Monday, February 13, 2017

The Flynn Incident

 by FR_addict

-- Where was a the media's outrage when Ted Kennedy attempted to undermine President Reagan by allying with Russia?
In 1983, Kennedy sent John Tunney, a close confidant to Russia, to meet with Russian counterparts and layout Kennedy’s quid pro quo plan to take down President Reagan in the coming election.
A memorandum explaining this plan was discovered in 1991, when Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President at the time, opened up the Soviet archives.
Here is the history of the incident:
“Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit”
The translated memorandum begins:
From: V. Chebrikov, Chairman of the Committee [for State Security, KGB] To: Comrade Yu. V. Andropov, General Secretary of the Communist Party Subject: Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Yu. V. Andropov
Contents of Russian memorandum in link directly below:
This was actual treasonous behavior. Kennedy was attempting to undermine the Reagan administration’s Russian policy. Although Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, discovered the information in 1991, there was hardly a peep out of the American press and Kennedy remained a Senator till his death in 2009.
Now we come to the Flynn incident.
Lt. Gen. Flynn was President’s Trump’s choice to be National Security Advisor. This appointment does not need the Senate’s approval.
On Dec 29th Obama decided to announce sanctions against Russia and also expel 35 officials in the last remaining days of his administration. Supposedly these sanctions were put in place because the U.S. Intelligence community said Russia interfered in our elections. The media claimed this interference cost Hillary the election. This point is the talking point for much of the American mainstream media, but the media leaves out many important reasons why Hillary lost the election, including her health concerns, her name calling of the American electorate, her lack of charisma, Hillary’s security breaches for top secret classified information, Clinton Foundation finances and whether the Foundation offered quid pro quo arrangements with donors and foreign governments, and the contents of the DNC and Podesta emails. Regardless of how the emails came into the public domain, the information in the DNC emails was enough to remove the DNC chairwoman
What about Obama’s motives? With less than a month left to go in the Presidency, was he trying to hamstring the Trump administration with these sanctions? Why didn’t he leave the choice whether to enact sanctions to the new administration? The media never questioned Obama on his motives.
Let’s look at one of the articles on the Flynn story. On Jan 23rd, the Washington post wrote an article entitled:
”FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit”
The above article indicated their sources agreed that the call was proper and that Gen Flynn & the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak talked about a range of issues.
On Feb 9th of this year, the Washington Post put out a new article on this story:
“National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say”
In Flynn’s reply to questions, he backed away somewhat from what he originally stated and said he doesn’t remember talking about sanctions, but it was possible. Trump administration spokesperson said they did not see any evidence that Flynn had an intent to make a promise on sanctions after the inauguration. The Post said their sources claimed Flynn told the Ambassador the sanctions would be reviewed. The Washington Post based this article on leaked betrayals of the administration by former and current anonymous agents to the newspaper.
The article conceded that it is normal for high officials in the oncoming administration to contact officials in other countries. Michael McFaul, who was U.S. Ambassador under Obama even travelled to Moscow before Obama’s election win. In hindsight, perhaps Gen. Flynn would have been better off going personally to Moscow.
Whoever is leaking information between Gen. Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak may be committing a crime. Were the conversations taped between Gen. Flynn and Kislyak classified? A whistleblower may report a crime, but not private diplomatic conversations. If they aren’t classified, then the public should be able to see the transcript and judge for ourselves what the real story is here.
On Feb 10th, Washington Post wrote a follow up article,
“Six stunning aspects of the Flynn scandal”
The above article is filled with vitriol towards Gen. Flynn and the Trump administration and isn’t even worth this author’s comments.

Liberals Pitch Hissy Fit Over Pro-Trump GRAMMY Dress ^ | February 13, 2017 | Todd Starnes 

Joy Villa made one heckuva statement at the Grammys Sunday night.
Miss Villa, a self-described singer-songwriter and vegan-bodybuilder, stormed the red carpet wearing a “Make America Great Again” dress.

The jaw-dropping, star-spangled ensemble also included a train emblazoned with President Trump’s name.
“Sometimes you just gotta be free to express yourself,” she wrote on Twitter.
It was a truly remarkable moment of diversity and inclusion in Hollywood – one that will surely land the relatively unknown performer on the Worst Dressed List.
My Fox News colleague and resident millennial Caleb Parke gave Miss Villa’s ensemble a thumbs-up.
“I don’t care what your politics are, this girl is bold – and might I add, beautiful,” he said.
She did look stunning – and patriotic.
The dress was designed by Andre Soriano, a Filipino immigrant who came to our shores in search of the American dream.
“I’ve never been in the political area,” Soriano told The Hollywood Reporter. “However, it’s just so crazy that people are getting beat up because they voted for Trump.”
Mr. Soriano was inspired to create his masterpiece after watching the “Nasty Woman” protest in Washington, D.C.
“I am an American,” he told THR. “I moved here from the Philippines and I highly believed in the trueness of what this country can bring. It’s about bringing people together, that’s the message.”
It’s worth repeating that Mr. Soriano came to America legally.
Unfortunately, the red, white and blue dress is not available at Nordstrom's, Sears or TJ Maxx. Sorry, fashionistas.
Liberals suffered a near melt-down on social media. Much of the vitriol is simply too vile to share in a family-friendly column.
I reached out to the Centers for Disease Control but they did not have any data on how many Grammy watch parties were ruined by triggered liberals.
Likewise, I cannot confirm reports that Staples Center set up emergency safe spaces for overly-sensitive, auto-tuned celebrities.
I will say this about Miss Villa - she's got moxie - either that or she's slap crazy.
Wearing a Donald Trump dress at the Grammys? Sweet mercy, America. That's like showing up at a PETA protest eating a cheeseburger.

White House Adviser Eviscerates a Shell-shocked George Stephanopoulos ^ | February 13, 2017 | Douglas MacKinnon 

For anyone not in the tank for the Democrats, the far-left, or the Nanny-State who would like to witness the absolute gold-standard of how to deal with the biased and increasingly rage-filled anti-Trump media, I urge you to run, not walk, to watch the video of White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller eviscerating George Stephanopoulos from the ABC News “This Week” broadcast this Sunday.
The tape should become required viewing for any Republican, conservative, or faith-based communicators hoping to inject some sanity back into policy debates hijacked by the dishonest, hate-filled, and increasingly inflammatory rhetoric of a growing part of the mainstream media, the “entertainment” industry, and academia.
In full disclosure, in the past, I had a number of pleasant communications with Mr. Stephanopoulos. He in fact could not have been more professional at the time.
That said, like an exponentially growing number of mainstream “journalists,” the election of Donald J. Trump as president has seemingly caused Mr. Stephanopoulos to come completely unhinged as he casts away any pretense of being anything other than anti-Trump.
On election night when it was clear that Mr. Trump was going to win, I honestly thought that Mr. Stephanopoulos was on the verge of tears.
During the just completed interview with Mr. Miller, it was fascinating to see the face of Mr. Stephanopoulos get darker and darker with anger as he realized the senior policy adviser was undressing him item by item on his own national show until he had nothing left to shield his bias and anger against President Trump and his policies.
As one who has interacted with all of these Sunday shows in the past and even appeared on “This Week,” I was actually amazed that they even aired the interview with Mr. Miller which was taped earlier in the morning. Given the embarrassment-factor, it would not have surprised me if ABC News had chosen to delete the interview and melt any devices it existed upon.
Also years ago, as someone who had the honor to work in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses and serve as director of communications for former Senator Bob Dole, I used to plead on a regular basis with certain Republican communicators to fight back tooth and nail with the mainstream media when through commission or omission, they purposely twisted conservative or Republican policy, words, or actions to put them in the worst light possible for the American voters.
I was honestly told time and again: “We can’t do that. If we do, they will be even worse to us.”
To that, I would answer: “Are you kidding me? Do you actually watch their broadcasts or read the lies they are spreading? How much worse can it get?”
Back in the day, Bob Dole used to joke to me that, “If World War Three were breaking out tomorrow, the media would still try to ask me about abortion.”
Meaning of course, that no matter what real policy issues had to be instantly dealt with to help the vast majority of Americans, biased “journalists” trying to carry as much water for the Democrats or their utopian visions of a Nanny-State, would always ask questions pre-selected to try damage the Republican or conservative cause.
To his great credit, White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller calls out George Stephanopoulos on this exact point as he suggests the host might want to get back to the pressing issues most cared about by the American people.
As the Trump White House and administration continues to rightfully push back against the “fake news” being created by faux-journalists or even networks, I would offer one piece of advice. That being, as much as possible, only do live interviews.
If not, as evidenced by the orchestrated smearing of then Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin in 2008 – and in my opinion, that very good person and governor, was thrown to the wolves by the McCain 2008 communicators – the networks and cable networks can and will slice and dice any interview to delegitimize President Trump and his administration.
Stephen Miller not only defended his boss, but defended “sanity” in the process.
Now that is “Must See TV.”

J W Obtains 216 Pages of Documents Containing Official (Democrat) Emails Sent Through Private, Unsecured Email ^ | 2/13/2017 | N/A 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it has obtained 216 pages of documents containing official, sensitive emails of Jeh Johnson and three other top Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials sent through private, unsecured, webmail-based email accounts.
The documents include emails discussing high-level meetings Johnson was to have with the Kuwaiti ambassador and Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry officials, as well as a West African $4.5 million online consumer fraud scam.
In response to a May 23, 2016, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch after Homeland Security failed to respond to a December 29, 2015, FOIA request seeking emails “relating to official United States Government business sent to or from” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and three other top Homeland Security officials that used “non-‘.gov’” email addresses (Judicial Watch, Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security (No. l:l6-cv-00967)).
This is the first production of emails sent through private, web-based email accounts of Johnson, Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Chief of Staff Christian Marrone and General Counsel Stevan Bunnell that were also sent to government email accounts. The emails released reveal that:
•The Kuwaiti ambassador to the US sent an email to Johnson’s unsecure email account attempting to set up a meeting for him with Kuwait’s Interior Ministry and discussing Kuwait’s Interior Minister’s having meetings with the heads of CIA, FBI and DNI. •The US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia emailed to Johnson’s unsecure email account, discussing Johnson’s upcoming meetings at the Saudi Interior Ministry in Jeddah. •DHS Chief of Staff Marrone held sensitive discussions with an unidentified individual regarding the earnings of Lockheed Martin and a space vehicle launch consortium between Lockheed and Boeing, which the sender said to “use wisely.” Marrone also received procurement documents related to launch vehicles and their “Launch Infrastructure Capability.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Stop the Logan Act Nonsense – Respect General Flynn ^ | February 13, 2017 | Robert Charles 

Like a cresting wave, hysteria tied to executive orders is now met by childish hypocrisy. When will the embarrassment set in? Congressional Democrats allege that National Security Advisor-designee Michael Flynn, when he talked by phone with the Russian ambassador on December 29th, just three weeks before President Trump was sworn in, violated the Logan Act. What?
Across the weekend news programs, accusatory individuals spread words like criminal violation, felony, need to resign, and congressional investigation, freely as jam on bread. Yet they all know, for an absolute fact, this is a lot of whooped-up nonsense. Follow me, you will be truly amazed – they know.
They know – or should know – that the Logan Act dates to 1799, when a state legislator with no ties to any administration tried to assert himself as personal negotiator for final peace with France. The anti-Jefferson Federalists did not like this private initiative, so passed the Logan Act to make private ventures intent on negotiating personal treaties over international feuds a crime. The bill was whipped out in days.
And in the 200 years since, not a single individual has ever been prosecuted under the act, not one. And its constitutionality is widely doubted in any event, even by Democrat legal scholars. Funny how precedent and constitutionality matter when they work for a party, and not at all when they work against it.
The folly of casting anyone – let alone General Flynn, an incoming National Security Advisor – as violator of this important-sounding, but utterly obsolete and toothless Logan Act would be funny enough, if it were not being dressed up in congressional outrage, with somber questions like – yes – “what did he know, and when did he know it?” Watergate already, really?
How about who knew that the Logan Act was a patent, indefensible non-story from the get-go, and when did they know it? And why did they pursue it? And why did the media give this lark prime time coverage? And when did free speech or casual conversation with foreign nationals, on unclassified topics, become illegal and unconstitutional? Especially for an incoming administration, about to be jumped for being unprepared? Where is the sense of injustice toward General Flynn?
How about a historical refresher, that so silly was this act in its own day, dear Mr. Logan was subsequently elected to the U.S. Senate? The topic was actually never raised again, and the act became a bit of tomfoolery, although never formally repealed.
How about this – since equal and opposite political facts seem the only way to stop hypocrisy: Not only was the incoming National Security Advisor entitled to talk about hopes for a better relationship with Russia. Not only was the reported conversation in keeping with General Flynn’s hallmark in Afghanistan, namely that American national security has to move beyond kinetic, to winning hearts and minds. But his daring, non-story pales in comparison to overtures taken by candidate Barack Obama in mid-2008.
That is right. In July 2008, independent of any policy conversations by staff, candidate Obama went to the Middle East and Europe and spoke extensively, one-on-one, about policy with leaders from Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, the West Bank, Israel, France, Germany and Britain. As a candidate, not as a president-elect.
Without thought of violating the Logan Act, Mr. Obama conducted substantive conversations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s Prime Minister Elud Olmert, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his predecessor Tony Blair and opposition leader David Cameron. In short, in an effort to transparently promote his presidential candidacy, with all manner of topics, candidate Obama flew straight into the Logan Act.
But no one cared. Not one news story. Not one. Why? Because the Logan Act is a non-story; it is a historical anachronism. And Mr. Obama was not a Republican. He was a Democratic candidate desperately trying to assume credibility, offering himself as a vehicle for world peace – much as Mr. Logan, with less impressive credentials or press encouragement, was seeking to promote peace in France. For his efforts, Mr. Logan got a silly act and a Senate seat. For his efforts, Mr. Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.
To cap the irony and Obama counter-example, before assuming office and not president-elect, Mr. Obama spoke of peace and how to end world conflicts on July 24, 2008, in a speech at the Victory Column in Berlin, before an estimated 200,000 people. But no talk of Logan Act. None.
So now we return to the humble act of a casual, hopeful phone call by an incoming National Security Advisor with an ambassador, above board and without specific objectives sought or achieved, except to take a long history of seeking to advance diplomacy and prepare for reality weeks ahead.
From this, if we are to believe the overwrought and incensed, perpetually enraged and indignant, accusatory Democrats in Congress, we must conclude that an inapt, unused, toothless, constitutionally indefensible Logan Act is now a big news story – heart of a new Watergate? Surely, you jest. Please, spare me the play.
Soon, we will have another flood of well-paid protestors, a march for reinstating the 1799 Logan Act, perhaps retrospective prosecution of Logan. More seriously, is it not time to turn down the volume. When will we all, as Americans, tuck our shirts back in, sit up straight again, take real as real, and leave nonsense as nonsense? The world really is a dangerous place. There really are issues of import before Congress. Is it not time we started acting like one nation? If not now, when?

Univision Anchorman Rails Against 'Useless Wall' ^ | February 12, 2017 | Jorge Bonilla 

Immigration grievance is going to be a large component of Univision's news programming going forward, as we see on the edition of Al Punto that aired last January 29th. Host Jorge Ramos and Trump Hispanic Advisory Panel member José Fuentes Agostini, who is also the former Attorney General of Puerto Rico, went back and forth over Trump, the promised wall, and immigration policy overall.
Here are two key exchanges that pretty much sum up the entire segment. In the first segment, Ramos rails against the futility of the wall itself, deeming it to be 'useless'. Fuentes countered by noting that Senators Obama, Clinton, and Biden ALL voted for the Secure Border Act of 2006, which calls for fencing as well as other means of securing the border.
JORGE RAMOS, HOST, AL PUNTO: So why build a useless wall? If Trump is so intelligent and such a good businessman like he says he is, why build something that isn’t going to work?
JOSE FUENTES-AGOSTINI, ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well look Jorge, we differ on whether it is going to work or not. You would note that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden - the three of them – in 2006 voted to build that wall. So it is very hypocritical of them to now say the wall should not be built. The people obviously understand that the wall will work. You would note that Mexico, Mexico, is doing the same thing in Guatemala. They are not building a physical wall, but they certainly have a barrier that they have built.
Fuentes dispenses with much of the hypocrisy surrounding the immigration debate by pointing out both the Democrat votes for the current border law, and Mexico's efforts along its own southern border. Furthermore, we are reminded that Ramos opposes ANY serious effort to curb illegal immigration. Recall that back in December, Ramos came out against deportation of aliens with a record of criminal offenses.
The second clip shows Ramos and Fuentes relitigating Trump's announcement speech- the basis for much of Ramos' grievance-mongering:
JORGE RAMOS, HOST, AL PUNTO: But most immigrants in this country, and you are well aware of it, are not criminals nor rapists, as many have wanted to portray. I want to raise another point with you. The policy…
JOSE FUENTES-AGOSTINI, ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: And that is how Mr. Trump has said it. And that is how Mr. Trump has said it. He is very clear about that.
JORGE RAMOS, HOST, AL PUNTO: Well, not necessarily. On June 16, 2015 he said that Mexican immigrants were drug traffickers, criminals and rapists, and that is an absolute lie. And so now President Donald Trump said something that wasn’t true.
JOSE FUENTES-AGOSTINI, ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Jorge, we have had that conversation.
JOSE FUENTES-AGOSTINI, ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: You and I have had that conversation before. We have discussed before…
JOSE FUENTES-AGOSTINI, ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: …all your many viewers and it is clear that he clarified what he wanted to say with that.
Expect Ramos to insist on pushing these points going forward, despite the fact that Fuentes got him to concede that the horse was both dead and well-beaten.
This pretty much sums up Al Punto and Univision News in the Age of Trump.

When a Pro-Donald Trump Fashion Statement Took Over The Grammy Awards Red Carpet

First published: February 13, 2017, 12:30 PM IST | Updated: 4 hours ago
facebook Twitter google skype

Joy Villa, a singer who has sung songs such as Get Your Freedom and Vagabonds, made herself stand out with her fashion pick at the Grammys this year. The 25-year-old singer arrived at the 59th edition of Grammy Awards in a white cape and soon tore it off to unveil the blue statement dress. Adorned with the statement 'Make America Great Again' in the front and 'Trump' printed on the lower back near the seams of her dress, the ensemble was one of its kind.
joy-featueed-1Image: AP Images
Considering that the trend of anti-Donald Trump speeches has taken over award ceremonies, one would like to count the dress as a part of it too. But contrary to popular wave, the singer supports Trump and decided to wear this dress as an ode to the President.
Andre Soriano, who shared the image on Instagram, wrote, "The Annual 59th Grammy Awards @realDonaldTrump @JoyVilla A Tribute OUR President Of The United States Of America #MAGA #trumptrain #usa #Peace#Love #Glamour #Fashion".

Joy, who is pretty active on social media, penned down why she opted for a dress like this. "Sometimes you just gotta be free to express yourself. thank you to all of my supporters and fellow believers. Life is about living free and loving it. Be your beautiful selves tonight! dr as by @officialandresoriano makeup by @nicholerayartistry Publicist: @mwprinc #grammys2017 #love #happygrammysday #joyvillagrammys #joyvilla".
This was probably one of the very few stands in favour of Trump as most celebrities including host James Corden, Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce and Paris Jackson indirectly slammed Trump in their speeches.

Refugee Pause


Vacation in Iran?


Under his robe!


The Tour!




Leading a donkey to water!


If it lies, it flies!


Dumb and dumber and dumbest!




Both foreign and domestic!


Let them in?


The Three Stooges