistance” received a subtle piece of good news on Friday. MSNBC, the furthest left of the cable news outlets, won the battle for prime time ratings on Thursday evening, and came a close second to Fox in overall viewers.


    ReplyDelete
  17. President Trump: James Comey ‘should have never exonerated’ Hillary Clinton
    By Pamela Geller - on May 13, 2017

    CLINTON CORRUPTION

    I believe President Trump got a gander at the mountain of evidence against Hillary Clinton and fired Comey for incompetence and collusion. President Trump should do the right thing and indict Clinton for high crimes.

    Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama. It’s time to right that egregious wrong. The American people deserve better. Democrats are not above the law, no matter how high up the food chain they are.

    “TRUMP DECLARES JAMES COMEY ‘SHOULD HAVE NEVER EXONERATED’ HILLARY CLINTON”
    By Bryan Logan, Business Insider, May 13, 2017:

    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INSIGHT INTO HIS THINKING ABOUT FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY. TRUMP SAID IN EXCERPTS OF AN NBC NEWS INTERVIEW RELEASED FRIDAY THAT COMEY “SHOULD HAVE NEVER EXONERATED” HILLARY CLINTON.

    Trump, referring to the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, said that the steady flow of news surrounding that probe helped him as a candidate in the 2016 presidential election.


    “I will tell you that what he did, what Comey did, had good moments for me as a candidate. I’m only talking as a candidate, I’m not saying as president,” Trump told NBC News’ Lester Holt, beginning to recount a July 2016 press conference in which Comey announced the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton in the case.

    “When he came out with that scathing set of circumstances, the server … the emails, 33,000 emails … Then he gets to the end and he said she’s free as a bird,” Trump said.

    Trump fired Comey from the FBI on Tuesday, an action that stunned both Republicans and Democrats, and caught agents at the bureau by surprise because the agency is deep into an investigation to find potentially improper links between Trump associates and Russian operatives.

    The president’s original dismissal letter to Comey indicated that he was being fired for his handling of the Clinton email probe. On the campaign trail, Trump often declared that Clinton should have been prosecuted — despite the FBI’s findings that no charges were warranted.

    Trump reiterated his displeasure with Comey on NBC News: “He had a lot of pressure put on and he exonerated her. Should have never exonerated her.”

    http://pamelageller.com/2017/05/president-trump-james-comey-never-exonerated-hillary-clinton.html/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ayn Rand Making Some Sense

    May 14, 2017
    Ayn Rand, Altruism, and Jihad
    By Eileen F. Toplansky

    In fathoming the failure of Europeans to protect their own interests against the onslaught of Islamic jihadism, one is reminded of Ayn Rand's quotation that "[r]eason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them[.]"

    Bruce Bawer, an astute observer of the European scene, wonders how "Marine Le Pen lost in a landslide" given all the jihadist assaults against the French people and the very culture of France. Bawer offers three possibilities that include:


    European guilt about past imperial histories and a "need to atone."
    the postmodern belief that "no culture is better than any other – and it's racist to say otherwise."
    the influence of the mainstream media, which routinely "soft pedals the Islamic roots of terror"
    the fact that "some people don't want to learn the truth"

    In the Autumn 2004 issue of the Wilson Quarterly, Christopher Clausen writes that "for many Europeans in the past 20 years, now-distant memories of both world wars have hardened into a self-righteous conviction that peace outweighs any value that might conflict with it, almost regardless of the threat or provocation."

    Consequently, there is an exquisite disregard in deliberately ignoring the "grim possibility that their children and grandchildren might end up by living under shariah law, if, in fact, they are allowed to live at all." Consider that London presently has 100 sharia courts that are "based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law." Moreover, "a third of UK Muslims do not feel 'part of British culture.'"

    As further evidence of the ultimate intent of Islamists, Saudi religious scholars include the following in the nine-volume English translation of the Quran.

