Advertisements
Open post

No, Pete Buttigieg is Not Trying to Become our “First” Gay President

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Doesn’t anybody read anymore? – The latest Twitter uproar today is how openly-gay Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg told an interviewer from Axios Sunday that America has likely already had multiple gay presidents:

Buttigieg didn’t want to name names of those past presidents he personally suspects might have been gay, but honestly, I hadn’t really thought it was any big secret. I mean, doesn’t everyone know by now that at least one former U.S. president, James Buchanan, was almost certainly a closeted gay man? In fact, an accurate reading of history tells us he wasn’t even closeted.

Back in March, the Washington Post, in an early effort to award a campaign contribution in-kind to Buttigieg, ran a piece by Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of ex-Chicago Mayor/Obama flunky Rahm Emanuel, titled “America has already had a gay president.”

Emanuel goes into great detail about how Buchanan’s contemporaries knew he was a homosexual, and how the media of the day provided him cover. Here’s one of the key passages:

Before becoming president in 1857, Buchanan openly lived with William Rufus King, who at various times served as senator from Alabama, ambassador to France and, finally, Franklin Pierce’s vice president. They met in Washington as young politicians, and lived together on and off for more than 16 years until King’s death from tuberculosis in 1853. Buchanan’s biographer, Jean H. Baker, believes that his relationship with the Southerner King partially explains why this Pennsylvanian was a “doughface,” a northerner who did not oppose slavery. Indeed, Buchanan explicitly urged the Supreme Court to deliver an expansive ruling in the Dred Scott case — which denied freed slaves American citizenship and forbade Congress from regulating slavery in U.S. territories — and lobbied Congress to admit Kansas as a slave state.

Oh.

But wait, there’s more:

How do we know Buchanan and King were a couple? In 1844, after King assumed his posting in Paris, Buchanan wrote a letter to a friend, complaining about being alone and not being able to find the right gentleman partner:

“I am now ‘solitary and alone,’ having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.”

Oh.

And, so what? Well, here’s the thing: It is a fact that being a semi-openly gay man in the mid-19th century turns out not to have been a disqualifier for someone who wanted to pursue public office. Those sad strictures arose only later in our nation’s history and are nothing to be proud of.

Now, Buttigieg seeks to become [maybe] the second gay U.S. president, and the media does him and the voters a real disservice by constantly focusing on his sexual status. Buttigieg should not become president because he’s an extreme leftist and has been a poor mayor in his only elective office, and who he happens to be married to is not relevant to the decision.

But you can bet the media will continue its hyper-focus on Buttigieg’s sexuality. They obviously plan to try to shame the American public into thinking we are somehow obligated to elect our “first gay president” in 2020, just as they brainwashed so many into thinking they were obligated to elect our first black president in 2008.

That shaming effort worked hugely for Barack Obama, largely because he would in fact be our “first” black president. Where Buttigieg is concerned – as the candidate himself freely admits- he would not only NOT be the nation’s “first” gay president, but likely wouldn’t even be its second.

Read a book, people.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements
Open post

How The U.S. Oil Boom Could Quickly Become A Bust

Today’s Energy Update
(Because Energy Fuels Our Lives)

I have written about this topic before, but it deserves a review at this crucial point in time where the oil markets are concerned. Just half a year after they agreed to implement significant new cutbacks in their crude oil exports, ministers from the so-called OPEC+ countries (OPEC plus non-OPEC nations like Russia, Mexico and Kazakhstan) will likely be asked to cut back even more when – or if – they meet next in July.

I say “if” because, as of this writing, the OPEC+ nations can’t even agree to a specific date on which to hold their proposed July meeting in Vienna . Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said over the weekend that he is “hoping” that the OPEC nations will meet at some point during “the first week in July,” but could not say whether or not the non-OPEC nations would agree to join the meeting.

Minister al-Falih’s remarks only serve to add more uncertainty to a market that has already been plagued by that dynamic in recent weeks, as crude prices have dropped by about 17% over the past month. A series of unanticipated crude inventory builds have led to speculation that the market is currently over-supplied. That speculation was exacerbated late last week, as the International Energy Agency (IEA) cut is crude demand growth forecast for the second half of 2019 by 100,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd).

The IEA forecast cut comes amid speculation that the ongoing tariff battle between the U.S. and China has resulted in a slowing of Chinese economic growth. Combine that with the ongoing collapse of production from Venezuela, disruptions of supply from OPEC members like Nigeria and Libya, and the series of attacks on crude tankers in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, and you have the most unstable market situation we’ve experienced in recent years.

Read the Rest Here

 

 

 

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Here’s Why Trump Granted That Interview to the Little Wise Guy

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Great drinking game for this week’s Democrat debates. – Every time one of the candidates promises a new giveaway program that would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion, take a shot of tequila. You’ll be dead within an hour.

A friend tells me that death would not be the worst consequence of playing this game. The worst consequence is that you have to watch the Democrat debates in order to play it. Solid point.

Now, onto today’s topic, which is why in the hell did President Trump do an interview with that little Clinton toady George Stephanopoulos? That is the question many Trump supporters have been asking since last Thursday, when ABC released the bit of the interview in which the President basically said that he would listen to some guy from Norway who claimed to have information about his political opponent before deciding whether or not it was something that should be reported to the FBI.

That of course is what every other politician in America would do, and it is also the common sense thing to do. Which is why the fake news media has spent the last four days trying to convince everyone that it is tantamount to, like, treason or something. In the media’s eyes we simply cannot allow common sense to prevail in America – if that happens, no Democrat could ever be elected to public office again.

And we also must never allow an evil Republican to get away with doing exactly what a Democrat would do because, well, if that happens, no Democrat could ever be elected to public office again. See how that works?

But back to why in the hell the President agreed to do this wide-ranging interview. After all, he had to know that Stephanopoulos is just a Democrat activist wearing a fake reporter’s suit, would conduct the interview in classic gotcha fashion because Trump is a Republican – this never happens to Democrats – and would ultimately air a version of their discussions that was carefully edited to try to inflict maximum damage on him and his administration. This stuff is as predictable as Nancy Pelosi forgetting her way to the bathroom. It’s like clockwork.

Well, here’s a thought: Maybe he did this interview to get a couple of messages out to an audience other than the subset of Americans who make up the viewers of Fox News. Think about it.

As part of his exchange with the “little wise guy”, as the President at one point referred to the diminutive Clinton hack, he reminded everyone that the Pantsuit Princess and the DNC combined to pay millions of dollars to have the Steele Dossier compiled during the course of the 2016 campaign. Viewers of Fox News all know this to be the case, but it likely is the first time people who get their “news” from ABC ever heard of it.

So, think about what has taken place since last Thursday, as the entirety of our fake national media establishment have hysterically claimed that simply listening to information provided free of charge by some foreigner is some sort of treasonous act, a false claim that millions of thoughtless citizens have now been parroting to their friends for four solid days. How are these people going to react when Michael Horowitz and William Barr, as a result of their respective investigations, formally report that the Coughing Crook and her minions at the DNC in fact paid $11 million for a bunch of salacious claims made by foreign agents, mainly from Russia?

That’s why Andrew McCabe, of all people, was on CNN Thursday night defending the money-laundering effort that Clinton and the DNC used to hide what they were doing. The skunks and snakes know what’s coming and are trying to spin a positive narrative.

So, there’s that. But that bit of key information is not even the biggest revelation the President rolled out during his interactions with the Little Wise Guy. How about this exchange:

Little Wise Guy: “You clearly believe there was a group of people working against you. Do you think President Obama was behind it?”

Trump: “I would say that he certainly must have known about it because it went very high up in the chain. But you’re going to find that out. I’m not going to make that statement quite yet. But I would say that President Obama had to know about it.” [Emphasis added]

“But you’re going to find that out.” What do you suppose the President meant by that? Do you believe, as the fake media wants you to believe, that Mr. Trump is a dope who just randomly says stuff that has no meaning?

Or do you think the President of the United States has a pretty good idea about what is coming, and is setting the stage for the American public to be able to internalize the coming results of the Horowitz and Barr investigations? Understand that, as far back as November, 2016, Mr. Trump was fully briefed on the plot against him by then-NSA Director Mike Rogers. The day after that briefing, in which he was informed that his offices in Trump Tower were under surveillance, the then-President-elect moved his entire transition team operation to a golfing property he owns in New Jersey.

We should all understand that the media has done everything it possibly can to prevent the public from learning the actual facts of the Obama-era spying and entrapment operation conducted against the Trump team. It is likely that less than 20% of the American people have ever heard about the Clinton/DNC funding of the Steele Dossier, likely that far fewer than that understand how high up in the Obama Administration this operation went.

Assuming the Barr investigation being led by John Durham is real, then a lot of stage-setting must be done before any indictments and prosecutions of high Obama officials begin, since our fake news media has worked so hard to ensure the public is largely uninformed.

So, we should look at the President’s interview with the little Clinton toady as a first step down that difficult road. Expect more inexplicable interviews to be granted to folks like Lester Holt at NBC and Norah O’Donnell at CBS in the weeks to come.

Interesting times.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Why Joe Biden Won’t be the Nominee

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

People keep telling me that I’m really going out on a limb with my all-but-guarantee that Joe Biden will not be the Democrat nominee in 2020. The truth is that that is the safest prediction I’ve made about this race.

The history of presidential politics is littered with the rotting carcasses of early favorites in contested presidential nominating battles who ended up being left behind when the actual convention rolled around.

Remember 1972 Democrat nominee Edmund Muskie? Yeah, neither do I. Well, I sort of remember Edmund Muskie, who was the party establishment’s favorite as the campaign season began, but Democrat voter base, radicalized by the hippie movement moving into adulthood and the early reports of the Watergate scandal, were looking for a much more radical alternative that year. Ultimately, the party presented closet Marxist George McGovern to the country, and an electoral slaughter of epic proportions ensued, despite the media’s best efforts to destroy Richard Nixon.

Sound familiar?

What about 1976 Democrat nominee Morris Udall, the early polling leader and establishment favorite? Or nominee Birch Bayh, who won the Iowa Caucuses? Remember them? No? Well, it turned out that Democrat voters that year weren’t in the mood to nominate some old DC swamp creature, which you are going to soon discover is a very common theme in this essay. Instead, they wanted a fresh face, and ended up saddling the country with Jimmy Carter, who at the time was the freshest face we’d ever seen.

Yeah, that didn’t work out well, did it?

Remember when early polls told us that Ted Kennedy was going to beat Carter for the nomination in 1980 after Carter’s disastrous term in office? Remember when that didn’t happen, either?

Guess who the early polling leader for the nomination in the 1984 race was? Remember how Gary Hart won that year’s nomination? No? Neither does anyone else. That year, the now-ageing hippies passed the party’s baton to old swamp  creature Walter Mondale, and the result was the largest electoral landslide loss in American history.

Ok, what about 1988 Democrat nominee Mario Cuomo? Remember him? After a raft of polls in mid-1987 showed Cuomo would be a big leader in the nominating battle, party leaders tried to recruit him to get into the race. But Cuomo, knowing the scrutiny that would bring into his shady background, refused to take up the baton.

Well, what about 1988 nominee Gary Hart, who again led all the polls once Cuomo refused to run? No? Hart might actually have prevailed in the race that year had he not dared the media to “follow me around” after allegations arose that he was having an affair. For once, the media actually did its job where a Democrat was concerned, and photos of Hart cavorting on a boat with Donna Rice were soon made public. So, we ended up with Michael Dukakis and another electoral landslide instead.

Then there’s 1992 Democrat nominee Paul Tsongas, or 1992 Democrat nominee Jerry Brown, or 1992 Democrat nominee Bob Kerrey, all of whom were leaders in early polling in the race. But then this guy Bill Clinton played the saxophone on the Johnny Carson Show, and shallow Democrat voters had their man!

In 2000, it was Al Gore all the way as the Democrat voter longed to give the country a third Clinton term. That didn’t happen, either.

Then there’s 2004 Democrat nominee John Edwards. Yet another early polling leader flame-out due to Gary Hart-like circumstances. He was succeeded by 2004 Democrat nominee Howard Dean, who surged into a polling lead late in 2003. But he came up a crapper with a third-place finish in Iowa, and the nomination ended up going to the disastrous John Kerry.

Finally, I give you 2008 Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, the overwhelming leader in every early poll in the race, and the woman who eventually…flamed completely out after Barack Hussein Obama his own self caught fire.

Democrat voters are fickle, folks. In every cycle, the party’s leaders always try to push a favorite candidate, and that favored candidate is usually rejected. The lone exceptions to this dynamic in modern times have been Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, all loooooooooosers. In 2016, the party’s leaders went so far as to actually rig the primaries in Clinton’s favor, and Obama and his evil minions did everything they could to rig the general election in her favor, and she still lost.

The Fainting Felon’s attempt to saddle the nation with a third Obama term was a miserable failure, and now here is Joe Biden, trying to execute the exact same failed strategy four years later. But Biden’s trying to do it before a party voter base that has been radicalized to the point of insanity, and the primary voting is going to be dominated by the most radicalized among them.

Every nominating battle has its own unique set of dynamics, of course, and the party bosses have set the process up this time to encourage a hung convention at which they will ultimately get to choose the nominee. Maybe that will work out for them, but if it does, history tells us that they will choose a loser.

But back to the point about Joe Biden: History also tells us that the early leader in the polls almost never ends up winning the nomination. I’m not out on a limb at all on that one, and I think I’ll stick to it.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Dems/NBC Structure Debate Lineups to Promote the Party’s New Dream Ticket

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Well, the Democrat debate lineups are set for next week, and aren’t we all thrilled? Ok, no. But I’ll tell you who is thrilled to death, and that is Fauxcahontas, the fake Indian senator from Massachusetts who got her a seat at the kiddie table. This is how we know that she has now replaced Kamala Harris as the favored child of the Obama minions who are running the DNC into bankruptcy. We’ll explain, but first, take a look at how the “random drawing” for next week’s two debate nights turned out:

Image result for Democratic debate lineups

Image result for Democratic debate lineups

Anything look a little odd to you there? Well, it will if you understand how the Democrats and the fake news media – in this case, NBC and its affiliate channels – work together to structure their narratives and influence how this campaign is going to go.

The first thing to understand here is that the Democrat Party does nothing at random. Nothing is left to chance – everything is scripted, every word they utter, every public action they take is based on supporting the narrative, which in turn is based on polling and focus groups. So, ignore the myth that these lineups were determined by drawing names out of a hat. That’s utter nonsense.

Now that you understand that, take another look at the lineups and notice the most striking aspect of them: There is Princess Little Big Giveaway all by herself at the end of that first line, preceded by an amazing array of lightweights in the race. None of those other nine candidates is polling more than 2-3% support currently, and most of them come in at a flat zero in all but a handful of national polls. Who do you think that’s intended to benefit?

It’s been hilarious reading some of the “news” reports since the lineups were released, most of them claiming that Lieawatha somehow came out on the short end of the stick, based on the bad reasoning that golly, nobody will be watching that first debate because Biden and the Commie aren’t in it. This betrays a complete lack of understanding about what actually matters here, which is not how many people tune into the debate, but what the media narrative of it will be the next day.

The narrative for Night 1 is set up to be “Man, did Elizabeth Warren dominate that debate stage, or what?” It’s as predictable as Joe Biden groping a child at a public event. You know who really got screwed by that draw? Tulsi Gabbard, who needs people to be watching in order to notice that she’s the only person on that stage who will be saying what she actually thinks, rather than reciting talking points written for her by other people, as all the others will be doing. Trust me, that’s not an accident, either, given that the Obama people who run the DNC detest Rep. Gabbard.

Thus, Night 2 will be crammed with the rest of the “heavyweights” in the race, if you can call them that. Sleepy Creepy Joe, the Commie, Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete will all be forced to compete with each other for opportunities to stand out, along with six rank also-rans like Kirsten Gillibrand and Marianne Williamson. The almost inevitable result of this lineup will be the formation of a circular firing squad with the guns trained mainly at Uncle Joe.

Guess who is most likely to come out of that mess looking best? If you said Mayor Pete, you’d be right. Because Buttigieg has already proven he’s much smarter than the rest of these hacks, and is the most likely one to be sure to stay completely out of the slugfest.

So, the lineup coming out of Night 2 sets up a narrative that will be something like “Buttigieg remains above the fray as a brawl breaks out on the debate stage.” Just millions more dollars worth of free media for the party’s “rising star.” No mystery here.

The people who run the DNC understand that Biden’s a dinosaur who is completely out of touch with the party’s radicalized voter base, and that the Commie is, well, a Commie who would lead the party to unrecoverable electoral disaster. So these lineups have obviously been structured to promote what is quickly emerging as the party’s “dream ticket” – a marriage between a fake Indian and an Obama disciple who has never before run for any office above mayor of a mid-size town in Indiana.

As much as they try to hide what they’re doing, the Democrats are really extremely transparent when you understand how they coordinate their efforts with our fake news media.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Andrew McCabe Just Endorsed Money Laundering

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

You read that right: The former Deputy Director of the FBI says blatant money laundering by a political campaign is just fine. –  You don’t have to believe me – here he is in his own words, as he attempts to rationalize to Fredo Cuomo why he’s slamming President Trump’s statement that he would listen to a foreign source who came to him with information about his opponent, while at the same time defending the fact that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid $11 million for the Steele Dossier during 2016:

“Not at all, Chris. There’s no equivalence between those two examples,” McCabe responded. “To openly invite foreign intelligence officers, representatives from a hostile foreign government to steal information, to acquire opposition research in anyway, in any illegal way that they might do that and to present it to you is one thing. For a campaign to hire a law firm, an American law firm who then turns around and hires an American research company that then contracts out with a foreign individual, that is not illegal,” McCabe emphasized.

Folks, let’s be real about what Clinton and the DNC did: They laundered money. Knowing that directly hiring a foreign agent – Steele – to coordinate with other foreign agents from England, Italy, Australia and yes, even Russia to compile dirt on their opposition would be a heinous violation of myriad U.S. laws, they attempted to hide that activity by funneling the money through not one, but two different cut-outs.  This is what the FBI in the days before McCabe/Comey/Obama would have called a classic case of money laundering, plain and simple.

But last night, the disgraced ex-FBI Deputy Director said that hey, it’s just peachy.

I have waited all day long for someone, anyone, in the American news media to wake up to what McCabe really said to Cuomo last night, without result.

So there, I’ve said it.

What a dumpster fire the FBI has become, thanks to skunks and snakes like McCabe and Comey. God help us.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Godspeed to Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Boy, are we going to miss Sarah Huckabee Sanders. –  President Donald Trump (I never tire of typing those three glorious words) has had no better able nor more loyal advisor than White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders. After the President’s initial choice of Sean Spicer for the job turned out to be a failed experiment, to put it nicely, Sanders stepping into the job felt like a breath of fresh air.

Looking back, it is difficult to think of anyone who could have done the intensely difficult job of dealing with an openly-hostile pack of rabid dogs in the White House “press corps” quite so well. She took every question, answered all the taunts and humiliated the little CNN pissant Jim Acosta repeatedly, which was a true service to the nation.

Ultimately, Sanders should be thanked for killing the stupid, counterproductive modern habit of holding a daily White House press briefing. The need to end that daily atrocity on our nation was something I began writing about way back in February of 2017, and had also written about it occasionally during the Bush and even Reagan Administrations (yeah, yeah, I know: I’m old). There is literally no reason at all for any Republican administration to hold these daily baby-sitting sessions for a pack of fake journalists who consider it their job to abuse whomever the spokesperson happens to be and lie about what they and the President have to say.

In reality, most of these fake journalists are true enemies of the people, potential threats to the President and his personnel, and should never have been granted a pass to the White House grounds to begin with. In this Administration, it’s gotten to the point where most of them have served as active participants in an effort to execute a coup d’etat on American soil. That kind of behavior should never be rewarded.

This is what and who Sarah Sanders has had to deal with on a daily basis for the past two and a half years. Thankfully, it has now been 95 days and counting since she last held a “daily” press briefing, and we should all hope there is never another one during this administration. President Trump holds at least one press “gaggle” at which he answers questions himself, as only he can, almost every day, and many days – like yesterday – holds two or three such impromptu availabilities. These gatherings and the President’s own Twitter feed are far and away the most effective communications tool for this particular presidency.

So, who will replace Sanders? Good question, and the Washington Examiner has a good piece this morning examining a dozen possibilities. Of these dozen, I can tell you two who won’t be getting the job: Laura Ingraham and Ainsley Airhart of Fox News. Ingraham would be terrific in the role, but why would she give up her lucrative gig on Fox to take on this daily grind for a fraction of the pay? Hard to imagine.

Airhart is fine as the host of a morning show, but she would be eaten alive by the frothing-at-the-mouth press corps. She wouldn’t last a month. No.

Hogan Gidley, who has served as Sanders’ Deputy throughout her tenure and frequently stepped into the role, is probably the favorite. He has done fine work himself and probably deserves the appointment.

You will note he is also one of just three men on the Examiner’s list. There is a good reason for this, which is that this is a President who really probably needs a woman in this role. He so alpha-male-ish, so blunt and blustery in his own demeanor, that he really needs a softer voice and presence who is also firm and tough as his spokesperson.

If it isn’t Gidley, my personal choice from that list would be Mercedes Schlapp, who currently serves as the White House Director of Strategic Communications. She has been a star in that role and would likely provide a very seamless transition from Sanders.

One name that is not on that list but should be is that of Mollie Hemingway, currently a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Hemingway is a frequent contributor on Fox News, appearing a couple of times every week on Bret Baier’s Fox Report panel where she regularly schools the various fake media hacks Baier likes to bring on for “balance.” No idea if Hemingway has any interest in the job, by my goodness, she would be a great choice.

Regardless of who her replacement happens to be, the nation owes a debt of gratitude to Sarah Sanders. She has been a true star, a shining light of stability in what has been a very chaotic White House on many days. Rumor is that she may be planning to run for Arkansas Governor in 2022, when current GOP incumbent Asa Hutchinson will be termed out. If she does, I’ll be an out-of-state contributor to her campaign.

Godspeed.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Barr/Durham Inquiry is Making the CIA Nervous? COOL!

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

If William Barr achieves nothing else in his go-round at DOJ, he has already shown just how important it is for our country to have a real, actual, fully-functioning Attorney General.  That reality was emphasized yet again in the bombshell new report from the New York Times – based solely on anonymous “sources”, of course, because it is the NYTimes, after all – that claims that John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the whole “Spygate” scandal will include interviews with “at least one senior counterintelligence official and a senior C.I.A. analyst.”

Cool! You can feel the sweat breaking out on John Brennan’s forehead even as you read this report. Brennan, after all, was the CIA Director when all the shenanigans were taking place, and we already know as a matter of public record that he was knee-deep in all of it. The Times, of course, does its best to try to create sympathy for CIA personnel by carefully justifying their “work” as attempts to understand “Russian intereference” in the 2016 election, but we all know that’s a myth because Barack Hussein Obama his own self told us so on several occasions. And if reading this following paragraph from the story doesn’t enrage you as an American citizen, then you need to read up on your civics lessons:

“While the Justice Department review is not a criminal inquiry, it has provoked anxiety in the ranks of the C.I.A., according to former officials. Senior agency officials have questioned why the C.I.A.’s analytical work should be subjected to a federal prosecutor’s scrutiny. Attorney General William P. Barr, who is overseeing the review, assigned the United States attorney in Connecticut, John H. Durham, to conduct it.”

Think about what that paragraph actually says in plain English: That “Senior agency officials” the Times claims to have spoken with literally believe they and their “analytical work”, i.e., the assignment of a parade of CIA operatives like Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud and others to try to entrap Trump campaign officials in violations of the law, is somehow exempt from scrutiny. In other words, these deep state snakes and skunks really and truly do believe they are simply above the law.

After all, if a federal prosecutor working directly under the supervision of the nation’s highest law enforcement official has no right to investigate their actions, then who in the hell does? Who do these people think they are?

And guess what? The next paragraph should enrage you even more than you already are:

“The Justice Department has not submitted formal written requests to talk to the C.I.A. officers, but law enforcement officials have told intelligence officials that Mr. Durham will seek the interviews, two of the people said. Communications officers for both the C.I.A. and the Justice Department declined to comment.”

Understand what’s happening here yet? Yep, this article is an effort by the news-fakers at the New York Times to help their deep state sources in and around the CIA to try to intimidate Barr and Durham from moving forward by publicly exposing their plans. This is sleazy, despicable and just one more proof point showing why fake news outlets like the Times are in fact the enemies of the American people.

But wait, there’s more, as the late, great Billy Mays used to say. Watch as the current CIA Director, appointed by President Trump, sends a not-so-coded message to her stressed employees and Brennan:

“The C.I.A. director, Gina Haspel, has told senior officials that her agency will cooperate — but will still work to protect critical pieces of intelligence whose disclosure could jeopardize sources, reveal collection methods or disclose information provided by allies, according to current and former American officials.

“Ms. Haspel will not block the interviews and has told the agency that talking with Mr. Durham need not jeopardize secrets and is consistent with cooperating with Mr. Barr’s inquiry.”

Ah, yes, the old “sources and methods” dodge – Haspel here is promising to use it liberally to protect “her people.” Let’s remember that Haspel just happened to be the London station chief for the CIA while Brennan was the agency’s director, and that much of the entrapment efforts during 2016 took place in….wait for it…London!

Oh.

You have to get all the way down to the 10th paragraph of the story – which the Times knows is well past where 90% of its short-attention-span readers will ever bother to tread – to find out what Barr and Durham are really trying to get at in this piece of their investigation:

“Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

“During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence.”

The “declassified assessment” the Times refers to is the Intelligence Community Assessment that our National Teenage Drama Queen James Comey and others presented to President Trump during the transition following the 2016 election. We now know – Comey has testified to this under oath – that the Drama Queen’s “mission” that day was to inform the incoming President about the existence of the Steele Dossier. Comey and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had been trying to get the fake news hacks at CNN to run with the Dossier, but, in a rare display of a modicum of journalistic ethics, had been told by CNN that they would not report on the Dossier unless they knew that Trump had been briefed on it.

All of which is why, as he left that meeting in Trump Tower, Comey then phoned Clapper and delivered the simple message, “Mission Accomplished.” CNN ran with the story that night, and a few months later gave Clapper a big contract as a “contributor.”

So, when you see the Times trying to intimidate Barr and Durham away from looking into the CIA’s role in all of that, you know that the investigation is on the right track.

When CIA officials who worked for John Brennan are so nervous they go looking for cover from their media toadies, that’s good news for all real Americans.

Boom.

That is all.

[Addendum] You don’t have believe me about all of this being part of the public record. A friend reminded me just now of this terrific expose’ by Paul Sperry published at RealClearPolitics in May of last year. Read it to understand why John Brennan has so much cause to be sweating today.

 

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Fauxcahontas Makes Heap Big Surge in Presidential Race

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

We here at the Campaign Update have consistently noted that Democrat voters love being lied to, and they appear determined to prove us right. If you hadn’t already picked up on it, the biggest surge in the Democrat nominating race over the past couple of months has not come from Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has settled into polling consistently in the 7-8% support range. While that’s fairly respectable, we might have expected a little better performance from a guy who has received tens of millions of dollars in free, fawning air time from our fake news media since March.

No, the biggest surge has come from exactly the source we should have all anticipated, the life-long human fraud who has gotten everything she has achieved in life by lying. This is a woman who doesn’t just lie about economics, not just about the law, not just about public policy; oh, no, that’s not nearly enough. Elizabeth Warren is a woman who has spent her entire adult life disgracefully lying about who she even is as a person, pretending to be of American Indian descent in order to move ahead in line for plum jobs, to obtain licenses to practice law, and even to get elected to the United States Senate.

Making things even more hilarious – and thus making her even more appealing to liar-obsessed Democrat voters – Warren had become so bought into her own line of BS that she even resorted to taking a DNA test to prove her life of lies last year. When the test came back with the finding that she might – maybe – have 1/1024th native American blood in her stream, she immediately paraded around on a public “victory” tour. Only the loud objections from several Indian Tribes put a stop to that nonsense.

But why would it surprise us that her initial reaction to having been publicly proven to be a heinous, life-long fraud would be to stage a celebration? After all, this is a woman who wants to be the Democrat presidential nominee, and while she’s a horribly dishonest individual, she isn’t stupid. She knows what appeals most to her party’s demented voter base, and that DNA test was proof she had the main qualification to win their support.

You have to think like these Democrats think, folks. I know it’s hard, but once you do, everything they do makes perfect sense.

Anyway, getting to the point here, we’ve had a spate of new polls of the Democrat race released in the past few days, and they show a clear Lieawatha surge, one that well outpaces the little boomlet Mayor Pete’s enjoyed. Quinnipiac, which showed Warren getting just 4% support in March, now has her at a very strong 15%, just 4 points behind the Commie. Economist/YouGov, meanwhile, has her at 16%, 4 points ahead of the old Bolshevik, and just 11 points behind Creepy Uncle Joe.

At the state level, a new Des Moines Register poll has her surging to 15% support in that state, in a virtual tie with the Commie and 9 points behind Biden. In Nevada, another key early caucus state, a new poll by Monmouth shows her firmly in second place at 19% support.

And a note about Warren consistently now getting at or above that 15% support level: That’s the level of votes a candidate must attain to win delegates in the party’s new proportional system for 2020. Thus, Lieawatha now joins Biden and the Commie as the only candidates consistently breaching that key threshold.

Little Mouth Always Running’s recent surge, along with her solid fundraising efforts, have now clearly established her as the strongest woman in the race. Kamala Harris, who all the “experts” believed was the odds-on favorite to be the main challenger to Biden back in January, continues to struggle and her polling numbers have settled into an essential tie with Mayor Pete. Although she on the surface seems like a female carbon political copy of Barack Hussein Obama his own self, she so far simply lacks Obama’s ability to connect with voters.

In other words, Kamala is just a lousy candidate. Who knows – maybe if she made up a back story about how her great grandmother always told her she was a space alien, that might be an obvious-enough lie to steal voters away from Fauxcahontas. Do lies about Aliens trump lies about Indians in demented Democrat thought? Hard to know until it’s been tried, Kamala.

In any event, the math on this race is becoming increasingly clear as the contestants lurch towards their first debates later this month. We have a top tier of contenders that consists of the Creepy Uncle every family wants to hide in the basement, a Commie trying to pretend he’s merely a socialist, a fake Indian, a modestly unsuccessful mayor of a mid-size city most Americans have never heard of, and a Senator who advanced her career by having a years-long affair with a power broker twice her age. The other 20 or so candidates need to devise better sets of lies if they want to move up the pecking order.

Way to go, Democrats!

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Posts navigation

1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12
Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: