Tag Archives: the establishment

The Spooks Attack


A house divided cannot stand. Jesus provided that sage observation when he spoke of the impossibility and the stupidness of the Pharisaical contention that he was exorcising the possessed and healing the infirm and sick on behalf of the Devil.

Former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn resigned less than a month into President Donald Trump’s administration. He resigned, not because of the leaks of his conversations with Russian diplomats nor anything he said to them, but because he did not provide a full or accurate account of his conversations to Vice-President Mike Pence, who went on national television to defend him.

For that, Flynn deserved to resign. My hope is that he will return to a place in the Trump Administration down the road. He is a quality military and intelligence professional who can still serve his country.

The country is not served, however, by the leaks the spooks in the NSA and elsewhere are deliberately spilling to reporters, leaks of the work by the administration’s top intelligence and military and cabinet officials, of even the president and his private conversations. The leaks are deliberate lawbreaking by the people who resent President Trump’s critique of their poor work the last 16 years. More importantly, they are leaks by the new Devil in town, the Devil who spews the anti-American ideology of globalism, elitism, political correctness, and privacy deprivation permanently staked out among the establishments of the Left and the Right.

For simplicity, I will refer to them as the globalists, but know that what I mean are the anti-American ideologues of globalism, elitism, PC, and privacy deprivation. Their house is undivided by minor differences in Left and Right.

On the other hand, they have divided our American house, and they are hellbent on continuing to divide it and every other house in the world until they have cut off and crushed the opposition to their goals: a global, two-class system dominated by the elites, an undiluted diversity that becomes a uni-versity and an undiluted multicultural muck whose only feature is its complete lack of distinction, an underclass the elites stimulate and control for their benefit, disallowing thoughts outside of their notions of political and social correctness, an underclass completely naked to their proddings.

It’s a horrifying thought, but it is time for Americans to consider whether they own their country or not, whether the Constitution means anything or not, because the globalists have no intention of adhering to it. None. The Constitution stands in their way.

My sense is our country is divided beyond repair. Americanism and globalism cannot coexist. Globalism, especially under the former president, represents a ceding of all we have held dear to the perversions of diversity and multiculturalism. If I were to visit Korea, I would want to experience the Korean culture. If I were to visit Morocco, I would want to experience the Moroccan culture, etc. I don’t want either of them coming here and changing our American culture. I love our English heritage, I cherish it, even though I am half Hispanic and Catholic, and I want that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture to continue, not get lost in some amorphous muck.

So this is where we are: the globalists within the intelligence community, the lovers of Clinton and Islamic terror and greedy mega-corporations and media who lie to the American public, especially the self-hating white people among them, betraying the president and his officials for their political agenda.

The FBI should find and root out every single one of those soulless, traitorous bastards and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. They act as if the voters made a mistake, and they want to correct that mistake, just like the folks in 1984. These are dark, ominous days, and in the darkness the political spooks and bureaucrats have found a way to begin their coup d’etat.

The globalists aren’t going to stop. We must stop them. Keep the faith, my fellow citizens, in God, in your neighbor, and in your American way!


Toxic Judge Makes Up Law


This post has been updated to correct an error about which court Judge Robart sits on.

History is being made in America. The citizens of this country have rarely seen anything like it. The establishment elites, and a portion of the millions of American minds they have embalmed with their toxic philosophy and worldview, are engineering a draconian backlash against the man Americans elected their president.

Don’t be misled by the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than Donald Trump. That is only one fact of many electoral facts. Mr. Trump pummeled Mrs. Clinton across our land, winning the majority of votes in more than 4,000 counties while she won only 467 counties. Mr. Trump thumped Mrs. Clinton by states also, winning 31 to her 19. Finally, he whipped her electorally, 306 to 232.

The reason we have the electoral college is to prevent a candidate who has large but narrowly concentrated support from winning the presidency. The boast that she won a majority of the popular vote belies the fact that Mrs. Clinton could not find broad-based support, but instead relied on concentrated representation from only a few areas in her effort to win the presidency. Mr. Trump’s support derived from a much, much broader constituency.

Mr. Trump is not the first candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote or without winning a majority of the popular vote. He will likely not be the last.

Yet the unabashed effort to delegitimize his presidency, to destabilize it, to strip away the power of his victory, and to subvert the election results continues with malice aforethought and vehemence.

As is usual, the media creeps about complicitly with the establishment elites. Their world has been turned upside down, and Mr. Trump and his staff have exposed their dishonesty and dissembling. More vitally, their own power and role working with the elite in shaping American minds and lives to create the America they want – rather than simply reporting the facts – has been exposed and fractured. That means their power has diminished and could be so significantly reduced that they could slip into superannuation.

Be aware of what is going on and how the elites and the media are synthesizing their effort. They always use their frame of reference, often employing the establishment ethic or moral code to which they adhere to judge him, a code the American people voted to change. They contrive re-interpretations of what Mr. Trump says, explaining what he meant when he said this or that, rather than simply reporting what he said or offering a menu of explanations for what he meant. Additionally, you can bet the interpretation they provide will always be the worst one possible. They deny certain historical facts while affirming others to create a skewed, imbalanced, inaccurate – ergo, false – perspective for their audiences.

Here is an example of what I mean. The president issued an executive order banning visitors, migrants, and refugees from certain areas of the world known by our intelligence services, military men, and the media to be cauldrons of bloody terrorism, hatred, and gross intolerance. Mr. Trump issued a temporary ban of 120 days until such time as effective vetting procedures to weed out the bloody terrorists had been created, tested, and placed. The purpose of his order: protect Americans from mass shootings and explosions and knife attacks.

This past week Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State decided to insert himself into the political conversation. Robart issued a ban on Trump’s terrorism ban when the state of Washington complained Trump’s terrorism ban would interfere with its private companies seeking employees (i.e., not American workers but foreign workers!!!)!

Subsequently, Mr. Trump, in another one of those fits of honesty he expresses on Twitter, and which the media caustically detract because it bypasses them, criticized Robart for the bad decision.

So on Monday, what are establishment media outlets reporting? Take Morning Joe on MSNBC, for example. They are trying to pummel Mr. Trump, which is like me trying to pummel a polar bear. Trump’s criticism of Robart is “bone-chilling”, Joe Scarborough declared. The president was violating the sacred space between the executive and the judiciary, spoiling our system of checks and balances, and threatening, oh, hell, I don’t know, the Apocalypse? I kept waiting for the pale horse to appear and gallop over Joe’s thick head.

Joe desperately tried to draw a parallel with guilty Bill Clinton quietly accepting the Supreme Court’s disbarment of him (as if he could have done anything differently) and guilty Richard Nixon quietly accepting the Court’s order to hand over the missing audiotape.

Okay, those were criminal cases and matters of law. No, you can’t hide evidence. No, you can’t escape punishment for acting unlawyerly and unethically (but you still get to be president).

What’s the difference? Whoa! There are many. First of all, Washington – and any other state or commonwealth or county or municipality – has no standing, zero, absolutely none, to direct how immigration is enacted and enforced (i.e., executed by the chief executive, the president). If the terrorism ban inconveniences the employment practices of the selfish, greedy corporations that want to hire foreigners instead of fellow countrymen, TFB. The president acts on behalf of the entire country and all his fellow citizens, not a few warped special interests whose interests are secondary to the general welfare, common defense, and security of the people.

Second, the president has a Constitutional mandate to carry out the laws promulgated by Congress, including the immigration laws.

Third, the federal statutory law gives the president the authority and power to KEEP OUT of the country any individuals or class of individuals. Yes, the wording of the law says exactly that.

President Trump’s criticism of Robart at worst is a minor consideration. I like it because he is taking to task these activist judges who want the law to reflect their own political ideals rather than their jurisprudence reflecting the law. Mr. Trump is holding such jurists accountable.

What the media have been hiding or glossing over is that Robart overstepped his judicial boundaries to defy our checks and balances and to interfere with the president’s sphere of action just so the judge could force his extremist “progressive” philosophy on the American people. Now that’s chilling, maybe even to the bone.

It’s not going to stand. Sooner or later, President Trump’s ban will be upheld and resume. Rest assured that the establishment politicos and their media minions will not rest. Mr. Trump is too much of a threat to their power and dominion.

Drain the swamp!

The Unequal Coverage of Equal Pay


Noticeably absent from Morning Joe’s groupthink discussion this morning was serious comment about the huge pay discrepancy between male and female employees at the Clinton Foundation. Wikileaks released campaign emails that documented the research and growing concern about the pay for the Foundations top executives.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had attacked Hillary on this very issue in the spring. Politifact rated it only half true, citing crude methodology.

Yet the concerns voiced in the emails of Hillary’s own campaigners and researchers demonstrated the flaws they found and the dichotomy between Hillary’s stated position on equal pay and her failure to apply it to her own organization. This is the second time she has been called to account for saying one thing about equal pay and doing another. Previously, she had been paying her male senate staffers more than her female senate staffers, according to reports.

The Clinton campaign has attempted to deflect the facts about the equal pay gap by citing the earlier, Politifact study.

The problem with Politifact’s earlier rating lies in the wording and in the inability to turn the statement around.

First, Trump’s claim about the pay gap between men and women at the Clinton Foundation is not “half true”. Without question, the Clinton Foundation men make more in salary and benefits than the Clinton Foundation women.

What Politifact was saying was that it did not possess enough evidence to know whether an “apples to apples” comparison could be made. Were men being paid more for the same work at the Foundation than women?

It’s not clear why the folks at Politifact did not pursue a study that would have enabled such a comparison. Their lassitude only gives them leeway to say they can confirm the first part of Trump’s statement. It does not give them the leeway to conclude that Trump’s statement was, therefore, only half true.

The proof is that Politifact cannot convert the statement to “Hillary applies her belief in equal pay to the Clinton Foundation and so is not a hypocrite.” In fact, such a statement would have to be rated “completely false” by the Politifact method. Why? First, a pay gap between men and women exists. Even Hillary’s researchers acknowledge that. Two, because there is no apples to apples comparison, Clinton cannot assert truthfully that she is faithfully applying what she believes about equal pay (i.e., not being a hypocrite). She won’t know that until such a comparison is done.

As with so many other issues and questions, none of this troubles the Morning Joe group-thinkers. If they were to accurately and forcefully report on the contradictions and hypocrisy and imbalance of Hillary, it would likely sink her candidacy and promote the outsider rebel to the presidency. The establishment cannot allow that. In their eyes, the Trump Train has to be derailed before it is too late.

Don’t let them do it!

Bill Bashes Obamacare; Hillary Laughs at Voters


An amazing thing happened yesterday. Former President Bill Clinton called the Affordable Health Care Act – known widely as “Obamacare” – crazy. In fact, he named it, “the craziest thing in the world.”

The former president said Obamacare was crazy because it has imposed an unbearable burden on middle class Americans who were working “60 hours a week” to pay for it to succeed, a burden that has punished them financially.

It’s not the first time Mr. Clinton has savaged the piece of legislation that the current president, Mr. Obama, considers the signature act of his presidency and his legacy, and which Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary, has vowed to perpetuate.

You can hear or read the former president’s exact words here:


and here:


To be fair, Mr. Clinton did not advocate for a complete turn away from universal health care, though he did not advocate a strict staying with it either. He did suggest that at least in the respect he described, Obamacare was a failure that needed urgent attention for a remedy.

The bottom line, however, is that “affordable” health care isn’t affordable for everyone. A huge chunk of hardworking Americans, the mainstream of this country, is being punished to make it work. The reason that is so is because huge corporations were granted an inexpensive out from the system, which many have taken, and the 25 million persons now allegedly covered by Obama’s plan put absolutely nothing into it.

Pundits and people alike are struggling to reconcile Mr. Clinton’s denunciation of Obamacare and his wife’s angry, dogmatic support of it. Some explanations have been proposed, and we will review them and add a possibility.

It’s not just that Mr. Clinton disagrees with his wife; it’s that he has more than once disagreed with her on this issue. So there has been time for Hillary’s campaign to school Mr. Clinton on what he can and cannot say. Hillary has said her husband will be a major source of counsel and management in her administration, perhaps her chief advisor. So she knows and has known exactly where he stands.

So what’s up with Mr. Clinton’s denunciation of Obamacare?

Some are explaining it as Bill out of control, in discord with his wife and with Mr. Obama, the latter with whom he shares no lost love. His stunning frankness reveals at the least his intention to influence his wife away from the system constructed by Obamacare, perhaps completely away from universal health care at least as embodied in the existing legislation. Mr. Clinton, who was willing to deal with Republicans to help create a solvent administration that eventually created a financial surplus, wants to see his wife replace the affordable health care act with something different that keeps alive the ideal of universal health care but through pragmatic legislation that would reject Obama’s financially destructive act.

A toned down version of that explanation suggests that Mr. Clinton is signaling to Republicans that Hillary will compromise on the affordable health care act, something she cannot say during her campaign, while signaling faithful Democrats that she will never relinquish the ideal of universal health care. In this scenario, the affordable health care would be modified – significantly – but some sections would be left intact. This also provides a give-and-take with Republicans. In exchange, Hillary will want something else, and she will expect the Republicans to give it to her. For the time being, Mr. Clinton may have to walk back or appear to walk back his comments, but the long term signal is clear: Hillary will deal where Obama wouldn’t. It’s her own version of Trump’s “nothing is sacred, nothing is off the table” without her declaring such.

This is both good and bad for the American people, if it is true. The achievement of ideological and policy objectives requires either overwhelming support or compromise. In this day of polarization, compromise will usually fit the bill. Things will get done, and that alone would be a vast improvement over the Obama administration.

Compromise also reveals, however, the underlying reality of an establishment class divided into two factions who wield power for their enrichment and satisfaction. The give-and-take is for them, and only collaterally, if at all, serves the public in the sense that the public must be kept mollified just enough to go along with their decisions and to remain blind and deaf to what is really going on. It’s a kind of “Shove this bottle of formula in your mouth while mommy and daddy decide what we are doing” philosophy of governance. The baby consumes the formula and falls asleep. Mommy and daddy shovel the baby into the crib in a room upstairs at the back of the house. Mommy and daddy party wildly with the other mommies and daddies downstairs.

In a democracy, each and every citizen is a mommy or daddy. No one should lord over them. However, our system is not set up that way any more, from the limited two parties to the donor class who can pump fistfuls and suitcases of dollars into shaping policy and buying the allegiance of lawmakers. Our democracy is failing us, and too many of us cannot see it.

A third explanation is simply that Mr. Clinton, much older now (70), is speaking with the frankness of age. He’s looked at Obamacare and he doesn’t like it. Mr. Clinton believes it’s a bad policy that doesn’t work, even though his wife may have no desire to make anything but minor tweaks to it. He doesn’t reflect her or her campaign’s thinking at all but, in spite of his prevarications about his sexual conduct, just wants to give his straight observations to his fellow Americans. That neither makes him conservative nor denies his liberality, nor does it mean he stands against universal health care. He just thinks the Obamacare legislation was the wrong tool to get it done, and he’s not going to fudge it for his wife, perhaps much to her chagrin.

This explanation, too, has merit. Mr. Clinton, the politician par excellence, has shown signs of weariness along the campaign trail. He wants people to know what he’s thinking, and even he has his times where he cannot tolerate the BS. Mr. Clinton desires policies that work as much as policies that achieve his objectives. He does not believe the two are incompatible, and he is genuinely shocked at the machinery of the Obamacare legislation, which punishes a large segment of hardworking American citizens.

This looms as a key difference between Mr. Clinton and his wife.

Like Mr. Obama, Hillary stands out as an ideologue first and foremost who pulls and twists reality to conform to her ideology and its desired outcomes. Mr. Clinton is a liberal idealist but a pragmatist, too. He works to achieve his liberal objectives within the shape of reality.

Understand that neither the terms “ideologue” nor “liberal idealist but a pragmatist, too” are intended to imply that either Hillary or Mr. Clinton always act in accordance with their meanings. There are times when all of us wax ideological or pragmatic regardless of the category into which we generally fall. Many times other categories prevail in our reflection and decision-making. Thoughts and emotions swirl within a complexity we don’t always understand, at least not right away.

Generally speaking, however, Hillary and Mr. Clinton can be understood in the manner described.

A fourth explanation lies in the dishonesty and pridefulness that blemishes Hillary’s character. Hillary has marked her career by support for policies she varnishes with the rhetoric of “fighting for women” or “fighting for the middle class” or possession of a “fitness” or “temperament” for office or a “resumé of experience” that will bring stability and security and prosperity to American citizens. Yet she, and perhaps her husband, too, mock those who support her, precisely because she knows they are accepting her faux reasoning.

Remember when Hillary was asked whether she wiped her private server of government emails or ordered that her server be wiped? Do you remember what she said and how she said it?

What, like, with a cloth or something?”

You can surf to YouTube and query “hillary wiped server with cloth”, and you will find a multitude of videos to choose from, including videos from Bloomberg and CNN, enemies of Trump and supporters of Clinton.

What, like, with a cloth or something?”

The profundity of significance in her faux question does not even lie with its dissembling, although that is an element of the profundity. Rather, it lies with the attitude that gave birth to the dissembling, the notion that she could look reasonably intelligent reporters in the eye and American viewers in the eye and mock them by saying something she knew was disingenuous and something she knew was a flimsy cover for the fact that she did have her server wiped!

That attitude of mockery persists in every defect of her performance as a professional politician. That’s why she lied about sending and receiving classified material on her private server, in violation of the law and the protocols that governed the management of classified material. She already knew she would not be prosecuted. She is saying, “I can do what I want, and you won’t touch me, and I am still going to govern this country and run your lives. I am going to lie to you, make it obvious, and provide an explanation you will be only too willing to accept because I have taken – and you have given me – influence over your minds.”

Hillary Clinton is living proof of Neal Stephenson’s concept of mindshare and the ability of collectives (in his book, In the Beginning Was the Command Line, collective or collectivist corporations) to establish and grow a toehold in people’s minds to the point where people accept and defend that corporate view willingly.

Hillary is not alone. Many other elitist practitioners of mindshare exist on all sides of the ideological spectrum. Indeed, she has drawn endorsements and support from many of them. But the strength of her arrogance and her snobbery elevates her even among other elitist practitioners. Yet her supporters do not, perhaps cannot, because of their intellectual abdication, see it or act on it.

So when Mr. Clinton spits on the features and working of Obamacare, and Hillary allows him to, it is a part of her psychology, of her pattern of gamesmanship: letting Americans know what she really is and yet convincing them to pull the lever for her and her wasteful policies anyway. That’s why she screamed with all the affectation of indignation, “What difference does it make!?” during a senate hearing.

Please, examine carefully what she said. Her reply to the question of obtaining timely information to make a decision about what to do in Benghazi was to say:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

First, please note that Hillary was asked to respond to a question about why she didn’t pick up the phone, call the ambassador in Benghazi or others there, to find out exactly what was happening. She avoided answering at first. Afterward, she said she didn’t want to interfere with the process and uttered her notorious “what difference does it make” line.

Second, Hillary was asking about an event over which she had authority and management. She was not someone “outside of the process”. As secretary of state, other than the president, she was the chief part of the process. She, of her own choice, became an aloof outsider to the process with fatal consequences.

Third, Hillary tosses in an axiom about what should be done from this point on to obscure her accountability for what should have been done before the murders by terrorists occurred at Benghazi. Sure, she should figure out what happened, since she didn’t know beforehand, so death can be prevented in the future; that does not exclude the requirement that it was her job to figure out what was going on, either before it went down or as it was going down, to prevent the unnecessary deaths of our four fellow Americans in the first place. That’s why she received classified diplomatic and intelligence information that she illicitly stored on her server.

This is a huge point. Every western country with an embassy or consulate in Benghazi pulled out its people. They pulled out their people because they knew an attack was coming. They knew who it was coming from, too. The only person and the only government in the western world that maintained a diplomatic presence in Benghazi in spite of overwhelming evidence and information that that presence was in peril was the government that spun around the Obama-Hillary axis, the United States.

It’s unfortunate to have to say it, but Hillary has no shame. She then further torqued the whole Benghazi tale and flatly lied to the faces of the relative-survivors of the four Americans murdered about why they had been murdered: Libyans were protesting an anti-Muslim film. Then she lied to everyone else about what she had said to the relatives of the murdered! A mountain of lies!

One cannot exaggerate the immensity and offensiveness of the personal lie Hillary told to the surviving relatives of the Americans murdered in Benghazi. It’s offensiveness is bloated to the greatest, most expansive proportions. And It’s impossible to exaggerate the immensity and the baldfacedness of the lie that an anti-Muslim movie generated the murderous riot in Benghazi. Playing on the guilt some Americans feel about their natural aversion to Islam and its tenets of violence and its prophets of violence, she blamed the murders of four Americans on America and Americans. Americans are anti-Islamic and thus anti-diversity and anti-compassion and so we made a film that ridiculed Mohammed and Islam (thought we had free speech) and WE brought death to our own people. It’s a terrorist’s, and a murderer’s, dream: “I murdered you because you caused me to murder you. It’s your own fault!”

Mindshare. Hillary has captured it from her supporters, well-meaning but terribly misled and intellectually abused supporters. You may not think or believe or even entertain anything ill about Islam or Islamics, but you may think, believe, and entertain anything ill about yourself and your country.

That’s the tie-in with Mr. Clinton’s stunningly frank disembowelment of Obamacare. Hillary is laughing at you, because she and Obama took an ideal, twisted it into an unworkable policy, got you to accept it (got Congress to accept it without even reading it!). She’s telling you, through herself or her husband, that she is feeding you fecal matter and getting you to eat it anyway. She’s telling you, signaling to you, that she is lying to you, and then employing the simplest, most indignant, and most intellectually subversive excuses to protest the truth of her lies, and finally laughing at you when she obtains your acceptance, if not your agreement!

Sophistication and truth are not the same thing.

That has been her victory. That is the contest she really wants to win. Winning the presidency is simply the crown to her pathology of egomania and prevarication.

As much as any shame that accrues to her, we the voters are full of shame if we accept her and elect her.

Caveat emptor!