We live during one of the most fascinating events a society can experience: a cultural shift against what was seen as the only right way just a few years ago. Our civilization is reversing direction not because we found a new direction, but as a result of mass defections from the dominant paradigms that were once considered intelligent.
The people of the West — indigenous Western European by descent in Europe, America, and the antipodes — have experienced a loss of faith in the general direction of egalitarianism. After fifty years of it being in power, it showed us its true nature, and we are backing away slowly as one might from a snake or rabid chinchilla.
With this, we are overthrowing a very old idea. We know it arose in Athens two and a half millennia ago, and it was old to them then, meaning that it is one of those eternal human follies like multi-level marketing that sounds good until you try it and realize it is just a Ponzi scheme, like all things based on popular trends.
Most recently it showed up during the Renaissance,™ where an older Greek idea became new again when the human form was considered more important than a natural or divine order around it. The Renaissance™ like Romanticism after it was conflicted on this point, but it was finalized during The Enlightenment™ where it became accepted that the human individual — and not an order larger than it — was the focus of our civilization.
If the individual was the most important, we reasoned, all that mattered was making each individual matter. We switched from having leadership to constantly fighting over who would be the next leader, just so each individual was represented, albeit statistically insignificantly. We threw out rules, standards, and values because they created an inherent inequality where some understood them and the rest gave in to their crazed monkey emotions and fell short of the line of social approval.
During the twentieth century, the idea of equality really had its day of victory. The previous two centuries had brought a formalized egalitarian revolution in 1789 which caused social collapse that motivated France to attempt to dominate Europe in what was really a dry run for the world wars. That in turn set off a wave of revolutions as European nations attempted to adopt just enough of the new way to prevent it from taking hold; this pattern would repeat later as well.
However, by the early 1900s it was clear that the new egalitarian governments were making terrible decisions, having made their aristocrats captive and doing vile things in their names. The Boer War showed the inhumanity of the new West, and as nations formed unstable alliances in order to balance the rising threat of egalitarian revolution or invasion by egalitarian states, the conditions for the first world war were set in motion. That war broke the heart of the West, making all of us into monsters who supported grinding up the best of a generation merely to make an ideological point disguised as a clash between nations.
Since nothing was decided in that war except that Leftists had the superior numbers, a second world war was brewing, aided by the backlash against the egalitarian governments of the time. Egalitarians took their final form, similar to that of the Jacobins in revolutionary France, with the Communist regime in Russia that threatened to reach into Western Europe as gormless proles became excited for, Garden of Eden style, the promise of power beyond their role in the order of the universe and humanity. Communists and anarchists rolled through the streets of Germany, France, and America, throwing bombs and terrorizing people, while forming links with organized crime attracted to the immense wealth that unions and social benefits accrued. A backlash against this horror formed in Germany but, unfortunately for the Germans, it was still caught in the egalitarian mode of thinking which involved mob justice and a large administrative-bureaucratic state.
When the second world war ended in misery and destruction, no one expected the political re-alignment that would follow. For the first time, there were only Left-wing parties; one had to choose between the free market classical liberals of America, the free markets with wealth redistribution social democracies of mainland Europe, or the rising totalitarian Communists of Eurasia and Asia. All feared Communism because it held sway over both the gormless proles and the depressed intelligentsia who, in their desire for a graceful suicide, sought whatever would destroy everything that created their own lives and lifestyles. People in groups innately turn toward ideas like Communism, socialism, the Tower of Babel, and mob justice because it both flatters every individual and requires no accountability from any individual. After all, they can always blame each other; “the mob did it, not I!”
As Communism began to reveal its true brutality and incompetence, the West distanced from it in order to keep its own Leftist systems alive, because if it were seen that Leftism is contiguous from anarchism through Communism, then Americans might reject their own earlier stage variety of Leftism in order to avoid eventually continuing straight through to Communism. During the 1950s, the Cold War was at its height, and many Americans flirted with going farther right, but were stopped by the barrier of being too much like Hitler and his policies. As a result, the country shifted Leftward in the following decade, and offered its citizens a lesser variety of socialism in order to buy their allegiance way from the Soviets: diversity, equality, a welfare state that expanded upon the post-WW1 version, and greater individual autonomy. Onto this the overlords of the West grafted a consumer paradise, recognizing the wisdom of “bread and circuses” as a means of keeping a population too docile to revolt.
The strategy of the stewards of the West worked and, goaded into overspending on defense, the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s after a string of defections from its allies in Eastern Europe. This presented a problem to the modern West: it could now go fully socialist without having the negative example of the Communists to remind people that Leftism consists of degrees of the same idea, not fundamentally different ideas; a Communist and a Democrat agreed on the same principles and wanted the same ultimate goal for society. Starting in the 1990s, the US and EU revived their 1960s Leftism and pushed it further, keeping the free markets to a degree in order to subsidize the socialist state that was grafted on top of them. To justify this, they pushed social ideas derived from Leftism — diversity, feminism, pluralism, and universal acceptance — as a way of keeping their populations oriented toward ideology and away from reality.
Twenty years later, the results of those changes began to show themselves, especially in the hands of the diversity candidate who pushed us further Left than anyone since the Clintons, Barack Obama. Obama was elected to end the racial divisions that split the country, but his rise to power revealed that people were not merely disadvantaged, but wanted power for their own groups so they could determine their own futures. This meant that diversity was a path to endless internal conflict in the future, and the “fundamental transformation” of America revealed that this was an ugly, South American style future: a vast mass of poor mixed-race people ruled by a group of Leftist oligarchs. Even more, at fifty years past the changes of the 1960s, those revealed their own failings. Sexual liberation killed off the family, immigration destroyed wages, unions created offshoring, diversity meant no common standards of behavior, the welfare state created tax demand that choked independent motion, costs rose to pay for the government as an industry, and people became alienated, strange, and neurotic as they pursued the democratic ideal of self-expression.
This leads us to the present day where we are witnessing the implications of decisions made a half-millennium ago and now only finally becoming manifested in real-world consequences. This has provoked not a revolt, or a quest for a new idea, but a loss of faith. People no longer have faith in Leftism, from its modern socialist incarnation to its original idea of overthrowing any order larger than the individual; instead, they crave orders larger than the individual (culture, faith, leadership, caste) because these offer instead of a lottery of potentially winning power and social status, a stability which allows us more time and energy to focus on the important things in life: self-actualization, family, friends, understanding our world, and bonding with the life we have so that we enjoy it at an existential instead of merely sensual/material level. People want meaning, and they know that Leftism not only cannot give that, by but its reliance on the individual as the measure of all things, destroys it and turns us into neurotic attention-seekers living in a world without depth or nuance.
Most of our people do not oppose Leftism — a brew of utilitarianism, individualism, egalitarianism, and bureaucracy — but no longer see it as a solution. They are rejecting it when offered, and are instead selecting time-honored ways of living simply because while Leftism has failed us, those have not. This means that programs like diversity are on a deathwatch; people no longer have faith in them, so are unwilling to fund them or act to further them, even if they are not likely to demand their abolition. Feminism, social justice, and civil rights are now seen as low-rent activities for people who have no chance for a meaningful life and so are casting about for some affectation that will make them seem important. People of that nature are seen not as innovators, but losers, and most of us would be content for them to move elsewhere and disappear from our lives.
Even more, a realization has come about regarding Leftism: we now see it as a scam. We realize that it has always been the same basic philosophy and that from the Jacobins through Stalinists and now today’s SJW/PC culture, the fanatical and self-destructive nature of Leftism has never changed. All Leftists are the same; they have the same philosophy, and as they are given power, that philosophy becomes more extreme, moving from anarchism to libertarianism to socialism to tyranny. It is a philosophy for those who lack an inner guiding light and purpose and, in an attempt to be self-important, they use others and society as means to the end of their own power, leaving wreckage in their wake. They are just neurotics, not visionaries. Their ideas are not “groundbreaking” or “revolutionary,” but legitimization of ancient human failings; excuses, justifications, and rationalizations are the trade of the Leftist, not new directions. Even more, there are no new directions, only a series of choices, with some working out better in reality over time — we have expanded to the five hundred year timescale or beyond — and so we need to reject the non-functional and replace it with the functional.
We live in fascinating times. An old order, decayed and corrupt, which has failed to produce what it promised and has brought misery and weakness instead, is dying. There is no new order, only the removal of that which has failed, and then we resume where we were because that worked, and modify it as we can to improve quality of life without leading ourselves down the same novelty-seeking path that brought us Leftism. We have come to distrust individualism and instead place our faith in orders larger than that of the individual because those create the stability that allows individuality to shine. We are seeking a way past the horrible time of modernity, and we want to simply stop doing the illusory things we have been doing so that we can rediscover what is real.
June 25, 2018
Morning Joe the Ladykiller once again attacked Trump supporters, calling them “openly racist.”
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough took a shot at both President Trump and his supporters Friday, labeling both as “openly racist.”
The scathing comments during “Morning Joe,” which Scarborough co-hosts with Mika Brzezinski, came amid a highly controversial immigration debate over the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy that led to children being separated from their parents after coming across the U.S. border.
Scarborough leveled that people “cannot say, ’Oh, I’m just supporting him because he’s giving them hell in Washington.’ No, he’s been openly racist, just like we said back in December of 2015, openly racist.
“And if you support him, then you’re supporting that, and you are that,” Scarborough continued. “It’s that simple. And that’s what we’ve come to now.”
It isn’t really very complicated psychology that the more people are berated as “racists” for supporting policies that were standard just a few years ago, the more likely they are to just say “okay, well I guess I’m a racist then!”
Once they go ahead and say that, then they start to self-associate with others that get called racists.
And so, when the Daily Stormer is referred to as a “racist website,” they say “well, they’re probably on our team then!”
Our open and stated goal is to radicalize “conservatives” into racial nationalists. And the media seems to share that goal.
I don’t think they actually do share that goal. I think they are just dumb. They are still operating under the paradigm that public attempts to shame and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them as evil might still work.
Credit where due, that is sort of what Glenn Beck was saying to Brian Selter yesterday.
Glenn Beck’s agenda – a multiracial 56% mess – is the same goal as CNN’s. But he for whatever reason – probably due to his emotional instability – is capable of removing himself from the frame and seeing that radical polarization feeds into the goals of the far-right.
This also ties into the problem of claiming that Donald Trump is literally Hitler.
Radical polarization is a good strategy in South Africa, where whites are a tiny minority. But in America, where whites just won a Presidential election and are about to win these midterm elections, it is not a good strategy.
Because at the same time that all of this is happening, whites are being pushed out of the Democrat Party.
It just shows you that these people do not have competent strategists.
Because why would any intelligent person want to be a leftist strategist? No intelligent person can actually believe that giving children hormone injections to “change their sex” and replacing working class white people with Somalians is anything other than evil. And people who are willing to consciously do evil for a profit are all in finance, where they make a whole lot more money than they would in political strategy.
They’ve still got all of their Jews, but Jews are pathological. Despite their high IQs, they are emotionally-driven and prone to act on instincts which are now often wrong.
The only efficient political strategists are on the right, because we actually believe in what we are doing.
I often like to sit around and imagine if I could have gotten Hillary Clinton elected if I’d led her campaign. I think I probably could have. If I’d been given free reign, I think there’s an 85% chance I could have won that election for her. Although to be fair, she was ignoring a lot of advice from people who were trying to tell her to do things that I would have told her to do. So maybe it would have been impossible.
Anyway, my point is: we are smarter than these people. And we now have them doing our agenda for us.
It is only recently, after I published my writers’ guide, that they figured out what I was doing to them.
This needs to be written about a lot more, but as you might have noticed, we are experiencing a blackout in the media, and this was due to me dropping my writers’ guide. Which I did because I needed out of the spotlight for a while. It was a fun time, but it was creating too many problems.
Here are two papers that have been published on that issue, explaining why I should be blacklisted from mention in the media:
They’re both worth skimming through. But neither could have been written without having the guide where I explicitly explained what I was doing.
For three years, these people did exactly what I wanted them to. And when I wanted them off my back for a while so I could get my shit together, I got them to do that.
I’m not saying I’m a genius. I might be, but that is not what I am trying to say right now.
What I am saying is that we are not dealing with capable individuals.
We can win the culture war. It is a battlefield we can fight on, we can win on.
The battlefield that we cannot win on is that of the protest march.
So please – don’t go to the Charlottesville anniversary march thing.
I’m asking you.
Just don’t go.
We can win, we are winning, we will win. We need to continue on the winning path, which is influencing and manipulating culture. Marching through the streets doesn’t do anything but make us look crazy, stupid, get people doxed, get people sued, give the authorities an excuse to crackdown.
We don’t fucking need this retard shit.
Continue to do real life stuff with the meetup groups, continue to take care of yourself. Don’t go get doxed. Don’t walk into some idiot setup.
Fool me once, right?
June 25, 2018
I’ve of course talked a lot about how there was a conspiracy within the FBI and other intelligence agencies to first clear Hillary, then stop Trump from being elected, then destroy his Presidency if he was elected.
Sean Hannity has talked about it a lot (more recently – I’ve been talking about it the longest). And recently, Trump himself has been going into it.
It’s all out there in the public now, and we are right on the verge of subpoenas and indictments.
The Jew ((((((Horowitz)))))) report is just the beginning, because he covered a bunch of stuff up and is basically trying to frame Comey and Strzok as fall goys. But it is still a damning report. Even as damage control, it is damning.
So WSJ has decided to just lay it all out in an op-ed by high level Washington lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley. It is damage control like the ((((((Horowitz)))))) report itself – but it contains more or less most of the story as it exists right now. Important bits glossed over to give the appearance of more innocence than any serious person could believe – but none the less, they show that the entire Mueller probe is a hoax and that FBI agents – at least probably, according to them – cleared Clinton and tried to stop Trump’s election.
Feels good, man.
Feels real good.
It’s 2000 words. Worth reading the whole thing. But I’ll snip the best bits and add my commentary where they are purposefully forgetting things.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias.The June 14 report from Michael ((((((Horowitz)))))), the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” Although Mr. ((((((Horowitz)))))) could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.
Any bias is, in law, assumed to directly affect actions, which is why it is illegal. It is why recusal is a thing.
“Crossfire Hurricane” is a retarded name for a conspiracy.
If this had been my anti-Trump conspiracy, I’d have called it “Smashmouth Whirlwind.”
Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.
This article and the ((((((Horowitz)))))) report both skip important things.
Like that the FISA warrants were issued based on the Steele Dossier (Pissgate), which the FBI requested while knowing it was funded by Clinton and fake.
Mr. ((((((Horowitz)))))) is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”
“We’ll stop it” certainly implies intent to “directly affect” the election, doesn’t it ((((((Horowitz))))))?
Intent by a person with the ability to do so.
The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that ((((((Anthony Weiner))))))’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. ((((((Horowitz)))))) writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the ((((((Weiner)))))) laptop was free from bias.”
Again – the entirety of Crossfire was based on Pissgate, which they knew was fake from the get go.
That is a very important part of all of this.
Similarly, although Mr. ((((((Horowitz)))))) found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations.
Go ahead and read that sentence a few times.
See if it makes sense to you.
He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.
The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.
DEFINITELY LOOKS THAT WAY, DOESN’T IT???
What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.
Also – maybe worth mentioning here – a bunch of his staff was pulled directly from the FBI conspiracy – including Strzok himself!
Mueller as the head of the FBI under Obama also had ties to other Clinton conspiracies. And I’m sure all kinds of other stuff. Which is why he was appointed by the Jew Rod Rosenstein to this role – because he’s already got blood all over his hands.
The article’s authors then cite precedent for while the entire Mueller investigation is presumably illegal, entirely. We’ll skip that.
In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.
It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
He wrote that presumably when there was a chance that “Fast and Furious” was going to be at issue during the 2012 election cycle.
Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.
That is them admitting that pissgate is not “discernible evidence” – but note that they haven’t mentioned it directly yet.
Even though it is the core and crux of this entire thing – a fake document, paid for by Hillary Clinton and sold to the government and media as real by John Brennan. Used to get FISA warrants on Trump, then used by Comey to force the appointment of Mueller.
A goofy fake thing about hookers pissing on a bed.
Instead they say (and this article is really just a summary of the ((((((Horowitz)))))) report) that it was based on Assange and Wikileaks…
The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort.
There is also nothing – NOTHING – in the public record that suggests Assange was working with Russia.
Or that any state entity would be necessary to acquire these documents.
Seth Rich, anyone?
Furthermore, even without Seth Rich, it has been shown that the server was totally unsecured and could have been hacked by basically anyone.
The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.
Note they don’t say what that sowing of political discord was.
Which have never been linked to the Russian government.
Furthermore, even if these memes were posted by Putin himself, that is not illegal.
These memes are the only “interference” that Russia is “proved” to have engaged in.
This could have been faked too – they haven’t produced solid evidence that these memes were actually posted from Russia – but the fact that Hillary was campaigning on starting WWIII with Russia by shooting down Russian jets over Syria to protect ISIS makes it not difficult to believe that there were Russian private citizens who preferred Trump and posted some memes in his favor.
Putin has suggested it was the Jews.
But whatever – it’s MEMES ON FACEBOOK!
Maybe look up the history of American intervention in foreign elections for comparison.
Eventually, the article does mention pissgate – but in the context of Clinton working with Russians!
Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.
No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it.
Man, that Papdopoulos – getting drunk with a stranger in London.
Really not a good move.
Although it did turn out to be good for us.
These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.
Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.
You’d think that.
Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington.
See, we finally get that mentioned.
But that was the whole of the thing.
Again – the ((((((Horowitz)))))) report and this WSJ article are damage control.
And if this is what damage control looks like… these people are in a really, really bad place.
On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”
All of that was pissgate.
The Jew Isikoff’s article, based on pissgate, was later used to try to validate pissgate.
This article has far, far too little pissgate.
Because pissgate is what turns this entire thing into a demented circus show.
That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.
You see that there.
This is them making Comey the fall goy.
The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first.
And there it is.
They are going to have to shut it down.
Before the midterms.
I was warned that I would get tired of winning.
And I’ll tell you – I am starting to feel winning fatigue.
June 25, 2018
Juan Carlos Hernandez-Caseres.
Wetbacks gonna backwet.
Law enforcement in Miami, Florida say that a Honduran National who is inside the US illegally is responsible for the murder of two Americans and dumping their bodies.
Police say that 37-year-old Juan Carlos Hernandez-Caseres, an illegal alien from Honduras, was taken into custody over the weekend for the murders of both 41-year-old Ann Farrin and 39-year-old Neidy Roche, each of whom was raped and murdered before their bodies were dumped on the streets.
Last Wednesday, Farrin’s body was found in the 3000 block of Northwest 25th Avenue between Northwest 38th Street and Northwest 37th Street in Miami.
The Goldwater will not attack these women for their lifestyles, as many liberal media outlets are trying to spin these homicides as if it somehow justifies the murder of either.
No matter how these women lived, they were American citizens and they were slaughtered at the hands of an illegal alien.
During an interrogation with police, Hernandez-Caseres said that he had picked up Farrin and at some point, during his drive, he “became enraged,” punching her repeatedly in the throat and neck.
There’s also surveillance footage of Hernandez-Caseres which shows a black vehicle pulling between Northwest 38th Street and Northwest 37th Street and dumping the body of Farrin on the sidewalk.
Three months ago on March 2nd, the body of Neidy Roche was found on the sidewalk near the corner of Northwest 30th Avenue and Northwest 26th Street.
June 25, 2018
It is a horrible, evil thing for the imperialist government of the capitalist racist slavery nation of America to ever punish any immigrant for any crime.
But, if it comes to it, and a judge has no choice, the very least he can do is be as lenient as possible and also apologize to the immigrants at sentencing.
The very least he can do.
The former owner of a Portland halal market who, with his brother, traded $1.4 million in federal food benefits for cash was sentenced Monday afternoon in U.S. District Court to three years in prison.
The federal prosecutor called the case “one of the largest, if not the largest, fraud cases involving [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits in [Maine].”
Ali Ratib Daham, 41, of Westbrook who originally owned Ahram Halal Market, 630 Forest Avenue, pleaded guilty in November to one count each of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, money laundering and theft of government funds.
His brother, Abdulkareem Daham, 23, was sentenced Monday morning to two years in prison. He was convicted after a three-day jury trial in January of conspiracy to defraud the United States, according to court documents.
The older brother was ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution, while the younger was ordered to pay up to $955,000, according to their attorneys. The restitution order states that the men are equally responsible for payments but the younger brother’s payments are capped.
Ali Daham already has paid $80,000 toward restitution, according to court documents.
In sentencing the older brother, U.S. District Court D. Brock Hornby, who himself is a naturalized citizen, said there were “no winners in a case like this.”
“By sentencing two brothers, I realize I’m creating great pain for this family,” he said. “I’m also creating great pain for the immigrant community, as many members have told me he was a great helper to them. Sadly, he was a helper to them by defrauding the government.”
This judge is a long-time immigrant advocate.
He does this shit in his personal time. He’s originally from Canada.
Augusta attorney Walter McKee recommended the former store owner be sentenced to six months in prison in his sentencing memorandum. He said that 72 letters in support of his client had been submitted to the court.
Nearly 60 friends, family and supporters filled the Portland courtroom, several of whom told Hornby that Daham is a kind family man who deserves lenience.
The Dahams are natives of Iraq. The family fled the country in the mid-2000s. They arrived in Portland in 2009 and opened the business two years later.
The elder brother said that he broke the law in an effort to help Portland’s immigrant community.
“I came from a country experiencing different wars,” said Ali Daham through a translator when it was his turn to address the court. “The human condition was different. People had to help each other. … What I did [here] was in the spirit of providing help for people in the community.”
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Chapman argued that by running the welfare-for-cash fraud, Daham harmed those immigrants in need by fueling prejudice against his community and “providing ammunition to those who would seek to restrict welfare benefits.”
The evidence presented at the younger Daham’s trial showed that between June 2011 through April 2016, the brothers gave cash to customers at the market in exchange for benefits from the SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children plus a fee.
During that period, the market received more than $4 million in SNAP and WIC receipts, at least $1.4 million of which were obtained illegally, according to court documents.
This is probably instructive.
Not just in how judges view brown criminals as victims, but in how these communities of brown people view themselves as outsiders effectively at war with White America.
They have no desire to integrate and contribute to our society – only a little baby or a woman could ever take that notion seriously in theory, but we have all of these years demonstrating that it is factually untrue, and still we continue to allow the Jews to tell us this.
These particular immigrants are Iraqi, so on the “war with White America” point, they do sort of have a point. The basic concept of bringing in “refugees” from a country that you invaded and destroyed is so completely insane as to be unfathomable. But this was going on all throughout the Bush years, and up through the Obama years – we were bringing in young men from countries that we had invaded.
But other brown communities behave the same way, whether they are Moslem, African or Latino.
They all view themselves as alien groups in our country, trying to get as much as they can from us, the host. Which is what they are, objectively. It is only the idiot white true believer who is capable of seeing them as something other than that.
We have to get these animals out of our country.
And the very first step in doing that is getting our own people to see them as what they are: bloodsucking parasites who come here to take what is ours. What our ancestors gave to us so that we may give it to our own children.
The wealth of our nation does not belong to us.
We are simply keepers of it, tasked with passing it on to generations to come.
We are stealing from future generations by allowing these evil fucking savages to come and take this from us.