“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Seriously, would anyone, anywhere, trust the US Government?

Fire Bolton

Do you remember the story of the dog in the manger? It’s an old Greek myth. A dog lies in the manger, surrounded by hay. The dog can’t eat hay. Only horses eat hay. But the dog won’t let the horses into the manger to eat.

That’s North Korea. The hay is North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Kim Jong-un is the dog. He can’t use the nukes but he can’t let anyone else get them either.

And why not? Because of the way in which American foreign policy idealism creates monsters that threaten us.

Put yourself in Kim’s shoes. He doesn’t need the nukes to protect himself against his own people. If he has a problem with someone he’ll rip them apart with a machine gun. He did that to a Defense Chief who fell asleep during one of his speeches.

And he’s not about to initiate a nuclear war with the United States. He’d be signing his death warrant, and he knows that.

So why does he need the nukes? Why, to protect himself from America idealism. His nukes are defensive. What he’s telling us is that he’ll attack us if we try to depose him.

As we did in Libya. It’s all about Libya. It’s always been about Libya.

Remember how the Obama administration greeted the “Arab Spring”? It brought down some American friends such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, as well some deranged miscreants such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. It replaced them in Egypt with the Moslem Brotherhood and in Libya with the people who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Ah, Libya. It was supposed to give us a democratic Arab nation, one as firmly committed to human rights as any San Francisco Democrat. The then-Secretary of State was so gung-ho for it that the Washington Post called it “Hillary’s War.”
What it got us instead was blackest chaos. The death of our ambassador and the death of Gaddafi.

Which is what’s going on in Rocket Man’s mind. He doesn’t need nukes to defend himself against his own people. He needs nukes to defend himself against the way in which American foreign policy idealism threatens him.

That’s why Trump has gone out of his way to signal a return to realism in foreign policy. We’re no longer in the business of regime-change, of nation-building, he’s announced. That was George W. Bush. That was Hillary. It’s not us.

If that promise were credible, Kim wouldn’t need his nukes. He only needs them against a Hillary Clinton.

So the question for Kim is, do I trust the United States?

Well, ask yourself. Would you trust us? Have we shown ourselves so consistent in our foreign policy, so credible, that we’ve earned the right to be trusted?

We didn’t make ourselves more credible by appointing John Bolton as National Security Advisor. I know, Bolton tells us he no longer believes in nation-building. But he carries a lot of baggage from the failed George W. Bush administration. With that kind of a history, he should be going out of his way to signal a return to realism, but old habits die hard with someone so imperious, so cocksure, so war-loving as Bolton.

Kim fears Bolton. He’s right to do so. What a spanner Bolton threw into the works when he mentioned Libya last week. Trump’s goal is to ensure that we’re not threatened by North Korea’s nukes. Kim’s goal is to ensure that he’s not threated by the United States. To get there, we need to take the example of Libya off the table. By raising the issue Bolton reminded us of twenty years of American foreign policy failures and of how we can’t be trusted.

Which is why, in Trump’s shoes, I’d think of firing Bolton. Or at least of signaling to Kim that Bolton doesn’t speak for us. Trump needs to remind everyone of how he promised realism in our foreign policy.

Some liberals have expressed surprise that we aren’t seeking regime change in North Korea. That’s because they’re idiots. Realism, and the abandonment of foreign policy idealism, is precisely what Trump has promised for the last two years.

Some conservatives have defended Bolton as the administration’s “bad cop.” We don’t need a bad cop, however. What is needed instead is realism, cynicism, and a recognition that both we and the Norks have a credibility problem. Bolton doesn’t help. He’s not dumb and he’s not especially sharp. He’s just a ventor cloaca.

F.H. Buckley is a foundation professor at Scalia Law School at George Mason University and author of 

The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed,

 forthcoming from Encounter.


  1. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama/ Clinton in waiting:

    One lying, deceitful, incompetent, genius after another.

    Trump is giving them all an arm fart. They hate him because he is making them look what they are and what they cost us.


