Red flag actual political violence when it occurs, not guns

  • Take perps off the streets for their history of political violence
  • Too cowardly for a gunfight anyway (Col. Colt made people equal – can’t have that) so they go for the sucker punch*
  • If they have guns send the guns to a good home
  • Appeals court judge issues sound equal justice ruling (highlighted in red)

Appeals Court Judge Says Not So Fast on Pathetic 30-Day Sentence for Rand Paul’s Politically Motivated Attacker


Here’s the first guy who should get “red flagged”. He’s obviously unstable, has anger issues, and has already blatantly attacked a  living symbol (a sitting U S Congressman) of America’s democracy!

Contrary to the punchlines of late-night comics, the attack that Rand Paul suffered back in 2017 when his neighbor tackled him over landscaping disagreements was not funny at all. The crime left Paul with major complications including recurring bouts of pneumonia after damage to his lungs, and multiple surgeries including a partial lung removal and corrective surgery on a hernia. It isn’t a stretch to say that Senator Paul could have died. The attack was severe and the damage has been long-lasting.

U.S. District Judge Marianne Battani was the sentencing judge who opined that the attack was “dispute between neighbors” and claimed it was not motivated by politics. She took into consideration that Boucher was a veteran, involved in community service, a church-goer with college degrees and an advanced medical career to impose the light sentence. Unfortunately for her, the appeals judge, Judge Jane B. Stranch, disagreed, saying those facts are “almost all disfavored as grounds for a below-guidelines sentence.” Then she hit the defense with jaw-dropping rationale, not often seen in our courts.

“To prioritize a defendant’s education, professional success and standing in the community would give an additional leg up to defendants who are already in a privileged position…Indigent defendants are less likely to impress a sentencing court with their education, employment record or local reputation. But they are no less deserving of a reasonable and compassionate sentence.”

We think the ruling sound as regards below-guidelines sentencing, prior convictions are another matter.

Next candidates for “red flag” sanctions? every member of the violent ‘Antifa’ organization…(talk about ‘mental instability’ and ‘anger issues’!)      DLH

Note these two were faced by a mob of young punk Antifa. One Antifa punk, figuring the rest had his back and would pile on, took a swing. We only wish the “Repent” fellow, who did cock his arm but held back, had imparted a more pointed lesson.  Thanks to HP for the vid subject.   R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Terrorists keep reminding us why we must never forget

  • Today — No loss of life on this occasion
  • KK sends this Western Journalism report
  • See 18th anniversary  commemorations below

US Embassy in Afghanistan Attacked on 9/11 Anniversary

“911” 2019 anniversary attack by Taliban on US Embassy in Kabul

Minutes after midnight on Wednesday, a rocket blast shook the United States Embassy in Afghanistan.

The attack, which fell on the eighteenth anniversary of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., sent a sizable plume of smoke into the air over the Afghan capital of Kabul, The Associated Press reported.

The outlet reported that loud sirens could be heard from the scene and embassy employees were briefed on the attack via loudspeaker announcement which said, “An explosion caused by a rocket has occurred on compound.”

Within an hour it was determined that there were no casualties from the explosion and an all-clear was given.

The AP also indicated this was the first major attack in the city since President Donald Trump called off peace talks with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Taliban leaders at Camp David.

Related link

Trump officially called off those secret peace talks Saturday in a tweet, NPR reported, saying the death of a U.S. serviceman in Taliban-orchestrated car bombings that killed 12 in Kabul last week, pushed him away from the negotiating table.

“[T]he major Taliban leaders were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday,” Trump wrote.

“They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to.. an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people,” he added. “I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations.

“What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?”

….an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? They didn’t, they….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2019
RELATED: Trump Sends 9/11 Warning to Taliban, Vows To ‘Use Power the Likes of Which the United States Has Never Used Before’ if Necessary

….only made it worse! If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2019

According to analysts both within the State Department and the media, some manner of violent response was expected in light of this breakdown in peaceful negotiation.

Trump has been attempting for some time to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and end America’s longest-running military conflict.

This week’s Sept. 11 anniversary also increased cause for concern, as attacks by Islamic terrorists have been known to be carried out against the U.S. and its interests on the date — often in celebration of the largest act of Islamic extremism in world history.

