The Political Theatre Gets Violent -- Almost

Today's headlines are full of the five bombs mailed to prominent Democrats -- and a former CIA official at CNN's office -- all of which were caught by their own security teams.  The bombs were apparently real, but didn't go off, not one of them.  As an old revolutionary myself, I find this intriguing.  The bombs were obviously made by a professional, with plenty of experience in explosives and demolition -- but wouldn't such a professional have considered that nowadays high-profile targets do have expert security teams?  That in itself makes me wonder, as does the timing: early in Election Week.

And of course the Democrats and their sympathetic media are blaming it all on Trump, with his "violent and divisive rhetoric" -- not to mention his accusing them of using "divisive rhetoric".  And of course that's true;  Maxine Waters -- one of the abortive targets -- has made herself famous over the past several weeks for noisily urging all good Parlor Pinks to go out and harass Republicans at home and in public -- which a lot of them then did, as plenty of videos on YouTube can show.

I'm not ruling out to possibility that this bomb-scare could be a covert Democrat-planned False Flag attack.  The gods know, I've seen them before.

And I'm not the only one with suspicions:

Mainstream Media Ignores Poignant Piece of Bomb Maker’s Puzzle

In their never-ending 

quest to demonize conservatives, the corporate media is willfully ignoring an important piece of the puzzle.

Published

 8 hours ago

on

 October 24, 2018 

By

 Andrew West  

There is a major point being overlooked by the mainstream media during today’s attempted bombing spree of political entities.

Television’s corporate media are focusing heavily on the Trump-connection in todays’ incidents, repeatedly reminding the world that all of those affected by the delivery of these dangerous devices are people who have criticized Donald Trump in the past.  The problem with this logic is that it is completely one-sided, at least according to reality.

We cannot forget that men such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were also major critics of the President at one point.

The insinuation that these bombings are aimed solely to those who oppose the President isn’t the full picture here, and I’ll explain.

First, those who have so far been targeted are not just democrats or liberals.  They are globalists, each and every one of them.  For George Soros to be targeted first, and then this slew of other students of his, is a substantial piece of the puzzle that few in the corporate media are willing to talk about.  The bomber or bombers has not gone after your everyday democrats, or even the democratic socialists who oppose Trump.

They’ve spared Bernie Sanders and Alexnadria Ocasio-Cortez, and that is significant.

Also, every one of these devices had the same phony return address:  That of former DNC head Debbie Wassermann Schultz.

CNN reports that the package bombs had the (fake) return address of "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz," and there was a package that was addressed to Eric Holder, but it had the wrong address and was sent "back" to Wasserman-Schultz's office in FL, prompting evacuation of her office.

— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) October 24, 2018

What does this mean?

Schultz was the DNC head fired for her role in stealing the 2016 from Bernie Sanders and allowing Hillary Clinton to effectively take over the organization.  She was blackballed for her role in the process, and shunned from politics as a whole.  Democratic citizens were furious with Schultz’s actions, believing that they shattered the sanctity of the democratic process in favor of pushing Clinton, a known globalist and friend of George Soros, over Bernie Sanders – a man that many believed had a better shot of defeating Trump in a general election.

By putting Debbie Wassermann-Schultz down as the “return address” on these bombs, this terrorist could very easily be attempting to make a political point about how these democrats and globalists have completely ruined the idea of American liberty.  Schultz annihilated the political process on the left, and essentially handed the presidency to Donald Trump by pushing forward with the nomination of Hillary Clinton – a candidate who was not only flawed, but polling poorly against Trump at the time of their scheme’s hatching.

Essentially, Schultz ruined the democrats’ chances to ever regain the trust of the American people.  These devices, with their premeditated return addresses, could be certainly be attempting to reiterate that point on a national scale.

Remember folks, these bombs have not been proven to be targeting anti-Trump forces.  All we know now is that they are targeting globalist democrats with a return address belonging to the woman who single-handedly sabotaged the entire DNC in 2016.

--David West

Was that the equivalent of the severed horse's head in "The Godfather"?  

The devil is in the details, and there are a lot of smoky details here.  I doubt if they'll be revealed before the end of Election Week, but then, a lot of voters are suspicious already.  And then there are all the voters who have voted already, early, by mail.  

If there's anything the 2016 election taught us, it's that the voters are not so manipulable or predictable as the experts think.

--Leslie  <;)))><

(P.S. Sorry about the ad below;  I couldn't get rid of the damn thing.)   

Pre-Election Theater: The Caravan

It should be obvious by now that the migrant caravan coming up from Honduras was carefully set up to embarrass Trump, just as the election -- starting with the early/mail-in ballots -- is beginning.  Who did the manipulating is pretty obvious too.  There are small videos -- plainly taken with personal cell-phones, and therefore unverifiable, but telling -- which show what appear to be well-dressed Honduran agents paying lots of not-so-well-dressed Honduran young men to get on the trucks and join the "caravan".  The interesting part of the videos, and of professional news-media videos too, is that the overwhelming majority of those "migrants" are military-age men.  If, as the migrants claim, they're fleeing from violence at home, then where are the women, children, and old people?  Yes, the DNC does have enough supporters with very deep pockets to outright hire some 7000 men to march all the way through Mexico to assault the US border.  After all, a similar invasion a few months back gave the Democrats and the media lots of shame-shame fodder to use against Trump and, by extension, the entire GOP.  Other than that, the welcome the first "asylum invasion" got actually did discourage real illegal immigrants from jumping the border for several months.  This caravan is a clear political set-up.  The number of American pro-immigrant Leftist demonstrators who have gone down to Mexico precisely in order to join the caravan is pretty clear proof of that.

As the target of this campaign, with this little time left, just what can Trump -- or any of the US govt. do?

Well, he has already tried getting the Mexican govt. to stop the invasion, but Mexico had been notoriously bad about that, and the caravan is making its way across Mexico without much interference.  He's likewise threatened to cut off the foreign-aid funds to Honduras, Guatemala and every other country involved, and while this will hurt their pockets next year, it isn't doing much right now.

So he's promising to call up the US military, and the Democrats are already howling "unconstitutional!" -- which is ironic coming from them. 

But is it really unconstitutional to call up the army to stop an invasion?  Invasion is exactly what this is.   

Note that the Mexican, Honduran and Guatemalan police that have made some effort to stop the caravan claim to have caught some "middle-eastern" members of the so-called Honduran group, which is excuse enough.  The US is, after all, fighting Jihadists in the middle-east.  That makes illegal and covert "middle-eastern" border-jumpers agents of an enemy power in war-time. 

That's excuse enough.

So, regardless of how the media will slant and howl, the best thing those US troops can do is wait at the border, catch everyone who tries to sneak across, and round them up.  They can do it with non-lethal weapons such as stunners or gas.  Round up the whole 7000+ of them, shove them in planes and carry them off to....  Where?

Well, both Peru and Argentina have shown willingness to take them in, and they can be paid off to do it with the foreign-aid money that used to go to Honduras,  El Salvador, Mexico, et al.  When the assorted Left bawls about a "humanitarian crisis", point out -- loudly -- that transporting the illegals to someplace that's willing to take them in is a damned sight more "humanitarian" than shooting the invaders outright.  Above all, keep on calling them invaders!

Sure, sure, they insist that they're only coming here to get safety, work, and "a better life for themselves".  Well, all invaders are trying to get a better life for themselves!  The Mongol hordes who swept into China, leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  The original Spanish Conquistadors who marched into Central and South America, slaughtering the Indians as they went, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  The Nazis who rolled into Poland in 1939, thus setting off World War Two, were only trying to get a better life for themselves.  Nobody makes the effort to invade someone else's land to get a worse life for themselves! 

Yes, this is an invasion --- part of an invasion that's been going on for a long time -- and we should call it by its rightful name.  Being honest about the situation should win Trump a few brownie-points in the election at least.

--Leslie <;)))><   

Racism for Power and Hypocrisy

--Leslie <;)))>< 

I try to avoid quoting other writers in my blog (I mean, this is supposed to show off my writing, you know),  but every now and again I come across something I've just got to pass on -- like this piece by Roger Simon.  He's had so many of the same experiences and observations I have that it's like watching a home movie.  As the political mud-slinging in the media grows to a frenzied pitch with the approach of the mid-term election, it helps to see a head-clearing statement like this one.  Though written more than three years ago, it's absolutely applicable today.

"Ninety percent of the racism in America today comes from the Democratic Party and the Left.  They live off it and exploit it.  It is unconscionable to the degree they do this, ruining the lives and futures of the very people they say they are helping in the process.

"I am uniquely positioned to say this because I spent most of my life on the Left and was a civil rights worker in the South in my early twenties. I was also, to my everlasting regret, a donor to the Black Panther Party in the seventies.

"So I have seen this personally from both sides and my conclusion is inescapable.  The Left is far, far worse. They are obsessed with race in a manner that does not allow them to see straight.  Further, they project racism onto others continually, exacerbating situations, which in most instances weren't even there in the first place.  From Al Sharpton to Hillary Clinton, they all do it.

"Barack Obama is one of the worst offenders in this regard.  Recently, in reaction to the horrid actions of the deranged, but solitary racist Dylann Root, the president claimed racism is in our DNA.

"How could he possibly utter such nonsense and who was he talking about?  The majority of Americans are from families that came to this country after slavery existed.  Many of those were escaping oppression of their own.  In my case my family was fleeing  the pogroms of Eastern Europe.  Many of the members of my family who stayed behind ended up gassed in Auschwitz or exterminated in Treblinka.

"Is Obama telling me that racism is in my DNA?  What a wretched and insulting statement.  If he means that, he should tell it to me face-to-face.  If he does, I will tell him what I think.  The racial situation in this country has gotten decidedly worse since he took office.  And he is a great deal to blame.  Ever since the beer summit it was obvious he was disingenuous and harmful on the subject of race, seeking to stir the pot when it was actually empty or nearly.  

"His claim that if he had had a son he would look like Travyon Martin was ridiculous and self-serving in the extreme.  Barack Obama is a product of the fanciest private school in Hawaii and his children go to Sidwell Friends, the fanciest school in D. C.  He takes vacations on Oahu and his wife parties in Switzerland. He had as much in common with Trayvon as I do with the queen of Spain. 

__Roger Simon"

The Kavanaugh Mud-Wrestling Contest

So Kavanaugh was finally confirmed for the Supreme Court by a vote of 50 to 48, thus ending one of the worst mud-slinging campaigns in US political history.  Nobody came clean out of this one.

It was understood from the start that the Democrats would oppose any candidate Trump proposed, for fear of having a "conservative" SCOTUS for the next 20 years or more, and of course in revenge for the GOP holding up Obama's judiciary choices, but in this case the partisan tactics reached the downright disgusting level -- enough to p!ss off a sizable number of the voters.  What was Maxine Waters thinking when she ran around encouraging Antifaa and BLM, whipping up crowds to publicly harass elected officials -- and their staffs, and their families, in the hopes that this would pressure Congress into voting her way?  Did congressional aide Jackson Cosko think that broadcasting the private health information of GOP senators would be glossed over as legitimate "free speech"?  Did Senator Feinstein really believe that sitting on Dr. Ford's accusation for months, only to spring it just days before the scheduled confirmation vote wasn't an obvious political manipulation?  Now of course I could be biased, having hated Feinstein ever since she rode to her big career break over the body of Harvey Milk, but the way she's behaved during this whole campaign is really ugly.

Now, to be sure, the worst witness against Kavanaugh turned out to be himself;  in his testimony he lost his cool bigtime, ranting and whining like the very prep-school drunken frat-boy he's accused of being -- and he provably lied to Congress.  In a less ferociously partisan squabble, those would have been reasons enough to vote him down.  (I'm thinking of Bill Clinton telling Congress "I did not have sex with that woman").  The  problem was that the Democrats had likewise dug their own graves with their own mouths so thoroughly that Congress couldn't trust them -- or their supposed voter support --either.  The Democrats' antics actually made Kavanaugh look better by comparison!

Consider, there were holes and glitches in Dr. Ford's testimony that were never addressed, and should have been.  If the Democrats had succeeded in stretching out the investigation -- hopefully until after the election, as they wanted to -- all of these might have been exposed, to the detriment of the Dems' post-election hopes.  It could also be that the Dems have reason to worry about their expected "blue wave" come election time;  after all, they're already spreading rumors that Russian and North Korean hackers are going to "steal the election for Trump" (on what evidence?), which implies that they're making excuses in advance for a bad loss. 

Now the part of Ford's story that I find most intriguing is that at the age of 15 she managed to fight off a drunken 17-year-old frat-boy.  This implies that, assuming the story is true, Kavanaugh was a very incompetent teenage rapist!  His simply being a teenage frat-boy drunk wouldn't have been much of a scandal if he hadn't denied it before Congress.  Even his tendency to lose his cool under pressure wouldn't have necessarily disqualified him.  All of that put together didn't make him look worse than the Dems made themselves look with their foaming anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh hysteria. 

Why did they let themselves go like that?  Was it just because they really believed that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?  Not even the furthest-right of Trump supporters actually thought there was a chance of that, whatever hopes and dreams they may have cherished.  I have to wonder what the Dems were really afraid of.  Am I just being Anarchist-Paranoid in thinking that the Dems have been planning a big gun-control push, and knew that a non-leftist SCOTUS would never support it?

Or could it be that the Dems have begun to realize that the old definitions of Right and Left have come unglued, that the media don't have the power they think they have, and the American electorate is much less predictable than the analysts and experts thought?