    [D]iscard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) ... to fight against all the Mushrikun as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the non-Muslims who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

    As Nonie Darwish has pointed out, 64% of the Quran is devoted to denigrating commentary about kafirs, or non-Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet, while the above quoted words of the Quran should "forever silence any fantasies regarding Islam's peaceful disposition toward the non-Muslim," the West continues to avoid the obvious. But as Ayn Rand has noted, "[y]ou can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

      Hence, France continues to decompose in front of our eyes. Yves Mamou writes that "everything that represents state institutions ... is now subjected to violence based on essentially sectarian and sometimes ethnic excesses, fueled by an incredible hatred of our country[.]" Ultimately, France "and all of European society must assimilate Islamic social norms, not the other way around."

      Newly elected President Macron symbolizes the multicultural manifesto when he maintains that "French culture doesn't exist in and of itself; there is no such thing as a single French culture. There is culture in France and it is diverse and multiple." Is it then inevitable that "France is going to have to live with terrorism," as former prime minister Manuel Valls proclaimed?

      Coupled with the ongoing Islamic push is the leftist destructive bent. Thus, "Belgium is unique" in that it is the "first nation blending appeasement to Islam and a suicidal form of nihilism[.]" It is not coincidental that in Belgium, "euthanasia is out of control." With a record number of people killed by lethal injection, it is equally disturbing that "Belgium is the country with the highest per capita number of volunteers for the Caliphate."

      Judith Friedman Rosen reminds us that against the backdrop of Normandy, where tourists "pay tribute to those who died pursuing liberty," there is a pervasive fear as the "French open door policy to Muslim immigrants, who reject Western values and liberty" has given way to "terror, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian murders." The "clash of culture and civilization" continues, and "unlike the Asian and Indian immigrants ... many of the Muslims are not willing to integrate into the society – and are trying to force their values such as Halal, [and] the prohibition of pork ... onto the French populace." What will be the future of France when "30% of French Muslims want Sharia law and less than 25% identify as French citizens"?

      Delete
    2. The Jihad Files by N.M. Guariglia document the results of jihad throughout the world so that Paris is now "one of the most dangerous capitals on Earth." A "Toronto imam has sworn that all Muslims will eventually kill all Jews." And in the name of religion, Pakistani three-year-olds are being married off while Nigerian three-year-olds are having heavy stones dropped on their heads. Not to be outdone, "[i]n Iraq, ISIS continues to commit unimaginable crimes. Approximately 200 Iraqis have been kidnapped to be used as human shields against U.S. air strikes. Homosexuals continue to get murdered in large quantities and for public display. Mentally handicapped Iraqis are being rounded up by ISIS and used against their will as suicide bombers. And mass executions against civilians accused of 'blasphemy' continue unabated."

      The incursions continue as the "Saudis plan on building 560 mosques across the South Asian nation of Bangladesh." Is it not surprising, then, that "minority communities across Bangladesh are once again facing violence and persecution by the Sunni Muslim majority"? Mohshin Habib describes how "many Hindu areas experience attacks of ... religious oppression. Muslim fundamentalists vandalized idols, set fire to Hindu temples and ... looted valuables from temples."

      Bruce Thornton asks, "[H]ow much worse will the destruction and death have to be to wake us up?" These "indulgences of naive idealism," dangerous delusions, and jihad denial still paralyze the West. Ayn Rand reminds us that "there are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

      Until we can incorporate the idea that "nothing is creepier than Islam" and begin to "challenge Islamic racism, misogyny, genocide," as Edward Cline exhorts, how can decent people not fall prey to Linda Sarsour's "stealth jihad in a hijab"?

      Delete
    3. Amazingly, the more obvious the facts, "the more fiercely do people resist them." Bawer explains that "as skilled propagandists [continue to] represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners [are] quick to buy into it all." This is aided by the "media's cheery ignorance about Islam's hostile ideology," as revealed by A.Z. Mohamed.

      This is the most puzzling aspect of the media's capitulation. After all, Islam brooks no dissent, and freedom of press and speech is eventually obliterated. But Ayn Rand explains that "to act rationally means to act in accordance with the acts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts[.]"

