We are the drain the swamp people

US Attorney John Durham issued a challenge to Horowitz’s findings that indicate this is not over

Scads of “textual evidence” exists to indicate political bias of key investigators

As regards Horowitz’s investigation: If you can’t go outside the department then how useful is the investigation?

Investigating trained investigators of the upper echelons in the DOJ and FBI,  and being limited to that closed-loop/ incestuous circle, who largely controlled the internal paper trail and got where they are by definition of good old boy network —  IG Horowitz has found “no textual or testimonial evidence” of political bias (see previous posts today) in his investigation of the propriety of FISA  applications in the departments investigation of alleged collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia.  IG Robert Mueller previously concluded there was no collusion.

In the report issued today Horowitz also reported a finding that there were sufficient qualifiers to justify the FISA applications to spy on Trump’s campaign (even as they found no collusion).  US Attorney Durham has challenged that (see below) . However his report does list a couple dozen “serious errors” and they would seem to be the exceptions that pretty much swallow the finding.  Here are some posts by our go-to journals explaining some of the events.

Matt Vespa at Townhall:  (excerpts)

DOJ IG: FISA Application for Spy Warrants Against Trump Official Riddled with Errors

Well, it’s dropped. The report from the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office on FISA abuses against the Trump campaign during the Obama administration has dropped. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was ripped for deviating from department policy concerning the application process. The FBI used the unverified Trump dossier, which was a Democrat-funded opposition research project. The Hillary Clinton campaign hired research firm Fusion GPS, who then contracted ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile the document. It’s riddled with inaccuracies. And it’s the work that set off this Russian collusion nuke in the media. It was a myth.  . . .

There are over a dozen instances where DOJ IG Michael Horowitz cites as when the bureau omitted information, including exculpatory evidence when applying for surveillance warrants against Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign (via Fox News)   . . .

The report, which is over 400 pages, also notes that there was no evidence of political bias concerning the FBI’s operation to infiltrate the Trump campaign  (via NYT) [emphasis mine]:  . . .

A long-awaited report by the Justice Department’s inspector general released on Monday sharply criticized the F.B.I.’s handling of a wiretap application used in the early stages of its Russia investigation but exonerated former bureau leaders of President Trump’s accusations that they engaged in a politicized conspiracy to sabotage him.

Investigators uncovered “no documentary or testimonial evidence” of political bias behind official actions related to the investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, said the report, which totaled more than 400 pages. The F.B.I. had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to lawfully open the investigation, and its use of informants to approach campaign aides followed procedures, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, determined.

But Mr. Horowitz also uncovered substantial dysfunction, carelessness and serious errors in one part of the sprawling inquiry: the F.B.I.’s applications for court orders approving a wiretap targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. He found that one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer altered a related document and referred the lawyer for possible prosecution.

Given the highly fraught context of investigating someone linked to a presidential campaign, the report said, the Crossfire Hurricane investigators knew their work would be scrutinized — yet they nevertheless “failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were ‘scrupulously accurate.’”
The findings on the wiretap application showed that when it mattered most — with the stakes the greatest and no room for error — F.B.I. officials still made numerous and serious mistakes in wielding a powerful surveillance tool. Mr. Horowitz’s discovery calls into question the bureau’s surveillance practices in routine cases without such high-stakes political implications.

Sorry, as we’ve said before, this is simply not believable. Why wasn’t the Trump dossier verified? There are errors that a simple Google search could’ve debunked portions of the Steele dossier or at the very minimum raised red flags about the accuracy of the document. That didn’t happen and disgraced fired deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe refused to answer any questions about whether there was any verification process concerning this document when he testified before Congress. Why? Even members of British intelligence were skeptical of this dossier. 

On a sidebar, the antics between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page blows that narrative up. Strzok was fired for his tens of thousands of texts, many of which were anti-Trump, that he sent to bureau lawyer Lisa Page during the 2016 election. Strzok was also having an extramarital affair with Page. And Page noted that those texts meant exactly what they meant. And these two had a meeting with McCabe, allegedly, where they discussed an “insurance policy” regarding a Trump presidency. That “policy” is reportedly a reference to the Trump dossier.   . . .

Also at Townhall:  (bold our emphasis)
New and Rare Durham Statement Shows IG Report Doesn’t Come Close to Telling the Whole Story

On Monday afternoon Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz released the long awaited report into FISA abuse during the 2016 presidential election. 

The report found that while there were nearly two dozen serious errors FBI agents made while applying for a FISA warrant, the investigation was justified. 
But in a rare statement released Monday afternoon, U.S. Attorney John Durham  issued a serious disagreement with the report’s findings and said it was limited in scope.

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff.  However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department,” Durham said. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” 

Inspector General investigators are only capable of interviewing individuals in the Department of Justice. They cannot access information from other federal government agencies or compel anyone outside of DOJ to be interviewed. Further, the Inspector General can only recommend prosecution for those found to have engaged in illegal wrongdoing.

Durham, who has worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr earlier this year to conduct a criminal investigation into how the Russia investigation was started and how a FISA warrant was obtained to spy on the Trump campaign. His investigative authority is broad and unlike the Inspector General, he has the ability to prosecute. His office is capable of issuing subpoenas outside of the Department of Justice, to individuals throughout the federal government, overseas and more.

The results of Durham’s investigation are expected to be released in the coming weeks.  

Cortney O’Brien at Townhall:

Page 341 of FISA Report Made Mark Meadows Say ‘Wow’

The report into the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign is out, all 430 pages of it. It describes how the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, one of then-candidate Donald Trump’s former foreign policy advisers. The application was riddled with errors, as Matt covered in his initial report. And it again confirmed that the intelligence agency used an uncorroborated dossier about Trump and Russia authored by former British spy Christopher Steele to obtain the wiretapping warrant.

The FISA report found 17 errors in total, but it also found no political bias on the part of the FBI and concluded that their investigation was justified.
Still, there was a page near the back of the report that caught the eye of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and made him say “wow.” As it turns out, the FBI took advantage of a briefing with the Trump campaign to use in their investigation.

Wow… page 341. IG says FBI used an Aug. 2016 ‘defensive briefing’ with the Trump campaign as an “opportunity to gather potentially relevant investigative information” about Michael Flynn

 They used defensive briefings for their investigation into the Trump campaign

 Wow

— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019
He was irked again after flipping a few more pages.

Predictably, some media allies of Democrats spinning hard. This is what the investigation was about, pg 361:

IG found “numerous serious factual errors and omissions in the FISA applications … that undercut certain allegations in the applications.”

That, alone, is indefensible

— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019

He’s not the only official to sound off on the FBI’s inconsistencies and alleged FISA abuse. Attorney General William Barr said today’s report is proof that the FBI relied on the thinnest of suspicions to warrant their surveillance of the Trump campaign.

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” he said.

Even U.S. Attorney John Durham, who rarely issues public statements, spoke up on this occasion.

“Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

0

0

By the time this gets posted, the report will be out, either confirming or refuting its accuracy

WILL THE HOROWITZ REPORT SPLIT THE BABY? 
Of course it will!

Except that, as one of the best political reporters there is, Sheryl Atkisson suggests, it will tend heavily toward not holding accountable the previous administration’s wrongdoers.

We have noted previously that Michael Horowitz just doesn’t seem to ever detect any “political bias”. Horowitz evidently wouldn’t know “political bias” if it came up and introduced itself and put on a demonstration. (Recall in his earlier “report”, he couldn’t determine that Peter Strzok and Ms. Page had a ‘political bias bone’ in their bodies.)

There is significance in the fact that Michael Horowitz WAS appointed by Barack Obama. Has there been any Obama appointee who has not ‘toed the line’ on any Obama administration corrupt action, no matter how grievous? dlh

Sheryl Atkinson writing at The Hill

Here are five things for the public to remember as they hear and read news stories about the upcoming findings:

Most news reporters and analysts who comment on the Horowitz report will not have read it. They will rely on other news reports and/or spin provided by partisans and others with vested interests.

Most news reporters and analysts who read any of the report will only review the summary and/or conclusions. Some will read sections pointed out to them by partisans and others with vested interests to prove their particular points.

The report will offer plenty of criticism, but often accept the most innocent explanation for any inappropriate act, barring an explicit admission to the contrary.

Horowitz is not an island. There are other officials at the inspector general’s office, including the chief counsel, who weigh in on and impact what the report ultimately says.

Horowitz’s authority is limited. He doesn’t have the power to prosecute anybody. Even when he has referred an official for possible prosecution, he has to refer the case to the Justice Department — the very agency where the official has friends and colleagues, possibly even co-conspirators. The Department of Justice can — and frequently does — toss aside Horowitz’s recommendations.

0

0

Two informative recaps and predictive articles this morning in anticipation of the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report regarding FISA court abuse in FBI applications targeting people associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian collusion / interference investigation.

At RedState by Streif:  (excerpt) (bold our emphasis)

Don’t Look for What Questions the DOJ IG Report Asks, Look for the Ones It Avoids

Here are some key points to keep in mind. Much is being made of Horowitz being “non-partisan.” This may very well be true but he seems to clearly be an institutionalist who is just as focused on protecting the brand of the Department of Justice as he is on revealing the truth to his employers, that would be you and me, the taxpayers. To that end, I would be shocked if he found anything really wrong anywhere rather than focusing on screw-ups and malfeasance of individuals and giving the benefit of the doubt to the actions of DOJ’s National Security Division which managed the investigation of the Trump campaign.

Expect the FBI to be largely exonerated other than findings of bad acts by rogue actors or well-intentioned over-zealousness. I’ve read that Horowitz may not find any partisan motive in the actions of Strzok and Page and would not be shocked as it may well be possible to say that their actions were justified by the facts available to them despite their political bias. This, I think, is the clear canary in the coal mine test for the entire report. A finding of no bias in the most egregious cases and a treating of all other malfeasance, like the forging of a court document, as an individual factoid rather than as part of a fact pattern is a clear sign that the objective is to protect the Department of Justice and protect the FBI.  . . .

This we found particularly chilling by implication . . .

Keep in mind that a FISA warrant permits what is called “two hops” or “three hops.” What that means is that if Carter Page was the subject of a FISA warrant, everyone he talked to is subject to surveillance (one hop), everyone they talked to is subject to surveillance (two hops) and, potentially, everyone the second person talked to is subject to surveillance (three hops). So while Trump, himself, may not have been a direct target, with two hops he and all of his senior campaign staff were almost certainly under direct surveillance. See this from NBC:

These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact; in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.” While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page. (The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)   

. . .

The report should clear up the extent to which the Steele Dossier was used to undertake an unprecedented investigation of a major party candidate for president and how that fraudulent document was laundered.

There is a claim being made everywhere on the left that the FISA warrant issued concerning Carter Page would have been justified without the Steele Dossier and without an FBI attorney falsifying a court document. If so, we need to know what that evidence was and why Carter Page has not been charged with either lying to Congress, lying to federal agents, or with violating FARA. If the threshold for justifying such an intrusive warrant is possible against a demonstrably and proven innocent American, then the whole system is flawed beyond redemption. We also need to understand why Rod Rosenstein continued a warrant that probably allowed surveillance of the President of the United States.

  . . .

There have been stories that Attorney General William Barr is not satisfied with Horowitz’s findings. I don’t know if that is true and I certainly haven’t seen it reported by anyone who hasn’t been up to their eyebrows pushing Russia Hoax crap and Fusion GPS spank material for three years. I suspect that Barr might well disagree with some of Horowitz’s findings because his man, Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, is conducting a criminal probe over multiple agencies and has access to much more information than does Horowitz. You need to look at these stories as being a repeat of the disinformation pushed by the press that Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report reflected Barr’s intentions to protect the President and misrepresented Mueller’s report. If he doesn’t buy all of Horowitz’s findings, then they will simply say, “here he goes again.” Or that Durham is investigating “debunked’ “conspiracy theories.”

The salient question is this: If the FBI did have reason to suspect that the Trump campaign contained one or more people in senior positions who were actively working with a foreign government that was not Ukraine, then why was Donald Trump, the candidate, never briefed on the problematic staffer and given the chance to fire him but rather subjected to a degree of political espionage by the federal government that the US has not known since the break-in at the Watergate in 1972?

Law Professor Margot Cleveland writing at The Federalist:   (excerpts)

13 Things To Look For In The Inspector General FISA Abuse Report

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation was limited in scope and thus will leave unanswered many of the questions surrounding the FBI’s targeting of the Trump campaign.

1. Concerns about Federal Surveillance of Carter Page  . . .

the foremost question the IG’s report should address concerns the DOJ’s basis for believing that probable cause supported the Page FISA applications. Because Page is a U.S. citizen, to obtain a surveillance order under FISA, “the DOJ needed to establish probable cause that Page was ‘an agent of a foreign power’ and was engaged in ‘activities [that] involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.’” And “probable cause needed to exist for the initial October 21, 2016 warrant and for each subsequent renewal.”

2. What Criminal Allegations Existed Against Page?  . . .

While the DOJ has released redacted versions of the four FISA applications, the specific criminal statutes Page’s activities purportedly violated have not yet been revealed. The IG should both identify the crimes the FISA applications relied upon and address whether the FISA applications established probable cause.

This analysis will be key because everything known to date indicates the DOJ’s FISA applications failed to present evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that Page violated U.S. criminal law . . .

3. Did the FBI Follow the Woods Procedures?  . . .

The Woods procedures, named after FBI agent Michael Woods, “were instituted in April 2001 to ‘ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause”  . . .

4. Why Did Page’s Application Not Follow the Usual Path?  . . .

5. Was Any Application Info False or Misleading?   . . .

This area of the IG’s report should be massive given the many concerns already identified in congressional testimony and exposed in publicly released documents.  . . .

6. Hiding the Steele Dossier Commissioners From the Court  . . .

7. Why the FBI Lied about Steele’s Press Contacts  . . .

8. Other Information Questioning Steele’s Reliability  . . .

9. The Bruce Ohr Problems  . . .

10. Then There’s Nellie Ohr  . . .

12. The Real Origin of Crossfire Hurricane  . . .

13. What Role Did Joseph Mifsud Play?  . . .

These are merely the questions begging for answers from the already publicly available information, but Horowitz had access to substantially more details and his investigation should have uncovered even more facts. Horowitz’s report should summarize the results of his investigation to make clear that he followed the leads where they led.

One investigative trail of particular importance is the communications accessed and intercepted pursuant to the FISA applications. Did the FBI access communications between Page and Trump campaign members? If so, what communications, involving what players?

If Horowitz conducted a fair and thorough investigation, he should have the answers to these questions—and so should we soon.

0

0

Monday is the ‘big day” for release of  IG Horowitz’s report on FISA court applications regarding investigations of then candidate Trump. Presumed knowledgeable sources have signaled not to expect much and even that it might be a whitewash protecting deep-state actors.

Maybe the report will point to a fall guy with fingerprints on a smoking gun that folks may understand as more of a peashooter.  Democrats will portray any violations by their people as mere technical violations in their exuberance for doing their job to protect the integrity of the election process.  Yah right.

From the Washington Examiner:

The report on possible abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be released Monday, setting up a possible conflict between Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Attorney General William Barr.

Reports suggest Horowitz, who headed the investigation, and Barr diverge on whether the FBI was justified in launching its 2016 counterintelligence inquiry into possible ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, later wrapped into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mueller concluded Russia interfered but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between President Trump and Russia.

Barr disagrees with Horowitz’s supposed conclusion that the FBI had sufficient information to justify launching its Trump-Russia investigation, according to the Washington Post, and Barr isn’t persuaded by Horowitz’s findings and believes agencies outside of the DOJ, such as the CIA, might be able to reveal details that could change Horowitz’s mind. The investigation conducted by Barr’s right-hand man, U.S. Attorney John Durham, uncovered information that could buttress Barr’s doubts, according to a lawyer associated with Durham’s team.

Dropping the report tomorrow means it will be before an actual House Judiciary Committee impeachment vote by House Democrats (who else?). Though it might include some embarrassments for them we do not expect that it will cool their jets, (one reason why they moved to a focus on Ukraine rather than the Russia connected FISA abuses. Maybe it will make them more insane.

The process the House Democrats have used and are intent on furthering for the final vote to impeach is so unfair that it is unlikely to cost Trump any Republican support.  Their pursuit is more about the House Democrats own insulated insanity and that of their base who they feel are itching for this. They do not see a downside to being so partisan.

Their own deep-state operatives are so dirty it is felt necessary to throw out as much innuendo and lies as they can. They are trying to protect their base congressional district  support. Their machine politics need impeachment to fuel their rabid base or they risk loosing some of that “energy” to the extent of loosing not only toss-up seats and all those who are running in seats Trump won, but normally semi-safe bluish seats. There is no downside in their view only necessity. They may see themselves loosing some no-party folks, but those voters don’t pay the bills, and they may be doing this eyes wide open that Trump will now win reelection.

There is also no downside because the dominant liberal media will work overtime to protect them, avoid damaging matters and concentrate on sensational accusations, change the subject, etc..  The media has a big part in the impeachment coup. They will not report the implications of the Horowitz findings if significantly damaging, they will accentuate any exoneration (how they say we spun the Mueller report)  and they will continue to cover Nadler’s impeachment show hoping to do as much damage as they can produce, as essentially producers of this theater).  They really should add a credit line to the proceedings “Produced by your friends at leftist media.org”

More from the Washington Examiner article:

Barr and Durham have not said when they will release their conclusions, but Trump weighed in Tuesday when asked if he’d heard about the disagreement between Horowitz and Barr.

“If what I read is correct, that would be a little disappointing, but it was just one aspect of the report, so we’ll see what happens,” Trump said.

Trump said he heard from the news that Horowitz’s report would be “very powerful” and “devastating” and also raised expectations for what Barr and Durham might uncover.

“I do think the big report to wait for is the Durham report,” Trump said. “That’s the one that people are really waiting for. And he’s highly respected, and he’s worked very hard and he’s worked long hours, I can tell you, and gone all over the world. So we’ll see.”

Durham’s portfolio of powers is much more than Horowitz’s and there are reports that he has uncovered criminal behavior and is pursuing it.   Not holding our breath on that one either given the depth of the deep state.

0

0

Not enough gay and alternative lifestyle shows on TV? They come and go and if they go it is because they are stupid and nobody watches them.

I have been very, very concerned for some time now about the paucity (or is it a ‘dearth’?) of gay characters, themes, and plots in movies, TV Shows, and Comic books.

Hallmark is heroically coming to the rescue to address this national scandal. Thank the Lord this great country has done a better job in insuring that our elementary school children have been better served, learning about the gay life style and encouraging them to carefully consider if the’ve been assigned the correct gender.      dlh

Hats off to Hallmark!
Hallmark Execs Say Channel Working To Fix Lack of Gay Christmas Movies

News that the Hallmark Channel is looking to add LGBT-friendly movies to its lineup is yet another stab in the back for conservative Christians, many of whom are still reeling from Chick-fil-A’s recent betrayal of traditional family values.

According to The Wrap, executives at Hallmark’s parent company, Crown Media Family Networks, admitted the network is seeking to air more stories focused on LGBT characters.

“We are continuing to expand our diversity,” Michelle Vicary, Crown Media’s executive vice president of programming, told TheWrap for a story published last week. “We are looking at pitches for LGBTQ movies

“Like the industry, there is a lot of work to be done to catch up.”
Vicary’s remarks echoed those made by Crown Media CEO Bill Abbot.
Abbot told The Hollywood Reporter last week he is “open” to movies that have a homosexual character in the lead role.

This holiday season, Hallmark is planning on releasing 40 original movies.
The channel’s reputation for airing wholesome, feel-good stories is widely known and greatly appreciated by millions of Americans who detest the radical nature of the LGBT movement’s demands.

A petition from LifeSiteNews, a pro-life, pro-family Christian website, warned Hallmark that it would “risk losing a big part of their market” if the network gives in “to the LGBT agen

“Hallmark would be offending Christian viewers and Christian parents BIG TIME, by experimenting with homosexual themes, and, or cooperating with the LGBT indoctrination agenda,” the petition reads.

“Hallmark should also know that if they give-in to the LGBT agenda, the LGBT activists will never be satisfied.”

The petition had garnered nearly 30,000 signatures as of Friday morning.

0

0

Latest Outrage – Pope Francis Compares Trump to Herod, Who Tried to Kill Jesus

Walls make for a Herod  — seriously???

Vatican is largely surrounded by walls, gates, metal detectors, building perimeters. Building entrances are guarded. Access is at approved times or by appointment only. No one just walks in to take up residency.

Our charges:

1) Pope Francis is a living breathing careless wreck as a Christian logician, exegete and communicator, OR

2) a purposeful divisive accusatory fomenter of hate, envy, covetousness AND

3) a purveyor of the false gods of one-world-government, the state as such and gaia , AND

4) A huge CO2 hypocrite jetting around as he does, living in air-conditioned comfort and behind a guarded wall as he does, as corpulent as he is

Strong words? Indeed, but the Pope having just accused me (by implication) of being another Herod because I support efforts to control the border and protect our sovereignty,  two can play the game. He deserves it because he shows (personally or through his offices)  no compunction, no effort to specify who or what he is talking about, but rather for lack of it, to implicate and impune.  He is a careless, loud-mouth, appalling, hateful sore on the world stage given the responsibilities of his office, far more so than Donald Trump could ever be objectively accused.

Now it could be that there was more context to what the Pope said, ameliorating the import than what was reported in this Breibart article.  But we respect that they got the gist of it. However it is way too far into the game to not be clear on such matters of state, to be careful in utterances, not to paint with a brush so irresponsibly. So we don’t let someone like him off the hook out of charity when he offers none over policy differences. It is up to him to specify if borders are unBiblical, if nation-states are unBiblical, whether walls are good for any purpose including drug interdiction . . . rather than issue cheap shots

Pope Francis’ in showing no care as to lump believers in borders in with Harod and it is outrageous. Trump has accomplished more to save more babies than any modern living world leader including I do not hesitate to say His Holiness by virtue of highlighting the issue of baby killing that this Pope obfuscates with other issues.

Trump has reduced war while maintaining peace through strength. Trump has worked to make for a vibrant economy that can show the world the way — feeding more and more. He has held families together with those economic policies rather than making family members wards of the state.

It is not a leap for me to believe this Pope’s occasional words in opposition to abortion are anything more than window dressing. Which of the true modern-day baby -killers has he attacked, mänō ä ˈmänō – whose face has he been in   — the UN leadership? the Castros? the Pelosis?, Trudeau?, Xi Jinping? any communist dictator anywhere to decry their policies of state sanctioned if not mandated “Herodizing” of babies? They know he won’t do anything about it, not like make it an issue or anything. And they know they can use him for their mutual designs, validating the overwhelming power of the state.

I pray to God few actually listen to him in favor of more authentic balanced, responsible Catholic/Christian teachers.  This Pope’s world-view is that of a Marxist which is inextricable from totalitarianism.       Via Breitbart:

Pope Francis Compares Trump to Herod, Who Tried to Kill Jesus

ROME — Pope Francis has compared U.S. President Donald Trump to the murderous King Herod who massacred innocent children in ancient Palestine while trying to kill the baby Jesus, a Jesuit journal revealed Thursday.

Speaking with his brother Jesuits during his recent visit to Thailand, the Argentinian pope minced no words in his thinly veiled condemnation of the U.S. president and his administration, suggesting that like a modern-day Herod, Mr. Trump separates families at the border while allowing drugs to freely flow into the country.

“In other parts there are walls that even separate children from parents. Herod comes to mind,” Francis said. “Yet for drugs, there’s no wall to keep them out.”

“The phenomenon of migration is compounded by war, hunger and a ‘defensive mindset,’ which makes us in a state of fear believe that you can defend yourself only by strengthening borders. At the same time, there is exploitation.”

In this Q&A session, the pontiff also proposed that the rise of populism is at the root of migrants’ problems in Europe.

“I must admit that I am shocked by some of the narratives I hear in Europe about borders,” the pope said. “Populism is gaining strength.”

“The phenomenon of refugees has always existed, but today it is better known because of social differences, hunger, political tensions and especially war. For these reasons, migratory movements are intensifying,” he said.

“What is the answer the world gives? The policy of waste,” he continued. “Refugees are waste material. The Mediterranean has been turned into a cemetery. The notorious cruelty of some detention centers in Libya touches my heart.”

“The Christian tradition has a rich evangelical experience in dealing with the problem of refugees. We also remember the importance of welcoming the foreigner as the Old Testament teaches us,” he said.

0

0

The “Fix” this nation is in…a travesty reported by “The College Fix ” but mostly ignored by general media:

CHEERLEADER GETS $145,000 SETTLEMENT BECAUSE SHE WAS BRIEFLY KEPT OFF THE FIELD AFTER KNEELING FOR THE NATIONAL ANTHEM

– A little over a year after suing Kennesaw State University and Georgia officials for “violation of civil rights,” former cheerleader Tommia Dean received a $145,000 settlement from the college…

– The agreement says it’s intended to “buy peace of mind from future controversy and forestall further attorney’s fees, costs, or other expenses of litigation,” while clarifying the university admits no responsibility for acting “contrary to the law or otherwise violated the rights of Dean.”

– College’s president resigns

– (Cheerleader claims the action was)…”racially motivated in their complaints to Olens about the cheerleaders’ public protest, and that she had since suffered emotional stress.”

Common sense obviously does not reside within the ‘ivied halls’ of ~~Higher ~~Learning. Do you think that agreeing to “settle” will “buy peace of mind from ‘future controversy’…?

dlh

The “College Fix’s Account of the Story:

Judge already tossed claims against lawmaker for ‘racial animus’

Want to make six figures in a year without doing anything? Just make yourself the center of attention at a football game, to the point where you’re removed from the field.

A little over a year after suing Kennesaw State University and Georgia officials for “violation of civil rights,” former cheerleader Tommia Dean received a $145,000 settlement from the Department of Administrative Services, the Marietta Daily Journal reported Wednesday. It obtained the Oct. 25 agreement through a public records request.

The agreement says it’s intended to “buy peace of mind from future controversy and forestall further attorney’s fees, costs, or other expenses of litigation,” while clarifying the university admits no responsibility for acting “contrary to the law or otherwise violated the rights of Dean.”

Dean’s claims against the university stem from its decision to keep her and four other cheerleaders off the field during the national anthem in two football games. They had taken a knee during the national anthem at a previous game.

She claims two other lawsuit targets who were not party to the settlement – Cobb Sheriff Neil Warren and former state Rep. Earl Ehrhart – persuaded then-President Sam Olens to keep the cheerleaders from taking the field. The kerfuffle is widely credited with convincing Olens to resign:

[Dean] claimed Warren and Ehrhart were racially motivated in their complaints to Olens about the cheerleaders’ public protest, and that she had since suffered emotional stress.

In February, a federal judge dismissed Ehrhart and Warren as defendants in the case, finding no evidence they acted with racial animus.

That judge’s order was then appealed by Dean’s lawyers in respect of Warren only, and the appeal regarding the sheriff is the only ongoing legal matter in the case.

MORE: Cheerleader says brief absence from field violates her civil rights
Dean is getting the bulk of the settlement directly in the form of a $93,000 check, while her attorneys are getting nearly $52,000 to cover their fees.

Ehrhart, the lawmaker dismissed from the lawsuit, crowed that his lawyer “crushed the political hack attorneys hired by the KSU cheerleader to perpetrate this fraud and character assassination.” Dean had claimed Ehrhart participated in a conspiracy with the sheriff “actionable under the Ku Klux Klan Act,” while the lawmaker said he was simply expressing his “personal feelings” about the kneeling.

Once feared by Georgia public universities as the chair of the subcommittee that allocates their funding, Ehrhart had used his perch to coerce them to protect the due process rightsof accused students.

He threatened Georgia Tech’s state funding in response to its suspension of a fraternity based on a single claim of racism contradicted by video evidence.

Nearly two years before the Trump administration rescinded the “Dear Colleague” letter on campus sexual assault issued by its predecessor, in an interview with The College Fix, Ehrhart shamed universities for “rolling over dead” in response to a directive with “no force of law.”

0

0

Professor Karlan checks all the boxes to be the next Dem. SCOTUS nominee

Interestingly, Thursday’s report on the House Judiciary Committee impeachment “inquiry” in the Wall Street Journal made no mention whatever of what may be the most asinine performance of the impeachment process so far…and, with Adam Schitt and Jerome Nadler, and (ahem) “Nancy I” as Democrat House leaders, that’s sayin’ something.

The UK Daily Mail, however, has a lengthy story on the inquiry in Thursday’s edition   which is complete, relatively straightforward, mostly unbiased…and does treat fairly the “Professor Karlan gaffe”. (It should be noted that the Daily Mail is not a ‘conservative’ publication. It is in fact, a left of center newspaper.)

This from the NY Post:

“Contrary to what President Trump has said, Article 2 [of the Constitution] does not give him the power to do anything he wants,” testified Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School. “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”

“The wisecrack drew a strongly-worded clapback from Trump’s 2020 campaign.
“Only in the minds of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old child into the impeachment nonsense,” read a statement from campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany. “Pamela Karlan thought she was being clever and going for laughs, but she instead reinforced for all Americans that Democrats have no boundaries when it comes to their hatred of everything related to President Trump.”

That is an excerpt reporting on the questioning of one of Chairman Jerry Nadler’s carefully chosen “expert witnesses”, the ‘widely acclaimed’ Constitutional ‘authority’, Stanford Univ. Law Professor, Pamela Karlan.

Admittedly, it may not be pertinent to the essence of the “inquiry” and thus, not an essential part of a straightforward account of Thursday’s proceedings. But, if you should happen, during a conversation with your favorite liberal friend, to mention this ‘episode’ from the hearing, and maybe note how utterly stupid it was, the odds are your friend probably had never heard about it.

Incidentally, here is our quick “introduction to the “expert law professor witness” for your interest:

Stanford’s Pamela Karlan Lists Trump’s Impeachable Offenses At Trump Impeachment Hearing

“When we go low, we can get lower than anyone thought possible…Impeach Trump!”

PAMELA KARLAN, ‘Failed stand-up comic’, and, according to Wikipedia, in her own words, “an example of a “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women” (sic).[13] Her partner is writer Viola Canales.[14];Karlan told Politico in 2009, “It’s no secret at all that I’m counted among the LGBT crowd”.

Our thumbnail profile of “the professor”:

• snarky- yes
• ‘bi-sexual’- she says so
• member of the ‘LGBTQ’ crowd- oh yeah
• claimed ‘expert’ on Constitutional law- yes
• real ‘expert on Constitutional law- on what Constitution…USSR’s?

Imagine…she came this close to a seat on the Supreme Court! And, if Trump loses…..

Melania didn’t take to kindly to ‘Dr. Karlan’:
We believe this lady is among the, if not tTHE most gracious, honest, fair-minded, stylish…and vivacious First Lady in American history!          dlh

“A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.” Melania Trump

0

0

• Fingers Joe
• Sloshed Nancy
• Shaky Amy

Our candidate Quid-Pro-Joe is requiring more and more diaper changes after each campaign appearance.  In Iowa yesterday a supposed Warren supporter (clearly not a Trumper givin the formation of his question)  asked him some pointed questions about his health and son Hunter.  Old Joe lost it.  Called him a damn liar about something the guy didn’t say but had referenced as an accusation in the media. That was one thing, but then let a subliminal thought come through.  His people denied it saying Old Joe was saying “facts” not calling the guy “fat”.  The best defense would have been: “Joe doesn’t do subliminal”.

Nevertheless look and listen closely at the minute plus 45 second mark on the linked “Damn Liar” video and judge for yourself.  Of course none of the dominant media will say Joe’s keepers are liars but they are. It was probably just a slip (a fun one like so many of Joe’s) but he did say it.

For a good measure of fun we also set forth a clip of Joe Bite Me (and he means it) chomping on his wife and along with that an older “butt buddy” remark (just to be mischievous and maybe draw Pete out to defend him).  And you know Six-Pack Joe is feeling a little desperate when he needs to bring in the old Nor’easter himself —   John Kerry. Joes peeps  are also working feverishly to get Jimmy Carter on board as Obama is still not budging (some would say waiting to anoint Michelle). Anyway their roster is shaping up to be very old, very white, plenty rich, and as far as sex determination,  well that is entirely fluid in there book so you shouldn’t notice.

Below these links about Crazy Joe are the Nancy and Amy shows along with everyone’s net-worth (in an earthly ontological sense the Democrats are all at zero).

You are a Damn Liar and Fat too!  – (first link)

Joe Biden Gets in Furious Argument With Man Challenging Him on Hunter, Ukraine: ‘You’re a Damn Liar!’  

Campaign Denies Joe Biden Called Iowa Voter ‘Fat’ in Viral Video

Joe Bites

Butt Buddy

Nancy Pelosie’s umbrage over a question which she falsely claimed was an accusation plays immediately after the You are a Damn Liar (and Fat too!) video above. Note her constantly slurred speech.

And what about Amy and the shakes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYnUoD1FUGw&feature=emb_logo

The Dems have a money problem – their candidates have too much and would be hard pressed to make a claim to being of the people (as if that could hurt Trump at this point who has done so much for the people).

Breaking Down The Net Worth Of Each 2020 Presidential Candidate 
Here is how the candidates rank, according to OpenSecrets.org, from the “have lots” to the “have nots”

• Michael Bloomberg: $53.4B
• Tom Steyer: $1.9B
• President Donald Trump: $1.7B
Then, there’s a steep drop off the money cliff. The multi-millionaires include:
• John Delaney: $200M
• Michael Bennett: $25.6M
• Elizabeth Warren: $11M
• Joe Biden: $8M
• Kamala Harris: $6M
Klobuchar reports a net worth up to $2.3 million, followed by:
• Andrew Yang: $2.2M
• Bernie Sanders: $1.8M
• Marianne Williamson: $1.5M
• Cory Booker: $1M
The least wealthy candidates:
• Tulsi Gabbard: $580,000
• Julian Castro: $509,000
• Pete Buttigieg: Below $166,000
The fact that Buttigieg is the poorest candidate of all hasn’t stopped him from raising more money on his own than almost any other candidate — with $51 million in contributions so far.

0

0

POPE FRANCIS, SPIRITUAL LEADER OF 2 BILLION CATHOLICS WORLDWIDE,
LAST WEEK VISITED JAPAN ON HIS JET… THE “NO ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ MALARKEY” SPECIAL (?) Our evaluations in red.

VISITS JAPAN, HITS FAMILIAR THEMES; DEPLORES U.S. FOR USE OF ATOMIC BOMBS TO END WWII

Fails to Mention Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Singapore, and the million lives saved with war’s end by invasion of Japan made unnecessary

Reminds Nations to be ‘welcoming’ to refugees and immigrants; Angers Many Japanese in Saying it Doesn’t take in Enough Immigrants!

Apparently Il Papa noticed that one can go throughout the nation of 127 million and not run into one Japanese citizen named Ahmed or Jose’…or Jorge

Francis indicates Japanese Need To “Change Their Attitude” Toward ‘Victims of Conflict’ Who’ve Experienced Hardships and Seek Refuge in Their Country .

Calls on All Nations To Get Rid of their Nuclear Weapons

We Think he would suggest that If Iran, Russia, No. Korea, China Refuse to, at least America should)

Reminded His Hosts that ‘Climate Change Bad!”; (Recall ‘Pachamama’ (Earth Mother) Was recently Honored at Vatican!)

Notable in our opinion is that Francis didn’t declare “Black Friday” a “Materialist’s Holy Day”…and ‘nothing but a crime..”

Pope Francis was at the ‘top of his game’ last week. He seemed to tear through Japan in his usual style, still believing he is a globally adored rock star, criticizing the US for its shortcomings in the Pontiff’s view, enraging many Japanese while flattering others who share his message.

Seems that Francis, as the first Pope to visit Japan in 38 years, was pretty free in his criticism of the country, having been invited to visit in 2014 by Prime Minister Abe.

At a youth Mass in Tokyo, Francis “appealed to” the Japanese people to “change their attitude toward”victims of conflict” and “be a more tolerant society showing respect for…(refugees)…who are coming looking for understanding and love.”

One media account noted that His Holiness has often clashed over immigration policy with US President Donald Trump and “populist anti-immigrant politicians in Europe”.

He also “scolded other countries” that “produce weapons for wars fought elsewhere and then refuse to take in refugees fleeing the very same conflicts”.

While Francis’s unsolicited ‘advice’ on immigration inspired some, some people criticized the Pope’s “pro-refugee” remarks on social media. One comment apparently gained a lot of traction, labelling his message “contradictory to Italy’s attitudes toward refugees”. Other reaction called a policy change on refugees “impossible”, saying Japan harbored a “negative image of refugees” and had no “adequate support system” for them. (A news account noted that Japan lacks “a strict refugee screening” needed to sort out the majority of “fake refugee” applicants.)

On the topic of nuclear weapons, the Pope “branded the use of nuclear weapons as ‘unethical’, saying nuclear power is ‘nothing but a crime’!

The Pope said he would like Japan to lead the way in denuclearization, as “the only country to suffer from nuclear bomb attacks”.

Comment: As a spiritual leader, the Pope’s theme of ‘peace” and elimination of horrific weapons of war is appropriate. However, as in many of his comments since becoming Pope, his remarks: “..use of nuclear weapons (is) unethical..” and “..nuclear power used for war is ‘nothing but a crime..’, we believe is not only aimed against America, but unfairly ignores the terrible context in which the United States used this weaponry against Japan!

These weapons were employed solely to end a war which engulfed the entire world in a terrible conflict at a cost of millions of lives, which was started by the country which ultimately suffered much. Had these weapons not been used, that awful war would have continued with the loss of many more lives…or, other non-nuclear measures to end it would have cost at least a million more lives lost! “Nothing but a crime”…?? We respectfully disagree, Your Holiness.

Wrapping up his 4 day visit, Reuters reported that Pope Francis turned from his “anti-nuclear message…backbone of his visit…to the “other key campaigns” of his Papacy. Most notably, he urged students “to defend the earth and show greater compassion…”

as in all of Francis’s comments, the implication it seems is always, ‘show more”, ‘be more’… conveying the message that “you’re not doing much, or, not nearly enough to suit me…”; maybe it’s just in the translation.

The Holy Father told students at Sophia University, one of only a handful of Catholic universities in Japan, that “technology is worthless” unless it is used to bring about a more humane and “simpler” society:

“For all the efficiency and order that mark Japanese society, I have sensed a yearning, too, for something greater: a profound desire to create an ever more humane, compassionate and merciful society,” he said in his last event before departing for Rome.
Noting that Asian cultures are known for their love of nature, he urged them to ” fight for the future of the earth, echoing the major encyclical he issued in 2015 making environmental protection a moral imperative.”

No Malarkey!       dlh

*has about as much necessary context as the criticism the Pope levels at others

0

0