When you can’t tell the difference between having an opinion and being right!

Ever civilization in the past has eventually declined, whether Egypt, The Aztecs, Rome, Greece, the Mongols, the British etc..the following article by Dr Amy Wax is more than concerning, its frightening at the rate of decline of the great AMERICAN experiment

Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems?

Amy Wax
University of Pennsylvania Law School

Amy L. Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she has received the Harvey Levin Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. She has a B.S. from Yale College, an M.D. from Harvard Medical School, and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She is a former assistant to the United States Solicitor General, and her most recent book is Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century.The following is adapted from a speech delivered on December 12, 2017, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with plenty of lip service being paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them. The op-ed, which I co-authored with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School, appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on August 9 under the title, “Paying the Price for the Breakdown of the Country’s Bourgeois Culture.” It began by listing some of the ills afflicting American society: Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. We then discussed the “cultural script”—a list of behavioral norms—that was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime. These norms defined a concept of adult responsibility that was, we wrote, “a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.” The fact that the “bourgeois culture” these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s, we argued, largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies. In what became perhaps the most controversial passage, we pointed out that cultures are not equal in terms of preparing people to be productive citizens in a modern technological society, and we gave some examples of cultures less suited to achieve this: The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants.

The reactions to this piece raise the question of how unorthodox opinions should be dealt with in academia—and in American society at large.It is well documented that American universities today, more than ever before, are dominated by academics on the left end of the political spectrum. How should these academics handle opinions that depart, even quite sharply, from their “politically correct” views? The proper response would be to engage in reasoned debate—to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why those opinions are wrong. This kind of civil discourse is obviously important at law schools like mine, because law schools are dedicated to teaching students how to think about and argue all sides of a question. But academic institutions in general should also be places where people are free to think and reason about important questions that affect our society and our way of life—something not possible in today’s atmosphere of enforced orthodoxy. What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling. Likewise we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years—and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.

One might respond, of course, that unreasoned slurs and outright condemnations are also speech and must be defended. My recent experience has caused me to rethink this position. In debating others, we should have higher standards. Of course one has the right to hurl labels like “racist,” “sexist,” and “xenophobic” without good reason—but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Hurling such labels doesn’t enlighten, inform, edify, or educate. Indeed, it undermines these goals by discouraging or stifling dissent.So what happened after our op-ed was published last August? A raft of letters, statements, and petitions from students and professors at my university and elsewhere condemned the piece as racist, white supremacist, hate speech, heteropatriarchial, xenophobic, etc. There were demands that I be removed from the classroom and from academic committees. None of these demands even purported to address our arguments in any serious or systematic way. A response published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, and signed by five of my Penn Law School colleagues, charged us with the sin of praising the 1950s—a decade when racial discrimination was openly practiced and opportunities for women were limited. I do not agree with the contention that because a past era is marked by benighted attitudes and practices—attitudes and practices we had acknowledged in our op-ed!—it has nothing to teach us. But at least this response attempted to make an argument. Not so an open letter published in the Daily Pennsylvanian and signed by 33 of my colleagues. This letter quoted random passages from the op-ed and from a subsequent interview I gave to the school newspaper, condemned both, and categorically rejected all of my views. It then invited students, in effect, to monitor me and to report any “stereotyping and bias” they might experience or perceive. This letter contained no argument, no substance, no reasoning, no explanation whatsoever as to how our op-ed was in error.We hear a lot of talk about role models—people to be emulated, who set a positive example for students and others. In my view, the 33 professors who signed this letter are anti-role models. To students and citizens alike I say: don’t emulate them in condemning people for their views without providing a reasoned argument. Reject their example. Not only are they failing to teach you the practice of civil discourse—the sine qua non of liberal education and of democracy—they are sending the message that civil discourse is unnecessary. As Jonathan Haidt of NYU wrote on September 2 on his website Heterodox Academy: “Every open letter you sign to condemn a colleague for his or her words brings us closer to a world in which academic disagreements are resolved by social force and political power, not by argumentation and persuasion.”

It is gratifying to note that the reader comments on the open letter were overwhelmingly critical. The letter has “no counterevidence,” one reader wrote, “no rebuttal to [Wax’s] arguments, just an assertion that she’s wrong. . . . This is embarrassing.” Another wrote: “This letter is an exercise in self-righteous virtue-signaling that utterly fails to deal with the argument so cogently presented by Wax and Alexander. . . . Note to parents, if you want your daughter or son to learn to address an argument, do not send them to Penn Law.”Shortly after the op-ed appeared, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen for a while and asked how his summer was going. He said he’d had a terrible summer, and in saying it he looked so serious I thought someone had died. He then explained that the reason his summer had been ruined was my op-ed, and he accused me of attacking and causing damage to the university, the students, and the faculty. One of my left-leaning friends at Yale Law School found this story funny—who would have guessed an op-ed could ruin someone’s summer? But beyond the absurdity, note the choice of words: “attack” and “damage” are words one uses with one’s enemies, not colleagues or fellow citizens. At the very least, they are not words that encourage the expression of unpopular ideas. They reflect a spirit hostile to such ideas—indeed, a spirit that might seek to punish the expression of such ideas. I had a similar conversation with a deputy dean. She had been unable to sign the open letter because of her official position, but she defended it as having been necessary. It needed to be written to get my attention, she told me, so that I would rethink what I had written and understand the hurt I had inflicted and the damage I had done, so that I wouldn’t do it again. The message was clear: cease the heresy.Only half of my colleagues in the law school signed the open letter. One who didn’t sent me a thoughtful and lawyerly email explaining how and why she disagreed with particular points in the op-ed. We had an amicable email exchange, from which I learned a lot—some of her points stick with me—and we remain cordial colleagues. That is how things should work.Of the 33 who signed the letter, only one came to talk to me about it—and I am grateful for that. About three minutes into our conversation, he admitted that he didn’t categorically reject everything in the op-ed. Bourgeois values aren’t really so bad, he conceded, nor are all cultures equally worthy. Given that those were the main points of the op-ed, I asked him why he had signed the letter. His answer was that he didn’t like my saying, in my interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian, that the tendency of global migrants to flock to white European countries indicates the superiority of some cultures. This struck him as “code,” he said, for Nazism. Well, let me state for the record that I don’t endorse Nazism! Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, we can make words mean whatever we want them to mean. And who decides what is code for something else or what qualifies as a dog whistle? Those in power, of course—which in academia means the Left. My 33 colleagues might have believed they were protecting students from being injured by harmful opinions, but they were doing those students no favors. Students need the opposite of protection from diverse arguments and points of view. They need exposure to them. This exposure will teach them how to think. As John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” I have received more than 1,000 emails from around the country in the months since the op-ed was published—mostly supportive, some critical, and for the most part thoughtful and respectful. Many expressed the thought, “You said what we are thinking but are afraid to say”—a sad commentary on the state of civil discourse in our society. Many urged me not to back down, cower, or apologize. And I agree with them that dissenters apologize far too often.Democracy thrives on talk and debate, and it is not for the faint of heart. I read things every day in the media and hear things every day at my job that I find exasperating and insulting, including falsehoods and half-truths about people who are my friends. Offense and upset go with the territory; they are part and parcel of an open society. We should be teaching our young people to get used to these things, but instead we are teaching them the opposite.Disliking, avoiding, and shunning people who don’t share our politics is not good for our country. We live together, and we need to solve our problems together. It is also always possible that people we disagree with have something to offer, something to contribute, something to teach us. We ignore this at our peril. As Heather Mac Donald wrote in National Review on August 29: “What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong . . . and a cultural analysis is closest to the truth? If confronting the need to change behavior is punishable ‘hate speech,’ then it is hard to see how the country can resolve its social problems.” In other words, we are at risk of being led astray by received opinion.The American way is to conduct free and open debate in a civil manner. We should return to doing that on our college campuses and in our society at large.


The lost art of Management



5-Minute Management Course

Lesson 1:


A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings.


The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel and runs downstairs.


When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbor.


Before she says a word, Bob says, ‘I’ll give you $800 to drop that towel..’


After thinking for a moment, the woman drops her towel and stands naked in front of Bob, after a few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.


The woman wraps back up in the towel and
goes back upstairs.


When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, ‘Who was that?’


‘It was Bob the next door neighbor,’ she replies. ‘Great,’ the husband says, ‘did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?’

Moral of the story:
If you share critical information pertaining to credit and risk with your shareholders in time, you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.

Lesson 2:


A priest offered a Nun a lift.


She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg.


The priest nearly had an accident.


After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg..


The nun said, ‘Father, remember Psalm 129?’


The priest removed his hand But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again.   The nun once again said, ‘Father, remember Psalm 129?’


The priest apologized ‘Sorry sister but the flesh is weak.’


Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily and went on her way.


On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129. It said, ‘Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory.’

Moral of the story:
If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity.


Lesson 3:


A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp.


They rub it and a Genie comes out.
The Genie says, ‘I’ll give each of you just one wish.’   ‘Me first! Me first!’ says the admin clerk. ‘I want to be in the Bahamas , driving a speedboat, without a care in the world.’   Puff! She’s gone.


‘Me next! Me next!’ says the sales rep. ‘I want to be in Hawaii , relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of Pina Coladas and the love of my life.’


Puff! He’s gone.


‘OK, you’re up,’ the Genie says to the manager.   The manager says, ‘I want those two back in the office after lunch.’

Moral of the story:
Always let your boss have the first say.

Lesson 4:


An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing.


A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, ‘Can I also sit like you and do nothing?’   The eagle answered: ‘Sure, why not.’


So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.

Moral of the story:
To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.

Lesson 5:


A turkey was chatting with a bull.


‘I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree’ sighed the turkey, ‘but I haven’t got the energy.’   ‘Well, why don’t you nibble on some of my droppings?’ replied the bull. They’re packed with nutrients.’


The turkey pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.


The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.


Finally after a fourth night, the turkey was proudly perched at the top of the tree.


He was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot him out of the tree.

Moral of the story:
Bull Shit might get you to the top, but it won’t keep you there..

Lesson 6:


A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field.


While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him.


As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.


The dung was actually thawing him out!


He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.   A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate..


Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and promptly dug him out and ate him.

Morals of the story:
(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.  
(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend..
(3) And when you’re in deep shit, it’s best to keep your mouth shut!



The strange career of Nellie H. Ohr, a veteran of Fusion GPS.

Justice Department boss Bruce Ohr rose from obscurity when it became known that in 2016 he was embedded with Fusion GPS, compiler of the dossier on Donald Trump. Bruce’s wife Nellie H. Ohr also worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election, and quite possibly played a strategic role. 

Nellie is the daughter of Kathleen Armstrong Hauke, “a born journalist,” who wrote books about Ted Poston. Kathleen “inscribed multilingual quotations on the walls of her home,” and her daughter Nellie Hauke also showed linguistic flair. 

She earned a degree in history and Russian literature at Harvard and Radcliff, followed by an MA and PhD in history from Stanford. She taught history at Vassar College then worked as an independent contractor conducting research and translation projects on topics in Russian science and technology. Her publications include “After Collectivization: Social Capital and Local Politics in Rural Western Russia, 1933-1937.”  Nellie also honed her Russian language skills on location.

She was there in 1989, as Cathy Frierson noted in Adventures in Russian Historical Research Reminiscences of American Scholars from the Cold War to the Present. “Only rarely did I go to the Lenin Library,” Frierson recalled, “but one day there I had a fortuitous meeting with Nellie Hauke Ohr. She told me she had just returned from Smolensk, where she enjoyed remarkable access in the region archive to materials related to the collectivization campaign.” 

According to the author, “Nellie encouraged me to call the Smolensk archive director, assuring me that he would welcome me.”  So even before the fall of the USSR, Nellie held clout with government officials and could write about Russia with authority. 

Nellie reviewed Gerald M. Easter’s Reconstructing the State: Personal Networks and Elite Identity in Soviet Russia, with “lucid and engaging conclusions on the causes of the rise and fall of the Soviet state and on state-building in general.”  Nellie also reviewed Bertrand Patenaude’s The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921.This famine, Hauke Ohr wrote, “devastated that country on the heels of World War I, revolution, and civil war” and “left perhaps twenty million people hungry and killed one or two million.” 

Patenaude mentions Walter Duranty, the New York Times Moscow correspondent who covered up Stalin’s deadlier 1932 forced famine in Ukraine. Nellie describes Duranty as “an inveterate liar,” and agrees that he served up “choice bits of fantasy.” Nellie shows a light touch, comparing Patenaude’s book to M*A*S*H with its “picaresque plot line, its romantic subplots, and its odd characters.” A film on the book, Nellie explains, “would be well worth watching.” 

Nellie H. Ohr is also a member of Women in International Security (WIIS but pronounced “wise”) which bills itself as “the premier organization in the world dedicated to advancing the leadership and development of women in the field of international peace and security.” WIIS “supports research projects and policy engagement initiatives on critical international security issues, including the nexus between gender and security.” 

Nellie has also worked for in the cybersecurity consulting branch of the politically connected firm Accenture. In October, she gave a presentation on “Ties Between Government Intelligence Services and Cyber Criminals – Closer Than You Think?” So the multifaceted Nellie Ohr is a woman for all seasons.  

In the spring of 2016, Nellie came to work for Fusion GPS, and as former Naval intelligence officer J.E. Dyer notes, “she looks like an ideal hire for what Fusion GPS needed in 2016: plugged directly into the DOJ, and with a language facility in Russian.” And of course, Nellie had clout with Russian officials. In May of 2016, about the time Fusion GPS brought Nellie aboard, and a key time for the dossier, Nellie suddenly obtained an amateur radio operator’s license. 

Dyer believes it significant that the cyber intrusion on the DNC email system was detected on April 29, 2016. Without getting fanciful, Dyer writes, “one can obviously think of more than one reason why the use of amateur radio for communications with certain parties might have seemed like a good idea at that point, to at least some of the people involved.” As Dyer says “only a fool would fail to look into it.”

The US intelligence community includes some 17 agencies and only a fool would fail to see if at least one had picked up what Nellie said and heard on her radio set. Likewise, only a fool would fail to subpoena Nellie H. Ohr and her powerful DOJ husband Bruce Ohr for a he-said-she-said performance on the real story of Russian collusion. 

The way things shape up, the administration of POTUS 44, whose beloved “Frank” in Dreams from My Father was Soviet agent Frank Marshall Davis, deployed US intelligence agencies in a disinformation campaign against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The strategic weapon was the Fusion GPS dossier, with its bed-wetting pisseuse platoon.

The erudite critic Nellie Ohr might praise the picaresque plot line, the romantic subplots, the odd characters and the “choice bits of fantasy,” worthy of inveterate liar Walter Duranty. As Nellie said, this would be a show well worth watching.

Nothing going on here lets just focus on Trumps tweets



The Hillary campaign hired Fusion GPS to manufacture the Trump dossier. Fusion GPS hired an ex-Brit intel officer named Steele who developed it using a Russian intel contact. The media smear firm then managed to embed its product at the FBI and the DOJ. We now have a DOJ contact point for them.

The department’s Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department…

Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.

A senior Justice Department official demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump “dossier” had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the incendiary document, than has been disclosed, Fox News has confirmed: The official’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election.

But it gets much worse. Because Mrs. Ohr was actually hired by Fusion GPS to investigate Trump.

A co-founder of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS acknowledged in a new court document that his company hired the wife of a senior Justice Department official to help investigate then-candidate Donald Trump last year.

Simpson’s statement shows Mrs. Ohr was indeed involved in the Trump research. He said bank records reflect Fusion GPS contracted with her “to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump.”

Further, Simpson said he disclosed to the House intelligence committee that he met personally with Bruce Ohr, “at his request, after the November 2016 election to discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election.”

The obstruction of justice really is coming from the inside.

Hillary’s company had hired the wife of a top DOJ official to investigate Trump. And, possibly as a result, got access to him. That’s deeply troubling. We knew that Fusion GPS had corrupted journalism. But it’s not hard to corrupt a rotten thing. Its ability to navigate the DOJ is far more troubling. And needs to be dealt with.

The latest development tells us that the anti-Trump forces unleashed by Hillary had deep access to the DOJ to pursue their campaign against him.

All we really want is the truth…..as long as it hurts the republicans…

A large group of Americans are concerned with Trumps administrations collusion with Russia so we set up a special counsel…there is an equally large group of Americans concerned with the actions of the Obama administration, the DOJ, the FBI and the Clinton administrtion…why all the protests from the left regarding any investigation…by the way these concerns predate Trump even being a candidate for the Presidency

Two Trump-hating FBI gumshoes investigating Hillary Clinton’s email treachery and alleged Russian interference in last year’s election traded crude, caustic barbs about President Trump while they plotted to undermine him, congressional overseers heard yesterday.

This shouldn’t be all that surprising given that Barack Obama gleefully weaponized the FBI, Department of Justice, and various intelligence agencies, and criminalized political differences in the process. A radical zealot with a desire to fundamentally transform the United States, the 44th president had a limited sense of boundaries. Obama was more Third World caudillo than president and he was never troubled by hijacking governmental powers to hurt his opposition, as the conservative groups targeted by his IRS can attest. His race-obsessed first attorney general, Eric Holder, turned the Justice Department into a virtual arm of the Democratic Party, using the agency to punish the Left’s enemies and let allies run wild. His second attorney general, Loretta Lynch, surreptitiously met with Bill Clinton in an airport hangar, presumably to cut a shady deal to let Hillary Clinton escape punishment for the many crimes she committed in office.

“It’s clear there was a nefarious conspiracy” between federal officials to defeat Trump, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett told Sean Hannity after the hearing. Jarrett added that when the plot didn’t succeed, the conspirators switched to Plan B, which he described as, “Let’s just say there’s a crime and then we’ll just search for a crime.”

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Rod Rosenstein, the second-highest-ranking official at the Justice Department and the man who appointed Russia probe-leading Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, gave a clean bill of health to Mueller’s ongoing witch hunt aimed at reversing last year’s election result.

“I know what he’s doing,” Rosenstein said. “He consults with me about their investigation, within and without the scope.”

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), expressed alarm at the ever-expanding investigation, saying, “We are now beginning to understand the magnitude of this insider bias on Mueller’s team.” As previously reported, there were nine Democrat donors on the team of 15, and one member had even worked for Hillary Clinton.

According to Goodlatte, this bias was on display in investigator Andrew Weissmann’s stated “awe” of fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates for disobeying President Trump, and investigator Jeannie Rhee’s representation of the irretrievably corrupt Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“Aren’t DoJ attorneys advised to avoid even the ‘appearance of impropriety’?” Goodlatte asked, saying the “potential bias” of certain career Justice Department officials and lawyers on Mueller’s team was “deeply troubling.” “DoJ investigations must not be tainted by individuals imposing their own political prejudices.”

Committee members learned that Peter Strzok, the principal investigator in the Hillary Clinton email scandal, was exchanging pro-Clinton and anti-Trump messages throughout his extramarital affair with lawyer Lisa Page, who was working at the time for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe served as acting director of the FBI from May 9 when President Trump fired then-director James Comey until Aug. 2 when new director Christopher Wray took over. While serving as acting FBI director, McCabe was involved in the email investigation.

McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, was a Democratic candidate in 2015 for District 13 of the Virginia State Senate. Her campaign received nearly $675,000 in donations from the Virginia Democratic Party and Common Good VA, a political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a slippery longtime Clinton flunky. Mr. McCabe failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email probe until Nov. 1, 2016, which was four days after Comey, then the FBI director, announced the agency had reopened the investigation into the emails after finding new data on computer hard drives belonging to former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), the now-imprisoned sex-offender husband of Hillary’s top lieutenant, Huma Abedin. It was also eight days after the ties between Mrs. McCabe and McAuliffe became public knowledge.

Disturbingly, Strzok, who was later removed from the investigation by Mueller and demoted by the FBI for his texting misconduct, apparently relied on the discredited “piss-gate” dossier from opposition research firm Fusion GPS which was working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Among the dossier’s ridiculous claims was that President Trump hired prostitutes in Moscow to urinate on a hotel bed. The fanciful file was assembled by former British spy Christopher Steele based on information provided by Russian government operatives. The FBI reportedly paid for the dossier and may even have used it to obtain warrants to snoop on Trump associates from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Fusion GPS has acknowledged in court documents that it paid a senior Justice Department official’s wife to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, the Daily Caller reports. The company stated it hired Nellie H. Ohr as a subcontractor to assist with “research and analysis of Mr. Trump.” Ohr is married to Bruce G. Ohr, who was associate deputy attorney general until his recent mysterious demotion at the Justice Department.

Wherever there is trouble, look for Strzok’s fingerprints. Strzok talked then-FBI Director James Comey into calling Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information “extremely careless” instead of “grossly negligent.” He also interviewed then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn before the Trump administration canned him.

At an oversight hearing last week, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) said the watering down of the language about Clinton was done “so she could escape prosecution and thus stay in the race against Donald Trump.”

Text messages between Strzok and his mistress that were released by the congressional committee show the two Hillary supporters tag-teaming then-candidate Trump as early as 2015.

After Trump reportedly said it hadn’t been proven that Russian President Vladimir Putin had killed anyone, Page texted: “What an utter idiot.”

In August 2015, Page texted to Strzok, “I just saw my first Bernie Sander [sic] bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car.” Strzok answered, “He’s an idiot like Trump. Figure they cancel each other out.”

In March 2016 Page texted: “God trump is a loathsome human….omg he’s an idiot.”

Continue reading “All we really want is the truth…..as long as it hurts the republicans…”

Managing our Immigration Policies arent being Racist etc they are being generous

One of the issues I have with our current national dialog is that those who are not willing to just open our boarders are considered racist, homophobic , xenophobic etc. How can a concern over an orderly, well managed process which allows others into our country be turned into something ugly and anti people. It is an ugly elitism that we are better than others and therefore have to be magnanimous to the lessers of the world.

What has been the unintended or even possibly intended consequence is the disadvantage of all willing to follow the rules and most important, those who own this country, the CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES..You take care of your own first, it is your primary responsibility, you care for your spouse and children, then your immediate family, then extended etc. caring for those interested in coming here from Indonesia, Chad or Saudi Arabia is just not as high a responsibility as caring for those close to you. And if you believe that this isn’t true, aside from feeling pity for your family, I feel pity for the elite arrogance that has you in its trap.

Tom Cotton has written a very thoughtful piece on this subject along with some practical solutions. For those interested in this subject it is worth the time to read      Tom Cotton on Immigration

 Check out my rantings on itsmyview.blog   you will never know what’s next on my wandering mind….I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR VIEW ON THIS