One such attack was carried out on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia attacked a U.S. Consulate and a CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, killing three American servicemen and an ambassador.

This is a developing story. The Western Journal will update this report if and when new information is released.

And to the service men and women who were deployed, and those who died and were injured bringing the fight to the enemy.    V’PAC

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Afghanistan meeting — What’s the big deal?

Tally Mon /  Taliban, whatever, you would think even ol’ Harry would get behind an effort at peace

“Secret meeting”  Trump

“Confidential diplomacy” – Obama

“come Mister Taliban tally me banana

day light come and me wanna go home

come Mister Taliban tally me banana

day light come and me wanna go home

day-o day-o

day light come and me wanna go home”

What’s the big deal, we ask?

– Trump arranges a ‘secret meeting’ with Taliban representatives at Camp David; the purpose, of course, is to seek a just end to a war which has taken so many lives over the last 18 years or so.

– He cancels it at virtually the last minute because of the Taliban’s stubborn, evil
tendencies…the continued murder of American service personnel and innocent civilians!

– The media, upon learning of the then cancelled ‘secret meeting’ musters its usual high dudgeon, outraged that:

a) there was a top level national security/foreign policy meeting that Rachel Maddow and Jim Costa didn’t know about!

b) Taliban representatives were to tread the hallowed ground of Camp David (rumored that Jerold Nadler has already subpoenaed records to verify an allegation that Camp David is a Trump property)

c) the meeting was to have occurred on virtually the eve of 9/11!

d) and any other of the assorted reasons, rumors, excuses, complaints, etc that media, Democrats, Never Trumpers, and various DC Establishment figures have attempted to use in the past to paint the president as ‘evil’, as a spy for various foreign governments, as a violator of the Constitution’s “emoluments clause”, as a tax dodger, as a………..

We’ve learned that Condoleeza Rice did not approve of the meeting, the site, or the timing.

It was possibly the main reason John Bolton was fired as Trump’s third National Security advisor.

But nowhere did I hear anyone in the media, congress, or anywhere else attempt any comparison of Trump’s effort to get an agreement to end the war in Afghanistan to the Obama regime’s several “secret meetings” with Iran. The former president arranged to, also secretly, help the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism finance its global terrorist activities, add to the long list of American military personnel the mullahs have killed, and, without Constitutionally required Senate ratification, conclude an “agreement” which obligated the entire world to help Iran get nuclear weapons.

As to where is the best place to seek an agreement to end a long and unproductive war might be, or the most appropriate date to do so…perhaps President Trump should sponsor a contest in which Ms. Rice, Mr. Bolton, and assorted Democrats and media figures could submit their ideas.   DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

What is behind Drudge constant “negative sensationalism” about Trump?

  • AKA calumny

Check out how Drudge presents the news about Bolton leaving his position. (screen capture from my phone)

It seems any characterization that can be had that would impune Trump is trumpeted.

When we read the article, which was positioned at top of picture as an active link to Mediaite the word lie is not used by Bolton. Indeed the word lie does not appear in the Mediaite article except as the headline — but why would Drudge trumpet it so matter-of-factly, without quotations, when it is characterization by a leftist rag?  It is not as if Drudge does not make it a practice to impart his own verbiage for now tiresome sensational purposes whenever he wants to?  Mediate would not be an authority on the inner workings of the White House nor a go to place for Bolton’s confidences.

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Trump’s “HUGE” understatement: Paris Climate Accord a “Bad deal”

No Mordecai Jones is he

  • Others calling Obama’s attempt to sell the accord to the country a flimflam is an insult to the integrity of flimfammery
  • It was a lie on the scale of “you can keep your doctor”

Donald Trump is not the only one to describe the Paris Climate Change Accord as a “bad deal” for the United States.

Objective observers, those few there are, could not possibly deny it!

But, how bad a deal was it…few American voters realized. This was not only a ‘bad deal’, this was a model of misrepresentation, duplicity, and treachery more blatant than any international “agreement”, probably in all of history (a final determination of ‘the worst’, however, must await close and honest analysis of the Iran Nuclear Agreement.)

