Is the Flynn resignation a sting?

As I’ve said before, I’m generally not into the day to day political gossip. Especially when the mainstream press cries impeachment wolf for the countless time.  So when I heard of Flynn’s resignation I initially shrugged my shoulders.

But I also take a Trump victory seriously, and I take his pledge to #draintheswamp seriously.  There’s lots of slimy things in the swamp that don’t want their precious habitat destroyed, and they fight back.

So when my friend Thomas Wictor started talking about how the Flynn resignation was a sting, I started paying attention.  This could very well be phase I of Trump’s plan to drain the swamp.  And an indication of just how serious Trump is about commmitting to his campaign promises.

Thomas’s theory was strung along in 20 tweets.  I’ve compiled them in edited form for you below.  Oh, and he does some great military and foreign policy research.  You should check him out.

“Let’s say a person wants to hire a killer to bump off a spouse. They ask Mikey the Biker. Mikey goes to the cops.  A police officer poses as a killer for hire. He asks the person 900 times if they REALLY want to kill the spouse.  The cops says, “Let’s be clear: You want this person dead, right? You want me to shoot him in the head, right?”

It was clear that the CIA was telling the media stories about Flynn having inappropriate connections to Russia.  Now, imagine Trump as a cop playing a killer for hire. He began ASKING THE CIA IF IT REALLY WANTED TO DO THIS.

January 11: Trump announces that he pulled a sting operation and identified intelligence official who leaked information.   Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issues a statement opposing leaks.

January 23: The OBAMA FBI CLEARS FLYNN OF WRONGDOING in his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

Now, the murderous spouse goes ahead and tries to hire the killer.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates  warns the Trump administration that Flynn might be subject to blackmail by Russia.  Yates bases her warning ON A TRANSCRIPT. She’s the first murderous spouse caught in the sting.  She was fired January 31 for refusing to enforce the travel ban.

February 9: The New York times and Washington Post claim that Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador.  The articles are crap. They contradict themselves. This is from the Post.  

If those intelligence officials have firsthand knowledge, why can’t they tell us a straight story?

New York Times. Again, total confusion about what was said.

Finally, the proof that this was a sting: FLYNN KNEW HE WAS BEING RECORDED. From the Times.

Trump warned, Clapper warned, and the FBI warned, but the CIA went ahead and leaked ANYWAY.  Trump, Flynn, Clapper, and he FBI set up the CIA. And now the CIA gets to have its peepee whacked REALLY HARD.  Right now a bunch of fat drunks are making deals with the feds to keep out of prison.

Why would Trump be impeached? You have to commit a crime to be impeached.  Stop being silly. The end.”

UPDATE: I told someone “time will tell” and gave a month to figure out the aftermath.  Turns out it took hours.  “The leaks are real, the news is fake.”  Though it’s not inexplicable if you go by this theory.  Thomas Wictor continues to explain:

“The New York Times and Washington Post interviewed over a dozen intelligence officials.  All those officials had seen transcripts of Flynn’s conversation with the Russians.  Yet all the officials told different stories.

A foolproof method of identifying someone talking to the press is to give him a specific story.  If that story is published, you know where it came from, because it’s a unique story.  Why would the intelligence officials have so many different stories if they read the same transcripts?  The only possible answer is that each official was given a different transcript.

The FBI cleared Flynn on January 23.  The “leaks” were published February 9.  So Trump has everything he needs to reform the CIA, NSA, etc.

The FBI and Senate Intelligence Committee are going to investigate now.  Trump ran his own sting a month back, when he identified intelligence officials as leakers.  Trump warned them that this was illegal.  It appears he’s taken dramatic action.  The end.”

All about deportations

Millions of people will be deported overnight!  Cities will become ghost towns!  Jackbooted thugs will be marching a Trail of Tears right down to the border and shooting stragglers!   You get a deportation!  You get a deportation!  Everyone gets a deportation!

Again, this is what the media would have us believe.  And it’s yet another lie about the intentions of the Trump administration.

The LA Times, in their article LA, OC home to over one million immigrants,  discusses the immigrant community’s worst fears that downtown LA could become a ghost town if everyone were deported.  Ironic considering the criticism that a wall wouldn’t work, and yet we would or could deport a million people overnight, but I digress.  Our own city leaders are certainly adding to the fire.  Police chief Charlie Beck said will not deport immigrants under Trump.  Garcetti echoes this sentiment.

This is misleading people about the point – nobody ever talked about forcing local cops to find and deport criminals.  First off, Beck is saying this right after the election.  Beyond just the overall anti-Trump posturing I imagine he has to do, he has to make assurances to a population that has been fearmongered into hysteria.

But Trump has always talked about the crime spawned by illegal immigration.  When he speaks of deportations, he speaks of deporting the criminals.  In this contentious age there’s plenty of articles pushing for any viewpoint in the spectrum.  But one University of California paper lays it all out pretty plainly, and criminal illegals is at the top.  Those without criminal records who are working are “unlikely to be a named priority for deportation.”

I’d like to find some footnotes, but Ben Shapiro claims his friends in the LAPD say large part of the gang problem is control from beneath the border.  Curbing the illegal immigration problem would help,  especially if they could work with federal agents to stop this.

Again, there is a huge difference between police working with immigration officials to stop crime, and working for immigration officials to deport people.  The Trump administration has always talked about the former.  His detractors always claimed he’s up to the latter.

Hopefully, in this post, I’ve given you enough information to understand the issue for yourself.  This is a real issue, and as a candidate I’d like to present such real issues to you as I see them.






Friday Links

It’s been a long week.  Haven’t written as much as I could have, for a couple reasons.  First, I try to avoid the partisan hashtags and get to the heart of the matter.  And there was too much partisanship this week to bother with.  So you didn’t miss much.  Second, I work fulltime and finding time to write is not so easy.  But maybe that’s a blessing.  Here’s some links I found interesting.

As much as I hate joining the ranks of Judge Napolitano, he has a great point.  The Democratic Party no longer one so many of us recognize.  #Demexit has certainly been a trending hashtag.

Why I left the Left by Dave Rubin.  He also has a great presentation of the Free Speech Wars.  “Who in your life do you agree with on everything? Why on Earth would that need to be said?”

I’m a liberal, and I want Milo on my campus.

Tommy Robinson with an epic rant about the #MuslimBan.

Immigration – fact and fiction

The immigration issue is, worldwide, setting up to be the moral crux of our time.  And since it’s the most politically charged, it’s the most fraught with lies and agendas.  One thing I’d like to do is clear up the air on various aspects of the issue.  There’s endless details, endless lies circulating, so this will be the first on many articles.  I’ll try to touch on some basic issues.

The major lie out there is that Republicans are against immigration.  I hear Democrats, pundits, Super Bowl advertisers constantly repeat “immigrants made this country great!”  No shit, sherlock.  This isn’t stupidity on the part of Democrats, it’s an absolute lie.  It’s a way to frame the debate to make anyone who actually wants to return to an orderly immigration system as some sort of xenophobic bigot.

It’s a lie and a scare tactic, and so far it’s working quite well.  Beware anyone who says this line.  They have an agenda to push, and that agenda is eliminating borders and immigration law.

A subsequent issue that really made me lose my faith in the Democrats is the leftist charge against Obama having a record number of deportations.  This is a flat out lie.  It came about when Obama redefined the act of deportation to mean anyone turned away at the border.  As the article points out:

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

Okay, so first off, this makes an absolute lie of deportations. Technically, the practice started under George W Bush to give a formal record to those caught crossing illegally.  But immigration activists have twisted it into a total lie of what’s really happening.  Deportations have actually gone down significantly under Obama.  And more so, the Democrats are increasingly backing down on immigration law.


We’re also constantly sold that immigration is good for our economies, that immigrants put in more than they take out, revitalise bad neighborhoods, etc.  This is true, to a point.  And I think we’re well past that point.  More people means a bigger economy provided they do find jobs and contribute.  In earlier days immigrants got very little aid, and most of it was through private and community charities.  These days the state hands off most of the aid.  We are being pushed to give driver’s licenses, benefits, we grant them virtual immunity from deportation.

It’s gotten to the point where it’s not enough to be okay with all this.  Trump just saying we want to deport the criminals is raising mountains of wild protests calling for his impeachment and his head.  And the lies and fear mongering … just endless.  There is no Muslim ban, hordes of jackbooted thugs are not amassing to run through the barrios and pull out anyone who can’t identify their papers.  Trump’s main plan is to seal the borders, properly vet those coming in, and boot out the criminal illegals.

But we can understand why this rancor over such simple things.  Because they signify an about-face from our current trajectory.  If we were to continue on this dissolution of immigration law for just a few more short years, a citizen will be indistinguishable from anyone hopping the fence.

And that’s the point.  Across the Atlantic, the refugee crisis is the biggest specific lie of our time.  The photo op of the mother and daughter fleeing persecution is absolute lie.  By the UN’s own statistics, in 2015 75% of “refugees” were adult men, 12% were women, and 13% were children.  If you figure kids had the same gender split, you’re looking at close to 90% men.  Probably even more than that if you assume the UN at least partially skews statistics to suit agendas.  The pictures of migrants streaming into Europe looks more like an invading army than a huddled surrendered mass.

I say “refugees” because they’re really not refugees.  Europe has found a lovely loophole to bring in mass of third world labor to refresh their economies.  It involves a combination of three things: 1) use the refugee status to allow anyone to come over the border from a war-torn country into a neighboring stable country 2) have zero monitoring to distinguish refugees from migrants 3) use the EU’s open border policy so that once a migrant is in any EU country, they can freely move into any other EU country.  This is how people from North Africa and the Middle East can so easily wind up all the way in Sweden.

I mention this because our immigration issue is related to Europe’s.  The people pushing for open borders for Europe are pushing for them here.  Make no mistake.  It is the most important issue of our time.  It will determine whether you have any rights and privileges as a citizen in 20 years or not.

Right now, it seems the Republicans are our only fighting chance.


SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch

Earlier this week, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This move was largely expected. He’s mentioned Gorsuch on the campaign trail, as well as finding someone in the direction of Antonin Scalia.

I’m going to keep this short since there’s no shortage of opinions out there. There’s two issues going on here. First is his actual qualifications and opinions. He was approved to the Appeals Court in 2007 by a bipartisan 95-0 vote, which included both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

He wants to keep an independent judiciary, which means keeping it out of politics.  He’s spoken a lot about the politicization of the bench and the harm it does.  He also errs on the side of religious freedom, which in the extreme can blur the line of church and state.  But overall, a relatively moderate guy.  The Economist has a good even handed review of him with more details.

But this leads to the second issue.  And it almost seems like the 95-0 vote was a major reason in picking him.   One wonders if picking him was to show just how rabidly partisan the Democrats have become.   See, the New York Times does not have such a favorable view of him.

It would be one thing if they went with Gorsuch’s actual record.  It would be another thing if this was an independent columnist.  Instead, the entire editorial board put “Stolen Seat” right in the headline, and say the Republicans “took a seat hostage”.


I was still hanging on to my Democrat credentials when the GOP refused to confirm Obama’s replacement.  But even in my most Democrat days, I was aware of what advantage the other side has and respected them for using it.  It doesn’t work in your favor, and you lose a battle, but to practically imply they’re traitors for it?

This is emblematic of what has become of the entire established left.  Which is really too bad, because they raise some issues about Gorsuch which could be discussed in society as a whole.  Even though they are consensus in the GOP.

Instead they buried their arguments in partisan rhetoric.  If the Democrats’ arguments in the confirmation mirror the New York Times, they will only hand the GOP the ideological victory.  And therefore a judicial victory – to match their victories in the executive and legislative branches.