Well, here we go…

LONDON, April 11 (Reuters) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested by British police on Thursday after they were invited into the Ecuadorean embassy where he has been holed up since 2012.

“Julian Assange, 47, has today, Thursday 11 April, been arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at the Embassy of Ecuador,” police said.

At at issue at this point is whether or not Julian assange will end up in an American Court explaining what happened to all of those emails that Hillary Clinton thought she deleted.

With the line of bodies behind the Clinton crime family, don’t be surprised if Mr. Assange dies mysteriously before he ever gets to court.

(Update)

I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t a direct response to the attorney general’s testimony yesterday.

At The Hill:

Attorney General William Bar has reportedly formed a team to review actions of Justice Department and FBI officials

Attorney General Barr

leading up to the launch of the federal probe into President Trump’s campaign and possible Russian collusion.

Bloomberg reported Tuesday evening that Barr has assembled a team to review certain counterintelligence decisions made by Justice Department and FBI officials including during the probe into Trump’s campaign during the election in the summer of 2016.

I would certainly regard this as wonderful news, if I could be reasonably assured that the principles involved haven’t been destroying evidence, as has happened so often before. (Can you say “hammer time”, Hillary?)

Now, either that’s a point that Rush Limbaugh hasn’t picked up on yet, or he’s not too worried about it. He does raise an interesting point though:

The Drive-Bys, by the way, are beside themselves because they were in on this. You ought to see the solemn faces at MSNBC, CNN today reporting this. Because what the Drive-Bys are gonna have to do now, as this investigation gets underway, they’re gonna have to portray themselves as duped. But they weren’t duped by anybody. They were active participants in this whole scam.

But you can see the solemn look on their faces this investigation will turn up. They’re gonna have to pretend and portray themselves as, “Hey, we trusted our sources. Our sources were telling us there was collusion.” And they know full well there wasn’t. They were active participants in this whole scam for this entire hoax.

The problem, of course, is going to be proving that, if as I suggest we’re going to see evidence being destroyed.

Still, the reaction of the Democrats is telling, as Limbaugh points out:

So this guy Brian Schatz, Democrat, Hawaii, told Barr that he wanted to give him another chance to rephrase what he had said earlier about spying. In other words, “Attorney General Barr, you didn’t really mean to say that you think there was spying on the Trump campaign, and I’m gonna give you a chance here to rephrase what you said.”

Schatz said that Barr’s comment was gonna make the cable news ecosystem go crazy. That’s what he’s thinking about? The cable news ecosystem’s gonna go crazy because Barr’s saying he thinks the Trump campaign was spied on? Barr simply replied that he meant surveillance.

He asked Schatz if that made him feel any better. (laughing) How about if I say surveillance instead of spying? That make you feel better, Senator, that make you feel better, Congressman? It was comedy gold and Schatz didn’t even realize it. These people are so stiff and they are so serious, they have no sense of humor whatsoever.

And Barr was saying, “Okay. You don’t like ‘spy’? How about they were ‘surveilling’ the Trump campaign? Does that make you feel better?” Let’s just start with 26. This is the most recent, relevant bite. Question from Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty. “Would it be odd, Attorney General Barr, that the candidate [meaning Trump] was never really briefed by the Department of Justice, that his campaign may have been targeted by a foreign entity?”

BARR: That is one of the questions I have is, I feel normally the campaign would have been advised of this. I’m interested in getting that answer. They had two former U.S. attorneys in Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani involved in the campaign, and I don’t understand why the campaign was not advised.

RUSH: Bingo! Big time key, because the Russians doing the targeting were FBI plants. That’s why. But he’s raising a logical question. Well, he knows what went on here. We all know what went on. Everybody knows now that everybody knows what went on, and I’m telling you there are quaking in the boots in the homes of Comey and Clapper and Brennan and McCabe and Priestap and Baker and Strzok and Page, because now it’s out.

There had blessed well better be because the claim from Brennan that he must have been misinformed isn’t going to cut it. it may work for the morons watching MSNBC and CNN, but it’s not going to work what he gets his backside hauled up before a investigative committee.

