Pages

Thursday, July 27, 2017

How to make something fairly trivial sound "really, really bad"

“There was no mystery of who Natalia Veselnitskaya was. A simple Google search would have shown that she was the main in house lawyer for a high level Russian government official whose son was accused by the US DOJ of money laundering from the Magnitsky case in the US,”
So let's decipher this back into plain speak english?
  • Main in-house lawyer - Veselnitskaya's firm handled the case of Denis Katsyv.  She played a role in that criminal case. But in terms of the much publicized civil case here in the United States, Veselnitskaya is not even license to practice law in the United States. So she could not have been officially part of that legal action, much less the "main" attorney. 
  • lawyer for a high level Russian government official whose son was accused - Huh? Why would you represent a family member of a guy accused of a crime?  Reality - the firm actually represented Denis Katsyv (accused of money laundering). They never actually represented his father Petr Katsyv, who was never even named in either the criminal or civil case. 
  • High level government official -  If Petr Katsyv was really "high ranking" they would refer to him by his "high rank" (you know like "defense minister" or "intelligence director"). As it is,  Katsyv is currently a Railroad executive who used to be a Moscow regional transportation official. Perhaps this term would be accurate if you replace the words "high level" with the word "former". 
So it might be better to look at this like one of those seven degrees of Kevin Bacon situations. Natalia Veselnitskaya was part of a firm that once represented someone who's father was a regional transportation official for Moscow.

So all you need to do is switch some phrases around, add some important sounding words and suddenly you have - "close ties to the Kremlin".

Certainly... nobody "really" believes this bullshit?

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

No Trans...

It's no secret that many military leaders were against the policy of allowing transgenders into the military. This was exactly why they pushed so hard to "stall" the implementation of the previous executive order to require the military to accept them. I generally believe that the six month time frame to study the impact, was never more than a stalling tactic to come up with a good reason to justify the preconceived decision. Military leaders originally wanted two years delay.



Keep in mind that transgender people have always been technically banned from serving (at least since transgenderism has become a thing). There was just an order to "change" that policy, that had been stayed pending more study. So technically this is not so much a "change" in policy, as it is a decision to continue the existing policy and to "not" change it to allow transgenders to openly join and serve in the military. 

I would think there is a compromise for this. Certainly, you cannot simply allow people to join the military, force the Government to pay for the surgery, have them out for an extended period of time (recovering), have to monitor the after surgery steps (including ongoing medications), etc... 

If the military can deem someone ineligible for military service  for having eczema (because it's a burden to carry and apply cream in active combat conditions) then certainly you can ban someone for military service who is going to be going through a major elective surgery.  In fact, the list of conditions that disqualifies a person for military service is extensive. Pretty much anything that requires daily medication disqualifies you (as it would create an undo burden on the military to have to provide such medications under combat situations). Obviously you do not want to see a diabetic die in a combat environment because they ran out of insulin. 

It seems to me that this isn't so much "discrimination" as the left will argue, as it is that the left is crying "discrimination" in order to force the military to make a medical exception as it pertains to Transgenders who likely require daily hormone and other medications to fight possible medical complications from a sex change operation.

So either the person agrees not to have the surgery while in active duty, or enlists after their medical issues have been resolved (and no longer require daily attention).  Then I would believe that there would be little reason to ban individuals who agree to those conditions. 

Liberal Logic...

We should have the FBI investigate, hold two congressional investigations, and call for a special prosecutor to look into unfounded allegations of collusion between Russia and Trump in regards to possible election meddling. Meddling that has not been proven to have altered the vote count, corrupted the voting process, prevented one person from voting, allowed one ineligible person to vote, or directly changed the results of the election.

Even after  spending over a year investigating these allegations (between the FBI, the House, the Senate, and Special Counsel) without coming up with any proof or evidence of any such collusion what-so-ever.

and keeping in mind that this has "always" been a conspiracy theory with no evidence backing it...

liberals feel it necessary to "expand" said investigation into prior business dealings of the President and his associates... some of which is going back 10 years... in order to try to find "something".

Al of this is done under the mantra surrounding the critical importance of election integrity.


However, even as there is resounding evidence of thousands of dead people voting, thousands of ineligible felons voting, people voting in multiple locations, improper registrations, empirical evidence of people able to walk in and vote illegally....

These same people who demand election integrity is of critical importance argue that even an initial analysis of election data should be ended at "all cost" because such a study is "scam".  They are so against "any look" into this, that they demand States refuse to turn over any of the data that would be needed for just the initial analysis.

These same people argue (ironically) that the federal government having this information would be an invasion of privacy... even though anyone who files a tax return, has a driver's license or state ID, or basically lives a real life as an American citizen already provides the Federal Government with access to 99% of that information and more (the only thing that this information would reveal is voting patterns).

There is simply no cognitive argument "against" someone looking into possible voter fraud, unless of course election integrity is of "no" importance to you what-so-ever.

Bottom line:  Liberals should "pick a side". Either election integrity is so important that we need to follow every rumor, every conspiracy theory, and every allegation and throw everything but the kitchen sink at it... or we need to let it all go because all of it is unnecessary and an invasion of privacy.

But you can't have it both ways. You cannot logically argue that unfounded conspiracy theories should investigated till the end of time (because it involves allegations against Trump), while proven election fraud should be ignored because your personal opinion is that it's probably not relevant enough to have changed anything in past elections and probably won't change anything in future elections.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Why Liberals should join the call to fire Mueller...

So the dishonest pile of crap lies argument from the left is that they honestly want to find out about any and all possible Russian influence on the election but only to the degree it harmed Hillary because it's a matter of national security and election integrity.  Liberal will demand that everyone should agree that getting to the bottom of Russian election influence is one of the most important issues we currently are dealing with. We should stop at nothing to take down Donald Trump at all costs  get to the truth.

I have read dozens of articles from the left very similar to the following:
Here's the main point that Kushner (and Trump and everyone else who peddles this bait-and-switch argument) misses: A foreign adversary launched a broad and well-resourced campaign against our political system last year; this should be a matter of bipartisan concern and outrage. Period.
But even if one takes Team Trump at its current word (and there have been several, each evolving as more facts have dripped out), the Russia attack is a big, big deal. In other words, even if one buys that there was no meaningful collusion or cooperation with Russia (not for lack of interest!) and that Russia didn't have any effect at all on one of the closest, most unlikely elections in U.S. history, the mere fact that a hostile power tried to disrupt our political system merits a strong national response. That's not "fake news," and it's not a "witch hunt." It's fact.
The more nefarious explanation of course is that Trump and company are trying to dismiss the smoke because they want to cover up the fire. The truth is for Robert Mueller, the independent counsel, to sort out.

So taking liberals at their word here... and assuming that is not just some transparent manner to disrupt and discourage the Trump Presidency... then why would we want to take this important investigation out of the hands of the FBI (which was focusing solely on Russian involvement in the 2016 election) and turn it over to a guy who hired a bunch of pro-Hillary lawyers and according to all sources is currently investigating Paul Manafort's old money laundering allegations and 10 year old Donald Trump business dealings?

Unless people on the left are willing to admit that this has absolutely nothing to do with Russian meddling in the 2016 election... and everything to do with trying to undermine and take down President Trump... then they should be coming out guns blazing demanding that the Deputy Attorney General fire Mueller for taking his eye off the ball, and either appoint someone willing to take on the "most important question of our generation" or hand it back to the FBI.

But we all know the truth, don't we?

The Party of Science loses their bid to withhold voter data for analysis...

A federal judge on Monday rejected complaints that President Trump’s voter integrity commission was breaking the law by requesting and storing states’ voter data, saying that as long as the panel is just advisory, it doesn’t need to meet strict standards that would apply to government agencies.
Commission Vice Chairman Kris W. Kobach welcomed the ruling and told The Washington Times that they’ll soon reach out to states to renew their request for information, which he had put on hold while the judge was deciding.
“Several states have already said they’re standing by ready to send in the publicly available voter rolls,” Mr. Kobach said.
A number of states have also balked at sharing their voter data with the commission — even though many of them make the same information available for purchase by campaigns, political parties, researchers or even the general public.
Mr. Kobach said his latest count is that about a dozen states are saying they’ll refuse, though he said some of them may reconsider. Meanwhile, more than 30 states have indicated they’ll cooperate to varying degrees.
He said some of those states have laws that do require payment for the information, and he said the commission will comply with those laws.
“Sometimes the left-leaning media was trying to spin that into a state saying no, and that’s not the case at all,” he said

Make no mistake... the "Party of science" only wants objected data driven analysis when they can control and manipulate the data to say what they want it to say.  One has to wonder what exactly these states (who are refusing to comply) have to hide?

Ultimately, considering most of this data is available to the general public (or should be) it will be difficult for states to refuse to even "sell" the data to the Federal Government as they would a campaign or political party. Imagine if states were allowed to pick and choose who they provided data to and who they didn't. How long would it be till a state with a Republican Governor and Republican congress decided to only sell their voter data to the GOP and not the Democrats?

When the Democrats are done looking for collusion...

Maybe they can help O.J. find the real killer?

"Whoever wore these had small hands... you know, like Donald Trump."

Monday, July 24, 2017

Such smug arrogance in being completely wrong!



Heilemann doubts that Trump telling the truth about Schumer blaming "themselves" and not the Russians for the election loss. His cohort finds the idea equally amusing.  Even the introduction came with a mocking grin. So what did Schumer actually say?
"When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don't blame other things — [James] Comey, Russia — you blame yourself ... So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
Do these media idiots from CNN and MSNBC ever get tired of being dead wrong? More to the point, do they really believe that anyone (other than themselves) are actually "falling for" the rhetoric that Trump is President because of Russia??

Schumer's statement is common sense. Something that the left wing media has little of these days.

Kid Rock Leads

Okay - technically they both trail "undecided/refused to answer" - but it sort of tells you just exactly how weak Stabenow is in Michigan. https://delphianalytica.org/kidrock-stabenow-michigan/

Kid Rock - 30%
Debbie Stabenow - 26%
Undecided - 44%