“Squirrel!”

One can only admire the lengths the Democrats in Congress (and their media allies) will go to in order to distract Americans from the surveillance scandal that is happening underneath their noses. The latest episode involves the Democratic memo the Democrats composed as an answer to the Nunes memo.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about the distractions and what is actually going on.

The Democrats stated that they wanted their memo released, but included material in that memo that is genuinely classified and should not be released to the public. That is by design–the Democrats wrote the memo in such a way that there was no way that it could be released as written. At that point the Democrats could complain that any redaction or change made was political. However, that has not worked as planned.

The article at The Gateway Pundit includes a screenshot of a letter from the FBI regarding the memo which indicates concerns with the content:

The article also includes the following:

Mark Meadows: Democrats keep complaining about their counter-memo not being released. But if it was so critical, why have 75% of House Dems not even read their own memo?

Perhaps even they know: this memo was written in panic as a misdirection from the disturbing information we already know.

The article concludes:

Democrats also thought the release of the memo was so urgent that they did not even meet this weekend to rewrite their tripe.

The Democratic memo was not meant to be seen–it was meant to serve a political purpose. It is quite possible that the American public will never see this memo and uninformed voters will assume that the reason they are not seeing it is political. The reason is political–the memo was strictly political and not meant to add anything useful to the discussion.

 

This Might Be The Reason Government Investigations Take So Long

It’s hard to get the job done when the person you are investigating won’t talk to you! The following video posted at YouTube is of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick testifying before the House Oversight Committee on July 7th, 2016, in which he revealed Hillary Clinton refused an interview request related to her email investigation.

This is part of the testimony as posted at The Gateway Pundit today:

Chaffetz: Were you able to interview Hillary Clinton?

Linick: we were not.

Chaffetz: Why not?

Linick: Well, we asked to interview secretary Clinton. We interviewed all of the secretaries. We looked at five Secretaries of State going back to Madeleine Albright and her, through counsel, she declined to meet with us.

Chaffetz: Did she indicate a reason why she would refuse to meet with the inspector general?

Linick: Her counsel informed our staff that she had — that all of the information about the e-mail was on the FAQ she published by her campaign.

The article at The Gateway Pundit further reports:

Howard Krongard, the State Department Inspector General from April 2005 to January 2008, told Fox News last May that Clinton did not follow standard practices in respect to private email usage.

“Certainly to my knowledge at least, Secretary Rice did not have a personal server. I certainly never either sent an email to one or received an email from one,” Krongard told Fox News

“I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation,” added Krongard.

From what I have seen, I suspect that the emails are the least of Hillary Clinton’s worries about the Inspector General’s report. It is very obvious that laws were broken in Ms. Clinton‘s handling of classified information. It is also very obvious that an ordinary citizen would be in jail for similar crimes. I don’t necessarily wish Ms. Clinton jail time, but it would be nice to see her admit that she broke the law. If her email account was used to funnel money to the Clinton Foundation in return for political favors, she should be heavily fined and forced to return the money.

The Inspector General’s report is due out in January. It should be very interesting.

A Much-Needed Accomplishment

The Gateway Pundit reported today that President Trump has cut the federal debt. He has not only cut the federal debt, he has cut more from the U.S. Federal debt for a longer period of time than any other President in United States history.

The article reports:

When President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017 the amount of US Federal Debt owed both externally and internally was over $19 Trillion at $19,947,304,555,212.  As of August 17th the amount of US Debt had decreased by more than $100 Billion to $19,845,188,460,167.

The article points out that the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has performed audits since 1997 of the US Debt amounts outstanding.  In their analysis they show that when accounting for US Debt Held by the Public and US Intergovernmental Debt Holdings, the amount of US Debt has increased every year since their audits began.

This is the chart of that debt history shown in the article:

The debt nearly doubled under President Obama. It is long past time to bring government spending under control.

