“One of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” = Hillary and the Obama “Justice” Department

Here’s what all this means. Obama with 100% certainty knew that Hillary was using an unsecured server to send him emails which is in complete violation of the Espionage Act of the United States. Now read on.

From Ace of Spades:

The big story is, despite the Democrat-Left-Media Complex’s shrill shrieking about impeaching President Trump, the focus is at long last starting to shift towards the real culprits in the entire Russia-Gate Collusion Hoax, Coverup and Attempted Coup (still ongoing) who just happen to be heavily implicated in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal – what US District Judge Royce Lamberth’s court described as “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

“…In addition to the Executive Office of the President [Obama], [former assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, Bill] Priestap also named “Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, Jacob Sullivan, and Justin Cooper; former Clinton information technology staffer Bryan Pagliano, the State Department, Secret Service, and Washington-based law firm Williams and Connolly…”

According to [Judicial Watch], Priestap also testified that nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as a result of a search warrant for her material on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Weiner was then the wayward husband of Huma Abedin, the vice chair of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for president.

“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme…”

Or then there’s the Instapundit version:

JUDICIAL WATCH: JW announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.

“Far right” is the new term for being sane

From Arthur Chrenkoff, Everything I don’t like is far-right, via Powerline where they note he is an Aussie blogger:

“The Washington Post” (“Democracy Dies in Darkness”) spends the whole article discussing how various “far-right” figures and forces, from France’s Marine Le Pen to Germany’s Alternative for Germany, got angry at the coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks that targeted churches among other locations and killed some 300 people. When I was growing up and well into my adulthood, “far right” was a description for neo-Nazi skinheads; nowadays it’s being used for those who might merely be Eurosceptics or don’t believe in open borders. But never mind the ever-creeping redefinition – just what exactly is the message of the article? That only “far-right” is angry about attacks on Christians? Or that if you are angry about attacks on Christians you must be “far right” yourself? Is Christianity now to be considered a white supremacist dog whistle? And if you are concerned about Islamist terrorism and/or terrorism against Christians world-wide are you now supposed to keep it down lest you somehow give succor to the far right or actually risk becoming associated with the far right in the eyes of the sophisticates who feast on Bezos’s fish wrapper? Maybe all of the above.

The article ends even more disingenuously than it starts, by advising readers not to jump to conclusions because no one has yet claimed responsibility for the Sri Lankan attacks (unlike in the clear cut case of the Christchurch terror attack), and reminding everyone that the bloody civil war in the country’s past was an ethno-nationalist affair rather than a religious one. Sure, it was the Tamils and the Sinhalese and Buddhist against Hindus, with the Marxist Tamil Tigers being quite big on suicide bombing, but is the WaPo suggesting – hoping? – that the recent outrages were a return to that old conflict rather than an instance of Islamist terrorism? Quite possibly, because we are lastly reminded that “Although Christian minorities are targeted around the world, analysts say that the vast majority of terrorism victims globally are Muslims.” Omitted is any mention that the vast majority of these Muslim victims of terrorism are murdered by the Muslim perpetrators. Can we be angry about that or is that also some sort of a far-right trait?

“Far left” meanwhile is the name for the suicide cult of Western civilisation.

Henry Arthur Jones

Henry Arthur Jones (1851-1929) has not entirely faded into history as is attested to by the existence of his Wikipedia entry. A prolific playwright from the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, about whom Oscar Wilde said this:

“There are three rules for writing plays. The first rule is not to write like Henry Arthur Jones; the second and third rules are the same.”

My acquaintance with Mr Jones has come through my just having finished reading his wondrous 1921 political tract, My Dear Wells: A Manual for the Haters of England, whose perspective is perhaps better displayed by its subtitle, “Being a Series of Letters Upon Bolshevism, Collectivism, Internationalism, and the Distribution of Wealth Addressed to Mr H.G. Wells”. So whatever rules there may be about writing plays, the three rules for writing political tracts might be summarised as: the first rule is to write like Henry Arthur Jones; the second and third rules would then be the same.

What is particularly wondrous is that the book could have come off the press this morning, how up-to-date he is in singling out the fools on the left who seem not to have learned a thing in the hundred years since then. Mr Jones was infuriated by Wells’s support for Lenin and the Revolution which had just then taken place in Russia. I had not been aware that the horrors that were visited upon the Russian people had been immediately recognised for what they were and discussed across the world. Jones’ replies to Wells’s own writings highlights the cruel indifference typically shown by the left, seen today in how the horrors in Venezuela are being downplayed by the media and the socialists amongst us. Other people’s tragedies must never be allowed to impede progressives in their will to visit the same tragedies on us as well. The left were vile then and are equally vile now. Here is a bit to see just how contemporary it all is:

Make a list of the richest and most powerful men in Western European and American civilization. Quite a large number of them are men who have made themselves rich and powerful, not by intercepting the wealth and influence that other men have created for mankind, but by their own conspicuous ability, by severe self-denial, by thrift, by constant strain of hard thought and hard work. By these means many of them have created vast quantities of wealth for others, and have eased the conditions of living for large populations of workers, and have otherwise conferred lasting benefits on their fellows. I do not say that some of these rich and powerful men may not have received larger rewards than were justly their due, I do not say that some of them may not have gained some of their wealth by dishonest means. There is no possible way of adjusting any scale of measurement. The thing for you to notice is that in your Collectivist State you are not likely to have many of these benefactors, for in denying them the rewards of money, power, honour and influence, you take away from them all incentive to train their natural ability, to practise thrift and self-denial, to scorn base trivial delights, and to spend themselves in constant thought and labour. Notice the result in Russia of suppressing and persecuting out of existence this enterprising type. (Jones 1921: 183)

Socialists never change. Grasping, greedy and envious to the end, ignorant even of the basics on how wealth is created so that what is produced may be shared out amongst us. These socialists are the curse of the earth.

LET ME ADD THIS: Via Instapundit this morning: Your Socialism Is Bad and You Should Feel Bad. The promise of free stuff plus “equality” has a powerful attraction many find hard to resist. Now we also add in containing climate change as one more part of the socialist magic act. Just vote us in and we will tax and spend our way to stopping the seas from rising.

Tactile nuclear weapons

Is this really funny? She is one of two Senators from New York and is running for President. This should truly frighten you, as much for the lack of attention this has received from the media as for her outright ignorance and stupidity. All this supposed concern with Presidents having their finger on the nuclear button, but then this: John Bolton ridicules Kirsten Gillibrand’s talk of ‘tactile nuclear weapons’.

“The presidential campaign is underway. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ventured into strategic matters at a town hall in Dover,” Hewitt said, introducing the clip.

“When you say you want to develop low-yield nuclear weapons that are tactile, what you’re saying is you want to use them. Now, the military will make an argument to say, ‘Oh, this is just again to make, we have to have an equal threat. And this, if it’s usable, then it’s a better threat.’ I just found that is not believable,” Gillibrand said. “So I opposed the entire defense bill because of that one provision. So if I am president, I am going to make sure we unwind that completely, and I don’t think we should be trying to create tactile nuclear weapons.”

Bolton burst into laughter. “Tactile nuclear weapons?” he spluttered. “Well, I was unfamiliar with the concept, Mr. Ambassador,” Hewitt said. A mirthful Bolton responded, “I have to say, I was unfamiliar with it as well. I wonder what Sen. Gillibrand knows that I don’t.”

Sure it’s funny in a macabre kind of way, but if this does not terrify you about our future, what would? Her aim is to be the leader of the West in our defence of our way of life against others who would destroy it in a heartbeat if they could. Beyond this, what else does she know nothing about since her ignorance seems to be deep and vast.

How ignorant would a Democrat have to be for the media to start spreading cautious words about whether they should be elected? From the evidence we have, no such level of ignorance exists.

Some people said something

And from Omar’s colleague: Rashida Tlaib On Omar’s Disgusting 9/11 Remarks: She’s Just Speaking Truth.

They provide a major public service in alerting those who are capable of being alerted to the kinds of ideas that are harboured among the left. We either learn from it, or help them steamroll through our culture and civilisation and replace what we have with one of their own devising.


Is this the greatest political scandal in American history?

Is a scandal still a scandal if it’s not reported in the press? If not, what is it? Seems pretty bad. Start with this from Ace of Spades.

Thursday and the big story is the reaction to Attorney General William Barr’s unvarnished, unapologetic and clinical declaration that yes indeed, there was spying (or bugging or eavesdropping or espionage or whatever Hawaiian Senator Brian Schatz-n-giggles can understand it) being perpetrated against the Trump presidential campaign. After more than two years of a steady diet of Trump and Russia colluded to steal the 2016 election and the anticipation that Robert Mueller’s persecution of the President and his allies would eject him from office, the one-two punch in the gut and boot to the groin of first the Mueller deception dissolving into thin air and AG Barr openly stating the plain hard truth was a marvel to behold. And without missing a beat, Barr announced that his office was going to at long last launch an investigation to uncover how the whole thing started and who was behind it. Frankly, there’s really not much to investigate since we know the machinations of the phony Steele dossier being used as a pretext to abuse the FISA courts to spy on the campaign and then use that as propaganda to insinuate Trump was a Russian spy or dupe. The real question is was this done with the knowledge of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama or was it done directly on their orders?

No matter what, this entire thing is without doubt the greatest political scandal in American history.

What if the Obama White House really was spying on the Trump campaign during the election? Sounds bad, if true. So a couple more from Lucianne before the story completely disappears.

Barr is right, spying on Trump
campaign did occur
Washington Examiner, by Byron York    Original Article
Democrats and some in the media expressed shock and outrage when Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Barr “must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the attorney general.” Barr has gone “off the rails,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The attorney general must retract his unfounded, irresponsible claim,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Cable news commentators called Barr´s statement “stunning” and appeared baffled that th


Barr Confirms Multiple Intel Agencies
Implicated In Anti-Trump Spy Operation
The Federalist, by Mollie Hemingway    Original Article
“Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Attorney General William Barr told a Senate committee on Wednesday morning. Barr’s comments came in the context of potential Justice Department reviews of the Trump-Russia investigation and how it began in 2016. While it is important that the top law enforcement in the United States publicly acknowledged that the Obama administration and its intelligence agencies surveilled its domestic political opponents during the heat of a presidential election, it is what he said next that was most startling: that the CIA and other federal agencies

Add one more from Powerline.

Democrats cannot handle the truth. We saw this yesterday in their uniform reaction to Attorney General Barr’s acknowledgment that “Spying did occur” on the Trump presidential campaign. The link is to today’s Wall Street Journal editorial (by Kim Strassel, I am quite sure, and behind the Journal’s paywall.

Somewhere near the top of this post, however, I want to quote a sentence from Mollie Hemingway’s Federalist column on the Barr confirmation of the discomfiting truth sentient observers have pieced together over the past two years: “This is a scandal of epic proportions. It is one that threatens the foundations of constitutional government. It is a direct attack on American democracy.”

She puts it bluntly this way: “The fact of the matter is that federal intelligence agencies spied on a rival political campaign. They illegally leaked information about that surveillance. They abused their authority to at best undermine the duly elected president and at worst to attempt a soft coup against him. They did so with the near-total cooperation of the American media establishment.”

It’s clearly only those over-reacting fanatics who worry about such things.

And here as well

Via Instapundit.

MAY THE SAME THING HAPPEN HERE: There Is No Left Left In Israel. “The most far-reaching consequence of the 2019 Israeli election may well be that it verified, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is functionally no left left in Israel. It has become a country with a center, a right, and a far right, but no electorally viable left to speak of.”

It’s not as if there is no welfare state. There is. Everyone seeks to find ways to make life easier for everyone, while the left are a bunch of socialist freaks, who also are even lax beyond sense about border protection. The left is filled with screwballs with a constituency who have no obvious understanding of the damage they inflict. And in this, I am not just referring to Israel.

Affirmative dissent

This is a comment on a post with a self-explanatory title, The Looming Danger for Dissident Professors. It’s essentially why sites like this are necessary just to remind ourselves that it isn’t us who are nuts.

Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote “All sheep and no shepherd, everyone is the same, everyone wants to be the same — anyone who is different goes voluntarily to the Madhouse.”

Notwithstanding all of the purported liberal views, what exists today in academia is nothing but textbook fascism. Everyone is the same. Everyone wants to be the same. And anyone who differs from the mob is inherently “crazy & dangerous.” “Dangerous” because they believe that anyone engaging in “cognitive aggression” (i.e. expressing & defending a dissident viewpoint) will inevitably progress from the use of words to the use of automatic weapons — unless stopped. Hence the overwhelming effort to silence dissent and the repeated references to “safety.”