So, how bad was it?:

– Naturally, not widely reported, the Paris Agreement was not intended to address “climate change”. It was an international ‘bait and switch’ swindle , primarily aimed at the United States taxpayer.

– As the N.Y. Post reported, in its story* on the Democrats’ “climate change debate” earlier this month:

“The preamble to the Paris Agreement alone tells you this is at heart a social engineering project, aimed at remaking the capitalist economies of the West.

“Signatories must “respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.”

– 193 countries signed on to this “agreement**. The vast majority agreed to cut their carbon emissions…if they received $$cash$$ for doing so.

As examples, (Via Washington Times)

– Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.

– North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. (Its pollution will thus increase more if it doesn’t get the check.)

– Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its “business as usual” projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.**

– …the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding… !!! At least $420 billion has been formally requested under countries’ submissions to the Paris agreement…!!!!!

– The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions at least 26 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels…AND to pay $3 billion in the first year of the pact for the privilege! (When the Obama administration finalized the agreement in December 2015, it committed $3 billion to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, which is meant to help countries meet their targets.)

– Thanks to the generosity of Barack Obama, on behalf of US taxpayers, the US gave $1 billion before Trump came into office.

– U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance….and whom do you expect will be called upon to “share its vast wealth for this worthy project”, far more than any other nation, hmm?

Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance.


Washington Times:
– “…for many that remain in the accord, the demands for cash are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement, at its core, is as much about redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate change.

Supporters of the deal routinely point out that 193 countries have signed on. Although that is technically true, the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding — or, in many cases, both.

“Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact.” **

Biggest “surprise” reaction (not really) to President Trump pulling out of the “climate accord” comes from Open Borders advocate, anti-US, anti-capitalism, wealth redistributionist, Pope Francis, who “expressed dismay… at US president Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw from the Paris climate deal.”!

“Absent Senate ratification, Obama’s climate pledges to the United Nations are just administration proposals, not commitments of the United States”.  It is probably not necessary to remind readers that Obama bypassed the Senate in violation of the Constitution’s requirements that major treaties are subject to ratification by two-thirds vote of the U S Senate. In his uniquely “cute” style, Obama unilaterally ‘decided’ that the Paris Climate Accord wasn’t really a major international treaty…it was “just an agreement”…like the Chicago fire was intended to toast a few S’mores.

The unbelievably misleading nature of this agreement, the damage to the US economy and the burden it would have imposed on American taxpayers, and the manner in which it was intended to obligate the US, bypassing required Senate ratification, is an alarming reflection on the Obama administration.

We believe it raises legitimate questions about Barack Obama’s true intentions. Could he have possibly believed that this agreement was, in any way, negotiated in the best interests of America…and for that matter, the world?!

We say, “Of course not!” Barack Obama’s motives in this, as in many other things he did, appear to be much darker, and much more intentionally harmful to this country than most Americans believe.


(Note: If you already knew all of the above facts about the Paris Climate Accord, you are certainly a well-read “political junkie”. It is our contention that a lot of this information has not been widely disseminated by the liberal media. Consequently, we believe, that too many Americans are not aware of what an incredibly bad deal President Trump rescued our nation from.)


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Pictorial Interlude

“Meme”orializing a few items of recent or ongoing import

Joe Biden has been telling a fake war story on the campaign trail for years


Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

DLH: Still predicting Michele will be the Dems’ ‘great white hope’

  • Michelle Obama running n 2020 is the the great hope of many white liberals
  • But would her running make any difference as to the outcome?

David Catron is a respected and well-informed writer for The Spectator, a “conservative” publication.

We are neither.

He has a different opinion regarding Michelle Obama running in 2020 — that she won’t (and why).

Nevertheless it has been our contention since the first 20 or so Democrats announced their aspiration to be the 46th president of the United States, that the Democratic Party would eventually come to the conclusion that none of them could inspire a majority of the electorate to vote for any one of them instead of Donald Trump, whether an electoral college still existed or not,

Thus, we have long opined that, at some point prior to the Democrat National convention next summer, the folks who run the Democratic Party, that would be the Mainstream Media, rich Hollywood nutcases, assorted socialists, communists, and anarchists, the faculties of most colleges in America, and certain unions (like the teachers’ and federal employees’), would realize that fact, and in terror and total arrogance, turn to their one true hero, er, heroine.

In their minds(?) who but ‘best selling’ authoress, the entire nation’s darling, Oprah’s pick, the person who hates America and its traditions, values, history, and philosophical underpinnings even more than they do or even “Barack the Great”, has already won the hearts of Americans, and would easily beat President Trump??

And, despite Mr. Catron’s and the views of many other Republicans and conservatives, it is our humble opinion that those folks would make their plaintive appeal to “Her Highness” and her vast ego would not permit her to reject her admirer’s fervent need and would consent to be America’s ruler!

Michele will graciously accept the Democratic nomination!

And, for only the second time in her adult life, Mrs. (Robinson) Obama would be proud of America!     DLH

Below is Catron’s article followed by three that indicate  her support is substantial and maybe compelling.

Why Michelle Obama Won’t Run in 2020

Trump would beat her badly.

The Democrats are clearly losing confidence that their declared presidential candidates can beat President Trump in 2020. They tout polls showing that any of their top four candidates would win the general election were it held now, but only the most naïve take such hypothetical matchups seriously. Moreover, they can see that their leading candidate is so fuddled that he frequently forgets his talking points and even where he is on a given day, while his competitors are so far left of the mainstream that Trump would trounce them. This is why so many on the left have turned their desperate eyes to Michelle Obama.

Over the weekend, Steve Lopez wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times titled, “Michelle Obama for president. The only one who can beat Trump?” Lopez suggests that many Democratic voters whose support for people like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders is decidedly tepid might be far more motivated if Mrs. Obama would run. In early August, Michael Moore declared, “There is one person that would crush Trump and she hasn’t announced yet and her last name rhymes with Obama.” But the porcine provocateur almost certainly overestimates the former first lady’s prospects. Trump would probably defeat her.

There is a reason why, to further paraphrase Simon & Garfunkel, she has left and gone away. Michelle Obama may look around and see sympathetic eyes, but she learned something from the Clinton debacle that people like Lopez and Moore failed to grasp. Part of the reason she’s relatively popular is that she has betrayed no interest in climbing the greasy pole to public office. In the past, when she has insinuated herself into day-to-day politics, it hasn’t gone particularly well. Many voters still remember divisive comments like the following: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

When she made that bitter remark, she and her husband had already achieved breathtaking success. Should Mrs. Obama run for president, Donald Trump won’t hesitate to remind the voters that she still views the U.S. as a nation of racists, even after its voters ignored her husband’s color and elected him to its highest office. Trump would have plenty of ammunition, including one of the strangest interviews ever given by a President and First Lady. In December of 2014, they sat down with Sandra Sobieraj Westfall for a People interview during which Mrs. Obama described herself as a victim of racism:

I tell this story — I mean, even as the first lady — during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new.

She is so solipsistic and splenetic that she reflexively assumed the request was an example of racism. Michelle Obama is nearly six feet tall. A much less paranoid explanation is that “the woman in the case” was unable to reach a high shelf. Would such a trivial event still be on the mind of any normal person years later? Michelle Obama carries around a large chip on her shoulder. During the interview she said, “I think people forget that we’ve lived in the White House for six years. Before that, Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the South Side of Chicago, who had his share of trouble catching cabs.”

This is hardly the upbeat, hopeful tone that characterized her husband’s first campaign. Another point Trump is likely to raise about a potential Michelle Obama presidency is what could be called “the Lurleen factor.” If you are now frowning at the screen, here’s the story: In 1966 Alabama governor George Wallace was unable to succeed himself pursuant to a provision of the state constitution. Wallace arranged to have his wife, Lurleen, run for the office and she won. Because Wallace made the decisions during his wife’s administration, he successfully circumvented a pesky constitutional provision.

President Trump and his campaign team can make a credible case that electing Michelle Obama to the presidency would likewise circumvent the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by effectively reelecting Barack Obama to a third term. If Michelle Obama does run, Trump will inevitably ask the voters if they want to go back to the “new normal.” This question will be raised just as the results of the investigations into Obama administration skullduggery involving Russiagate are coming out. These probes will likely reveal facts that will render the voters less than anxious to see the Obamas return.

Mrs. Obama claims “there’s zero chance” that she will run. She clearly believes there is life after the White House, and has definite plans to “make a difference” in the future. Nonetheless, she insists that “sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office will never be one of them.” That sounds sensible, but there will continue to be calls for her to bail out the Democrats and save the country from President Trump. When the pressure mounts for her to run, she will take a look at the last candidate who was a sure bet to beat him — Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama has a good life. It’s not likely that she wants to end up like that.


Doug Schoen in Sep 2017 (link)

It cannot be overstated how eagerly the Democrats want to take back the White House in 2020.

The Democrats face many obstacles in this effort, but the greatest threat is the fierce internal divisions within the party.

Two of the leading prospective presidential candidates, Sens. Kamala Harris(D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have begun national fundraising operations. Former Vice President Joe Biden has been busy building a national email list to communicate directly with his supporters, and Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) has already announced his presidential candidacy.

The Democratic Party does not just need a new leader, but a new policy agenda that is aimed at growing our economy, promoting traditional party values and doing more than resisting President Trump at every step.

Major Democratic donor Marc Lasry told The New York Times, “‘It’s gotten ridiculous,” and the Democrats “need a clearer message about what they want to do, not just about opposing Trump.”

As I’ve said before, the Democrats need an alternative plan to rebuild and unite the party if they have any hope in winning back seats in Congress in the 2018 midterms, nonetheless the White House in 2020. 

This alternative plan requires a new, united opposition, led by a political leader with widespread popularity.

The only person I can see accomplishing this would be none other than the party’s most popular political figure: Michelle Obama.

Let me be clear: This is not an endorsement. I have been, and still am, critical of Barack Obama’s presidency. Michelle Obama would not be my candidate, and I do not agree with many of the positions I believe she would advance. But as an analyst, Michelle Obama is clearly the Democrats’ best chance to reunite the party and win back the White House in 2020.

Michelle Obama is perceived as a strong, well-qualified leader with immense national popularity. Broadly, the polls show she is respected by the American people and by the near-entirety of the Democratic Party.

Although Michelle Obama has stated that she is not interested in a presidential bid, her appeal and support for her husband remain robust.

According to the January 2017 USA Today/Gallup poll, Michelle Obama left the White House with a 68 percent favorability rating, compared with 58 percent for President Obama and 61 percent for Vice President Biden. 

While it is common for first ladies to be more favored than their husbands, Michelle Obama’s favorability is substantially higher than Hillary Clinton’s rating of 56 percent from 2000 when she and President Clinton left the White House. 

Further, in plain terms, Michelle Obama would be a far superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I opposed Hillary Clinton because she faced ethical issues that could very well have initiated a constitutional crisis had she been elected. Michelle Obama does not face such controversy.

Furthermore, Michelle Obama’s favorability rating is significantly greater than President Trump’s. According to the RealClear Politics Average, Trump’s latest favorability rating lies at 39.7 percent — a whopping 30 points less than Michelle Obama.

Just last month, Public Policy Polling found there to be “significant yearning for a return to the days of President Obama,” with 52 percent of voters saying they wish Barack Obama was still president, and only 39 percent preferring president Trump.

In fact, in a series of hypothetical match-ups between leading Democrats and President Trump, Barack Obama’s 52 percent represents the highest level of support, outnumbering Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren in particular.


A Washington Examiner  writer  in July:  (link)

Michelle Obama urged Democrats to offer real solutions to the nation’s problems instead of quick retorts to attacks from their rivals. 

“That’s the one thing people ask me about, in this climate, how do you find it in yourself to go high and here’s the thing, going high is a long-term strategy because the truth is, going high is about thinking about trying to really get to the real answer, because a lot of time the low answer is our immediate instinct. It’s just, I’m mad, I want to punch you in the face, but it doesn’t solve anything,” the former first lady said Saturday at the Essence Festival in New Orleans. 

“And if we’re thinking about what the agenda is, which is getting to a place where we all live in a country where we’re proud to pass on to our kids, going high is the only way we get there. It’s our patience, our tolerance, it’s our belief in honesty and truth, it’s our belief in hard work,” she said. “It’s not about getting somebody back, it’s not about the immediate clapback. The immediate clapback is just for your own selfish purpose right there in the moment and rarely does it solve anything.” 

Obama’s comments follow Joe Biden comparing President Trump to a bully he would “smack” in the mouth as a child.


Glamour magazine, 2018  (link)

In the eight years she lived in the White House, Michelle Obama gave us a lot of reasons to love her. And since she left, she’s given us even more: From her thoughtful words about our country’s problem with sexual assault to that time she spoke out about the racism she faced as First Lady, Obama is both likable and engaged with some of the country’s most urgent cultural issues. So much so that quite a few people are hoping she’ll put her name in the race for president in 2020. (According to opinion polls, she could win, too.) But Obama just set the record straight: She won’t be running for president, and she has a very good reason.

There’s been plenty of buzz about women like Obama and Oprah Winfreyrunning for presidential office in the next election. And although both have already shut down the possibility, rumors have still been flying that we might see them campaigning soon. It’s a hard no from the former First Lady, though, for one simple reason: She doesn’t want to be president.

“The reason why I don’t want to run for president—and I can’t speak for Oprah—but my sense is that, first of all, you have to want the job,” Obama said at the 39th Annual Simmons Leadership Conference in Boston Thursday.

She went on to candidly explain that just because a woman (or anyone) is intelligent, charismatic, and eloquent doesn’t mean she should be the next President. “And you just can’t say, ‘Well you’re a woman, run,'” she said. “We just can’t find the women we like and ask them to do it, because there are millions of women who are inclined and do have the passion for politics.”

Obama certainly doesn’t feel that way, despite giving beautiful speeches and being an incredible role model. “I’ve never had the passion for politics,” Obama said. “I just happened to be married to somebody who has the passion for politics, and he drug me kicking and screaming into this arena.”

Consider this case closed: We won’t be getting the Obamas back in the White House in 2020, but here’s hoping that women who are passionate about politics enter the race for the country’s top job. In the meantime, midterms are coming up: Catch up on this excellent story about two former female CIA agents running for Congress.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

About the dearth of serious challenges to Trump – DLH

  • Hillary is a wretched person and a poor campaigner, but not alone!
  • Others of her ilk, Democrat (and Republican) are intent on walking in her footsteps (size 6 EEE)

Clinton meets individually with potential 2020 Dems: report 

Ed Note: Liz is gonna need more than one beer if she’s gonna team up with that Loser!

WASHINGTON — Elizabeth Warren’s team doesn’t want to talk about Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean the 2020 presidential candidate isn’t talking with her party’s 2016 nominee.

The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren’s launch has been previously reported — according to several people familiar with their discussions who spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of private interactions.

And get this: (Via The Hill)

CNN and Axios reported Friday that Clinton has had private conversations with prominent Democrats such as Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), as well as others including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D).

“People are direct in saying they want her support,” one source close to Clinton told CNN. “Others are reaching out.”

“Hillary wants Trump gone,” another confidant of the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic nominee told Axios. “She doesn’t know who’s best able to beat him, but she knows about grueling nomination fights.”

Seriously, someone close to Hillary said  -“grueling nomination fights” —  that must mean  maintaining a straight face while the fix was in??

And . . . Democrats Can’t Even Be Original — They get  their lines from other socialists

NH Democratic Chair Mockingly Suggests Trump Is the Devil with a Lingering ‘Sulfur Smell’

On Saturday, New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Raymond Buckley opened his state’s Democratic convention by suggesting President Donald Trump is the devil.

Buckley said, “First off, I want to apologize. Two weeks ago, Donald Trump was here, and we did our best to get the sulfur smell out of here, and I apologize, but they’re still a lingering scent.”

The quip has been in the Demo song-book for a at least a decade:See the source image

From the BBC,  24 September 2009 :

“The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, has told the United Nations General Assembly that its podium smelled more of hope than of sulphur, now that there was a new administration in Washington. 

“His speech before the General Assembly was his first since his appearance there in 2006 when he derided President Bush as the devil. 

“Mr Chavez said that with President Barack Obama in office, there was now a palpable new air of hope.

Intent on their day in the sun are a couple ~~ Republicans~~ 

Former Rep. Mark Sanford to challenge Trump in GOP primary

Better Keep Him Off The Appalachian Trail !

Hard to keep up with good ol’ Mark. In 2009 he had to resign from head of the Republican Governors’ association when it was learned of his extra marital affair with a South American woman. He also had to “resign” from his marriage of 21 years when it was revealed that he was with his girl friend when his office said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.

In 2014, Mark also resigned from his ‘engagement’ to the woman.

And another Republican, Joe Walsh  — someone the two George’s could love —  George Will and George “not Kellyanne” Conway and that’s about it.  (picture not in original)

OOPS! The Wrong Joe Walsh…but maybe the ‘real’ one would be a better candidate.

With George Conway as your chief advisor, you’re more likely to be committed, than elected.

Washington (CNN*)  Former US Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois said conservative lawyer George Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, is informally advising Walsh’s 2020 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, challenging Donald Trump for the presidency.

“I am honored to have his advice. I speak with him often. He’s a wonderful adviser,” Walsh said of Conway during an interview Saturday with CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield. “As far as any formal role with our campaign, I would only be so lucky as to have somebody like George Conway involved.”

Like Congressman Joe Walsh, “advisors” are where you find’em…under rocks sometimes…

*ed note: the go-to network for aspiring Republicans

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Short stack

Trump kills the White House press briefing, 50 years after it was born

Whatever one might think of Donald Trump, it must be admitted that he is fearless. instead of acting like a craven politician, president Trump acts like a normal human being…with courage, without fear, and with a keen sense of how to respond to vicious, unfair, adolescent behavior. The press needs more intellectually mature adults if it wants to have white house briefings reinstated.    DLH

Red Flag Laws Spur Debate Over Due Process  

. . .  But for two decades, since the first such law was enacted in Connecticut, civil and gun rights advocates have protested that the seizures violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee — meaning residents have a right to fully argue their case in court.  . . .

Revelations from George Stephanopoulos, Newsweek, and Columbia grads from Israel

The link above appeared in the reputable Front Page magazine. Every past effort, however serious and valid in raising these questions has been ridiculed, buried, superficially and unseriously ‘debunked’. The actual facts, however, suggest that there are many honest questions which have gone unanswered…even brushed aside…because, in my opinion, the answers could be devastating in so many ways.  DLH

Woman Drops ‘Forcible Kiss’ Trump Lawsuit After Furious Judge Views Cellphone Footage

A former Trump campaign aide has dropped a lawsuit against the president after cellphone footage revealed her claim to be baseless.   . . .

Johnson is also dropping a separate claim that the Trump campaign underpaid women and minority employees,   . . .

“The President and Campaign are weighing their legal options against Ms. Johnson at this time, and have demanded that she reimburse them for the attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred in her failed lawsuit,” he said, adding “Just as the President defeated the Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit and obtained an order requiring her to pay his legal fees, so too should Alva Johnson reimburse the President’s legal fees and costs incurred here.”

Interestingly, the MSM seemed to hold this “credible accusation” at arm’s length – perhaps because Trump kissing a black woman would conflict with their ‘super racist president’ narrative, or maybe because it was obvious BS from the start?

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

JUSTICE in Washington (It’s all about the Denizens*)

A little sad about getting caught . . . but oh well, off to the Hamptons

JUSTICE in Washington: a lucrative gig on CNN or MSNBC; GO FUND ME DONATIONS; a $2 million Book Deal; $Millions in net worth –safe from punitive fines; lifetime “Celebrity status” among the “Beautiful People”…

In other words…’let history be the judge’…that is, for people like Hillary, Comey, McCabe;

for ‘losers’ like You and Me… jail, crushing fines, disgrace, bankruptcy…

– Former FBI Director James Comey is on the talk show circuit promoting A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, the new book for which he reportedly struck a $2 million deal. He and his wife enjoy a $14 million net worth

– McCabe is signed on with CNN as a “contributor”; took in over half million from his “GoFundMe” page for his ‘potential’ legal expenses

– Brennan and Clapper, one a premier schemer, the other likely the dumbest guy to ever head our National Security apparatus have sweet deals with leftist cable networks

– Meanwhile, there’s the disturbingly unjust treatment of General Flynn, and others, closely or hardly associated with President Trump, also unjustly treated, lives in ruin, guilty of nothing criminal.    DLH


 Chaffetz and Gowdy Discuss the Likelihood of Justice for Comey   (bold our emphasis)

(FoxNews): After a brief, verbal man-hug about how much they loved serving with each other in Congress, Chaffetz teed up Republican Trey Gowdy for a response by noting that James Comey was not charged for leaking. The I.G. merely reprimanded Comey for offering a “dangerous example” for FBI employees. Chaffetz wondered if justice is being done, since another person leaking such information would likely be in handcuffs.

Gowdy’s response was ambivalent. Here was the exchange (bolding added for emphasis).

Chaffetz: “Is lady justice being fair and right here (in Comey not going to jail) and is he being held accountable here?”

Gowdy: “Well, Jason, I’m very sensitive to that. When our fellow citizens think we have a two-track justice system, either for the famous or the not famous, or the rich or the poor, we’re in trouble as a Republic. I would tell my fellow citizens this: We have to have other ways of meting out accountability other than simply indictments.

You know, Hillary Clinton was never indicted. She was never charged; therefore, never guilty of a crime, but yet the American jury in 2016 meted out a consequence.

Jim Comey, whether he likes it or not, all of his past in the Southern District of New York, all of his past at main justice, all of his time as FBI Director, some of which I agreed with—all of that will be forgotten.

God in history will be all of our judges, but they will judge Jim Comey based on the fact that he got dinged on both of the major investigations he was handling in 2016 by the Inspector General. That will be the accountability, that’s what history will remember about Jim Comey.” 

Gowdy, although no longer a Republican Congressman, represents the mindset of Republicans who, like Karl Rove and Mitt Romney, think the best resolution to bring justice to the conspirators behind the three-year Trump-Russia Collusion fraud is to let history be the judge.

But history is seldom impartial. It’s usually written by the winners of a conflict. And it can take decades for the true winners to surface.

Plus, history is no dispenser of justice. It’s commentary on the past. It can not always be trusted to be fair, complete, or accurate. We study history from a variety of angles, and determine for ourselves what likely happened. And, if we weren’t there, that’s the best we can do.

Gowdy’s most accurate statement has nothing to do with history, and everything to do with current reality.

“When our fellow citizens think we have a two-track justice system, either for the famous or the not famous, or the rich or the poor, we’re in trouble as a Republic.”

Mr. Gowdy, that “When” of which you speak, sir, is now.

Gingrich: “It’s clear that no matter how bad they were, the fix is in and they’re not going to be prosecuted.”


Sunday on New York AM 970 radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued that it is not “conceivable” for neither former President Barack Obama nor his Attorney General Loretta Lynch to not know the FBI was spying on the Donald Trump campaign.

Gingrich told host John Catsimatidis after the recent release of the Department of Justice’s inspector general report that it is “clear” the fix was in and those involved will not be prosecuted.

“With everything we’re learning from the inspector general‘s report, how is it conceivable that the attorney general and the president didn’t know about it?” asked Gingrich. “So, part 1 is to go back and look at 2015, 2016, and ask, given what a hands-on and dynamic president that Barack Obama was, do you really believe all these things happened and the attorney general and the president didn’t know it?”

He continued, “Part 2 … there’s a story that the woman who tried to bribe her son into a university, that she and her husband got caught, that they’re now facing 40 years in jail. Now, how can we not prosecute Comey? How can we not prosecute McCabe? How can we say that they’ve done all the terrible things that the inspector general said they did, but they’re somehow above the law? People are not going to have any faith in the system until people who are guilty are prosecuted and are treated like everybody else. People are not going to have any faith in the system. … It’s clear that no matter how bad they were, the fix is in and they’re not going to be prosecuted.”

* with absolutely no apologies to Ilhan Omar and things being “all about the Benjamins”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment