Harsh Reality

Thursday, February 14, 2019


If this man isn't charged with Treason, by his own admissions, the Rule of Law in this country is dead. This is all besides his open use of the FBI as a political weapon against opponents of Hillary Clinton.

While this man and his cohorts have spent years and untold millions of tax dollars to dig up any ticky-tack thing to charge anyone and everyone anywhere near President Trump with federal crimes, we now know he was rigging fake "investigations" to make sure Hillary was cleared and helping others write official memoranda - in advance - finding Hillary committed no crimes, no matter how obvious (openly destroying cellphones, computers and servers under subpoena, deleting tens of thousands of government emails under subpoena, egregious mishandling of classified documents, etc.).

This man is ADMITTING to conspiring with other Hillary supporters within the federal government to overthrow the President of the United States. He's admitting to abusing his position for political purposes. He's admitted lying to the President's face and rigging legal booby traps on his way out the door. We now know from emails and other documents this man, and others, were abusing their positions during the campaign to assure a Hillary Clinton electoral victory. If he's not charged and jailed our nation is past the point of no return.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Another Hoax Hate Crime? Time Will Tell.

Smollett, actor on the Fox TV program 'Empire',
claims he was attacked by Trump supporters
in the middle of the night in Chicago.
You may have heard that an actor on the Fox TV series Empire claims he was the victim of a racist, homophobic hate crime a few days ago. Besides the fact his story has already begun shifting around, there are some obviously far-fetched elements that even ordinary Americans are noticing and calling out.

Having made a living for nearly a quarter century as an attorney, 17 of those years as a trial lawyer, I have a natural skepticism at stories people tell. Especially when the teller of the tale has something to gain by the listener believing the story to be true. This is not to say I don't believe what people tell me. But my skepticism is activated when an item in the story doesn't match up to something I know to be true. Or there are unexplained holes in the story. Or they say something that contradicts another part of the story.

One of the reasons for my success in trials over the years, I believe, is I made it a policy to never present matters to a jury that I thought they could never believe. On more than one occasion I told clients there was no way I could tell the story they just told me to a jury. It was a way of telling the client "I don't believe you". Only I softened it by saying a jury would never believe it. It was a way for me to either bring the relationship with my client back to reality, or for me to excuse myself from representing them and encourage them to find another attorney. With our ducks lined up, we could have a more honest and productive relationship and reach the best possible outcome for the client. Conversely, on the occasions where we elected to take a case to trial, I made it a point to only try cases where my witnesses' testimony was reasonable and, ideally, where a government's witness had testimony that might be hard for a jury to believe. I was always surprised how attentive and critical jurors are with witnesses. And there becomes a snowball effect where one inconsistency is noted by jurors, they notice more.

So it goes with the daily fake hate crimes reported across America. These hoax crimes have been a thing for the past 10 years or so, but have increased dramatically since the election of President Trump.

Here's a write-up of someone's Top 10 Hoax Crimes of 2017. I haven't seen a Top 10 yet for 2018.

On Monday, Fox TV actor Jussie Smollett reported to Chicago police he had been the victim of a hate crime. The actor (whom I'd never heard of), claimed he was "walking down the street" at 2:00 a.m. in Chicago when he was attacked by a group of men shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him. He claimed they beat him with their fists, poured bleach, or some other caustic substance, all over his face and put a noose around his neck before running away. He went to a local hospital at 2:42 a.m. with the rope still around his neck. He later added to his statement that the men who attacked him screamed at him "This is MAGA country!"

There are no witnesses to the loud, violent attack. Police have been unable to find any private or police security camera video of the incident.

It doesn't take a law degree to be suspicious of this story. Immediately, social media commenters weighed in with many of the same questions I had while reading the story.

What was he doing at 2:00 a.m. in Chicago "walking down the street"? It's a perfectly legal thing to do, but not much is open at that time and one might expect someone to say they were headed home or going to buy a pack of cigarettes or walking to their car to pick up a friend at the airport. "Walking down the street" is a weirdly generic thing to say, even during the daytime.

Many pointed out Chicago is suffering historic cold temperatures. Data from the National Weather Service shows the wind chill at that time well below zero. Commenters from Chicago shared it's been so brutally cold there the streets are mostly deserted, even during the daytime. At 2:00 a.m. it was a deserted, frozen wasteland.

Not only are we to believe this guy was out for a random walk on the deserted, snow-covered, bitterly cold streets of Chicago in the middle of the night, but the only other people out and about were a group of men carrying a noose and a bottle of bleach looking for a black homosexual to assault and taunt with pro-President Trump slogans? Many pointed out such a group of men would have provoked alarm and calls to police prior to their getting lucky and finding the only other person out walking around, who happened to be a black homosexual TV actor. After reviewing hundreds of hours of video from cameras everywhere, police have been unable to find any video of the attack on Smollett or of such a group of men wandering the streets.

Someone asked how the group of men would recognize Smollett or know he's gay? Empire is a black-oriented television show not generally thought to be popular with white, male Trump voters. Besides, even if they might recognize him in some other setting, it was dark out and Smollett was presumably bundled up in winter clothing in the subzero cold.

One commenter asked why anyone would walk around for 42 minutes after the attack and go to the hospital while wearing a noose around their neck?

Another commenter wondered who on earth would claim Chicago, Illinois is "MAGA country"? Chicago is one of the most hardcore liberal places in America, and someone asked if there was even one Trump voter there? The idea that anybody would ever say Chicago, of all places, supports President Trump is ludicrous. But to suggest there's such huge support there that roving gangs of MAGA slogan yelling enforcers physically punish liberal interlopers is laughable.

