Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2t3211e
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Monday, June 12, 2017
Fall River’s Iwo Jima Monument
Our thanks to Atty. Brian Cunha
His generosity made the Memorial Possible
Bill O’Reilly Comes Forward, Drops TRUTH BOMB About Fox News
The recent shake-up at Fox News reveals the secret for fighting liberals.
Bill O’Reilly admitted yesterday that he wished he did more to save his job. He explained on Newsmax TV that he should have fought back like Sean Hannity. “In hindsight, Sean did it the right way,” explained O’Reilly. “I should’ve done it that way, but I didn’t” (via Washington Examiner).
Bill O’Reilly was fired from Fox News in April of this year, despite being the most watched news personality in the history of cable news.
The left-wing hit squad, Media Matters, controlled by Hillary Clinton’s close friend David Brock, led a coordinated attack against O’Reilly and Sean Hannity — and only Hannity fought back.
Bill O’Reilly was ultimately fired amid allegations of sexual harassment. Wendy Walsh accused O’Reilly of sexual misconduct after the two went on a date that did not end well.
Walsh accused O’Reilly of treating her unfairly after their date did not end with a sexual encounter. Lisa Bloom represented Walsh and claimed she was not seeking a monetary settlement.
Instead, they were seeking scalps. Bloom, a lawyer for the Democrats who uses the courts as a weapon against political opponents, is currently representing Kathy Griffin.
Bill O’Reilly was unable to fight back against the Media Matters-driven assault for reasons he could not clarify. However, he admits that Sean Hannity has been handling the attacks in the right way. Immediately after Bill O’Reilly was ousted, the liberal hit squad turned their attention to Sean.
They accused Hannity of spreading conspiracy theories for covering the murder of Seth Rich, and Media Matters led another campaign targeting his advertisers like they did against O’Reilly. Hannity, however, did not take it laying down and immediately hoped on the offensive.
Hannity, helped by the group Stop the Scalpings, led his own counter-campaign asking his supporters to call advertisers to tell them to keep supporting Sean Hannity.
The plan was successful and Hannity was able to keep his job. If only Bill O’Reilly had fought in the same way, we would not have lost such an important voice on cable news.
Donald Trump Floats Idea of Border Wall ‘Covered with Solar Panels’
21575
16
by CHARLIE SPIERING
President Donald Trump, during his meeting with Congress on Tuesday, floated the idea of having his Southern border wall covered with solar panels.
Trump suggested that he could build a wall “40 to 50 feet high and covered with solar panels,” according to a report from Axios.
The energy generated from the solar panels could be used to pay for the cost of building the wall, Trump intimated, according to three sources in the story.
It is unclear how serious the president was about the proposal, but he appeared eager to discuss progress for the project.
“The wall will be a great help, and it will happen; believe me,” Trump said to reporters after the meeting.
James Comey’s Latest Statement Is An Indictment Of Comey, Not Trump
In his prepared statement, James Comey admits that President Trump was not being investigated, that Comey told the president and Congress as much, and that Comey deliberately refused to inform the public of those facts.
By Sean Davis
Ahead of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, the committee released the seven-page preparedstatement Comey provided on Wednesday. While it’s clear that Comey and his allies believe the statement is proof that President Donald Trump acted inappropriately, and perhaps even illegally, the statement itself is a much bigger indictment of Comey’s own behavior over the last six months. Not only does Comey’s statement corroborate Trump’s claim that the former FBI director told him three times that the president was not being investigated by the FBI, it also reveals the Beltway game Comey was playing with the investigation.
In his statement, as my colleague Mollie Hemingway noted earlier today, Comey acknowledges the accuracy of Trump’s claim — included in the letter announcing Comey’s firing — that Comey had on three separate occasions informed Trump that he was not being investigated by the FBI. The corroboration of the claim by Comey himself is by far the most newsworthy nugget from the lengthy statement. But several other claims from Comey also do far more to indict Comey than they do to implicate Trump.
The most damning aspect of Comey’s prepared testimony is his admission that he deliberately refused to inform the public that Trump was not being personally investigated by the FBI. Comey’s justification for this refusal to publicly disclose material facts — that those facts might change — is laughable, especially in light of Comey’s 2016 two-step regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton.
“I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change,” Comey claims.
Recall that in 2016, Comey had no problem 1) publicly exonerating Hillary Clinton despite the fact that the authority to charge (or not charge) someone with a crime lies with federal prosecutors, not the FBI; 2) using the same press conference to excoriate Clinton’s behavior; 3) telling Congress that the investigation of Clinton was closed; and then 4) announcing days before a presidential election that the FBI had reopened the case and was once again investigating Hillary Clinton. Yet we’re supposed to believe that James Comey had grave moral concerns about disclosing facts that may be subject to change? Please.
If anything, Comey’s latest statement only highlights why Trump was justified in firing Comey in the first place. Comey, according to his own testimony, repeatedly told Trump that the president was not being investigated by the FBI. Not only that, Comey also told Congress that Trump was not being personally investigated. How on earth is it inappropriate, in light of those facts, for the president to ask for those facts to be made public by the very individual asserting them? Trump’s exasperation looks far more justifiable given the behavior to which Comey admits in his own testimony, largely because Comey’s tortured explanation for refusing to publicly explain those facts, even after disclosing them to Congress, holds so little water.
“I explained [to Trump] that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump,” Comey writes. “I reminded him I had previously told him that.”
Rather than elevating Comey’s moral stature, the statement he provided only makes him look smaller, and makes the game he was playing that much more obvious. According to his own testimony, Comey repeatedly told the president that the FBI was not investigating him. That’s exactly what you’d expect from a careerist looking to keep his job. It’s why Comey, in his own tortured words, pledged “honest loyalty” to Trump during a private meeting.
If the conversation with Trump had really bothered Comey all that much, he would’ve walked out and quit on the spot. Instead, he did what all ambitious bureaucrats eager to keep their jobs do: he stayed, he pledged his loyalty, and he went home and wrote up a self-serving CYA memo just in case. Here’s how Comey describes what happened:
[Trump] then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’ As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’ differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further.
Really, Jim? Really? That’s how you’re going to try to argue around the fact that you personally pledged your loyalty to the president, only to decide after you were fired that it made you feel icky? And your rationalization of the whole thing is that maybe you understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently than the president?
Not until after he was fired did Comey suddenly decide to inform the public of all these interactions that he said made him so uncomfortable. Comey’s similar refusal during his tenure to inform the public that the president was not being investigated is also clear evidence of the keep-my-job-at-all-costs game he was playing (if this game looks familiar, it’s the exact same one he played when he took the fall for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s refusal to prosecute Clinton in 2016). What better way to insure yourself against being fired than to give the impression that you are overseeing a grave investigation of potential wrongdoing by your boss?
The public impression that Trump was being criminally investigated, amplified by the president’s critics in the media, was effectively Comey’s get-out-of-jail-free card. The former FBI director likely assumed that no president would be crazy enough to fire a man whom the public believed to be investigating the president. Only a madman would fire that guy, right? Everyone in Washington knows how this game is played. They all know the tune by heart.
Unfortunately for Comey, Trump had no intention of playing that game and dancing that dance. What really happened is that Trump was wise to Comey’s con and finally had enough of it. He figured out what Comey was doing — deliberately refusing to correct a factually inaccurate impression of the FBI’s ongoing investigation as a means of protecting his job — and called his bluff.
Comey’s own words reveal in lurid detail the game he was playing. They reveal that Trump’s claims about the investigation, and his claims about Comey’s characterization of the investigation, were completely accurate. They reveal that Comey was giving one impression to the president and Congress in private and deliberately allowing an entirely different one to gain currency in public. Comey’s mistake wasn’t in thinking the Beltway two-step was the best way to keep his job. His mistake was assuming that Trump wouldn’t dare to stop dancing.
Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.
After London Bridge, The World Is Sick Of Politicians Downplaying Terrorism
Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness.
By Megan G. Oprea
As if on cue, in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London political leaders are trotting out the usual treacly lines that have become so rote. But the words they pretend will provide comfort to anyone but the most naïve are borderline worthless. Worse, they’re an insult to the families who have had to experience the shocking pain of the sudden loss of a family member or friend at the hands of a terrorist.
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called Saturday’s attack “deliberate and cowardly,” and asked “all Londoners to remain calm and vigilant today and in the days ahead.” Most notably, he said: “You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world.”
What a thing to say at a time like this. Shouldn’t Britons be alarmed? Isn’t Saturday’s attack in London, coming as it did on the heels of the Manchester bombing, deeply disturbing? Why isn’t Khan more concerned about the threats that are so obviously at the doorstep, or better put, in Britain’s streets? Does anyone really take comfort from being told about swift police response times after yet another terrorist attack?
Our Politicians Can’t Handle the Truth
The sad truth, and getting sadder with every attack, is that the political class has little interest in doing what would really be necessary to combat Islamist terrorism, let alone talk about it. They don’t want to talk about how Britain’s lax immigration policies over decades led to hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country with varying degrees of willingness to assimilate and adopt Western values. They don’t want to openly criticize the blatant problems with the multiculturalism the UK has pursued for years and the obvious impact it has had on the immigrant population.
Oh no. This would cost them too much. It would shatter the façade of political correctness that’s been constructed over our “civilized” western world, and destroy the illusion, so vital to the political class, that Western values are universal.
The politicians are only willing to give speeches about how united we are and how terrorists cannot tear us apart. But the truth—so clear and obvious—is that with every attack the West becomes more and more divided. We are not united, not by a long shot. Before the bodies of the poor souls who were killed Saturday by radical Islamists were even identified, the Left and Right were at one another’s throats. On that score, the terrorists emerge victorious every time.
Yes, there are beautiful and touching scenes of strangers helping one another, opening their homes, offering free rides. This is a reminder of the goodness that still exists as part of our shared humanity. But such gestures don’t, ultimately, unite us. Neither do candlelight vigils and marches through the streets of Paris—or tearful pop concerts in Manchester.
The Intellectually Weak Attack Anyone More Courageous
There’s little to no tolerance in polite society for the kind of honesty for which many in the West are hungry. The Washington Post ran a headline Sunday that read, “World Leaders Call For Unity After London Attack. Trump tweets the complete opposite.” The article chastises President Trump for not joining in the fake condolences and platitudes of the political elite, and praises those elites for their messages of hope. But what, exactly, are they saying we should be hopeful for?
Trump, who is often wrong, was correct in tweeting Sunday that, “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.” A growing number of those people are scared, and sick of turning on the news to hear of yet another heartbreaking attack then hearing the same meaningless bromides from their leaders.
They want a leader who doesn’t just try to inure them to this kind of random violence but stands up and says that we’re not going to take it, that this isn’t an acceptable status quo. Whether Trump is that leader is highly debatable, but at least he’s making a nod toward it.
But whenever political leaders do dare to talk candidly about some of these problems, there’s intense pushback and outrage. Take Trump’s travel ban. Like it or hate it, the ban was aimed at curbing immigration from countries that are de facto failed states. These are places where a terrorist could easily go unnoticed by whatever remnant of a security service remains and fly to the United States undetected. When Trump unveiled his travel ban earlier this year, America practically devoured itself with protests at airports, counter-protests, and a wave of lawsuits. The reaction robbed us of any real chance of having a conversation about the ways in which we might need to reconsider our immigration policies for the sake of national security.
The Real Message: Get Used to It
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Sunday that “enough is enough” and that Britain can’t “pretend that things can remain the same.” Is she just campaigning? Parliamentary elections are, after all, next week. Or is she finally saying what needs to be said? If things cannot remain the same, will May come out and say what exactly needs to change?
Even if she does mean it, and even if she does spell out what must change, she won’t be able to do anything significant in Parliament because most of the political class will remain opposed to any drastic policy changes.
Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness. They know that their weak platitudes can’t stop terrorism, and so do the people. They might as well come out and say what they mean: get used to the new normal.
Megan G. Oprea is editor of the foreign policy newsletter INBOUND. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.
People Baffled by White House Deputy Press Secretary’s Mysterious Tweet
June 11, 2017 by Bristol Palin
Okay, I can identify with this. Over the weekend, Sarah H. Sanders, the White House Deputy Press Secretary sent out a tweet that almost made the internet explode. It looked like this:
Okay, so that IS confusing. MJ Randolph described it, “It had traffic lights, anchors, maps, boats, trains, castles, fountains, and the letters, “lolaklkk.” For several hours, people on social media offered explanations to what this might possibly mean. Was it a message to foreign nations? Was it a cry for help?
Not quite.
Sanders eventually got back to her phone and realized that her 3 year old had gotten hold of her phone and caused a national stir. She tweeted, “This is what happens when your 3 year old steals your phone. Thanks Huck! #neverleaveyourphoneunlocked.”
FBI Agents Are Coming Forward To Expose “Dirty” Truth About Comey’s Career
This week’s Comey testimony caused many Democrats and liberals to twinge with panic. Even worse, Comey himself is being exposed as someone who cares more about his Democrat masters than justice.
According to Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, retired and active members of the FBI have told him in private that James Comey was a “dirty cop”. While speaking to Lou Dobbs on his Fox News program, Farrell also criticized Comey for breaking his oath of office by leaking material from the now-infamous “memo,” via Gateway Pundit.
Other unnamed FBI agents are reportedly willing to testify that Comey personally obstructed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
When Comey first announced that the FBI would not pursue charges against Clinton, word began to spread of a possible revolt among the FBI rank and file, via Daily Caller.
Now, with Comey’s own testimony exposing him as a backhanded leaker of government information, more FBI agents might come forward to expose Comey’s dirty tactics.
According to Roger Stone, a longtime Washington insider, Comey has a history of working on behalf of the Clinton crime family. Specifically, Comey helped the Clintons cover-up the crimes of Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor.
Specifically, Comey was the prosecutor who refused to charge Berger with any crimes — even after he stole classified documents from the National Archives in 2003, via YouTube.
Many believe that the bulk of the documents Berger stole relate to the theory that Bill Clinton could have killed Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks, via Washington Post.
Given the past, is it any wonder that Comey refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton in October 2016?
Even Comey admitted that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch pressured him to refer to the Clinton investigation in non-criminal terms. She allegedly did so with the intent of helping Clinton avoid appearing as if she were under investigation.
Both Comey and Lynch should face further questioning for their role in obstructing a criminal investigation.
Comey’s own words provided all the proof the American public needed that President Trump was right to fire him. His selfish actions, and his deep ties to the Clinton mafia, completely undermined the FBI’s position as a (supposedly) independent arm of the American justice system.
Elizabeth Warren Never Imagined This Decision Would Backfire So Badly
Elizabeth Warren just can’t avoid controversy.
The left-wing lighting rod is eager to jump into any battle no matter how foolish she ends up looking.
But her latest decision was a blunder that made her look ridiculous.
California Democrat Senator Kamala Harris was questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about the powers granted to Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia prove.
Questioning is really the wrong word.
She was badgering Rosenstein and refusing to let him answer her questions.
Her behavior was so rude that Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr had to rebuke her by cutting off her speaking time.
The Daily Caller reports:
“Burr wasn’t interested in allowing Harris to continue to interrupt the witnesses and cut off her speaking time so Rosenstein could finish his response.
“The senator will suspend. The chair is going to exercise his right to allow the witness to answer the question,” Burr said to eye rolls from Harris. “The committee is on notice to provide the witnesses the courtesy, which has not been extended all the way across, extend the courtesy for questions to get answered.”
“Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I would like to point out that this witness…” Harris started yet again.
“Mr. Rosenstein, will you … the senator will suspend. Mr. Rosenstein, would you like to fully answer the question?” Burr offered.
Rosenstein looked relieved to finally have speaking time, and responded, “the truth is, I have a lot of experience with these issues and I could speak for a very long time about it.”
Democrats quickly accused Burr of “sexism” for “silencing a woman.”
But Harris was being rude and true sexism would have been treating her differently because she is a woman and allowing her outrageous behavior to continue.
While Harris may have been rude, she was also playing to the crowd.
She is rumored to be a 2020 candidate, and every Democrat running for President must bear their teeth to anyone associated with the Trump administration and put up hostile resistance.
Harris was hoping to create a viral clip that would ping-pong around cable news and social media and tag her as a rising, Trump hating star the activist base of the party can rally around.
Elizabeth Warren – who is also rumored to be a 2020 candidate – may have sensed this and didn’t want to be left out.
She quickly jumped in and offered her support to Harris.
Silencing @SenKamalaHarris for not being “courteous” enough is just unbelievable. Keep fighting, Kamala! #NeverthelessShePersisted https://t.co/58y15qWVzU
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 7, 2017
Warren continues to try and pitcher herself as a far-left champion.
But is this identity politics driven move a mistake?
Constantly badgering Americans about race and gender separated the Democrat party from a chunk of the coalition that twice elected Barack Obama.
Donald Trump flipped 200 counties won by Obama in part by railing against this type of political correctness.
What may play well for Warren in a Democrat primary could leave her candidacy mortally wounded should she make it to the general election.
G’day…Ciao…….
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/06/httpift_11.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment