War On The Rocks has an interesting article by Stephen Tankel, laying out the strategic questions that need to be answered in regards to U.S. policy in Afghanistan:
The mainstream media and political Left have devolved into extreme Trump Derangement Syndrome, even more unhinged than their 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Spasms of Twitter-induced, retweeting mass hysteria erupt almost daily. The Washington Post and New York Times are destroying their credibility way more than President Trump ever could, by running one story after another, with anonymous sources, that later (often within hours), they have to retract or correct, as the stories fall apart.
It is obvious that some former Obama officials, some intelligence officials, some Democratic officials, and Clinton staffers are engaged in running a full-court press effort colluding with sympathetic journalists to run their “Resist” effort, which is a euphemism, that really means trying to incite public sentiment for the impeachment of President Trump. It is more of the Clinton scorched earth mass media saturation to, overthrow President Trump. Yes, that’s what “resist” really means when you work tirelessly to destroy and oust a legally-elected President. None other than Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, publicly stated that the 2016 Presidential election voting showed no signs of foreign tampering, so if you are “resisting”, as in trying to manufacture public opinion through mass media saturation of ginned up negative stories about Trump/Russia collusion, in hopes of urging Congress to act to impeach a President, you are trying to overthrow a President, by any means possible.
In numerous blog posts (listed in #Never Trump&NeverHillary, Above the Law, and The American Divide), I’ve covered all of this before, but here’s a list that covers where I’m at with the Comey firing:
- Comey acted inappropriately on July 5th when he publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton and introduced his made-up “intent” provision in the law on mishandling classified information. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, after her totally inappropriate meeting with former president, Bill Clinton, in Phoenix, the week before Comey’s press conference, placed Comey in a difficult situation. She did not recuse herself, but said she would accept Comey’s recommendation. Comey rolled over and gave a recommendation with his “no criminal intent” statement. He should not have even given a press conference, but should have turned over the investigation findings to the Department of Justice. He should have said, “making a recommendation is not in my purview.,” and thrown the ball back into Loretta Lynch’s court. As soon as Comey rolled over, Lynch came out and announced she was accepting Comey’s recommendation and closed the investigation. That was a media farce played ON the American people.
- Comey reopened the investigation in October, due to internal FBI pressure from evidence brought to his attention in regards to the Weiner investigation. Huma Abedin had sent Clinton emails to Weiner’s laptop, some of them containing classified information. Comey sent a letter to Congress to inform them, but that letter was immediately leaked to the media.
- Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media screamed that Comey needed to be fired. All sorts of leaks poured out of the FBI in those days the Clinton email investigation was reopened, like leaks about ongoing criminal investigations in several states into Clinton Foundation corruption. Everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Elijah Cummings was screaming that Comey should be fired and that the FBI was just a bunch of “Trump fanboys”.
- Comey closed the reopened Clinton investigation and the media moved into high-gear with the Trump/Russia collusion story
- Trump will say or do anything, much of it seemingly based on how he reacts to media coverage of himself. Trump seems very obsessed with looking “strong”, “tough”, “smart” and “a good leader”. He loves to play games and manipulate people, especially manipulating his aides vying for his favor and manipulating journalists and pundits, who went all-in on running the Clinton scorched earth propaganda campaign during the election.
- The Clinton campaign ran and continues to run a scorched earth media effort to destroy Trump.
- Wikileaks appears to be a Russian front operation. Putin appears to have made a calculation to interfere in the US election by leaking information that not only damaged Hillary Clinton, it discredited the media as being little more than an arm of the Democratic Party, colluding to run Clinton talking points and aiding in advancing the Clinton campaign’s media strategy. Many prominent journalists sat on negative Trump stories during the GOP primary, holding them to unleash in the general election to aid Hillary Clinton. They were active participants in the Clinton scorched earth effort to paint Trump as a fascist and bury him in dirt during the general election. Wikileaks released numerous stolen emails between journalists and DNC officials/ Clinton staffers showing media collusion to advance the Clinton campaign’s media messaging.
- President Trump, both in the campaign and as president, has made many disturbing comments, from praising Wikileaks and Putin, to disparaging US intelligence agencies.
- President Trump has several associates, who have been involved in his 2016 campaign and/or cabinet, who have some disturbing connections to the Russian government.
- There is reporting that the FBI recently requested more resources for their Russian interference in the 2016 election/Trump associates’ connection to Russians investigation, thus raising serious questions into the timing of Trump’s firing of Comey.
Does any of this amount to collusion with the Russians or treason?
But it sure does indicate a need for more investigation.
Kevin Williamson, at National Review, covered it way better than I could:
And as a final reminder, with the Left it always boils down to redefining what words mean and that is part of a very long effort in their long march through our institutions, which I have written about many times, like here, here, here and here.
Women, from all political sides, get so hostile and defensive whenever modern feminism is challenged. Most American women have completely bought into modern feminist dogma, ready to do battle for “equal rights” for women in the workplace and “women’s rights” issues, as defined by feminist mouthpieces. The few women who don’t cling to modern feminist dogma, usually cite fundamental religious beliefs of various stripes as defining their views on marriage and family.
It’s hard to say anything that counters some of the very negative consequences modern feminism has had on children, families, women, men, marriage and male-female relationships. And most glaringly, it’s taboo to mention the negatives that modern feminism has spawned culturally, because to do so has to mean you’re misogynistic, trying to keep women down, a right-wing zealot, a hater, or just a meanie.
The issue isn’t about women working or staying home, the real issue is how traditional families were grounded in providing a safe, stable environment to rear children. Absent a stable family, children end up unruly, undisciplined, at risk to all sorts of dangers being unsupervised and unmoored to any values, and totally at prey to the vagaries of pop culture and peer pressure.
People today define their lives in terms of personal happiness, rather than in issues larger than themselves. That is what I mean, when I refer to the “I” culture.
Above all else Americans are consumed with finding “happiness” and doing whatever makes them “happy”. America was grounded in a belief in individual liberty, but the “pursuit of happiness”, that most Americans believe means that they are free to do whatever they want, is not what the clause “pursuit of happiness” really means.
James R. Rogers, department head and associate professor of political science at Texas A&M, writes:
““Happiness” in the public discourse of the time often did not simply refer to a subjective emotional state. It meant prosperity or, perhaps better, well-being in the broader sense. It included the right to meet physical needs, but it also included a significant moral and religious dimension. In correspondence between James Madison and James Monroe in 1786, Madison notes that “happiness” cannot simply be identified with meeting people’s interests, but includes a higher reference:
There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation, than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. Taking the word “interest” as synonymous with “ultimate happiness,” in which sense it is qualified with every necessary moral ingredient, the proposition is no doubt true. But taking it in its popular sense, as referring to the immediate augmentation of property and wealth, nothing can be more false.”
While assuredly, women, just as men should follow their dreams and pursue whatever careers they choose, when one becomes a “parent”, personal happiness must take a backseat to duty to your child. This sense of duty has become very muddled by modern feminist dogma, where at every turn, there is a promotion of government-funding of childcare, devaluation of mothers who stay-at-home to care for their children and relentless glorification of “women-who-have-it-all”.
The complete devaluation of stay-at-home mothers has led to many women who are stay-at-home moms to not take their duties seriously and to put little real effort into rearing their children. In turn, many (perhaps even most) men do not take stay-at-home mothering as a serious undertaking. Instead, many men will respect career women, but disparage stay-at-mothering and equate it to sitting at home watching soap operas. Modern feminists have worked diligently to promote this image of stay-at-home mothering, as not worthy of respect or dedication.
If you want to be completely discounted as someone worth listening to, be a homemaker. Hardly anyone takes homemakers seriously, even most homemakers themselves, where most of them feel compelled to list other things they do besides caring for their family, that their situation as a homemaker is just temporary, or that they are engaged in some other activities pursuing a career.
Devotion to taking care of your children and home, as serious work, should be promoted as real work and worthy of dedication. This applies to stay-at-home mothers and to working mothers.
That taking care of your children and creating a stable home environment should come before your own “happiness”, escapes many men and women today. The concept of duty to your children, as the preeminent responsibility as a parent doesn’t even register with many parents and in our consumer-focused culture, the fixation on buying children more “stuff” substitutes for meaningful dedication to teaching children values and manners.
The fact that many mothers don’t really define their primary duty as caring for their children, but rather in terms of career and personal happiness speaks to the success of modern feminism at working systematically to destroy traditional family structure. It is as much a “long march through the institutions” as communism and other progressive ideologies. All of them strive to tear down western civilization and replace it with their socialistic utopias (nanny state solutions), under the guise of people being “happy”.
It’s all about breaking through “glass ceilings” and cheering on the “first woman” to achieve another career milestone. Sure, it’s nice that women can pursue whatever careers they choose, but biological reality has not changed and neither has the real necessity that children require devoted, dutiful parents to place caring and nurturing them to adulthood, as the single most important duty of their life.
This isn’t about choosing either a career or staying at home, it’s about that however mothers manage their lives, dutifully caring for their children should be the top priority, not their own “happiness”.
Motherhood is the most important job you will ever have. Take it seriously.
Decorating dilemma with my hearth. On the left side of my hearth, I had pot with a snake plant in it, but the snake plant bit the dust. One of my dogs started grabbing mouthfuls of the dirt and spreading it around the living room, so I decided to use an old basket my sister had decorated long ago and some old Walmart clearance silk flowers I had. Color combos aren’t my strong suit and I don’t know anything about flower arranging, but I like how it turned out.
I am trying to use some of the craft and sewing clearance junk I bought at Walmart, while working there. The way it worked with me is, we’d have some merchandise go on clearance and it didn’t sell right away. Then my co-workers would tell me how crafty I was and suggest that I could find some use for it. Upon which I would start thinking of craft and sewing projects using that “stuff” and before I knew it, I bought it.
With all the closets in my house full, I’m now in the mindful stage of hoarding, which is recognizing my bad shopping habits and focusing instead on trying to find creative ways to use some of the stuff I already have. Yes, I am shopping my own house first, before buying more craft or sewing stuff.
Have a nice day:-)
I’m just going to provide the titles and links to a few more LB blog posts:
October 29, 2016: Does “C” lead to espionage or just more pay-to-play?
October 30, 2016: Hillary’s Indispensable Girl Friday
October 31, 2016: More worrying bits of information
November 1, 2016: Questions about Huma
November 1, 2016: Repeating Abedin Facts
November 2, 2016: About Huma Abedin
Above is the first paragraph of the FBI Interview Notes. It lists Hillary Clinton’s attorneys present for this interview. One name is redacted and one can only wonder why?
On July 2, 2016, the New York Times reported:
Accompanying Mrs. Clinton into the meeting were her lawyer David E. Kendall; Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson, longtime aides who are also lawyers; and two lawyers from Mr. Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia.
Eight officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice conducted the interview, according to a person who was familiar with the substance of the session but declined to be named because the meeting was private. This person characterized the meeting as “civil” and “businesslike.”
So, was the other attorney Amy Saharia, as the New York Times reported back in July, or was it someone else? Why on earth redact the name, if it was Saharia???
There are several redactions on who was present from the DOJ. The FBI Notes list two people from the DOJ/FBI side and have three names redacted, which comes to 5 names, although the NY Times story says there were 8 DOJ/FBI people present, so who are 3 redacted names + 3 others mentioned in the NY Times story??? Even if that one long block of redaction, after David Laufman’s name is more than one name, we are still left with knowing only 2 names of who was present from the FBI/DOJ and leaves SIX unknowns. Something is very wrong when you compare the NY Times report to the FBI Notes.
Andrew McCarthy and others have explained why Cheryl Mills should not have been present. McCarthy writes:
“Readers may recall that I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.
When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications.
That is to say, Mills was an actor in the facts that were under criminal investigation by the FBI. Put aside that she was not Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer while working for the State Department; as I explained in the May column, Mills, after leaving the State Department, was barred by ethical rules from acting as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer “in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.”
There is no way Mills should have been permitted to participate as a lawyer in the process of producing Clinton’s emails to the State Department nearly two years after they’d both left. I thought it was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation. But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview – participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.
According to the FBI’s report, Mrs. Clinton had four other attorneys (one whose name is deleted from the report for some reason) representing her at the interview. She clearly did not need another lawyer. And it is Criminal Investigations 101 that law enforcement never interviews witnesses together – the point is to learn the truth, not provide witnesses/suspects with an opportunity to keep their story straight, which undermines the search for truth. Why on earth was Cheryl Mills permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview?
Something smells very wrong here. I wonder if perhaps Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were present to oversee this interview and assure it led nowhere? Would that even be possible?
We deserve an answer as to who all was present for this kangaroo proceeding!!!
And lest we forget, James Comey folded his cards on an indictment on July 5, 2016, as President Obama was en route to a campaign stop in Charlotte, NC, with Hillary on board Air Force One with him.
Perhaps the FBI Notes release is a SOS from the FBI to let the American people know the rule of law has been hijacked by the Clintons and Obama.
From last year, first up:
“A tell in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player’s behavior or demeanor that gives clues to that player’s assessment of his hand. A player gains an advantage if he observes and understands the meaning of another player’s tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable. Sometimes a player may fake a tell, hoping to induce his opponents to make poor judgments in response to the false tell.”
I’ve been thinking back over FBI Director, James Comey’s testimony before Congress last Thursday and once again the sequence of events leaves me pondering something he said, that struck me as a “tell”.
First the sequence of events:
In April, President Obama made a statement saying that Hillary’s behavior was not criminal and that national security had not been compromised. He also stated, per the LA Times:
“What I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she … recognizes,” he added. He added that she did an “outstanding job” as America’s top diplomat.” (my emphasis)
The week before Comey announced his “recommendation”, President Obama had arranged to campaign with Hillary Clinton, in fact, they were on Air Force One heading to a campaign event, when Comey gave his public announcement.
That same week, Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had a clandestine meeting with former President Bill Clinton on her plane at the airport in Phoenix, AZ. Lynch come out and proclaimed it was all just an innocent meeting, where they talked about grandchildren, their travels and BREXIT. She acted contrite and admitted it was a mistake.
Then on July 1, 2016, Loretta Lynch announced she won’t recuse herself, but she will abide by the FBI recommendation.
Saturday, July, 2, 2016, Hillary met with the FBI for 3.5 hours. Judging by subsequent events, they might have discussed the grandchildren and her yoga routines, because the FBI did not videotape or transcribe their chat. “Interview” seems too professional of a term for this charade.
Last week, on July 5, 2016, James Comey made his surprise announcement and did not recommend an indictment.
Republican heads exploded, after Comey laid out the laundry list of conduct that Hillary Clinton and her top aides engaged in, that read like a very damning list of charges in an indictment, but at the last minute he blithely brushed it all aside as “extremely careless“, but despite that, he argued against an indictment. He stated that no reasonable prosecutor would indict. He gave the Clintons what was demanded, I firmly believe.
Last Thursday, July 7, 2016, Comey testified before Congress and without rehashing the legalities, it’s the one incongruent comment he made that struck me, as if he was unintentionally telling us something. He seemed pained and almost embarrassed by some of his tortured explanations to explain how “extremely careless” differs from “grossly negligent”. He went to great lengths about how Hillary’s celebrity requires that she be treated “fairly”. She was NOT a celebrity, she was one of our nation’s highest-level government officials and she grossly violated that trust. Government officials, in whom great trust is placed, should be held to the highest standards – not treated like a “celebrity”. All the Democrats shameless pandering to him and lauding his integrity seemed to make him uncomfortable.
The tell was when Comey testified that he cares most about his family and his reputation. When he said that, I thought it odd, when what he should be most concerned about is protecting and defending The Constitution. His testimony seemed to me a desperate self-preservation effort to salvage his reputation (and protect his family), which he completely compromised with falling in line with the Clinton “talking points”. When you submit to the Clinton intimidation, they own you. With all the Bill Clinton strong-arm tactics employed to clear the path to the White House for Hillary, everyone whom Bill Clinton has pressured, from Obama through Loretta Lynch, Comey was hailed as the exemplar of integrity. I believe Bill Clinton’s enforcers let Comey know they have some very personal dirt on him that would hurt his family and his reputation. The Clinton sewer rats, as I’ve said many times, operate like the old KGB. If there’s any dirt, they will find it. There is no sewer too vile for them to scurry through. The Clintons are not only above the law, but a law unto themselves.
Friday, July, 6 2016, Loretta Lynch came out and followed the talking points to the letter – she announced that she accepted the FBI recommendation.
Time to move on…