Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Deep State Collusion with Russia


This is another of our guest posts which 
we publish based on relevance and accuracy.



It Was the Deep State that Colluded with the Russians, Not Trump
By Clarice Feldman American Thinker September 24, 2017

As more and more leaks about the ongoing “Russian collusion” witch hunt by Robert Mueller appear in print, it seems to me that if Russia had been trying to erode our faith in our institutions, the Deep State is accomplishing what Russia failed to do.
The Obama claque’s efforts were initially intended to help Clinton when they thought she would win and no one would know about their crimes. Then they continued the unlawful spying to cover up their role in the worst case of misuse of federal power in our history, i.e.to effect the removal or emasculation of Trump, the newly elected President; and  now they are desperate to cover up their illegal actions when all that failed.
A. Where we are today on “Russian collusion”?
Instapundit tweeted the answer succinctly: 
“The election was hacked!” turns out to mean, 

Facebook is now turning over ads presumably purchased by Russians during the campaign.  Good -- let’s see them. 
As the article notes:
The announcement that Facebook would share the ads with the Senate and House intelligence committees came after the social network spent two weeks on the defensive. The company faced calls for greater transparency about 470 Russia-linked accounts  -- in which fictional people posed as American activists -- which were taken down after they had promoted inflammatory messages on divisive issues. 

Facebook had previously angered congressional staff by showing only a sample of the ads, some of which attacked Hillary Clinton or praised Donald J. Trump.

As Tom Maguire reminds us, it would be unwise to assume this was a one-sided campaign: 
Let's see all the ads and find out whether Russia was winding up both sides. Back in the day it was believed Russia backed anti-fracking groups in Europe. Why not also in the US?

Best of the Web’s James Freeman thinks that, in any case, the notion that these ads swung the election is ridiculous on its face: 
So the spending on fake Russian political ads identified by Facebook amounted to around 1/7,000th of what Mrs. Clinton spent on advertising. And of course these fake ad buys were not material in the context of Facebook’s total advertising revenues, which amounted to nearly $27 billion last year.
Is a $150,000 ad buy even big enough to require sign-off from Mr. Putin? 

If, as some believe, Russian meddling was simply intended to discredit the likely winner, some poor Russian agent may now be headed to Siberia for engineering the election of a US President who seems determined to drive down the price of oil and challenge Russia instead of taking bribes. 

Let’s hope Congress gets to the bottom of this. If $150,000 amounts to the entire iceberg, and it still managed to sink the S.S. Clinton, marketing majors will be studying these ads for years to come. 

B. Using the Full Force of FISA to spy on a political opponent
Rubber Stamp for Illegal Surveillance
Obama has a long history of spying on his opponents and releasing information damaging to them. It’s a lifelong pattern. 

He got two opponents’ sealed divorce records unsealed in order to use unsubstantiated claims in pleadings by estranged spouses against them. As President, he continued this practice. 

By way of example, the Obama Administration used the IRS to collect information about the activities and donors of conservative and pro-Israel citizen groups while it refused to grant them the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled. The EPA collected private information from farmers and ranchers and released it to environmental groups to help them in their battles against those farmers and ranchers. 

There’s no reason to suppose that this pattern didn’t carry over to the 2016 election, and plenty of evidence that it did. 

As Sharyl Attkisson points out, they did it with reporters and Congressmen.

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.
You’ll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”  
[Which turned out to be perjury]
Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.
Watch my fingers, not my words
In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, although CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.
There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
Journalists have been targeted, too. 
The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News. 
[They also spied on journalists at the National Press Club!]
As Attkisson reminds us, other Trump associates General Michael Flynn and Carter Page were also under government surveillance. As bad as that was, it was discovered that multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. 

We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking”, or asking to know the identities of, the officials. 

Spying on US citizens is considered so sensitive their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.   [It is also illegal!]

Rice also specifically unmasked Steve Bannon, who met in the transition period with a UAE official, so it’s altogether possible they were spying on him generally as well. 

If so, that would mean that four Trump associates had been spied on, multiplying the number of conversations with the President these people were listening in on.

Even more “unmasking
-- revealing the names of those innocents scooped up in this broad surveillance -- about 300 people, had their privacy violated when [then]  UN Ambassador Samantha Power was revealed to have made almost one unmasking request a day, rapidly adding to the list as the inauguration approached.
Samantha Power was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 -- and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News. 
Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 in 2016. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

C. The FISA Court surely was misled in order to get information to surveil and to continue surveilling Trump and his associates.

FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) permits blunderbuss intelligence gathering. It’s not designed to gather information on crimes in general, but only to act as a tool of counterintelligence or counterterrorism. And it certainly would be suspicious if efforts were made to misuse it to conduct domestic political spying. 

There’s only one legitimate reason to conduct surveillance on a US citizen under FISA -- to find out more about the activities of a foreign power or terrorist organization. 
Since in the process of scooping up so much information, other matters might be revealed, “minimization” procedures are used to mask the identities of those caught up in the sweep who are not involved in such activities.

CNN reported -- with some obvious omissions and errors of law -- that former FBI director James Comey secured secret FISA orders to wiretap Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, and that having received nothing from that order, then secured another FISA warrant in 2016 (after Manafort joined the Trump campaign) and continued that surveillance into 2017, after the election.

Further, CNN reported that two attempts were made in the summer of 2016 to obtain a FISA order, both of which were rejected, and an order was issued only after the third try. FISA rarely rejects such requests, so I think it fair to assume the court was suspicious of these requests, which smelled like political, not national security matters. I think it almost a certainty that the final request received the personal imprimatur of Comey (as Director of the FBI) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

And what, you may ask, was different about the third and ultimately successful third attempt? I suggest it was the phony Steele dossier, which credible reports indicate was partially financed by Comey’s own FBI.  

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “Dossier”, the allegations of which appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele
[Ed: Sources for the most scurrilous allegations in it were from unnamed sources in Russia, most likely Russian government intelligence agents or liars working on a pay for dirt basis.]

The Washington Post reported in February that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the Bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.

Who was Mr. Steele’s friend at the FBI? Did the bureau influence the direction of the Trump dossier? Did it give Mr. Steele material support from the start? The timing matters because it could answer the vital question of why the FBI wanted the dossier. 

Here’s one thought: Warrants.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees spying activities, is usually generous in approving warrants, on the presumption law-enforcement agencies are acting in good faith. When a warrant is rejected, though, law enforcement isn’t pleased.
Perhaps the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance on someone connected to a presidential campaign (Carter Page?) but couldn’t hit what was -- and ought to be -- a supremely high bar for getting such a potentially explosive warrant. A dossier of nefarious allegations might well prove handy in finally convincing the FISA court to sign off. The FBI might have had a real motive to support Mr. Steele’s effort. It might have even justified the unjustifiable: working with a partisan oppo-research firm and a former spook to engineer a Kremlin-planted dossier that has roiled Mr. Trump’s entire presidency.

True Pundit claims that FBI connivance with GPS Fusion to create the dossier was not all it did to secure the final 2016 FISA warrant -- it also set up a meeting in Trump Tower and used information gleaned from Britain’s GCHQ in NSA headquarters to unlawfully gather information on US citizens.

From the beginning it was a set-up to find dirt on Trump campaign insiders and if possible to topple Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations.

Before and after the 2016 election. And while this operation had many moving parts and alternating players, the mission to unseat Trump never changed. And it remains ongoing.

 And none of it was very legal.

Six US agencies [the FBI, NSA, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under DHS, Justice Department]created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within US laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.

The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).
Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter inquiry on the Russian’s visa by True Pundit.
(More on the unusual visa granted to Veselnitskaya here. More on GCHQ operating from NSA headquarters here.)
In July, Bharara's former associate US Attorney Andrew Goldstein was added to Mueller’s army of largely Clinton backers and contributors to the special counsel’s enormous team.
In sum, the contention by True Pundit is that the government first spied on Trump and then concocted a national security ruse and desperately sought a FISA warrant to cover up the political spying which occurred before the FISA warrant was ever issued.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal also suspect that the dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant, and, if so, that requires a congressional investigation:
The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential campaign. Did Mr. Comey’s FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court? 
All of this is reason for House and Senate investigators to keep exploring how Mr. Comey’s FBI was investigating both presidential campaigns. Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the “integrity” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don’t cooperate in contempt.
I agree with Daniel Greenfield. Based on what I’ve read and observed, while the initial surveillance was to stop Trump and help Clinton, Obama used FISA to provide a “national security” cover for politically spying on Trump right up to the inauguration. As he notes, the first 2016 application was made the month after Trump obtained the nomination and the second in October, the month before the election.
As the unmasking picked up pace after the election, the reasonable assumption is that its purpose was to undo the results of the election or hamstring the incoming President.
Now Obama and his allies are or should be terrified that the scope of the illegal surveillance is revealing their criminal acts.
This is why I believe Mueller is growing increasingly desperate to find one crime by one person he can force by threat of jail to provide any shred of anything that might be used to justify their illegal espionage. Greenfield’s conclusion is apt: “The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor. A turning point in history is here. If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.”

Why do I say that Mueller seems increasingly desperate? How else does one explain a middle-of-the-night pick-lock armed entry (and the search of his bedclothes-garbed wife) into the home of a man who by all accounts had been fully cooperating and turning over all requested documents? How else to explain requesting a court grant such a necessary special warrant on the ground that otherwise documents evincing a purported eleven-year-old crime would suddenly be destroyed? How else to explain the effort by Mueller to find out client information from the Skadden Arps and Akin Gump law firms, materials probably covered by attorney-client privilege? With each leak of his conduct – designed, I suppose, by his team to terrify honest men into lying to redeem the special counsel’s misbegotten efforts -- Mueller looks more and more like a petrified enlistee in  the secretive repressive state force -- the Stasi -- as the wall is coming down and their conduct made public.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

NFL Anti-Patriotism

A US Marine takes a knee

We are told the NFL players are free to exercise their Right of Free Speech; and we agree.

However, the football field, and in uniform, are not the venue. Just as US soldiers were allowed to protest the Vietnam War, but outside Military installations, in civilian clothes, not in uniform, and speaking not as US soldiers, but as private citizens.

We encourage NFL players to remove their uniforms and carry picket signs, and march in front of the White House, or perhaps the statue of Lincoln in Washington, or at the WW2 Memorials, or the Vietnam Memorials, or at Arlington Cemetery where all those who gave their lives defending Freedom of Speech for everyone, even young athletes, many of whom have police records for rape, assault, drugs, and violent crimes, are now millionaires for spending a few months playing football.

The Right to Free Speech, however, is limited, not by the federal or local governments, but. amazingly enough, by the NFL.  The NFL Rule Book is specific, on page A62,63, pertaining to the National Anthem.
The National Football League Rule Book states: 
The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
The ONLY player to take the field!
[On Gold Star Mothers Day [honoring mothers of soldiers killed in action, the Pittsburgh Steelers remained in their locker room, with only one player on the field, saluting, and singing the National Anthem; that would be the only player on the team to have served in the Military, with three tours in Afghanistan and a Bronze Star]
During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.

"The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition.".
"...It should be pointed out to players and coaches that they continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

Now, we all enjoy a good game of football.
However, in recent years, the leadership of the NFL seems to have promoted the idea that NFL players are above the law, and that criminal records are meaningless in recruitment programs and keeping players on the field.

Although the list of players and records is incomplete, it's significant to note that the NFL Record shows 869 Arrests for a range of offenses including drugs, domestic violence, assault, battery, weapons, DUI, Hit&Run, reckless driving, etc.   Virtually every case was finished with "Resolution Undetermined, Case Dropped, two days in jail, or, home detention [except during games].


Although there are many fine professional football players, it seems that there is a significant element adhering to the illusion that they need not pay attention to Rules, or the Law.

We wonder if the NFL has become a breeding ground, or a haven for criminals.




Perhaps it's time to replace Roger Goodell as NFL Commissioner and replace him with an executive more in tune with the fabric of America.


These are the current sponsors of the NFL 
Feel free to alert them of your feelings for the NFL's promotion of anti-American conduct by the NFL team players. 

Anheuser-Busch 

Barclaycard US 

Bose Bridgestone [Tires] 

 Campbell's Soup 

Castrol Courtyard 

Marriott Dairy Management, Inc [Fuel UP to Play 60] 

Dannon [Yogurt 

Extreme Networks 

FedEx 

Frito-Lay 

Gatorade H

Hyundai Motor America 

 Mars Snackfood [Candybars] 

Microsoft Nationwide [Insurance] 

News America 

 Papa John's [Pizza] 

 Pepsi 

Procter & Gamble 

Quaker [Cereal] 

Verizon 

Visa 

USAA [Military insurance and banking]

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Trump's Hatchet Job



We publish commentary which is incisive
 and applicable to current events. 

This was written by an author who prefers 
anonymity, but the content is a superb 
analysis of President Trump's business 
management style as applied
to Washington politics.


How things work in the real world of business and corporate America; most notably. the concept of the "hatchet man."
Say you are a business tycoon. You just successfully completed a large-scale acquisition and merger, bringing together multiple smaller companies into one conglomerate. After the merger, you want to put your own people in charge of everything. 

However, all those smaller companies had their own executives - and, at least for the short term - you need to keep many of them around the keep things running. 

So, you keep many of those executives around, and let them retain their own senior staff. You even appoint one of them - the head of the largest of the companies you acquired - to be the CEO of the conglomerate, and he pledges to get all the departments working together harmoniously.
After a transition period, some of them are doing fine in the new conglomerate - but others are clearly causing trouble. In fact, the one you appointed CEO is clearly a disaster. The newly merged departments are working against each other.
Furthermore, you have good suspicion he is dealing in insider trading - nothing you can take to a prosecutor, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence building up. Worse, he is not only doing his own dirty dealing, but it appears he may even be leaking intellectual property to your competitors, helping them take market share from you.
Clearly, he has to go - and go now.
Problem is, many of the senior employees in your conglomerate are loyal to him. If you just fire him and put in your own chosen CEO, you know you could get a lot of backlash from disgruntled employees. And in your business, there is such a small profit-margin that you really can't afford anything at all that threatens performance. So what do you do?
In comes the hatchet man.
The hatchet man is someone you bring in for the sole purpose of slashing the problems and shaking things up over a very short period of time - but doing it in a way that deflects any blame or blowback away from you. As soon as the problems are hacked away, the hatchet man leaves - taking the ire and resentment with him, and leaving you free to bring in your new team for a fresh start.
This happens in the business world all the time. 
And Donald Trump is a businessman. 

[One of our jobs was as a Hatchet Man in the Intel Community (IC) many years ago; the process worked quite well there to eliminate "dead wood", and, of course, it is time to renew that process with today's IC.]

He knows this. He has lived this. We've seen him do it on "The Apprentice." We've read about it in his books. This is not a surprise to anyone. Except for liberals and never-trumpets.

Enter Scaramucci.
Scaramucci - Hatchet Man
Liberals and never-Trumpers see recent events as proof of a Hitler-clown-circus spectacle, as evidence that Trump is unhinged and our government is in the hands of madmen! 
Anyone who understands the business world and Donald Trump fully understands that what we just witnessed was a perfectly executed hatchet man maneuver.
When Trump won the election, he essentially performed the political equivalent of an acquisition and merger. He brought together different political factions - establishment Republicans, conservatives, tea party, religious right, moderates, independents, cross-overs - into one winning political coup. For some, it was a hostile takeover - and if they were going to be dragged in against their will, they would sure as hell resist.
This is where Reince Priebus came in.

Priebus - Dead Meat
Priebus, as the then-chairman of the Republican National Committee, was hired as White House Chief of Staff to be a sort of post-merger CEO. I

It was his job to bring all these political factions together and get them to work harmoniously. But he failed. Worse, there is ample evidence to suggest he not only failed, but worked against Trump and the Trump agenda. 

Look at the leaks. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the bureaucracy continuing to work at odds with the president. Priebus - and a number of other people around him - had to go.
Back to Scaramucci.
Donald Trump had known for some time that Priebus was a disaster. He was going to give him his six-month trial period - that's a fairly common thing in the private sector. After that, heads were going to roll. But Trump himself couldn't be seen as the hatchet man. He needed to be able to lead after the bloodbath. 

So what does to do? 

He turned to an old friend he had known for many years - someone with nothing to lose, someone who could step in with a hatchet and hack away, someone who can then just walk away from it all and leave the slate clean. 

He turned to Scaramucci.
So what did Scaramucci do? 
He came in swinging. He fired a few people to make a quick example and then told others they could "resign" immediately if they wanted to - but if not, they would be fired. Others saw what was going on and quit of their own accord.

                                     That problem CEO, Priebus? 

Mucci to Priebus: YOU'RE FIRED!
Oh, the new "structure" of the organization put Scaramucci in direct competition with Priebus - and Priebus threw up his hands and announced
 "fine, I'm out of here." And Scaramucci did it all in a way that is spectacularly visible to draw all the fire from Trump critics.

[Most notably, by drawing Priebus out from his position as Chair of the GOP, Trump eliminated Priebus' power as an adversary since the scramble of power brokers to replace Priebus ensured he could not return, and guaranteed that it would take years for Priebus' replacement to create a power base.]

So how did it all end? 

It ended up with Trump putting in his new CEO - the one he probably wanted from day one, but held back - and the new CEO says 
"OK, Scaramucci - you are no longer needed here."

New Chief of Staff: General Kelly
General Kelly now has a clean slate to start fresh - and Scaramucci takes all the heat. Where the Left and Never-Trumpers see a circus freak-show, realists from the business world see a perfectly executed post-merger hatchet-man job.
The political wonks see Kelly taking command as the first sane thing to happen in this administration. They don't realize they've been played, and played perfectly. And soon, we will likely see some other changes that move the Executive Branch further towards what Trump has wanted from Day One. 

And then watch the real swamp-drainer get to work. 
Oh, and Scaramucci? 

He got a sweet deal out of all this - no doubt, he and his friend Donald Trump talked it all out first.
Scaramucci was already facing a nasty divorce that would result in the liquidation of his business to divide assets. A little-known law allows people who are legally required to sell a business as a condition of employment in the Executive Branch (to prevent conflicts of interest) to defer the taxes on their profits from the sale.
Scaramucci was going to have to sell his company anyway due to his pending divorce. Now he and his soon-to-be ex-wife just saved $80 million in taxes. So don't think for a moment all this was an unplanned mess that went awry. Scaramucci and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.
All of this was planned - and foreseen by folks in the business world. 
Scott Adams wrote before Trump was inaugurated that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:
Act One - Trump is literally Hitler.
Act Two - Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.
Act Three - Trump is not incompetent, but we don't like his policies.
We've seen this play out.
From election night up through the first 100 days, the Left was out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.
But after 100 days, when Trump had failed to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people and put the gays into camps and force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the "Trump is Hitler" narrative.
And so from that 100 day point up until now, it has been the "Trump is incompetent" game. 

Look at all the chaos. 
Look at all the leaking. 
Look at all the tweets. 

Now, we begin Act Three. 
With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the Left -- and the RINOs will have to say is "we just don't like Trump's policies."...Act Three.
And once that happens, the Left is dead, as will be the GOP if they don't get behind Trump. 

Because, Trump's policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. 

We should put America first. 
Build back our economy. 
Create jobs. 
Strengthen the military. 
Protect the border. 

Outside of a few densely-populated liberal strongholds like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and - of course - Washington, DC, Americans in general agree with all of this. So when all the Left has to say is "Trump's policies are wrong," the Left, and Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell, will literally be telling most of America, "you people are stupid."
Trump will win 47 states in 2020. The Left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened. And you'll be able to look back and say, 
"hey, some of us told you all this back in 2017"

Consider this a free lesson in Advanced Business Administration as applied to Politics 401.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Oxford Won't Rewrite History



We publish the following letter both as an Oxford alum 
and as a suggestion to administrators of US institutions
 of higher learning in managing recalcitrant students
intent on destroying history by 
tearing down historical monuments.


This letter is an Oriel College alum's 
response to students attending Oxford as
 Rhodes Scholars who wish to remove 
the statue of Oxford Benefactor, 
Cecil Rhodes. 


Dear Scrotty Students,

Cecil Rhodes’ generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well-being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.

This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeures.*  If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: 
"Why am I at Oxford?

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. 

Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. 

Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Representative Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, and Julie Cocks. 

We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.

Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. 

In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; the #‎blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”.  

At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – post-graduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind.

We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations. We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.

That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!”  No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: 
You can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless!

T
Rhodes observing ungrateful grantees
his is a ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. 

Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? 


Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? 

As one of our alumni, Dan Hannan, pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution?  Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?”

Actually, we’ll go further than that. 

Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and Al-Qaeda have been doing to artifacts in places like Mali and Syria.  

You are murdering history.   

And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your #‎rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!"

Great. 

That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.

And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoilt, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university.

Understand us and understand this clearly: 
You have everything to learn from us; 
we have nothing to learn from you.

Yours,

Oriel College, Oxford
Autres temps, autres moeurs 
[Other times, other customs] 
in other eras people behaved differently.
------------------------------
FOOTNOTE:
The Rhodes Must Fall campaign succeeded in removing Rhodes' statue from its perch in South Africa.  The Movement has now infected African students at Oxford, with the probable outcome that African students will no longer be accepted at Oxford.  Ironically, it was Rhodes who set up the academic program for African [and foreign other] students to study at Oxford.