The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sex: What If We Stopped Pretending We Don’t Know What We Actually Know?

Posted on | November 24, 2018 | Comments Off on Sex: What If We Stopped Pretending We Don’t Know What We Actually Know?

 

Rhett: “Has the war started?”
Scarlett: “Sir, you should have made your presence known.”
Rhett: “In the middle of that beautiful love scene? That wouldn’t have been very tactful, would it? But don’t worry, your secret is safe with me.”
Scarlett: “Sir, you are no gentleman.”
Rhett: “And you, miss, are no lady.”
Scarlett: “Oh?”
Rhett: “But don’t think I hold that against you. Ladies have never held any charm for me.”
Scarlett: “First you take a low, common advantage of me, then you insult me!”
Rhett: “I meant it as a compliment. And I hope to see more of you, when you’re free of the spell of the elegant Mr.Wilkes. He doesn’t strike me as half good enough for a girl of your… what was it? Your ‘passion for living’?”

 

What is the secret of Rhett Butler’s charm? In an age of elaborate courtesy, he does not bother pretending to be motivated by idealism. Rhett is realistic, and unafraid to offend others by speaking the truth. He understands the game of romantic make-believe better than those who play it, and amuses himself by flouting the rules of the game.

One of the things I advise young men is never to imagine they can deceive a girl about their motives. When you get down to the bottom line, it’s no secret what guys are really after, and thus the guy who thinks he can conceal his ulterior motive while being “friendly” with a girl is unlikely to deceive anyone — except maybe himself, insofar as he thinks she’s not onto his game. Likewise, intelligent and experienced men are wise to the ways of women, understanding their methods and motives far better than does the sort of young fool who considers a woman’s beauty to be evidence of her virtue. While the female mind seems mysterious or erratic, nevertheless an objective consideration reveals general patterns of female behavior, and the sharing of this behavioral knowledge is the useful purpose of what is known as “the manosphere.”

 

The bad reputation of the so-called “Red Pill” community is, in part, a reflection of the fact that in the social media age anyone can get on the Internet and bloviate endlessly, which means that “Red Pill” forums attract a lot of basement-dwelling fools saying offensive things about women that have little or nothing to do with the legitimate purpose of those forums, i.e., to help men improve their lives. Because certain indisputably bad guys (e.g., Isla Vista killer Elliot Rodger) have had some connection, however minor, to the manosphere, this has damaged the reputation of innocent participants. Furthermore, and most obviously, “Red Pill” discourse is a direct challenge to feminism, which creates a political incentive to tar everyone with the same brush, claiming that somehow the Republican Party is to blame for everything said in pickup artist (PUA) forums. While Roosh V and Donald Trump may have certain traits in common, this kind of guilt-by-association smear would be recognized as invalid if it were reversed to blame Democrats for every controversial figure in any movement on their side. But I digress . . .

Rollo Tomassi calls attention to a post by Dalrock about a feminist’s argument that men should be liable to charges of criminal fraud for exaggerations or lies on their dating-app profiles:

To start with, she is trying to formalize the AF/BB strategy into law, but the strategy relies on denial. Key to the AF/BB strategy is pretending that the woman didn’t shift sexual strategies once her youth and fertility were all but gone. Such women can’t come out and say they are shifting from having sex with the kind of men they are sexually attracted to (sex for pleasure) into a strategy of having sex with men they don’t want to have sex with but think would make a good husband. Otherwise, the man who mans up and marries a woman in her late thirties after she tires of having sex with other men looks like a chump and his bride looks like a whore!

Now, I will not offend readers by explaining what “AF/BB strategy” means, except to say that it describes an observable pattern among certain women who spend their youth as carousel riders, pursuing a series of casual hookups and short-term relationships, before they decide — usually in their late 20s — to start husband-hunting in earnest.

