The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

B2121A8C-E3B5-4B8E-A31E-6481C874323E.jpeg



comments.png

September 28, 2019
Sarah Palin and the Collapse of the Democrats
By Gordon Wysong


The Democrats don’t have lousy Presidential nominee candidates merely because the good ones were keeping their powder dry. A Black Swan candidate of 2008 is appreciably responsible for it, and no one seemed to notice. When Sarah Palin became the focus of the hopes of committed conservatives, the swamp did everything in its power to destroy her. Venal Republican operatives were so beset with personal jealousy, they were willing to crash the ship on the rocks to ensure against her ascendancy.

They won their battle, sadly. But, a single line -- just one -- provided the foundation for conservatives. Mrs. Palin told America “Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick!”

In one succinct line she captured the commitment and determination of conservatives seeking to protect something they love.

Fast forward a year, and those same conservatives saw Obama trying to destroy that which they love and without hesitation, these conservatives jumped into a new political movement. Bolstered by their belief that Sarah Palin was an everyday somebody like them, and infuriated by her maltreatment, they populated the ranks of the Tea Party. They were determined to protect America. Within months, they were activists.

Then in 2010, the Tea Party revolt wiped out the budding careers of a huge number of Democrats -- about 1000 existing Democrat officeholders were sent packing, as were a large number of what the Democrats thought were viable challengers. It was not just a loss; it was the creation of a schism in Democrat Party, one that has gotten worse in the nine years since.

216293_5_.png
This one election left them without a pool of sane people at the party’s center. The old guard in ultrasafe districts continued their careers, but had no one to mentor. The modestly experienced Democrats were gone, and the highest priority for the party was recruiting replacements. In this, they made the only choice they could; they went for youthful rookies. And over the last four election cycles they continued the strategy, building on its limited success. They forgot or never recognized the risk -- that the new youth party was opposed to their system.

Too much of a good thing is a lesson taught by such experiences as eating green apples, but no one in Democrat leadership ever thought such a thing was possible. Thus, the election of a cadre of young socialists and now Muslims has split their party into two distinct factions. These two factions are the old entrenched officeholders and the super radicals following the path of a non-Democrat Bernie Sanders -- loyal to their delusions, not their party. Neither faction excites the other, and both alienate conservatives and many independent voters.

Out of this divided party we see candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination struggling to distinguish their candidacies because they all lack gravitas, magnetic personalities, and records of leadership. This despite the fact that the candidates the Democrats have fielded are the creme de la creme in their party.

We conservatives are all a bit paranoid, so we see a lot of speculation that the Democrats will field a star player at just the right moment. Michelle, Hillary, or some unknowable superstar are supposed to be on the sidelines. This is unlikely. Losing is easy enough without turning to another false hope, and an intraparty war would result from anyone trying to seize the nomination. No one need think about a new messiah figure suddenly appearing. The Democrats don’t have one.

For the nomination, the candidates must appeal to one or the other of these bifurcated wings of a now divided party. Each must assess which wing will actually control the nomination, and the passivity of the old guard has led the candidates to believe in the ascendant wing of radical neophytes. Only one candidate made an effort to straddle the divide, and she, Tulsi Gabbard, was immediately spanked for her disloyalty and threatened with exile from any further debates. Neither faction is invested in compromisers, so the forced choice of factions is the only route to the top.

Biden is the old guard faction’s leading candidate, followed by none of the others. (It will not end well for Joe.) The balance of the candidates are not even trying to appeal to the old guard, since Joe had crowded them out, instead, they all are looking for the biggest slice of the remainder of the pie.

The schism which has done this has roots in the Tea Party, and one of their great inspirations, the candidacy of Sarah Palin. She’ll never be credited. But, when the loony leftists finally choose their loony candidate, Sarah will be a large factor in the evolution, which brought the Democrat Party so low.
 

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...llow-trump-ukraine-complaint-just-days-filed/
BREAKING: Intel Community Secretly Changed the Whistle-Blower Rules to Allow the Trump-Ukraine Complaint Just Days Before It Was Filed

Posted at 6:30 pm on September 27, 2019 by Bonchie


a8636803-f428-4e76-ab5b-b516cf1d9e5e-620x317.jpg


This is a major, major development in the Trump-Ukraine saga and it points exactly at what a lot of people suspected.


The Federalist’s Sean Davis has discovered that the intel community secretly changed the rules governing whistle-blowers, including amending the required form, in order to allow 2nd hand information to suffice. This happened just days before the Trump-Ukraine whistle-blower filed his complaint.
 
Feels good to be an American this morning. As I have always said here, we have enough checks and balances that the system always prevails.
We have witnessed Watergate, Iran/Contra, Monicagate, the Russian election tampering investigation and now the Ukraine impeachment inquiry.
The system at work.
How many went to jail or resigned in each one?
 
Feels good to be an American this morning. As I have always said here, we have enough checks and balances that the system always prevails.
We have witnessed Watergate, Iran/Contra, Monicagate, the Russian election tampering investigation and now the Ukraine impeachment inquiry.
The system at work.
How many went to jail or resigned in each one?
At least he isn’t Hillary.
 



comments.png

September 28, 2019
Judge Napolitano's Descent into Foolishness
By Daniel John Sobieski
Consistent with Fox News Channel's continued listing to port, which I wrote about in my July 31, 2019 American Thinker article "Fox Veers Left," Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, once a staunch defender of objective truth, has provoked a firestorm with his agreement with Democratic clown car passenger Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) that President Trump committed a crime in his July 25 phone conversation with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. As Fox News reported:

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

"So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime," Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.

Napolitano's comments constituted as much of a parody of the truth as the fable spun by House Intelligence Committee chairman Schiff's recent interrogation of acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire over the transcript of the call, which suggests nothing of the sort. Zelensky himself said he was not "pushed" by Trump into investigating the corruption of the Bidens. So there was no quid pro quo, no bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election as reported by a "whistleblower" who was not a member of the Intelligence Community and had no firsthand knowledge of the call. What was Napolitano talking about?

That is what prominent Washington, D.C. Republican attorney and Fox News guest Joseph diGenova wanted to know when he was a guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight on September 25:

CARLSON: Joe diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor and he joins us tonight. Joe, thanks so much for coming on.

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: You bet.

CARLSON: So it's hard with a story this political to get to the basic legal questions here. So to what the president did or said he did in this conversation with the head of state of Ukraine. Now, I heard to the effect on our air, I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say that what the president has admitted to doing is a crime. Quote, "it is a crime." Is it a crime? You're a former federal prosecutor.

DIGENOVA: Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool. And I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime. Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said, you're not going to get the money, it would not be a crime.

That has sparked somewhat of a feud between Carlson and Fox News host Shepard Smith, and probably between diGenova and Napolitano. It's not the first time Napolitano has done a mind melt with the Deep State swamp creatures, insisting earlier that despite the failure of the Mueller probe to show it, President Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice in the Russiagate investigation. This goofy claim was roundly debunked and repudiated by none other than legal scholar and Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. As reported by Real Clear Politics:

In an interview cited by the president on Twitter, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz makes the case for why FOX News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano is wrong when he says the Mueller report demonstrates that President Trump committed obstruction of justice[.] ...

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then–White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice[.] ... But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.

FOX NEWS HOST: Do you agree? Is this obstruction of justice?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I do not agree. I think Judge Napolitano is terrific and we often agree about the law, but in my introduction to the Mueller report, I go through the elements of obstruction of justice. The act itself has to be illegal. It can't be an act that is authorized under Article Two of the Constitution.

And it would help if there was actually a crime being investigated. What was the crime committed by Trump that was being investigated by Robert Mueller? There was none, and the whole Mueller investigation may have been triggered by a real crime: the fraud committed on the FISA Court by Obama's DOJ and FBI.

Time was when Napolitano was as suspicious as the rest of us about the Deep State coup and the Obama administration's role in it. As Peter Barry Chowka notes in his excellent piece on the Smith-Carlson feud, something changed Judge Napolitano:

When I wrote about the first public skirmishes in this internal Fox News war in March 2018, Smith — a consistent critic of President Trump — was critical of Napolitano for defending the 45th POTUS. More recently, Napolitano has shifted ground and can be counted on to sound more like a CNN or MSNBC commentator when the subject of Donald Trump comes up.

I have an idea what triggered Napolitano's attitude change. His defense of Donald Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by the Obama administration got him fired. Fox took him off the air and suspended him for saying what we all know now to be the case: that even friendly governments were used to set Trump up. Upon his return, perhaps as part of a deal, he began to sing a different tune, agreeing with the likes of Robert Mueller and his "pit bull," Andrew Weissmann.

As it turned out, Trump and Trump Tower were being wiretapped and surveilled on President Obama'a orders, if not by the British. Certainly, the British have resisted the declassification of all documents related to FISA abuse by Obama's FBI and DOJ, lest their role in Russiagate be exposed. And let us not forget that former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, namesake of the infamous Steele dossier, was a British agent. As the Daily Caller reported:

Top British spy officials are resisting a push by Republicans to declassify FBI documents related to the Russia investigation, according to a Telegraph report.

Officials with MI6, Britain's equivalent to the CIA, have warned the Trump White House that releasing the documents could hinder intelligence gathering operations, The Telegraph reported.

Trump said he is "very seriously" declassifying a slew of FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) documents that would shed light on the origins of the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

The MI6 opposition also raises the possibility that British officials are concerned the sought-after documents contain information that could be embarrassing to the British government.

Alan Dershowitz and Joe diGenova are right. Judge Napolitano has gone over to the dark side of the Force and is currently sailing on the liberal ship of fools captained by Adam Schiff.
 
The craziest thing about Don the Con is he really and truly cannot stop conning. He has a pathological addiction to theft and rule breaking. If he was able, like a normal con, to simply stop after Mueller came out, and start being mildly likable, 2020 would have been a cake-walk for him. He'd get to pardon whoever he wants, stumble into retirement milking more foreign despots for money and favors.

But the thing those of us who were unlucky enough to grow up around Don the Con know is - he can't help himself. Whenever he leaves the WH, he will leave after selling all the furniture, and with the silver in his depends.

The only good thing about this is, he will con and con until someone or something finally stops him; if, indeed, anything does. Only when he finally believe he can't sell one more doorhandles will he declare political bankruptcy and head for the back door.

And everyone will be SHOCKED that he was not on the up-and-up. And Paulie will still be in jail. Lol.
 
The craziest thing about Don the Con is he really and truly cannot stop conning. He has a pathological addiction to theft and rule breaking. If he was able, like a normal con, to simply stop after Mueller came out, and start being mildly likable, 2020 would have been a cake-walk for him. He'd get to pardon whoever he wants, stumble into retirement milking more foreign despots for money and favors.

But the thing those of us who were unlucky enough to grow up around Don the Con know is - he can't help himself. Whenever he leaves the WH, he will leave after selling all the furniture, and with the silver in his depends.

The only good thing about this is, he will con and con until someone or something finally stops him; if, indeed, anything does. Only when he finally believe he can't sell one more doorhandles will he declare political bankruptcy and head for the back door.

And everyone will be SHOCKED that he was not on the up-and-up. And Paulie will still be in jail. Lol.

You subscribe to the same " Pulp Fantasy " comic rag as Spola.....
Filthy birds of a feather flock together...
 
The craziest thing about Don the Con is he really and truly cannot stop conning. He has a pathological addiction to theft and rule breaking. If he was able, like a normal con, to simply stop after Mueller came out, and start being mildly likable, 2020 would have been a cake-walk for him. He'd get to pardon whoever he wants, stumble into retirement milking more foreign despots for money and favors.

But the thing those of us who were unlucky enough to grow up around Don the Con know is - he can't help himself. Whenever he leaves the WH, he will leave after selling all the furniture, and with the silver in his depends.

The only good thing about this is, he will con and con until someone or something finally stops him; if, indeed, anything does. Only when he finally believe he can't sell one more doorhandles will he declare political bankruptcy and head for the back door.

And everyone will be SHOCKED that he was not on the up-and-up. And Paulie will still be in jail. Lol.

I was reading a book on a totally unrelated topic, and in that book they related the way that Prussian General Staff used to rate upcoming young officers.

Type 1 - Smart and energetic
Type 2 - Smart and lazy
Type 3 - Stupid and energetic
Type 4 - Stupid and lazy

Type 1 officers were groomed for the General Staff someday. Type 2 officers would be routed into mid-level commands where they could be trusted to be competent and would not upset the established order. Type 4 officers would be frozen at the lower ranks until they were let go for some inexcusable action or evenually left on their own. Type 3 officers were the problem - they didn't know what they were doing but went ahead and did it anyway.

T is a Type 3 --

enhanced-29164-1416938419-34.jpg
 
The craziest thing about Don the Con is he really and truly cannot stop conning. He has a pathological addiction to theft and rule breaking. If he was able, like a normal con, to simply stop after Mueller came out, and start being mildly likable, 2020 would have been a cake-walk for him. He'd get to pardon whoever he wants, stumble into retirement milking more foreign despots for money and favors.

But the thing those of us who were unlucky enough to grow up around Don the Con know is - he can't help himself. Whenever he leaves the WH, he will leave after selling all the furniture, and with the silver in his depends.

The only good thing about this is, he will con and con until someone or something finally stops him; if, indeed, anything does. Only when he finally believe he can't sell one more doorhandles will he declare political bankruptcy and head for the back door.

And everyone will be SHOCKED that he was not on the up-and-up. And Paulie will still be in jail. Lol.
So, is this the one? Again?
 
Back
Top