Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Assange and the Trump-Mueller Quid Pro Quo 'Deal'

As we were writing yesterday's post we kept thinking on Wikileaks' Julian Assange, his very recent arrest overseas and extradition to the US

We've always thought it quite odd that the person who supposedly is the #1 reason Trump was able to sway enough independents and undecided voters to support him in 2016 was now the President's enemy and had to be arrested

Also found it so strange his arrest came just mere days after Mueller announced his investigation had concluded.

So how did this arrest come about, you may wonder..
Ecuador recently expelled Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, from its embassy in London even though he had been living there with asylum since 2012, fearing extradition to the United States.

Less than two months before, the inconsequential third-world backward South American country secured a $4.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Who basically owns and runs the IMF, contributing more money then the rest of the world combined (over 16% if its annual budget) and had absolute veto power?

Us the US of course...
And the last time the IMF gave a loan to Ecuador was 2016 for only $364 million, and it was to help them rebuild after a devastating earthquake.

The IMF has always been set up not as a means to help poorer nations but to use cash to exert international pressure such as UN votes, support for 'coalition of the willing' wars, etc

The timing seems a little too perfect to be a coincidence, yes?
For those who may have forgotten, about a month prior to the election thousands upon thousands of documents were released from the DNC servers showing how deeply corrupt both Hillary and the mainstream media were with many emails demonstrating direct coordination between journalists and her campaign as to best coordinate Trump attacks, write puff pieces, etc

Without the leaks, we sincerely believe Hillary would have won so admittedly we hold a soft spot for Assange

It reminds us of an anecdote..
A guy rushes into a police department to tell an officer that he has very credible information that a bank will be robbed at a specific day and time in the future, and gives all the details and particulars to authorities so to prevent it

The officer then asks how the information was retrieved and is told that the other person hacked into the evildoer's email server

So the authorities tell the man that they can't arrest the person planning the bank robbery because it is not against the law to think, dream, or plan a crime but hacking is illegal so the good citizen pays the price.
If Assange is found guilty, its ironic and sickening he'd spend more time in US prison than the putrid closet dyke Hillary or anyone working on her campaign or any journalist who secretly worked for her..

So really nothing would surprise us anymore..

Perhaps the deal made a while ago was Trump change his tune foreign policy wise as step 1, when its demonstrated that he has, Mueller will be instructed to immediately end the investigation with a report than exonerates Trump and the deal is completed when Assange is arrested and brought to the US
Maybe there's more to the deal than what we are expressing but you better believe there was a backdoor deal agreed upon

So now Trump can feel he can win 2020 without worry, the establishment Dems feel they can still get him on the argument he's Putin's pawn and  the Neo-Cons and Intelligence Community are very happy

Who doesn't love a deal where everyone claims victory... ~eyes rolled~

Monday, April 29, 2019

Why Did the Mueller Investigation End Specifically When It Did?

Overall we didn't bother spending much time over the past 2+ years covering the whole Russia "meddling" hoax because to be honest about it, either the accusations weren't true or they were yet the US has meddled in foreign elections for decades so we weren't going to get all holier than thou over it

By extension, outside of writing on the tweets and texts of the two lovers who expressed deep Trump hate while working for Robert Mueller, we didn't bother covering the ins and outs of the process

But now that the investigation is over and the report submitted, we did wonder one thing from a strategic point of view:

Why did Robert Mueller end the Russia investigation when he did?
He could have let it drag it out for another year or so and severely hurt Trump’s chances for reelection. Not like he was under a time deadline to wrap things up..

But he didn’t do that.     Ok, Why?

To star to answer, you have to understand that the investigation was never intended to uncover the truth.    It was a sham investigation from the start.

If it was genuine, then Mueller would have interviewed Julian Assange,  and retired members of the Intelligence Community who have shown that the Podesta emails were leaked by an insider (on a thumb drive) and not hacked by foreign agents.
Mueller would have also seized the servers at DNC headquarters and done the necessary forensic investigation, which he never did.

He also would have indicted senior-level agents at the FBI and DOJ who improperly obtained FISA warrants by withholding critical information from the FISA court.

He didn’t do that either.

Because Mueller did none of these things it demonstrates that his final report was what many people had expected from the very beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller’s particular objectives.
But to understand what those objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. So, here they are:

* To help sabotage Trump’s political agenda

* To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump’s election

* To prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia.
The real objective was to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage or, even worse, a traitor.

The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment and Mueller played a key role in this travesty.

His assignment was to undermine Trump’s moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment over his head, and so a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington.
So then the question becomes why did Mueller give up all that power when he did?

The answer lies in the title of one of Trump's books i.e. 'The Art of the Deal'

We will start with a quote from candidate Trump in 2016:

“We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… 

We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”
Not a very Neo-Con George W Bush-like position is it?

Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime change wars? No more destabilizing coups? No more bloody military interventions?

That's what we do?   We're good at it..

But here's this guy.. this TV personality saying on the campaign trail that we’re going to work collaboratively with countries like Russia and China to see if we can settle regional disputes and fight terrorism together?  Seriously?!
Instead of foreign policy change, its been a shift by Trump to more of the same and once it was clear that nothing would alter from previous Presidents, those who truly control this nation told Mueller to finish up, release his report and declare “Trump is not guilty after all!”

So, what changed from 'Get Trump' to no Impeachment push as of this moment?

Trump changed.
In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines.

The US has also increased its troop levels on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn’t lifted a finger to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap.

The US is not withdrawing from Syria..  Rather Washington is beefing up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul.

Trump changed his mind and did a complete about-face
The same thing happened in Korea. For a while it looked like Trump was serious about cutting a deal with Kim Jong un. But then, sometime after the first summit, he began to back-peddle.

He never honored any of his commitments under the Panmunjom Declaration and he never reciprocated for Kim’s cessation of all nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing.

Trump has made no effort to “build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” or to strengthen trust between the two leaders.

Then, at the Hanoi Summit, Trump blindsided Kim by making demands that had never even been previously discussed. Kim was told that the North must destroy all of its chemical and biological weapons as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs before the US will take reciprocal steps.
In other words, Trump demanded that Kim completely and irreversibly disarm with the feint hope that the US would eventually lift sanctions.

Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted because the foreign policy establishment doesn’t want a deal.

They want regime change - it is what we do and they’ve made that perfectly clear.

But wasn’t Trump supposed to change all that? Wasn’t Trump going to pursue “a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past”?

Yes, that was Trump’s campaign promise.
There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudis'  war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring up trouble in the South China Sea.

At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and “stop toppling regimes and overthrowing governments.” …’ At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized.

Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment and the investigation is over even those some Congressional Trump-hating zealots want to rekindle it..
So we believe a backdoor quid pro quo deal was struck: Trump agrees to change foreign policy directives and Mueller very quickly disappears?

Don't act surprised..  Secret deals happen all the time

LBJ did it with the military industrial complex in 1964 to give them conflict in Vietnam in exchange for helping him beat Goldwater..

No one is immune..  Not even 'outsiders'

Friday, April 26, 2019

Can Individualism and National Pride Co-Exist?

We like writing on what we call capital-I Individualism and the dangers of the collective mindset so when we received the following question yesterday, we were more than happy to respond to it...

Q:  You write a lot on individualism as if it is polar opposite of collectivism; as if the two are contradictory and at war with one another - Can't one be an individual and still feel a collective connection with a larger group, for instance being a proud American?

This is an interesting question and to answer it, one has to look at the term 'proud American' and understand really what that means (and does not mean)

Pride is an achievement and accomplishment based feeling; it can be direct or transferred to another person there's an emotional connection to, but it is not something abstract
We as a society use the word for everything and anything because its a feel-good term and who wants to make someone feel bummed by correcting as to proper usage

So let's use America as an example

One can say something like 'I am proud of America' for this or that but unless you are a foreign born citizen who became a naturalized American,  you can not be proud to be one because you did nothing to make it so

In this instance you are fortunate to be born to either American parents or have a foreign mother but delivered on US soil with makes you automatically American the second you draw your first breath
Those who come legally from other parts of the world have to go through a process, take a test, etc.. It's time consuming and not easy but once that person is sworn in as an American citizen, he/she can take great pride in that achievement

If something is a given or just happens to be without your control or involvement, how can one seriously believe to assign feelings of pride

For instance does one feel pride because he/she can stand or walk or lift their arm in the air?

Generally speaking, no - that seems stupid to feel that emotion to those tasks
But what if you recovered from a stroke where for a long period of time you could not do those body functions but now you can?

Do you feel pride in walking to the kitchen or picking up a fork then?

Absolutely - you did the therapy.. you did the work.. You accomplished something big and the self-pride should be beaming
White pride..  Black pride..  Hispanic pride.. Gay pride.. 

ALL are complete total bullshit and all who subscribe to such beliefs are absolute losers who need to attach self-worth to something bigger than themselves because it can't be located from within

When you were brought into this world, you had absolutely no control over your skin, hair or eye color or any other physical aspect of you

You also had no real control over your ethnicity, sexual orientation or even your religion since unless your parents were atheist, they put down on your birth certificate your faith..
So a person let's say born Christian or Jew can not feel any pride in that unless one ultimately is an active participant in the particular religion or converted from the faith one was born to another

And to be proud of having white skin and blue eyes or being caramel colored or a man becoming erect at the sight of another man's ass is pure idiocy; no different than feeling pride in possessing two ears, two kidneys, two kneecaps and a prostate

But people are allowed to continually think this way; socially and politically encouraged in fact to think this stupidity and demonstrate the pride as openly as one can

Except if you're white then you best shush up or be destroyed

Shame that non-whites with this mindset can't be destroyed as well
So the long and short of it is that individualism and collectivism are contradictory and that includes nationalistic pride

One can be proud of their country, the actions one does in benefit of one's nation like serving in the Armed Forces or working in a government position of some kind or of the successes of other Americans

But simply to say one is proud to be American is not an individualist mindset; it is collectivist
Some people truly do not want to be individuals.. its frightening and takes a lot of time and work and introspection to learn who one really is

To those people, they're proud Democrats or blacks or gays or NY Giants fans or whatever

Much easier for them so they're a bit lost but the System loves people like that - so much easier to control than an individual

In summary, John Lennon said it best in a song.. "I don't believe in Beatles; I believe in Me"

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Remember When Fox News Was Actually Conservative?


Everything one watches or reads has bias..  Nothing is neutral

Cable TV, magazines, newspapers, blogs - everything pretty much as very specific points of view it wants to get out into the public with the purpose of persuading

We at A&G are no different with the exception we are very forthright about our messages and goals
Simply, we strongly believe capital I Individualism trumps collectivism, group / tribal pride, identity politics and everything else where one seeks to attach to a larger entity in order to derive who one is as a person

As such everything we write or express here is meant to motivate the reader to think for him or herself and to question everything

Now we all know what most news media's bias is - 24/7 destroy Trump while providing the troughs for mentally sick Trump haters to eat their slop from
But what about Fox News - what is their bias?

The simple answer is that the network is pro-Trump and a safe space for his supporters to get the news

But that is not accurate because the Fox News one watches today is not the same network of the days when Bill O' Reilly appeared and dominated cable ratings

You know when you go into the orange juice section of a supermarket and there's certain containers that say '50 calorie' and dare to call themselves OJ when really its watered down by 50% so to get the calorie content lower?

Well that is Fox News - a watered down version of what it once was
It supports Trump often which is nice but feels more like it does so in a niche sorta way as if to say, no one else on cable news values the Trump supporter so we'll court them, rather than a network that wholeheartedly supports and believes the President's policies

The difference is a subtle one but its still there..

Ever since Rupert Murdoch's sons took over the network from their father, it has not been so steadfast conservative, but more moderate in view

No self respecting conservative for instance would dare use politically correct hyphenated terms to identify people but on Fox News, that fake 'Afr-Am'  term is used constantly as if by directive from higher ups
The programming during the daytime is also very centrist and host Sheppard Smith is as liberal as it gets

Do you think the Fox News of the past would have ever tolerated Smith outwardly shitting on Trump live on air after his press conference with Putin as Sheppard did last year?

Fox News really is not news anymore and its sad to say that

The network in a desire to attract ratings has taken a page from CNN and MSNBC to go down the gutter path of sensationalism
On the liberal networks, its 'you won't believe what Trump said or tweeted next!'

On Fox News, its now become 'you won't believe what Congresswoman Cortez said or tweeted next!'

The liberal networks figured out that by focusing on Trump constantly as a polarizing force that provokes so much anger and fear, they could convert their message to some kind of Voice of America where the 'oppressed' can get information and know soon liberty is at hand

Idiotic yet but it has been a successful economic model for them
So now Fox does it but instead of focusing so much on Trump, they exaggerate every single thing any Democrat says as vitally important and in particular pushes that freshman Congresswoman up upon this alter where it gives credibility to every idiotic thing she expresses like as if she was the most powerful woman in the country.

Like yesterday Cortez tweeted something about the Veterans Administration and the entire 8 to 11p evening programming was devoted to dissecting her words and debating the impact of her views if ever becoming reality

Huh?!
This is what the news does today.. create and amplify villains because just like voting, you're more more likely to watch or read news if angry or scared then feeling contented.

So what happens is they elevate nobody nothings with dangerous views into somebodies that matter, then ultimately the populace will be affected adversely because then that worthless person's ideas can become policy

Not that the media cares really..
That's what happened with Hitler.

Absolute bottom feeder whose views got more and more press when the German newspapers of the day saw him as an outrageous idiot but would make good copy and sell more papers

By the time it dawned on them that the papers propelled this nothing into a something, then they were forced to write on him daily but as their leader

In a way that's what the liberal media did with Trump - gave him tens of millions of dollars of free press during his 2016 election bid because they saw him as a joke and loser and just assumed some other Republican would get the nomination and worse case, Hillary would destroy the clown (the media's viewpoint)
And now Fox News is creating their own Frankenstein by daily focusing on what that little brown anus squirt thinks and says and tweets and all to draw higher ratings

It's really become an unbearable network to watch if one is sincerely conservative

Tucker Carlson who appears at 8p is a moderate conservative at best who is more interested in making academic arguments then presenting information as to how we the viewers can assist in combating liberals and social progressivism.

Guess we're all just supposed to be angry for an hour every weeknight with no outlet to channel it productively
Same with Hannity's show at 9p - he must hold a record for longest opening monologue because they usually seem to last 30 minutes into a 60 minute show and often when he has guests on, he gives softball or 'set-up' questions and then constantly interrupts

Laura Ingraham at 10p is the worst - She seems to think by constantly playing and replaying every single thing a Democrat says then having a panel including one liberal discuss it that she's winning the argument and making some kind of difference

Who knows..  Would be utterly naive if that's really the thinking
No one at Fox News goes on the attack anymore..  Goes for the jugular like we do..

It's all so restrained, professional and phony

When we state here that we despise liberals politically and personally, we are 100% sincere; we don't create fake 'enemies' to stir contrived controversy

And nothing we express is meant to keep eyeballs glued so we can sneak in ads for laundry detergent and hamburgers

So when we watch Fox News it makes us sick because what purpose do they really serve the public if they are just a lite conservative version of the insipidness on the left?

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Criminals' Right To Vote For the Left

Last night, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) said on Monday that all prisoners - including domestic terrorists such as the Boston Marathon Bomber, should have the right to vote while in prison.

Many seemed surprised by this stance

We are not sure why..

The Democrats voted for Hillary in 2016 didn't they?
If you are a fake American which a liberal is, why would you care about any of its laws, values or principles; why would you not want to do everything to destroy the nation from within?

There's also another reason why the political left is bringing this topic up and it has nothing to do with freedom or slippery slopes

Criminals with perhaps the exception of those who commit white-collar crimes are poor, black, Hispanic and/or deeply ignorant, educationally backwards people

In other words they make up a large percentage of the Democrat voting base
So if the political party of evil could have all imprisoned criminals from those who commit petty crimes to the most harden criminals vote alongside those who come here illegally, you would have a Democrat version of a 1,000 year Reich in national and state politics.

And of course, if criminals like those who masterminded the Boston Marathon bombings could vote, then you will ultimately have candidates for public office who court them

"Vote for me and I promise you will all get a 20% reduction in sentences across the board..."
One one hand we kinda think the Democrat party is necessary because just like any movie or TV show, how can one portray 'good' if there is no rotten for good to distinguish itself and triumph over

Except Democrats are really, Really rotten people and life is not like movies or TV - good often does not win because if it did, then there'd never be a single Democrat that held or wielded any power on any level, both public and private sector

A month or so ago, Pelosi and some other Democrats were floating the idea of one day lowering the voting age to 16
Why not just lower it to 4 or 5 years old and then have characters from Sesame Street give stump speeches with whoever the Democrat candidates are

"Me Elmo Vote Democrat.. They Be Good....  Yayyyyy"

And if that party of truly rancid people want to change voting laws, go all the way - take away the 1 vote per person limitation

Make it like voting for the MLB All star game - unlimited ballots

Why not..   What is democracy to a Democrat anyway?
We told this 100% true story before and will do so again..

Back in the day, the Democrat political machine in order to ensure their side would win elections, would gather up a bunch of riffraff and tell them a few weeks before, to grow beards

On voting day, they'd converge at the local pub and be taken by caravan to the polling place where they'd vote Democrat in the morning..
Then after, they'd be taken to the local barber where all their beards would be cut and only mustaches remain..   Then a second vote..

Afterwards back to the barber where they'd be clean shaven and back to vote a third time where upon completion, they'd all be taken back to the pub where their payment for services rendered would go to getting drunk

This happened a lot in the past..  We mean A Lot

So when we think of Democrats and voting, that true story always comes to mind
They're much too sophisticated to do things like that today..  Instead they just register dead people, create fake voter IDs and have lowlifes vote Democrat in the deceased' behalf

Much classier.

Now do we expect criminals to really vote in elections?

Sure.. its already happened - remember in Virginia back in the 2016 election, the Democrat governor allowed 600,000 ex-cons to vote and guess by how many votes Trump lost that once great state and its electoral college votes?

Yep..
So basically if you ever want to understand why so many vote for that despicable party election upon election it comes down to one thing:  They give handouts and freebies

Think of it as one would when trick or treating on Halloween - you live on a nice street and when you knock on some front doors, you will be given chocolate bars and bubble gum while other homes, will give you apples or toothbrushes & floss (yours truly had a dentist who lived on my street as a child and its all he gave out every Halloween)

If you are a child or have the mind of one, which homes are you not going to bother going to the following year?

No different with election campaigns and voting..
If you want to truly understand the difference in the two political parties, it was explained to me by a very wise person:

A Democrat will slap you on the face and say something like "Oh I am So Sorry.. There was a mosquito (or such) and I was trying to help you by shooing it away..."

A Republican will just slap you and say nothing.
Some people need the words to feel better; others appreciate the honesty of the silence which followed

But you're still going to get that face slap no matter what.

And that's why when it comes to things like debating letting criminals vote, Democrats do what they do.