22 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-13-18

  1. Soros funded it, but it’s this guy’s baby. Now we know who’s idea it was, and who has been leading it. This is who Democrats say we should allow in.

    Now can we stop pretending this is some noble thing they’re doing? Arrest this piece of trash already.


    “A suspect in a 1987 bombing that wounded six American soldiers in Honduras is leading a group of migrants demanding entry into the United States.

    Alfonso Guerrero Ulloa organized a march of approximately 100 migrants to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, on Tuesday, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Ulloa delivered a letter to the consulate on behalf of the migrants, asking for either entry into the U.S. or a payment of $50,000 per person.

    “It may seem like a lot of money to you,” Ulloa told the Union-Tribune. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”

    Ulloa has lived in Mexico since 1987 after fleeing Honduras in the wake of a bombing that wounded six soldiers. Ulloa was suspected of planting a bomb in a Chinese restaurant, but received asylum from Mexico, whose government described the suspected terrorist as a “freedom fighter.”

    An appropriations bill passed by Congress in December 1987 included Congress’s findings that “the bomb was directed at American soldiers and did in fact wound American soldiers and an American contractor.” The report noted that Ulloa was a suspect in the bombing.

    Ulloa has posted on Facebook about his role in organizing the migrants in Mexico, which he is open about, and the accusations against him from 1987, which he denies.

    Ulloa posted a video on Tuesday of the migrants marching to the consulate. He described the group as a “caravan” of Honduran migrants.

    Ulloa posted a lengthy diatribe about the 1987 bombing to Facebook in June 2017.

    In the post, Ulloa again denied any role in the bombing, though he admitted to being a member of Popular Revolutionary Forces-Lorenzo Zelaya — a now-defunct left-wing group whose members claimed responsibility in 1982 for hijacking a plane and taking hostages, including eight Americans.

    A report published by the U.S. government in April 1990 described the group as one of several “leftist guerrilla groups [in Honduras] that have resorted to terrorist tactics in the past.””


  2. And since we’re on the topic of foreigners creating dissent…….

    On to the anti-Semitic, racist, terrorist supporting leaders of the Women’s March.


    “An investigation by Tablet magazine on the Women’s March has exposed the anti-Semitic beliefs and ties to Nation of Islam that many of us on the right have known about.

    But now that it’s out in the open (again), will anyone pay attention and dump these leaders so many of them prop up? The racist beliefs came out from the very beginning, but many members decided to hide them:

    It was there that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.”

    To this day, Mallory and Bland deny any such statements were ever uttered, either at the first meeting or at Mallory’s apartment. “There was a particular conversation around how white women had centered themselves—and also around the dynamics of racial justice and why it was essential that racial justice be a part of the women’s rights conversation,” remembered Bland. But she and Mallory insisted it never had anything to do with Jews. “Carmen and I were very clear at that [first] meeting that we would not take on roles as workers or staff, but that we had to be in a leadership position in order for us to engage in the march,” Mallory told Tablet, in an interview last week, adding that they had been particularly sensitive to the fact that they had been invited to the meeting by white women, and wanted to be sure they weren’t about to enter into an unfair arrangement. “Other than that, there was no particular conversation about Jewish women, or any particular group of people.”

    The Beginning
    We associate the Women’s March with Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, and Carmen Perez.

    Brushed to the side is Teresa Shook, a lawyer in Hawaii, who made the first post on Facebook that called for women to march against then-president elect Donald Trump. The post went viral and others reached out to her like Evie Harmon Fontaine Pearson. Bland, who owns Manufacture NY and raised money from Planned Parenthood with her Nasty Women shirts, contacted Pearson and Vanessa Wruble via Pantsuit Nation:

    “From the very beginning, Vanessa [Wruble] was leading,” explained a source with direct knowledge of those early days. “She was the operational leader. She made sure all the people doing our various pieces were operating coherently. She walked people through all of the things that had happened, and then those that needed to happen. Some people were focused on logistics, some on community engagement, other people were working on the website—and she was the linchpin of it all, especially in the early days.”

    For her part, Bland had her eyes on more outward-facing tasks. At some point, according to Shook, Bland asked her for access to her event page for the March. Soon after, Bland created a new page—designated as the official March page—and bought the womensmarch.com URL. Bland then deleted Shook’s original event page without asking, or even notifying, her.

    Then Bland realized that the co-chairs decided to pocket “2 percent of all national funds raised.” At that time, they sold over $750,000 in merchandise.

    Ideological Values
    The Women’s March published its Unity Principles on January 12:

    “We must create a society in which women, in particular women—in particular Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, Muslim women, and queer and trans women—are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.”

    Notice someone missing? Yes, nothing about American Jews, which Tablet noted “the vast majority of whom vote and identity as Democrats.” Many within the group wondered if this absence “signaled something about whether and how warmly” the new left would welcome them.”


  3. Well if it’s suddenly a crime when Trump does it, maybe the DoJ needs to get on the ball here. Talk about a target rich environment……


    “If we are going to start prosecuting illegal campaign contributions–sadly, too late to go after Barack Obama’s two scofflaw campaigns–maybe we should begin by charging Google and its executives with federal crimes. Earlier today, Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on, among other things, Google’s apparent attempt to help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 presidential election. Tyler O’Neil at PJ Media reports:

    On Tuesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai struggled to respond to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)’s persistent questions about an email from Google’s former head of multicultural marketing, Eliana Murillo, reporting that the company attempted to push out the Latino vote “in key states” during the 2016 election. Murillo’s email, reported by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, essentially admitted that Google had given Hillary Clinton an in-kind donation during that key election.

    That is a considerably more serious crime than President Trump’s perfectly legal payment to Stormy Daniels, which I don’t think violated campaign finance laws at all.

    The congressman went on to quote the email further. “She said this, ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with our features.’ A few lines down in her email she qualified that sentence, and she said: ‘We pushed to get out the Latino vote with our features in key states.’ And she specifically cites the states Florida and Nevada.”

    “Near the end of her email, in a similar sentence, she says ‘we supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.’” Jordan quoted. Then he turned to the CEO, “Is it fair to say the ‘we’ in both sentences, Mr. Pichai, refers to Google?”

    The CEO dodged the question. “Congressman, we are very concerned over allegations like that. Our team looked into it…”

    Heh. CEOs who testify before Congressional committees are routinely blasted for this sort of transparent evasion.”


  4. Why am I not surprised?


    “In a lengthy court filing Tuesday, attorneys for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn alleged that then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed Flynn not to have an attorney present during the questioning that ultimately led to his guilty plea on a single charge of lying to federal authorities.

    The document outlines, with striking new details, the rapid sequence of events that led to Flynn’s sudden fall from the Trump administration. The filing also seemingly demonstrates that the FBI took a significantly more aggressive tack in handling the Flynn interview than it did during other similar matters, including the agency’s sit-downs with Hillary Clinton and ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.

    While Flynn is among several Trump associates to have been charged with making false statements as part of the Russia probe, no one interviewed during the FBI’s Clinton email investigation was hit with false statement charges – though investigators believed some witnesses were untruthful.

    According to Flynn’s legal team, FBI agents in his case deliberately did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime, and decided not to “confront” him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. (Federal authorities undertaking a national security probe are ordinarily under no obligation to inform interviewees of their right to an attorney unless they are in custody, as long as agents do not act coercively.)”


    It’s slimy, and they know it.


  5. See California…..

    This is why you can’t have nice things.


    “Texting your sweetheart that you’re on your way home? California may soon charge you for that.

    This is no LOL matter, critics say.

    State regulators have been ginning up a scheme to charge a fee for text messaging on mobile phones to help support programs that make phone service accessible to the poor. The wireless industry and business groups have been working to defeat the proposal, now scheduled for a vote next month by the California Public Utilities Commission.

    “It’s a dumb idea,” said Jim Wunderman, president of the Bay Area Council business-sponsored advocacy group. “This is how conversations take place in this day and age, and it’s almost like saying there should be a tax on the conversations we have.”

    It’s unclear how much individual consumers would be asked to pay their wireless carrier for texting services under the proposal. But it likely would be billed as a flat surcharge per customer — one of those irksome fees at the bottom of your wireless bill — not a fee per text.”


  6. Back to Flynn’s entrapment……

    The case is in trouble.


    “Yesterday in “Flynn’s fate (3)” I posted the sentencing memo filed by General Flynn’s attorneys and concluded with a question: Will we ever get to the bottom of this story? Today’s Wall Street Journal carries a good editorial — “The Flynn entrapment” — that I believe to be by Kim Strassel. The editorial draws out the story implicit in Flynn’s sentencing memo and related evidence.

    Flynn’s case is pending before DC District Judge Emmwet Sullivan. He may have a question akin to my own. He wants to know more. Based on Flynn’s sentencing memo, Judge Sullivan has entered an order. As Techno Fog notes in the tweet below, Judge Sullivan has now ordered the parties to file ALL FBI 302 forms and the Special Counsel is ordered to file its reply to Flynn’s sentencing memo by tomorrow. The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes this development and provides background here.”


  7. Here’s the OutLine of the WSJ piece mentioned above, since it sits behind a pay wall.

    And once again I’ll note that Comey and McCabe are slime who abused their offices’ power. They should go to prison.


    “Of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s many targets, the most tragic may be former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The former three-star general pleaded guilty last year to a single count of lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. Now we learn from Mr. Flynn’s court filing to the sentencing judge that senior bureau officials acted in a way to set him up for the fall.

    Not a rich man after decades in uniform, Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to avoid bankruptcy and spare his son from becoming a legal target. Mr. Flynn’s filing doesn’t take issue with the description of his offense. But the “additional facts” the Flynn defense team flags for the court raise doubts about FBI conduct.

    The Flynn filing describes government documents concerning the Jan. 24, 2017 meeting with two FBI agents when Mr. Flynn supposedly lied. It turns out the meeting was set up by then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who personally called Mr. Flynn that day on other business—to discuss an FBI training session. By Mr. McCabe’s account, on that call he told Mr. Flynn he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with him to talk about his Russia communications.

    Mr. McCabe then urged Mr. Flynn to meet without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Mr. Flynn] and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Mr. Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants,” wrote Mr. McCabe in a memo viewed by the Flynn defense team.

    According to the FBI summary of the interview—known as a 302—Mr. McCabe and FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

    We also know from then FBI Director James Comey that this was his idea. This is “something I probably wouldn’t have done or wouldn’t have gotten away with in a more organized administration,” Mr. Comey boasted on MSNBC this weekend. “In the George W. Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, there would be discussions and approvals and who would be there. And I thought, it’s early enough let’s just send a couple guys over.”

    If the goal was to set a legal trap, it worked. The two agents showed up at the White House within hours of Mr. McCabe’s call, and they reported in the 302 that General Flynn had been “relaxed and jocular” and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.” One of the agents was Peter Strzok, who is famous for his anti-Trump texts to his FBI paramour.”


  8. This one is just sad…… 😦


    “Historically the word “bastard” meant someone whose parents were not married. But even more than just the marital status of one’s parents, the word also carried with it an implication of defective character that was attributable to such an inauspicious beginning.

    One might imagine that without the provision, protection, instruction, and correction of a father, children (boys in particular) would find harsh instruction from the world, like a child thrown into a swimming pool trying to learn how to swim.

    Being thrown into the social world with little instruction can lead a child to develop a jungle-type survival skill set. Often the skills children develop are how to use people to get what you want or what to do to feel good. Those who are more capable or lucky learn how to manipulate others and indulge themselves without ending up in jail. Others never quite get the hang of how to function without attracting the attention of the police.

    The statistics are clear:

    63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
    85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes
    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
    70% of juveniles in criminal detention are from fatherless homes.

    The relationship between fatherlessness and imprisonment suggests an importance to fatherhood not often fully appreciated. The impact of fatherless homes should have been alarming 50 years ago. Today a 40% rate (80% in many black communities) indicates a society irreparably damaged. If we consider historical events that contributed to this phenomenon, we can identify three main ones:

    1. The specialized and collectivized work of the industrial age took fathers out of the home.
    2. Compulsory public education took children out of the home.
    3. Feminism took women out of the home.

    People may debate the value of these dynamic forces, but most can agree that they are not going to be stopped much less reversed. Some may attempt to resist these forces by homeschooling or having a home business, but often face great difficulty. The family of just 100 years ago had more in common with families throughout the ages and cultures than with the vestige that survives in modern life today.

    It is not just illegitimacy that contributes to the bastardization of our country. Divorce is also a contributing factor in fatherlessness. There is also that which might be called “de-facto fatherlessness”. The father who resides with a family but is either absent for purposes of work or withdraws into the comfort of TV and alcohol also makes a contribution to fatherlessness.”


  9. Prison….

    That’s the only way to restore the FBI’s credibility and reputation.


    “The sentencing memorandum reveals for the first time concrete evidence that the FBI created multiple summaries of Michael Flynn’s questioning, which may indicate they’re hiding the truth.”


    “While Flynn’s sentencing memorandum methodically laid out the case for a low-level sentence of one-year probation, footnote 23 dropped a bomb, revealing that the agents’ 302 summary of his interview was dated August 22, 2017. As others have already noted, the August 22, 2017 date is a “striking detail” because that puts the 302 report “nearly seven months after the Flynn interview.” When added to facts already known, this revelation takes on a much greater significance.

    First, text messages between Strzok and former FBI Attorney Lisa Page indicate that Strzok wrote his notes from the Flynn interview shortly after he questioned the national security advisor on January 24, 2017. Specifically, on February 14, 2017, Strzok texted Page, “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page responded, “Launch on f 302.” Given Strzok’s role in the questioning Flynn, the date (three weeks from the interview), the notation “F 302,” and Page’s position as special counsel to Andrew McCabe, it seems extremely likely that these text exchanges concerned a February 2017, 302 summary of the Flynn interview.

    Additionally, now that we know from the sentencing memorandum that the special counsel’s office has tendered a 302 interview summary dated August 22, 2017, we can deduce that an earlier 302 form existed from James Comey’s Friday testimony before the House judiciary and oversight committees.

    During the day-long questioning of the former FBI Director, Rep. Trey Gowdy asked Comey whether the agents who interviewed Flynn had indicated that Flynn did not intend to deceive them during the interview. After Comey replied “No,” Gowdy pushed him, asking “Have you ever testified differently?” Comey again responded, “No.”

    But when asked whether he recalled being asked that question doing an earlier House hearing, Comey countered: “No. I recall — I don’t remember what question I was asked. I recall saying the agents observed no indicia of deception, physical manifestations, shiftiness, that sort of thing.” (More on that testimony shortly.) This exchange then followed:

    Mr. Gowdy: “Who would you have gotten that from if you were not present for the interview?”

    Mr. Comey: “From someone at the FBI, who either spoke to — I don’t think I spoke to the interviewing agents but got the report from the interviewing agents.”

    Mr. Gowdy: “All right. So you would have, what, read the 302 or had a conversation with someone who read the 302?”

    Mr. Comey: “I don’t remember for sure. I think I may have done both, that is, read the 302 and then investigators directly. I just don’t remember that.”

    President Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, so the 302 of the Flynn interview Comey read must have been written before then. Why then was a new 302 drafted on August 22, 2017? And by whom?

    The timing of the re-write—shortly after then-FBI Agent Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team after his anti-Trump text messages came to light—raises the possibility that Mueller wanted to scrub the evidence of Strzok’s taint. Having the second agent involved in questioning Flynn draft a new 302 summary would eliminate attacks premised on Strzok’s bias against the president.”


  10. More fake news from the WaPo.



  11. Why let truth get in the way of a good, anti-Trump story, right?



  12. ————————-


  13. ————————-


  14. ————————–


  15. Birds of a feather…….



  16. ———————


  17. Suppose you don’t agree with any of this?
    Don’t people realize that if we let all those Hondurans into the US that the US will soon be like Honduras?

    It isn’t just the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that make America great. It’s America’s determination to live by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    That’s our issue.


  18. This headline on Yahoo when I opened the internet:

    “Migrants from Caravan Gives U.S. Ultimatum: Let Them In or Give Them Each $50,000”
    How about third option:
    “You got here without our help. Now find a way back.”

    It seems that someone organized this trek for those poor people. But we don’t owe them a thng.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. I have no objection to Salvation Army or Samaritan’s Purse helping these people, but it is not our responsibility.
    We need to consider the can of worms that will be open if the Federal Government gets involved in this. They protect our borders, that’s all the government should do.


  20. On Dec. 13, 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. forces while hiding in a hole under a farmhouse in Adwar, Iraq, near his hometown of Tikrit.

    jhis is also the date of the Civil War battle of Fredericksburg. Terrible waste of life.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.