Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire is pissing me off.

“Being humiliated doesn’t bother me that much; I’ve been raised on humility.  It’s the risk of not being humiliated enough that worries me.”

— The Anomalous Host

There are times in my life, amidst my searching for jobs and thinking about my purpose in life, I start to reflect on the things I enjoy the most in life.

I enjoy watching movies and shows, yet find many of the films and shows today lacking in what I enjoy seeing.  In fact, most movies and shows today contain things that I find to be downright stupid and insulting, just like the viewers they were intended for.

I enjoy board games, yet I have a hard time remaining focused on creating my own (same applies to video games).

I enjoy lectures on certain topics, but I find myself unwilling to participate in-person (ie outside of typing) because I have a hard time getting my words straight and not sounding like an idiot when reading from a script.  I’ve tried making sound recordings in the past, and I never end up liking the way I sound.  And when I try to wing-it (not using a script), I tend not to be all that focused, and I wander around the topic more than I do on my average blog post.  And on top of all that, I find my own voice a bit annoying.  I frequently get brain farts and draw a blank and wander to some other subject when I try making video responses.  That is, unless I go by a script.  And I’ve learned that I can’t just talk what I write the way I’ve written it.  It doesn’t sound natural for starters.  And even worse, I have a hard time using the right tone of voice for certain words and sentences when I’m reading from a script.  Hence to say I would be terrible at acting on stage.

I tried writing a book a couple times, and after reaching 100 pages and looking back on it, despite some sections I found to be good, most of it just seemed like trash.

I know putting an actual voice out there could let me be more widely known; but even assuming I could make a decent video and make it sound the way I want (with the right tone and emphasis on the right words and the right sentences), there’s the other problem to consider.  What if the video, successful or not, ends up getting me the sort of attention I don’t want?  What if it makes me lose any chance of having a decent job in the workforce?  What if the thought-control fanatics decide that I’m not someone capable of separating my personal political/theological/philosophical thoughts from the job (which I know I’m capable of doing, because I’ve done so successfully in the past)?  What if they don’t care (most likely)?  It’s hypocritical, when considering the type of people out there who do manage to get employed, who seem less capable of keeping their emotions and personal feelings in check than me; but that’s the reality of things.

On the other hand, it’s not like I want to live forever.  What kind of a man would I be if I were to let fear of backlash from those more rich and powerful and numerous be enough to silence a voice that has legit concerns and grievances about the state of things?  What kind of man would I be if I didn’t throw my hat into the ring to challenge their ideals, and challenge them to do the same?  They can kill the idealist, but they can’t kill the idea.

I wouldn’t feel the urge to do this if those I follow, those I respect, those I rely on for news/opinions/information didn’t say something I know is wrong.  I wouldn’t feel the urge if I didn’t felt I know better than them on that topic.  With Andrew Klavan bitching about white nationalism and confusing it for white supremacy, and Ben Shapiro seeming to have misconceptions regarding what Julian Assange has done in the past (plus Shapiro is very overrated), and Michael Knowles having a piss-poor argument against the use of marijuana.  So I’m going to respond, in an audio/video format.  I just don’t know if this is going to turn into a regular thing or not, especially since I know for a fact I don’t sound as great in reality as I envision myself in my head (which I guess makes me possess an alter-ego when I’m typing).  Because it’s really fucking hard for me to do this.

Ultimately, when I think back on the past, the thing I find I’ve always enjoyed doing the most, from middle school and onwards, is critiquing critics, challenging the views and opinions of others, and daring them to attack mine.  This aggressive nature has proved a bountiful source of knowledge that has changed my outlook on life at times, especially when someone eventually comes along and actually manages to destroy a position I’ve held for years.  It’s liberating, but also dangerous.  I always find myself walking that fine line between wanting a debate for the sake of challenging the opinions of others and encouraging them to do the same to me; and forming a pride-filled ego making me think I’m better than them.  It’s easy to fall into that trap, and I have done so on occasion.  But if it didn’t come with its own set of risks, what fun would that be?

So… here I go:

Text response:

@Klavan You either don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re completely ignorant as to what white nationalism actually is; or you do know what you’re talking about, and thus you’re not as reasonable and level-headed of a man as I thought you were. I’m hoping for the former, because that can be forgivable in the long-run.

“I think white nationalism is bad because it’s stupid and wrong to make moral judgments about people according to their race rather than by their actions, ok. […] You don’t violate rule 1 because you don’t want it done to you. The golden rule. Everybody knows he’s an individual responsible for himself. He’s not responsible to everybody who’s the same color he is, whether he comes from the same country he is. You know, you can’t say, ‘Oh, white people held slaves, therefore you’re responsible because you have the same color as those white people.’ And it wasn’t white people holding slaves, it was some white people holding slaves, while other white people of course were fighting to free them. You can’t say, ‘Black people commit crimes, black people are muggers,’ because it’s some black people, it’s not the guy you’re talking to at that moment. He feels himself as an individual, you want to feel yourself as an individual, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Breaking rule 1 is wrong.”

First of all, that’s whole statement is made under the partial assumption that race does not equal causation when it comes to general crimes/personalities/IQ, etc. There have been many books written by those holding phd’s which state otherwise, from books like The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray in 1994, to A Troublesome Inheritance by Wade in 2015, to The Diversity Delusion by Mac Donald in 2018. Average IQ has been linked by genetics. It’s not the only factor, but it is a big enough one to where it can’t be ignored. And considering that blacks commit considerably more crime on average compared to whites (statistics by government and non-government sources support this), I’d say there’s enough reason to believe that having a desire for nationalities based on race isn’t exactly a bad thing, that segregation has been given a bit of a bad rap over the years, though it’s ironically making a return by those who tout inclusion.

Second of all, regarding the other part of that assumption, the idea that white nationalism (or even black nationalism, brown nationalism, etc.) is bad because it breaks the golden rule of “do unto others” and sacrificing the notion of individualism is false. White nationalism is the idea that white people want to be proud of their race and their accomplishments (they are responsible for a great many inventions, from various technologies to the U.S. Constitution), and have whites remain. To have white groups, to have white towns, etc. Many whites only want to hang out with whites because they have more in common with them on both a physical and mental level (for those who argue how looks aren’t everything, you would second-guess yourself if you took into consideration what kind of actors and actresses have been the most popular and the most in-demand over the many decades, not to mention the porn factor). And you can’t convince me that black people don’t feel the exact same way, in general. That’s not to say we should be against interracial relations, I’d imagine those people would want to have their own community to thrive in as well. But not at the expense of those wanting racial purity in their groups and their communities.

You say white nationalism breaks rule 1. I say anti-nationalism break rule 1, because white nationalists respect the decisions of other races to be themselves in their own communities, and would expect those communities to do the same for white communities. White nationalism doesn’t break the golden rule, it encourages the golden rule. Don’t confuse white nationalism with white supremacy. Despite what those ass-hats in the MSM may say, those are two very different ideologies.

Video/audio response:

“Spygate” Living Blog Post

Note made after writing everything below the Introduction:

Fuck me sideways to Atlantis, this is overwhelmingly ridiculous.  I started out typing this post just wanting my own personal page to continually update with information regarding Trump/Russia/Spygate/etc.  Mainly the names of people and organizations, so I can keep track of who to definitely not trust, who to remember when elections happen and when stories break, etc.  I expected to have a finished copy after a couple days, and then update it off and on when a relevant story breaks.

And I can’t do it.  At least not like that.  There are so many goddamn news articles with so many goddamn names and goddamn organizations, it would take a group of people to try and organize everything in the amount of time I’m trying to do it.  And for someone like me who has a bit of attention deficit disorder, that’s asking for too much.  So I’m going to change tactics.  I’m just going to post what I’ve written as is, which is basically a jumbled mess of stuff.  And I’ll just update it off and on when new stories come out from here on.  I’m sick of digging into older posts from various websites of the past, and I’d rather be doing something else, like continuing to play Knights of the Old Republic 1 (yep, got sidetracked from Witcher 3 again, and from Mass Effect 2; I’m not very good at sticking to just one thing for very long), continuing to analyze the censorship done with a certain Vietnam War documentary (not the Ken Burns one per-se), and continue to binge-watch the original Star Trek series while I have access to Netflix for the brief time I’m able to do so (don’t see many other opportunities to finally check that off my bucket list).  Plus I hate having to wait so long before making a blog post, and I’d hate to see the effort I put into this go to waste.

So here it is, unfinished, unpolished, plenty of information left out, not that well organized, and will be initially be posted this way because I’m sick of working on it.  I’ll update it every now and then, hopefully; but don’t hold your breath.  I’m doing this one more for me than for anything else.

 

Introduction

So there is a lot of controversy surrounding Donald J. Trump, whether it’s the man himself, the people he associates with, the people associated with him, or his enemies, the DNC (Democratic National Committee), the RNC (Republic National Committee), the CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Russians, the British, George Soros, the MSN (mainstream media), just to name a few.  You could take your pick as to which controversial topic to latch on to whether you’re for or against him.  Personally, I’m for him (let my bias be known now), but I’m also aware of several of his faults, including his stance against Net Neutrality, and how he may wind up supporting corporations to a fault (but I’ve learned many can be against corporations to a fault as well, so it’s a bit of a balancing act, when it shouldn’t be).  But when many seem to be setting him up for something bad that as far as I can tell he didn’t do, that irritates me, frustrates me, and at times scares me.  I’d rather bash a man in power for legit grievances than for made up stories.  More importantly, I don’t think he should be on the priority list for people to go after who are ruining the country, much less threatening my way of life (a way I would like to see improved I might add).

So I’m going to be making this post about all the news articles I can find regarding Trump, his potential collusion with the Russians, and those who are framing that story and who the actual perpetrators are more likely to be, plus updates on the story of one or more spies within the Trump campaign which were planted prior to him being sworn into office as president.  This will be continually updated, assuming I can maintain the willpower to do so.  In essence, this will be my first full-on post that is 100% political.  It was bound to happen.

 

Timeline of Events

* April 2014: Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is relieved of duty as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

* June 16, 2015: Trump announces his run for president, seeking the Republican nomination.

** December 2015: Strzok-Page Texts (which would become declassified and made public in June 2018) are made indicating that the FBI were using sources (ie “lures”) to lure unnamed U.S. citizens (likely those in the Trump administration) to the UK, indicating that the FBI wanted to run a baited Sting Op using foreign agents against Trump.  (Source)

* February 28 2016: Jeff Sessions formally joined the Trump campaign. (Source)

* March 3, 2016: Trump names Sessions as chairman of his campaign’s national security advisory committee. (Source)

* April 13, 2016: “President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.”Source

** May 5, 2016: The FBI had Crowdstrike monitor the DNC servers (Source), in response to news that the DNC servers had been hacked prior to the 2016 presidential election; they were reportedly payed $168,000 by the DNC (Source).

** June 15, 2016: CrowdStrike claims that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC servers (claimed to be done by Guccifer 2.0), and John Podesta’s e-mails.  (Source)

* July 2016: Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. (Source)

* July 19, 2016: Trump is formally nominated for Republican party’s choice as president of the United States.  “Trump earned the 1,237 bound delegates necessary to secure the party’s nomination in early June. The chairs of each state delegation expressed their vote totals and support for Trump in a roll call vote during the second day of the Republican National Convention. Despite having won the primary outright, many of the party’s leading figures have refused to endorse Trump. All four of the GOP’s most recent presidents and presidential nominees are absent from the convention, as are scores of the party’s senators (Source).”

* July 22, 2016: On the Friday before the Democratic National Convention begins, WikiLeaks releases emails that are thought to have been stolen from the Democratic National Committee by Russian state actors. (Source)

** Aug. 21, 2015: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) makes an unexpected appearance at a Donald Trump campaign rally in Mobile, Ala. While he doesn’t endorse Trump, he dons a “Make America Great Again” cap to loud applause. Sessions is one of the first elected officials to tacitly embrace Trump’s upstart candidacy. (Source)

* September 8, 2016: Jeff Sessions met with Sergey Kislyak, in Session’s office.  Sessions stated the meeting was in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate.  He stated the meeting was regarding, “a trip he made to Russia in 1991, terrorism and Ukraine — a major policy issue, given Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the imposition of U.S. and European Union sanctions on Russia for its actions.” (Source)  Also worth noting:

Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

(Source)

* October 7, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing emails that the U.S. government thinks were stolen by Russia from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. (Source)

* November 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.

* Nov. 17, 2016: President-elect Trump names Flynn his intended national security adviser. The position does not require Senate approval. (Source)

* November 18, 2016: Trump nominates Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

* January 5-6, 2017: [CNN released this story on January 10, 2017] Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump. The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Source  [James Clapper supposedly discussed the story with CNN prior to its airing (Source)]

** January 6, 2017: “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” is made publicly available. Source

** January 10, 2017: Buzzfeed.com publicly published a dossier alleging that Russia has compromising information on Trump (Source).  This is now known as either the Russian Dossier, or the Steele Dossier (the individual who compiled the dossier was at the time known to be a former British intelligence official, and his actual name would be revealed later on as Christopher Steele), a Dossier which is said to show that the Russians have “dirt” on Trump doing sexual misdeeds, and are thus able to blackmail him into doing stuff for them.

* January 10 2017: Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing, where he is questioned regarding any potential contacts he had in the past with the Russians. (Source)

* January 20, 2017: Trump is inaugurated as president.

** January 25, 2017: Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign begins.

** February 8, 2017: Sessions is confirmed as attorney general in a 52-47 vote. Franken and Leahy — and every other Democrat save Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) — vote no. (Source)

** February 13, 2017: General Flynn was fired (forced out) as NatSec Advisor. (Source)

* March 2, 2017: Jeff Sessions publicly stated that he will recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential election campaign, which includes the supposed Russian interference. (Source)

** May 17, 1017: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein of the Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials (Source).

** April 25, 2018: The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch are teaming up to sue the Department of State for documents related to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the unverified anti-Trump dossier. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, seeks the fulfillment of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by both TheDCNF and Judicial Watch. Source

** April 26, 2017: “an unsealed FISA Court Ruling unveiled a number of criminal activities that Barack Obama’s FBI, NSA and DOJ participated in during his time in office. […] the FISA Court Ruling shows widespread abuse of the FISA mandate. According to the report, Obama’s FBI, NSA and DOJ performed searches on Americans that were against their 4th Amendment rights. This went on for years. One paragraph in the report states that 85% of the Section 704 and 705(b) FISA searches made during the time of the audit (a few months in 2015) were non-compliant with applicable laws and therefore criminal.  In addition, Obama’s DOJ and FBI were illegally searching Americans against their rights.  Unbeknownst to most Americans, Obama’s FBI was providing this information to outside contractors who had no business or legal cause or claim the information. A further review of the report by Jeff Carlson shows on page 19 that the Court stated that James Clapper’s NSA had an institutional “lack of candor”.”Source

** October 24, 2017:

** April 26, 2018: Chuck Ross of TheDailyCaller reports: Former FBI Director James Comey repeated one of the more pervasive false claims about the infamous Steele dossier on Thursday, telling Fox News’ Bret Baier Republicans first financed the salacious document. Instead, the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funded the dossier project. “I knew it was first funded by Republicans,” Comey told Baier during an exchange about his knowledge of the dossier, which former British spy Christopher Steele wrote. “That’s not true, that the dossier that Christopher Steele worked on was funded by Republicans?” Baier replied.  “My understanding is his work started funded as oppo research funded by Republicans,” Comey insisted. Baier corrected Comey, saying The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, claimed they hired Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm commissioned the dossier, on a retainer, “but they did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier.” “That was initiated by Democrats,” Baier said. “My understanding was the activity was begun, that Steele was hired to look into was first funded by Republicans then picked up — important thing was picked up by Democrats opposed to Donald Trump,” Baier added. Comey’s false claim is not without precedent, though it is surprising given the FBI relied on the dossier as part of its investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian government. Fusion GPS hired Steele to investigate Trump in June 2016. The opposition research firm was working at that time for Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign and DNC. The Washington Free Beacon, which billionaire Republican donor Paul Singer funds, hired Fusion GPS in September 2015 to conduct standard opposition research on Trump. But the website ended its Trump work in May 2016, after Trump appeared poised to win the GOP nomination. The Free Beacon employed Fusion through January 2017 but cut ties after BuzzFeed News published the Steele report. Comey signed off on three surveillance warrants obtained against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which relied heavily on the dossier.  Source

** April 27, 2018: “The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Friday released a heavily-redacted 253-page report laying out the findings of its 14-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.  The report, which was authored by committee Republicans and approved for release on a party-line vote, asserts that the investigation “found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.”Source

** May 31, 2018: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in an interview with Vox relating to his memoir Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence, states that he believes the Russians did interfere with the election, but expresses doubts as to whether Trump colluded with them or not, or whether their interference affected the outcome of the election. (Source)

** June 3, 2018: Republican California Representative Devin Nunes reports that Aussie Ambassador Alexander Downer lied about the launch of the Spygate scandal, lied about giving George Papadopoulos information to the Australian Ambassador in the US to launch the spying on the Trump campaign. Source

 

Noteworthy Individuals/Corporations/Organizations

** Alexander Downer: former Australian ambassador, high commissioner in London.

* Alphabet: “an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Mountain View, California. It was created through a corporate restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015 and became the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. The two founders of Google assumed executive roles in the new company, with Larry Page serving as CEO and Sergey Brin as President. Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include Google, Calico, Chronicle, GV, CapitalG, Verily, Waymo, X, and Google Fiber.” Source

* Andrew McCabe: FBI Deputy Director; worked on the Clinton e-mail investigation.  “His wife, Jill, lost an election for Virginia state senator after receiving $500,000 from long-time Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe and another $200,000 from the state Democratic Party – incredible donations for a state senate race. [Source]

* Atlantic Council: “an American think tank in the field of international affairs. Founded in 1961, it provides a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. It manages ten regional centers and functional programs related to international security and global economic prosperity. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.” Source.  The Atlantic Council is known to be very “hawkish” on Russia (Source).  It’s also funded in-part by NATO, United Arab Emirates, and Open Society Initiative for Europe (the latter of which is a program of the Open Society Foundation,  (Source).

* Barack Obama:

** Chuck Schumer: Democrat Senate Minority Leader New York.

* Christopher Steele: former British intelligence official.  Authored the infamous Russian/Steele Dossier used as evidence showing that Russia has “dirt” on Trump and is thus able to influence him.

* Crowdstrike: Cybersecurity company, who’s co-founder and CTO is Dmitri Alperovitch (also nonresident senior fellow on the Atlantic Council). that received $100 million from Google Capital (aka CapitalG) in 2015 (Source).  The company is owned by Alphabet (who’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election).  Steven Chabinsky is the general counsel and chief risk officer for Crowdstrike.

* Dmitri Alperovitch: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative of the Atlantic Council.

* Donald J. Trump: Nominated for president of the United States July 19, 2016.  Won presidential election November 8, 2016.  Sworn into office January 10, 2017.

* Eric Schmidt: Chairman of Alphabet, which owns CapitalG (aka Google Capital).

** Fusion GPS: a Washington firm.

** George Soros:  “a Hungarian-American investor, business magnate, philanthropist, political activist and author. Soros is one of the world’s most successful investors.  He is a well-known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes and dispenses his donations through his foundation, the Open Society Foundations. Between 1979 and 2011, Soros donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes; by 2017, his donations “on civil initiatives to reduce poverty and increase transparency, and on scholarships and universities around the world” totaled $12 billion. He influenced the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and provided one of Europe’s largest higher education endowments to the Central European University in his Hungarian hometown.” Source

* George Papadopoulos:

* Harry Reid: former Senate Democrat leader

* Hillary Clinton:

* James Clapper: served as the director of national intelligence from 2010 to January 20, 2017, and before that worked as a career intelligence officer under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

* James Comey: Director of the FBI from September 4, 2013, until May 9, 2017 when he was fired by Trump.  Initially nominated to the position by Barack Obama on March 3, 2013, to replace outgoing FBI director Robert Mueller.  Was against wiretapping utilized by the Bush administration in 2004 (Source).

* Jeff Sessions:

* John Brennan: CIA Director from

* John Podesta:

* Joeseph Mifsud:

* Kellyanne Conway: senior Trump advisor

** Lisa Page: FBI agent involved with the sending of 10,000 anti-Trump text messages between herself and Peter Stzrok (who she was involved with an extramarital affair).

** Loretta Lynch:

** Michael Cohen:

* Michael Flynn:

* Mike Pence:

** Michael S. Rogers: former US navy admiral, now director of the NSA.

** Nellie Ohr: formerly worked for the CIA (Source) and is the wife of senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr (who would be demoted for not reporting his meeting with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS [Source]).  Hired by Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump (Source).

** Open Society Foundation: aka Open Society Institute.  Founded by George Soros.   “The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.  We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments; and a civil society that helps keep government power in check.  We help to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights.  We implement initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media.  We build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information.  Working in every part of the world, the Open Society Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities.”Source

** Open Society Initiative for Europe:

** Peter Stzrok: FBI agent, who was on the Mueller team until found to be involved with the sending of 10,000 anti-Trump text messages between himself and Lisa Page (who he was involved with an extramarital affair).  He was also involved with the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal in 2016.  “Stzrok not only allowed Hillary’s aides to be present during her questioning, but he also failed to put the former secretary of state under oath. Such sloppiness was irrational – unless Stzrok knew Hillary’s answers were immaterial because the investigation’s outcome was pre-determined. [Source]”  (Source 2)

* Robert Swan Mueller III: nominated as director of the FBI by then-president George W. Bush on July 5, 2001, and officially took the position on September 4, 2001, and remained director of FBI until September 4, 2013 (replaced by James Comey).  “He had been working at WilmerHale [prior to being appointed on the special council team investigating Trump], which represents former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner — people who might be witnesses, or more, in the course of Mueller’s high-profile investigation [Source].”

* Rod J. Rosenstein: Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department.  Appointed Mueller as special counselor into the Trump-Russia-Collusion investigation in May 2017.

* Roger Stone:

* Sergey Kislyak: Russian Ambassador.

** Seth Rich: murdered in Washington DC July 2016.  Officially considered a mugging despite valuables left on him, some suggest he was murdered because he was the Wikileaks source for the DNC e-mail leaks (Source).

** Steven Chabinsky: the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike; appointed to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity by Obama in April 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

News Stuff that I don’t have organized yet

June 25, 2017: Justin Caruso of TheDailyWire reports:

The analysis that alleged that Russia was behind the DNC server breach was carried out not by the U.S. government, but by the private security group CrowdStrike.

CrowdStrike is the sole source of this claim, with their June 2016 report, “Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee” being the basis of the DNC’s Russian hacking allegations.

Here are five key points about CrowdStrike that the mainstream media is ignoring:

1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC

2. The FBI Never Looked At The DNC’s Servers — Only CrowdStrike Did

3. Comey Contradicted The DNC’s Story On The FBI Asking To See The Server

4. CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire

5. CrowdStrike Is Funded By Clinton-Loving Google $$

Source

 

 

May 19, 2017: Gregg Jarrett of Fox News reports: “[Mueller] and James Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand for years at the FBI. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.” Source

 

 

December 13, 2017: Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge reports: Over 10,000 text messages sent between two top FBI investigators – one of whom led both the Clinton email investigation and the early Trump-Russia probe, have been turned over to Congress Tuesday evening and promptly leaked to the press. The profanity-laced messages reveal a deep hatred for Trump between veteran agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page, who were having an extramarital affair while working together on the Clinton email investigation when the texts were exchanged. Strzok and Page were fired from Robert Mueller’s special counsel in mid-August over the messages, yet the reason was not revealed until last month. Strzok notably changed the wording of then-FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Clinton’s mishandling of classified information from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”Source

 

 

April 16, 2018: Chuck Ross of TheDailyWire reports: Comey told interviewer George Stephanopoulos that the FBI was unaware of the salacious and unverified dossier until after the bureau formally opened its counterintelligence investigation of President Donald Trump’s campaign. The investigation was opened on July 31, 2016. Comey is contradicted by extensive reporting that dossier author Christopher Steele provided the FBI with information from his dossier on July 5, 2016. There has also been reporting that the information was almost immediately passed to the FBI’s counterintelligence division, which would later oversee the Trump probe.  Source

 

April 22, 2018: Joe Hoft of TheGatewayPundit reports: “It is looking more and more like Obama’s Former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan and Former NSA Director James Clapper may have lied when they put together a report released in January 2017 about Russian influence in the 2016 election. This report was used to push the entire Russia narrative. […]  The DNC has not allowed investigators to review its IT systems and servers to determine how its emails landed in the hands of Wikileaks. To date the Mueller team has not reportedly even asked for this information. An inspection would provide evidence as to whether its servers were hacked by outsiders or if the emails were simply copied by an insider and provided to external parties.  […]  the Russia Report was based on judgements from the CIA led by John Brennan, the DNI led by James Clapper, and the FBI led by James Comey.”Source

 

March 26, 2018: Chuck Ross of TheDailyCaller reports: Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered — and he would accept — during the presidential campaign. The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6. Source

 

May 14, 2018: John Solomon of The Hill reports: In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.  Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.Source

 

May 31, 2018, Jim Hoft of TheGatewayPundit posted an article regarding Jeff Session’s incompetence, and indicating how it provides for logical reasoning to determine that Jeff Sessions is involved with the Deep State, and wants to bring Trump down (despite some beliefs by others that Jeff Sessions is on Trump’s side and just playing a waiting game for when to go after the real enemies; the counter-argument to that is that he’s taking too long to act).  Source

 

May 31, 2018: Hannity on Fox news interviews John Solomon of The Hill, stating Documents Reveal Obama White House Attempted to Take Over Spygate Investigation (Source)

 

 

June 1, 2018, Cassandra Fairbanks of TheGatewayPundit posted an article stating she interviewed 3 former intelligence officers (who are anonymous as of the date of the posting), who she claims stated:

* The U.K.’s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive “intelligence” allegedly linking Trump to Russia.

* The sources believe that John Brennan and James Clapper used highly classified intelligence channels to create a trail of fake evidence linking Trump to Russia.

* George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him.

* It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

* Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset.

* The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House.

The former intelligence officers agreed that the U.K.’s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive “intelligence” allegedly linking Trump to Russia.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to the two former intelligence officers on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. We additionally spoke to Bill Binney, a former high level National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower, who confirmed that he agrees with their conclusions.

What Ray McGovern and I were thinking is that the whole conspiracy about the Russian narrative was concocted by Brennan and then most likely approved by Obama. This is what I told Pompeo when I was in with him. It requires the NSA, CIA, FBI, DNI, DNC and the DOJ to be coordinating — especially for things like the Steele dossier. The only one place they all come together and can be ordered to coordinate and cooperate is the president — which was Obama. The DOJ doesn’t fall under the DNI or anybody else — only the president,” Binney told The Gateway Pundit.

Source

 

June 1, 2018, John Solomon of The Hill reports, “new documents reveal the Obama deep state figures contacted Trump campaign officials in Great Britain prior to the launch of any FBI investigation. This spying on Trump campaign officials show the Comey FBI broke their own rules governing informants.” Source

 

June 1, 2018, Jim Hoft of TheGatewayPundit reports, “Former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions oversaw the small team of five foreign policy experts for the Trump campaign.  Included in this small group were Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.  According to the House Intel report, the future President was under pressure to put together a foreign policy team in March of 2016.  A number of seasoned Republican foreign policy experts were unwilling to jump on the Trump train.  Because of this pressure from the press to show he had experts on his team, candidate Trump named then Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as the chairman of his National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC).  A few weeks later, candidate Trump released the names of five people on his team.  The list included Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.Source

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/27/donors-50-million-steele-fusion-gps/

 

June 3, 2018: Joe Hoft of TheGatewayPundit reports, “[…] former FBI Director James Comey stated that the investigation started in July of 2016, but evidence found in the public domain proves that the investigation started much earlier.” — Source

 

June 21, 2018: Cristina Laila of TheGatewayPundit reports:  Fitton said Saturday evening Judicial Watch received the requested documents and even though they are heavily redacted, they confirm the FBI and DOJ misled the courts.  Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI withheld information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC being behind the information used to obtain the FISA warrant.

Tom Fitton: .@JudicialWatch now has Carter Page FISA docs. They are heavily redacted but seem to confirm the FBI and DoJ misled the courts in withholding info about Clinton-DNC being behind the info used to get the FISA warrant.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/breaking-newly-released-docs-related-to-fisa-warrants-on-carter-page-confirm-obama-fbi-doj-misled-courts/

The Post (2018) review

Rated: 3/5

Intro

Warning, this review gets political, makes no apologies about it, and gives no free flying fucks if you disagree with it (unless any of you dare to try having an honest discussion with me). You’ve been warned.

The Post, a movie.  Like how there was a TV series called The Office.  Now all there needs to be is a miniseries titled The Post Office.  All joking aside, The Post is short for The Washington Post, which I guess wouldn’t have attracted as many viewers to the movie for some reason, or perhaps because they wanted to eliminate “Washington” from the title, considering it’s supposed to be corrupt and led by a corrupt president during this time period (everyone’s favorite corrupt president that films always like to remind everyone exists and is corrupt about as often as they like to remind us Hitler was a scumbag, Richard Nixon).  How they stood with The New York Times in publishing a story on the Pentagon Papers regarding how Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon both kept the reality of the Vietnam War hidden from public, that it was a war we were either destined to lose, or a war that we would have to be fighting for a long time with a lot of manpower in order to win.  Basically a similar situation to what the British faced during the Revolutionary War, except America had assistance from France.

I’m not going to lie, I had preconceived notions when going into this film.  I expected this to be a preachy movie that praised the Washington Post, to the extent that it’s the end-all-be-all of news and newspapers, that it should always be allowed to post stories because all their stories are flawless and true.  That, and to bash the Trump administration ever so subtly (something I’m sure we’ll see more of for the next few years, as evident from a few films that came out near the end of last year).  So yes, I expected some serious subliminal messaging, or even messaging that is too blunt to be considered subliminal.  And while that stuff is here, it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be.  Besides, as I had to remind myself, any decent movie is a work of art that can be viewed with different perspectives. More on that later.

 

Review

There are some negatives I had with the film.  There’s a brief moment near the end of the film after the Supreme Court sides with the papers over the government (oh, spoilers by the way, for any of you who didn’t already know or take an educated guess as to how things would turn out).  We see Meryl Streep walking down the steps surrounded by a bunch of smiling women.  Pro-feminism message much?  She can be an inspiration to both men and women, not just women goddamnit!  Can’t we live in an age where any gender and race can inspire all genders and races?  I mean, for Christ’s sake, the whole film is supposed to be about how an underdog newspaper company did a brave/bold thing which caused all other major papers to follow suit and side with freedom of speech over the power of the government telling them no.  That’s a cause everyone can rally behind!  But it’s just a minor moment that only lasts a few seconds, and I’m just making a big deal over a nit-picky moment.  The rest of the film is quite solid.

feminism-social-justice-warriors

For the first half of the film, I started to wonder why it wasn’t about the New York Times.  I mean, it seemed as if they were doing all the interesting stuff.  But then during the 2nd half, it becomes clear why The Washington Post is the main focus of the film.  While the New York Times was the first paper to print on the Pentagon Papers, and the first to be challenged by the government over their publication, it’s the Washington Post that gets a hold of the larger amount of paperwork, and ultimately follows what the New York Times did.  The thing is, I think the film would’ve been more interesting if it focused on both sides, on the New York Times and on the Washington Post.  Certainly would’ve been more energetic and intense.  But then there would be less time for the more dramatic character moments, especially this one moment between Streep’s character and her daughter, which is definitely one of those moments where Spielberg is indulging himself with the drama.  It’s the one aspect about him that’s been a bit bothersome ever since E.T., where the character drama and character interaction comes off as a bit too emotionally manipulative and overdramatic.  It plagues a respectable number of his films.  That said, I found it bothersome in only that one scene.

The obvious themes come up from a film like this, about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, needing high quality reporting for high quality newspapers that readers will love and therebye become loyal fans of, how the papers have a duty more to the people than towards the government, etc.  An element in the film that took me by surprise is how it showcased that some of the higher-ups in the press tend to have political connections, and are friends with some high-standing government officials.  And this causes an inner conflict when they must consider if they value their work more than their friendship, or vice-versa.  A welcoming subplot in a film like this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/b1d79872-e1cd-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76

 

 

No More Pussyfooting

Now, with all that said, let’s stop pussyfooting around the pink/white/orange/black/whatever elephant in the room shall we?  I’m not going to ignore how many reviewers state that this is a timely and relevant film that has strong parallels to today’s environment.  And we all know what they’re talking about. Consider the headlines from some of the reviews:

‘The Post’ Review: Steven Spielberg’s Spectacularly Entertaining Journalism Thriller Is a Rallying Cry for the Resistance — David Ehrlich of IndiWire

“The Post” doesn’t feel so urgent because it was rushed into production — it was rushed into production because it feels so urgent. In a year full of accidental Trump movies, this is the first one that’s completely on purpose.

[…]

“The Post” works as a history lesson, but its priorities are clearly sorted by their relevance to the crises we’re enduring right now, the need for a free press being first among them.

[…]

Nixon is a pivotal character, but he’s sheared down to the parallels he shares with Trump

[…]

“The Post” is essential because it stares down cynicism with a smile, because it enshrines the fact that governments only see journalists as a threat when they have something to hide.

The Post film review: Steven Spielberg’s riveting newspaper drama could be subtitled: ‘FAO Trump’ — Christopher Hooton of Independent

Holding political feet to the fire, it will be applauded by a newly politicised Hollywood, looking to give the Trump White House some serious side-eye.

[…]

Is this a political film about holding truth to power? An industry meditation about journalists uniting for a common cause? A feminist reading of Graham’s role in history? Or a parable for the situation the press currently finds itself in with President Donald J. Trump (“I don’t think I could go through this again,” a character laments in one of the final scenes)?

‘The Post’ isn’t just a masterpiece, it is a call to arms against Donald Trump — Gregory Wakeman of Metro

What feels most prescient, though, is the fire that it looks to set underneath all of us, especially journalists, when it comes to their duty to take on Donald Trump and his attacks on the freedom of the press. “The Post’s” final speech will hopefully immediately stir and inspire.

So yeah, all that stuff. Even Spielberg noted that he made this film in 2017 because he felt either he makes it then, or not at all, because he felt it was so timely, because he spotted parallels between Nixon and Trump. Over the past couple years, Trump has been bashing several major news outlets, though never to the extreme that Nixon did in the early 1970s. Because that’s the reason the film exists, as a call against Trump bashing the news outlets.

However, and this is what I suspected would be the case, this is not the only way to view the film. Like any decent film, like any decent work of art, there is more than one way to view it, even if it doesn’t conform to the artist’s original intent. Some mainstream reviewers can attest to that.

Steven Spielberg’s The Post Is Good, and It’s Not About Trump — Kyle Smith of National Review

[…] the hacks will note that the film’s co-star, Meryl Streep — on the strength of her January Golden Globes speech, which she devoted entirely to attacking the president — is as strongly identified with anti-Trump sentiment as any major Hollywood player. For these reasons, The Post stands to be one of the leading contenders to win the Best Picture Oscar on March 4. Academy voters who are dying to turn the ceremony into an expression of revulsion for Trump will have no better weapon this year with which to attack him.

Yet The Post is simply a potent newspaper thriller that could have been released in the Obama years (when it was written) or for that matter at any other point in recent decades. It offers very little in the way of actual parallels to Trump, and to Spielberg’s credit he doesn’t include any overt Trump bashing. Hysteria-prone Hollywood liberals who see the president’s likeness in every passing cloud will be thinking of him throughout the movie, but only because hysteria-prone Hollywood liberals are prone to hysteria.

[…]

Today, of course, the public trusts neither the government nor the media, but it would take a more ironically minded filmmaker than Steven Spielberg to capture that in a film.

[…]

The lasting importance of the Pentagon Papers was not that they altered the course of the Vietnam War (I’m not sure they did) but that they heralded a media Reformation, a new era of doubt and iconoclasm in which journalists like Bradlee (and Graham, who was personal friends with McNamara) chose an antagonistic new stance toward institutions. This isn’t activism or partisanship: Journalists should relentlessly investigate whatever Washington is doing, regardless of party. While it’s true that the media are much more hostile to one party than the other, the principle is a valid one: Journalists should be diggers, not Victorian gents.

Good follow-up to the above article here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/454367/steven-spielbergs-anti-trump-movie-post-meryl-streep-and-tom-hanks

Despite how much the film aims its sights at Nixon (a metaphor for Trump) as the villain for attacking freedom of the press, historically speaking, it was more due to Henry Kissinger for attacking the press than Nixon (though I’m sure Nixon was all for Kissinger’s actions). That aside, as I said earlier, this film doesn’t make any stretches or anything all that blunt about bashing Trump, it’s made well-enough to be considered a sort of time capsule that can be watched in any time period to reflect upon this historic moment in the early 70s, followed up with the Watergate scandal (covered in All the President’s Men), and eventually Nixon’s resignation.

Anyway, I bring this all up because I disagree, strongly, with the message being taken from this film by many people, even if it’s the message Spielberg wished to inject into the film (but again, viewers can have opinions differing from the artist). First off, the idea that the Trump administration is attacking the press anywhere near as violently as the Nixon administration did (or even McCarthy, as can be seen in the highly recommended and still quite relevant film Good Night, and Good Luck). He bashes them, sure, but never to the extent that he’s also attacking the first amendment. I mean, for crying out loud, there’s a scene in the film where Nixon bars the Washington Post from a wedding reception and from any other White House event. While that may have happened in 1971, the case is reversed in the present, where CNN (among others) voluntarily choose to not attend similar White House events of their own accord.

And then there’s the other message contained within the film. It is said briefly in some speeches early on in the film that reporter integrity is vital, the quality of the paper/article helps to gain readers/fans and thus keep the Post alive. They have a responsibility to report important events as much as they do for reporting the truth. So thus I found it possible to also view this film as a call for news integrity, for honest and unbiased news that doesn’t leave out facts much like how Nixon and LBJ left out some inconvenient truths/reports on the Vietnam war. Most, if not all, of the instances I’ve seen Trump bash the media has been because of their false/biased reporting. Because they are not being as honest as those from the early 1970s. And it’s a long list of events where the media has falsified stories or taken them out of context.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/10/washington-post-reporter-doubles-down-on-fake-news-about-guns/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#6fd9e4e27ad5

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266714/anonymous-sources-washington-post-and-cnn-fake-daniel-greenfield

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/15/washington-post-creates-fake-news-timed-release-story-intended-to-capture-evening-news-lede/

https://thinkprogress.org/washington-post-fake-news-lomborg-climate-e13681c350f8/

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265832/why-medias-trump-lie-machine-failing-daniel-greenfield

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/8/dems-media-have-no-problem-lying-about-trump/

Should news agencies not be bashed if what they report is bullshit (assuming they’re not literally reporting about shit falling out of a bull’s ass)? Do those they report against falsely not have a right to attack them back for doing so? Should fake news not be treated as false? It’s stuff like this that makes me think of the other elements in the film, about how the higher ups in the media/papers are sometimes associated with government officials, and how that can lead to bias and not producing coverage of their “friends” when it’s honest and negative coverage; much less the fact-checking and source-backing (done to a greater extent in All the President’s Men). The sort of thing that should be done more often to government entities that are corrupt like the Clinton administration and portions of what Barack Obama did.

