Featured

WITCH HUNT!

I am in the process of reading through the Mueller Report. So far, I’m a little over a quarter of the way through but I have become convinced that it truly was a witch hunt! The Office of the Special Counsel found absolutely nothing to indicate that the Trump Campaign was in touch with representatives of the Russian government. Nevertheless, they went after people ruthlessly in an attempt to come up with “something.” Yes, they were able to get convictions of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for financial crimes but found nothing to tie them to alleged Russian “interference” in the election. For that matter, the “interference” they found seems to be based solely on the allegations made by John Brennan and James Comey in the “report” they released after the election, a report that claimed news reports on the Russian TV/Internet station RT was “interference.” They also seemed to have taken claims made by Facebook and Twitter that certain accounts belonged to Russians at face value.

There are two things that I’ve found so far in the report that really jump out – the claim by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya that the Russian government had proof that former American Bill Browder and his associate made contributions to Democrats and the Clinton Foundation and that Paul Manafort Emailed Jared Kushner three days before the election and expressed his fears that in the event Trump won, Clinton supporters would claim that Russians tampered with voting machines and changed the vote, which is exactly what happened.

More to come……………………………………………………………

 

Witch Hunt! (Part 3 – Conflict of Interest)

UPDATE! According to a just published article by Real Clear Politics investigative reporter Paul Sperry, it appears that there was possible conflict of interest on the Mueller team with Andrew Weissman, who had been in contact with individuals who are named in the report. Weissman was in the Obama Justice Department and not only was a Clinton supporter, he was at her election night watch party.

In Volume II of the Mueller Report, several pages are devoted to White House Counsel Don McGahn’s interactions with President Trump. According to McGahn, shortly after Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, the president expressed his concerns that Mueller had a conflict of interest and wanted him to tell Rosenstein that he “wanted him gone.” The president had several concerns about Mueller. For one thing, he had interviewed him for the possible position of Director of the FBI the VERY DAY BEFORE Rosenstein named him as special counsel. There was also a conflict involving Mueller’s past membership in a golf club owned by the Trump organization. The president was also concerned about Mueller’s position as a director in a law firm that represented people connected to the president. Mueller claims that people associated with the president thought the claims were “silly”, but does not justify such a conclusion. .

The Mueller Report doesn’t mention it, but there was also another conflict, a major one – Mueller’s close association with recently fired FBI Director James Comey and with Andrew McCabe, the former assistant Director who had replaced Comey after he was fired. Although Mueller doesn’t acknowledge it, this is a serious issue because, even though the purpose of appointing him as Special Counsel doesn’t include obstruction of justice, that appears to have become the focal point of the investigation almost from the onset of the investigation. In fact, it was after the media revealed that the president was being investigated for obstruction that he blew his top and began pressing to have the Special Counsel terminated. Now, bear in mind that the president knew there was no crime related to Russian interference and he also knew that he was within his Constitutional rights as Chief Executive to fire Comey. This is a serious conflict that was completely ignored by the DOJ and which the White House seems to have failed to express.

The most serious conflict of interest has emerged into plain sight since the Mueller Report was released. Democrats in the House, specifically Cummings, Nadler and Schiff, along with others, as well as Democrats in the Senate, have revealed that they are partisan and are only concerned with somehow getting Trump, hopefully by removing him from office but, if unable to do that (which they can’t), by disrupting government so much that he becomes ineffective. That is the most serious conflict of interest of all. Democrats know that now the Russia issue has been put to bed, the DOJ has free rein to conduct investigations into the corruption of the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign and their use of national intelligence and law enforcement to further their political goals.

Witch Hunt! (Part Two)

I’ve finally finished the entire Mueller Report (WITCH HUNT!) While Volume I is semi-informing, Volume II seems to be Mueller and his team of nearly all Democrats attempting to come up with something so they could charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice. As it turns out, they were unable to make a case but instead of simply saying so, they add a statement that they are “unable to exonerate” him either. Now, since when do prosecuting attorneys  “exonerate” anyone? Their role is to find evidence to prosecute and if they’re unable to do it, they simply don’t take the case to a grand jury or, if they do, the jury is unable to come up with enough to indict. It’s pretty obvious that the Mueller team’s goal is to keep the pot stirred in hopes the Democrats in Congress will impeach the president.

