Friday, April 28, 2017

Gun control, how about a purse?

Forget about any 2nd Amendment rights to self defense, just carry a purse.

An ex-con was trying to carjack a woman in Brooklyn and in the process fired a .40 caliber gun point plank at her, but her life was spared because her purse took the brunt of the blast.

Victor Walker, 52, approached the 39-year-old woman as she loaded luggage into her Jeep Cherokee on Patchen Ave. near Van Buren St. in Bedford-Stuyvesant about 4:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 26th 2017.

Accoring to the New York Daily News, he pulled a .40-caliber pistol and demanded her car keys but she instead put up a fight. The two struggled, Walker fired off a shot at point-blank range. The shot failed to stop her, so Walker pistol-whipped the woman causing a deep cut to her head. Walker escaped the scene in the victim's Jeep but police found him later and arrested him on charges of attempted murder and robbery and assault. The woman was taken to a local hospital for tratment.

The multiple charges will give his lawyer, most likely taxpayer paid, an opportunity to plead down the charges. This is not the first time Victor got his ass in trouble. According to the New York Police, on Tuesday, Nov. 15th 2011, Walker is suspected of shooting Artis Arthur, 43, three times in the back with a .40-caliber handgun. Prosecutors declined to bring charges against suspect Victor Walker, 47, who turned himself over to cops. A spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney declined to comment.

 Victor Walker, 52, is accused of shooting a 39-year-old woman in Bedford-Stuyvesant while he was trying to steal her car

Monday, April 24, 2017

Pay It Forward

Evan McMullin ultimately failed in his attempt to deny Donald Trump enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Now the Utah native will be challenged to pay off his campaign debt which means he may never enter the political arena again.

McMullin still owes some $670,000 to vendors who helped his campaign, including more than half a million dollars to a law firm. Vendors are worried they might get stiffed.

Tanner Leatham, in a Salt Lake City newspaper says, "From what I know, they do not have any capability or plans to pay all the vendors they still owe money, they have told me they cannot pay us what they owe." Leatham assisted McMullin's campaign and is owed $10,000.

"Raising money as a challenger for a political seat is really difficult," says Kirk Jowers, in the Salt Lake Tribune, "Raising money when that race is over is close to impossible." Donors could see McMullin in a bad light if he runs again, and so will vendors.

Hillary Clinton took four years to pay off millions in debt from her 2008 campaign. McMullin is an independent and has no party apparatus to help to pay the bills. Jon Huntsman, a fellow Utahn who ran for president in 2012, had to dig into his own pocket to pay off his debts.

McMullin, a former CIA officer who also worked for the U.S. House, doesn't have the big bucks of Huntsman (son of a billionaire, among other resorces) had to pay off debt, and he doesn't have the star power of Clinton to exploit the fundraising circuit. But that may be jumping the gun, so to speak.

McMullin is in a perfect position to exploit his ability to gain star power. He can feign the media as being someone who can, in the eyes of the media, insult Trump. When he does this he will get unlimited media attention. Not only will the media concentrate on him, they will promote him to the head of the class, the top of the heap, even if they have to subordinate more important stories. Indeed, this will give them, the media, the perfect opportunity to omit the more relevant items in the news. Omission is the primary work of the media.

What is actually the work here of McMullin, the media, and so-called Republican critics of other Republicans such as Republican strategist Rick Wilson and neoconservative publisher Bill Kristol, is an attack on the Republican base. As we have witnessed now for some time is that Trump cannot be embarrassed. If the infamous 'Access Hollywood' video could not bring him down, nothing could. However, plenty of the conservative base had to endure mock and ridicule from friends, family and associates to the degree that they had to shy away from proclaiming to be a conservative Republican. They want to make being a Republican a test of courage that will be difficult to pass. Not all Republicans will be brave enough, just ask former senator, Kelly Ayotte.

Evan McMullin has carved out for himself a very lucrative position in the American political landscape. Perhaps he needs to dig himself in a little deeper but he is now in over his head so why not? To the media he is worth his weight in gold.

“I haven’t decided if I’ll pursue elected office in 2018, I do believe that I will run again, pursue public office again. I don’t know when that is. I haven’t made a decision about 2018 or beyond.” McMullin said on MSNBC.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Handel will Face Off with Ossoff in the Run Off 

The congressional seat in Georgia's 6th district is open due to the resignation of the 2016 election victor Tom Price who has abandoned the seat to become the Health and Human Services Secretary in the Trump administration. Price won the '16 election with 61.68% to Rodney Stooksbury's 38.32% of the vote. There were 326,005 votes cast. In that same election Trump won the presidential contest in the congressional district by a single point.

Rodney Stooksbury, the hand picked candidate of the Democratic party, is known as the “insiders baseball club” candidate.

The political climate in the whole country put this Special Election in the spotlight. Democrats felt the time was ripe to 'flip the district' and add to the perceived momentum which would lead to a change in the majority power in the congress in 2018. Media analysis of the race presented the Democrats with a dilemma. The contest for the House seat was depressing but the contest at the presidential level held out promise. They decided to ignore the Republican candidate and make it a referendum on President Trump.

Eleven Democrats expressed an interest in running. Five of them had previously been elected to public office as either a State Senator or a State Representative. There was also a college professor, a couple of attorneys, a physician, an executive and a former congressional aide. An analysis by Indivisible, the grass-roots organizing group that has risen up in opposition to Trump, had this input, "Finally, candidate recruitment and support on the Democratic side has historically been a big problem here. The national party has long neglected the 6th, and the candidates who have run here have been under-resourced as a result. Thankfully, that seems to be changing quickly now. There are three solid Democratic candidates already running: former state Representative Sally Harrell, former state Senator Ron Slotin, and anti-corruption filmmaker and former congressional aide Jon Ossoff. If one of them, or a truly anti-Trump Independent, can make it into a runoff, we’ll have a real chance to flip the seat."

Based on his theme of "make Trump furious," Jon Ossoff shot to the head of the pack. He raised $8.3 million, mostly from outside the state of Georgia, and dominated the narrative as election day approached. The Rollcall website published, "With Democratic enthusiasm and outside money coalescing around Ossoff, he’s been leading the field in recent polling. He’s now even speaking about winning the race outright in April." Confidence was brimming in the Democratic precincts especially in cash cow Hollywood and the media centers in New York and Washington, D. C. Sally Harrell, a former State Representative, withdrew as a candidate and endorsed Jon Ossoff.

In this Special Election there is no party nomination primary election. If a single candidate wins 50% plus of the vote, he or she is elected. Otherwise the two candidates with the most votes proceed to a Run-off Election on June 20th. The were 18 candidates; 5 Democrats, 11 Republicans, and 2 independents, in the race. There were 192,084 votes cast (unofficial as of April 20, 2017). No one captured the 50% plus required for election so Jon Ossoff (92,390 votes) and Karen Handel (37,993) will face off in the run-off.

Ossoff was quoted as saying that his win was a “victory for the ages.”

Not everyone agrees.

The New York Times’ Glenn Thrush said “My inbox … has been flooded by Democrats who are sort of saying Ossoff was a terrible candidate.”

MSNBC said that the Democrats were grumbling about how Jon Ossoff blew millions of campaign dollars on TV ads.

Hollywood actress Alyssa Milano said the Georgia election results made her ‘Want To Puke.’

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

The News Media 

If they can't report on each other, who can they report on?

Newsweek magazine is reporting that Breitbart news has hit back at reports that it toned down its coverage of Donald Trump aide Jared Kushner. Now, if the say, as Newsweek reports in their article titled, "BREITBART DENIES TONING DOWN JARED KUSHNER COVERAGE," on April 11th 2017 that Newsweek got from the "Business Insider" website that, "senior editors at the right-wing news site, known for its close ties to the Trump administration, told employees to stop writing critical stories of Jared Kushner, a senior White House advisor," Breitbart news is looking defensive. It looks like Newsweek and Business Insider know something that Breitbart is obviously trying to cover up.

Look at this, "Employees at Breitbart News have been asked by senior editors to refrain from writing stories critical of Jared Kushner, two people familiar with the matter told Business Insider." So that is where Newsweek got it. Two, count 'em two people and they are familiars with the matters too. But how do they know? Well, "The New York Times reported over the weekend that allies of Kushner, a senior White House adviser, had complained to President Donald Trump about the negative coverage he was receiving from the far-right website." How does the New York times know? "And he (President Trump) is considering a shake-up of his senior staff, according to four people with direct knowledge of the process." Four directs for gawd's sake, how can ya get any better that that. Surely you can't go by a named source who blathers such nonsense as, “Once again this is a completely false story driven by people who want to distract from the success taking place in this administration,” says Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Just so you are not derailed by Sanders the Times says, "But two people who have spoken with Mr. Trump said he recognized that the continuing state of drama was unsustainable." For Sanders sake I hope she didn't tell this to Pence.

Well, they have spoken to Trump. Are these two different from the four, or are they part of the four, or is one part of the four and one not part of the four? It is not important that readers know their names just how many there are. Are you keeping track of Breitbart's guile? The NY Times goes on to say, "Mr. Trump has often pondered making changes for several weeks or even months before making them, if he does at all." So you can see the Bannon's jobs is definitely in peril, or not. As proof the Times offers this, "Mr. Bannon, whose portfolio is broad but vague as a chief strategist, has told people he believes Mr. Kushner’s allies have undermined him, that he has no plans to quit and is digging in for a fight." For those of you have been following along what this means, Breitbart denials notwithstanding, is that Bannon will not be fired and will not quit until he is either fired or quits.

Breitbart news may have hit back on the assertion that it toned down its coverage of Jared, but Newsweek and the NY Times are not going to abdicate their sense of duty to the notion of freedom of the press and informing the people that people have told them what they wanted to hear so that they could tell you. By the time you read this Stephen Bannon will have been fired or quit or retired to spend more time with his family.

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Continuing Narrative 

If you get your news from the internet you may have recently seen this story with the provocative title, "Threats against North Korea Keep Former Pentagon Official ‘Awake at Night’" It is a little narrative penned by Jeff Stein of Newsweek, a well known publication that has been around the 'media' for decades.

Now to be fair one has to realize that someone other than Jeff Stein may have written that headline. Perhaps even a "click-bait" specialist at the Yahoo website may have written it to get web surfers to click on it. By now everyone knows that if you can connect Donald Trump to a story you can get the folks to at least take a look. Thanks to Google you can quickly go see, Jeff Stein Newsweek and you see the same title on the Newsweek website. so one could say that Yahoo started the narrative but Stein owns it. Or at least he owns this particular branch because he can't lay claim to the 'Trump's reckless and ignorant' narrative because that one was started years ago.

First off, Stein attempts to connect the narrative to current actions to establish relevancy, like linking a bombing in Afghanistan to North Korea, "Even the most powerful non-nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal cannot guarantee the destruction of North Korea’s nuclear bombs and will likely trigger a massive retaliatory attack from Pyongyang on South Korea, killing millions of people, American experts and former U.S. officials say." It seems everyone, the news media especially, is infatuated with the MOAB. Then he summarizes what the Pentagon has been doing such as moving ships to the region. Evidently he has been hangin' with the dictator because he reports that Kim "hinted" his response, "if threatened with elimination by the Donald Trump administration."

At this point the author of this piece trots out his officials and experts to confirm that just to pay attention to Kim Jong Un is dangerous and can lead to destruction for South Korea, American troops in South Korea and much of the rest of the world. Gary Samore, of the Obama administration, tells Newsweek that the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb (MOP) and the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) would be effective against North Korean sites but, we just don't know where the sites are. Matthew Bunn of the Bill Clinton administration, agrees. “Those above-ground facilities are quite familiar. The big problem is we don't know where the heck their bombs are.” And Bunn is now a professor so you have to believe him when he says something like, “so MOPs don't help if you don't know where to put them.” Then there is Robert A. Manning of the Brent Scowcroft Center for International Security at the Atlantic Council, he says, “Remember that North Korea is not Syria.” Stein doesn't say so but the reader at this point just has to ask, 'why would President Trump bother this guy?'

All that brings us to James Faeh the Obama administration official who can't sleep. "Just verbally threatening a dangerous pre-emptive strike endangers the 28,500 U.S. troops in Korea, and literally keeps me up at night.” He added, “There is no chance we can be 100 percent sure of our ability to take out Kim’s entire nuclear and missile arsenal in a single decapitation attack.” Faeh despairs at such talk, "Seeing these dangerous statements on pre-emptive strikes from the Trump administration quite literally keeps me up at night,” he says. He calls Trump's actions “invaluable propaganda for [Kim] to say to his people: ‘See, the Americans are evil and threatening us. You need me and my nuclear and missile programs to protect you.’ “Knee-jerk reactions leading to escalation is not a viable long-term strategy to keep us safe."

Let's hope National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster can finish up in Afghanistan in time to handle North Korea because the media and all its experts and officials need their sleep.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Know Your Neocons

Neocon is short for neoconservatism. The term "neoconservative" refers to political ideology that began in leftist politics but was skeptical of Josef Stalin when he took over the Communist Revolution in Russia. The neocons favored democracy and saw the United States as a counterweight to the military power of the increasingly dictatorial Soviet Union. They saw Stalin's regime as anti democratic. Since the Russian Revolution the Communists generally owned much of the political geography known as the Left. Hence anyone who was against them was considered on the Right. In the 1920's and 1930's in America there were liberals and conservatives in the Democratic party and liberals and conservatives in the Republican party. Many neoconservatives had been Jewish intellectuals in New York City during the 1930s. The neocons intellectual roots were in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee. Until the late 1970's the bulk of them were in the Democratic party with the main leader in elective government being Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson of the state of Washington. In the 1960's, as a result of the rise of the New Left in the Democratic party, the neocons began to be edged out. In 1972 George McGovern, representing elements of the New Left won the Democratic Presidential nomination over others including Scoop Jackson. The Democratic party was now dominated by anti-military ideas and against a forceful American foreign policy. The neocons began to look for a new home and found it as part of the coalition that led to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Neoconservatism reached in zenith during the administration of George W. Bush especially after the September 11th attacks and the build up to war in the Middle East. Neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, although not a part of the neoconservative movement, paid close attention to their neoconservative advisers mentioned previously particullarly regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. Due to the nature of the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were generally considered to be negative and to the fact that Barack Obama's criticism of the war in Iraq is considered to be the main reason he was able to wrest the Democratic Presidential nomination away from Hillary Clinton, the neocons began to fade away.

That brings us up to 2017 and the reemergence of one Elliott Abrams. As Donald Trump began to staff up his new administration Abrams was considered for the position of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's deputy. Abrams did not participate in the "Never Trump" movement and did not sign any of the letters criticizing, but was still considered suspect due to his history as a neocon. He also authored a column for the neoconservative Weekly Standard titled, "When You Can't Stand Your Candidate," in which he said that Republicans had "nominated someone who cannot win and should not be president of the United States." Abrams was not chosen to be a Deputy Secretary of State. 

What happened next was probably just Abrams responding to a question being asked of him as to why he was not given the job. There is every reason to believe that it was just his honest answer and though he might be disappointed, he did not intend any ill will. But in the hands of the media, it looks awful. First it came out that Abrams thinks that Trump is thin skinned. This is a main attachment to the narrative generated by the media and is designed to irritate Trump's ego. An ego that the media is trying hard to make the general pubic believe is patholgical. The media needs no effort to convince the Democratic base but they are working hard on non-partisan moderates and even some weak-kneed Republicans.

This next part of the media narrative is designed to go after the media's favorite whipping boy and current target of destruction, Steve Bannon. First they compliment Abrams. The Politico web site writes, "Abrams, one of the most experienced Republican hands on Middle East affairs," in their article, "‘He’s not a good influence on the president’ Elliott Abrams sounds off on Steve Bannon, Trump’s about-face on Syria and the boss he almost had." Also in that article Abrams says, he is glad to see Jared Kushner's reputed tussle with Bannon. Remember this is a tussle that the public only knows about from what is reported in the media, with no named sources. How can Abrams deny he is anti-Trump after his history especially the article in the Weekly Standard? Not that Abrams cares, he is likely to take any publicity he can at this stage in his career. What Elliot Abrams fails to understand is that he is being played as a stooge by the media just like any right of center person that thinks they just have something to contribute to the national dialog. Note to those on the right who are desperate for their 15 minutes of fame, just attack a leader on your own side and the media will promote you right to the front of the class.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Democrat on Democrat Hostility - Do You Believe?

Howard Dean and Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack.

"People of Hawaii's 2nd District -- was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?" Tanden tweeted.

Howard Dean was furious. "This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress," the former Vermont governor tweeted. “I can’t imagine what could possibly be going through her head.”

In a rare moment of reflection Alex Witt of MSNBC said, “All she’s asking for is proof though.”

“If you’re on the Foreign Relations Committee and you haven’t seen the proof in the last five and a half years, there’s something the matter with you,” Dean said.

Gabbard, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, took a trip alone earlier this year to meet with Assad in Syria. Gabbard is concerned about sparking a nuclear war with Russia an ally of Syria. War with Russia seems to be a Neocon dream but, Howard Dean and Neera Tanden don't seem to fit the Neocon portrait.

A skeptical Wolf Blitzer on CNN asked, "Don't you believe Bashar al-Assad bears any responsibility for the horrific deaths that have occurred in his own country?" Blitzer still on the 'believing' tack asked Gabbard if she didn't believe  Pentagon officials, who came to the conclusion that Assad's regime was responsible. Gabbard mentioned the invasion of Iraq, and the intelligence that suggested Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which turned out to be false. "So, yes, I'm skeptical," she said. Once again on the 'believe' narrative, Blitzer asked Gabbard who she believes was responsible for the chemical attack. Gabbard responded, “What I believe, what you believe, or others believe is irrelevant. What matters here is the evidence and the facts.” The totally unbiased Wolf asked, “Did you convey any message during your meeting in Damascus?”

It looks highly unlikely that Tanden's recommendation that voters kick Gabbard out of office in 2018 would be successful: Gabbard won the general election last November 81%-19%, and the primary election 85%-15%. Gabbard is doing her job as an elected, by the people, member of the House of Representatives. If the Democrats, such as Dean and Tanden want to "primary" her that is their prerogative. In the mean time, let her do her job.

Saturday, April 8, 2017


Politicians lie, we all know that. Usually though, they do it in a way that we can't really call them on it because even though we sense that they are lying, we can't really prove it. The politicians have access to information we don't have and they know we don't have it. If we can't prove it but call them on it anyway, they mock us or insult us. If we have proof but it is not technically one hundred percent accurate, they will deny the slim sliver of evidence that doesn't address the exact point of the deception, then prove that part to be true so that the implication is that the whole thing is true. The politicians will also use supporters that agree with them so that their lie will appear correct due to a majority of opinion that says that it is not a lie. Along these lines they will use the media to assist them in their falsehoods. Sometimes we will never find out the truth of the matter which gives the politicians confidence and leaves the citizens with doubt. Once in a while the people do find out but decisions have been made that cannot be reversed or the facts are no longer relevant. However there are times when the fates are in our favor and we can see the the dishonesty by the light of day. And that has happened with the narrative of chemical weapons in Syria.

You are sure to recall that in 2013 then President Obama blatantly called out President Assad of Syria about the use of chemical weapons in Assad's fight against rebels in his country's civil war. Obama said that chemical weapons were a "red line" that if crossed would have, in a not so veiled threat, devastating consequences. It was the kind of situation that stirred not only Americans but all moral people on earth and rightly so. The feelings that were aroused were strong and world opinion was solid as to the sense of right versus wrong. So when Obama said the wouldn't stand for it, he looked strong and just. This was quite opposite to the caricature that was growing against Obama.

As fortune would have it, proof of the use of chemical weapons emerged from the war zone and the world held its breath waiting for the United States to act. Neocons in the U. S. were ecstatic as they were sure that the Commander in Chief would respond with a military strike. But when an immediate response did not materialize, doubt began to set in. Reports and rumors began to circulate that perhaps President Assad was not the responsible party. It was asked, 'Could it have been the rebels?' Conspiracy theorists suspected a false flag action by the CIA. The more time that passed, the more President Obama looked weak and ineffectual. The Obama Administration had to do something so they took their case to the Congress to ask if they should strike Syria militarily. By that time it seemed like a bad idea and Congress would not support U. S. military action.

If Obama was to save face, something would have to be done. So they crafted a narrative. It went like this, the oh so intelligent administration would use diplomacy to solve the problem and pull it's public relations nightmare out of the fire. Obama's people would work with the Russians to remove all the chemical weapons from Syria. Starting with President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice. Rice told taxpayer supported National Public Radio, "We were able to find a solution that didn’t necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished." Not only did this get the bugaboo off Obama's back but it perpetrated the idea that they did it a better way. Secretary of State John Kerry said that 100% of the chemical weapons had been removed. Obama himself said, “the most lethal declared chemical weapons possessed by the Syrian regime were destroyed by dedicated U.S. civilian and military professionals” Several members of the administration as well as prominent supporters of the president can be seen in this flashback video that begins with a report from the 2017 incident.

The compliant news media jumped in as well. The website Politifact, the arbiter of truth, said that Kerry's '100% statement' was "mostly true." Even though they were trusting the government of Syria's ally, Russia, and even though international media had reported that other parties in the conflict may also have chemical weapons, the narrative that Obama had removed the weapons was told. Huge sections of the American public felt in the pit of their stomachs that they were being lied to, again, but had to suck it up until April 2017 when the narrative exploded for all to see.

Remember this, Politifact is one of the outfits employed by Facebook to put an end to the scourge of "fake news."

Thursday, April 6, 2017


It Was True Until It Was Proved Not True

Former Secretary of State John Kerry said in a television interview that in Syria, "we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out."

google-site-verification: google3dec2609c885d952.html

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Is Fake News the same as Orwell's "Ministry of Truth?"

 In the classic novel of totalitarian government, 1984, by George Orwell, history is put down the “memory hole” by the lying Ministry of “Truth,” to be destroyed so that a new narrative can emirge as if nothing was amiss. The Main Stream Media (MSM) of today is Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.”

Take the curious case of Dr. Evelyn Farkas. On March 2, 2017 she went on MSNBC's show, Morning Joe, and said she wanted the Obama Administration to get as much intelligence information as possible before it left office on January 20, 2017. She said, "I was urging my former colleagues and frankly speaking to people on the Hill—it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people—get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration."

This was one day after the New York Times published an article with the headline, "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking."

Dr. Farkas wrote a long piece published in Politico on December 12, 2016 titled, Here’s What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia."

On March 22, 2017 the Ministry of Truth trotted out Susan Rice. On PBS she was asked what she knew of the reports that Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House of Representative's committee investigation ties to Vladimir Putin by people envolded in the election of Trump she said, "I know nothing." On April 2, 2017 it started to leak out that Susan Rice herself was the leaker. And one day later the MSM had to report it as factual. One day after that Rice herself had to go on television to explain when she said, “I leaked nothing to nobody."

With that the MSM, in a way that would amaze even Orwell himself, went into overdrive to dump what had already be reported down the memory hole. Don Lemon on CNN said that, "There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team surveilled or spied on -- was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president's original claim." "And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who were trying to misinform you the American people by creating a diversion. We're not going to do it."

The MSM continues in the Washington Post and on taxpayer supported Public Broadcasting System the lead "investagator" for the congress, Rep. Adam Schiff, the Ranking Member of the House Intellegence committee, said, “I would tell people whenever they see the President use the word ‘fake’ it ought to set off alarm bells and I think that is really what has gone on here."

When on March 4, 2017, Trump went on Twitter and accused Obama of "wiretapping" him. All hell broke loose. The "method" the MSM had used to expose Trump was now obviously a violation of the Fourth Amendment. They had to portray their investigation as "legal."

The First Amendment protected defender of democracy, the MSM, is on the job to expose to the American people these dastardly evil interlopers who stole Hillary Cinton's presidency. They were proud to say that they had proved the American electorate's mistake of electing Trump president.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Doing the jobs Americans won't do

Carlos Eliezer Ortiz Muñoz arrived at the Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, where he'd have to stay for months. The private prison company, the GEO Group, that ran the detention center put Ortiz to work. He cleaned the private and common living areas; scrubed down toilets, showers, and eating tables; and sweeped and mopped floors. "None of us got paid anything," Ortiz said. But if he refused he knew he could be sent to solitary confinement. "Some of the guards would threaten us by saying, '¿Quieres ir al hoyo?'" Ortiz said. "'You want to go to the hole?'"

There were two ways GEO cashed in on cheap labor from detainees. There was the facility's sanitation policy, which employed Carlos Eliezer Ortiz Muñoz, and detainees could also apply for a job in Aurora's voluntary work program, which paid them exactly $1 a day to keep the facility running. Some people in the program stripped and waxed floors, while others did laundry, prepared food, cut hair, or worked in the library.

GEO spokesman Pablo Paez explained that GEO's volunteer work program policies follow federal standards. So what would the company have to pay if it didn't have detainee labor? For a typical shift about $75. The rich get richer and the little guy looks for work.

Take heart though, now that you know about the great deal that companies get from these government policies, you know which companies to invest in. Think how great this will be for the country. Why, without immigrants the economy will suffer. The entrenched powers that run the government have figured out how to re-institute slavery for $1 a day. After all, these people just want to come to America for a better life. The more that come to America, the better the scam works. The companies make more money, the news media attack anyone who tries to speak against the racket, lawyers work for the immigrants on the taxpayer's dime and lawyers for the companies get huge salaries.

Monday, April 3, 2017

Ghosts or just really dark?

New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman asserted on Sunday that President Donald Trump should blame himself for sabotaging his own agenda. Does Ms. Haberman know something that everyone else doesn't?

“The White House has been unable to get out of its own way on this. And part of that is that this president, when he feels like he is under attack, he attacks back. But now he’s punching at ghosts and hitting himself in the face.” said Haberman. This could describe boxing in the dark as well. The New York Times reporter would know if she had a lamp or perhaps infrared light night vision googles like they have in spy movies. Or if a spy had told her.

Maggie went on, “He’s (speaking of President Trump) good at misdirection and we hear about it a lot. There’s been a big theory in Washington for a while now that every time the president tweets, it’s some kind of a distraction from something else. That’s like saying you’re burning your hand to distract from your burning ear.”

Her job, and for that matter the rest of the news media, is to inform the American people so that they can judge and form opinions to keep our freedoms safe. That is why the framers of the Constitution added the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment. After all the American people might find the fact that their president is hitting himself in the face rather embarrassing.

If the media did not include the whole story, they would be practicing omission. With omission as their mission, the people may not be able to judge and come to an opinion but most likely, they would and they would come to an incorrect opinion.

The above video played on CNN on April 2, 2017. The day after April Fool's day.

GLENN BECK's HURRICANE HARVEY CONSPIRACY THEORY So the other day it was announced that Glenn Beck's organization, the Blaze, was l...