Powerline Pic

Headlines

Ex-Trump aide [Nunberg] defies Mueller, risks jail

Dreamers walk to DNC, block doors, call Democrats 'fake allies'

Diplomat whose tip started FBI Russia probe has tie to Clintons ...

Collapse: Oscar ratings crash by double digits

Judge declines to halt part of Trump's anti-sanctuary city policy

[Famous pollster] Nate Silver shoots down Dems taking the House in 2018

As yellow fever spreads, Brazil struggles to vaccinate millions ...

Alec Baldwin: Time to rethink Second Amendment

Republicans blitz Trump to head off tariffs

Bruce Orr is the target of another DOJ lawsuit linked to the Trump dossier

Nunberg Trial: Former Trump aide unravels in whirlwind tour ... Meds?

Nortth Korea has expressed a willingness to talk about denuclearization, South Korea says

Dirty

Did J. Edgar Hoover so infect the FBI that it can never be cured of its recently-revealed rampant corruption?


Flashback: Remember "filegate" -- when the Clintons illegally obtained, in the early 1990s, several hundred FBI confidential files on persons of interest? How much of this dirt was then used in the ensuing years to kowtow their political foes? How did the FBI let this egregious transgression happen?

Three Wishes

What would I wish for if a (Muslim?) Genie were to give me three wishes?

1) Grant the world a complete understanding of the science of our life experience -- Earth's likely future?, life elsewhere in the Universe?, human population limits?, complete understanding of photosynthesis?, limits of human lifespan?, disease cures?, future of fusion as an energy source?, can man inhabit other worlds?, how magnetism works?, how gravity works?, is the speed of light the limit of speed?,  parallel universes?, worm holes?, existence of an afterlife?, the ultimate in subatomic particles?, etc., etc.

2) Cause a glorious Renaissance in the (non-political) arts that lasts throughout eternity.

3) Make all the bad actors in the world forever decide it makes no sense to wage war. The only competition allowed would be mercantilism and non-lethal sports contests.

3.5) Make me, all my family and all my friends (and this blog's readers)  as wealthy as we want to be and as healthy as we need be.

3.75) Bring the Clinton crime family to justice.

Pilgrim's Progress

Progressivism has been a proud, aggressive and often successful political movement since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt and Wisconsin's Senator Bob LaFollett. However, one of the flaws of progressivism is, at least in the arena of social justice, eventually the progress being made gets more and more rarefied. Yes, progressives have swept away many of the discriminatory laws and mores in the United States, but their follow-on targets represent smaller and smaller slices of our population (e.g., gender fluid rights) and, thus, the political payoffs get more problematic.

After all how many voters want to marry animals? But, this doesn't seem to slow progressives down. Soon it will be more bizarre rights being advocated ... man-boy love, human rights for simians and group marriages. Don't doubt me. To progressives, the social equality agenda seems never to run out.

Yet Progressives often keep their prejudices quite private while championing exactly the opposite in public. The Kennedys, the Clintons and many in the black movements (Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton) come immediately to mind. Somehow, the general public chooses to ignore these inconsistencies.

Progressives are also often drawn into conundrums ... like embracing people who often violently oppose many of their other basic public tenets. For instance, many fundamental Muslims lethally oppose free love, homosexuality and religious tolerance ... yet are supported by progressives in a stunning display of hypocrisy. Even worse, progressives will not tolerate fundamental Christians with far less onerous strictures. I scratch my head over these inconsistent progressive notions.

Will progressives run out of paved road? Will they have fewer social equity causes to champion in the future? Or will the notion of more social justice ... or injustice ... as utilized by progressives begin to peter out? I hope so ... but I don't expect so.

Headlines

These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites.

Women's March turns nasty ...

[Women] Marchers vow to never leave Washington, DC

Sean Spicer rips media for lying about crowd size at Trump inauguration

Trump's first full day: Prayer, bowling and a visit to the CIA

Trump calls out Time Magazine for fake news story about removing MLK bust from Oval Office

Madonna: 'Thought about blowing up the White House'

Fox News declines to renew contract for George Will ...

Trump protester displays ISIS flags, beheading videos ...

Measles outbreak grows in L.A. despite strict new vaccination law ...

[Ashley] Judd: Trump has 'wet dreams' about daughter  ...

[Trump's] Address reportedly written by Bannon, Miller

Maher to Clintons: 'I never want to see either of you, ever again'

Payback for Playback

The Trump Inauguration Committee is asking for donations to pay for the festivities surrounding this January 20th event ... and has come under intense liberal criticism for these solicitations ... see: MSNBC Video ... claiming that this is "pay for play." This is to try to equate them to what the Clinton crime family did for many years with the Clinton Foundation. Therein they obviously gave considerable quid pro quo for generous donations to this "charity" that spent over 93% of its funds on non-charitable benefits to the Clintons and their hanger-ons.

What these liberal critics also neglect to mention is that every president for a long time (I can't get Google to give me a definite answer) has had these inauguration celebrations (parties, balls, entertainment, etc.) paid for with corporate and individual donations. I, however did find some references ... for a little history see: Bush 41 Inauguration Donations, Other Presidents Inaugural Donations, and Obummer Inaugurations Donation Form.

This phony Democrat analogy and acerbic accusation by the "bitter slingers" that are on their way out of power in Washington ... tells me that they have learned nothing from their defeat. May they stay so oblivious for a long, long time.

Scandal Fatigue

Americans have developed calluses on our psyches due to the daily barrage of scandals surfacing around our politicians. And these calluses, unfortunately, cause us to be skeptical of many of these outrages. However, the sheer volume of these misdeeds suggests that at least some of them are true or near true. And this tells me that our government is a festering sore of evil self-dealing and immorality.

How many of us remember when accepting a vicuna coat as a gift (during Eisenhower's tenure as president) caused a national front-page scandal that resulted in the ouster of a key administration aide, Sherman Adams? Now, such a misstep would be laughed off as being penny-ante foolishness.

And so we are greeted today with another news bagatelle ... Julian Assange of Wikileaks is suggesting that Seth Rich, the recently murdered Democrat staffer, was the source of the leaked DNC e-mails that cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz and two others their jobs ... see: The Gateway Pundit Story. This, of course, can't be true ... our overtaxed synapses will not permit such accusations to enter our conscious brain ... despite the fact that such lethal innuendo has swirled around the Clintons since Arkansas days. How could these two upright states-persons be involved in such skulduggery?

And so our inquiring minds are turned to the Olympics or to America's Got Talent or to the latest Kim Kardashian's bum shots ... we can't be bothered to tax our grey cells any further with these obviously Trump-ed up scandals. They are just diversions from the more important things in life.

Mega-Grifters

Leaders of the Clinton Foundation

I'm at a loss as to how the Bush's can be so friendly to these bunco artists.

News You Can Use

In talking recently to a well-versed and connected former politician, I broached two subjects of which he was unaware. I believe that this information is so important that I am going to reprise it here with links to my original blogs that more fully explain this news that, for some inexplicable reason, never made it into the main-stream media.

First, back in August, Egypt offered to cede to the Palestinian Authority (PA) 618 square miles of the Sinai Peninsula to expand the Gaza Strip. This would effectively quintuple its land area for the settlement of its refugees … and would have provided the PA the perfect opening to create its side of the famous “two state solution” to the decades' old smoldering conflict with Israel. President Mahmoud Abbas of the PA rejected this offer on the flimsiest of grounds … see: The Impossible Dream

Second, both the Clintons and the Obama administration have deep and important ties to the Muslim Brotherhood … the nursery for much of the Jihadists movement. These links have helped color our foreign policy in the Mideast over the last six years …and are, I believe, a primary reason that things are so bollixed up there. Read some of the known details here: Fleas.  I’m fairly certain that there are many other more incriminating connections.

Have you dear reader seen or read about these profound revelations highlighted in our national media? I thought not.

Afterward: Abbas once again showed his blood-stained hands ... see: Breitbart Article.

After Afterward: Now we learn that Obama's buddy, the religious head of the Muslim Brotherhood, is being sought by Interpol ... see: Atlas Shrugged.

Rich vs. Super Rich

Hillary Clinton has dug herself into a public-relations hole with her statements about not being wealthy. And she then doubled down by saying that she and Bill were not "rich" because they pay an ordinary income tax rate ... a snide reference to Mitt Romney who mostly pays a capital gains rate.  The Clinton's easily qualify as being rich ... or in the 1% club. Hillary was surely confusing being rich with being super rich. And when these two were in the White House or in the State Department they certainly lived like they were super rich ... possibly this is one reason that they want these circumstance back

The world knows that the Clinton's are easily plutocrats with their large government stipends, secret service protection, two mansions, their multi-million dollar book advances and their six-figure speaking fees. One might also include daughter Chelsea in this category ... she who lives in a $10.3 million apartment and earns $600,000 per year for very little productive work ... see: National Review Story. And add to all of this Clinton wealth, the mega-million dollar (mostly Arab-funded) Clinton Foundation which is a bottom-less honey pot for this family and their large posse of hanger-ons.

But the question does pose itself ... what does being super rich really mean. That old saw that you are not rich if you have to ask the price of anything ... doesn't cut it anymore. So I have constructed what I think would be a newer and better set of tests to determine if one is truly a member of the 1% of 1%-ers ... or super rich.

- If you never wear the same clothes twice
- If your butler has a butler
- If you no longer go to St Barth's because of all the hoi polloi
- If you live off of the interest on your interest
- If you buy a sports team just so you can get the best seats
- If you promise not the bequeath anything to your children
- If you call for higher taxes on the wealthy
- If Warren Buffet asks you to lunch
- If your chauffeur drives his own Maserati
- If your yacht has its own helicopter
- If there are rooms in your mansions that you have never visited

Although they are now only rich, I have no doubt that the Clinton's are well on their way to being super rich and, if they reside once more at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they will make our current lush-loving residents there look like pikers.

The Enigma

Governor Chris Christie is an enigma to me.  He probably is as thuggish as President Obama or the Clinton's … he is from New Jersey after all.  As an example, I do suspect he purposely zinged Mitt Romney right before the last presidential election with his bear hug of Obama  … possibly as retribution for not being picked as Mitt's Vice Presidential running mate. And this had a lot to do with Romney losing the election. I also think that he is more involved in the bridge-gate dust-up than he lets on.  And moreover I believe that, when he was being vetted him for the Vice Presidential slot, Romney’s people found more skeletons in Christie’s closet.  These are bound to eventually come out.

But then again, the man thinks mostly good conservative thoughts and communicates these thoughts well.  He recently spoke to an Economic Club of Chicago gathering in which he convincingly debunked the recent Democrats’ gnashing of teeth over "income inequality." Quoting from the New York Times he said:

The problem is that Americans do not want income equality, suggesting that it is antithetical to the country’s abiding belief in “income opportunity” that rewards hard work and merit. “You want income equality? That is mediocrity,” he said. “Everybody can have an equal, mediocre salary.”

You can see the previous quote in the following Times article, but you need to slog through a number of brickbats first … see: NY Times Article.  (Funny how quickly the Times turned on Christie once Hillary was the presumptive Democrat nominee in 2016.)  I did see Christie deliver these ideas on television and he was quite convincing … dead on … something that the far left needs to worry about if they are going to continue flexing their Socialist muscles over this issue.

There will be a lot of back and forth with this Christie fellow over the next three years.  I don’t think he has a chance of being President … but, if he wanted to, he could serve an enormously useful function in the upcoming election.  He could be the Republicans’ junk-yard dog … popping all of the left’s pomposities as they raise their poll-tested syrupy heads … kind-of like the James Carville of the right.  Then maybe, if the Republicans can regain the White House, he might be rewarded with some useful administrative post … say Chief of Staff or Congressional Liaison?

He, like he has done in New Jersey, could help fix things.

Hell Hath No Fury ...

Like a woman scorned.  Newt Gingrich's second wife, Marianne, has unloaded on Newt in an ABC interview to be aired tonight after the debates (see: Washington Post Story) and two days before the South Carolina primary.  Apparently, this scorned woman drops at least one bomb on Newt saying that he requested, after many years of their marriage, that they should have an "open relationship" (each partner would be free to have other love partners).

I don't want to beat a dead horse ... nor do I want to seem to be endorsing Newt Gingrich's candidacy, but would this be a prime-time, network "news" story if it involved either of the Clintons ... particularly prior to their running for office?  (This is obviously a rhetorical question.)

DEN left a comment that freezes things on this blog (perhaps Google is trying to tell me something).  Anyway here it is:

I think the timing of this "news" is very suspect, and also Marianne is a skank, who knew he was a cheater because she was giving him lewinskis when he was married to #1. Most Gingrich fans will ignore this info (just as I did when you railed about Clinton's dalliences.)