  2. Who says we can't compete ? -

    More Trump economy good news -

    US reclaims top spot in global competitiveness - 5/29/18
    The U.S. beat out Hong Kong and Singapore for the top spot. More

    A surging economy and improved atmosphere for scientific and technological innovation has allowed the U.S. to regain the top spot in global competitiveness rankings.

    The U.S. moved past Hong Kong to claim the top spot for the first time since 2015....

    Read more:

    We may have an immense number of dumb fucks but we've got an immense number of the best and brightest, too.

    It is China that is stealing intellectual property from us, not the other way around.

    And there are five Chinamen for every Yank.

    1. The U.S., which reclaimed the No. 1 spot for the first time since 2015, scored especially well in international investment, domestic economy and scientific infrastructure

    2. Speaking of infrastructure, we need to get popping on the EMP threat.

  3. Note****

    Check out Quirk making a fool of himself towards the end of the last thread, if you have the heart for it.

    Not really recommended.

    It makes one weep.

    1. Quirk would be a lot better off if he quit reading The New York Times -

      May 29, 2018
      New York Times fake news BUSTED
      By Thomas Lifson

      Read more:

    2. You should take up reading Molly Hemingway, Quirk.

      No relation that I know of to The Great Man but an excellent reporter.

    3. (always lookin' out for you an' tryin' to be helpful)

    4. And while the ranking is good news, perhaps the biggest improvement in competitiveness was in the elimination of dozens of regulations that hampered innovation.

      With this new regulatory atmosphere, the U.S. should remain at or near the top spot for years to come.

      Read more:

      Just WHO has been eliminating all the regs ?????

      Santa Claus ??????

    5. Oh yeah -

      On airline cronyism, Trump puts America first - 5/29/18
      Open Skies agreements are a great deal for American travelers. More

      Last week, the United States and United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced an Open Skies deal that put an end to a years-long dispute between U.S. and UAE airlines over government subsidies. The deal demonstrates the Trump administration's willingness to overcome moneyed lobbyists and ignore cronyist rhetoric to find solutions that benefit all Americans....

      Read more:

    6. (this should make it cheaper for me to ship Quirk to Gaza)

  4. Video: David Wood, Jon McCray and Robert Spencer discuss the arrest of Tommy Robinson

    MAY 29, 2018 12:19 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

  5. It's painful.

    If you really want to torture yourself, listen and look north to Canookiston and Justin Pierre James Trudeau. Canada will need to restocked by native Britains and Europeans fleeing the disasters created by The UK establishment,

    1. Which was more tortuous to watch, The Royal Wedding or Justin in India?

    2. Justin in India.

      If The Royal Wedding had taken place in India with Justin as an honored guest, it would have been the death of us all.

  6. Someone has suggested having a year of 'Roseanne' without Roseanne.

    Good creative idea that might make a super sitcom.

    I say give it a try.

    Roseanne could be off doing a year's penance for breaking the rules of the PC gods, making a short cameo once in a while and reporting on prison life.

  7. That us a pretty damn good characterization of Trump - he us just giving them all arm farts. No plan, no strategy, just arm farts. Bingo!

    1. You have your stupid looking radioactive arms raised as if to give everyone big arm farts, Ash.

      he-he he

  8. The Obama Administration’s Hypocritical Pretext for Spying on the Trump Campaign


    May 29, 2018 6:30 AM

    President Obama in 2016 (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

    Where was its concern about Russia during its eight years in power?

    As I argued in my weekend column, it is hard to imagine a more idle question than whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. Of course it did. If you want to argue the point, imagine what the professors, pundits, and pols would have said had the Bush administration run an informant against three Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign co-chairman; any hair-splitting about whether that technically constituted “spying” would be met by ostracism from polite society.

    There is, in addition, more evidence — at least, more public, verified evidence — that Stefan Halper was a spy for the FBI than that Carter Page was one for Russia. This is not a small point.

    Spy vs. ‘Spy’

    It has been credibly reported that Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, was tasked by the FBI in the Trump-Russia investigation to make contact with and get information from at least three Trump campaign officials. He even sought a role in the campaign from co-chairman Sam Clovis. Page, on the other hand, was the target of four FISA court surveillance warrants, which enabled the Justice Department and FBI to monitor him for a year, starting at the height of the 2016 campaign.

    To obtain such a warrant under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), the FBI and Justice Department must convince a judge that there is probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power — in Page’s case, of Russia. As we’ve previously outlined (here, last section), because Page is an American citizen, the Obama administration had to have told the court that he was either: (a) “knowingly engage[d] in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of [Russia], which activities involve[d] or may [have] involve[d]” federal crimes; or (b) “knowingly engaged in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of [Russia], that were undertaken “pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of [Russia],” and that “involve[d] or [were] about to involve” federal crimes.

    (See Section 1801(b)(2) of Title 50, U.S. Code. I am assuming it was not alleged that Page was knowingly engaged in sabotage, international terrorism, or the use of false identities, the alternative statutory grounds for claiming that a U.S. citizen is acting as an agent of a foreign power.)

    Assuming the Obama administration told the FISA court that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia, I’d make two observations: First, the only publicly known allegations that Page was engaged in such clandestine activities come from the Steele dossier, and appear to be unverified.

    Second, Page has never been charged with a crime, which would be odd if the FBI had been able to verify its FISA application claims — posited four times over a year of surveillance — that he was engaged in activities that appeared to be federal crimes. (We have not been permitted to see the FISA applications; I am assuming here that the Justice Department would not seek a FISA warrant, and the court would not grant one, unless the application addressed FISA’s requirements for showing an American to be an agent of a foreign power.)

    To put the matter more succinctly: We know why it is claimed that Halper was a spy; we still do not know why it was claimed that Page was a spy.

    1. To repeat previously covered ground, we know that Russian spies tried to recruit Page in 2013. Yet, it appears that he cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department in the prosecution of the spies. (The Justice Department used his information in the arrest complaint — here, pp. 12-13, paras. 32-33, referring to Page as “Male-1”.) The Russian spies, moreover, expressed contempt for Page, referring to him as “an idiot” in a monitored conversation. This would not seem to be a promising jumping-off point for any future recruitment efforts.

      The Norm Against Political Spying

      I want to be clear: I am not offended by the word spy. If Halper’s mission was righteous, the Justice Department and FBI should be proud that he was a spy. And if, on behalf of Russia, Page conducted clandestine anti-American activities that constituted felony violations of American law, I would enthusiastically support labeling him a spy and prosecuting him to the full extent of the law. I’d want any official who knew about and supported such traitorous activities to be removed from office and prosecuted.

      But there are two things to bear in mind.

      The first is that while the law liberally permits criminal investigators and intelligence officers to use informants, there are situations in which spying is resisted. Among the most important are those involving our politics, particularly elections. We have an important norm in this country against political spying — a matter of tradition, of democratic institutions, of constitutional principles, and of modern history’s Watergate chapter. The incumbent administration must not use its awesome counterintelligence, counterespionage, and law-enforcement powers against its political opposition absent compelling evidence of egregious misconduct.

      The question of what amounts to egregious misconduct in the context of Russia cannot be answered in a Trump vacuum.

      So far, apologists for the Trump-Russia investigation have posited only reasonable suspicions of Russia sympathies, harbored by a handful of Trump campaign figures and implied by some of Trump’s campaign rhetoric. Reasonable suspicions are not trifles, but neither are they in the same ballpark as egregious misconduct.

      The Context of American Policy on Post-Soviet Russia

      That brings us to the second point: The question of what amounts to egregious misconduct in the context of Russia cannot be answered in a Trump vacuum. It must be informed by history.

      I did not support Donald Trump in the Republican primaries; I considered my ultimate vote for him as a vote against Hillary Clinton. One of many reasons I did not support Trump was revulsion over his blandishments toward Putin’s Russia, which I have never regarded as anything but a murderous regime hostile to the United States. This is not a new position for me — I argued it throughout the Bush and Obama presidencies, well before Trump came along (see here, recapping).

    2. That said, the opposition of people like me to the lunacy of deeming Russia a “strategic partner” has not had much impact on U.S. policy. In the three decades from perestroika through Putin, from George H. W. Bush’s “Chicken Kiev” speech through Barack Obama’s hot-mic promise of “more flexibility” on the Kremlin’s agenda of hamstringing America, the U.S. government has regarded the regime in Moscow through rose-colored glasses, as a democratically inclined, capitalism-friendly reformer and potential ally.

      The unsustainability of the Communist system, under the pressure of Reagan’s military build-up and support of anti-Communist movements, made the Evil Empire’s disintegration inevitable. Gifted a historic opportunity to dance on the grave of Soviet tyranny, our government’s bipartisan foreign-policy establishment punted. Rather than call the culprits to account and make an enduring record of the hundreds of millions killed and enslaved, successive administrations embraced and propped up Moscow as a force for global stability. You want to tell me about Paul Manafort’s collaboration with Kremlin-backed Ukrainian thugs? How about George H. W. Bush trying to persuade Kiev not to break away from Moscow, after which Clinton, Bush-43, and Obama enticed Ukraine to give up its means of self-defense on the false promise that we would protect them from Russian aggression — a promise premised on the pie-in-the-sky theory that there would be no Russian aggression?

      In just the decade before Trump’s 2016 campaign, as the Putin regime menaced former Soviet satellites, the Bush administration negotiated and submitted to Congress the daft U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, endorsing the export to Moscow of technology, material, equipment, and components for nuclear research and nuclear power production. Russia’s invasion of Georgia — including the still-ongoing occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia — made congressional approval of this embarrassing pact politically impossible for a time. Yet it was revived soon enough in the Obama “reset” of relations with Moscow steered by then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Clinton promised an era of cooperation in counterterrorism and non-proliferation while Putin went merrily along backing nuclear-energy development and advanced military capabilities in Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism. Obama, of course, made nary a peep since he needed Moscow’s help to pull off the ludicrous Iran nuclear deal. As the Putin thug-ocracy rattled its saber, Obama ushered its entry into the World Trade Organization and pushed through the wayward “New START” treaty.

      In the 2012 campaign, when Mitt Romney portrayed Russia as our principal geopolitical foe, Obama and Democrats mocked him. In the 2016 campaign, Trump’s Russia rhetoric was an echo — in Trumpian bluntness — of the Democrats’ position. Alas, they had nominated the candidate most ill-suited to exploit the Putin appeasement flavor of the Trump bid.

    3. Mrs. Clinton, we’ve observed, was neck-deep in the Obama administration’s Uranium One scandal. Recall the $145 million that poured into the Clinton Foundation; the half-million-dollar pay day a Kremlin-connected bank ponied up for a short Bill Clinton speech (about five times more than Russia paid for those 2016 ads on Facebook, and more than ten times what the Kremlin’s propaganda arm, RT, paid for a 2015 speech by eventual Trump campaign adviser Michael Flynn); the Clintons’ meetings in Russia with Putin and Medvedev while the U.S. government was mulling approval of Russia’s acquisition — through its energy giant, Rosatom — of one-fifth of America’s uranium stock (in addition to more copious uranium reserves in Kazakhstan); the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to bring a prosecutable felony case against Rosatom’s American affiliate (Tenam USA) while the Uranium One deal was under consideration; and the same Department’s quiet resolution of the case on a sweetheart plea years later, after Putin’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine (despite Obama’s plea for flexibility) had left Obama’s “reset” policy in shambles.

      Choosing Political Spying Over Other Alternatives

      We could go on. The point, however, is that after 30 years of embracing and empowering Moscow, it is not credible — particularly for an administration that was among the worst offenders — to say, “We had to use spies and FISA surveillance against the Trump campaign due to suspicion that Trump might embrace and empower Moscow.”

      Of course, there were also Russia hawks among Trump’s supporters, and it is not surprising that Trump has been tougher on the Kremlin than Obama was — a low bar, to be sure.

      That could not have been known in the spring of 2016, when it appears that suspicions about Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and Paul Manafort prompted Obama national-security officials to begin investigating Obama’s (and Clinton’s) political opposition. The Obama administration could have been more measured. If its concerns were based in good faith rather than political opportunism, it could have dispatched the FBI to interview Page (whom agents had interviewed several times since 2013, and apparently did interview in March 2016), and Manafort (who, along with his partner, Richard Gates, was speaking with the Justice Department in 2016 about their work for the Kremlin’s favored Ukrainian political party). It could have given responsible Trump campaign officials a defensive briefing to alert them about its concerns.

      Instead, the Obama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics. It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.

  9. May 30, 2018

    Democrat denials about campaign spying on Trump are pure hypocrisy

    By Jack Hellner

    The Democrats, including the media, are on offense, attacking and seeking to destroy President Trump and his agenda every day. Sometimes Democrats have to play defense to try to defend and lie about the Obama administration's truly scandalous acts, the latest of which was his inserting spies into the Trump campaign back in 2016. Instead of admitting the problem, they are instead pretending that spying isn't spying. It is now "intelligence-gathering" to "help" Trump and protect Americans from the Russians.

    Like we are supposed to believe that helping Trump is just part of their agenda.

    Democrats, it must be remembered, worked with Russia and Russians, to develop the fictitious Russian dossier, which is what they did, They blamed the Russians for breaking into their computers (somehow the Justice department and intelligence agencies took their word for it, instead of examine the computers themselves, which Democrats would not allow them to do. Isn’t it stupid for Justice officials to take the DNC’s word for who hacked their computers? Were they scared of the truth?

    Hillary Clinton, the Podestas and others obviously had plenty of contacts with Russia, yet somehow no spies were embedded with the Hillary campaign, no phone calls recorded and there was no unmasking.

    I would think that if the Obama administration was actually worried about Russian infiltration of our system, they would have been gathering information from both campaigns but they weren't, which shows that they didn’t care about Russia, they were just seeking to destroy Trump.

    I understand why there were no U.S. spies embedded in the Clinton campaign. FBI Director James Comey pretty well said that Hillary and her aides were too stupid to have the intent to break the law. Comey essentially found them all innocent by reason of mental incompetence prior to an actual investigation. Hillary and her team could use the defense if she was actually charged. Democrats, including Obama and the majority of the media never cared whether Bill, Hillary or their aides followed the law, so how were they supposed to learn right from wrong? They had never been held to account and no one was about to start no matter how many laws they broke. They were above the law and yet we constantly hear Comey, Democats and others say no one is above the law.

    Back in the good old days, the media, especially the Washington Post. cared if a campaign was gathering intelligence on its opponent, but now they don't care even as the president used the Justice department, the Defense department, and the intelligence agencies to gather intelligence to destroy an opponent and that is extremely dangerous to our freedom and democracy.

    The media and other Democrats treat us as if we are ignorant. They act like the fictitious Russian collusion story is true and they treat the spying story as false. I guess they are using the Bill Clinton line. It depends what the definition of 'is' is.

    1. Here are a couple definitions of a spy:

      a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

      synonyms: secret agent, intelligence agent, double agent, undercover agent, counterspy, mole, sleeper, plant, scout



      work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.

      Doesn’t this look exactly like what the Obama Administration did to Trump and his campaign?

      I would have thought by now that some of the media would actually be embarrassed that they are being used to push an agenda and a party while seeking to destroy the other party. The media is supposed to hold the powerful to account, but instead they are protecting the powerful at the expense of the people.

      The collusion between the media and Democrats to elect Hillary and destroy Trump by using all the resources of the taxpayers was much more dangerous than anything the Russians did or could have done. The fact that the media doesn’t care is atrocious.

  10. Elizabeth Warren praises communist China 'long-term whole-of-govt' strategy....DRUDGE

    Fauxcohantes is still refusing to take the DNA test that will prove she is an injin.

    If she took the test it would prove she is not an injin.

    The head injin of her tribe has challenged Fauxcohantes to step up and take the test.

    Fauxcohantes got lots of educational and college aid money by claiming she was an injin.

    What she is proving by not taking the DNA test is that she is a liar and a thief.

    And, now she likes the Chi-coms.

    I wonder if she has any idea how many human beings died due to Mao and the Chi-coms.

    I doubt she has any idea whatsoever.

    So we can conclude at this point that she is a liar, not an injin, a thief, and an ignoramus when it comes to recent world history.

    She is planning on running for President of the USA.

    What can we do other than to continue to rely on the fact that when needed most God helps drunks, fools, and the U S of A ?

    If you get the chance vote against this faux injin, commie, liar and fool.

    You will feel better for having done so.

    Find an honest injin to vote for if you want to vote for an injin.

    There are plenty of great, honest ones out there.

    Vote for one of them but not for Fauxcohantes.


    2. In her own way Fauxcohantes is as phony as Ashlikins.

    3. Quirk at least is willing to step up and take an honest DNA test.

    4. Can't recall the exact result now but I recall it telling him he was less Polish than he had thought.

      I think he was a little less Polish, and a little more Highland Baboon.

      In any case I recall it was excellent news, and Quirk was very happy when he reported the results.

      And, who wouldn't be ??

  11. .

    Check out Quirk making a fool of himself towards the end of the last thread, if you have the heart for it.

    I responded to your stupid remark on the last stream, perhaps your stupidest ever. It was my penultimate comment. Ash was right yesterday when he said trying to reason with you morons is a waste of time. It is and I've been wasting a lot of time.

    The GOP says what the FBI did with their informant was what they should have done, what any police organization would do during an investigation. The Dems obviously agree. Trump reportedly said he is using the term 'Spy' instead of informant or source because the word has a more nefarious connotation. Giuliani says Trump's claim of 'Spygate' and a person being 'embedded' in his campaign for political reasons is just a PR scam (my word) intended merely to shift public opinion with his base. They have offered zero, zip, nada evidence of Trump's latest conspiracy theory.

    Doesn't matter. The Trumpies ignore it all and insist what Trump says has some basis in fact.

    It's impossible to reason with dolts who have drunk the Kool-Aid. They are beyond reasoning with.

    So Deuce can continue with his campaign to make the US, Canada, and the UK lily white again. Bob can continue his idiocy and his racism (that comment yesterday where he doubled down on Roseanne's vile comments was just the latest). And Doug, is his usual chickenshit passive aggressive way will continue to whine. Poor baby.

    Have fun.


    1. scam (my word)

      It's perfectly OK for you to use the word 'scam'.

      After all you are, we all accept, a past master at the art of scamming.

    2. May 30, 2018

      Democrat denials about campaign spying on Trump are pure hypocrisy

      By Jack Hellner

      The Democrats, including the media, are on offense, attacking and seeking to destroy President Trump and his agenda every day. Sometimes Democrats have to play defense to try to defend and lie about the Obama administration's truly scandalous acts, the latest of which was his inserting spies into the Trump campaign back in 2016. Instead of admitting the problem, they are instead pretending that spying isn't spying. It is now "intelligence-gathering" to "help" Trump and protect Americans from the Russians.

      Like we are supposed to believe that helping Trump is just part of their agenda....

      That was fun.

    3. Have you been using Ambien ?

    4. Consider, though, that even "little Marco" has bought into the notion that the government was not spying, only trying to ferret out Russians and their agents trying to penetrate the Trump campaign, and that Trump should be happy for it.

      And people are starting to buy it.

      Do a people who promote/tolerate a government of, by and for the stupid deserve self-governance?

    5. The only interesting thing reading here has been your comments Quirk. No need to reason here just mocking is good enough as reasoning with the 3 stooges is lije negotiating with rocks that can type.

    6. Elated to see someone, anyone, riding to Quirk's rescue.

      He certainly needs the backup.

      He's got some odd notions in his noggin of late, and if you can help....

      He is in a serious fix, sort of like a baboon that has been doing some serious boozing.

      I wish you and your efforts well.

  12. Pooty's journo total now at 12 -

    12th Anti-Putin Russian journalist murdered - 5/30/18
    Arkady Babchenko was targeted and shot dead in his apartment in Kiev. More