Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

We can check—off Mueller exoneration.

Remember Comey coming out about Old Hickory Clinton before the election. I laughed and laughed. I thought, "What a cool dude!" He has influenced the election with a very legitimate points that HAD TO BE revealed. It didn't stop Comey from looking like a serial liar in the end. Propaganda and mind tilting isn't the last word. Can it be true? Reality counts for something, after all in this world?. Yahoo!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we freedom loving Americans and the Trump Administration should seek truth and justice. If there WAS NO COLLUSION, does the democrat “witch hunt” and attempt to discredit an entire administration reach the level of all the other “Gates” or “plots” like the Gunpowder Plot to blow up the British Parliament?

Isn’t the entire leftist witch hunt - from the day the FBI joined the left, a “collusion?” Isn’t it a plot? The left has sanitized itself since the 1950’s but it is the same criminal, totalitarian entity it has always been. It is time for a counter attack and let justice be done. This was a plot against the President. Peter

some historical perspective. From: "William Dwyer" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:08:06 -0700. George Smith quoted a poster on the Humanism list, who stated, "Let’s not forget to mention how she [Rand] supported the 1950s commie witch hunts...."

George replied, "This is an absolute, flat-out lie. Do you have any respect for truth at all, or do you just make up this tripe as you go along?"

George, what the poster is probably alluding to is Rand's HUAC testimony, which she gave back in 1947.  There was a discussion about the morality of her action a couple of years ago on the "Philosophy of Objectivism" list.

At the time (March 22, 1999), I posted the following defense of Rand's testimony:  I wrote, "If the commies were fired for being exposed, then their employment relationship was nonconsensual, to begin with. In that case, all the testimony did was reveal the truth, and allow the employer to make a fully informed choice. By objecting to the loss of their jobs, the blacklisted were claiming a right to be employed without the consent and against the will of the employer.  They were demanding the right to an un-consenting, involuntary relationship. The HUAC testimony did not, therefore, deny their right to freedom of speech; it simply upheld the employer's right to freedom of association."

Dan Griffing and Mike Hardy posted critical replies to these comments, which I answered with a long response.  At the risk of re-opening this discussion, I will reproduce that response in a second post on this issue, and you can see if you find anything of value in it.  If you agree with me, perhaps, it will give you some ammunition for your participation on the Humanist list. Bill

From: "George H. Smith" Reply-To: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:46:32 -0500

Bill Dwyer wrote: "George, what the poster is probably alluding to is Rand's HUAC testimony, which she gave back in 1947.  There was a discussion about the morality of her action a couple of years ago on the "Philosophy of Objectivism" list.  At the time (March 22, 1999), I posted the following defense of Rand's testimony."

Yes, I knew that is what he was referring to. (My adversary later posted a link to her testimony.)

Here is my response. I haven't looked into this for a while, so I run the risk of making some factual errors. I would therefore appreciate it if Atlanteans would read the following for mistakes. Am I overstating the case in Rand's defense? If so, I would like to know now, so I can rectify matters. (For example, I couldn't find BB's biography among stacks of books, so I just worked from memory, but my memory is not always as reliable as I would like.)

Keep in mind that my adversaries were running off at the mouth about Rand being "homophobic" and anything else they could think of to discredit her political philosophy. Their attitude is clearly reflected in the subject heading above.

[This was my reply] I've read the testimony before. I never said that Rand didn't appear before HUAC -- but she was also clear in her condemnation of its attempt to use governmental power to censor or suppress. This subject (including Rand's reasons for agreeing to testify) are discussed in Barbara Branden's biography, *The Passion of Ayn Rand.* It is also discussed in the film documentary, "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life."

You said that she "supported the 1950s commie witch hunts...." She most emphatically did not. I personally think she made a strategic error in agreeing to testify, but her reasons were not what you suggest. She was clear in her disapproval of governmental interference in the movie industry or anywhere else, for that matter. George H. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Jon. I said this was a plot against the President. I mean it. It wasn't an assassination plot. But it was a plot to use what WAS AVAILABLE to the democrats to destroy the President. It went on for two years. Truth did not matter. There should be retribution and justice, morally if not judiciously. IT WAS A PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. Andrew Johnson was shot. JFK was shot. Thank God, they missed this time. "F" them all.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fPersonally, I can't wait to see the fallout when "just the facts, ma'am," come out, said Sgt. Joe Friday. And woowie, the demoncrats on the news today, Sunday, are saying the facts will be ANOTHER spring board to impeachment. I will hold off pretending to be El Presidente's mocking voice until I know more but that was approximately 25 million dollars (not a billion) wasted though some indictments did come from the probe. I wonder who he will pardon? Fox is saying the Pres in Florida is in a great mood, and he is waiting for the Mueller report. The dems are already screaming, "No executive privilege!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Politico. Democrats warn Trump against post-Mueller pardons By Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney. Congressional Democrats are fearful that President Donald Trump — exuberant over special counsel Robert Mueller’s determination that he found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives in 2016 - could feel emboldened to quickly to pardon allies swept up in the two-year investigation that the president has routinely harangued as a “witch hunt . . . . Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who has previously indicated Trump wouldn’t consider clemency until the Mueller probe ended, clamped down on the notion of quick pardons Sunday morning, prior to the release of Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s findings.

“No, God forbid, no. No. No,” he told POLITICO. “If we haven’t thought about pardons and commutations up until now and fought off all the questions about it, no, there’s not going to be any thought about that.” The former New York mayor said Democrats expressing concern about the prospect of presidential reprieves amounts to a political attack against the president. They’re got to have something to complain about,” he said. “They’ve had two years of kind of creating this false narrative of collusion. That’s kind of become a dud. And now the question really has been turned on them, which is, who invented it, where did it come from, I think that’s going to be real interesting. I wonder if they have any interest in investigating that?”

 . . . . Commentators favored by Trump, like Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, and Tom Fitton, head of Judicial Watch, raced to call on Trump to pardon associates ensnared by Mueller. "It's time to pardon General Flynn and end this disgusting charade," tweeted Bongino on Sunday evening.

"President . . . .  should pardon those Americans caught up in the Mueller investigation," said Fitton, shortly after Barr's letter was revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That moron Beto was just filmed in a high school gym saying “Fer sure, da President colluded with Russia.” Fox News just nominated Beto as the most wickedly funny and phony Democratic candidate.   

Fox New is also saying it was a conspiracy with the lead conspirators being John Brennen, Comey, McCabe, etc. There was no probable cause and Russian collusion was just “made up.”  And what did Barack Obama know and what did he do in the last year of his presidency? Why was America put through a two year ordeal? America needs answers and it may be time for another special prosecutor. The President should investigate this conspiracy against him and jail time is not off the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what President Trump wants to do to keep “the same thing happening to another President.” Perhaps requiring “probable cause” and NEVER going after someone on the level of the FBI or the DOJ, for strictly political reasons? Those may be good guesses. Of course politics and election clamor may proceed as usual in America. Peter    

Sweet Sweethaven
. . . . Flags are wavin'
Swept people from the sea
Safe from democracy
Sweeter than a melon tree
Put here for you and me

Sweethaven

. . . . God must have landed here
Why else would he strand us here
Where the air is nice and clear
Sweethaven even sounds so near
To Heaven

Sweethaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For crimes he committed under Obama. 

And they would have remained hidden under Killery.

He had to destroy our President to avoid the consequences of his extreme criminality.

Maybe he’s the only one, though, right? Maybe all the others believed the stupidest conspiracy theory ever and did everything in their power to destroy our President, out of sincere conviction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian says, "Trump threatens retaliation against 'evil, treasonous' opponents over Russia investigation."  That sounds like a hell of lot of fun, but is the Guardian telling the truth?  I suspect this is not a new video ...

Speaking of Truth, does anyone keep a small book in the bathroom for those "bathroom-as-library syndrome" moments?  I recommend a very small book by Harry G Frankfurt

2019-03-25%2012_13_29-On%20Truth_%20Harry%20G.%20Frankfurt_%208601400790113_%20Books%20-%20Amazon.ca.png

Book is somewhat larger than this pic.

Edited by william.scherk
Mismatched quotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon slayer William Shrek quoted: The Guardian says, "Trump threatens retaliation against 'evil, treasonous' opponents over Russia investigation."  That sounds like a hell of lot of fun, but is the Guardian telling the truth?  I suspect this is not a new video … end quote

 
Egad! From The Pirates of Penzance we must conspire against a most successful President when he bares his steel. – or as it is actually known: When the Foeman Bares His Steel. Chorus sung by Comey, Brennan, and various co-conspirators.

When the foeman bares his steel,
We uncomfortable feel,
And we find the wisest thing,
Is to slap our chests and sing,
For when threatened with emeutes
And your heart is in your boots
There is nothing brings it round
Like the trumpet's martial sound
Like the trumpet's martial sound

Go, ye heroes, go to glory,
Though you die in combat gory,
Ye shall live in song and story.
Go to immortality!
Go to death, and go to slaughter;
Die, and every Cornish daughter
With her tears your grave shall water.
Go, ye heroes, go and die! Go, ye heroes, go and die!

A most Capital, Senator Lindsey Graham, has the right angle. Swords up!

U.S. Senate judiciary panel head wants special counsel to investigate Trump probe By Susan Cornwell and Doina Chiacu WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Monday he will ask Attorney General William Barr to appoint a special counsel to look into the origins of the investigation of whether President Donald Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

A day after the attorney general said the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found that nobody from Trump's campaign conspired with Russia, Senator Lindsey Graham said, "We will begin to unpack the other side of the story." He said it was time to look at the Clinton campaign and the origins of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant for former Trump adviser Carter Page, which was based in part on information in a dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who co-founded a private intelligence firm.

Graham said he would look into these matters as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, using subpoena power if necessary, whether or not a special counsel is appointed. Republicans lawmakers have contended the FBI made serious missteps when it sought the warrant to monitor Page in October 2016 shortly after he left the Trump campaign. Republicans said the FBI failed to disclose that Steele was hired by a firm funded by Democrats to do opposition research on Trump's business dealings . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

 

 

 

No innocent until proven guilty, CNN? This guy got OJ off on murder charges, and OJ was guilty as can be — no waiting to see if he beats the charges? It’s almost like they already knew their contributor was certainly a criminal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see a list of Rino's who voted to overturn Trump's emergency declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4286b116aeaa6dc7b27d8b9d7a5858fa8a426c84

 

Top right, with Kamala Harris, who sponsored the bill his false flag lynching was designed for and was used to coerce other lawmakers to vote yes.

Stafan may be onto something ... 

 

 

My guess: Jussie Smollett walks because he did not act alone. Others knew. Powerful people. Can’t be investigating THAT!
9:54 AM · Mar 26, 2019

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 6:19 PM, Peter said:

It would be interesting to see a list of Rino's who voted to overturn Trump's emergency declaration.

In the Senate, here you go:

Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Mitt Romney (Utah)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
Roger Wicker (Mississippi).

Read more here:

Meet the 12 GOP senators who voted to terminate Trump’s national emergency

It's actually weird to see Rand Paul and Mike Lee among that crowd.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In the Senate, here you go:

Lamar Alexander (Tennessee)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Mitt Romney (Utah)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
Roger Wicker (Mississippi).

Read more here:

Meet the 12 GOP senators who voted to terminate Trump’s national emergency

It's actually weird to see Rand Paul and Mike Lee among that crowd.

Michael

And Marco. I thought he wanted to be Pence's Vice President. Obviously, a viscious rumor or is it spelled viscous? Okay. Who else we got who is Hispanic. That bearded senate dude from Texas? Yeah. Tom Cruise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump's speech yesterday at the NRCC:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confucius say:

If you have plan for one year, plant rice.

If you have plan for ten years, plant trees.

If you have plan for one hundred years, indoctrinate educate children.

 

This is an example of the death throes of the leftwing indoctrination campaign that was inflicted on American children. It's still there, but it's dying.

The idiots who planned and executed this indoctrination of American children didn't count on the fact they needed at least four generations, maybe five, to make it stick. They blew their wad with Obama and the establishment crony elitists (both sides) stepped in to help make it happen the way it was supposed to happen.(Remember Common Core?)

But then Trump happened...

And the fake news media happened (muh Russians!)

:) 

Now I don't think they are able to indoctrinate anyone, at least not for a couple of generations or so. Not even a cat to chase mice, and that doesn't need any indoctrination at all, but these bozos would find a way to screw it up.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 10:24 AM, Jon Letendre said:

Trump is also going to do nothing when Putin solves all his problems in Ukraine, which is controlled by Trump’s deep state enemies.

Ukraine has a run-off Presidential election on April 21st. We should not be surprised if non-politician Volodymyr Zelensky is elected in a clean polling ...

Via VICE:

Quote

Ukraine’s second presidential election since the 2014 revolution is an unlikely race - between the current president, Petro Poroshenko and a popular TV star, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Poroshenko’s star has faded considerably five years after he took office. Many voters are frustrated at the slow pace of reforms, a stagnant economy, and the ongoing war with Russia in the east which has seen 13,000 fatalities. 

‘I don’t feel any kind of euphoria,’ Poroshenko told reporters at a press conference after the exit poll figures were announced on Sunday evening. ‘I critically and soberly understand the signal that society gave today.’

And he might have an uphill battle to stay in office - currently, the run-off on April 21 is Zelensky’s to lose. The comedian and actor has led almost every opinion poll since he announced his candidacy on New Year’s Eve.

Zelensky has zero political experience, but he’s familiar with being President - because he plays one in a popular TV comedy show, Servant of the People.

[...]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...