This attack is reminiscent of the Muslim woman who claimed she was surrounded by white men in MAGA hats who chanted "Trump! Trump! Trump!" as they jumped around her, assaulted her and ripped off her hijab. This and dozens or hundreds more similar cases all claim an innocent victim of anonymous Trump supporters who hate some victim group. There is always a cartoonish element or device to the story to make the attackers seem even more nefarious and the attack even more outrageous. In examples in the story above, it involved a group of men ripping a hijab off a woman's head. Another involved cutting the hijab off a woman with scissors the attacker happened to be walking around with, swastikas being spray painted, a particularly offensive racial epithet yelled, etc. In the case of Smollett, the device in his story is a noose. A vivid image that only seems to make an appearance anymore in hoax hate crimes.

These stories also feature a lack of witnesses and are entirely based on the say-so of the alleged victim. The victim found a note on their car, found graffiti, was alone when they were attacked, were sent a racist letter, etc. The elaborate story always includes a core element that can't be verified in any way.

There's a predictable, boring pattern to every one of these hoax hate crimes. They're all the same. Same elements, same bad guy(s), same use of some device of outrage, same lack of witnesses, same shifting story. Ultimately, they result in the same discovery it's a hoax. Unfortunately, major media runs with the original hoax story and the fact it turned out to be a hoax never gets the same attention.

It's like every one of these hoaxers have a crazy caricature of what they imagine Trump supporters to be, and they all those elements come together in their fake story.

If you google "Hoax Hate Crime map", you'll find an interactive map featuring verified debunked hate crimes, many of which resulted in the perpetrator being charged with a crime. I can't link the page here, but it's an eye-opening compilation of the magnitude of the problem. And reading the news reports in the links to each story shows the pattern mentioned above.







Tuesday, January 29, 2019

The Mueller "Investigation" is Simply a Continuation of the Politically-Weaponized Obama DOJ & FBI

If there was any pretense the Robert Mueller matter was a legitimate investigation into criminal wrongdoing, that idea was thoroughly laid to rest on Friday with the unnecessary, made-for-TV arrest of Roger Stone. It's now clear the sole purpose of Mueller's team of Democrats is to serve as a weapon to reverse the results of the 2016 Presidential election.

Roger Stone, like General Flynn, Paul Manafort and others, has been charged with process crimes. In other words, they're not charged with actually doing anything wrong that was the original reason for the investigation. They've all been charged with the crime of not cooperating in the investigation to the satisfaction of the Democrat investigators. Put another way: There would be no crime at all if it weren't for the investigation.

Allow me to put this in a completely different context.

Imagine a mechanic tells you he hears a sound in your car's engine and insists the timing belt is getting ready to break. You allow him to start taking apart your car. As it turns out, there's nothing wrong with your timing belt. But the mechanic gives you a bill for repairing several things on your car that he damaged when he took it apart to get to your timing belt. There would be no damage for him to repair, but for his tearing your car apart. And, in fact, his assessment of whether he broke something that needed repaired is entirely his subjective say-so. But you are slapped with a huge auto repair bill. Now imagine this scam is being repeated with several people, and they all happen to be the political opponents of the mechanic's friends.

That's what's happening with the Mueller investigation.

This entire fiasco exists for the alleged purpose of investigating the purely made-up conspiracy theory of 'Russian collusion'. There has never been any evidence of such a thing, but that lack of evidence has been used by Democrats as a reason to demand an investigation. For the purpose of finding evidence of collusion. And the Mueller team of Democrats has no boundaries. No limits on time or budget or investigative reach. They can literally just make it up as they go and investigate anyone for anything they've ever done at any time in their lives. But the only people they're going after are their political opponents. Since targets have nothing to hide, they willingly talk to investigators. These investigators have then used these conversations to accuse Stone, et. al. of not being truthful in their interview. It's a completely subjective charge having nothing to do with the original alleged purpose of the investigation and wouldn't even exist without the investigators supposedly trying to get to the bottom of collusion allegations which they're not finding.

Mueller's team of Democrats is simply a continuation of the corrupt Obama DOJ & FBI. It's the same people who actively covered for Hillary Clinton during her crime spree and used law enforcement and national security assets as political weapons against the Trump Campaign. Unlike the Russian collusion conspiracy, there are mountains of evidence of crimes by Hillary, her staffers and associates and officials within government agencies who assisted her and used the federal government and the FISA court to get secret warrants to wiretap the phones and hack servers at the Trump campaign.

There is ample evidence of the "unmasking" of Americans in eavesdropped phone calls, James Comey's lies during sworn Congressional testimony and his and Hillary's admitted transfers of classified documents to people without security clearances. Comey admitted giving documents to a law professor friend who then leaked the documents to the New York Times, and Hillary transferred hard drives and other devices containing classified information to an attorney, who promised he put it in his safe. Both of these admitted transfers are crimes. Crimes which nobody in the swamp is the least bit interested in investigating or prosecuting. Instead, millions is being spent allegedly investigating something for which there is nothing but screeching allegations from the losing party in an election.

Until last Friday, there was at least a thin veneer of possibility the Mueller investigators were not acting in a partisan manner and might actually be objectively investigating something. It was highly doubtful, didn't pass any smell test and certainly appeared to be a filthy, corrupt, partisan witch hunt. But there was a slim chance it was not. The arrest of Roger Stone showed what this entire matter is about.

Stone was charged with the most petty of administrative crimes for which one can possibly be charged. If there is such a thing as "unserious" federal charges, this is it. It was widely known he would be charged, and Stone himself addressed the matter long ago. He was represented by an attorney, had cooperated with investigators (that was actually the basis of the charges) and knew to expect to turn himself in. Mueller's team sent FBI agents and CNN camera crews to Stone's home, guns drawn, to roust him out of bed in order to make a spectacular scene for a CNN exclusive. Stone's wife and neighbors were terrorized, their street was shut down, armored tactical vehicles roared through the community and up to his home, a helicopter screamed in from overhead and military-style assault boats rushed in around Stone's boat on the canal behind his house.

All of this drama was unnecessary. A simple phone call would've sufficed.