This Is Not Incidental Data Collection

As I have listened to the Congressional hearings, I have heard the term ‘incidental data collection‘ mentioned as the reason there were transcripts of conversations between former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Well, that excuse is no longer valid. The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that included information from a whistleblower who Congressional investigators chose to ignore. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. It is chilling to realize how seriously the rights of American citizens were breached and that people in high places chose to try to bury the information on the surveillance.

The article cites a letter from the whistleblower to Representative David Nunes from the General Council at Freedom Watch.

The article includes the following excerpt from the letter:

If these charges are true, and it sounds as if the whistleblower has the information to back them up, some of our highest government officials belong in jail. It truly is time to drain the swamp.

How Does This Accurately Inform The American People?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article based on Wikileaks information about the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the media.

The article reports:

Thanks to Wikileaks we now know that at least 65 mainstream reporters were working closely with the Clinton campaign this election year. They were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta or Chief Campaign strategist Joel Benenson.

NO FOX NEWS REPORTERS MADE THE LIST!

…We also know that Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush was sending the Hillary campaign articles for their review before publishing.

We know CNBC and New York Times reporter John Harwood was working with the Clinton campaign to help Hillary.

At least 65 mainstream media reporters were chummy with the Hillary campaign from the beginning.\

How are Americans supposed to make intelligent decisions about voting when a large portion of the media is working with one of the candidates? Please follow the link above to read the entire article and see the list of media people included.

Remember All Those Russian Women Athletes?

I trust this source, but I am having a hard time believing what I am reading. In January of this year, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a new rules change by the International Olympic Committee.

The related article at Breitbart.com article reports:

There’s great news for adventurous male Olympic hopefuls: if they declare themselves women and reduce their testosterone below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to competition, they can compete against ladies.

There’s even better news for these men; according to transgender guidelines approved by the International Olympic Committee, genitalia does not serve as a prerequisite. The guidelines state: “To require surgical anatomical changes as a pre-condition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights.”

Cyd Zeigler at OutSports.com reported on the policy change.

The IOC held a “Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism” in November at which they created the new guidelines, loosening prior rules adopted in 2004 to allow transgender athletes into the Games. The previous rules required that transgender athletes must have undergone external genitalia changes and removal of gonads, as well as obtaining legal recognition of their assigned sex  from appropriate official authorities.

The new guidelines attempt to justify themselves by citing various societies’ acceptance of fluid gender identity, writing, “Since the 2003 Stockholm Consensus on Sex Reassignment in Sports, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of autonomy of gender identity in society, as reflected in the laws of many jurisdictions worldwide.”

So now gender identity and gender fluidity has entered the olympic games.

Has anyone considered that generally speaking a male who decides to become a female after the age of 20 or so is probably taller and has more muscle mass than he would have if he had been born a female? His size and his muscle mass give him an unfair advantage.

I remember all those Russian women in the 1950’s and 1960’s that were accused of being men. Their lives would be so much simpler if they were competing today.

Chutzpah On Parade

There is currently a debate in Congress on how to prevent mass murders. When you consider that mass murders are as old as civilization and have involved everything from knives to guns, that is quite a quest. The focus seems to be on gun control–regardless of the fact that the Second Amendment does not allow for the infringement of the right to bear arms. Anyway, Senator Chuck Schumer has added a new level of chutzpah to the debate.

Gateway Pundit reported yesterday:

Schumer on Sunday released a letter he sent to major retailers asking for a voluntary moratorium.

The New York Democrat says consumer demand for guns has gone up in the weeks since the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get passed that limit these type of weapons, it won’t help if more of them have recently been sold.

Has it occurred to the Senator that the reason people are stocking up on these weapons is that they fear the weapons will be unavailable in the future?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Beginning Of “No-Go Zones” In America

The Blaze posted a video today showing Muslim-Americans throwing objects (including stones) at Christians in Dearborn, Michigan. During the 2012 Arab International Festival, a group of Christians who were unhappy with the Muslim character of the event protested by carrying signs The video shows what happened next. The video was also posted at Gateway Pundit. It is a rather long video (about 20 minutes), but please watch the entire video. Remember that in America protesting is allowed under the First Amendment.