It is absurd to imagine that the reason a never-married woman over 30 is single is because all her previous boyfriends were selfish jerks, unworthy of long-term commitment. Rather, it is more likely that her youthful promiscuity was the result of a more or less conscious calculation on her part, to have fun by throwing herself at any good-looking guy who’d give her a go, believing she would later have no problem finding a husband when she got ready to settle down. This is a fantasy sold by Hollywood — the Sex and the City script — and it is ultimately a formula for failure, as “famewhore” Julia Baugher learned. While decades of cultural revolution may have altered our society’s norms of sexual behavior, what a man considers “wife material” hasn’t changed much. The idea that a girl can start riding the carousel of casual sex as a teenager, bounce around from boyfriend to boyfriend for a decade or more, and then get her romantic happily-ever-after ending with Mister Right, is a delusion.

Even if you think you can point to a “success” story that validates the Sex and the City script as a plausible strategy, you are talking about the exception that proves the rule, namely that youthful promiscuity negatively impacts future prospects for long-term relationships.

On a related note, Rollo Tomassi also calls attention to a 2009 post by Chuck Ross addressing the “sexual peak myth,” i.e., that women in the 30s are more desirable than younger women, and that the “peak” of male sexuality is age 19. I remember when this myth was first popularized by feminists in the late 1970s, and the motives behind it were obvious enough. The older cohort of Baby Boom women, those born in the late 1940s, were then reaching their 30s, and were being discarded or passed over by men their own age, who preferred to pursue younger women. This was a function of demographics, as the Baby Boom had peaked in the late 1950s, so that by 1978 or so, older guys (e.g., Bill Clinton) were surrounded by a bumper crop of females in the 18-24 range. These were the years when TV was full of so-called “T and A” shows like Charlie’s Angels and Three’s Company, when Catherine Bach (b. 1954) was rocking those short-shorts on The Dukes of Hazzard. The “sexual liberation” of the 1960s had produced a culture lacking any moral language to defend monogamy, and the 30-something woman who feared losing out to younger competitors needed reassurance. From this emerged the myth of women reaching “sexual peak” in their 30s.

Chuck Ross’s discussion points out that this myth contradicts everything science tells us about human sexual behavior. From the strictly biological perspective, what is the purpose of sex? Procreation. And when are the peak years of female fertility? Ages 15-24.

“What? Did he say fifteen?” Yes, ma’am, but I preceded this by noting that I was speaking from the strictly biological perspective, and if you’ll research demographics, you’ll find that there are still many places in the world (Mali, Afghanistan, Gaza) where motherhood at 15 or 16 is not uncommon and, indeed, this was true in many parts of America well into the 1960s and beyond. During the 1990s, exaggerated media coverage of a supposed “epidemic” of teenage pregnancy inspired Maggie Gallagher to write a very useful booklet entitled The Age of Unwed Mothers. Gallagher showed that rates of teenage pregnancy, far from becoming an “epidemic,” had declined significantly in the previous 30 years. What had changed was not that more teenagers were getting pregnant, but that fewer pregnant teenagers were getting married. But I digress . . .

 

It makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective that women’s “sexual peak” would occur more than a decade after their peak fertility. Rather, we should expect sexual desire and reproductive capacity to be closely correlated. But feminism is a War Against Human Nature, as I have said, and so despite their atheistic devotion to Darwinism, feminists reject the insights of evolutionary theory in explaining human sexual behavior.

What if we were to stop pretending we don’t know what we actually know? What if we abandoned the zero-sum-game mentality of “social justice” ideology that insists that the absence of statistical “equality” between men and women is proof of patriarchal oppression? What if, instead of making women’s “empowerment” the sole purpose of every discussion of sexual behavior, we instead recognized that the rhetoric of “empowerment” has been employed to encourage and justify behaviors that are ultimately harmful to women’s long-term interests?

The Left’s hostility to Christianity, and to traditional moral values more generally, does not actually “empower” women, except insofar as it licenses them to behave irresponsibly, making them vulnerable to exploitation. When we see the Left defending pornography and prostitution while at the same time proclaiming their devotion to women’s equality, we ought to be suspicious of their motives. Likewise, we ought to be suspicious of the feminist crusade against “slut-shaming.” There are legitimate reasons to condemn promiscuity, and women’s best interests are not served by silencing criticism of hookup culture.

Contrary to the liberal myth of Progress, we are not advancing toward a utopia of “equality.” Nor, contrary to some conservatives, can we magically return to a lost Golden Age of moral purity. No matter what policies we pursue, the basic problems of human nature cannot be eradicated and we should beware of false prophets promising us heaven on earth. (Again I recommend Daniel J. Flynn’s Cult City.) There is no such thing as collective salvation, and men would be fools to emulate the identity-politics formula of feminism, which is why I eschew the rhetoric of “men’s rights.” Regardless of what policy governments may implement, or which way the cultural currents are running, the individual man remains free to pursue his own interests. Indeed, at a time when our civilization is cartwheeling toward catastrophe, it is only the man who refuses to conform to the herd who is likely to survive the destructive forces of chaotic insanity that now prevail in Western culture.

The “male feminist” types who constantly signal their compliance with the cultural status quo may gain some short-term advantage from their conformity, but they are following a path that can only lead to their own destruction. Once women wise up to that game, it ceases to be effective even as a short-term tactic, and the independent thinker — the realist — can laugh at fools who think they can “win” such a game.

Stop pretending you don’t know what you actually do know.



 

Category: Sex Trouble

Pro Tip: Avoid Bragging

Posted on | November 24, 2018 | Comments Off on Pro Tip: Avoid Bragging

 

If you’ll read Chuck Ross’s timeline of the story involving WikiLeaks, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and a guy named Randy Credico, you’ll perceive that the essential mistake involved was bragging about inside knowledge of what WikiLeaks had and when it would be released, with regard to the hacking of Clinton aide John Podesta’s emails.

Obviously, hacking someone’s emails is a crime and, although we have no reason to believe that Stone and Corsi had prior knowledge of this crime (which a federal indictment says was committed by Russian intelligence operatives), they obviously were aware that WikiLeaks had obtained possession of these emails and intended to release them.

Was it necessary or in any way helpful for Randy Credico to post to Facebook a photo of himself outside the Ecuadoran embassy in London (where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has taken asylum) in September 2016 declaring, “I have a feeling that in the next couple days some very damaging material will be coming out from the gentleman inside that embassy”? No, this was neither necessary nor helpful, and neither was it helpful a few days later for Stone to tweet, ““I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon. #LockHerUp.” Four days later, WikiLeaks released the first batch of Podesta emails and what was the benefit of the previous public boasting about it? Perhaps the comments on social media had value, in some sense, as publicity for the impending releases, and we are assured that no one on the Trump team knew that Russian intelligence was behind the hacking, but still: Why brag about it?

Talk about drawing a target on your own back!

Ever since Assange and WikiLeaks emerged in 2010 — publishing U.S. secrets stolen by the traitor Bradley (“Chelsea”) Manning — I have been anti-Assange, and the fact that WikiLeaks was “on our side” in 2016 does not change that. Obviously, it’s not Assange’s fault (and not Roger Stone’s fault or Trump’s fault) that the DNC and Podesta were hacked, but neither was it smart for Stone, et al., to align themselves so publicly with this operation, e.g., “my hero Julian Assange.”

Granted, Stone and his colleagues were sailing in uncharted waters. So far as we know, no presidential campaign had ever previously been the target of data breaches like what happened to the Democrats in 2016, and never had WikiLeaks been involved in such a political operation. Because there was no established playbook for how to deal with such an event, this meant that Stone and his colleagues were improvising — making up the rules as they went along, with no apparent concern for the potential consequences. Almost certainly, they did not imagine that a special prosecutor would be appointed to investigate the 2016 campaign and, proverbially, “You can indict a ham sandwich.”

On the upside, if this is the biggest thing Mueller’s got — if this WikiLeaks thing is the only “Russian collusion” he can find — then it’s really nothing. There is no reason to believe these hacked emails affected the outcome of the election, which is another reason why it was so stupid of Stone to have boasted about it. What was the big secret revealed by Podesta’s emails? How did that change the outcome in 2016? Were any voters swayed by the content of Podesta’s emails?

Jerome Corsi is now reportedly trying to negotiate a plea deal with Mueller, which doesn’t bode well for Roger Stone. Would any of this be happening if Stone had just kept his mouth shut about WikiLeaks?



 

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox: 11.23.18

Posted on | November 23, 2018 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Reminder – the FMJRA links are due to me by noon Pacific time tomorrow, and Rule 5 Sunday links by midnight.
Going to do my damnedest to get a book post up tonight, and if not tonight, then tomorrow.

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Green Book – A Review
Twitchy: Watch Black Friday Shoppers Swarm A Victoria’s Secret In Chattanooga To Save $55 On Fleece Hoodies
Louder With Crowder: Purple-Haired Antifa Freak Goes Bananas At #HimToo Rally
According To Hoyt: Cutting Through The Cage
Monster Hunter Nation: The 2nd Amendment Is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha
Vox Popoli: No Media, No Alternative Media, No Interviews

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott:  Fathers, Teach Your Sons, also, Friday Hawt Chicks & Links – The Thanksgiving Edition
American Power: Perpetual War Over Perpetual Culture, also, Blame The “Culture Wars” On 1968
American Thinker: A Reminder That White Liberals Hate Living In Black Neighborhoods, also, Let’s Allow Jihadis To Speak For Themselves
Animal Magnetism: Happy Thanksgiving! also, Rule Five Black Friday News
BattleSwarm: William Shatner PSA On How Not To Immolate Yourself While Frying A Turkey, also, LinkSwarm For November 23
CDR Salamander: Happy Thanksgiving
Da Tech Guy: Those Discriminating Lactating Breasts! also, Collectivism Nearly Doomed The Pilgrims
Don Surber: Britain Meddled In 2016 Election, also, Nationalism Is Patriotism
Dustbury: You Dunderheads Are Supposed To Be Eating, also, Fark Blurb Of The Week
First Street Journal: Yet Still, They Kept Their Mouths Shut
The Geller Report: Another “Refugee” Acquitted Of Rape In France Due To “Different Cultural Norms”, also, Muslims Give Kenyan Family One Day To Return To Islam Or Be Killed
Hogewash: Trump & The 9th Circuit, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Hit The Mall
Legal Insurrection: Laura Loomer Booted From Twitter For Criticizing Congresswoman-Elect Ilhan Omar, also, UC Berkeley Christian Student Senator Harassed For Abstaining From LGBT Vote
Michelle Malkin:
The PanAm Post: In Colombia, Venezuelan Agents Infiltrating Refugee Centers, also, From North To South, The Rise Of A New Strain Of Socialist Ignorance
Power Line: Fake History From The Washington Post, also, Barack Melts Down
Shark Tank: Jeb! Believes DeSantis Owes His Win To Black Moms
Shot In The Dark: It’s Friday
The Political Hat: Happy Thanksgiving For 2018!
This Ain’t Hell: ROK Uncovers Nine Sets Of War Dead Remains During DMZ Mine-Clearing Op, also, Oldest Pearl Harbor Survivor Dies
Victory Girls: Hillary Lectures Europe On Immigration, also, Charlie Brown’s Thanksgiving Table Is Not Racist
Volokh Conspiracy: Why The Federal Law Banning Female Genital Mutilation Is Unconstitutional
Weasel Zippers: Seniors Share Thanksgiving Meal With Marines Who Saved Them From Fire, also,  The Greatest Threat To American Journalism Is The Loss Of Neutral Reporting
Mark Steyn: Probe-A-Palooza, also, It’s Open Line Black Friday!


Black Friday Deals
Just For Prime Members
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Queer Feminism at DePaul University

Posted on | November 23, 2018 | 1 Comment

They’re all about ‘inclusion.’

The last time I paid attention to DePaul University (annual cost of attendance $54,210, including room and board) was in 2016, when students rioted over Milo Yiannopoulos’s appearance on campus and Kayla Johnson, an African and Black Diaspora Studies major, took a swing at the speaker. A nominally Catholic school, DePaul is an overpriced institution providing a second-rate education to third-rate students. No reasonably well-informed Catholic parent would permit their child to attend DePaul, which has become a “social justice” garbage pile of perverse insanity with moral standards even lower than its nearly non-existent intellectual standards. Consider this description of a February 2016 event on the DePaul campus:

The Center for Identity, Inclusion & Social Change, LGBTQ Studies and the LGBTQ Faculty and Staff Network at DePaul University hosted an intergenerational discussion concerning the identity label “lesbian” Feb. 29 at DePaul University’s Student Center.
Faculty members Lourdes Torres (professor of Latin American and Latino Studies) and Ann Russo (associate professor and graduate program director in women’s and gender studies and director of LGBTQ Studies) facilitated the talk.
Also on hand were DePaul University students and staff members Katy Weseman (LGBTQA student services coordinator at the Center for Identity, Inclusion & Social Change), Sara Furr (director, Center for Intercultural Programs) and Suresh Mudragada (assistant director at the Center for Identity, Inclusion & Social Change), among others. . . .
Russo said she identifies as a “lesbian with queer politics and a queer vision.” She noted the work she’s done in the area of lesbian-centered scholarship and activism, including the Battered Lesbian Network (in Boston), Lesbians Against Racism and Dykes Against Oppression.

Isn’t that special? The “inclusion” program at DePaul includes “Social Justice Peer Advocates,”  participating in the Chicago Dyke March, an annual student drag show, Spectrum DePaul, Queer People of Color (QPOC) DePaul, and Act Out DePaul, an “LGBTQIA+ activist organization” that sponsors the annual “Lavender Graduation” for LGBTQIA+ students. Dyke marches, drag queens and social justice — that’s your $54,210-a-year “Catholic” education at DePaul.

‘Social Justice Peer Advocates’ at DePaul University.

Oh, the academic requirements at DePaul are so demanding:

A new course scheduled for the winter quarter at DePaul University will examine how gender plays a role in social media.
“Sex, Gender, and Social Media” (AMS 352) will focus “on the gendered and sex/sexuality content of major social media platforms and networking sites, such as Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit, and Tumblr” to “ground our understanding of social media platforms in the context of established scholarship on social community development, cultural and media studies, and feminist and queer (LGBTQA) studies.”
The course promises to examine scenarios as “multiply-identified,” which means each example and social media platform will be dissected through lenses such as “class, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and ability.”
Sex, Gender, and Social Media aims to “examine how these platforms offer new opportunities for sexual education, sexual and erotic/romantic expression, the negotiation and exploration of sexual and gender identities, and feminist/queer media criticism, social activism, and community.”
It also promotes the idea that “global capitalism” and “neoliberal ideology” are “troubling aspects” of social media. The course will further examine how social media serves as a new outlet through which people can launch “public attacks on women and queer people.”

Basically, it’s a scheme to give academic credit to “social justice” snowflakes for whining about how oppressed they are.

Did I mention that earlier this year, the DePaul Women’s Center held an event with “sex workers” advocating prostitution? One speaker at the event said she is “training to be a professional dominatrix,” and said being a sex worker is “empowering because I’m able to express myself and my sexuality in a way that makes me feel attractive, in a way that makes me feel fun and happy.” Empowering happy whores at DePaul!

Also, DePaul was recognized on the list of “10 worst colleges for free speech” by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.



 

Category: Education, Gays, Sex Trouble

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | November 23, 2018 | Comments Off on Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

by Smitty

“It’s just a flesh wound! Come back here & I’ll bite your leg off!”

“Sir, no time for Python. Only by some freak of the geometry that the shockwave left six floors. Obviously no nuke. Maybe a MOAB?”
“Yeah, this means that I can quit working on that stupid budget slide deck!”
“Look: have you got toys in the attic, sir? We need a casualty assessment, comms with HQ, and stand by to carry out emergency destruction procedures.”
“HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Destruction? Can’t you see that’s done?”
“OK, Sir. Sit down. Jenkins, see if there’s coffee. I’m assuming command until the CO recovers.”
—
via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

Post-Thanksgiving After-Action Report

Posted on | November 23, 2018 | 1 Comment

We gather together to ask the Lord’s blessing;
He chastens and hastens His will to make known;
The wicked oppressing now cease from distressing;
Sing praises to His Name, He forgets not His own.

Our family sang that ancient hymn — which originated in 16th-century Holland — before we ate the turkey, which was cooked by my son-in-law. We had 15 adults plus four grandchildren for the family meal, the first time all six of our children had been together this year. It was fun. I also offered a pre-meal reading of the following proclamation:

 

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be, that we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation. . . .
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
George Washington

Our holiday joy was made possible by ignoring such insults as this:

 

Notice that this deliberate demonization of white people, as perpetrators of “genocide” (a libel invented by radical activists in the 1960s), is necessary to an assertion of black supremacy — implying that black people are morally superior to whites, and that their Thanksgiving “ritual” is therefore superior to whatever white families do.

What is remarkable to me is not merely that the exercise of identity politics has become so habitual that no one can be allowed to take a day off from it, but that so many white people seem not to care that this kind of hateful nonsense is being promoted in our culture. Dose anyone suppose that anti-white propaganda has no effect? Go read Michael Harriot’s article, “The Caucasian’s Guide to Black Thanksgiving” and notice how many gratuitous anti-white insults he includes, e.g.:

It is about tradition. It is about family. It is the only day of the year where we have a respite from the world around us and we gather to celebrate our delicious blackness without worrying about white people coming around.
Except for that one white girl and her sh–ty tuna casserole.

Was this necessary? Was it humorous? To whom is it funny?

As I say, a joyous holiday requires us to ignore such insults, and Christianity commands us to refrain from answering in kind.  However, now that it’s Friday, I’m back to my usual business of cultural criticism, and I hope intelligent readers will consider what a firestorm of outrage would be generated if any white person did respond to Harriot’s celebration of “delicious blackness” with the level of scorn it deserves.

Here’s a helpful suggestion: Never write anything about race that you would not wish to be read by anyone of any race. I have no problem with Michael Harriot making fun of the kind of “white girl” who would show up at a black family’s Thanksgiving dinner with a tuna casserole, but how many white people might respond to such a joke by saying something genuinely offensive? Among the many things for which we should be thankful this time of year are human decency and courtesy. Amen.

By the way: Be sure to shop Black Friday Deals at Amazon.



 

Category: Family

Was the ‘Deep State’ Conspiracy Against President Trump a Trans-Atlantic Affair?

Posted on | November 22, 2018 | 2 Comments

 

When Steve Bannon and others began speaking of the “Deep State,” many people dismissed this as a paranoid conspiracy theory, without bothering to investigate what this phrase actually signifies. Let me summarize briefly: During the past 25 years or so, since the end of the Cold War, a general consensus about the shape of the international order has emerged among the policy-making elite, and the bureaucracies of the federal government are staffed with people who share this consensus. On a host of issues from climate change to immigration to trade, this consensus has solidified into a sort of secular religion among government employees, who oppose any attempt to disrupt the existing arrangements (e.g., “Brexit” or revising NAFTA). In 2016, those who share this policy consensus were “all-in” for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, because she was committed to a continuation of the status quo, whereas Donald Trump vowed to disrupt the existing order.

The “Deep State” refers to the fact — and it is a now an established fact, not a paranoid theory — that efforts to prevent Trump’s election were supported by personnel of national-security agencies, including the CIA and the FBI. Anyone who has paid attention to the texts between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Pages can see this. And U.S. allies have also been implicated in the effort to prevent Trump’s election:

MI6 [the British intelligence agency] is locked in a secret battle with US President Donald Trump to persuade him not to disclose documents linked to the Russian election-meddling probe — it has been revealed.
Intelligence sources on both sides of the Atlantic told the Telegraph that spy bosses in London were frantically appealing to Trump not to make the classified documents public.
The President’s aides have reportedly hit back with questions over why Britain wants the documents to be kept secret.
But authorities in the UK say they have ‘genuine concern’ about sources being exposed if classified parts of the wiretap request were made public.
Other sources also said MI6 was concerned the publication of the documents would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ for the release of top secret information, and may dissuade future sources from coming forward.
A US based intelligence source said: ‘I think that stuff is going to implicate MI5 and MI6 in a bunch of activities they don’t want to be implicated in, along with FBI, counter-terrorism and the CIA.’
The documents in question concern an FBI request to wiretap former Trump policy adviser Carter Page, submitted a month before the Presidential election in 2016.
Documents show the FBI suspected Page of being lured in by Russian intelligence, and the bureau was given leave to place him under intense surveillance for several months. . . .
Memos describing alleged ties between Trump and Russia compiled by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele are contained in the papers, which may form part of the reason for Britain’s concern.
Steele is most notable for authoring a dossier which claims Russia collected a file of compromising information on Trump.

Whatever policy quarrels Americans might have amongst ourselves, we ought to be able to agree that policy should be determined by elected officials, and not by the “hired help.” Employees of the FBI and the CIA are not independent policy-makers, but must answer to the President and to Congress. If federal employees are permitted to use their offices to interfere in the electoral process — effectively, to choose their own bosses — then the government ceases to be the servant of the people, and becomes the master. The manufactured outrage over “Russian collusion,” claiming that Trump is a Putin puppet, is a distraction from the issue of how the bureaucratic apparatus of the federal government has become a subversive influence in our politics and an obstacle to real reform.

What the alarm in British intelligence agencies shows is that “Deep State” operatives like Peter Strzok had the assistance of “Deep State” operatives in the U.K. in attempting to prevent Trump’s election. The claims by MI6 that declassification of these wiretaps might reveal sensitive counter-terrorism secrets are almost certainly a bogus argument, as what they actually seek to conceal is the extent to which Her Majesty’s government was part of a corrupt project intended to help elect Hillary Clinton.



 

Category: Corruption

Thank God for Liberals

Posted on | November 22, 2018 | Comments Off on Thank God for Liberals

 

If it weren’t for liberals, we might enjoy our turkey in peace:

Around this time every year, coastal media trot out a series of articles “preparing” a very particular set of readers for encounters with opinions unlike their own, which says more about them than the subject of their writing, but anyway…
This year is no different, except for the fact that their attempts to normalize contentious Thanksgiving Dinner conversation are far less veiled than years past. Once upon a time, there was at least a pretense of impartiality. But this is 2018 and everything with which they disagree is abhorrent and at the very least, racist.

Like the Pilgrims, liberals are convinced of their own moral superiority. The rest of us are ignorant savages, in need of enlightenment.

Here’s the thing, though: No actual effort is necessary for the liberal to feel superior to others. All he has to do is to espouse the appropriate belief — and vote Democrat — and he’s better than you. This is why liberalism tends to flourish in fields like academia, journalism and show business, where everything is about words and ideas. Also, liberalism is common among atheists, for whom it functions as a substitute for religion, and is rare among Christians. If you think of yourself as dependent upon God’s grace, you’re not a liberal because (a) liberalism is a godless creed, and (b) the liberal believes everyone is, or should be, dependent on the federal government. Their grim atheist belief system makes liberals humorless and hateful:

Student groups at the University of Oregon are hosting an event on Tuesday to “decolonize” Thanksgiving.
The UO’s Native American Law Students Association and the Native American Student Union are hosting an event, titled, “Thanks But No Thanks-giving: Decolonizing an American Holiday.” The event will focus on how people can continue to give thanks, while at the same time “raising [their] critical consciousness and identifying ways to decolonize the holiday.”
“Millions of families gather together every year to celebrate Thanksgiving in the United States. Many Americans do not grow up thinking much of the history behind the holiday,” the event description states. “The main messages are that of gratitude, food, and family; however, Thanksgiving is, foundationally speaking, a celebration of the ongoing genocide against native peoples and cultures across the globe.”
Several departments at the university are sponsoring the event, including the Division of Student Life, University Counseling Center, Division of Equity and Inclusion, and Center for Multicultural Academic Excellence.

So, yes, be thankful for the liberals who show up at your Thanksgiving feast, to remind you how lucky you are to maintain your sanity.



 

Category: Liberals
« go back — keep looking »