November 2017
« Oct    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information

Archive for November 5th, 2017


At least 26 killed in Texas church shooting 11/05/17 02:06 PM EST

Dozens of people were killed when a man opened fire in a church on Sunday in Sutherland Springs, Texas.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) confirmed in a press conference on Sunday that at least 26 people have been killed in what he described as the state’s largest mass shooting to date.
The gunman was also killed, though authorities said it was not clear if the suspect had killed himself or had been shot by law enforcement.
Multiple news outlets, including The Associated Press, have identified the shooter as Devin Kelley, though officials at the press conference declined to give the suspect’s name.
According to one law enforcement official at the briefing, the suspect was first seen at a gas station across the street from the First Baptist Church, about 40 miles outside San Antonio, at around 11:20 a.m. The suspect then drove over to the church, exited his vehicle and began shooting. He then entered the church, where he continued firing his weapon.
At some point, according to the official, a local resident grabbed his own rifle and engaged the shooter. The suspect then got into his vehicle and drove off. He was later found dead in his car, though it wasn’t clear if he had shot himself or if police had shot him.
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are working with local law enforcement at the scene.
“I’m not sure we’ll know immediately why all of this happened or had to happen,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told CNN on Sunday. “It would not shock me if it takes more than a day or two, it may take weeks to unravel why this person decided to do this horrific thing.”
Paxton noted that Sunday’s shooting took place eight years to the day after 13 people were killed at Fort Hood.
Sutherland Springs is a rural town of less than 1,000 people. One woman, who works at a gas station across the street from the church, told ABC News she heard rapid gunfire that lasted about 15 seconds.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told pool reporters that President Trump has been briefed on the shooting.
“The President has been briefed several times and is continuing to receive regular updates on the tragic shooting in TX,” Sanders said. “The President spoke with Gov. Abbott earlier this morning. We will keep you posted as we can share more details. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the friends and families affected. May God comfort them all in this time of tragedy.”
Trump, who’s currently in Asia for a 12-day, five-nation tour, tweeted not long after reports of the shooting. 
“May God be w/ the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI & law enforcement are on the scene. I am monitoring the situation from Japan,” Trump wrote.

The Biggest of all The Lies Put Out By The Global Warming Scaremongers is That The Science is on Their Side.

The István Markó Interview: Possibly the Best
Thing You Will Ever Read on Global Warming.
Pt 1: The Science.

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the global warming scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of global warming.
Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.
Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English translation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.
CO2 is not – and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There have been periods where the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now. Life thrived.
During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes ​​of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
Animals need CO2 too. And by the way – forests are not the ‘lungs of the earth’…
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70 percent of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees. Contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.
It is not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. Reports of its influence have been exaggerated
It is worth remembering here too that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04 percent of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2 percent in the atmosphere. Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.
Climate change is natural
Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.
Don’t worry about shrinking glaciers. We’ve been here before…
In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.
Sea level rise is normal
Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99 percent of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[1] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.
[1] The island shores are eroded by the persistent pounding of the ocean waves. This is perceived as ‘sinking’ or as ‘sea level rise,’ but the upward creep of the waters is due to island soil being washed away.
The polar ice caps are fine too
Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years. One may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but, on average, that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Arctic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years and, similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and so on.
Extreme weather events are actually decreasing
From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.
Recent warming is modest – much smaller than the alarmists’ various computer models predicted
If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest, that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures, for which there is no precision data[1], except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.
Claims by alarmist ‘experts’ that 2016 was that ‘hottest year ever’ are pure balderdash
The World Meteorological Organization – another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum – declares 2016 the year the warmest of history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see the absurdity of this statement. For those who don’t understand, this means that the variation in temperature can be of + 0.12°C (global warming) or -0.08°C (global cooling). In short, we can’t say anything and WMO has simply lost its mind.
No, ‘climate change’ hasn’t led to an increase in tropical diseases
Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on climate change comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of vaccinations, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.
Again, CO2 is greening the planet. And that’s a good thing. So stop demonizing it!
Present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they, therefore, consume less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2level in the atmosphere makes plants need less water so they can afford to colonize arid regions.



Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people standing


Compiled & Written by WebMaster

As an American Citizen I am sick and tired of hearing the word “RACIST” every time the democrats speak out on issues, it really does not fit into American Society today.  Yes, we have people or fringe groups who may act in a racist way, but you do not condemn the nation for the faults of a few!  It is time we as a nation of one people come together to work to make America the greatest place to live and raise our families in the world


Why Does Black America consistently vote for a party that for better part of 163 years, has tried everything in their power to keep Black Americans from becoming free citizens of the United States of America?