The video below of the incident is posted at Gateway Pundit. The throwing of objects begins early in the video.

This is not acceptable behavior. The obvious questions is, “Where was the policeman who was so concerned about the Christians using a megaphone when the Muslims started throwing things at the Christians?” It seems to me that a police officer should have detained the people throwing things quickly in order to end the incident.

The Christians were escorted away for having provocative signs. No mention was made of the behaviour of the people throwing things at them. This is entirely backwards, and I hope there will be a lawsuit against the city. Otherwise, we are in danger of creating a “no-go zone” where Sharia law reigns and American law enforcement personnel are not allowed to enter or do their jobs. It seems to me that a few arrests of the people throwing objects would have solved the problem–they were the ones breaking the law.

This is a very disturbing video. It represents a foothold for Sharia law in America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up !

This is a totally cheap shot–but I couldn’t resist. Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that after stating in this speech that “They (Republicans) order a steak dinner and martini and then, just as you’re sitting down, they leave, and accuse you of running up the tab,” President Obama made a surprise stop for barbecue yesterday (Does Michelle know?) and had lunch with two service members and two local barbers. Unfortunately, the President left without paying the bill. It seems as if the Republicans weren’t the only ones leaving the bill for others to pay.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whoops!!!

There has been an October surprise in Wisconsin, in June, that has gone horribly wrong for the perpetrators. Gateway Pundit posted a story today about the Democrats latest attempt to recall Scott Walker. The Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op posted a story yesterday entitled, “Integrity: The Child Scott Walker Left Behind.” It is the story of a college co-ed who got pregnant by Scott Walker, who later ignored her, denied the child was his, and never paid child support. The Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op posted the young woman’s testimony and cited that testimony to show that Scott Walker was not a man of integrity. Well, maybe the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op is not a newspaper of quality investigative reporting–it was a different Scott Walker! The person who fathered the child was Scott Alan Walker–not Governor Scott Kevin Walker.

I can understand how this sort of mistake can be made, but when dealing with a fairly common name, shouldn’t a publication make sure of its facts before printing or posting a story. Usually October (or in this case June) surprises are effective because there is little time to dispute the story. All of us as voters need to take everything with a grain of salt that is said within a week of an election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Questions Without Answers

A blog called the Daily Pen posted some information on Friday that may turn out to be important. Please take a look. There are an awful lot of unanswered quesitons about the history of President Obama. Even some in the major media are starting to wonder about his school records, etc. Forbes Magazine has posted an excerpt from a book called, “Hope Is Not A Strategy.”  Normally, a President’s college grades, educational history, etc. are public information. Why is there so much secrecy surrounding President Obama?

NOTE: The Forbes article referred to above has disappeared from the Internet.

Gateway Pundit has the story.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Does This Woman Find Time To Study ?

 Rush Limbaugh has come under fire recently for his rather crude comments of the moral character of supposed co-ed Sandra Fluke. Although I might not agree with his words, he was telling the truth and making some good points. There does seem to be more to the story. Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday detailing some of Sandra Fluke’s biography.

The article reports:

The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.

Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.

Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

Jammie Wearing Fool reported on Sandra Fluke’s status as a student:

I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

It gets worse. CNS News reported some of her testimony and did the math:

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

…So, they can earn enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since that could translate into having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year. (By the way, why does CVS.com list the weight of its condom products in terms of pounds?)

Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).

I will admit that I was married before the ‘sexual revolution’ and that I don’t really understand how things work today, but why is it the government’s responsibility to pay for contraception? And why is the Obama Administration so desperate to get rid of the conscience clause in medicine? On Monday, RedMassGroup pointed out that the healthcare plan proposed by Hillary in 1994 recognized a religious and moral right of healthcare insurers and workers to refrain from providing healthcare services that violated their consciences. Why is Obamacare different?

What I need to say in conclusion is that we have all been sidetracked. The battle is for the right of conscience and the right to live your life in accord to your religious and moral convictions. The battle is not about how a talk show host describes the sex life of a supposed co-ed.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta