Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett

By William Teach September 30, 2020 – 6:47 am

Guess who knew all about this?

BREAKING: Russia Believed Clinton Was Planning Anti-Trump Collusion Campaign In 2016, And U.S. Officials Knew It

Not only were Russian officials aware of Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian asset, top U.S. intelligence authorities knew of Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s plans, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed to congressional officials on Tuesday. Before they launched an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia, intelligence agencies learned that Russia knew of Clinton’s plans to tarnish Trump with the collusion smear.

At one point, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials that Russia assessed Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26, 2016, “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to Brennan’s handwritten notes.

Fired former FBI Director James Comey and fired former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok were even sent an investigative referral on September 7, 2016, regarding Russia’s alleged knowledge of Clinton’s plans to smear Trump as a treasonous Russian agent, Ratcliffe wrote. Rather than investigate at the time whether Russian intelligence had infiltrated the Clinton operation’s anti-Trump campaign and sowed Russian disinformation within it, the FBI instead used unverified gossip from a suspected Russian agent to obtain federal warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

There is no evidence the FBI ever investigated the Clinton campaign’s documented use of Russian agents and intelligence assets to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, raising questions of whether the top federal law enforcement agency may have itself interfered in the election by using its powers to arbitrarily target the campaign of the outgoing administration’s political enemy.

That’s a hell of a thing, eh? Puts the entire Russia Russia Russia “scandal” into context, does it not?

Brennan personally briefed President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials about Clinton’s campaign plan and Russian knowledge of it. Just five days after the date on which the Russians believed Clinton had personally authorized the collusion smear against Trump, the FBI formally opened its anti-Trump collusion investigation, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.”

That investigation relied heavily on a dossier of anti-Trump allegations compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, a Democrat opposition research firm that had been hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to manufacture and spread claims that Trump was secretly working on behalf of Putin.

People have wondered “what did Obama know and when did he know it?” along with “if he knew all about Russian interference why didn’t he do anything?” Yes, Russia interfered, just like they’ve done with other nations and just like we’ve done with other countries, including Russia, Israel, and the UK (Brexit) while Obama was president (and we’ve done it with plenty of other presidents). But, Obama took very little action to deal with it. This looks like a darned good reason why.

Read: Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Tonight’s Debate Won’t Include Any Climate Crisis (scam) Questions

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 3:00 pm

If the Washington Post is so darned concerned why haven’t they given up their own use of fossil fuels to gather and disseminate the new, and made their operations carbon neutral?

The Energy 202: Climate change left off debate list even though polls show it’s a growing concern among voters

Polls show many voters say they care about climate change. But they probably won’t be hearing much about it during the first presidential debate, moderated by a Fox News host.

Chris Wallace, who will be questioning President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden, has declined to make the rise in global temperatures a topic of discussion Tuesday evening, despite surveys showing it is a growing concern for those going to the polls on Nov. 3 — at least among Democratic voters.

Instead the Fox News host has indicated he will ask the candidates about the Supreme Court, the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, election integrity, and “race and violence in our cities.”

The decision has agitated left-leaning activists who worry about a repeat of the 2016 election, when no moderator asked either Trump or then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about climate change over three nights of debate.

At the end of the day, people care about ‘climate change’ in theory, but, when stacked up against actual real issues, it drops to the bottom of the pack in Realityland.

“Young people across the board are resoundingly freaked out about the climate crisis,” said Evan Weber, a co-founder of the youth-led Sunrise Movement. “The only question that matters to young people for the president of the United States is: What is your plan to deal with this crisis?”

Those same young people also tend to fail to show up to vote, but, if they really care

Read: Bummer: Tonight’s Debate Won’t Include Any Climate Crisis (scam) Questions »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Elections, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a world killing canine, you might just be a Warmist

View post on imgur.com

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on the local press running interference on voter fraud in Minnesota.

That’s Sarah Fowler from Season 29 of the Amazing Race.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 10:30 am

As they say, the devil is in the details

Pelosi, Democrats unveiling new $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid bill

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Monday that Democratic lawmakers unveiled a new, $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, which she said was a compromise measure that reduces the costs of the economic aid.

In a letter to Democratic lawmakers released by Pelosi’s office, she said the legislation “includes new funding needed to avert catastrophe for schools, small businesses, restaurants, performance spaces, airline workers and others.”

“Democrats are making good on our promise to compromise with this updated bill,” she said. “We have been able to make critical additions and reduce the cost of the bill by shortening the time covered for now.”

Pelosi and Schumer initially sought a $3.4 trillion relief package, then said some time ago they were willing to scale that back by at least a trillion dollars. But it was not clear whether the White House would consider the $2.2 trillion sum proposed in the new legislation. Meadows has said that Trump would be willing to sign a $1.3 trillion relief package.

Pelosi also faces pressure from moderate House Democrats who say they want to see bipartisan aid proposals that have a chance of becoming law.

The new proposal included $436 billion for state and local governments, as well as money for education, testing, airline industry workers and for a small business loan program known as the Paycheck Protection Program, a statement from House Democrats said.

It would also provide a new round of direct payments to Americans of $1,200 per taxpayer and restore federal unemployment benefits of $600 a week through January.

The question is, what’s actually in it? Does it include all the poison pills that were in the others, like propping up all the Democrat states who lost billions in tax revenue during lockdown, vote by mail, and so many more liberal priorities that often have nothing to do with Coronavirus relief? Poison pills that were mostly meant to make sure it wouldn’t pass the GOP led Senate, in order to play politics rather than provide relief.

And that’s what this one most likely is: a way to play politics, rather than attempt to help anyone. Don’t forget how many times Democrats in the Senate have blocked Coronavirus relief bills by refusing to allow debate and a final vote using the 60 vote threshold.

If you think about it, that’s $6,666 per U.S. citizen, but, there will reportedly be two rounds of $1,200 checks, plus $500 per dependent, so $643.7 billion. Where’s the other roughly $1.4 billion going? We have the aforementioned $436 billion, $10 billion for the Save Our Stages, $25 billion for airlines, $34 billion for transit (including $2.4 billion to prop up Amtrak), $120 billion for restaurants, but

The International Franchise Association was less jubilant. Blumenauer’s bill would help restaurants with fewer than 20 locations but not franchised chain restaurants, the trade group argued. While the bill contains much the IFA supports, it would provide “funds for corporately-owned, high-end restaurants while barring independently-owned franchise restaurants from the same relief,” Matt Haller, the trade group’s top lobbyist, said in a statement. “To add insult to injury, the House bill creates a caviar carveout for these ‘Top Chef’ restaurants by allowing them a second helping of PPP funds on top of this new celebrity chef bailout. Restaurants of all types need help — regardless of the name on the door.”

Again, what are the poison pills? No one has said yet.

Read: Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats, Politics | Comments Off on Democrats Offer New, Slimmer Coronavirus Relief Bill | Trackback URL

Surprise: Minneapolis City Council Regrets Making Pledge To Defund The Police

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 10:30 am

You know that the progressive nutters in Minneapolis will start freaking out over this

REPORT: Minneapolis Plan To Defund The Police Collapses, City Council Members ‘Regret’ Making Pledge

Minneapolis, Minnesota’s plan to defund and then disband their local police force has “collapsed” according to a New York Times report from over the weekend. Some of the Minneapolis City Council members who pledged to abolish the city’s law enforcement — including the City Council president — now say they regret making that promise.

The Times headline blares that the “pledge to dismantle the police department has collapsed,” and notes that “a majority of City Council members promised to ‘end policing as we know it’” after George Floyd died while in the custody of the Minneapolis police department. Instead, though “they became a case study in how idealistic calls for structural change can falter.”

Back in June, the Minneapolis City Council was clear that the Minneapolis Police Department was on borrowed time. The City Council president, Lisa Bender — a self-described progressive — told residents that she had a vision of a “transformative new model of public safety” and now-famously added that anyone worried that a lack of law enforcement would result in a spike in crime was speaking from a place of “privilege.”

At the time, Bender even challenged her fellow councilmembers to stick with the plan to dismantle the MPD, lest they be complicit in “white supremacy.”

“If you are a comfortable white person asking to dismantle the police I invite you to reflect: are you willing to stick with it? Will you be calling in three months to ask about garage break-ins? Are you willing to dismantle white supremacy in all systems, including a new system?” she mused.

She got the timeline nearly right — for herself. Bender is now among those who say abolishing the police is not the right approach.

They might be starting to realize that there would be no police to protect themselves and their property and that this would lead massive crime in the city. Might be a little too late as police officers resign en-masse, moving on to other city forces where they having backing, rather than being blamed for the actions of a few

Over the last month, Minneapolis officials have moved to “formalize a retreat that has quietly played out in Minneapolis in the months since George Floyd was killed by the police and the ensuing national uproar over the treatment of Black Americans by law enforcement and the country at large. After a summer that challenged society’s commitment to racial equality and raised the prospect of sweeping political change, a cool autumn reality is settling in,” the NY Times reports.

When the real world butts up to your dogmatic, idiotic, virtue signaling beliefs.

(The Hill) This follows reports of Minneapolis residents lamenting the lack of police presence within their communities as a rash of crime reports in the city over the course of 2020.

Send in the social workers!

Read: Surprise: Minneapolis City Council Regrets Making Pledge To Defund The Police »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

EPA Hilariously Warns Warmist Gavin Newsome That His Electric Car Mandate Might Be Illegal

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 9:12 am

You know, I will say that it is a close call whether California can mandate no more sales of fossil fueled vehicles in 2035, and that all vehicles sold must be EVs. Is this a case of State’s Rights, the 10th Amendment, or the Constitutional power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, since the vehicles are mostly made in other states? I’d lean on the prior, but, get this: Democrats mostly laid out the rules and regs that could stop this #irony

EPA Warns California’s 2035 Ban on Gas-Powered Cars Is Possibly Illegal

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Monday warned in a letter sent to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) that his executive order banning gas-powered vehicles may be unlawful, Reuters reports.

Wheeler wrote that Newsom’s plan “raises serious questions regarding its legality and practicality” and argued that it may cause further issues problems plaguing the state’s electrical grid.

“California’s record of rolling blackouts – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today,” the Trump official stated.

Newsom has yet to reply to the EPA.

From that Reuters article based on the letter

The EPA in 2019 issued rules barring California from requiring the sale of electric vehicles; a court challenge is pending.

Newsom said last week the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would write binding regulations to implement the 2035 goal. Wheeler wrote those regulations “may require California to request a waiver to U.S. EPA.”

The Climate Cultists in the Democratic Party took over the EPA long ago and wrote the rules and regs that put the EPA in charge in such a Progressive (nice Fascist) manner, they can’t complain about it now.

Read: EPA Hilariously Warns Warmist Gavin Newsome That His Electric Car Mandate Might Be Illegal »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Are Totally Not Anti-Catholic Bigots For Questioning ACB Or Something

By William Teach September 29, 2020 – 8:58 am

Liberals totally have a right to question someone’s religion, says Excitable Jill Filipovic in a British news site

Democrats aren’t anti-Catholic bigots for questioning Amy Coney Barrett
The Republican party has cannily repackaged valid scrutiny as religious bigotry. But liberals are right to ask hard questions of Trump’s pick

See? It’s not bigoted. I think they should do it. How many viewers will agree with Jill’s assessment?

The latest Republican talking point: that Democrats are anti-Catholic bigots for opposing Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the US supreme court. Liberals have raised questions about Barrett’s membership in a conservative organization that dictates traditional gender roles (men as leaders, women as their helpmeets), and her many conservative rulings which seem to suggest that she brings her conservative religiosity onto the bench when deciding matters of law. The Republican party has cannily repackaged that as religious bigotry.

Barrett’s faith isn’t the issue. Her conservative, anti-equality views are.

It’s hard to make the case that liberals are hostile to Catholics when the Democratic nominee for the presidency is himself a Catholic, and when more current US supreme court justices are Catholic than are adherents to any other faith. It’s also hard to argue that Barrett’s conservative views are required by her faith, and therefore opposing them is tantamount to religious discrimination.

If they think this attempt to attack her religion will look good, well, good luck with that. The only people who’ll cheer will be the “let’s make Government the religion” folks

Catholics, like people of every faith in the world, pick and choose which tenets of the faith to adhere to; the faith itself also shifts and changes (for example: abortion, now an animating issue for many church leaders, has not been a top priority for the church for most of its history, nor considered murder). This is one reason why Catholic Americans are just as likely as Americans generally to use contraception and have abortions, even though both are formally prohibited by the faith. It’s why a great many Catholic women do not in fact submit to their husbands. It’s why some Catholics identify as LGBT, and are not chaste as the church demands. It’s why the overwhelming majority of Catholics have sex before marriage.

Who had “this is really all about abortion on demand” on their scorecard? That’s what it always comes down to with Democrats

It’s easy to argue that we should separate Amy Coney Barrett’s personal religious views from her professional work. But she doesn’t do that, and the Catholic Church demands that its own members carry their faith outside of church and often into their work. Many Catholic bishops, for example, refuse to give communion to Catholic politicians if those politicians are pro-choice. That’s not a position that happens only on the fringes; it’s exactly what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger demanded before he became pope.

If you believe in murdering the unborn because you were too lazy to have proper protected sex, then, yes, you are going against the Bible.

Liberals generally want a robust separation of church and state, where people are free to practice their own religions without interference or discrimination, but are not free to impose their religion on anyone else, or use their religious views as a pretext to violate the law or harm others. Many conservatives insist that the United States is a Christian country (or, in the more updated jargon, a “Judeo-Christian” country), that Christianity should in fact dictate political and legal decisions, and that religious freedom means the freedom to discriminate and violate generally applicable laws as long as you have a religious justification.

Well, that’s interesting, because Liberals pretty much want to impose their Beliefs on every citizen, mostly be force, especially force of law.

Amy Coney Barrett has made clear that she believes abortion is morally wrong. When she has ruled on abortion-related cases, she has ruled to restrict abortion access. She has made clear that she does not adhere to a basic ethos of gender equality, that men and women should have equal rights, opportunities, authority, and power; she instead is a voluntarily member of an organization that formally opposes gender equality, and has signaled her view that men and women are “complementary” – men in charge as leaders, women submitting to their authority.

And back to abortion. How did a political party become so defensive of killing the unborn? How did it become their #1 belief? The thing they must defend at all costs? If they were given a choice between implementing some basic restrictions (parental notification, no late term, treating abortion facilities like medical facilities, inspecting them, 48 hour waiting period, a few more) that did not end abortion on demand in exchange for winning the White House, they would give up winning the White House.

Read: Democrats Are Totally Not Anti-Catholic Bigots For Questioning ACB Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Crisis (scam) Cold And Wet To Make Coronavirus Bad Or Something

By William Teach September 28, 2020 – 3:00 pm

See, because you took a long shower with natural gas heated water, drank non-fair trade non-GMO coffee, had bacon on your breakfast sandwich, and drove a fossil fueled vehicle to work, you increased the greenhouse gases and are making it colder and wetter…per the climalunatics at CNN, who use vast amounts of fossil fuels and energy to gather and disseminate their version of the news

How environmental conditions like cold and wet weather can affect pandemics, and what that means for COVID-19

Numerous scientists have studied how the 1918 flu spread to become the deadliest pandemic in history and which interventions worked, research that is becoming increasingly relevant during the current coronavirus crisis.

But little research has been done on how environmental conditions affected the 1918 pandemic — until now.

The 1918 flu coincided with the final years of the World War I, and it’s been well documented that heavy rain and cold temperatures impacted many battles. Now, a new study reveals that the cold, rainy weather was part of a once-in-a-century climate anomaly that occurred from 1914 to 1919 and added to the severity of the 1918 pandemic.

The worst ever was the Black Death, which killed somewhere between 75 million and 200 million as the Roman Warm Period ended and the Dark Ages started, the latter being a cooling period. But, see, cold and wet

The research on 1918 has eerie similarities to the current crisis, as many parts of the world appear to be entering a second wave of Covid-19, or remain in a prolonged first wave of the virus.

Not only are many parts of the Northern Hemisphere starting to see less warm and sunny weather in the transition to fall, but climate change continues to have adverse effects across the globe. For example, the Atlantic is experiencing one of its busiest hurricane seasons on record.

“It is really the convergence of our two major crises — man-made climate change and infectious disease,” More said. “Absolutely, climate is going to affect the likelihood of infectious disease outbreaks. It has in the past and it will in the future.”

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Cold And Wet To Make Coronavirus Bad Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 28, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a muddy, churning, flooded area from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on Ilhan Omar’s “cash for ballots” being illegal and being investigated.

They are Britney and Jessica from The Amazing Race season 28.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Of Color Suddenly Learn That Lockdown Was Bad Economically

By William Teach September 28, 2020 – 10:30 am

Democrats thought that creating lockdown was a great way to hurt President Trump, and it might. All the little peasants, supporting their liberal masters and reciting by rote all the lockdown talking point, didn’t quite think things through

‘I’m drowning’: Californians of color most affected by growing backlog of jobless aid

At her lowest point during the pandemic, Rachel Gomez-Wafer estimated that she was calling California’s unemployment office about 150 times a day.

When California shut down in March, the boutiques where Gomez-Wafer sells her organic skincare line, Dorothy Mae and Dominga, closed. The craft fairs and festivals where she makes most of her profits were canceled. She applied on 4 April for the pandemic unemployment assistance that was available to her as a small business owner but, like hundreds of thousands of other Californians who have filed for unemployment benefits, she soon found herself tangled in a months-long bureaucratic nightmare.

Nearly one-third of all Californian workers have filed for unemployment benefits since the start of the crisis in mid-March – 6.23 million workers, according to the California Policy Lab. A recent report from a strike team found that the Employment Development Department (EDD), the office in charge of issuing unemployment benefits, had a backlog of claims so large that the department had to stop accepting new claims for two weeks in order to get a handle on it. The department believes its employees won’t be able to eliminate the backlog of 1.6m before January 2021. The backlog grows by 10,000 cases a day.

Same Democratic Party run state can’t keep the lights on in a consistent manner or clean the streets.

In waiting for her claims, Gomez-Wafer burned through her savings. She soon had no food in her refrigerator. Repossession agents were calling her about her missing car payments, and her landlord had given her a three-day eviction notice – illegal during the pandemic – on her studio loft in Fresno. “I borrowed money from my dad, I borrowed money from my daughter, I borrowed money from my best friend,” said Gomez-Wafer, 44. “I pawned a pair of diamond earrings. I pawned a TV I owned. I pawned some gold jewelry.”

Not too be mean, but, I bet she votes Democrat and will do so again in November, not realizing that Dem policies make this all worse, and that Democrats had the harshest responses to Coronavirus.

The report, Chiu said, told legislators a lot of what they already knew: EDD needed a massive overhaul of its technology systems and was chronically understaffed. There were confusing processes, long waits, repeated forms, unanswered phone calls that, when answered, often can’t be resolved.

Who runs this system, and was supposed to fix the issues that were known about 10 years ago (hint: not Republicans).

“In a state as diverse as California, it’s yet another example of how we’re seeing racial inequities play out,” Chiu said. “Those individuals who may lack computer or Internet access or have limited English proficiency tend to be people of color, and that means they’re being severely hamstrung by this broken bureaucracy.”

Wait, so Dems think “minorities” are too dumb to use technology? Isn’t that kind of racist/bigoted?

Further exacerbating matters is that in California, the pandemic recession has not hit everyone equally. Unemployment rates remain higher for Californians of color than for white Californians, according to a study by the California Budget and Policy Center. At its peak, unemployment reached 20% or more for Asian, Black, Latinx and other Californians of color, while hitting 17% for white Californians. Women bore the brunt of unemployment, with 1 in 4 out of work at the worst point of the recession, as compared to 1 in 5 men.

So, California is racist? Huh. But, this is the normal way they treat “people of color.” But, those POC will still vote against their self interests and choose “D”.

Read: Democrats Of Color Suddenly Learn That Lockdown Was Bad Economically »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats, Dems in Charge: Now What? | 22 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove