June 03, 2018

Is Chelsea Clinton A Feckless ****?
— Open Blogger

I wish the Left would publish a damn instructional booklet on what is appropriate to say and what isn't appropriate these days.

Can men say c*nt with impunity? Or is the "C" word to be only used by Leftist "women" on Non-Leftist "women"?


Who can degrade homosexuals? African-American women? Who can degrade Jews? African-American Reverends? MSNBC stars Joy Reid and the Rev. Al Sharpton are unavailable for comment.

Who can illegally contribute to political candidates without consequences? Lesbians? Or conservatives? Just ask Dinesh D'Souza.

Are adult children of a president fair game for criticism? If so Would Chelsea Clinton qualify as a dumb feckless c*nt?

The Democrats have a favorite technique where they accuse Trump and the Republicans of some abuse that has been committed by the Democrats themselves. It just happened again. This time, the perpetrator is the heiress apparent to the Clinton Crime Family, Chelsea Clinton.

During an interview in the Guardian, Little Miss Chelsea said of Trump:

I don't agree with what he's doing to degrade what it means to be an American[.] ... I think that the way that our president and many people around him have not only mainstreamed hate, but mainlined it, is so deeply dangerous.

I guess if I was a Leftie, I could call poor little Chelsea a feckless c*nt? She was born into a family of crime and married into one as well. And she really doesn't have much to show for it.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:42 AM | Comments (316)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

June 04, 2018

Monday Overnight Open Thread (6/4/18 )
— Open Blogger



The Quotes of The Day

Quote I

“For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”; Marcus Tullius Cicero

Quote II

Every family should have the right to spend their money, after tax, as they wish, and not as the government dictates. Let us extend choice, extend the will to choose and the chance to choose. Margaret Thatcher

Quote III

Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture. Allen Ginsberg

Quote IV

A narrative is emerging. It is that the new meritocratic aristocracy has come to look like every other aristocracy. The members of the educated class use their intellectual, financial and social advantages to pass down privilege to their children, creating a hereditary elite that is ever more insulated from the rest of society. We need to build a meritocracy that is true to its values, truly open to all. David Brooks


Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:13 PM | Comments (573)
Post contains 1730 words, total size 14 kb.

June 03, 2018

Weekend Gun Thread
— Open Blogger

gun case.jpg


I'm not mechanically inclined and have a hell of a time tinkering with objects. This service could help out folks like me.

When I first heard about the concept of having somebody come to my home to clean my guns, I thought, "Well, that's a nice idea for rich folks with more guns than time." But when High Caliber Weapons Detailing showed up to my apartment, I realized there's a lot more to it than that.

I'm not necessarily a man who hates cleaning his guns. I absolutely love the smell of Hoppe's 9. My BoreSnakes and Rem Cloth keep my guns in good shape with a nice sheen between deep cleans.

Once upon a time I accidentally dropped my Model 12 in a swamp out grouse hunting. It was totally filthy and almost unusable. I took it to my friendly firearms store and my gunsmith and had him clean it.

Is this a service you would use? Or would you just take your gun to a gunsmith? more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:28 PM | Comments (327)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

May 31, 2018

Thursday's ONT is Shooting From The Hip
— Open Blogger

Straight linkfest tonight gang. I got home later than usual, I was wondering if I was even going to have time to write this at all. Basically this is the ONT equivalent of a sitcom clips show.

caption 2.jpg


Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:00 PM | Comments (659)
Post contains 383 words, total size 5 kb.

Yes Let's Continue Bowing and Scraping and Kneeling to Get Our Betters' Approval
— Open Blogger

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:20 PM | Comments (555)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Claim: John McCain Wants His Wife Cindy to be His Senatorial "Successor"
— Open Blogger

This is so awful, it just might even be true.

As Arizonans prepare for their final salute to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Republicans and political pundits in the state privately tell Newsmax they expect the appointment of his wife, Cindy, to succeed him in the Senate.

Of course, no one in the Grand Canyon State who spoke to us wants to go on record discussing what will happen when the ailing McCain no longer holds his seat. But those who did, agree almost unanimously, Cindy McCain following John in the Senate through appointment by Gov. Doug Ducey, R-Ariz., is a near certainty.

"I've always assumed that was the arrangement," said a friend of the McCain family since John's 1973 return from captivity in Vietnam.

A former Republican senator who served with McCain agreed:

"I don't know if this [succession] has been formalized, but that's what people who know John tell me."

America is less and less of a Republic every single day.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:23 PM | Comments (444)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Rod Rosenstein Must Recuse Himself Now That Andrew McCabe Has Alleged He Participated in the "Cover-Up" of Comey's Firing, and Now That His Subordinate Mueller is Investigating It
— Open Blogger

Why did Sessions recuse himself, which wound up making Rosenstein the de facto head of the Justice Department?

Well, Sessions was accused of having met with Russians and of having sought to cover that up by failing to disclose it to Congress.

He had to recuse himself from the investigation, because, being a possible subject of the investigation himself, he could not direct and oversee an investigation which could implicate him.

Or rather -- it could implicate him if his subordinates weren't justifiably worried about probing too deeply into the boss' doings.


We have here an allegation by the former Deputy Director of the FBI that Rosenstein participated in a cover-up of Trump's alleged obstruction of justice (consisting of the firing of Comey). In McCabe's view, Rosenstein's memo was written just to justify an illegal act.

And Rosenstein went along with it.

And McCabe has passed this memo along to Mueller -- who is, technically, Rosenstein's subordinate.

That puts Rosenstein in the same position that Sessions was in when he recused himself -- overseeing an investigation in which he himself might become a subject, and whose presence in the chain of command would be read as a "back off' signal to any subordinate digging into his role.

Sessions recused himself.

Why hasn't Rosenstein?

Where is the call for Rosenstein's recusal?

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:27 PM | Comments (353)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

— Open Blogger


The Republican Party made clear on Tuesday that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s comments on the violent MS-13 gang will haunt Democrats until the midterm elections.

President Trump recently prompted an angry backlash by members of the media and his political opponents by referring to MS-13 members as "animals," but the Republican Party is betting that American voters are on his side. Its new campaign ad titled "Democrats' Midterm Message? MS-13 killers aren't so bad" tallied over 52,000 views in less than six hours.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:32 PM | Comments (250)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

It's About Time: Autotrader Announces it Will No Longer Advertise on Samantha Bee's Show
— Open Blogger

We need more of this. A lot more. We need to start punishing media companies and, more importantly, media companies' advertisers, just like they do to us, until the Balance of Terror is equal on both sides.

Jim Geraghty posits this theory -- which seems kind of obvious to me -- about the right's growing rejection of alleged "rules" which are only applied to harm the right:

Something like that, yeah. We cannot have Two Americas where one America is speech-patrolled and scalp-hunted and lives in constant fear, and the other can do or say whatever they like and only suffer the consequence of having their arms weighed down by too many industry awards.

If there is going to be a law, then the law shall apply to all.

If the law does not apply to all, then there shall be no law at all.

This is not a novel, hard-to-understand, or revolutionary idea. We demand that we be treated equally. If a rule shall be inflicted on us, then we demand it be inflicted on the High Caste as well. If it is not to be inflicted on the High Caste, then we reject the rule as not a rule at all.

A rule which does not bind all men equally is not a rule. It is merely a partisan weapon.

It is, in fact, a marker of Caste privilege on the positive end and Caste disfavor on the negative end.

Why should anyone arbitrarily pushed into a Deplorable Caste willingly prop up the system of burdens and forbiddances which define the caste? Why wouldn't someone suddenly made into a member of a newly-invented Deplorable Caste by a newly-invented Media Aristocracy Caste reject the badges and markers of the Caste system wholesale?

If the Media Aristocracy Caste decides that only Deplorables should have to pay federal taxes, while they will claim their lordly right of immunity to federal taxation (which is indeed a right claimed by the nobility in times past; this is part of what sparked the French Revolution), should we go along with that as well simply because Our Betters have instructed us to?

At what point do demands to make ourselves servile and compliant end?

At what point does bourgeois compliance with evil become evil in itself, and at what point does revolt become a moral necessity?

But they wan, fey cuck "Hashtag Griswold" sees it differently:

The Washington Free Beacon really is a garbage-tier website at this point. With some notable exceptions like Liz Harrington and Adam Kredo, it's almost completely manned, if I can use that word, but liberals who conned their way on to a semi-conservative/neocon website, who are all diligently padding their Twitter resumes to make themselves acceptable for employment by the Daily Beast or CNN.

Some cucks on Twitter are praising Bee's apology -- whereas they rejected Roseanne's out-of-hand.

Yet: Samantha Bee's joke was scripted and rehearsed, whereas Roseanne's was clearly tossed off spontaneously.

I think it's pretty obvious that something that's scripted and rehearsed has much more time for reflection and evaluation, and something tossed-off without thinking has almost no time for reflection and evaluation.

Until you start catching heat for it.

Bee, on the other hand, calculated that the publicity and praise she'd garner would exceed the heat she'd catch, and so made the decision to use her stupid clapper potty-mouth "joke."

Bee thought about the right insult and workshopped it. Her fucking producer bragged about it on Twitter as she was saying it, trying to get people to tune in.

So actually, an apology from Roseanne is in fact more plausible than Bee "apologizing" for something she did not only with malice aforethought, but a writers-pitch-session and pre-show run-through aforethought.

But CNN and the other keepers of Liberal Law say that Roseanne's apology is phony and inadequate, whereas Bee's is genuine and fully exonerating, and those who wish to prove to their Masters that they can be One of the Good Ones will have to bow to masters' commands.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 10:31 AM | Comments (428)
Post contains 811 words, total size 6 kb.

June 01, 2018

Stuttering Prick Ben Rhodes Just Can't Even With This Trump Victory Anymore
— Open Blogger

From John Sexton at Hot Air, this stuttering prick is a stuttering prick.

There were tons of stories about how Ben Rhodes and Barack Obama had a "mind meld." But of course they did. They're both stuttering pricks. They can finish each other's sentences, which is very important, because neither stuttering prick can finish his own. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:28 AM | Comments (459)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama: I Gave the American People a Great Economy. If They Chose to Elect a "Cartoon" For President, Then To Hell With Them
— Open Blogger

Yes, the economy was really booming, Captain Bullshit.

Obama spoke with his chief speechwriter, Cody Keenan, and Rhodes by telephone on election night to figure out what he should say, prompting Rhodes to ask if he should offer his reassurances to allies. "No, I don’t think that I’m the one to tell them that," Obama said.

A day after the election, Obama sent a message to Rhodes to cheer him, saying "There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the earth."

But days later, Mr. Obama seemed less sanguine. "I don't know," he told aides. "Maybe this is what people want. I've got the economy set up well for him. No facts. No consequences. They can just have a cartoon."

He added that "we're about to find out just how resilient our institutions are, at home and around the world."

This guy.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 01:47 PM | Comments (525)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

May 31, 2018

Mollie Hemingway and Andrew C. McCarthy Pummel Trey Gowdy's Ignorance and Blind Allegiance to College Guys With Guns;
David French, Get This, Gives Gowdy a Blowjob

— Open Blogger

These are worth reading in full and I can only quote a little from each.

I'm giving you the sizzle, mostly, but you'll have to go to the articles for the steak. That is, Hemingway and McCarthy give chapter-and-verse citations to prove (not support-- prove) their conclusions.

But I can't quote all that. Trust me, you should read it all.

MZ Hemingway: How can Trey Gowdy spout off so categorically when he didn't even read the reports?

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) recently suggested the FBI did nothing wrong when it used at least one government informant to secretly collect information on Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Public reports indicate, however, that Gowdy never even reviewed the relevant documents on the matter subpoenaed by Congress. In fact, a spokeswoman for Gowdy told The Federalist that the congressman doesn't even know what documents and records were subpoenaed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).


Although Gowdy intimated that the information he received in a briefing last week made clear the FBI did nothing wrong, numerous reports from multiple news outlets indicated that the lawmakers DOJ invited to the briefing were not given access to all of the records HPSCI subpoenaed. Other comments Gowdy made during recent television interviews raise questions about how firm a grasp he has on the investigation and concerns the investigation has raised.


"Sources tell me Gowdy and Nunes did not receive the documents they requested during the noon meeting at DOJ, despite pleas for openness from [White House chief of staff John] Kelly and [Trump attorney Emmett] Flood," CNN reporter Sarah Westwood wrote.


When asked by The Federalist whether Gowdy had seen all the documents Congress requested, a spokeswoman for Gowdy repeatedly declined to say what, if any, subpoenaed records Gowdy had reviewed during the roughly hour-long briefing.

Activists and journalists were thrilled with Gowdy's comments exonerating the FBI, claiming they "debunked" any concerns that people have about FBI behavior. CNN’s Manu Raju claimed, without providing evidence, that Gowdy had "seen the intel."


Gowdy's curious exoneration of the FBI caught many by surprise given his work on the previous HPSCI report that found widespread abuse of surveillance procedures targeting the Trump campaign.


During the interview, however, Gowdy seemed confused or mistaken about simple facts related to the investigation.

She then gets into Gowdy's confusion or ignorance or tactical ignorance over what kind of investigation this actually is.

McCarthy also gets into that as well.

Yes, the FBI Was Investigating the Trump Campaign When It Spied


May 30, 2018 9:55 PM

Trey Gowdy and Marco Rubio evidently paid little attention to testimony before their own committees on how Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

Well, well, well.

The bipartisan Beltway establishment has apparently had its fill of this "Trump colluded with Russia" narrative -- the same narrative the same establishment has lustily peddled for nearly two years. The Obama administration recklessly chose to deploy the government's awesome counterintelligence powers to investigate -- and, more to the point, to smear -- its political opposition as a Kremlin confederate. Now that this ploy has blown up on the Justice Department and the FBI, these agencies -- the ones that went out of their way, and outside their guidelines, to announce to the world that the Trump campaign was under investigation --- want you to know the president and his campaign were not investigated at all, no siree.

What could possibly have made you imagine such a thing?

And so, to douse the controversy with cold water, dutifully stepping forward in fine bipartisan fettle are the Obama administration's top intelligence official and two influential Capitol Hill Republicans who evidently pay little attention to major testimony before their own committees.

Former National Intelligence director James Clapper was first to the scene of the blaze. Clapper concedes that, well, yes, the FBI did run an informant --- "spy" is such an icky word -- at Trump campaign officials; but you must understand that this was merely to investigate Russia. Cross his heart, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. No, no, no. Indeed, they only used an informant because --bet you didn't know this --doing so is the most benign, least intrusive mode of conducting an investigation.


I'll leave it to the reader to imagine the Democrats’ response if, say, the Bush administration had run a covert intelligence operative against Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign’s co-chairman....


Then there are Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), General Clapper's fellow fire extinguishers.

Rubio is a member in good standing of that Washington pillar, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has had about as much interest in scrutinizing the highly irregular actions of intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the Clinton and Russia probes as Gowdy's Benghazi committee had in revisiting Republican ardor for Obama's unprovoked war on Moammar Qaddafi. (That would be: roughly zero interest.)

Rubio told ABC News that he has seen "no evidence" that the FBI was gathering information about the Trump campaign. Rather, agents "were investigating individuals with a history of links to Russia that were concerning." The senator elaborated that "when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that."

Gee, senator, when you were carefully perusing the evidence of what the FBI was doing, did you ever sneak a peek at what the FBI said it was doing?

May I suggest, for example, the stunning public testimony by then-director James Comey on March 20, 2017, before the House Intelligence Committee -- perhaps Representative Gowdy, who sits on that committee, could lend you the transcript, since he appears not to be using it. Just so we're clear, this is not an obscure scrap of evidence buried within volumes of testimony. It is the testimony that launched the Mueller probe, and that sets (or, better, fails to set) the parameters of that probe -- a flaw the nation has been discussing for a year.

Comey's House testimony was breathtaking, not just because it confirmed the existence of a classified counterintelligence investigation, but because of what the bureau's then-director said about the Trump campaign (my italics):

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. . . .

That is an unambiguous declaration that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign. That is why, for nearly two years, Washington has been entranced by the specter of "Trump collusion with Russia," not "Papadopoulos collusion with Russia."


Gowdy's fire truck pulled into Fox News Tuesday night for an interview by Martha MacCallum. An able lawyer, the congressman is suddenly on a mission to protect the Justice Department and the FBI from further criticism. So, when Ms. MacCallum posed the question about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign, Gowdy deftly changed the subject: Rather than address the campaign, he repeatedly insisted that Donald Trump personally was never the "target" of the FBI's investigation. The only "target," Gowdy maintains, was Russia.


Second, if Gowdy has been paying attention, he must know that, precisely because the Trump campaign was under investigation, top FBI officials had qualms of conscience over Comey's plan to give Trump a misleading assurance that he personally was not under investigation. If this has slipped Gowdy mind, perhaps Rubio could lend him the transcript of Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in particular, a section Rubio seems not to remember, either.

A little background. On January 6, 2017, Comey, Clapper, CIA director John Brennan, and NSA chief Michael Rogers visited President-elect Trump in New York to brief him on the Russia investigation. Just one day earlier, at the White House, Comey and then–acting attorney general Sally Yates had met with the political leadership of the Obama administration -- President Obama, Vice President Biden, and national-security adviser Susan Rice -- to discuss withholding information about the Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration.


It is easy to understand why Obama officials needed to discuss withholding information from Trump. They knew that the Trump campaign -- not just some individuals tangentially connected to the campaign -- was the subject of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe...

Clearly, the Obama officials did not want Trump to know the full scope of their investigation of his campaign. But just as important, they wanted the investigation -- an "insurance policy" that promised to hamstring Trump’s presidency -- to continue.

So, how to accomplish these objectives? Plainly, the plan called for Comey to put the new president at ease by telling him he was not a suspect. This would not have been a credible assurance if Comey had informed Trump that his campaign had been under investigation for months, suspected of coordinating in Russia's cyber-espionage operation. So, information would be withheld. The intelligence chiefs would tell Trump only about Russia’s espionage, not about the Trump campaign’s suspected "coordination" with the Kremlin. Then, Comey would apprise Trump about only a sliver of the Steele dossier -- just the lurid story about peeing prostitutes, not the dossier’s principal allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy.

As I've previously recounted, this did not sit well with everyone at the FBI. Shortly before he met with Trump, Comey consulted his top FBI advisers about the plan to tell Trump he was not a suspect. There was an objection from one of Comey's top advisers -- we don’t know which one. Comey recounted this disagreement for the Senate Intelligence Committee (my italics):

One of the members of the leadership team had a view that, although it was technically true [that] we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then-President-elect Trump[,] . . . because we're looking at the potential . . . coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was . . . President-elect Trump's campaign, this person's view was, inevitably, [Trump’s] behavior, [Trump's] conduct will fall within the scope of that work.

Representative Gowdy and Senator Rubio might want to read that testimony over a few times.

Well, I guess I quoted a lot of that piece. But there's a lot more left behind.

Now, with Hemingway and McCarthy pointing out actual facts that undermine Gowdy's (as well as Rubio's) spin, of course it's time for Deep State Dick-Rider David French to deliver a drooljob to Trey Gowdy and the College Boys With Guns he loves so much.

Trey Gowdy, A Voice of Responsibility and Reason


Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) was a guest on CBS This Morning earlier today, and -- quite frankly --he was exactly the voice of responsibility and reason the GOP needs. The Republican counterattacks on the Russia investigation have grown increasingly frenzied and unhinged, growing from legitimate concerns about FISA applications into "worse-than-Watergate”"presumptions that the entire investigation is nothing but a deep-state effort to reverse a presidential election. The phrase "spygate" has taken on a life of its own, far out of proportion to the known facts.

Gowdy was one of a handful of lawmakers who attended a classified briefing last week about the use of an FBI informant (the "spy") to gather information from individuals in the Trump campaign. Gowdy has thus seen more of the relevant information than any of the talking heads you’ll see discuss the matter on cable news, and (critically) he has reputation for fairness and integrity. That combination makes him a uniquely credible voice.

Note that French doesn't cite -- or give any awareness he even knows about -- the fact that Gowdy didn't actually see the documents in question, nor that Comey has in fact testified that Trump was indeed a subject of the investigation and therefore this spy was targeting Trump, and not Russia. (If they were just worried about Russia -- why not give Trump a warning about attempts to infiltrate his campaign? Because, obviously: the Deep State was looking to arrest Trump.)

French, as usual, has no idea what the fuck he's talking about, but he's quite pompous and righteous in babbling nonsense.

Did you guys see when French attempted to rebut McCarthy's chapter-and-verse article noting that the law does not permit a special counsel for an counterintelligence investigation? It was embarrassing. This lawyer, Constitutionalist, and Man of Principle basically just argued, "I don't want to hear about 'facts' and 'statutes,' Poindexter."

(Can anyone find that exchange? I've searched but have come up empty.)

French seems to think he doesn't need to know the actual facts of the matters he's pontificating about because his Blazing Moral Righteousness pierces spears of light through the darkness of his own ignorance.

French strikes me as the kind of "Christian" who sits awake at night waiting for Jesus to pray to him for guidance.

Read a fucking transcript and open the US Code, dummy.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:33 AM | Comments (323)
Post contains 2242 words, total size 15 kb.

Trump Pardons Dinesh D'Souza; Media, Get This, Freaks Out
— Open Blogger

The ignorant shrieking of the media baboons. I can't take it anymore.

"Mr. D'Souza was, in the President's opinion, a victim of selective prosecution for violations of campaign finance laws. Mr. D'Souza accepted responsibility for his actions, and also completed community service by teaching English to citizens and immigrants seeking citizenship," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, adding "in light of these facts, the President has determined that Mr. D'Souza is fully worthy of this pardon."

Prosecution was brought by Chuck Schumer's former aid Preet Bharara. As Ed Morrissey notes, this sort of strawman donation is a very common crime which is very rarely -- if ever -- prosecuted as a crime. Usually it's punished by a civil suit and fine. But Preet Bharara was looking for a scalp. Even a fan of Bharara's, Alan Derschowitz, said this smacked of "selective prosecution."

He quotes from the Wall Street Journal:

"The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn't sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion," Mr. Dershowitz said. "I can’t help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it. . . . It smacks of selective prosecution." ...

Mr. Dershowitz said the world of politics is rife with the sort of campaign abuses alleged. They're so common, in fact, he said he himself been called upon to participate in similar arrangements. Mr. Dershowitz said he’s spoken with Mr. D'Souza since the indictment was announced.

No word yet on any prosecutions of Rosie O'Donnell for repeatedly evading federal donation limits by using alternate forms of her name and alternate addresses, which just so happened to have the consequence of not being picked up on by software designed to reject donations that exceed the legal limit.

The media is shrieking about this -- because of course they are -- and claiming that Obama and Bill Clinton never gave out such dubious pardons.

They conveniently forget that Obama pardoned the traitor Bradley Manning -- despite Manning never showing remorse for his actions, which is generally a requirement for a pardon (absent actual innocence) -- and also pardoned the terrorist bomber Oscar Lopez Rivera, just because Hispanics are an important part of his political coalition. (Lopez Rivera also shows no remorse, and is proud of his terrorism and bombing.)

They also, of course, forget about Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich, the fugitive tax evader, whose wife just happened to donate shitloads of money to Clinton.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:27 AM | Comments (391)
Post contains 514 words, total size 5 kb.

Jim "Money Shot" Acosta: I Am Deeply Upset That the President Is Wasting His Time Meeting With Celebrities
— Open Blogger

Am I dreaming?

Did we not just end eight years of Celebrity Presidency? Did Obama not have a celebrity confab every other week?

RedSteeze has just some of the many, many pictures and selfies of Obama meeting with Very Important Celebrities.

Maybe Acosta is just jealous that another camera-horny bimbo with blowjob lips is getting attention.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:31 AM | Comments (469)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Samantha Bee, Feckless ****
— Open Blogger

There's a revolution brewing. People will not submit to a double-standard so blatant.

Bee is actually receiving an award for "advancing social change."

How does TBS justify this? Simple; it doesn't. It doesn't have to. No one in the media has asked them about it or made it an issue about which they must respond.

There will be consequences for this. People will not permit themselves to be made second or third class caste.

More: The media is not only not criticizing Bee -- it's praising her, linking her line as super-funny clickbait, and advertising her show for free.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:26 AM | Comments (530)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

June 01, 2018

The Morning Report: Emergency 105 Of What Sefton Does Edition
— Open Blogger

voting wall.png

[Hat Tip: Jay Guevara]

It's not really an emergency...J.J. Sefton is taking the day off to hang out with some Russian chicks. He should be back on Tuesday...or he's going over the wire...we're not sure.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:00 AM | Comments (553)
Post contains 459 words, total size 4 kb.

May 31, 2018

The Morning Report 5/31/18
— Open Blogger


Good morning kids. Thursday and the top story is the succumbing of Trey Gowdy to a bad case of swamp fever. It had been a slow and agonizing illness. That is, slow and agonizing to the American people who once looked to him as a wicked-smart conservative legal eagle and defender of the Constitution. But after a series of bad haircuts and questionable sartorial decisions (not to mention being nothing more than a tough-talking blowhard when you get right down to it), he decided it would be better to be seated on a panel with Kaptain Kristol, the cruise director than serve the people. His defense of the FBI for its criminal spying on the Trump campaign was just the absolute last straw. Mark Levin, who at one point IIRC was an ally of the man, lit into him as did Rush Limbaugh, albeit mellower as is his wont.

Although we are still not privy to many of the details, the facts are undeniable: the top echelons of our Federal law enforcement and intelligence communities led an illegal, covert spying operation against an American presidential candidate with the intent of sabotaging the campaign. After that failed, the goal was to manufacture false evidence of a crime to oust and/or kneecap him as a means of covering up their crime. The only thing yet to be confirmed is was all of this at the behest or direct involvement of Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton.

For Trey Gowdy, who is a seasoned prosecutor as well as a veteran of Washington DC to not only not see this but to effectively parrot James Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan means he is either incredibly stupid or gallingly duplicitous. It's the latter, and considering who I had thought he was for the past few years makes his betrayal that much more bitter a pill to swallow. And now, those of us with TV will have to endure this two-faced Judas for a long time to come. Meh. It's Washington.

Still, the phony witch hunt grinds on. In stating he wants Mueller to wrap it up before the Midterms, Rudy Giuliani is either really dumb (and he ain't) or prepping the rhetorical battle space, there's a report that Deep State stooge Andrew McCabe wrote the memo about firing Comey, a 2012 Holder memo of guidelines about these kinds of investigations during election season may (or may not) loom large as November draws near and Daniel Greenfield has another good piece about conspiracy theories and it turns out the FBI violated its own rules in recruiting the spy. No comment from Gowdy on that one, I guess.

Meanwhile, noted horticulture enthusiast and woman abuser Harvey Weinstein has been indicted on rape (as in "rape-rape") charges and Ann Coulter ties him in nicely with his pals the Clinton Crime Family.

In immigration, it turns out those poor illegal alien kids kept in cages were actually paid $670 a week out of your tax dollars, and a dreamy twice-deported illegal alien is accused of killing a teen while driving drunk. Thou shalt have open borders, eh Tom Donahue? Segueing nicely into politics, the President has tagged Nancy Palsi as "MS-13 lover" which is going to definitely leave a mark considering the RNC ad I linked to yesterday. Brutal, baby. A GOP congressman from Virginia citing his alcoholism will not seek reelection, and Barack Obama really is a disturbed, narcissistic little titty-baby, isn't he?

Some good analysis of the frightening situation of Tommy Robinson, who is effectively a political prisoner inside the land that gave us Magna Carta and the Scottish Enlightenment. Also, discussion of the rank hypocrisy of the Media vis a vis the treatment of the President and the weaponization of Roseanne Barr's remarks on Valerie Jarrett's lineage.

On the international scene, Secretary of State Pompeo sat down for dinner with the NorK representative ahead of a full day of preparatory meetings for the upcoming summit between PDT and Whoa, Fat!, some analysis from IBD about the Italian electoral crisis and its effect on the markets and some takeaways about Israel's response to the latest round of Hamas attacks from Gaza. Unlinked but noteworthy was Nikki Haley's ripping of the UN for its silence about Hamas. And see the link about The Economist.

Related to the latter in the Islam section, our efforts in Afghanistan, a sad yet unsurprising report from the State Department and a related Mark Steyn essay from 2010 that I really recommend. Depressing as hell but a necessary read IMHO for a host of reasons.

Looking to home, we have a slew of good news. Scott Pruitt is bullish on oil production, SCOTUS gave a huge win for the pro-life movement, PDT has signed a bill giving broad access to experimental drugs for critically ill people, Justice Gorsuch may have signaled a huge decision in neutering the power of rogue Hawaiian judges and airline pilots have shocked the Teamsters and organized labor by voting to decertify their union.

From hither and yon, we have links about two new documentaries; one a Wim Wenders propaganda piece about Francis the Talking Pope and another dismantling a new cinematic fable about the Pentagon Papers. Finally, the great Shelby Steele rips the race hustlers preying upon and perpetuating white guilt for fun and profit.

On a personal note, I will be away tomorrow and Monday, so behave until I see you back here on Tuesday.

Anyway, links from around the world, across the nation and up your street. Have a better one and remain blessed.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:42 AM | Comments (358)
Post contains 1563 words, total size 17 kb.

May 30, 2018

McCabe Suspected Rosenstein Was Part of RUSSIA Plot to Fire Comey; Wrote His Own Memo About It, Which He (Of Course) Gave to Meuller
— Open Blogger

The former acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, wrote a confidential memo last spring recounting a conversation that offered significant behind-the-scenes details on the firing of Mr. McCabe’s predecessor, James B. Comey, according to several people familiar with the discussion.

Mr. Comey’s firing is a central focus of the special counsel’s investigation into whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia. Mr. McCabe has turned over his memo to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

In the document, whose contents have not been previously reported, Mr. McCabe described a conversation at the Justice Department with the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, in the chaotic days last May after Mr. Comey’s abrupt firing. Mr. Rosenstein played a key role in the dismissal, writing a memo that rebuked Mr. Comey over his handling of an investigation into Hillary Clinton.

But in the meeting at the Justice Department, Mr. Rosenstein added a new detail: He said the president had originally asked him to reference Russia in his memo, the people familiar with the conversation said. Mr. Rosenstein did not elaborate on what Mr. Trump had wanted him to say.


To Mr. McCabe, that seemed like possible evidence that Mr. Comey’s firing was actually related to the F.B.I.’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and that Mr. Rosenstein helped provide a cover story by writing about the Clinton investigation.

What Trump almost certainly asked for was for Rosenstein to say, as Comey had told him three (3) times, that he was not under investigation in the Russia matter.

Comey told him that three times, but then leaked or implied otherwise to the media.

This was probably because he had agreed to undermine Trump with Brennan and Obama -- in the infamous "By the Book" meeting -- and tell Trump as little as possible about the investigation.

This memo shows how paranoid and out-to-get Trump these people were. McCabe was seeing Russians under his bed.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:54 PM | Comments (484)
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

— Open Blogger

Democrats spent years demanding higher taxes on the rich. Trump actually did that, by reducing the amount of state and local taxes millionaires could deduct from their federal taxable income.

And bam!, just like that, Democrats are scrambling to provide tax relief to these poor 1%-ers.

For some reason, conservatives think the media employs a double-standard about who gets fired and who gets endless second chances for controversial statements.

Julie Kelly writes a deliciously nasty kiss-off to her former friends in #TheResistance.

Hey, what's up. Long time no talk.

I think the last civil conversations we had occurred just days before November 8, 2016. You were supremely confident Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election; you voted for her with glee. As a lifelong Republican, I bit down hard and cast my vote for Donald Trump. Then the unimaginable happened. He won.

And you lost your fucking minds.

I knew you would take the loss hard--and personally--since all of you were super jacked-up to elect the first woman president. But I did not imagine you would become totally deranged, attacking anyone who voted for Trump or supported his presidency as a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic Nazi-sympathizer.

The weirdness started on social media late on Election Night, as it became clear Hillary was going to lose. A few of you actually admitted that you were cradling your sleeping children, weeping, wondering what to tell your kindergartner the next morning about Trump’s victory. It continued over the next several days. Some of you seriously expressed fear about modern-day concentration camps. Despite living a privileged lifestyle, you were suddenly a casualty of the white patriarchy. Your daughters were future victims; your sons were predators-in-waiting. You threatened to leave Facebook because you could no longer enjoy the family photos or vacation posts from people who, once friends, became Literal Hitlers to you on November 8 because they voted for Donald Trump.

I admit I was a little hurt at first. The attacks against us Trump voters were so personal and so vicious that I did not think it could be sustained. I thought maybe you would regain your sanity after some turkey and egg nog.

But you did not. You got worse. And I went from sad to angry to where I am today: Amused.

Speaking of, MSNBC "Conservative" and chronic attention whore David French needs to be on TV:

The New York Times under-reported attendance at Trump's latest rally by 80%. Whoopsie-pie!

Speaking of, Trump's targeting Red State Democratic Senators.

Thanks to Instapundit, start-ups are scheming up a new age of supersonic commercial flights.

And from last week -- the FBI agent who interviewed Michael Flynn is prepared to testify that he found Flynn honest and forthcoming.

Okay, I'm having some rough days lately. Gonna take an early night.

Thanks so much to the cobloggers who kept the content flowing for three days over the long weekend. I actually did keep checking in to see if I needed to post -- but I never had to. In fact, I kinda looked for a reason to post, but the cobloggers were putting up enough stuff that there really wasn't even any space.

So thanks to them. I appreciated that time off so much.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:04 PM | Comments (304)
Post contains 628 words, total size 6 kb.

June 02, 2018

Thread before the Gardening Thread: [KT]
— Open Blogger


Planet of the Apes turns 50

Well, 1968 was 50 years ago. You can't say it wasn't a tumultuous year. The last link in J.J. Sefton's 5/30/18 Morning Report was a piece by Roger Kimball, The Long March: Reckoning with 1968's "Cultural Revolution" 50 Years On. I think it deserves more attention. It is dense with information. You may not agree with all his positions.

I also ran across a couple of other items related to 1968.

Roger Kimball

One of the things that has surprised me since the last presidential election is that Roger Kimball, that guy who wears bow ties, uses big words and advocates for standards and traditions, seems to take delight in several aspects of the Trump presidency. Maybe that's partly because nearly 20 years ago he wrote The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America. Trump has made the final few steps of that long march a bit more challenging. Here are some of the things that disturb Kimball about the Left's campaign to transform America:

Apocalyptic rhetoric notwithstanding, the behavior of the "revolutionaries" of the counterculture consistently exhibited that most common of bourgeois passions, anti-bourgeois animus -- expressed, as always, safely within the swaddling clothes of bourgeois security.

If America's cultural revolution was anything, it was an attack on maturity: more, it was a glorification of youth, of immaturity. As the Yippie leader Jerry Rubin put it: "We're permanent adolescents." The real victory of the "youth culture" of the Sixties lay not in the fact that its demands were met but in the fact that its values and attitudes were adopted by the culture at large. Rubin again: "Satisfy our demands, and we've got twelve more. The more demands you satisfy, the more we got." Everywhere one looks one sees the elevation of youth -- that is to say, of immaturity -- over experience.

So, are blue jeans on old people a sign that we have abandoned maturity? more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:17 AM | Comments (374)
Post contains 1075 words, total size 8 kb.

<< Page 1 >>
154kb generated in CPU 0.25, elapsed 2.6892 seconds.
45 queries taking 2.5847 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.