After leaving the prosecutor's office, I practiced law for 17 years as a private defense attorney. In those years I surrendered perhaps hundreds of clients who had a warrant for their arrest. It's a routine process, and one with much professional courtesy all around. If a prosecutor or court staff let me know my client had a warrant, or was about to have a warrant, it wasn't unusual to walk a client to the court to surrender and be processed. On occasions where a warrant was issued and it wasn't known the defendant had an attorney, it would be forwarded to the Sheriff's Department warrant division. I frequently called that office to verify they had a warrant for my client and arranged to bring them to their office to be processed. Sometimes, when a client was not home and a family member told officers I was representing him, I'd get a call to verify he was my client and arranging with me to turn him in. It was never a dramatic spectacle.

Stone is charged with nonviolent offenses. He's been represented by counsel throughout this matter. He's an elderly, well-established Washington political figure with a wife, home and career. There was zero chance he would suddenly become violent. There was zero chance he would throw away his entire life and flee over what amounts to ridiculous, subjective he-said/she-said allegations of being untruthful. A simple phone call to his attorney would've had him and his lawyer at the U.S. Marshalls' office for processing within hours. Instead, Mueller's team of Democrats leaked the indictment and details of the raid to their friends at CNN and arranged for a helicopter, assault boats, assault weapons, tactical vehicles and a strike team to put on a big show for CNN's tiny audience of Democrat viewers to gleefully consume.

Everyone sees what's happening. Eccentric tech billionaire John McAfee - no Republican - even took time out from his latest drama to tweet about the obvious, incomprehensible corruption of the Democrats/globalists/D.C. swamp and their weaponized government as demonstrated by Mueller's take-down of Stone.

Democrats lost the 2016 Presidential election. But they managed to hang on to the levers of power in federal law enforcement. Jeff Sessions' cave to the screaming lunatics on the left and their media, where he recused himself and allowed a Trump-hating team of Democrats to have carte blanc to harass and prosecute the President and everyone he's ever met over things they're making up as they go, is something at which future historians will marvel and something that may trigger the next American civil war.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Marxism/Liberalism Must Always Be Forced on Everyone

A lot of people say their favorite part of any news story is scrolling to the bottom and reading the comments. As you may have noticed, however, comment sections are getting harder to find. In the early days of the internet when the modern form of news stories with photos or a video at the top, some banner ads, links to other stories and comments at the bottom of the page was evolving, liberals trumpeted the advent of interaction between writers and audiences. It was a more specific, more immediate and more available version of the letters to the editor in newspapers. It was hailed as a fantastic development and one that would showcase liberal ideas and takes on stories. The presumption from liberals in media was everyone was liberal.

It didn't turn out that way.

Unless you're looking at the New York Times or one of just a few other major media outlets, or a niche liberal site, the comment sections are normally dominated by ordinary Americans with a commonsense take on the story. Liberals don't do well in debates because their positions are, by their very nature, based on emotion. For example, liberals demand the borders be wide open, but they lock the door on their house and the wealthy ones have a wall and a gate around their property. As another example, New York this week passed legislation legalizing abortion up to the moment a child is born. Many people pointed out the crazy result where lethal injection is illegal in New York for convicted murderers, but lethal injection (a saline injection into the skull of an infant as a horrific manner of death) is one of the methods of killing larger, partially delivered babies. There are hundreds of other ridiculous inconsistencies, but you get my point.

And none of this is to mention the lies. Liberals are caught in bald-faced lies all the time. But they don't care. Nathan Phillips this week was shown through numerous videos to have lied in every respect about his interaction with the Covington H.S. students in Washington. Not a misstatement or a difference of opinion. Lies. And then it was revealed Phillips is not a Vietnam Veteran as he's always claimed and been offered up by liberal media.

But guess what? The left doesn't care. His lies mean nothing to their arguments. When confronted by these inconsistencies and lies, leftists resort to name-calling and slurs. "Racist!" "Bigot!" "White supremacist!" "Homophobe!" "Sexist!" These words spew out of the mouths of liberals like vomit out of the mouth of a dog that's been eating out of the cat's litter box.

So comment sections in newspapers are largely dominated by conservatives, with a few nasty liberals calling everyone names. Which is why they've been disappearing. Because liberal writers and a few liberal commenters have been schooled by the vast majority who are conservative. They can't debate, so they've been shutting down the comment sections. The usual excuse is racists and Nazis have taken over the comment section, so they have to shut it down in the interests of civility. Note their excuse always presumes the truth of the liberals' accusations.

The same has happened with Twitter. Conservatives have so dominated stupid liberal users that the platform has gone on several mass-banning purges of conservatives. As a result, Twitter is now nothing more than a sewer of hardcore leftists, since the service actively bans anyone disagreeing with liberals. Ironically, as the banned masses have gone to other social media sites such as Gab, the left screeches about those sites being only for neo-nazis, bigots, racists, etc. Actually, anybody of any POV can join. But liberals require a nanny to ban anyone making them look stupid or else they won't stick around. So, they stay at Twitter under the protective wing of the thought police there and hurl insults at people enjoying free and open discussions.

The screenshot above got me thinking about this phenomenon. Marxism ALWAYS has to be forced on people. It's the reason the communists had to build the Berlin Wall. It's the reason the Chinese tightly control information. It's the reason North Korea and Cuba don't allow their citizens to travel and kill any who try to escape. It's the reason Obamacare had to be mandatory. It's elitists telling the masses what's best for them and forcing compliance.

It's also the reason Twitter can't allow free speech. It's why comment sections are disappearing. And it's the reason, as noted in the screenshot, forums left unmoderated become solidly conservative.



Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Obama Worshipers Now Rushing to Give Him Credit for Korean Peace


If there's anything Barack Hussein Obama and his fawning media are great at, it's taking credit for other people's work.

They are also very skilled at blaming everyone else when their stupid ideas result in chaos and real harm to people. But that's a topic for a different column.

During, and immediately after, the 2016 Presidential election the media and leftists everywhere melted down over their own claims President Trump was going to make North Korean leader Kim Jong Un angry and start a nuclear war. They bashed his language and ripped at their faces in mock terror over the President of the United States simply standing up for America and refusing to be bullied by a communist despot. It was all reminiscent of liberals' shock, horror and outrage when President Reagan took a firm stance against Soviet aggression. As a high school and college student, I remember thinking the limp-wristed leftists all clutching their pearls and rushing to their fainting couches while screaming that Reagan was going to make the Russians mad and they would kill us all were lunatics. American liberals have been embarrassingly submissive to foreign dictators since LBJ left office.

The level of Democrat crazy hit an amusing high note in 2018 when a Hawaiian official accidentally pushed a wrong button, sending emergency alerts to millions of Hawaiians that missiles were headed toward the islands. The false alarm caused liberals to melt down at President Trump, citing his strong stand against Kim Jong Un's bullying as the reason they all had a panic attack at the false alarm. In much the same way Democrats blame Republicans for the Obamacare dumpster fire even though not a single Republican voted for that mess, had any input at all or was even allowed to read it in advance, or the way Democrats desperately searched for a Republican to blame for the water fiasco in Flint, Michigan...Liberals own Hawaii and the false missile alert was all Democrat. But no liberal incompetence is too far removed from any connection to the GOP for them to not blame Republicans. Get caught screwing something up? Blame Trump.

When, like President Reagan, President Trump's strong foreign policy positions didn't result in nuclear war and a remarkable series of events began unfolding on the Korean Peninsula, liberals switched gears and re-cast their attacks as patriotic outrage at President Trump for meeting Kim Jong Un for negotiations. The same people who went on every Sunday morning show and warned President Trump needed to continue Obama's pacifist, submissive policies were suddenly spewing hate at President Trump for holding talks with a dictator and not being tougher on North Korea. Some commentators actually tried to frame Obama's allowing North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and threaten the U.S. and our allies as his being too important and patriotic to even acknowledge the North Korean leader. It was one of the most ridiculous re-writes of history from a bunch who specializes in ridiculous re-writes of history.

Now that it looks like President Trump will have success in reducing tensions, and possibly de-nuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, the left is now rushing in a completely different direction: Taking credit for President Trump's policy success.

In the same way Democrats and their media mouthpieces have tried to give credit to Obama for Trump's roaring U.S. economy and the record-breaking stock market (also after criticizing and predicting inconceivable economic damage and a crashed stock market every step of the way), major media is reporting it was actually Obama who should be credited with the historic developments on the Korean Peninsula and the improvement of relations with North Korea. The claim is the Obama administration got these talks started back in 2012. But it was secret, so that's why nobody knew about it. Which begs the question: If that's true, why did Obama officials and the media all howl in unison denouncing President Trump on his policies toward North Korea for every reason they could think up?

We know the answer. They're liars.


Saturday, January 19, 2019

The Fake News Story Exciting Liberals All Week is a Great Lesson

Illustration Credit: (The Great) Gary Varvel
I've been asked to comment on the Outrage of the Week this past week: The (false) accusation President Trump told his lawyer to lie to Congress.

I'll let you in on a little inside baseball here as I practice it in the world of commentary on current events. There's a certain premium, for sure, in our hyper-fast, 24-hour news cycle for being the first one to comment on something or being an early commentator and having a good or novel take. It gets you tweeted and referenced and gives a little bit of street cred with other commentators. But it requires one to be constantly chasing their tail. Constantly trying to beat out all the other talking heads. And, the vast majority of the time, the early-early-early details on a news item are completely wrong. Which leaves people looking foolish.

So I did my usual holding back and waiting to see if it was real or fake before having anything to say in public commentary.

This story had some glaring problems with it that have become common lately. To begin with, it was from "sources". This has become a media fad lately as a way to just make stuff up about President Trump and report it as facts. Of course, this presumes the news media has any integrity whatsoever and they're actually interested in just reporting facts. We all know that version of the news media died back in the 1980s when they went all-in to help Democrats try to destroy President Reagan. Major media has been the exclusive domain of hardcore leftist Democrats since then, and only more ideologically rigid as time has passed. But the whole "sources" thing is helping to snuff out what little faith anyone has in journalism.

On this point, does anyone remember a previous Outrage-of-the-Week when an "anonymous" op-ed writer claiming to be a White House insider very close to the President wrote to the New York Times about how President Trump was a bumbling idiot who everyone hated and laughed at behind his back? The story was how the White House staff all coordinated to keep anything important away from the President because he's stupid and incompetent and such a fool that they would easily trick him by telling him he's already done things or lie to him about what his position was on something to make him do the right thing. It was the biggest news story for a week or so. But it was an obvious fake. It had all the hallmarks of a fake story, and it's now generally regarded as having been written by one of the usual Trump-hating lunatics at the Times. At the time that story exploded, I called it as fake. It was too perfect. It was like the most perfect script any deranged anti-Trump activist could think up. Down to the smallest detail. It was perfect, and exactly what the media wanted to hear. And,  most of all, it went against everything we all know to be true. The man ran a campaign for President of the United States against the greatest odds and won. He ran against 18 other Republicans, was demonized by his own party, did all this with a comparatively tiny budget and impossibly small staff, then single-handedly toppled the Clinton dynasty with their billions in the war chest and total media adoration. This in addition to his 40 year reign as the undisputed king of New York real estate and successful television star. Nothing in that New York Times anonymous op-ed lined up with any known fact about Donald Trump. It was pure liberal fantasy. But the Times portrayed it as real and the rest of the news media couldn't wait to report it as true.

Another problem that's common nowadays is this was all circular reporting. Every news outlet was wall-to-wall reporting on what other news outlets were reporting. Nobody was actually finding out anything or reporting any facts. They were just reporting about reporting. Of course, the source of all this reporting was Buzzfeed with an unnamed "source". That was it. But the Democrat news media wanted it to be true so badly that they hyperventilated 24/7 over the idea that they were finally going to get to impeach President Trump for something. Anything! I saw a news item that CNN & MSNBC, over a 24 hour period, discussed impeachment over 200 times. A few years ago there was an infamous example of circular reporting with a news item that was just completely false. Remember the story the media ran with about how wife-beating increased dramatically on Super Bowl Sunday? The implication being that football is an immoral game only enjoyed by sexist men who beat their wives and they're whipped into a frenzy on Super Bowl Sunday by the violence of the uncivilized barbarian sport and can't help but beat their wives more than they normally do. It was fake, though. But news outlets everywhere reported on how other news outlets were reporting this. Not until months later did someone bother to try to track down where this came from. As it turns out, if I remember, a couple of liberal feminist hags who hate football who put out a "press release" with the accusation. It was reported by one news outlet, then every other news outlet started reporting it as a "fact" based solely on the reporting by every other news outlet. They created their own reality. It was something they wanted to be true, and other news outlets were reporting it to be true, so they reported it as news. This is what was going on with the Buzzfeed perjury story. It was dumb, but the left was running with it.

This story also had the feel of a fake story that had been shopped around, and nobody was willing to go with it until it reached the absolute bottom of the news cess pool. This is where there are no concerns about losing their position in the news hierarchy because it's literally at the bottom already. This is where the Trump Dossier reporting came from, if you remember. A folder full of ridiculous, juicy and anonymous accusations against President Trump. Democrats in the FBI shopped this around to every news outlet they could find, but it was so stupid even Trump-hating Democrat media wouldn't stick their necks out for it. Buzzfeed took the plunge and reported on it and the game was on. The circular reporting clown car was in high gear.

So, I wansn't surprised by the whole story turning out to be fake. And I've gotten some content out of it by using it as an opportunity to give followers some inside tips.

But, what if it was true? I thought Washington had gotten past the idea that lying under oath was any big deal.

There was no problem when the guy from Google did it recently.

There was no problem when FBI Director James Comey did it.

There was no problem when IRS Director of something-or-other Lois Lerner did it.

There was no  problem when AG Eric Holder did it.

The media actually thought it was great when President Clinton personally committed perjury while being deposed in federal court. It's not arguable. He lied under oath repeatedly and also to the American people as he wagged his finger and angrily denied doing what he later admitted he did.

Ultimately, the Democrat news media and their crazy cat-lady followers spent this week in a weird orgasmic orgy of glee. Like demons dancing around a maypole cheering in sing-songy unison "Impeachment! Impeachment! Impeachment!"

This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome does to people. I've said for a couple years now this is a real thing. I've contended for years liberalism is a mental disorder. It's the refusal to see the world as it is, and insistence on seeing the world through a bizarre fantasy lens and then angrily insisting the fantasy world is the real world. It's very weird. And Trump Derangement Syndrome is a particularly virulent strain of liberalism that makes people completely unhinged with rage at a man and his followers to the point they can no longer even recognize obvious reality.

I'll say it again: We're living in historic times.



Friday, January 18, 2019

What's Up With Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report?

Anyone who knows me, or has listened to my radio show or podcasts for any length of time, knows I am firmly in the Occam's Razor camp when it comes to accusations of skullduggery and conspiracies. Maintaining this world view is getting more difficult.

If you're not familiar with it, I actually like the definition from the Principia Cybernetica Website:
"Occam's razor is a logical principle...that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modeling and theory building."
Put another way: The simplest answer is almost always the correct answer.

There are lots of alternate explanations of the application of Occam's Razor. Here's the wikipedia page for it, if you want to learn more.

I get a lot of email and comments from friends about conspiracies they think are going on behind the scenes. Some of it sounds more crazy than others. For instance, every time there's a mass shooting somewhere I get people explaining how it's a CIA conspiracy or "crisis actors" are being deployed. At the end of the spectrum are those who insist the 9/11 terror attacks were a massive conspiracy and the moon landing was a hoax. I note the same people who believe in one outlandish conspiracy tend to believe in lots of outlandish conspiracies. So, even if they were correct about one amazing conspiracy, what are the chances they're correct about all of them?

As an amusing anecdote, an Army buddy of mine was in the Army Reserve after getting off active duty. He was sitting at his civilian job with a coworker who was explaining to him about how 9/11 was a massive conspiracy between the military, shadowy "military-industrial complex" and globalist financial interests to ignite the War on Terror. The guy explaining all this had never served in the military. When he stopped talking, my friend demonstrated how the U.S. military can't even figure out a reliable way for troops to get their email. The likelihood of the same entity pulling off a massive, deadly, secret conspiracy right in front of everyone's eyes and with none of the thousands or tens of thousands of people necessary to make such a plan work telling anyone about it was virtually zero.

My commitment to Occam's Razor has been shaken a bit over the past few years, though. Things that seemed tinfoil hat crazy have proven to be true.

Just a few years ago, if you would have told me the Obama Department of Justice would use a Hillary campaign opposition research dossier (made-up talking points) to get a secret FISA court to issue secret warrants to tap the phones and hack the servers of a Republican candidate for President, I would have laughed at the idea. Yet, it happened.

If you would have told me CNN would give advance copies of actual debate questions to the Hillary campaign, I would've considered that absurd. But that happened, too.

If you told me five years ago Barack Obama's FBI would wiretap Congressional telephones and hack the laptop of CBS News reporter Sheryl Attkisson, who asked Obama tough questions he didn't appreciate, I would've thought that far-fetched. Attkisson is suing the DOJ & FBI over their warrantless violation of her privacy.

Even more surprising than these examples and hundreds more is the fact that Washington media not only doesn't care about these shocking abuses of power by Democrats and other globalists, they actively work to ignore and deflect attention from these crimes and attack any journalists who dare to report on these stories (see Attkisson, above).

I don't believe Occam's Razor is any less reliable as a logical principle than it's ever been. The corruption and political weaponization of the federal government and major media is just more profound than anyone believed. It's not about keeping a secret, which is the thing that torpedoes most conspiracies. This deep corruption is driven by ideological homogeneity - virtually everyone at every level in the D.C. power structure is dedicated to advancing leftist causes - but the rigidity of the one approved point of view is so deep and so inflexible that anyone not fully compliant is shamed and ejected from "the club".

My first suspicions there was a side of Washington even more corrupt than any of us in real America could imagine was at the historic Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebilius in 2012. This is the case where Obamacare was found to be constitutional by a 5-4 decision. It wasn't the decision that was remarkable. It was how crazy it was behind the scenes. According to reports, during the normal course of business, the Justices voted on the decision resulting in a 5-4 ruling striking down Obamacare as unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion overturning Obama's signature legislation. But, before the decision was made public, Roberts changed his mind and did a complete reversal. He decided, for no apparent reason, that everything he had said and thought before on the matter was completely wrong. He also went 180 degrees in the opposite direction from his entire judicial history and previously published theories of jurisprudence. It was such an unprecedented and dramatic change that the normally super secret process leaked tidbits of anecdotes from behind the scenes, including a raging meltdown by Justice Antonin Scalia over the unbelievable turn of events inexplicably transforming Obamacare from an unconstitutional dumpster fire into perfectly lawful federal legislation.

Scalia's death in 2016, allegedly in his sleep from unknown "natural causes" (he was officially declared dead over the telephone, no autopsy was performed and his remains were quickly cremated) at a remote Texas ranch where he was quail hunting without his usual U.S. Marshalls security detail only adds to suspicions about the depth of corruption.

Events like these, reinforced by undeniable corruption, is what causes everything touching the cesspool of Washington D.C. to come into question. Most of the confirmed examples of corruption, by the way, not reported by major media. The corruption is revealed by whistleblowers with documentary proof through Wikileaks, alternative media or lone journalists like Attkisson who refuse to yield to temptation to stay in "the club" or be intimidated into silence.

Which brings us to the Drudge Report. I consider Matt Drudge part of that alternative media I mentioned previously. Drudge was the first news aggregator and his site was a bit of a niche site for conservative news junkies in the early days of the internet back in the 1990s. All that changed in 1998, though, when Drudge headlined that Newsweek (one of those media outlets whose leadership is faithful members of "the club") had killed a story about President Clinton having sex with a young intern in the Oval Office. The media was forced to cover the story, the internet could no longer be ignored by "real" media - newspapers and TV - and the Drudge Report was rocketed to the top of the internet where it has remained for over 20 years.

As much as leftists have complained about Drudge over the years, he's maintained and increased his site's prominence with a simple formula of linking to interesting stories, regardless of "the club's" narrative of the day, against a no-frills background and presented in what visitors understand to be a generally fair selection of stories. This has changed over the past couple years. It's happened slowly. And disguised among an increase in stories about wacky things that happened in Florida and such.  But Matt Drudge is now a mouthpiece for "the club". The major media leftists, who decide on a narrative to help Democrats attain and increase power, can now rely on Drudge Report to promote and reinforce that narrative to an increasingly bewildered audience. That narrative for most of the past two years has been nonstop Trump-bashing and promotion of every conceivable leftist conspiracy gossip supposedly ready to bring down the Trump administration. It's embarrassing.

Over the past year or so, I've had numerous friends and followers ask if I know "what's up with Drudge Report???" It's been well noted that Drudge has switched from linking interesting and generally independent points of view to  carrying the water for Democrats, promoting one anti-Trump story after another - sometimes a half-dozen or more at once - and falling directly in line with the prevailing media narrative praising Democrats and demonizing President Trump at every turn. The transformation of the Drudge Report is every bit as remarkable as John Roberts' incredible switch in the Sebelius case in 2012.

In a text message, a friend came right out and said what a lot of people are thinking: "Drudge has been compromised".

We all know what that means. Just a few years ago I would've replied to such a text with 'LOL'. But after all we've seen over the past few years, I don't know. Wikileaks has revealed deep corruption, resulting in Julian Assange being accused of absurd unrelated crimes for which he has been a prisoner in asylum for years now. Assange was a liberal hero when he was revealing dirt from the Bush administration. But when he continued revealing dirt once Obama had the reigns of power, he found himself with warrants for his arrest and ridiculous charges of sex crimes. CBS's Sheryl Attkisson asked questions Obama didn't like and had her digital devices hacked and surveilled. She had to leave CBS News shortly thereafter, and her network isn't the least bit concerned or sticking up for their reporter against outrageous spying and government intimidation. Chief Justice Roberts was a conservative stalwart on the Supreme Court who, for no discernible reason, became a loyal Obama supporter and vocal opponent of President Trump. Justice Scalia never changed his position on legal matters before the Court and died suddenly and without any witness, his remains were hustled away to be cremated before anyone knew what happened.

I don't know what happened to Matt Drudge. But something has caused him to transform his website into a reliable aggregator of leftist mainstream media propaganda. There's an explanation.



Wednesday, January 9, 2019

Leftist Media is Fully Descended Into Ludicrous Insanity

The far-left politics of American major media has been obvious for decades. As a Telecommunications student in college in the late 1980s I got a chance to see the leftist larvae hatch and grow into the virulent, festering insects of hate and partisan destruction masquerading as broadcast journalists. That generation of people is now the seasoned veterans out there bashing President Trump 24/7 after worshiping Obama for eight years.

They are also responsible for the term "fake news". A term first used on the national stage by Obama to explain the final collapse of his disastrous two terms of office (record losses in Congress in both midterm elections, Hillary's spectacular flame-out as his hand-picked successor, as well as massive losses by Democrats in Governors' offices and state legislatures all across America.). Donald Trump famously seized the term as soon as Obama uttered it and agreed fake news was a problem, because liberals were pretending to be journalists and spreading lies about him. Since then, the media has played the victim, accusing President Trump of harming the integrity of journalism. His turnabout on the phrase, reminiscent of his supporters' ownership of Hillary's 'deplorables' insult, is one of the more humorous bits in the saga of President Trump. Even more so as the Democrats' media hyperventilates like junior high girls about how important they are and pretends they have any integrity left to insult. That ship sailed long ago, as we see from occasional surveys showing journalists on the same level as used car salesmen and politicians with regard to public perception for honesty.

They did this to themselves, though. But, like liberals in every area, they can never admit this because that would require them to admit they were wrong about something. And we all know no liberal has ever admitted they were wrong about about anything. Again, like mean girls in junior high.

I have some recent examples demonstrating perfectly why nobody trusts the media for accurate information, since they're such obvious shills for one particular political party.

First is a story from MSN claiming President Trump averages uttering 15 lies to the American people every day.  I actually love this because it's so over the top. It's Trump Derangement Syndrome on display. The media is a sewer of lies and Democrat cheerleading, then they blame President Trump for nobody believing them. This "he lies all day, every day about every single thing he says" narrative - doubled down with an actual number - is so stupid it actually shows the media to be the liars. They hate this man so bad they can't even see their own obvious insanity. For the rest of us, this is an unforced error by the Trump-hating media where they practically scream "look how deranged we are!"

The next story is my favorite. The New York Times, looking for an angle showing both President Trump is evil and his voters are stupid, found a suburban community just outside Indianapolis won by Trump by a wide margin in 2016. The community, a county that's a prototype of Trump support - farmland, white suburban bedroom community and a county seat that's a reasonably affluent small town - has a cancer rate statistically higher than other areas. As it turns out, there was a factory somewhere in the community decades ago. The site was also supposed to have been cleaned up decades ago. So there is suspicion the site of the old factory is leaking chemicals into the environment and causing cancer. The New York Times seized on people getting cancer during the Bush and Obama presidencies as proof of how evil President Trump is. Since President Trump supports government regulation only as much as is absolutely necessary, he is to blame for factories emitting waste in the 1950s & '60s that might have been hazardous to people (nobody knows for sure, so regulation is necessary to liberals). The story gets by with claiming President Trump, while maybe not responsible for these particular cancers, his policies will doubtless kill millions. Nevermind the fact these factories were never cleaned up during four years of Bush I, eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush II and eight years of Obama. The fact these globalist swamp creatures wouldn't have wanted anyone to get cancer is all that matters. But Trump is obviously evil and wants everyone to have cancer, so it's all his fault. 23 months into the Trump administration and he is personally responsible for these people's cancer AND the fact he enjoys such continued high support in Johnson County, Indiana is proof of how stupid the hayseed hicks in flyover country are. That is major media's opinion and what they're trying to convince their readers. (I'm not going to link to the article because it was behind a paywall and also because I'm not giving any clicks to the NYT. Here's a link to the BizPac Review piece on it, with links to Twitter commentary.)

It's also a perfect illustration of why Americans consider the New York Times to be fake news and why the newspaper is failing. Their reason for existing (news) is no longer anything to which they have any connection. They're deranged, elitist snobs telling everyone how great Democrats are and how stupid everyone is who disagrees with them. I look forward to that Mexican billionaire who owns the paper finally pulling the plug on that sad old rag once he's lost enough money.

Finally, the major media's fact-checking frenzy after the President's Tuesday night address to the nation this week was more of the same embarrassing Trump Derangement Syndrome on display. I had difficulty coming up with the best story to discuss here, but there were so many examples of leftist insanity that I decided to just leave you all to select your own favorites. The coverage was pretty much the same. The media narrative was President Trump lied about everything he said. But nobody could say what, exactly, he lied about. So they were left to accuse him of "mischaracterizing" or being wrong about his subjective opinion. It was both sad and remarkable in its craziness.

The media is so disconnected from reality and ordinary Americans they don't even realize how unhinged they come across to the rest of the world. Ultimately, this is good for our side.


Monday, January 7, 2019

Liberals Go Back to an Old Lie: Tax Cuts Starve the Government of Money and Cause Deficits



As the national debt continues its march upward and annual deficits continue unabated, leftist news outlets are beating an old drum about "tax cuts are causing huge deficits!"

This is Fake News intended as a headline for stupid people. Federal revenues (money collected by the government in taxes) is smashing records every quarter and every month.

But spending has skyrocketed.

This is identical to what happened in the 1980s. Economic growth exploded and tax revenue smashed records, but politicians saw that money coming in and went on an unprecedented spending binge. It's a popular media/liberal talking point that Ronald Reagan blew up the national debt because it happened during his eight years in office. He certainly shares some blame, because he could have refused to sign the bloated budget bills Tip O'Neal and the Democrat House & Senate were sending over for him.

In the same way, Republicans have to accept a lot of the blame for deficits in these first two years of Donald Trump's presidency. The GOP owned both houses of Congress, and Paul Ryan demonstrated why he's a RINO. His budgets were indistinguishable from Democrat budgets. Every Democrat dream came true in the Republican-led House of Representatives under his leadership. He fought with President Trump, he bad-mouthed the President, he continued funding Planned Parenthood's gruesome murder spree with our tax dollars and every other liberal special interest pork project he could shove down Americans' throats. President Trump is even more culpable for signing off on these horrible deals than Reagan was, though, because Reagan was dealing with the other party, not his own. Also, President Trump has the line-item veto at his disposal. He could've lined out anything in any of these budget disasters and signed the rest.

All this notwithstanding, just like in the 1980s federal spending has exploded even beyond the increase in federal revenues.

I saw an amusing story on this topic recently. A liberal news outlet ran a story trying to explain how the incredible increase in federal spending wasn't the real problem driving the deficit. Their explanation went like this: 'Yes, federal revenue is dramatically higher. And, yes, federal spending has seen even higher increases. BUT...the real measure should be how much money would've been collected under the tax scheme before Trump's tax cut???' They decide it would've been more than enough to cover the massive spending increase, therefore viola! Trump's tax cuts caused the deficit. Of course, this stupidity ignores that the economy is roaring because the tax cuts stimulated growth. And there's exactly nothing suggesting continuing Obama's stifling tax rates would have done anything except continuing the economic recession Americans were trapped in for his entire term of office.

History is repeating itself. And the liberal talking point of "tax cuts lead to deficits" is a demonstrable lie. It's not a lack of money. There's more money than they've ever collected. Spending is out of control.

Thursday, January 3, 2019

GM is the Walking Dead


Over the past few weeks there's been a lot of anger and memes over the announcement by General Motors they are closing plants in the U.S. and consolidating auto production in Mexico and China. 14,000 employees will be laid off. The main bone of contention is GM took a massive taxpayer bailout 10 years ago when they went bankrupt and started a whole new company with the same name. A lot of people didn't know GM is also the beneficiary of generous taxpayer subsidies for people to buy certain GM cars.

GM closing American plants and taking advantage of cheap labor in Mexico and China was inevitable, though. And, ultimately, GM will go out of business. It's just a matter of time.

American auto companies were a cash cow for decades. They were institutions too big to fail. In the 1970s a couple of things combined to spell the end of General Motors. Quality control had been eroding since the 1960s, but it became abysmal in the '70s. There's a reason you see more American cars from the 1930s, '40s & '50s on the road than you do from the 1970s. American cars simply fell apart when they drove off dealer lots. In an upcoming book, I'll discuss the correlation between the baby boomer generation joining the workforce, the decrease in quality and work ethic and the increased contract demands. American cars got more expensive as quality dramatically diminished. At the same time, government regulation of automobiles kicked into high gear. Safety, fuel economy, emissions...the federal government was suddenly imposing regulations that increased costs and diminished performance.

Some want to include the appearance of Japanese automakers on the scene as another reason for the difficulty faced by American automakers in the '70s. But it's clear the Japanese were able to crack the U.S. market because there was an un-met demand for high quality, reasonably priced cars. U.S. auto companies' troubles in the '70s was a result of bad engineering and terrible quality of American cars, not anything the Japanese did.

The millstone around the neck of GM, though, was absurd labor contracts. Growing up in the midwest, everyone I know has stories of people they know doing little or no work and making great money at one of the 'Big 3' auto plants. Jaw-dropping labor costs, or any cost of production, can be absorbed for awhile. But it simply isn't sustainable long-term for any business. The market limits how much a company can charge for a product. When labor costs are shockingly high, other costs have to be adjusted for the vehicle to be competitively-priced. Cheaper materials, less expensive, simpler design and engineering...something has to be cut in order for the product to make the price point. GM did all these things. They even cut corners on the customers and went hard after the low-hanging fruit of selling fleet vehicles for rental cars and governments. They've even gone all-in with subprime lending (targeting customers with terrible credit ratings just to unload cars in exchange for the hope of making money on the car notes that don't default).

At the end of the day, GM can't stay in business if they keep those U.S. plants open. They'll be out of business in a few years, anyway. The bankruptcy in 2009 just bought them a few years by allowing them to screw stockholders, bond holders, vendors and renege on contracts. But, otherwise, they're forced to produce the same low-quality vehicles at unreasonably high prices because they're stuck in all these insane labor contracts. It's just math.

The death of GM has been inevitable since at least the 1980s. It's actually remarkable how Obama and the UAW resurrected the "new GM" after the bankruptcy to keep the money spigot on for the unions to milk the corpse a few more years.

Soon, though, General Motors will be done.



Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Liberals Panic: China Cannot Be Guilted with Slavery or Colonialist Past Into Losing Billions in Africa


There are a lot of articles and hand-wringing lately about poor Africa being 're-colonized' by China. If you do a Google search, you'll not only find several news articles on the matter from the last few years, but academic papers and commentary pieces discussing and lamenting Chinese development in sub-Saharan Africa.

The alarm is not the development, but the looming prospect of African nations having to abide by the terms of their agreements with the Chinese. Since European nations withdrew from Africa as colonial powers, African nations have completely destroyed the infrastructure left by Europeans and looted their nations' economic wealth. They've squandered and destroyed everything, and blamed "the legacy of colonialism".

Since home rule, they've reneged on economic deals and always had the "racism" card to throw at companies doing business in and with African nations in order to pressure them to just walk away from agreements and not require African countries to honor their agreements. As everyone has learned to not do business with African nations, they've subsisted on begging for humanitarian aid, but they've grown desperate for new suckers with billions in business deals or loans.

The Chinese have come in and injected these billions of dollars on infrastructure deals. Africans have done what they've done since colonialism ended and begun defaulting on the loans and breeching agreements. They're basically just stealing the money. But China's not playing around. This is where Africa-apologists are freaking out, because the Chinese aren't susceptible to guilt trips about slavery, colonialism or charges of racism to make them go away and just forfeit the money. That's the real angst here.

Leftists are taking two basic approaches to work up some moral outrage against the Chinese to bring pressure to forgive loans or disregard breeches of contract. 1.) Beat the drum about instances of Chinese officials' "troubling racism", and; 2.) Portray China's interaction with African nations as racist and exploitive. These liberal narratives are attempts to set the table for international condemnation of China when they begin enforcing the terms of agreements.

Look for the UN, IMF and other international groups to step in and bring pressure on the Chinese. They can't condemn them for colonialism or slavery, and the racism charge doesn't seem to be affecting the Chinese. So look for accusations China is "re-colonizing" Africa. It's purely economic, but globalist media is trying to figure out a way to make it a moral issue.