What has/did the First Black Elected President of the United States chosen by a large majority of Black Americas do for the Black Citizens of this Nation in his 8 years in office?

All the ranting we have heard over the past 8 years under President Barrack Obama’s Administration always had the word “Racist” embedded somewhere in the rhetoric;, “Racist” was also the Battle Cry of the 2016 democratic campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, this has not changed since President Trump was Elected, the Democrats are still calling conservatives and the president “Racist” !

If you look at the facts below, study them closely, please tell me who the “Racist” party is. If you questions these verified facts, the Please show America a list of accomplishments the Democratic party has accomplished to help Black American Citizens over the past 163 years..

Back in 1964 when the civil rights bill came to the floor of the senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the “Southern Bloc” of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”

In 1865 Lincoln put the measure forward for a second vote having failed earlier before he took office to amend the constitution with the 13th Amendment, On the passage of the joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, the aye’s have 119, the no’s 56.” The measure passed by the narrowest of margins, with eight members abstaining. Sixteen Democrats, all but two lame ducks, joined the full slate of Republicans in approving the measure.

The Klu Klux Klan was created by Democrat Party members for the express purpose of terrorizing blacks in the South to prevent them from voting, every known Klansman were members of the Democratic Congress.

The first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

No Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the Democrat Party website ignores those decades of racism.

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before the Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed. Not one single Democrat voted for the 14th Ammendment

13th Amendment: Abolished Slavery 100% Republican Support 23% Democrat Support 14th Amendment: Gave Citizenship to Freed Slaves 94% Republican Support  0% Democrat Support 


March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans’

April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law



“Allahu akbar” “God is the Greatest”

Why the establishment media and public
officials keep mistranslating “Allahu akbar”

They can count on the ignorance of most of their readers, the tacit approval of Muslim leaders who want the real meaning of the phrase obscured, and the assurance that none of their peers will hold them accountable for this inaccuracy, because the truth would be “Islamophobic.”
“Why media, officials mistranslate ‘Allahu akbar,’” by Art Moore, WND, November 2, 2017:
As the horrific news broke Tuesday that the driver of a Home Depot rental truck in New York City had mowed over pedestrians and bike riders, “terrorism” naturally came to the minds of most Americans.
When reports began circulating that witnesses heard the perpetrator yell “Allahu akbar,” even law enforcement officials typically reluctant to apply the terrorism label to such incidents acknowledged they were looking at something more than a tragic accident.
“Allahu akbar” is an Arabic phrase that has become significant in this post-9/11 era, yet in the aftermath of the attack Tuesday in which eight people were killed and a dozen injured, official after official and news outlet after news outlet mistranslated it, insisting it means “God is great.”   An accurate translation – and even Google Translate affirms it – is “Allah is the greatest” or, literally, “Allah is greater,” as in the god Allah is greater than all other gods.   The interpretation is important, contends Islam expert Robert Spencer, because it makes clear that the threat Western Civilization faces is rooted in a historic dogma of global conquest.



Brazile’s revelations stir confusion, anger among Democrats

Former Democratic National Committee (DNC) interim chairwoman Donna Brazile on Sunday further stirred the pot among Democrats, who are already reeling from her revelations about the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats are confronting the implications from excerpts of Brazile’s forthcoming new book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,” including the possibility that the 2016 primary was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton at the expense of her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Some Democrats are calling for party reform, while others are downplaying Brazile’s account.

Read the full story here



Why Is the Mueller Investigation like the Schleswig-Holstein Question?

I’ve been muddling through the week’s events respecting the special counsel’s activities, trying to provide a clearer road map. And even harder — trying to do it in a way that doesn’t make it seem more complicated than need be. A friend reminded me of Lord Palmerston’s observation: “The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
Actually, it may be simpler than that, though not much more.
A good place to start is with Conrad Black. If you recall, he, too, was, was the victim of overzealous prosecution which destroyed his publishing empire and resulted in his serving jail time before much of the case was tossed on appeal.
After detailing the media’s uneasiness in the blowback disaster of the “Russian collusion with Trump” nonsense, he observes:

There is not a shred of evidence to support this, despite fervent efforts by the Obama administration and the special counsel to unearth some. Nor is there any evidence of actual Russian influence on the election result or of any policy change by the present administration toward Russia that the Kremlin would welcome. Nor, though The New York Times clings to the story, has any evidence surfaced that Fusion GPS was initially retained on this file by anti-Trump Republicans. [snip]

As this hydrogen balloon was blowing up like the Hindenburg at the mast at Lakehurst, New Jersey, in 1937, the Uranium One affair was boiling over as a new congressional investigation was launched into the whole issue of about $131 million to $145 million being pledged or paid to the Clinton Foundation as Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for an ordinary speech in Moscow. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder agreed to sell 20 percent of American uranium resources to Russia, through Russian intermediaries then under intensive investigation by the FBI director, Robert Mueller, and by then U.S. attorney in Maryland Rod Rosenstein. [snip]

The trifecta was completed with the revelation that the investigation of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was not based on his brief relations with Donald Trump, but on his lengthy connection with the Democratic Podesta brothers, and the extent to which he helped them funnel wealthy and influential Russians into high governmental circles in Washington.

There need not be anything wrong with this either, but it has nothing to do with Trump and the entire fraudulent defamation that Trump did anything improper with the Russians, much less engage in anything compromising the validity of the 2016 presidential election. That claim is an outrage whose time for asphyxiation has come. Still to be unearthed are the full stories of the Wasserman Schultz skullduggery, and the real story of improper and probably illegal surveillance at Trump Tower. As that will get all the way to President Obama, it may be expected to ooze out slowly and reluctantly, sluggish and foul.[snip] The Russian collusion scam was just a convenient intersection between the denial syndrome of the post-defeat Clintonians and the fear and anger of the garrison of the Washington sleaze factory as the improbable avenger approached.

How far afield from the original appointment of Mueller as special counsel have we gone? Very. Hohn Hinderaker writes at Powerline:

This morning’s Minneapolis Star Tribune reported, in a story that doesn’t seem to have gotten a lot of national attention, that William Mueller’s ever-widening investigation has ensnared Vin Weber, a former Minnesota Congressman and long-time Washington lobbyist: [snip]

Mueller’s operation is leaking on a more or less daily basis. Isn’t that illegal? Aren’t grand jury proceedings supposed to be secret? Maybe the Attorney General should appoint a special counsel to look into possible crimes associated with leaks by Mueller’s staff.

With the emphasis on the Ukrainian lobbying efforts, Mueller’s criminal probe is moving beyond investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia and is aggressively pursuing people who worked as foreign agents without registering with the Justice Department.

But wait! Mueller’s investigation isn’t supposed to “move beyond investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.” The Order appointing Mueller empowers him to investigate “any links an or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and… any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” It seems that the current focus of Mueller’s efforts is lobbying that was carried out on behalf of one of Ukraine’s political factions, or, more broadly, failure to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department by anyone, at any time. This is not what Mueller was appointed to do. [snip]

The special counsel statute is a very poor idea, and Mueller’s implementation of it illustrates why. The job of a special counsel (or special prosecutor, as he was formerly called) is to hang scalps on the wall. Whose scalps, or why they were taken, is incidental at best. President Trump would be fully justified in firing Bill Mueller, but a better idea, in my opinion would be to appoint several more special counsel to look into various Democratic misdeeds. That would bring this whole farce to a screeching halt.

Conrad Black, writing that the Russian collusion story was blowing up, suggested that Wasserman-Schultz had engaged in skullduggery before former DNC head Donna Brazile threw this week’s latest bombshell at the DNC and in particular Hillary Clinton, whom the party appears eager to yank off the stage. Brazile charged that the DNC was nearly bankrupted by Obama and was saved only by cash infusions from Hillary Clinton, but in return for the lifeline, Clinton took control of the party and used that power to cheat Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. More, Brazile argued that the victory fund which was to be used to fund party races down ticket was instead grabbed by Hillary for her own campaign, with very little dribbled out to other candidates.
John Hinderaker, over at Powerline Blog, notes Brazile’s charges amount to a claim that Hillary and the DNC engaged in a “criminal conspiracy”

So Hillary’s campaign paid off the debt and “placed the [Democratic] party on an allowance.” Brazile said she had no knowledge of these arrangements — or even of the party’s perilous financial condition — even though she was an officer of the DNC. It was all Debbie’s fault.

Brazile endorses Politico’s assertion, made in May of last year, that Clinton’s arrangement with the DNC was “essentially… money laundering.” Which seems like a rather dangerous concession for a former DNC chair to make.

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund — that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement — $320,000 — and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn [Ed: the Hillary campaign].


So Brazile sadly told Bernie Sanders that what had been leaked was true: the DNC had rigged the nomination process to ensure Hillary’s victory. [snip]

I think this is grist for a third special counsel: the second, as I have said before, should look into Uranium One, the FBI’s apparent complicity in the cover-up of Uranium One, and collusion between the Clinton campaign and Russians. The third special counsel should investigate whether the Clinton campaign and the DNC violated campaign finance laws or other statutes through their “money laundering” agreement.

Hillary’s refusal to accept the results of the election might prove to be a disaster to the DNC and its officials, but it might be boon to DC’s white-collar criminal defense bar. That is, if we don’t all grow sick and tired of special counsels and do away with them bipartisanly before we reach that point.
But there’s even more: a new report states that FBI Deputy director McCabe is himself in the hot seat.

Documents recently released by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch show that while current FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton, he didn’t do so until days before November’s election. The information was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI that sought records related to McCabe’s involvement with the state Senate campaign of his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe.

McCabe was the Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office when the probe was going on, and therefore controlled resources for the investigation. While the investigation was still underway, in February 2016, McCabe became Deputy Director of the Bureau, thus overseeing the whole operation.

The Clinton investigation officially began in July 2015, but Clinton’s private email server became public knowledge that March. Days after that news got out, Jill McCabe was approached by Clinton associate Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe about running for office and Dr. McCabe announced her candidacy less than a week later. McAuliffe raised nearly $700,000 for the campaign. [snip]

An internal memo, “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” also addressed McCabe’s potential conflicts, including the Clinton investigation. The same document showed that FBI officials had a set answer to questions about McCabe and his wife’s campaign, and that was to say that he did not play any role, attend events, or help support the campaign at all. Despite this, a photograph surfaced of McCabe at a campaign event, and days before the election, a social media page of Dr. McCabe’s showed an image of Andrew with a sign saying, “I am voting for Jill because she is the best wife ever.”

“The FBI is compromised. Mr. McCabe should have been nowhere near the Hillary Clinton investigations,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “That he saw fit to recuse himself only days before the election further demonstrates the FBI’s Clinton email investigation was a sham. No wonder it took a year and a federal lawsuit to get these records. It is well past time for the Justice Department to reopen the Clinton email investigation.”

About the same time Mrs. McCabe was receiving almost ¾ of a million dollars from Clinton friends, a special FBI agent apparently began a criminal investigation of  the agencies involved in the Uranium One deal approval with requests that they preserve the records:

Taken in their totality those FBI special agent notifications now encompassed every member of the CFIUS group who “signed off” on approval of the Uranium One deal.

It would be intellectually dishonest not to see the very likely attachment of the special agent’s action. That is to say an FBI probe originating as an outcome of information retrieved in parallel to the timing of the “criminal probe” of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email use.

The sequence of events highlights a criminal probe starting [early August 2015], followed by notifications to the “Uranium One” CFIUS participants [late August 2015].

If you consider the larger Clinton timeline; along with the FBI special agent requests from identified participants; and overlay the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the leading entity surrounding the probe elements; and the fact that the CFIUS participants were the recipients of the retention requests; well, it’s just too coincidental to think this is unrelated to the Uranium One deal and the more alarming implications.

Further, if you consider this factual researched information against the backdrop of new and current information about the roles of each of the outlined participants; and the knowledge of the mystery FBI informant who was threatened to keep his mouth shut; well, it’s not a leap to connect the dots and see that the top-tier of the FBI (Robert Mueller, James Comey) and DOJ (Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, et al), along with their subordinates, would potentially be in legal jeopardy….

And don’t think that in 2017 these people are not acutely aware of that risk, and signaling their audience [snip] Congress can get, and see, those FBI preservation notification documents without redaction. Congress could then interview the FBI special agent who was obviously in charge of key elements within the 2015 probe. Put the FBI special agent together with the unnamed FBI informant, question them, and discover what they know about the entire Uranium One deal — and there’s the road-map to tear this thing wide open.

Pressure is building to demand that Trump fire McCabe and Mueller and replace Sessions and Rosenstein. I understand the frustrations of those who are calling for such actions. Someday in the future, some or all of those actions might have to be taken. Someday, but not just yet. If the President removed them now, every media flake would be screaming Saturday Night Massacre and cover up. As the facts leak out, discrediting Mueller and his Clintonite crew, steam is building against them. For the moment, why not concentrate on reducing regulations, increasing employment, getting more nominations confirmed, moving a moribund economy back on track, and closing the borders (the importance of which was underlined this week by the horrible massacre in New York City). In the meantime, it appears that Monafort and Gates’ lawyers seem well equipped to pitch battle and I expect Vin Weber’s and Skadden Arps’ are, too. When the extent of the perfidy becomes clear and the first objectives met — and the midterms are over — it may be the right time to act. More simply put, I don’t feel equipped to second-guess a man who is such an artful strategist.
Especially when the people who pitched the grenade in his direction are watching it bounce back.

John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser