Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

"These are the days of miracle and wonder"

A lot of stuff going on around the world, so, of course, I won't have too much to say.

Did FBI Director Comey's testimony on Russia-Trump make any sense to you? If so, please explain it to me.

He certainly did not clear up entirely the conundrum (great word) raised in this humble blog some days ago, and which I now see other commentators raising (I am sure they read it here first),
The Dems claim that Trump is in bed with the Russians; Trump denies it and countercharges that the Dems had him under surveillance. We have here a problem. If the Dems have official intel on Trump's connections with Russia, how did they get it? Presumably from the official intel services which then it would appear were monitoring Russian contacts with Trump's people. If there was no surveillance order given to US intel, from where did the intel on Russian contacts come? "The British," is apparently the Trump answer. I have a more plausible one. I think there was surveillance of Russian activity, probably by the NSA, and it found nothing to show that Trump had contacts with the Russians; the Obamistas and the Clintonistas then made up the accounts of Russian interference. In other words, they lied.
Comey acknowledged that there was no evidence showing a Tump-Moscow connection or that the Russians had thrown the election, but then said there is an ongoing investigation of Trump-Russia! So then there was some sort of FBI investigation/surveillance of the Trump campaign! Since, however, it has found no evidence of wrong-doing, that means, it would seem, the "leaks" pointing to such were, ahem, fabrications, Democratic dirty tricks, inoperative statements, or what is commonly called, lies. Comey would not, however, commit to investigating the "leaks."

Director Comey should go home for the good of the FBI's credibility, and for the good of the country. If Trump has made a mistake in these early days, it was keeping Comey on; firing him now, of course, would give the DNC a whole new set of talking points and the left a new martyr along with a host of US Attorneys. Riding the tiger.

Bottom line: President Trump was right about his campaign being under surveillance by the Obama administration. As I have said before, don't bet against Trump, unless, that is, you like to lose.

In France, we see a growing revolt against the Muslim invasion. Whether this will prove enough to halt the Islamization of France, we don't know. Certainly the same "folks," to use Susan Rice's endearing term for the terrorists who killed our people in Benghazi, who savaged Farage, Orban, Trump, and Wilders, are now gunning for Le Pen. Will she succeed in winning the presidency of France? I don't know; the odds and the polls seem to be against it, but, then look at Brexit and Trump--the polls certainly didn't get those right. Speaking of "right," the media and the global elites, of course, seek to delegitimize Marine Le Pen and her movement by labeling her and it with the catch-all phrase "far right." Looking over her party's platform, I don't see anything there that is "far right." She just seems to be somebody who wants France to be France, not the Islamic Republic of Gaul. I guess that makes her horrible.

Leftist Dreamland Venezuela continues its increasingly violent implosion. Socialism, the collapse of oil prices, horrid mismanagement of a bloated state, persecution of the opposition, and rampant official corruption and drug trafficking have put paid to Chavismo and its horrid successor Madurismo. There is no way out for the Maduro regime. It's over. The issue now is how much more suffering he and his shrinking circle of followers are willing to impose on the people of what should be one of the world's richest countries.

EVEN, yes, EVEN the Secretary General of the OAS, leftist Uruguayan politician Luis Almagro, has called for Venezuela to be suspended from the OAS unless new and democratic elections are held. For those of us who have worked at the OAS, that is nothing short of revolutionary. Proving that we do live in Paul Simon's "days of miracle and wonder" EVEN the Washington Post has acknowledged that Obama mishandled Venezuela and has called on President Trump to take a tough line with Caracas. Sean Penn call your office . .  .

Ah, what would we do without leftists?


  1. The lawless administration of Barack Obama is the "gift" that keeps on giving!

  2. Gotta take exception to you complaint about "the polls."

    Hillary won the popular vote, by a range certainly within the margin of error.

    The polls basically said Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina were tossups, and all of those were easily within the margin of error. The real issue was the state polls (or lack thereof) in Michigan and Wisconsin, but since those weren't considered "battleground states," there was a chicken and egg problem - nobody thought that Trump had a chance in those states, so polling was very sparse.

    The real problem was not the polls, but the (mostly liberal) analysts who looked at the polling results and saw what they wanted to see - a(n) (easy) Hillary win.

    I am not really a Nate Silver fan, but given that he was working with the same (incomplete) polls as everyone else, his forecast was not bad at all. He basically said Hillary loses if she wins the popular vote by less than one percent, and it's a tossup if she wins the popular vote by less than two percent. And he gave Trump about a one in three chance of winning when many pundits had Hillary at ninety percent or more.

    1. Also, Hillary won California by 4.8 million votes, about 2 million of which were probably illegals. She lost the rest of the country by 2 million votes so her final popular "win" was by 2.8 million. All in California.

    2. Michael K., you left out the Democrat's typical vote shenanigans in NY, DC, Chicago, Seattle, etc. They've been doing this for a long time, at least since the Tammany Hall days. I don't have a decent estimate but the number is probably in the hundreds of thousands if not a million or more.

      Clinton's popular vote win is perhaps not as large as the MSM would have you believe.

  3. The Left is there to tempt us with the apple ...

    1. Marine Le Pen has no chance to win the 2nd round. She will have a better score than her father so instead of 80/20, it will be more like 60-65/40-35 but she's not good enough to go the all way. She's also not far right at all, her policies are socialist in essence (the state in everything).

      I'm afraid we will end up with that media creature called macron. Then again, we elected hollande so that gives you the level of stupidity of the average French voter.

      The one saving grace is that the "normal" right will win the parliament shortly after so we will end up with a "cohabitation" which should limit the damage.

  4. "Ah, what would we do without leftists?" Oh how I would love to see it!

    1. I also would love to see what this country would be like without the boat-anchor leftists.

      So many people would actually be WORKING!

      What a concept.

    2. Agreed. I was trying to think of a disadvantage, as most changes have some pros and cons, but had to give up. The modern leftist ideology is powerful and influential but believes in nothing except power and their own good intentions. Everything they have achieved has led to destruction be it their social safety net, socialised medicine or state-provision of education, not that they will ever acknowledge it.

  5. Mad,
    I think the Russian/Trump Democratic campaign has become a monkey trap for the Dems, they just can't let go.
    Europe: In a sense it doesn't matter if La Pen wins or not, just the same aw with Wilders for there is one of those movements underway that can't really be stopped by the opposition/globalists/elitists. They may appear to win or slow it down, but it's an illusion, almost as bad as the monkey trap is for the Dems in US domestic politics.
    Trump: I really think given his personality that he welcomes all of this so called controversy. He likes to fight, seems good at it and this gets his opposition out in the open, easier to engage. Sorta like old Mao's "Let a thousand Flowers Bloom" campaign.
    Ps. The Dems think their big opening is a comeback in the 2018 elections (especially the House), at this point I think they are delusional.

    1. I think the dems are *probably* correct on 2018. It's what America seems to do. The GOP under clinton, the dems under Bush, and again the GOP under Obama.
      It would seem that once either party gets the keys to the castle, they invite all their buddies and have a party on the backs of their supporters, and then their supporters vote 'em out.
      I'd say the hope here for keeping the liberal agenda out of congress, is that Trump is not a republican in the "political party" sense. ie, his choices will be his own.

      - reader #1482

    2. I think that this time is different. Not because some RINO's in Congress will finally see the light, but rather the electorate is angry, angry enough to keep unseating RINO's and sending people there to do the people's will.

  6. Re; Venezuela

    See the inheritance left by Chavez.


  7. I've just finished listening to a 25 hour Great Courses course on the French Revolution and Napoleon. The French courtship of Islam began with him. He said, toward the end of his life, that he should have stayed in Egypt. He would have ended as an Emperor of the Muslims. (He would not have but that's what he said.)

  8. Recent statements give me a new guess as to what the spying was all about, what besides Obama crookedness, would get Intel agencies deeply involved, and what they are trying to hide: That is our ultimate foreign policy toward Russia and what we are doing in Ukraine to achieve it.

    Our ultimate foreign policy goal for Russia seems to be to isolate it: by 1) breaking Bush 41's promise to Gorbachev to not expand NATO, and 2) meddling heavily in politics/elections of Ukraine (and other Eastern European countries) to drive it/them away from Russia and into the bosom of NATO and the EU. That is certainly the policy McCain publicly pushes. I believe our (and the EU's) meddling are extensive and would be shocking if known to the public. (Ukrainian executive pulled off plane somewhere in Europe and extradited to US supposedly because of a bribe to an Indian official that was, horrors, sent from somewhere through a U.S. bank. Was this extraordinary extra-judicial reach really because of said Ukrainian's proposed gas deal with Putin? Wait, it gets worse. Meddling in elections.)

    How about this supposition: spying was about Russia, Russia itself and Ukraine? Intel community feared Trump a threat to our foreign policy. Flynn had undisclosed ties to Russia (and Turkey???) and was talking about sanctions with the Russians. That of normal and legitimate interest to our intel community (but leaks weren't) The illegitimate part was the spying re Ukraine. Manafort and others had - disclosed - ties to the " disgraced" former PRO-RUSSIAN PM of Ukraine, Yanukovych, who was overthrown by "pro-Western protesters." Yeah, with a lot of money and help from the EU and CIA. Today's papers allege Manafort was doing illegal money laundering for Yanukovych. I have no idea whether Yanukovych is corrupt or not but I know he was PRO-RUSSIAN and we and EU support (and arm) pro-West/EU factions.

    Cameron was aboard the meddling policy toward Ukraine; he wanted an EU that "stretched from the Atlantic to the Urals." He would have been willing if requested to spy on those in Trump's circle with ties to either Russia or Ukraine. Is all the stuff about Russian meddling making Trump's election illegitimate a windfall., and what it started as is surveillance on those with ties to Ukraine? Are that and the British involvement (5 Eyes arrangements) really what needs to be covered up? I am very sure our (and the EU's) meddling in Ukraine, publicly labelled a "expanding democracy" campaign, would not withstand public scrutiny.

  9. What's Fox doing? Their Judge Napolitano reported last week sources had told him Brits did the surveillance (which I have been arguing for days - common practice under 5 Eyes sigint intel gathering and analyzing alliance of the 5 Anglogosphere countries).


    Yesterday, it was revealed Napolitano has been pulled off the air, and Shepard Smith on air read a really unusual blanket denial: "Fox News cannot confirm Judge Napolitano's commentary. Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-President of the United States was surveilled at any time in any way."

    Well, Fox, do you know who was surveilled under the FISA warrant we know was granted or whether any other warrants were issued?

    Today it's being reported Napolitano will resign.

    This is extraordinary. Napolitano is not a sensationalist, as far as I know this is the first time he has made news. Given Spicer quoted Napolitano and said Trump based his opinion about being wiretapped by the Brits on Napoliano's report, I can understand Fox wanting to get out of the way - if Napolitano's sources were wrong. But did they run down Napolitano's sources? Do they know he's wrong? (Personally, I think it highly possible and plausible SOP for 5 Eyes, and see my post above.) And if not true, why so harsh on Napolitano? We can assume he didn't make it up and be did have sources, at worst, just not good enough sources.

    1. Napolitano would not have made it up. His sources might be wrong of course. However, I doubt it.

      Fox, with a few exceptions, is anti Trump. O'Reilly or Hannity could report what Napolitano did and remain as they are too powerful to get rid of. Napolitano does not have that power.


    2. Even if Fox is anti-Trump, its handling of this is still worthy of pondering. They could have just told Napolitano to shut up and issued a more routine statement that Fox had been unable to confirm Napolitano"s claim and has no other evidence of Trump being wiretapped. Was 1000% orthodoxy on the "falsity" of Trump's claim so important? (Was this part of how Congress would impeach him?) I noticed a couple of Shepherd Smith reports earlier where he kept talking about Trumps "unfounded claim." Wait a minute. A "claim" is something not proved. An "unfounded claim" is a lie. Smith on air was allowed several times to assert Trump was lying.

      I haven't seen O'Reilly or Hannity in several weeks. How did they treat Trump's claims? And two other open fans - and friends of Trumps - Pirro and Bolling, What have they said? Pirro is probably the biggest Trump cheerleader on air - makes no bones about it.

    3. Regarding Shep Smith, I have, on a number of occasions, heard him say that Trump lied. He didn't try to wordsmith around it. He actually said that Trump lied. This was, incidentally, before any review or assessment by the FBI or anyone else. Apparently, Smith's "Trump lied" conclusion was based on the fact that Trump said it. Not surprising, considering the source, however. Smith has been on the anti-Trump train since it pulled out of the station.

    4. Smith should be reporting local and non-political news. He has curiosity, listens and follows up - not true of many reporters. When the subject is not political, he can be interesting (although he's very hyper whenever it's about a hurricane). But he's not smart or knowledgeable enough to do political reporting, and he lets his bias clearly show. Was he as blatant when Ailes was around? I believe his main job is managing the "breaking news" function. That's when they break into an anchor talking about event x which has happened, to tell the audience that event x has happened.

  10. Nunez has now confirmed surveillance. Trump was correct. Whether Britain was involved still to be seen. Fox News is drifting left just as the WSJ is doing under Murdoch's kids who seem determined to ruin the brand.

    1. "Fox News is drifting left"

      They've always been "left" masquerading as conservative and "fair and balanced". We do not really have a main stream news channel dedicated to absolute truth.


    2. WSJ editorialized today that Trump "on verge of failed presidency." Two months in?????

      How can they publish that with a straight face?

      I assume they are talking about probability Congress will not immediately pass health care legislation. But he does have a few more days (weeks and months) to get it done.

  11. Comey in his testimony said that his 8 month investigation into Trump Russia ties will continue because those type of investigations last much longer. I take that to mean he will keep digging and digging until he trips someone up on an FBI interview.

    "London Calling"~~~

    ... "until the Progressivists are defeated, discredited, cowed, crushed, and marginalized to the point of abject humiliation…and not one moment before. Until they are openly scorned for their pathological adherence to unreality—their cowardice and blank stupidity recognized as nothing more than a lodestone guiding an entire culture to degradation and defeat—to the point that they dare not even speak their puling bullshit in public for fear of savage mockery at the hands of sensible people.

    But read the comments and you’ll see that even in bloody London, after this most fresh of a whole slew of hideous attacks over recent years—before the blood has even congealed—they’re nowhere near that point. The fools profess shock, confusion, and disgust over this most elementary blast of common sense; they reel in horror at the idea of admitting the truth that isn’t merely staring them in the face, but clubbing them over the head—killing them, literally fucking killing them, in job lots.

    And so I raise the question again: how much blood must be spilled before the Left is willing to confront its failure, its ignorance, its muttonheaded, moist-eyed belief in a total equality among men that in no way represents our harsher reality? How many more of us must die before they admit that their adolescent fantasy is nothing more than just that? How much wanton mass murder must we tolerate before they are willing to let go of their puerile daydreams and acknowledge the world as it exists, rather than clinging so desperately to an ideology that fundamentally misapprehends—brushes off, dismisses, actually—the darker aspect of human nature right out of the gate?

    And the answer keeps coming back: MORE. More yet, more still. Not enough, not quite yet.

    Which presents another, perhaps more vital and relevant question: how much Progressivist foolishness, their cowardice and juvenile self-indulgence, will WE tolerate before we take effective steps to end this patent madness? When will the sane majority finally decide that enough is truly enough and refuse to grant them and their inane, PC psychobabble serious consideration? When will we shove them aside and deal with a barbaric enemy in the rough and ruthless fashion that is our only hope of ever harnessing the primordial, atavistic belief system that is Islam?

    When we will decide to defend our culture, our way of life—our actual, physical LIVES, ferchrissakes, individually and collectively—in the way merited? To stop being ashamed of our flaws, mourning our failures, apologizing for our missteps, and start protecting our precious civilization against a savage enemy who will neither cease nor rest at any point short of our complete annihilation?" http://coldfury.com/

    ON WATCH~~~
    "Let's Roll"

    1. For now, it looks like Britain will follow Sweden.