We are the drain the swamp people

Outtakes that somehow didn’t make it into the movie

Just read the review of “The Two Popes”. . .  a “holiday-season bon-bon that humanizes its subjects decorously”.

From the write-up, you can bet it does . . .  though it seems to “humanize” one more so than the other.

And surprise! surprise! Guess which Pope benefits most from this Hollywood-contrived all out ‘sales job’  none other than one Jorge Mario Bergoglio . . . known by some as Pope Francis I

Judging from the film review by Joe Morgenstern in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, the Vatican’s public relations dept. couldn’t have done a more extravagant ‘puff piece’ of a movie than this one.

Morganstern even concedes that the film, “at first”, seems “heavily loaded in favor of Bergoglio and gentle liberalism” (from the critic’s account it appears that it is not just “at first” but rather completely throughout, this is a story of how wonderful Pope Francis is, and apparently, how “gentle” his ‘liberal’ agenda for the Church really is.  Consider this excerpt:

“Mr. Pryce (as Pope Francis) gives his character the warmth of a furnace fired by concern for ordinary people more than dogmatic faith, while the script foreshadows some of what we know of the current pope. This unassuming prince of the church has an infectious laugh; rolls his own rollaboard on and off commercial flights; rejoices in tango, pizza and soccer; whistles “Dancing Queen” in a men’s room in the Vatican. He insists that the church must deal with the scourge of clerical abuse.”

Still, Morganstern insists,

“the film is neither hagiography nor hatchet job. Bergoglio is no saint. The baggage he carries includes accusations of a close association with a brutally repressive military junta that ruled his country from 1976 to 1983. “I’m still seen as a divisive figure in Argentina…”

(Our observation, admittedly colored by our own general dislike for the current Pope, is that at least in Morgenstern’s account of the film, the examples of Pope Benedict’s base of “popularity” is pretty thin.)

Lest his review that strongly paints Bergoglio as the slightly flawed heroic figure of the story and Benedict as the stuffy, arch conservative, who “sees change as compromise resulting from weakness’, and who “deplores everything about the ‘rumpled, genial” Bergoglio, turns off potential ticket-buyers, Mr. Morgenstern concludes with, “but the film plays the truly magic trick of bringing these firmly entrenched antagonists together as friends—old men who share a tragic sense of life, good men who finally do come to reconciliation through fond and spirited debate. “

So, get your ticket now and see this movie. You’ll come out of it looking for the nearest “climate change protest march” to be found, and where you can sign on to the “New Green Deal”!      dlh

*********************************************************************************

P.S. Just to help make what we believe is the point of this film, we offer these excerpts. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions:

“Controversial issues are covered with brisk precision—wealth inequality is particularly dear to the Argentine’s heart. One can question the specifics of Benedict’s rationale in reaching out to Bergoglio; it’s an invention that sometimes feels like a contrivance. But the film plays the truly magic trick of bringing these firmly entrenched antagonists together as friends—old men who share a tragic sense of life, good men who finally do come to reconciliation through fond and spirited debate.

“The story finds room for love—it’s what Bergoglio feels, as a parish priest, for his parishioners; it’s what he once felt for a young woman when he was young too. We’re privy to that in affecting flashbacks to his youth, and to the dark years he spent working, and politicking, in the junta’s shadow. For all its substance and verbal elegance, “The Two Popes” is a grand spectacle—the production was designed by Mark Tildesley and photographed by César Charlone —with an expansive world view. That’s echoed by a soundtrack ranging from the Beatles through Thelonious Monk to Mercedes Sosa, with bandoneon voicings at moments of yearning and strains of “Nobody Knows the Troubles I’ve Seen” accompanying the two men’s visit to an empty Sistine Chapel. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to see the whole film as a love story that ends in a tango.”

0

0

Thanksgiving day in so many ways is about freedom.  Pilgrims came here seeking it.  It was officially recognized in the midst of the Civil War, a fight about freedom. To be sure it is mostly about thankfulness for the abundance we have received as a nation and as families and individually, from God’s grace.  It also reflects humility — gratefulness in spite of tribulations.

As with Columbus Day – America haters want to denigrate the day, disparaging pretty much everything about the remembrance as exploitative, racist, stultifyingly religious, even murderous.

Well in anticipation of a delightful feast and not wanting to sit down with residual indigestion, we will leave the pithy responses to the day’s detractors and kill-joys to three columnists at Townhall.  They no doubt wrote their commentaries yesterday in order to avoid the same problem or not have to think of the nincompoops this day.

Kurt Schlichter is always good for a palliative purge

I Am Thankful For Many Things, Especially The Things That Make Stupid People Sad

Derek Hunter, in a similar vein helps clear the palate

Things to Be Thankful For

And from Ann Coulter, who can issue some overripe gratuitous comments, nevertheless we thank for setting forth a little reminder as to why the Pilgrims were thankful for their scalps that first Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving for Dummies…Sorry, I Mean College Professors

Happy Thanksgiving from V’PAC

0

0

Two articles to remind us of the condescending, oblivious, self-centered nature of the Presidential Obamanation.  Links sent thanks to  TN .  Our brief comments follow each.

From the Daily Caller:

Former President Barack Obama reportedly told a visitor that President Donald Trump “knows absolutely nothing” after the two met at the White House in 2016.

Obama and his small staff had to deal with “a crazy president personally obsessed with Obama” after Trump won in 2016, Politico reported Tuesday. The former president has gradually become more vocal against Trump since the election, but appears to have privately voiced concerns throughout Trump’s tenure.

“He [Trump] knows absolutely nothing,” Obama reportedly said after one White House meeting.

Obama “held out hope” for a traditional relationship as past and current president, Obama’s first post-presidential press secretary Kevin Lewis said, according to Politico. However, Trump’s policies and apparent attacks of the former president forced Obama’s hand.

“He [Obama] wanted to be a resource,” according to Lewis. “What we didn’t expect at the level that it was done were the attacks.” (RELATED: Joe Biden’s Campaign Strategy Has Focused On Attacking Trump, Association With Obama)

“What do you do?” Lewis continued, recalling a moment where the president tweeted out that Obama had wiretapped him in Trump Tower. “He [Obama] desperately wanted to adhere to the precedent but it was an unprecedented moment. So we focused more on addressing the lie than talking about Trump’s character.”

The former president is looking forward to sparking a campaign against Trump in 2020, according to one close adviser. More specifically, Obama is expected to be partisan and offer his full opinion on the current president, Politico added.

Two quick thoughts — the above information can be taken one of two ways — or both.

Many might presume the words “knows absolutely nothing” are Obama saying Trump is an ignoramus or something. Of course Trump’s record even then established that he is a very astute negotiator/ political tactician. It is also clear now that he is a rarity in politics – one who tries to fulfill his campaign promises and has been especially successful at his over-arching promise to make America great again – economically and working to protect our sovereignty. Trump has been restorative, corrective and protective. He has done much in spite of the media, largely his enemy

Obama was a transformational president and to a great extent fulfilling in his purposes — working to remake America — change “we” can believe in. However he went about things not liking America – intent on undermining America, particularly its healthcare and to make people dependent on government in general, undermining our  sovereignty, our economic welfare, our cultural standards and more.  He was a liar about much of it along the way – “keep your doctor” in particular comes to mind  – and used subterfuge when he wasn’t bullying, including the rankest race-baiting to get what he wanted. Obama would have succeeded at little (including election) except for the media – it covered for him and promoted him.

The other way the statement can be taken is that Obama was saying Trump suspected nothing (at that time) of their spying and all matters in the works to illegally subvert him.

The second link/reminder — Obama: “I Can Do Any Job Better Than the People I Hire to Do It”  Via The Gateway pundit;

Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot reported:

Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

This implies this know-it-all is directly to blame for pretty much everything.

0

0

We have heard the denunciation from the left about Trump supporters, referring to us as a cult because nothing THEY say affects our support.  Seriously half the nation is in a cult? OK, but that makes knee jerk liberals one crazed group of SOBs

We have decided to embrace it and if tee-shirts and other identifying memorabilia are available – we’re in!

Via Gary Bauer: at Campaign for Working families

Who’s In A Cult?

The media are furious that Trump’s conservative base won’t crack and abandon the president.  So, now they are referring to Trump supporters as a “cult-like group.” because, after all, who wants to be in a cult? 
 
Once again, the left is trying to demonize conservatives.  You’ve been called “deplorable and irredeemable.”  You’ve been called “Nazis,” “bigots” and “alt-right.”  Now you’re members of a cult.
 
Describing half the country as a cult is really rich.  But I can think of all kinds of things on the left that are cult-like. 
 
The transgender movement denies science and demands that all of society bend to its wishes by insisting that we call some men “women” or vice versa.  And if you don’t think that “men” can have babies, these so-called “progressives” insist that you should lose your job.
 
While millions of people are concerned about the environment, the cult of climate change is a religion to many on the left.  Like the doomsday cultists of recent years, they are constantly telling us when the world will end, usually in 12 years.  And yet all of their alarmist predictions have been wildly wrong.  Why do we keep listening to these people?! 
 
Again, my friends, it’s not just that the left hates Donald Trump.  The left hates YOU and everything you stand for.  Wear that hatred as a badge of honor, but never forget what the left intends to do if it regains power in 2020.

0

0

AOC’S SUPPORT IN N Y’S 14TH DISTRICT COLLAPSES AS NEW OPPONENT ENTERS RACE**

CONAN THE WAR DOG WILL FACE THE COMMUNIST WUNDERKIND IN 2020

Decorated War Dog Will Retire From Army — Special Forces Operations Detachment- Delta – (SFOD-D)  to Run for Congress; Generally Conceded that the new Entry in 2020 Races is Smarter Than Most Of the Dem Caucus

Keeping with K-9 jargon Conan Supporters Open Campaign With the Slogan, ‘He can beat that B—h !’

Vowing to tell the truth and never hump your leg, Conan will be going door to door throughout the district and marking those unanswered for a future visit.

Little known true fact* — Most people in this country either don’t like her or just don’t know her, (it’s an either or) but now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s popularity among her home constituency in New York’s 14th District has also collapsed!*

Fifty-two percent of the freshman congresswoman’s registered constituents in The Bronx and the north-central portion of Queens had viewed her favorably, compared to 33 percent who view her unfavorably, according to November poll from the Selena Memorial Research Institute (coincidently same place AOC got her economics degree). That result has now turned upside down with the Conan announcement. Ocasio-Cortez is now viewed unfavorably by 55%.

*when initials by your name count

**or not, as this is all fake news (other than the part about Conan being smarter than the average Democrat)

Via Roll Call:
“Fifty-nine percent of voters [in the Sienna poll] say that they are proud to have Ocasio-Cortez representing the district, and 61 percent agree that while many of her ideas on the economy, climate or healthcare may not become law soon, they think she is moving us towards a more fair and just society,” Don Levy, the poll’s director, said in a statement.
Levy cited widespread popularity for Ocasio-Cortez’s policy positions — free tuition at public colleges across the country, a ban on assault weapons, a federal guarantee of a job that pays a living wage and “Medicare for all” — as a factor that could be boosting the freshman firebrand.

Pollsters from Sienna College conducted the survey by telephone in both English and Spanish between March 31 and April 4, reaching 607 registered voters. The poll has an overall margin of error of +/- 4.3 percentage points, including the design effects resulting from weighting.

While her own constituents tend to view Ocasio-Cortez favorably, most people across the country do not take kindly to the self-described Democratic Socialist from New York, a March Quinnipiac University poll found.

Less than a quarter — 23 percent — view her favorably nationwide, compared to 36 percent who view her unfavorably. Thirty-eight percent said they haven’t heard enough about the New York Democrat to form an opinion about her.

“All is definitely not A-OK for AOC. Most voters either don’t like the firebrand freshman Congresswoman or don’t know who she is,“ said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

0

0

The last paragraph of this article at Liberty Nation by James Fite is of interest

The Story Continues …
Sunday’s ouster, however, does not conclude this tale. The White House informed the Navy Sunday that they would not be interfering in the Gallagher review. It’s entirely possible that Gallagher – and three officers who oversaw him on this last deployment – could have their Trident pins revoked. Losing their pins doesn’t mean they can’t remain in the Navy, but it does mean they’re no longer SEALs. Gallagher feels the review is a direct reaction to Trump restoring his rank. “They could have taken my Trident at any time they wanted,” he said on Fox & Friends. “Now they’re trying to take it after the president restored my rank.” If he can survive this review rank intact, Gallagher plans to retire November 30.

So, the White House, if this is correct, while insuring the integrity of the review with the sacking of Spencer, is not standing in the way of a review. Read the rest of the article, but please in companion with the RedState and Townhall articles (and their links) we have referred to previously in the string of related posts.  They provide important background from fellow SF operatives including about the rules of engagement in intense circumstances, and that Gallagher’s accusers had been disciplined by him.  Chief Gallagher was SEAL of the Year 2017 the very year he was accused of atrocities – his full team and commanders thought well of him.      dlh

0

0

• Remember when the liberal media hounded John Kerry about his statements regarding his combat performance in Vietnam?
• Neither do we  (please reference previous post)

No one I’ve seen yet has compared CPO Eddie Gallagher’s service history and combat experiences to those of Lt. John Kerry in the Vietnam War.  Strange.

In only 4 months in theater, LtCJG Kerry received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts (lucky enough to have not lost a day’s service because of his wounds).

Although there is controversy surrounding the event in which Kerry received the Silver Star, the action that most critics and supporters alike agree on is that Kerry’s boat was threatened by a VC armed with a shoulder-fired B-40 rocket launcher; the VC was wounded, however, before being able to fire, was then ‘chased down’ by Kerry and shot (executed? Some difference of opinion on this). Other points of disagreement include whether the VC was a “teenager”, whether his rocket launcher was unarmed, and a few other details, some significant, others not so much.

Whichever side one comes down on CPO Gallagher’s case, there are some unanswered questions. Some of the most important details, however, it seems have been released. Gallagher’s combat record is fairly well known and seems to have been honorable with the possible controversial matter still controversial.

A comparison of the Navy Seal’s record to that of Swift Boat commander Kerry, to us, however, seems almost laughable. If an exhaustive investigation into the Gallagher case was justified, the total absence of one in Kerry’s entire ‘4 months in Vietnam’ would seem to warrant one, given significant differences in accounts by the people who were there. For the critical account of Kerry’s record, “Unfit for Command” documents the case. Supporters of Kerry will go to opposing accounts in Snopes, Wikipedia, and the liberal media.

Anybody have an opinion on this topic?     dlh

0

0

We wonder — Old Joe Biden must miss being able to nuzzle a wife of Secretary of Defense

GOOD FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ESPER

We believe our readers would be interested in what some of our Quad Cities area war veterans are thinking about CPO Gallagher’s case developments.

Accordingly we ask that those of our readers and non-regular readers who have first hand experience in combat conditions, whether in the Vietnam war, the current conflicts in Iraq, Syria, or wherever, weigh in on this important topic, here at Veritaspac.

If you wish your identity will not be revealed. (But we ask that those responding to this invitation, have the prescribed experiences).

Please, give us the benefit of your own experiences as they relate to what is known in the Gallagher case and the events surrounding it. Who is right? What do you think the upshot, byproducts, or consequences of the resolution of this case brings?            dlh

————————————————————————————————

Initial reaction was this forward, a Kurt Schlichter article at Townhall, sent favorably,  from a person meeting the criterion.

The article is compelling and gives some background along the way definitely favorable toward Gallagher’s  acquittal  on the most serious charges, disparaging of the perfumed- prince Admirals miffed over being put in their place.  “Classic” Kurt Schlichter.

Fire the Admirals to Encourage the Others

Much of the reportage has been confusing or unclear about the purpose of  Secretary of Defense Esper firing Secretary of the Navy Spencer when perhaps at a superficial level it was over Spencer trying to work out a win-win that included allowing certain admirals who attempted to keel-haul Gallagher to save face while giving Trump the result he wanted with Gallagher. But it required Trump to blink and ignore shenanigans not to mention rule #1 as regards the military as per the Constitution – the President is commander in chief.

So reading more we see it was important that Spencer be fired to ACTUALLY preserve the good order and discipline of the Navy (and by example the entire US military).

Here is the basic story (excerpts via Daily Wire)

The Trump administration fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer on Sunday for a “lack of candor” in the handling of the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was acquitted of charges earlier this year accusing him of shooting civilians, murdering a captive ISIS terrorist, and threatening Navy SEALs who reported him.

As previously noted by The Daily Wire, “Gallagher ‘was convicted of one charge: bringing discredit to the armed forces by posing for photos with the teenage captive’s dead body,’ The New York Times reported. ‘Last Friday, Mr. Trump reversed that demotion, angering Navy officials, including the commander of the SEALs, Rear Adm. Collin Green, who had little choice but to accept the reversal. Nonetheless, they continued with their plans to eject Chief Gallagher from the unit.’”

Spencer went around the back of Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper in privately talking to White House officials, proposing “that if they did not interfere with proceedings against Gallagher, then Spencer would ensure that Gallagher was able to retire as a Navy SEAL, with his Trident insignia,” The Washington Post reported.

Spencer’s actions led to Esper demanding his resignation on Sunday, which was promptly received.

The U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement: “After Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley spoke with the Commander in Chief on Friday regarding the case of Gallagher, Secretary Esper learned that Secretary Spencer had previously and privately proposed to the White House — contrary to Spencer’s public position — to restore Gallagher’s rank and allow him to retire with his Trident pin. When recently asked by Secretary Esper, Secretary Spencer confirmed that despite multiple conversations on the Gallagher matter, Secretary Esper was never informed by Secretary Spencer of his private proposal.”    . . .

Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin wrote on Twitter: “In the end Navy Secretary Richard Spencer was not fired for standing up for military justice but for dishonesty and undermining the military justice system, according to a senior US official. He was fired for ‘lack of candor.’”

Here is the back story

With the benefit of have read analysis at RedState and others (articles linked below) we fill in the blanks,  surmising in part.

1) The key things to keep in mind is that THE PRESIDENT is commander in chief of the armed forces PERIOD.

In appears that elements of the Navy brass (Obama holdovers)  were trying to make an example of Gallagher and in their zeal the prosecutors they picked violated basic fairness rights (even for the UCMJ) .

Gallagher was found innocent of the most onerous charges but guilty of  the “bringing discredit  ” charge for which they were going to throw the book at him, in part to spite Trump and his policy of changing the rules of engagement as he had promised when running for election (the Department of Defense had already altered them under Trump’s directive).

They were embarrassed by the revelations and trial result but wanted their pound of flesh and to thumb their noses at Trump while wrapping themselves in the “good order and discipline” BS they were blatantly violating themselves.

They were intent on shaming Gallagher and showing who is in charge by removing the honored SEAL designation /decoration from him and giving him the maximum penalty for the offense and or reduction in rank.

It was clearly conveyed (and no Admiral has any excuse to the contrary about clarity)  that Trump did not want any spite leveled at Gallagher by the top brass.

The Secretary of the Navy who answers directly to the Secretary of Defense who answers directly to Trump came up with a scheme to help the Admirals save face and in his mind abide by Trumps intentions for Gallagher.

It was to basically have a hearing with preordained results surrounding Gallagher’s punishment for the “bringing discredit” charge. The results were to be that he would keep his rating, his rank and be allowed to retire.  Well of course that is not how “hearings” if there is integrity to them are to be conducted.  The upside for the admirals was face-saving as in they get to hang their hats on maintaining good order and discipline in appearance although the hearing was to have a preordained result and in ignoring Trumps wishes, thumb their noses at Trump.

Navy Secretary Spencer went around Secretary of Defense Esper (his boss) directly to to White house to get this done (though he had several opportunities to propose it to Esper).  Esper found out from the White House about it and cashiered Spencer we assume with the White House’s OK.

Anyway, this guy Spencer was apparently pretty well entrenched with the establishment,  and this was seen as a way of maintaining their expectations of deference. Trump saw it differently as did it appears, Esper. It was obstinance by the Admirals, lack of candor by the Navy Secretary and they needed to be put in their place.

Enough of the P.C. B.S. About Chief Eddie Gallagher! 

Former SecNav Richard Spencer’s Resignation Letter Is a Dumpster Fire and There Is a Bigger Mess That Needs Cleaning 

Reading these commentaries you will be astounded at how egregiously Eddie Gallagher and his family were treated by the military judicial system including the NCIS.

0

0

Need some good reasons for conservatives to help “Pathetic Joe” get the Democratic Party’s nomination?

Just when things were getting dicey here in Iowa for ol’ Quid Pro Joe,  what with the Mayor of South Park Bend taking the lead, Joe steps out with some really useful announcements.

Biden says endorsements from Tom and Christie Vilsack ‘gigantic’ boost 

Still another great development:

Joe Biden says Stacey Abrams, Sally Yates could be potential VP picks while speaking in Iowa

Name-dropping Stacey Abrams notwithstanding, conventional Democrat wisdom (stop laughing) says that if Joe Bite Me wants to put this away all he needs is an endorsement from Jesse Jackson, the original rainbow guy (except as far as we now he was hetero all the way).  They say he can lock up the Black vote and have cover for more gaffs about his own “blackness’ or whatever.

Now as we have maintained for some time,  Sleepy Joe is our guy for the Democrat nomination.  If you need some “reasons” just soak up what his PR people maintain about his broad appeal and how well prepared he is (STOP laughing). We have our own reasons but lets not quibble and just unite in support.

We are even thinking of going to Rino Republicans and asking them to consider caucusing for Cossack Joe.  It would give them an opportunity to be at home and unite with allies in opposition to a common enemy. It should not be a leap as they are constantly admonishing GOP leadership to be bi-partisan.

To add to the momentum necessary the good news is that Joe is paying canvassers.  The bad news is that with such low unemployment under President Trump we know that getting good help will be difficult.  So in order to be as helpful to the cause and insure the most effective outreach we recommend that the help-wanted notices should be focused on a pool of Democrats who have already had their shots and their gag reflex nerves removed. The Nigerian Prince’s representatives;  the “this is your last chance to lower your interest payment” people; the folks who will “arrange for a free back brace for you”  and last but not least the car warranty extension folks come to mind. You can’t say no to these people (or take me off your list) and have them give up.

0

0