This is why I keep coming back to the Behavioral Intervention Teams and the increasing influence of the Psychologists in Education. This is where this stuff is coming from and the more I study it, the more truly terrifying it becomes — and I say this as someone who does not frighten easily, someone who comes from a commercial fishing background.

In order to brainwash someone, you must first isolate the person from all other support networks and anything that confirms the legitimacy of the views/values which you wish to eliminate. “Gaslighting” ceases to work when the subject of it is able to obtain independent confirmation that he/she/it isn’t imagining things. In the play, the gas lights really were dimming because the husband was using the gaslights upstairs (which dropped the pressure in the lines) — it took the police detective confirming that he also saw the lights dimming for her to believe what she saw happening with her own eyes. Likewise, psychological “gaslighting” falls apart when the subject is able to obtain independent confirmation of what he/she/it believes to be true.

Professor Abrams is thus dangerous because he essentially confirmed that the gaslights are dimming. People can’t be told that they’re imagining things anymore because they now have an academic citation defending their perception of reality.

And his willingness to persist in the defense of his views notwithstanding the overwhelming gauntlet of opposition he is enduring — well, there is a reason why I consider Behavioral Intervention Teams to be both scary and dangerous.

The article itself is worth the read. We are not as far gone here in Australia, but things always happen here after a delay.

These socialist loons are completely mainstream

Start with this, from the New York Times: Modern Monetary Theory Makes Sense, Up to a Point. It begins:

The term “modern monetary theory” has been talked about so much lately that we mainstream economists need to try to understand it.

We’re having trouble, though I’m beginning to suspect that it may be because M.M.T., as it’s often called, is really just a voguish name for a group of old and, for the most part, sensible ideas, repackaged in a new form.

And just what are these old ideas in a new form?

Because there are great opportunities for government investment at the moment and interest rates are low, these programs should go forward with deficit spending. Once again, this is a conventional argument: It makes sense to spend when the return on government investments exceeds the borrowing rate.

These are reasonable ideas. They are not always expressed in ways that are appealing to mainstream economists, however, so it’s not surprising that two Harvard economists recently wrote articles severely criticizing modern monetary theory. Kenneth Rogoff did so in “Modern Monetary Nonsense,” while Lawrence Summers wrote, “The Left’s Embrace of Modern Monetary Theory Is a Recipe for Disaster.”

I wouldn’t be that harsh. It seems that modern monetary theory is not so much a recipe for disaster as it is a not entirely original series of ideas that are not well defined or well integrated, and whose implications have been exaggerated.

Entire fields of study in economics departments are devoted to grappling with some of these problems. For a serious examination of issues concerning public debt, for example, consider the classic 1979 study “On the Determination of the Public Debt,” by Robert Barro of Harvard.

Professor Barro said, in essence, that the government faced time-varying expenditure needs and, optimally, could attempt to keep tax rates constant by varying borrowing. Then there is the 1936 opus of John Maynard Keynes, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” which prescribes countercyclical deficit spending to stabilize the economy.

Demonstrating once again that pretty well the whole of modern textbook theory is junk science. Paying attention to almost any of it will drive your economy off course and into the sand.

Which brings me to this: Beto O’Rourke Goes Full Socialist, Says He Will ‘Break Apart’ American Wealth.

He may be a far left nutter but is centre stage among Democrats. As dangerous as he is ignorant, but when did that ever stop a politician from succeeding?

More like the Dark Ages

With education the way it is, neither the cartoon nor this story will any longer have meaning and resonance: Venezuela returns to ‘Middle Ages’ during power outages.

“We make lamps that burn gasoline, or oil, or kerosene — any type of fuel,” explained Lizbeth Morin, 30.

“We’ve returned to the Middle Ages.”

They have gasoline, oil and kerosene so hardly mediaeval. It is instead late nineteenth century, time travellers back about 150 years, but that is insane enough since they brought it on themselves. Unenlightened self-delusion in the form of Democratic Socialism – that is, in the form of politically-sanctioned theft. Could happen anywhere.

Any politician who will not say the words, “capitalism and the free market are good – socialism is bad”, should never be elected. If they will not say these words, they are themselves mediaeval, wishing to return us to the days of an aristocracy and their dependent serfs.