So there’s the other perspective one can take from this film. Not just a call for government honesty, but also for press/media honesty. As they said in the film, the press is more for the people than it is for the government. More for the ruled than for the rulers.

Otherwise, there is the social media alternative, and more are emerging beyond Twitter and Facebook.

But anyway, recommended film.

“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Trump vs. Truth” 2-12-2017 critique

Mr. British Left “Because Time Warner Pays the Bills” Winger is back. And as spiteful of Trump as ever. Time to critique. And don’t worry, I don’t plan on making a weekly thing of this. I’m planning on making stuff like this just a once in a blue moon deal, because politics is stressful and anyone talking about it will make anyone listening to it stressed out. That and I don’t want to give his youtube vids too many views, so I’ll just stick with 1 video.

Now to be fair, he does bring up good points. How Trump continually exaggerates things and makes up some bullshit to make him seem grander than he really is. His narcissism is greater than most, if not all, presidents from the past. I’ll agree with that. But the disagreements begin 45 seconds into the video.

0:45

“He said the election was marred by mass voter fraud with no real proof of that.”

No evidence of voter fraud. John, I expected better from you, considering how in the past you tended to go the extra mile in digging up facts on things that actually matter, and voter fraud matters. But you are likely someone who will never go into that sort of thing, mainly because of Time Warner, but also probably because of your personal preference on believing the Democrats more than, well, anyone else, Republican or Independent. For starters, you never bring up the Project Veristas videos, where they show how voter fraud can be done and more than likely has been done.

Plus, you remember when Jill Stein tried to get a recount done in 3 states, but only succeeded in making that happen in Michigan, where it was discovered that “voting machines in one-third of the election precincts counted more ballots than the number of people recorded as walking in line to cast them.” Not to mention that an illegal alien in Dallas, Texas actually did vote in the election, but was found out and arrested and sentenced to 8 years in prison. Of course, in at least one case, a Trump supporter was also found guilty of voter fraud via voting in two different states.

Plus there’s also this study by Old Dominion University and George Mason University.

My point being that there is evidence of voter fraud. So do some better fucking research John Oliver! And don’t just rely on PolitiFact. Speaking of which:

2:17
Trump lies 69.9% of the time.

Now, honestly (I guess that’s a pun in this case), I don’t know how exactly Politifact determines these statistics, but I would say that there’s no real way to determine how much statistically a president (or presidential nominee) lies. But I can state that this statistic can’t be relied upon when you consider the other examples. Politifact states that Obama lied only around 25% of the time, and Hillary Clinton lied around 26% of the time. You have got to be fucking kidding me. The woman who lied about how sick she was until video footage showed how sick she was, when lying wasn’t of any benefit to her at all in that situation indicating just how much of a pathological liar she is, plus all the other times she lied which can be shown easily with any quick Internet or video search (Benghazi, Keystone Pipeline, emails, etc). PolitiFact says she only lied about 26% of the time. Yeah, you know what, PolitiFact is full of shit.

But don’t get me wrong, I know Trump is a liar (pretty easy to tell when he’s lying too, which honestly I’d say is a pro for the American people, not that he lies, but that you can easily tell when he is). As John said, all politicians are liars. What is important is what they lie about. So far from what I’ve seen, Trump tends to lie about petty stuff much more often than he does the stuff that matters. Besides, if he does lie about something important and significant, which shouldn’t be difficult to catch him on if he does and if he lies as often as PolitiFact says he does, he’ll be caught and impeached easily enough.

3:50

“How did we get a pathological liar in the White House?”

Pretty sure we were in a lose-lose situation in that regard with the 2016 election.

4:49
Trump lied about Obama’s birth certificate. Or so John Oliver says. If I recall correctly, he didn’t lie. He said he hired some experts to check to see if Obama’s certificate is valid. Granted, it ended up being a waste of time (as many rightly stated from the beginning), but I don’t believe Trump ever just flat-out said, “His birth certificate is a fake and I can prove it.”

That aside, John does call bullshit on various things that Trump should be called out (and even made fun of) on. It’s nice that Oliver makes the connection between cable news on television and Trump’s tweets (8:33) The problem is that Oliver is stating that certain issues that Trump is raising are also lies, when in fact they’re not.

10:41
Breitbart headlines pointed out, stating that they’re bad, and that Steve Bannon is bad, and that makes Trump bad for using them as a source of information. Well, I decided to take a look into those pages (and I usually don’t read Breitbart).

Headline #1: Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy
The article basically states (with sources from sites such as TheHuffingtonPost, EurekaAlert, LiveScience, and CBS News) that some birth control pills can cause women to increase in weight, gain an unsexy voice, jiggle wrong, choose the wrong mates, makes women sluts, makes men unmanly, gives you fat thighs, and destroys the institution of marriage (the latter subject of which is highly questionable considering it has no source nor any indication of how it got the statistics for the graph they use). Since the article has sources and makes some points (albeit in a blunt politically incorrect and borderline trolling fashion), I’d say it’s up to each individual to go to the site and decide for themselves if Breitbart (or at least the author of the article Milo; yes, THAT Milo) is full of shit or worth considering. Either that or take the time to go into the article in detail on the show and point out why exactly it’s a bad article. And stating that the headline is offensive isn’t good enough you cheeky bastard.

Headline #2: Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed
Ok, yeah, I find some of the connections this article is making to be a stretch. Something about how the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a Nazi supporter in 1938, supported the idea of creating a superior species in that those who are “unfit” should be sterilized so that they do not make children of their own, and that somehow this belief still lives on in Planned Parenthood to this day. Consider me skeptical, at the very least, of this.

Headline #3: Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage
Ok, I’m not too keen on the idea that one should be proud to hoist the confederate flag (even though that wasn’t the official flag symbol among several others used during the civil war). That just doesn’t seem right considering that the flag tends to be a symbol of racism and pro-slavery. That being said, the article does make some good point on how ridiculous censorship had gotten (at the time the article was written, 7-1-2015). To quote from the article:

Google blocked digital ads that showed the flag and manufacturers pledged to stop producing it. But Nazi and Communist flags continue to be marketed on many American websites. At the outer fringe of irrationality, film critic Lou Lumenick, in the Washington Post, made a scathing attack on Gone With the Wind, the most iconic American film of the first half of the 20th century. It also resulted in the first award of an Oscar to a black actor. Lumenick did not, as some people stunned by his diatribe assumed, call for a ban on the film. But the attempt by the left to deride people who thought a ban was coming ignored the fact that any liberal denunciation of a cultural work almost routinely leads to a prohibition, so the reaction was perfectly logical.

Flags, statues, church windows, street names, films, novels, even an elementary school in California named after Robert E Lee – all are threatened with being swept into oblivion by a tsunami of destructive liberal triumphalism. The object is to disinherit and eradicate the historical memory and distinctive culture of millions of Americans. It is a second scorched-earth devastation of the South, cultural this time rather than material. This is Obama’s March to the Sea.

Plus the article points out that many people look at the flag considering things other than slavery. The confederate flag means more than that, or something other than that as some would argue. And the hypocrisy of allowing other flags to still be sold out there, flags which promote an idea much worse than the confederate flag does, but not sell this flag. It’s an interesting think-piece, with some caveats.

11:06
To further hit on Breitbart and Trump for using Breitbart as a source of news, John Oliver points out that Trump stated that there were swarms of muslims on rooftops celebrating the 9/11 act soon after it happened, but that Bill O’Reilly stated that isn’t factually correct, and then Trump bring up a Breitbart article that supports Trump’s claim. Now, I can’t say for certain of Trump is right or wrong on this, but there were plenty of news sources during that time period which supports this idea, all of which are cited by this article. Sources such as CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Post, CBS, and a former NYPD commissioner. So if you’re going to bash Breitbart, you’re going to have to bash those sources as well.

12:03
Ok, yeah, I fully support making fun of Alex Jones from InfoWars. Holy Christ is that guy entertaining for all the wrong reasons. That guy deserves the bashing he receives here on John Oliver’s show, and more. And I do find Trump’s association with that guy a bit worrisome.

14:30
More on John Oliver stating that the whole illegal voting theory is BS. I’ve already said my peace on that, and Oliver does nothing to put a crack in any of the sources I cited above. That’s part of the problem with John, there are some sources on some issues that he either just flat out ignores, or seems unaware of, the latter of which seems impossible considering what Oliver’s show has been able to dig up in the past.

18:25
John Oliver is apparently under the impression that the mainstream media is more reliable than Trump claims. Nevermind that Wikileaks has shown how far media bias had gone during the 2016 election, nevermind that I’ve pointed out John Oliver’s bias in the past, and nevermind that Time Warner, who owns HBO which thus owns Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, is a Clinton donor and thus a Democrat supporter. The media is biased, whether it be John Olover’s program, Fox, CNN, Breitbart, Democracy Now, and whoever the hell else is out there. Every news/entertainment media outlet is biased to some extent. It’s in my opinion that anyone and everyone should listen to several sources which have different opinions, and make up their own minds with logical reasoning. John Oliver seems to promote this idea, but pretty much implies that you should check every news source, check to see if they’re reliable, but avoid what Trump and Breitbart say at all costs.

That’s all folks.

Just because it’s independent doesn’t mean it isn’t biased: A response to Democracy Now’s report: “Florida State Attorney Behind Trayvon Martin Case Defeated”

First I should mention my history with Democracy Now, a 1 hour independent news program that airs Monday through Friday on the Link Channel and on Los Angeles KCET 28 (my local channel). I was introduced to this program many many years ago by a friend of mine, but my viewings of the program have been mostly sporadic. I tune into them the same reason I tune into any independent news network or website, to get news that mainstream media won’t cover because they’re biased. Problem is, as I’ve learned over the years, independent media can be biased too, just in different ways because they are run by different people who may or may not have different views.

In the case of Democracy Now, their bias is that they always take the side of the lower class, or if they’re not in the story, the middle class, and in all other cases unless the independents suit their views, the Democrats (in the case of the current upcoming election Jill Stein has become their role model for president instead of Hillary Clinton). That seems respectable and all, reporting on and taking the side of protesters and such who rally against big corporate, corporations who (“who” rather than “that”, because corporations are apparently considered to be considered cocksucking people) run projects that threaten natural resources, and anybody who is or claims to be a victim of police racism/brutality (there is a difference between “is” and “claims”). That seems nice of them to always take their side, but the problem is that they always take their side. Whether they are right or wrong. Don’t get me wrong, much of the time, corporations who threaten natural resources are assholes who deserve to be rallied against, but every once in a while there is a project that is unjustly rallied against. There are police who are racist, or who are unjustly brutal in their actions/reactions to individuals, but that doesn’t apply to all police (or arguably even the majority of police) who make news headlines. But when you make a report that falsely vilify someone who should not be vilified, that’s going too far.

So on today’s (August 31, 2016’s) episode of Democracy Now, Amy BitchTits Goodman made this statement:

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey was also defeated. Corey had faced widespread criticism for her handling of several prominent cases, including the killing of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin by white neighborhood watch vigilante George Zimmerman and the case of Marissa Alexander, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing what she maintains was a warning shot at her abusive husband. [emphasis added]
Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/31/headlines/florida_state_attorney_behind_trayvon_martin_case_defeated

First of all, stating that Zimmerman’s race is ‘white’ is not accurate and is obviously fueling the whole racism issue that mainstream media is fueling, which has started have severe side-effects, in case no one has noticed lately. Zimmerman is just as much Hispanic as he is White, if not more-so, so playing the race card on him is biased and stupid, though there have been backlash against claiming him to be otherwise.
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/3250/20131024/george-zimmerman-ethnicity-white-latino-hispanic.htm

Second of all, ‘vigilante’? As if he was going around intended to gun down black criminals any chance he could get? Just leave the description to the facts you cunt, that he was part of the neighborhood watch.

“But he was a vigilante, who did gun down Trayvon Martin in cold blood!” one may respond. To which I will reply, “You haven’t taken a close look at the details of the case, have you?” Well I have, and here’s what I’ve found.

It is argued that Zimmerman basically came up, argued at Martin, and then shot him, possibly getting in a small scuffle prior to it. Problem with that is that it’s easier to believe Zimmerman’s side of the story, where he says Martin attacked him first (though after Zimmerman ill-advisedly, and using poor-judgement, chased Martin after Martin ran from him while he was in his car, and eventually Zimmerman gave up the chase, went back to his car, and Martin came and confronted him there). After tackling Zimmerman to the ground, severely beating his head into the ground, and supposedly reaching for his ground, Zimmerman got his gun and shot Martin, in a case that when you look at the details and the evidence, clearly seems to be in self-defense. Evidence for that side of it? The markings on Zimmerman’s head, and other notes made about the bruises around various parts of his body.



Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zimmerman1/zimreports.html

For in-depth details into the whole George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case, see this site:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zimmerman1/zimmermanaccount.html

As much as I hate bringing up past events like this, I kinda find it necessary when news organizations continue to use the racist angle story of an unjust racially motivated killing of white on black, and when fucking movements like Black Lives Matter continue to use such a story as motivation, when the story does not support their movement at all. It is bullshit, and all the assholes in that organization are dumb as shit for not looking into the details of something they use as motivation for such a cause. Fuck the biased news.

Oh, and in case the foul language above didn’t make things obvious, Democracy Now has gotten on my bad side, and so has Amy Goodman. The reporters/writers on that program should have known better. And Amy should have known better too. I expect better from independent news organizations.