      Even the Church, which is "the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith," has abrogated its role. Instead of fighting to save the lives of Christians who are unwilling to renounce Christ, too many churches are deafeningly silent on terrorism. Denis MacEoin describes how the United Church of Christ (UCC) cultivates dealings with Islamic groups "despite the fact that Muslims across the Middle East have been killing, expelling, and humiliating Christians for a very long time, but especially in recent decades." Why hasn't the UCC noted the mass exodus of Christians precipitated by extremist Muslims and the Palestinian authorities?

      But what might be a motivating factor for this ostensible ignorance and indifference? I turn again to Ayn Rand. For most people, the term "altruism" has a positive connotation. But Rand "rejects this perception of altruism[.] She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being." Thus, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue because "it secures and protects one's rational values – ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life."

      Rand maintains that "[t]he injunction 'don't judge' is the ultimate climax of the altruist morality which, today, can be seen in its naked essence. When men plead for forgiveness, for the nameless, cosmic forgiveness of an unconfessed evil, when they react with instantaneous compassion to any guilt, to the perpetrators of any atrocity, while turning away indifferently from the bleeding bodies of the victims and the innocent—one may see the actual purpose, motive and psychological appeal of the altruist code. When these same compassionate men turn with snarling hatred upon anyone who pronounces moral judgments, when they scream that the only evil is the determination to fight against evil—one may see the kind of moral blank check that the altruist morality hands out."

      Edward Cline has asked if Europe is in the terminal state of a death wish. He asserts that Europe's "foundational driver is altruism" – a kind of "moral blank check." The West appears to have lost the desire "to value [itself] which means to fight for [its] happiness."

      Since "Allah demands that humans not love him, but submit to him, as slaves submit to their masters, and to sacrifice their lives for him," we should absolutely refuse to accept this frame of reference and all that it entails. Instead, we need to realize that "if any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism [or self-destructive generosity] that men have to reject."

      Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/ayn_rand_altruism_and_jihad.html

      Delete
  19. May 14, 2017
    Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table
    By Clarice Feldman

    The notion that Russian interfered in the election to help Trump was a John Brennan/James Clapper confection created in an unorthodox way and defied logic, given that Hillary and her associates had far more close connections to Russia than Trump or his associates did.

    THE CLINTON FAMILY BUSINESS [snip] Bill Clinton received half a million dollars in 2010 for a speech he gave in Moscow, paid by a Russian firm, Renaissance Capital, that has ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation took money from Russian officials and oligarchs, including Victor Kekselberg, a Putin confidant. The Foundation also received millions of dollars from Uranium One, which was sold to the Russian government in 2010, giving Russia control of 20% of the uranium deposits in the U.S. — the sale required approval from Hillary Clinton's State Department. What's more, at least some of these donations weren't disclosed. "Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government's uranium company, Uranium One, made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all such donors," the Times has reported.


    JOHN PODESTA In March -- that is, long after the election was over -- it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman had failed to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company -- Joule Unlimited -- for which he served as director from 2010 to 2014, when he joined the Obama White House in 2014. Podesta apparently had a large chunk of the shares transferred to "Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on Dec. 20, 2013, about 10 days before he entered the White House," according to a news account.

    TONY PODESTA Mr. Podesta's bother, who has close personal and business relations with Mrs. Clinton, was "key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics," a March news story reported. The bank was "seeking to end one of the Obama administration's economic sanctions against that country." The report goes on to note that "Podesta's efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia's second largest bank." Mr. Obama imposed the sanctions following the Russian seizure of the Crimean region of Ukraine in 2014.

    JOHN BREAUX Forbes magazine reports that Mr. Breaux, a former Senator from Louisiana who cut radio ads for Mrs. Clinton's 2008 campaign, represents Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia's third largest bank, on "banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions."

    THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN In March, Mr. Putin's spokesman said that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with members of Mrs. Clinton's campaign several times while she was running for president in 2016. Further, the campaign never disclosed the number or nature of these secret meetings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the great Sharyl Attkisson reports, 12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:

      The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016); House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017); Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017); Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017); James Comey, March 20, 2017; Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017; Rep, Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017); Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017), Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017; James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017); Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017) President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).

      Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein’s view that the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians.

      The firing of FBI Director James Comey caught both the media and press off guard. Up until a few hours before the firing, prominent Democrats had been calling for him to resign or be fired and the media had been critical of his performance. There have been many leaks about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn collected from government surveillance and unmasked and read by others, including recently fired acting attorney general and former DNI Clapper (and who knows how many others since that information was shared with others in the government). As the author of the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web observes: “Whoever has been leaking classified information, reporters might want to start asking their sources why the leaks never seem to contain any collusion evidence. They might also ask Mr. Schiff what it would take to get him interested in investigating potential abuses of his political adversaries.

      Law professor Jonathan Turley says much the same thing: “No one has yet to explain to me what the core crime that would be investigated with regards to Russian influence,' Turley said Wednesday evening. 'I don't see the crime, so I don't see how it's closing in on Trump.'

      'For weeks I've questioned the need for special counsel because honestly I still don't see the underlying crime here. You know, when we talk about the Russian influence and collusion, there's not any evidence I've seen of collusion,' Turley said on Morning Joe today....

      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/russian_hacking_and_collusion_put_the_cards_on_the_table_.html

      Delete
  20. One more good one from AT - :)

    May 14, 2017
    Trump fu traps James Comey?
    By James Lewis

    According to Jim Comey (who was just fired as director of the FBI), Trump invited Comey into his parlor and asked him a very tricky question. Now the question is who trapped whom, because they are both quite capable of setting a trap, and at least Comey seems to have stepped into it good.

    We don't have an exact quote from the Trump-Comey conversation, but supposedly Trump asked Comey if Comey is loyal to Trump.


    If those were the words Trump used, it would be illegal, and, as Larry Tribe instantly told the newsies, it would be "ground for impeachment." Funny how quick Larry came off the mark on that question.

    But there were only two witnesses, Trump and Comey, unless the talk was being taped – which would also be illegal.

    We may never know what was said, but Trump is not a fool, and he knows that Comey is a Clinton appointee who pardoned Ole Bill after he was impeached in 2002.

    Comey is likely to be the anti-Trump leaker who's been rousing Washington's killer bloodlust for the last several weeks. If so, Comey would be following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon's Deep Throat, Mark Felt, Sr., who was associate director of the FBI, and who destroyed Nixon using one deadly leak after the next.

    In collusion with Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post. Whose editor today would be one Bob Woodward.

    Interesting how things come around again.

    Anyway, the other day, Trump needed to know if Comey was one of the big leakers trying to destroy him. Because the NYT and WaPo and a thousand other media types have made no secret of their bloodlust when it comes to destroying one Donald Trump, duly elected president of the United States.

    I'll bet that Trump, who knows how to confuse liberals with his words, said something that was almost impeachable, but not quite. But nobody is going to confess to taping it, because that would also be illegal.

    So Comey snaps at the sucker bait and tells Jim Clapper (who just got fired himself as DCI) that Trump is dead meat.

    The House Intelligence Committee instantly asks Comey to testify. Secretly or publicly. They don't care. They just want to see a dead body swinging in the wind.

    Then Trump springs his trap, using his favorite bullhorn: his Twitter account and its several million followers.

    Including all the news media, who keep a 24-hour death watch on Trump's tweets, waiting for him to break his neck in public.

    So Trump tweets:

    James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

    That was 5.25 am on 12 May 2017.

    Snap!

    Guess who got caught! James Comey, who is accusing the president of the United States of an impeachable crime without being able to prove it?

    Or Donald Trump?

    I guess we'll find out very soon.

    I'm betting on Trump reeling this big one in soon.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/trump_fu_traps_james_comey.html

    Except that I don't know if this is correct:

    But there were only two witnesses, Trump and Comey, unless the talk was being taped – which would also be illegal.

    ReplyDelete