Assuming, once again, that the evidence doesn’t mysteriously disappear.

Another point that concerned me was that the initial reports I saw suggested the bar was limiting his investigation to the FBI. The Federalist points out otherwise:

“Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Attorney General William Barr told a Senate committee on Wednesday morning. Barr’s comments came in the context of potential Justice Department reviews of the Trump-Russia investigation and how it began in 2016.

While it is important that the top law enforcement in the United States publicly acknowledged that the Obama administration and its intelligence agencies surveilled its domestic political opponents during the heat of a presidential election, it is what he said next that was most startling: that the CIA and other federal agencies in addition to the FBI may have been involved. “I’m not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly,” he said.

Very interesting, indeed. and again, very good news if we can make the assumption that evidence isn’t being destroyed as we speak.

Eric Florack on April 10th, 2019

From Victor Porlier by way of Billy Beck…

RE McMaster observes:

British anthropologist J.D. Unwin’s 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the decline of 86 different cultures throughout history. Unwin found that no nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual hedonism.

Wrote Unwin, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence.” Unwin found than nations that valued marriage and sexual abstinence were creative and flourished, maintaining what he called, “cultural energy”.

Likewise, sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin, in his 1956 book, The American Sex Revolution, essentially confirmed Unwin, and stated in the late 1960s that America was committing “voluntary suicide”.

Sorokin’s study of decadent cultures convinced him that a healthy society can only survive if strong families exist and sexual activities are restricted to within marriage. Sexual promiscuity leads inevitably to cultural decline and eventual collapse.

William J. Bennett, in a 2001 book, The Broken Hearth, wrote,

“My concern is that we are now embarked upon an experiment that violates a universal social law: In attempting to raise children without two parents [healthy +/- polarity], we are seeing, on a massive scale, the voluntary breakup of the minimal family unit. This is historically unprecedented, an authentic cultural revolution-and, I believe, socially calamitous. We may be under the illusion that we can cheerfully deconstruct marriage and then one day decide to pull back from the brink. But as a friend of mine puts it, once you shoot out the lights, can you shoot them back on again? As the long record of human experimentation attests, civilizations, even great civilizations, are more fragile and perishable than we think.”

Eminent historian, Dr. E. Michael Jones’ 2005 book, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control, discusses how the rhetoric of sexual freedom has been used to engineer a system of covert political and social control.

Additionally, sociologist Carl W. Wilson, in his 1979 book, Our Dance Has Turned To Death, found that decadent cultures display seven typical characteristics: Men reject spiritual and moral development as the leaders of families; men begin to neglect their families in search of material gain; men begin to engage in adulterous relationships or homosexual sex; women begin to devalue the role of motherhood and homemaker; husbands and wives begin to compete with each other and families disintegrate; selfish individualism fragments society into warring factions; and men and women lose faith in God and reject all authority over their lives. Soon, moral anarchy reigns. When the family collapses, the society soon follows.

Truth is truth wherever you find it. Truth by its very nature is not contradictory. The secular non-Christian, non-Western Chinese, one of the world’s oldest civilizations, harbor a proverb which to this day echoes the truth discussed above: “If there is light in the soul, there will be beauty in the person. If there is beauty in the person, there will be harmony in the house. If there is harmony in the house, there will be order in the nation. If there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.”

Billy looks at this and says:

There are very good sociobiological reasons for this:

No other species in the world spends as much time at rearing their young as humans do, in the explicit expectation that those young are going to master all the conceptual philosophy that will afford them life *as human beings*.

Before anyone is tempted to mention something like elephants, I will simply point out that they are never expected to (for instance) grasp all the principles of powered flight and build airplanes, or know to be outraged at slavery.

We are what we are, uniquely, and that is how we must conduct ourselves.

(Sigh)

I have written in the past and still hold that the collapse of our culture is largely being driven by the education of our young being turned over to the government and thereby the collapse of the traditional family, and the culture that comes from that abdication.

That change, over time, has led us to where we are as the cultural values of family are replaced with the governments “value-neutral.”

Argue if you will that the government must remain value-neutral but not if you’re going to turn the furtherance of our culture over to it as we have done. (Indeed, I have written that in its primary function government is supposed to be reinforcing and furthering the influence of the culture that gave it life and the government that sways from that purpose is self-destructive)

And let’s face it, we’re not just talking about sex here, we’re talking about every cultural value, every sense of right and wrong attached to the culture…. Everything that made it great, at its most basic. Metaphorically, we have forgotten the girl that came to the dance with us… And since government now controls our sense of right and wrong, we don’t understand what’s happening.

And don’t discount Bennett’s reference to the spiritual. It is from that that comes our cultural sense that there is something higher then government.

(Do we really expect government to be teaching us that there is something higher more powerful that has to be answered to, than government?)

Eric Florack on April 9th, 2019

The polling data:

Democrats on Capitol Hill are once again talking about taxpayer-funded reparations as a tangible way to apologize for slavery in this country, but most voters still aren’t buying.

Just 21% of Likely U.S. Voters think U.S. taxpayers should pay reparations to black Americans who can prove they are descended from slaves. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% are opposed to slavery reparations. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

Seems to me that several questions arise from this.

The first I think we should be looking directly at is, what’s happened in the past when we’ve thrown money at the black community in an attempt to buy votes. So far, the totals have amounted to something on the order of $22BUSD, since we started such payouts, commonly referred to as the “war on poverty. ”

And for those who weren’t alive at the time Johnson put that mess into place, there were several people who regarded that war on poverty to be reparations.

It didn’t work to the advantage of the black community then, and it isn’t going to now. (As a parallel, observe what happened to the native American community.)

Given the number of Presidential contenders, every blessed one of which has been coming out in support of reparations… ( kiss Al Sharpton’s ring, you idiots) …one wonders how they’re going to manage the rejection of the American voter when the time comes.

It’s not like this polling data is anything new. The American voter has always rejected reparations.

The other question that leads to mind is… Why the sudden push to buy black votes?

Because of movements like “walk away”. Democrats are getting desperate. They know very well that they can’t afford to lose any significant percentage of black votes, because they’re never going to win the elections that way.

Thing is, the black voter has come to understand in the first person, in a way that cannot be overcome by throwing money at it, that generation after generation of Democrat party rule has created nothing but more racism, more hardship, more economic depression, more joblessness, and more misery.

They have been living in the completely disastrous direct result of it… And increasingly have identified the problem correctly as being the Democrat Party.

Increasingly, that’s costing the Democrats at the ballot box.

Alex Newman over at The New American

The collective freak out over President Donald Trump’s proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on “climate change” were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that “conclusion.” Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump’s plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.

There is that of course…

There is massive amounts of fraud in this. But even absent that… even if global warming is not a hoax which it is, it comes down to what I’ve been saying for many years now;

The worst thing you can do to a liberal is give them exactly what they wanted to because it removes their ability to demagogue whatever it is.

…and that’s really what this is all about. Any serious examination of this or anything else that the Democrats have been putting up the last 40 years, limits their power.

Eric Florack on April 9th, 2019

Adam Mill at American Greatness:

can imagine a future in which Democrats, reflecting on our present, are shouting to their past selves, “Walk away!”… the Democrat’s continued obsession with opening the pandora’s box of the Mueller report will only make things worse for the get-Trump crowd as the hoax chickens increasingly come home to roost….Mueller’s team has played dirty from the start. Contrary to the public narrative that the team was “leak-proof,” the opposite is actually true. As I recently wrote, “It has been three years of innuendo and leaks, leaks, leaks, leaks, and uncountable more examples of leaks dripping poison into the poison-addicted pens of the partisan media. The Mueller team has never had to prove anything involving Trump-Russian collusion to anyone because the special counsel needs no proof to function as a potent political weapon.”

Well, look… the first indication that the Democrats should have walked away was when Nancy Pelosi started walking away from the Mueller report days before it was released. As I wrote several days ago, that told us three things…

  • The goal of the Democrats was to take out Trump for whatever excuse they could conjure up.
  • The report was not going to do that. Pelosi knew it. That should have been a signal to the rest of the Democrats and to the news media. Amazingly, it’s a signal that got ignored.
  • That Pelosi knew that there wasn’t going to be anything usable in the report and therefore started backing away was also a signal that the report’s content had already been leaked to her.

That a goodly number of Democrats are still not walking away from the Russia hoax, confirms the first point above, and also tells us that the Democrats know full well they don’t have anything else to go on.
As an example, Liz Sheld this morning:

These people are ridiculous. They all read Barr’s letter and they all know he is going to release as much of the report that he is legally able to. He provided the findings of the report so that people wouldn’t have to wait until the DOJ reviewed it and removed information that is legally prohibited from being released. And also he released the findings so that that weasels in the DOJ couldn’t drip out spun information to trash the president while the review was being completed. True story. Do these idiots think Barr lied about Mueller’s findings while Mueller stays quiet about it while helping Barr review the report? Come on now. This is such a political spectacle.Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), one the biggest fools in congress, will say this at the hearing today:“All we have is your four-page summary letter, which seems to cherry pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion possible for the president,” Lowey will say. “In many ways, your letter raises more questions than it answers. “I must say, it is extraordinary to evaluate hundreds of pages of evidence, legal documents, and findings based on a 22-monthlong inquiry and make definitive legal conclusions in less than 48 hours. Even for someone who has done this job before, I would argue it is more suspicious than impressive.”Don’t forget that many of these grand-standers were in congress and opposed releasing the Starr report on Clinton way back when, and they changed the law so that these kinds of reports aren’t released to the public. But now, it doesn’t work in their political favor so we all have whiplash and the people have a “right to know” again.

Indeed so.
What we have here is a combination of bullheadedness and desperation on the part of the Democrats, at a level which hasn’t been seen since the Star report. and that, my friends, is a juxtaposition that I could probably get four or five posts out of if I wanted to.

However, leaving aside that glaring double standard, the “get Trump” mania among the Democrats is raising another question in the back of the minds of most American voters. That being, what else have the Democrats managed to do since taking over the lower house except alienating half the country?

That is a question that will certainly be playing larger as we get closer to November, 2020. That that is particularly true given the onrushing freight train of the Ukrainian/ Democrat investigation.

davidl on April 9th, 2019

Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, envisions himself a presidential candidate. Whereas I see him as a modern day Joseph Smith, but without the claim of the golden plates, no make that a Fred Phelps for a new mileneum, from TIME

“People talk about things like marriage equality as a moral issue, and it is certainly a moral issue as far as I’m concerned,” Buttigieg said. “It’s a moral issue because being married to Chasten has made me a better human being — because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man and yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God.”

Now Mr. Pete Buttigieg is certainly entitled to both hold and preach his particular religious beliefs, whatever they happen to be. However if Mr. Pete Buttigieg chooses to preach in public he should clearly identify his particular religion. Further more, he should absolutely refrain from using his personal religions beliefs as any basis for criticism of public policy.

Maybe Mr. Pete Buttigieg’s personal god has, or has not, made him a better person. It has certain not made him a better politician

John Hinderaker says:

Do you think illegal immigration is a serious problem? If you are like 67 percent of likely voters, you do. If you think illegal immigration is a very serious problem, you have plenty of company–47 percent of voters.

Of course, if you are running for president as a Democrat, you don’t think illegal immigration is a problem at all. Eight percent of likely voters agree with you. Not only do none of the Democratic presidential candidates want to build the wall, some of them want to tear down barriers where they already exist. Open borders! Come one, come all!

How can the Democrats be so out of touch with voters on what most regard as a very important issue? I don’t know.

John, I do understand that your commentary is slightly tongue- in- cheek, but let’s lay it out here

The reason that “you don’t know” John, is this… you’re still operating from the premise that Democrats want to represent the views of the people, when the fact is precisely the opposite is true.

The Democrats think they know better than anybody else what needs doing, and won’t be happy until you adopt their ideas, and their policies in lockstep. There is perhaps no clear example of this than Obamacare. Or before it, Hillarycare.

Freedom, individualism, self-reliance, all the things that this country was founded on, are an anathema do the Democrats and have been since Woodrow Wilson and quite probably before.

Matt Margolis says:

This morning, award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon reported at The Hill what could be an explosive story about potential collusion between American Democrats and Ukrainian nationals, including interference with the 2016 election and the obstruction of criminal investigations.

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the (U.S.) ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych.

Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told me. “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.” That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.

In another instance, he said, Ukrainian authorities gathered evidence that money paid to an American Democrat allegedly was hidden by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during the 2016 election under pressure from U.S. officials. “In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of (the American) would not be mentioned,” he said.

While this sounds like a potentially explosive story, according to Solomon, “Ukraine is infamous for corruption and disinformation operations,” and so “allegations emanating from Kiev usually are taken with a grain a salt.” However, this story may be different, Solomon says, because the allegations shared with him “by more than a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials are supported by evidence that emerged in recent U.S. court filings and intelligence reports.” Evidence includes sworn statements from two Ukranian officials “admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton,” and contacts between “Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump.”

The thing is, weve known about this for a long time. As Matt points out in his piece:

Politico reported back in 2017 on evidence of Ukraine government officials working to undermine Trump and boost Clinton. The evidence Solomon claims to have is more than the evidence alleged to prove that Trump colluded with Russia, and yet we had a 22-month-long special counsel investigation on the Russian collusion nonsense, not the Ukrainian/Democrat collusion.

The Lid has more:

Kostiantyn Kulyk told John Solomon their evidence includes:

  • Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton.
  • The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;
  • Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;
  • Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukrainian relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;
  • Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;
  • Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;
  • Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.

And there’s more because “Kulyk’s boss, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, told me he has enough evidence — particularly involving Biden’ to warrant a personal meeting with AG Barr.

So what we have here is solid evidence that the only collusion that was really going on was between the Democrats and the Ukrainians, as well as evidence that this effort was aided and abetted by Democrat Party operatives within the State Department and the FBI.

No wonder the Democrats are panicking so.

Special counsel, anyone?

Over at The Spectator, Roger Kimball:

Third, this monologue, like many other statements from Tucker Carlson, illustrates something about him that his enemies, as well as many of his friends, are loathe to acknowledge. It is this: though he is conservative, and though he is a sharp and effective critic of many of Trump’s enemies, he is by no means an unreflective supporter of the president. On the contrary, he dissents from Trump on many issues — from his policy in Syria to the slate of possible domestic initiatives he mentioned in his recent monologue.

This is the hardest thing for the Left (and, again, some ditto-head elements on the Right) to swallow: there are some independent commentators out there who call the shots as they see them and offer commendation or criticism on the basis of their own principles, not on the basis of parti pris. When it comes to the virtue of independence, Tucker Carlson leads the pack.

The reason that I post this, is because I’ve run into this myself, and from people who in the past I have had respect for, and I know very well of what Roger speaks. This seems to me an opportunity to explain long-held positions, and to answer the basic philosophy of my writings here.

Understand, that prior to the election I consider that I was one of the strongest anti Trump people out there. (Example)

Not because I thought the Democrat nominee was worth a damn, but because the Republicans could do better. To this day, I strongly believe that we would have been better off dealing with Ted Cruz as president. Not, mind you, because it would have mollified the Democrats. (I am firmly convinced that nothing would, then, or now.)

Rather, because Cruz has always been a reliable conservative, operating from conservative values. Not so much with Trump.

Frankly however, the Democrats are only half the problem.

The remainder of it is the establishment GOP, who has almost invariably dumped on anyone who dares to come out as operating from those conservative principles, (which would include both Trump and Cruz) as I explained here a couple years ago. Every blessed one of them is a lock- stepper, and I’m having none of it.

All that explained, however, we ended up with Trump as President… At which point I was forced into the pragmatic stance of supporting him when he’s right, and ripping him a new one when he’s wrong. Fortunately for myself, and for the country the latter of those two situations is by far the fewer. I have to tell you, from long, often bitter experience, that is a source of confusion like few others.

The fact is, I have not been in lockstep with either side through any of this. I do completely reject the Democrat Party it’s socialism its candidates and its partisan nonsense. I also reject a goodly portion of what I see in the GOP establishment which seems bent toward being Democrat lite, and not being actual conservatives.

That’s a position that I have held for the last two decades of writing in this website, and elsewhere. In that process, it’s fair to say that I’ve been chastised, banned, mocked, unfriended, and more, for the stands I’ve taken, over time.

To say the least it’s a position that angers and confuses both sides.

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.
— Winston Churchill

Ironic, that more than once I’ve been accused of having insufficient subtlety in my arguments, by people who have exposed themselves over time as being either hard left, or GOP establishment. In my view, the subtlety of those positions are directly comparable to that of your average train wreck.

Those who sharpen their wits too much, lose them. To be over-subtle is to be stupid, my dear sir. The world at large will never be the fenced precinct or the desert island of the professors of economics.
— H. E. Jacob

For me, it all comes down to this… Over time, my positions have been proven correct far more than they have been proven incorrect, and almost invariably when they have been proven correct, it was after an extended period of criticism from the above-named people.

So, I will continue to speak my mind on any subject, how others react to that, notwithstanding.

And the fact is, I would expect, and demand, nothing less from any of you.

Over at Red State:

Big League Politics reports eyewitness John Tighe’s account of how the New York senator sat at the NXIM table for a Hillary fundraiser:

“The very first time I ever met Gillibrand she was at an event for Hillary Clinton in the Hall of Springs in the State Park. This was in 2006. … I was on the Democratic committee at the time and was given two comp tickets. Gillibrand came up to me introduced herself and said she was running against John Sweeney. … I then commented to Mike that with her baby voice and demeanor that she was a lightweight. Boy was I wrong. But the kicker was when the mixing was over and Clinton went to speak. Gillibrand sat with one of the front tables. Yeah the three front VIP tables were all brought by NXIVM and she was sitting with (group co-founder) Nancy Salzman. You can quote me on that.”

Ok, I will.

But what in blazes is NXIVM?

NXIVM has been labeled by several journalists as a pyramid scheme, a sex-trafficking operation, and a sex cult. NXIVM has also been accused by former members of the organization of being a recruiting platform for a cult operating within it (variously called “DOS” or “The Vow”) in which women were branded and forced into sexual slavery.

It gets better, but I won’t bother quoting much more of this… I think you get the idea. I would urge you to dive into it because the mainstream media is never going to report this.

And yes, all of this has been verified. But not by the mainstream media…not that they haven’t had ample opportunity to do this. This stuff has been bubbling under the surface for years now, and memberships in the organization of included Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

if these were Republicans we were talking about, the news would be all over the place and it would be 24/7 until those numbers saw some serious jail time, or at least saw their political ambitions tossed into the gutter where they belong. But since these are all uniformly Democrat Party members we’re talkin about, these stories remain under a shroud.

As somebody else once put it… “When you consider the mainstream media to be the voice of the socialist Democrats, it all starts making sense.”


At what point does this charade end?

The cannibal pot continues to simmer, as we see at The Federalist:

“You look great,” said Don Marsh, the 80-year-old host of the radio show “St. Louis On the Air,” to recently retired St. Louis news anchor Karen Foss (75 years young) when she entered the studio for an interview. The two veteran journalists then went on to have this pleasant and collegial conversation aired by KWMU, National Public Radio’s St. Louis affiliate.

The next morning, Foss learned that Marsh, a St. Louis institution, was leaving St. Louis Pubic Radio. Why? Someone at the KWMU studio had overheard Marsh’s complimentary greeting to Foss, perceived it to be inappropriate, and tattled to the bosses. That’s right, a man telling a longtime friend whom he hadn’t seen in a while that she looked great was Not Okay.

Foss posted a response on Facebook:

Reportedly Marsh was reprimanded for greeting me with a ‘you look good’. The assertion being that Don was making a sexist comment.
I am appalled.
As a woman who has long argued for the equitable treatment of women, I am highly alert to sexism and discrimination and I sensed absolutely none of that in his greeting. In fact I strongly suspect I responded by saying ‘so do you’. It is a common way for those of us who are aged to greet each other – meaning we share our pleasure at being vital and healthy. It is in no way leering or meant to diminish anyone’s intellectual or professional contributions.
If indeed this simple exchange between professionals who have been friendly competitors for nearly 40 years was considered evidence of sexism, I must protest vehemently. After sixty years in the workplace, I know very well what sexual harassment and innuendo look like and this was most assuredly nothing of the kind

Apparently, despite all efforts to the contrary, John Marsh was coming off as being “insufficiently woke” to his superiors.

Several comments spring from this, the first one being why anyone still questions removing taxpayer money from such radio stations.

It strikes me as interesting that’s Joe Budden is suffering from the same fate.

And finally, it strikes me as amusing that all of this is coming from the party of Bill Clinton.

Never doubt that the American people know when they’re being lied to… As Breitbart explains

Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show earned more viewers last week than all of CNN’s primetime line up combined, reports the Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra.
This has to be a bitter pill for CNN. For years now the far-left network has done everything in its power to bring Carlson down.

By any measure, CNN has conducted what can only be described as a straight up, deliberate demonization campaign.

CNN has also participated in the effort to have Carlson blacklisted by advertisers due to his right-of-center political beliefs. Since the fake news outlet cannot beat Carlson in the ratings, it is hoping to drive him off the air through McCarthyism.

And here’s the point;

For two years, CNN flooded its network with one fake news bombshell after another and a narrative that assured viewers the Mueller Report would be the end of Trump — that impeachment was right around the corner.

CNN was certain Mueller would come through with some ginned-up allegation against the president. And so, for two whole years, CNN baited its viewers with this nonsense, and when Mueller failed to come up with the goods, those viewers fled in droves.

If the reaction to CNN is like that, can you imagine what the reaction is going to be at the voting booth, at the first opportunity, for the American voter?

It’s as I said yesterday:.

So, if we take my friends advice, what we’re seeing out of the Democrats now, is all for show, so as to keep their own necks out of the guillotine. It’s a thought that frankly hadn’t fully occurred to me before.
But you know I can’t look at that situation and not Wonder when the Democrats will be paying the price for years of lies and misdirections… and who will be pulling that rope.

While shooting the bull over some coffee this morning with a friend of mine down in New Jersey, the subject fell to the Mueller report and the Democrats rejecting it. The subject of the conversation was what Nadler would do, and why he’s calling for the complete release of the Mueller report including all the background information, Etc.
anybody who’s been reading here lately knows full well that I’ve been calling for a full release of the report anyway because as I’ve been saying, the worst thing you can do to a Democrat is give them exactly what they ask for.
My friend, though, suggests that the reason that Nadler is calling for all of that is because he’s trying to satisfy the Democrat base who has spent the last two years screaming bloody murder that “there has to be something that Trump has done wrong so we can get rid of him. ”
He went on to suggest that if the leading Democrats even thought about accepting the idea that Donald Trump was on the up-and-up, they’d have a complete revolt on their hands.
My friend went on to say, “It’s like Mark Twain told us years ago… It’s a lot easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
Funny how he should use that quote given that I had used it here just a few short weeks ago. But he’s got a point, and I think it’s one that deserves serious consideration.
The one thing that bothers me about it all is the fact that eventually they’re going to figure out that what Meuller found and what is in the report including all the background material, is going to exonerate Trump as well. The political cost of the Democrats on that score is going to be nothing short of earth-shaking.
To which, he responded, “They’re never going to get what they’re asking for. And they know they’re not going to get what they’re asking for.” For proof, he pointed at the demands for the last 6 years of tax returns that came from house Democrats just this morning, which he suggested the Democrats aren’t going to get, either.
For the Democrats their current stance is a win-win situation. If they do manage to get something, anyting, that even slightly matches their Trump hatred, they can consider it a victory. If they don’t get anything that feels that particular bill, they can go on claiming that they’re being stonewalled. Either way, the base is satisfied. At least for now.

So, if we take my friends advice, what we’re seeing out of the Democrats now, is all for show, so as to keep their own necks out of the guillotine. It’s a thought that frankly hadn’t fully occurred to me before.
But you know I can’t look at that situation and not Wonder when the Democrats will be paying the price for years of lies and misdirections… and who will be pulling that rope.

Addendum, Eric

Roger Simon:

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is huffing and puffing away about his committee’s subpoena-in-waiting lest Attorney General William Barr not be sufficiently forthcoming about the details of the Mueller Report.

“But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials,” Nadler warned. “And if the department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge — not the president or his political appointee — to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the committee to review the complete record.”

Methinks the chairman doth protest too much. In other words, it’s all a charade for the faithful. He doesn’t really want to do anything. Likely Nadler is secretly praying Barr redacts the whole damn thing or ties things up in the courts for long enough for the investigation to disappear at least somewhat down the memory hole.

If you’ve been reading here the last two days you know Roger and I are on the same page with this thing.

The natural question will then be — what was all this for? Cui bono? A full airing of the report, what Nadler claims he wants, will instead “open the door,” as they say in court, more than ever for an investigation of why this probe was launched in the first place, by whom and for what reason. The results of that investigation will be quite scary, if not humiliating, for Democrats because they will lead close to, if not over, their highest doorstep — the portals of the Oval Office during the previous administration.

Over the next few months we will be seeing the fight of our political lives to keep that threshold from being crossed. The skirmish over the report is but a relatively tame preamble. Nadler has to be very careful not to anger Barr too much because the attorney general has within his control the ability to appoint a special counsel and make life miserable for the Democratic Party straight to the election of 2020 and beyond.

Personally, I’m hoping that he will. because when that happens, the justice department will actually live up to its name for the first time in over a decade.

Son of a dendum: Eric

A

Now, Mueller has gone, his report having found no evidence of an election conspiracy. There is no longer a rallying cry of Trump-Russia collusion.

In other words, an investigation that for two years had reconciled the irreconcilable no longer serves as a source of Democratic unity.

And so….

To escape punishment, all of these players in the Russian collusion delusion may now begin to turn on one another after being so united in going after Donald Trump.

…and I think we’ve already seen that happening, in other areas of progressivism as I noted here earlier today.

It’s time to get tough with China, says the South China Morning Post.

Deal or no deal, the ongoing US-China trade war has already taken its toll on the Chinese economy. The latest evidence is the decline in profits in China’s export-oriented manufacturing industry. In the first two months of the year, Chinese industrial firms’ profits fell 14 per cent year on year, to 708 billion yuan (US$105 billion), according to the latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics. It is the sharpest contraction since 2009.

Obviously, the trade war with the United States has dealt a severe blow to China, the world’s second-largest economy, and weighed on Chinese factory activity, corporate earnings, business and consumption.
The trade row halved China’s industrial profit growth, from 21 per cent in 2017 to 10.3 per cent in 2018. Some sectors were hit harder than others. Automobile industry profit fell 42 per cent in the first two months of the year, as vehicle sales dropped for eight straight months up to February.

I know it was interested this is exactly what Gordon Chang over at The Daily Beast has been saying for some time now.

(And by the way, Gordon Chang is the only reason to bother with The Daily Beast.)

China is going to be desperate for a deal assuming that we’re willing to play hardball with them.

Of course this is something you’ll never hear the Democrats talking about. They might have to admit Trumps got this one right.