Although they come up with some ten items, none of them are actions actually taken by President Trump. The most serious allegation – which occurred soon after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (without informing anyone he was going to do it) announced that he was appointing New York lawyer and former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller to be Special Counsel to investigate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election – it that the president instructed White House counsel Don McGrahn to have Muller removed. President Trump, through his personal counsel, alleged that Mueller had conflicts of interest. McGrahn informed the president that it wasn’t within his jurisdiction. McGrahn would later tell the Special Counsel about the incident and his account was leaked to the media. President Trump tried to get McGrahn to put out a statement but the lawyer said the story was partly true. Another insinuation was that when President Trump instructed his assistant, Hope Hicks, not to release emails between Donald Trump Jr and British publicist Rob Goldstone to the press after she became concerned that they might be damaging to him, his instruction was somehow illegal. Now, bear in mind that concealing something from the media DOES NOT constitute obstruction of justice!

Mueller – or whoever drafted the report – spends several pages trying to make a case that a president can obstruct justice through official actions if they are “corrupt,” then spends several more pages trying to make a case for “corruption” (ultimately, without success as the Special Counsel failed to come up with evidence to recommend prosecution.) It seems to be a case of “if I can’t dazzle with my brilliance, I’ll baffle with my bullshit.”  At the beginning of Volume II, the report attempts to brush over the fact that no crime had been committed with the assertion that there doesn’t have to be a crime in order for obstruction of occur. In the case of Richard Nixon, who wasn’t impeached but rather resigned, there was an actual crime. Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury after having intimidated witnesses and otherwise obstructed justice in a sexual harassment case.

Now, bear in mind that nowhere in the Constitution are special counsels or even investigations authorized. In fact, the Constitution’s only authorization for anything resembling an investigation is the authority to the House of Representatives to impeach presidents and other government officials. (Bear in mind that “Congress” does not refer to a political party, which is the case with the present House of Representatives.)

After reading the entire report – it took me several days – I am convinced the Mueller investigation was a waste of time and the taxpayer’s money. The only crimes exist within the heads of Democrats who aren’t able to accept Donald Trump’s election.

Conspiracy?

When I recently read the DOJ Inspector General’s report on the Clinton Email investigation, I saw where IG Horowitz referred to a classified document relating to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Horowitz indicated that the FBI had a classified document that implicated Lynch in some way, but that the information had not been verified. It turns out that referenced document was one in a batch of “hacked documents” stored on Russian computer networks. One of the documents is an alleged Email from former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to “an operative working for billionaire George Soros.” The Email assured the operative that Lynch had assured Clinton campaign political director Amanda Renteria that FBI and DOJ investigators and prosecutors would “go easy” on Clinton in the ongoing Email investigation. Allegedly, when Comey took the highly classified document to Lynch’s office, she immediately became “frosty” and threw him out of her office. Of course, Lynch, Wasserman Schultz and Renteria all deny that any such Email was ever sent. However, the document remains classified at a level even above Top Secret, a classification so high that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are denied access to it.

Whether the intercepted document is real or not remains to be seen, but there were indications of Lynch’s complicity with Clinton from early in the investigation. When it became apparent that word of the investigation was going to be publically revealed, Lynch told Comey to refer to it as a “matter” rather then the criminal investigation it was. Her directive caused Comey to wonder if Lynch was “carrying water” for the Clinton campaign. President Barack Obama was publically down-playing the significance of Clinton’s Emails, to Comey’s consternation. As for the “unverified” document, bear in mind that while it remains classified, the also unverified allegations about Donald Trump made in a document produced for the Clinton campaign were released to the public.

 

SHE’s Out of Her Cotton-Picking Mind!

Yesterday I wrote about the stupid controversy over the comment made by a FOX News contributor to a black “Democratic strategist” whose knowledge of cotton-picking is so limited that he has no clue that EVERYBODY did it. Today I’m writing about a New York transplant in Lexington, Virginia who has apparently departed from common sense. I just found out that Stephanie Wilkinson, the Lexington, Virginia woman who told White House Press Secretary Sara Huckabee Sanders that she wasn’t wanted in her Red Hen restaurant in downtown Lexington. It turns out that Wilkinson is executive director of a local organization called Main Street Lexington whose role is to promote the city’s downtown businesses. By her actions, the far-left Resistance member has brought attention to Lexington that no one in the town wanted.

It turns out that Wilkinson is a New Yorker who went to the University of Virginia after graduating from Dartmouth and ended up in Lexington, a small college town at the upper end of Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley after her husband took a position at the Virginia Military Institute. I lived across the Blue Ridge Mountains from Lexington for five years and passed by it on I-81/I-64 but have never set foot in the town. Lexington is that kind of town. It’s only there because of two schools, Washington & Lee University and VMI. The population is only a little over 7,000. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton received just over 1,500 votes of some 2,200 votes cast, but surrounding Rockbridge County gave Donald Trump some 6,600 votes while Clinton got 3,500. Like other college towns, Lexington is an island of left-wingers in a sea of conservative voters but it’s nothing like Charlottesville, where Wilkinson lived before moving to Lexington with her husband. She has a long history of left-wing activism, including publishing a literary magazine for mothers “dedicated to social change” called “Brain, Child, the Magazine for Thinking Mothers” – over-educated women like Wilkinson. Her husband, Duncan Richter, who is British, is a professor at Virginia Military Institute where he teaches courses in ethics and philosophy. (His wife apparently has never taken any of his courses because she has no ethics.) He has authored several books, all focusing on ethics and philosophy. Wilkinson and her husband and at least one of her children were in Washington for the Women’s March and apparently consider themselves to be members of “the resistance.” Considering her actions this past week, it’s obvious that Stephanie Wilkinson is a leftwing fanatic.

With time on her hands after her children were older, Wilkinson did what any other over-educated leftwing elitist would do, she started a restaurant in downtown Lexington and advertised it as “farm to table.” Her menu states that the place, called the Red Hen, sells vegetables raised on a local farm owned by Mexican immigrants. Of course, there’s no mention of the fact that vegetables are seasonal and the Shenandoah Valley has winter. The restaurant is very small, with only twenty-four seats, which works out to six four-place tables.

Just why Sanders was in Lexington has not been revealed, but she was with relatives, including her brother-in-law, who claims to be a “liberal” and is not a Trump supporter. After the party was seated, one of the staff called Wilkinson at home and told her Sanders was in the restaurant. Wilkinson jumped in her car and headed for the little red building on Washington Street. She claims that when she got there, she talked to her staff and asked them what they thought she should do. She claims her staff, which must be made up of leftists like herself, told her she should ask them to leave, which she did. Reportedly, a waiter had already served the party and they were eating when Wilkinson went over and called Sanders outside where she told her she didn’t want her in her restaurant because she works for the White House. Although  Wilkinson claims the incident wasn’t disorderly, Mike Huckabee, Sanders’ father, says that Wilkinson followed them to the nearby restaurant they went to and attempted to organized a demonstration. Finally, Sanders’ brother-in-law went outside and told them they were making a huge mistake and should disperse.

Now, Wilkinson’s actions are an act of bigotry – the simple definition of the word is “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself – but it is also an act of stupidity. Not only did Wilkinson attract negative attention to her restaurant, she also attracted unwanted attention to the city where Confederate General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson was a professor and where General Robert E. Lee served as president of the university that bears his name, the city from whence the VMI cadets who made the charge at New Market departed for their famous action; she also attracted unwanted attention to another restaurant with the same name in Washington, D.C. (whose manager said his staff would serve anyone.) In short, the woman is out of her cotton-picking mind, but then so are most of those in the media and the Democratic Party who do stupid things in opposition to Donald Trump.

 

 

They’re Out of Their Cotton-Picking Minds!

Now, I don’t watch FOX News. In fact, I don’t even have cable – I got rid of it several years ago and went to a leaf antenna and streaming. However, I must say that the reaction to a comment by FOX contributor David Bossie to “Democratic strategist” Joel Payne that he was “out of his cotton-picking mind” is way out of proportion. Payne, who is of African ancestry, took offense at the comment because “my relatives picked cotton.” My response to that is – so fucking what? I picked my cotton, my daddy did, my mother did, my brother did and my sisters did and so did my grandmother, aunts and uncles, not to mention my neighbors. In fact, if you lived in the rural South prior to the 1960s when the use of mechanical cotton pickers became widespread and were able to get to the fields, you picked cotton. Picking cotton was so much a part of the culture that rural schools had split “vacations,” with school starting back in July for six weeks, then getting out for “cotton picking” in the fall.

Payne’s reaction is that of a northern black person with little real knowledge of the South and of the practices before his time. (He’s also a “Democratic strategist,” which says a lot.) Black northerners have been attributing racial prejudice to sayings common in the South for decades. For example, when I was in the Air Force, I had a roommate who was a mulatto from Harlem – his father was “Irish” and his mother was black. The first thing he said to me when we met was that I had better not ever call him nigger – as if I ever had any attention of doing so. (“Nigger” was known to be considered by blacks as synonymous with a “sorry” white person. Incidentally, the term “white trash” originated with slaves who used it to refer to poor whites with no land or slaves of their own.) That, however, is not my point. He went on a trip as a student with a sergeant instructor from Georgia who, like most Southerners, had a habit of calling everyone “boy.” My roommate took umbrage, but the sergeant, who lived across the hall from us, sat him down and explained that everyone in the South called each other “boy” and “girl” regardless of whether they were white or black. Although we never became friends, at least he seemed to understand that everyone wasn’t looking down on him after that.

It seems that blacks in the North have concocted a number of mistaken ideas. An example is the term “soul food” which came about in the 1960s when blacks from the South opened restaurants in New York and other northern cities and called their fare “soul food” at a time when blacks had started referring to certain forms of music and black culture as “soul.” In truth, what is now commonly called soul food is actually nothing but rural Southern cooking. Rural people in the South, white and black, made full use of the animals they slaughtered and grew crops foreign to northerners such as collard and turnip greens. Hog intestines were cleaned and called chitlins, which is short for chitterlings. White families ate them, as did blacks. Personally, I love chitlins the way my mother fixed them. She breaded and fried them and we ate them with her biscuits. Catfish were practically a delicacy at our house (blacks were famous for eating “rough fish” such as carp and buffalo.)

Payne seems to have taken exception to Bossie’s comment because his grandparents were sharecroppers. Again, so what? Share cropping was a means by which people who owned no land of their own could make a crop and living, and large numbers of sharecroppers were white. Sharecropping was a means of allowing a landowner to get full use of their land. Before farming became mechanized, a single family could farm some forty acres. Although it’s commonly believed – apparently especially by blacks – that sharecropping came along after the Civil War, the practice actually dates back for centuries and was and still is common in many parts of the world. (There is a difference between a sharecropper and a tenant farmer. Sharecroppers are laborers who provide the labor to raise a crop for a share while a tenant farmer rents the land from the landowner and provides everything necessary to raise a crop. Tenant farming is common today – my own land is rented to local farmers to raise a crop each year.) Sharecroppers were provided everything they needed by the landowner, including a house and plot of land where they could grow their own food and raise hogs and maintain a cow or two for milk.

There is a common misconception that picking cotton is hard work. Actually, while cotton-picking by hand is tedious, it’s not particularly hard and its definitely not backbreaking. Personally, I’d much rather pick cotton out in the open fall air then work in a foundry or factory. Cotton-picking is not a constant, year-long task. Cotton becomes ripe for picking in late summer or early fall, depending on the length of the growing season and when the crop is planted, and is picked over a 6-8 week period. The image of slaves or sharecroppers laboring in the fields from dusk to dawn 365 days a year is false; the actual days spent in the field for cotton-picking is more like 65 days, if that.

As for the use of the term “cotton-picking” as an adjective, the origin is unsure. So, for that matter, is the meaning except that it is used to add emphasis to a statement – for example, “She’s a cotton-picking liar!” Another common use is “Just a cotton-picking minute!” “You’re out of your cotton-picking mind” is another. However, in no way is the use of the term “cotton-picking” derogatory to blacks, as the media often claims. The only connection to blacks is that blacks picked cotton, but so did whites.

Border Diversion

The news media – and Democrats – have focused their attention over the past few days on the McAllen, Texas area and the Health and Human Services facilities where young children who were brought into the country illegally are being housed until they can be sent to relatives in the United States or returned to their parents, who have been incarcerated for violating US immigration laws. There has been copious handwringing and ain’t it awfuls by people who have no clue about the actual events. What many Americans fail to grasp is that it is no coincidence that this “story” broke almost immediately after the contents of the DOJ Office of the Attorney General report on the Hillary Clinton Email investigation was released. When the report was first released – and before anyone in the media had read it – the “news” was that the report had found no evidence of bias, but then it came out that, in fact, there had  been multiple incidents of demonstrated bias on the part of five senior investigators. That’s when the shit hit the fan and the media realized it had to come up with something to divert attention from the report. They decided to focus on the plight of illegal immigrants who were being charged for Federal crimes and incarcerated, and were separated from their children as a result. The tactic worked, although it’s now coming out that members of the media and left-wing politicians have exaggerated the situation and in some cases, outright lied.

For some time now, thousands of teenagers, mostly from Central America, have been detained along the Mexican border. In recent weeks, there has been a horde of people coming up from Central America, particularly Honduras and El Salvador, with the intent of sneaking across the Rio Grande River into Texas then making their way to cities in hopes of finding employment. When they are caught, some claim that they are seeking asylum, not so much for political reasons but because they claim they are fleeing gang violence or, in the case of women, domestic abuse. Since they are in violation of Federal immigration laws, they are charged and incarcerated until their case can be brought to court. Many illegals are women, who have brought children and grandchildren with them. Dick Durbin, a left-winger from Illinois, claimed these people are coming from “three of the most dangerous countries in the world.” His comment was a lie – those countries don’t even come close to such an assertion. In fact they rank BELOW EVEN THE UNITED STATES, not to mention Mexico.

Now, while the United States does admit people who seek asylum, they – and everyone else – are required to enter the United States at an official port of entry where they present themselves as asylum-seekers to the Homeland Security people at the facility. US law requires that ANYONE who crosses the border, regardless of their citizenship, MUST enter through an official entry point – without exception. In the case of the people currently being detained, they snuck across the border and were apprehended by the Border Patrol. The only thing “new” is that there have been increasing numbers in recent weeks. The leftwing American media has misrepresented the situation. An example is the current TIME magazine cover story, which originally claimed that a little girl shown looking up at President Donald Trump was separated from her mother. In fact, the photograph was taken by a Getty News photographer who was on a ride-a-long with a Border Patrol agent who came across a group of illegals who had just crossed the Rio Grande on a raft. The photo was snapped of the tearful little girl while her mother was being searched. The photo was represented as showing a little girl who was being separated from her mother when, in fact, there was no separation. As a matter of fact, small children under the age of four ARE NOT separated from their parents.

While accounts of children and parents being separated at the border is heart-wrenching, the media’s true intent is to divert the nation’s and the world’s attention away from the DOJ/FBI OIG report on the Hillary Clinton Email investigations and the appearance of the report’s author, Michael Horowitz, before the Senate Intelligence Committee and the resulting firings of Federal agents who exhibited bias toward Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump in communications with other agents. One of those fired was former Deputy for Counterespionage Peter Strzok, who led the Email investigation then took over the investigation of alleged Russian “interference” in the US presidential election. Strzok’s security clearance was stripped from him and he was escorted from FBI Headquarters this past Friday. Horowitz revealed to the Senate committee that Strzok is under investigation for his role in the initiation of the Russia investigation, and the possibility that he used his position because he was biased against Donald Trump. His cohort and alleged lover, Lisa Page, left the FBI a month ago. Of course, there has been little mention of Strzok’s removal in the so-called “mainstream” media because they’re focusing on the “situation” on the border and on the wording on the back of the raincoat First Lady Melanie Trump wore onto the Air Force transport that took her to McAllen, Texas to inspect the facilities where children are housed while their disposition is determined. (Federal policy is to send them to live with relatives who are in the US legally if at all possible. If not, they remain in DHS hands until their parents’ case has been decided then are usually deported along with them.)