Here is a link to The United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)‘s press releases on HPSCI Memo. What’s it about? Well, here is what Fox News reported.

House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump

A much-hyped memo that shows alleged government surveillance abuse during the 2016 campaign has been released to the public and includes testimony from a high-ranking government official who says the FBI and DOJ would not have sought surveillance warrants to spy on a member of the Trump team without the infamous, Democrat-funded anti-Trump dossier.

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released the memo Friday. The White House responded by saying the memo “raises serious concerns about the integrity of decisions made at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI to use the government’s most intrusive surveillance tools against American citizens.”


Please read the memo. Kind of interesting this happened the same day the stock market had a big decline. Constitutional crisis or inflation worries? Seem there is a lot of nervousness out there. If we want to get pass this sort of stuff, we need to do a better job of electing good people to run our nation.

Is what the memo describes the sort of thing we should be sending people to jail for? Yes? Yet we are electing such people? Think about it. Is it time to clean up our Congress? Can we start in November of 2018?



Add yours

  1. I’ve read the memo and some of the early commentary. So very sad, all the way around. Why would the FBI get a FISA warrant to listen to an American citizen? Doesn’t the “F” in FISA stand for foreign?

    This seems to violate the Fourth Amendment “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Yee gads, I think we are in trouble.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Michael Wilson

      We are fighting over control of our government for much the same reason that we fought the Civil War, power over other people.

      The South fought to keep the slaves in chains. Yeah, I know many Southerners did not own slaves and fought out of loyalty to the South, but the leaders of the South twisted that loyalty to their own ends.

      What is happening today? Instead of the enslavement of blacks, we fight over redistributing trillions of dollars of wealth. That is we are fighting over the enslavement of taxpayers. Some politicians insist that they have the right to redistribute the wealth from the “rich” to the needy. What they are fighting for is just another form of enslavement.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. You could be right. Sometimes the bad guys win. Usually is not much of victory, however. Think about how king of the hill works. A bunch of children keep pulling each other down. When it is not a game, king of the hill gets sort of bloody. According to that memo, the bad guys tried to frame Donald Trump. They tried to make him out to be a traitor. That is a capital crime.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Trumps days are numbered? Why?

      Why would anyone want to vote for any Democrat is my question?

      All they do is moan and groan about his personal style of addressing problems. We all know he is no politician versed in political correctness, that’s part of the reason he won.

      For Example,

      Right now immigration is the latest moaning and groaning sounds I hear and read about DACA. Democrats seem to conveniently forget his campaign promise to secure the border. All the Democrats want to do is grant amnesty to DACA, but what is their plan to secure the border?
      Perhaps you can explain a little bit better than the Senate Democrat leaders?

      If interested.

      When my kids were little and they moaned and groaned, I sent them to bed. Seems the voters did the same to the Democrats in the last election. They haven’t yet woken up yet either, in my opinion.

      Regards and goodwill blogging


    3. Doug, you know I’m not a Trump bandwagon ga,l but I have to say the memo and what it implies about the weaponizing of government agencies for political purposes is truly frightening. It does not exonerate Trump from whatever Russian “collusion” Mueller is investigating, that’s a separate issue from which, by the way, we’ve still not say dots connect back to Trump.

      It does state rather plainly though that the FBI knowingly used information paid for by political opponents of Trump to justify getting a FISA warrant to spy on a a member if his campaign, an American citizen no less. Not just just the initial warrant but renewing it three times knowing full well of its inaccuracies and the political operatives behind it. I don’t care who is in office, all parties should be appalled by this.

      Make no mistake either, the memo just scratches the surface as there is a lot more involving Team Obama illegally unmasking people’s identities and Loretta Lynch and James Comey’s involvement in exonerating Hillary for her classified email/server nonsense. This is far from over.


  2. A few things:

    1. The memo is one sided. Trump’s own FBI Director and his own Justice Dept, including his own top appointees, have said this memo is a one sided fabrication designed to mislead the public, and recommended not releasing the memo in its current form.
    2. The release harmed national security. According to the FBI and the Justice Department, the memo exposed methods and sources. It violated trust and confidence held between between Congress, the FISA court, the Justice Department and the national intelligence community. If Congressional oversight really was the motivation for release of the memo, then this should have been accomplished through normal confidential hearings.
    3. The memo portrays Carter Page as some poor innocent victim of government overreach. The reality is quite different. Carter Page originally came under scrutiny by counterintelligence years before the campaign when he was being recruited as a Russian agent by Russian spies who were trying to develop economic espionage sources in the U.S. One of those Russian spies was convicted for espionage and the other two were indicted, but got away. That does not mean Page was guilty of anything illegal, but it does mean that his position as a foriegn policy advisor on the Trump campaign, his numerous trips to Russia to assuage them about sanctions, and finally, what was already known by our intelligence agencies about Russian influence on the election made Carter Page more than worthy of a FISA warrant. At this point, two of the few original foreign policy advisors to his campaign that Trump originally named have either plead guilty or are under scrutiny with regard to the Russia investigation. That alone should raise red flags for you as to the veracity of this memo.
    4. Fussion GPS was first hired by Republicans to dig up dirt on Trump during the primary campaign. Steele is a former MI-6 officer with impeccable credentials in the U.S. Intelligence community and is a Russia expert. If one assumes that he sincerely believed what he put in the so-called dossier were true, the fact that he did not want Trump elected doesn’t seem surprising or partisan – it seems patriotic. In any event, the idea that the Justice Department put everything possibly exculpatory in every FISA warrant application is ridiculous and misunderstands how warrants work. Warrants are not about proving beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. They are about proving probable cause for surveillance.

    The memo was not written and released in the interest of justice. The memo is a purely partisan document designed to give political cover to one person, Donald Trump, and thus to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @tsalmon

      I noticed you did not dispute any of the facts contained in the memo. You just offered lame excuses.

      There is nothing in that memo has not been part of the public discussion for months. Nothing in it needs to be classified. All the memo does is confirm that that lying dossier was used by liars to get a warrant to spy on American citizens.

      So nothing you said actually changes a thing. Even if we assume half of what you said is true, it still looks like Democrats tried to frame Donald Trump. There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with the Russians. There plenty the Democrats did.

      As I recall, not long ago you thanked God for the deep state. Well, I hope you are finally starting to realize those people are not doing the Lord’s work.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The memo was not written and released in the interest of justice. The memo is a purely partisan document designed to give political cover to one person, Donald Trump, and thus to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice.

        Here is how he ended. What did he say that actually disputed the facts contained in the memo? All the memo does is confirm that that lying dossier was used by liars to get a warrant to spy on American citizens. What the memo does not say — because it is not about Trump — is that that dossier provides the only basis for believing Trump colluded with the Russian to steal the election. Yet even after all these months none of the allegations in the dossier have been proven.

        Note that contrary to suggestions of a senator named Mark Warner, Trump has no obligation to prove the dossier is not true. Generally, it is not even logical to try to prove a negative. That is why the burden of proof is on the accuser, in this case H. Clinton and DNC, the people who paid for that document.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What does the memo actually show?

          That the dossier triggered the investigation?
          No. The timeline doesn’t work out. Even the last paragraph of the memo concedes that the investigation began before the dossier and undercuts everything that comes before it. The memo says that the investigation was started by statements made by Trump appointee Papadopoulus, who has already plead guilty and is cooperating with the FBI, the Special Prosecutor, and the Justice Department.

          That there is partisanship in the FBI that keeps its investigators from doing there jobs?
          No. Given the nature of the job, chances are most FBI agents vote Republican. You’ve worked for the government, Tom. You are certainly partisan and have written privately with great partisan bias. Does that mean you did not also do your job as a professional? One week before the election FBI Director Comey along with Agent Strzok coauthored the letter to Congress stating that the investigation of Hilary Clinton’s emails. This may very well have cost Clinton the election. If Agent Strzok is politically biased as the memo implies, he had a strange way of showing it (and for that matter, so did Comey).

          That everyone involved in the investigation is a Democratic partisan against Trump?
          No. Fired FBI Director Comey is a lifelong Republican and was originally in the Bush Justice Department. Special Prosecutor Mueller is a lifelong Republican and originally a Bush appointee. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is a career prosecutor who was appointed by Trump. Current FBI Director Wray just recently appointed by Trump also apposed the release of the memo because it is misleading. The Republican head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Warren, who is familiar with the full information behind the FISA warrant has also criticized the memo.

          That the Steele dossier is untrue?
          No. It may not prove the dossier, but neither does it disprove it either. In fact, much of the Steele dossier has held up as information has become public, and much has yet to be corroborated, but nothing substantial has yet to be disproven. The fact is that just because part of a raw intelligence finding of the dossier may eventually be unproven or proven false doesn’t mean it is all false or that parts may be true but not subject to conclusive proof, and just because part of it is true does not mean none of it is untrue.

          The fact is that this memo too doesn’t prove or disprove anything about anything, but is instead a lopsidedly partisan political attempt to discredit the investigation by doing a hatchet job on Trump”s own FBI, Justice Department and Justice Department appointed Special Counsel.

          Is there evidence that the Trump Campaign worked with the Russians during and after the election?

          Two people have plead guilty to Russian government related crimes. Trump”s own NSC Advisor was one. A Trump campaign foreign policy advisor is the other (that we know about so far).

          Two people are under indictment for numerous crimes involving Russians close to Putin. One was the head of the Trump campaign during the Republican Convention. The other was Trump’s Deputy Campaign Chairman who continued on through the election and for quite a while with the Trump administration after the election. (There are some reports that the latter may be about to flip for a deal).

          Donald Trump, Jr. and Son-in-law Kushner traded memos with Russian operatives and held a meeting with Russian agents for the purpose of getting dirt on Hilary Clinton. Aside from the fact that it proves collusion with Russians, if they actually received anything of value from the Russians, this results in several crimes. Let’s not forget campaign advisor Carter Page’s dealings with members of the Russian government. This is undisputed.

          Is there any evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government or tried to cover up such collusion by himself or his family?

          We”ll see. That is if the investigation is allowed to finish unimpeded by more Trump firings. However, if Trump is not guilty of actual conspiracy to commit a crime or a corrupt act and then attempting to cover it up, then he is doing everything that a President in that position would do if he were guilty. This partisan memo serves no actual national security purpose except to discredit the investigation, and so it sure makes Trump look guilty, even if he were not.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @tsalmon

          You are being absurd. You need to look at what Papadopoulus pleaded guilty to.

          Michael Flynn, similarly, did not plead guilty to anything that involves Trump in illegal activity.

          Flynn was, BTW, was an Obama appointee, but Obama did not get along with him. Obama did not get along with lots of generals.

          Have you considered that whenever investigators try to dig up dirt up on Trump they end up finding Democrats? Odd, is it not?

          Nobody accused the FBI rank and file of anything. You know better than to suggest such a thing. You know when you are deflecting using red herring fallacies. If your conscience is not being seared at this point, it should be.

          Mueller, Rosenstein, and Wray are all Bush era appointees who stayed on during the Obama administration. The Bushes and the Trumps get along just swell. Right?

          Comey was appointed by Bush to a position in the DOJ. Then he went to a job in private industry. Obama made him the Director of the FBI

          Trump apparently thought he could leave Comey and some senior appointees in the justice department in place. Given the “resistance” in Congress, that’s understandable, but you used the expression “deep state” and thanked God for it. Why? How can you have it both ways?

          What about that dossier? If someone fabricated a laundry list of accusations against you, would you be obligated to prove it is untrue? Why not? You are the legal expert? Would you like to explain?

          So what is your only “legitimate” complaint? The memo is one-sided? Since H. Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier, Democrats fought tooth and nail to smear Trump with that crap, and then Democrats fought against release of HPSCI Memo, how could it be anything else but one-sided? Has it occurred to you that when we put bank robbers on trial, those trials are one-sided? Why don’t we let bank robbers stack the jury with people they consider their peers?

          Well, politics in a republic is kind of strange. Too many bank robbers, I suppose. Republicans will release the Democrat version of the HPSCI Memo, but that memo also has to go through the same review process. Like as not — given their track record — Democrats will gum that up and then cry foul as Republicans try to straighten out the mess. Democrats have yet to demonstrate they want us to know the truth. What they apparently want is a smokescreen around the truth.

          As it is you are still defending the investigation into Trump’s supposed collusion with the Russians. That investigation has been going on for months. Even with the misuse of national intel resources, nothing has been found. At this point, your behavior is shameful. You have to know full well the investigation is nothing more than a witch hunt.

          I suggest you look at anon’s ( and ColorStorm’s ( comments. Can you really find any fault with their brief observations? No. Nothing you have said thus far indicates you can.


        3. @tsalmon

          BTW – The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is Richard Burr. Senator Warren, nicknamed “Pocahontas”, is a miserably partisan Democrat. Senator Warner, Vice Chairman of the committee, is one of my Senators, and he is so partisan he reeks of it.

          Here is all I could find about Burr’s position.=>

          and =>


        4. ”What does the memo actually show?
          It shows that:
          1) the source has been identified as someone who was paid by Democratic operatives to dig up dirt.
          2) the claims are all based on what anonymous people allegedly told him. No hard evidence. So it’s impossible to verify whether or not the claims are true.

          You don’t believe the above is important?
          I agree it is one-sided.
          But the source himself went to the media and leaked the information with the intention of discrediting the Administration. So it’s a little hard to cry foul when they respond, after months of media attacks. At any rate, I’m interested in reading the minority’s memo which offers their take. Monday should be an interesting day.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. I’m not a Glenn Greenwald fan, and generally vote against revealing security information (whereas he holds the opposite view). But I do think he’s right here. Certainly he is no conservative.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. Interesting. Thanks for the link. Greenwald stated the case well. He did have a bit of trouble distinguishing between the CIA rank and file and the political appointees. Political appointees are biased almost by definition. Since Greenwald did not make that distinction, his interrogator got him a bit confused. Other than that he sort of made sense.

          His reference to the Iraq war was typical. Our troops actually did find some gas warfare munitions. What they did not find is nukes.


    2. Everything the memo stated would be easy to refute if not true as the events in question either happened or they didn’t. The FISA court knows what evidence was supplied to justify the warrant and their continued renewals, did it or did it not rely heavily on the Steel Dossier? The R’s say it did and no one thus far has disputed this.

      It’s actually a very disturbing abuse of power at the highest levels of government. Liberals used to care about stuff like this. Today, not so much.


  3. Not sure Tom why so many are having trouble adjudicating between 2 distinct fields of operation.

    1. Was the release of this memo detrimental to national security or secrets that needed protected legally?

    2. Was this release proof that innocent Americans were targeted by illegal and covert criminal enterprises deep within the US govt to punish people for political reasons?

    Case closed.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Well said ColorStorm/ Democrats are actually saying two things:

      1. The memo contained classified information that put our country at risk.
      2. The memo is partisan nonsense.

      It really can’t be both at once but the Dems as usual are trying to have it both ways.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I believe the memo barely touches on the subject of the impropriety and bias in the agenda of the past DOJ leadership in my opinion .

    This memo would have been classified same as if it would have revealed the secret to making a nuclear bomb for eternity, if Clinton won the last election..

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “Flynn was, BTW, was an Obama appointee, but Obama did not get along with him. Obama did not get along with lots of generals.”

    This is the kind of circle that you have to stay in to convince yourself that this memo makes the sense that you want:

    Obama fired Flynn. Why? Of course because Flynn was a too competent and Obama hates competent generals..

    Flynn was one of Trump’s most ardent supporters. Why? Of course because he was a secret Democrat.

    Despite warnings from Obama, Trump hired Flynn to the top presidential advisory security position in the country. Why? Of course, well, you know why? It is always Obama, unless, of course Clinton, but no, it’s definitely Obama.

    Flynn communicates with the Russian ambassor about getting rid of Congressional sanctions, and then lies to the FBI about it. Why? Uh? Obama?

    The Trump administration is warned about Flynn’s talking with the Russians and lying about it, and that he may therefore be compromised by the Russians. Why? Because Obama???

    After admitting to knowing Flynn was compromised, Trump leaves him in one of the most important security positions in the country for a week, and then fires Flynn. Why? Don’t know, but everything somehow is always Obama’s fault.

    The buck of the Trump presidency, even in his own appointments must always stop somewhere else. What a convenient fantasy . . . until it is not.

    Anyway, the fake Trump news machine has been playing this memo up for over a week as the avenging angel of God come to smite all “deep state” Democrats who are ultimately to blame for all the evil in the world, and look what we get. Something that looks like it was written by a 1st year law student who decided to only do half his research, and won’t likely make it to another year. It’s worse than a dud because it is actual blowing up in the Republicans’ own faces. Thanks Obama…😡

    Liked by 2 people

    1. We’ve been through the Flynn conversation before (though unfortunately I couldn’t find it). This is absurd.
      Trump didn’t “admit he knew Flynn was compromised”. Flynn was accused of talking to the Russian Ambassador some time in December, and in the course of that conversation mentioning US sanctions on Russia.
      What is the purpose of sanctions? Are they supposed to be forever or is there some negotiation process involved where…we say, “if you do this, we’ll end the sanctions”?

      The number one fear I had up until the election in November 2016 was that we would be at war with Russia about now, over Syria. I think Hillary’s foreign policy was pushing us in that direction. I do not have that fear now….and it isn’t because Trump is a Russian shill.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You honestly thought Hillary was going to make war on Russia over Syria?? Maybe that’s a hint of your age.. somewhere in the 40’s or younger? Honestly… my fears have increased since Trump entered office cause he’s a loose cannon… literally. He fires himself off and just bounces around all over the damn place. Our one redeeming hope that seems apparent, the world thinks he’s a nut and is not taking him seriously enough to consider striking back. Trump has made America internationally insignificant.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Here’s a rudimentary briefer:
          Russia has a military base in Syria, and they are pro-Assad.
          We are anti-Assad and sent fighters over there to “protect”.
          This has always been a recipe for disaster.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. It’s a recipe for a mistake or an accident, yes, pretty much in the same way as all the Baltic Sea cat & mouse fly-by games that get pretty close. But I am relatively confident that the existing phone lines, hot lines, coordination lines.. exists for cooler minds to prevail. This is far from being a new cold war in spite of the rumors in the media. Syria is a diplomatic challenege.. not a military challenge.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. Actually, it was a military challenge. Putin used his armed forces, not diplomats, to bomb people.

          It often difficult to know what the Russians have in mind, but the results suggest a deliberate attempt to create a refugee crisis. Many perceive both the USA and Western Europe as decadent. We won’t fight to protect our cultural heritage. In fact, we are discarding it. The influx of Muslims into Europe has just accelerated the weakening of the European Union. My bet is that Putin is looking at Western Europe and seeing a plum near fully ripe for the picking. All he needs to do is sow discord and chaos, and he saw creating a refugee crisis in Syria as both an opportunity to weaken the European Union and strengthen his hand in the Middle East.

          Note the Russia exports oil. The countries in the Middle East are competitors, especially Saudi Arabia.


        4. I’ll add that what you perceive as a weakness is very much a strength when it comes to the DPRK. The “predictable path” not only hasn’t worked, it has led to the situation we have now (examples available upon request).

          Liked by 1 person

        5. After the “Arab Spring” you think Trump is a loose cannon. We are still suffering from the repercussions of Obama’s inept foreign policy.

          Frankly, I think the odds are good we will be in the midst of a major conflict within the next couple of years. In the nuclear age, I can only guess the form the conflict will take, but I won’t blame it on Trump or Obama. Look at us. That HPSCI Memo is not that hard to understand. You don’t even dispute the facts it presents. You just brush it off as partisan. That’s the kind of crazy behavior that will get us into a major war.


        6. Here is one small example of why you are wrong, Doug.
          Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Syria in 2007.
          Just a few years later we’re doing test patterns over Syria “enforcing the peace” in the same aircraft. We weren’t simply taking chances being there…we were about ONE broken radio away from war with Russia. What do you think would happen the minute a US fighter was shot down? Think everyone else would go home?

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Trump in a tweet said that he fired Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI, and then his lawyer, realizing how damning this version was to the previous versions of events, took responsibility for writing Trump’s tweet. Trump lies so often that I don’t think Trump even knows which version of lies he’s supposed to believe anymore.

        One way or another, if you don’t see Putin’s fingerprints all over the highest levels of the Trump campaign and the Trump administration, then you’re, like this memo, just wearing blinders to all the facts you don’t want to see.

        My fear is that, as Doug aludes, Trump will try to hide his Russian complicity by having the tail wag the dog of state – Trump will launch a catastrophic preemptive strike against North Korea that will, at best kill tens of thousands, and at worst escalate into WWIII and Armageddon.

        Assume for a second that Trump provably is guilty of laundering the money of Putin controlled Russian oligarchs. Knowing that this will eventually come out in a legitimate investigation, what do you suppose such a guilty Trump would do? Well, Trump is doing it. The only thing that is apparently preventing Trump from going farther to hide that guilt is the fear that, if he goes too far, he will fall into the same trap that Nixon did, and even loyal Republicans will tip against him.

        So thus we have this blatantly partisan false light memo misleading by exposing half truths while keeping secret the damning whole truth. The memo obviously subverts justice rather than actually exposing any real injustice.

        Trump is slow boiling the frog that is his ardent supporters in a vat of their own rage against Democrats. Is it working? We’ll see with what Trump does next. God help us.


        1. If Putin is running the United States via President Trump and the Republicans, then he is doing a far better job than Obama and the Democrats did.

          Assume for a second that Trump provably is guilty of laundering the money of Putin controlled Russian oligarchs.

          Yeah! Let just assume Trump is guilty! We don’t need any evidence. Hang him!

          No facts! Just innuendo dressed up as an ugly fantasy.

          You don’t even make sense. Putin has the goods on Trump and Trump is going cover up by preemptive strike against North Korea. That’s is what Putin wants?

          You are so ready to paint Trump as a disaster ready to happen, you are being more irrational than you think he is.


    2. As it turns out, Trump fired Flynn too. Was Obama right? Isn’t a stopped clock right twice a day?

      It is funny that out of all the things I wrote about you mostly just wanted to talk about Flynn, I hardly said anything about him. Basically something of a side topic.

      Flynn had security a clearance for years. Given how the FBI found out about Flynns discussions with the Russians, I expect Trump had bigger security concerns than Flynn.

      Anyway, the fake Trump news machine has been playing this memo up for over a week as the avenging angel of God come to smite all “deep state” Democrats who are ultimately to blame for all the evil in the world, and look what we get.

      Well, if you change “avenging angel of God” to “devil from the Abyss” and “evil” to “good” I suppose that statement is correct.

      I don’t think Flynn was compromised. He did lie, however.

      It is curious, It is quite easy to find things that Obama and Clinton did that were blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical, and you just brush it off. Yet without a shred of proof you have no trouble calling Trump and the people associated with him traitors. In fact, what you have is better proof that the Democrats tried to frame him.

      I honestly don’t understand this behavior.


  6. Oddly, even by Trump’s own lawyers’ thinking, Mueller seems close to wrapping up his investigation being run by Trump’s own appointees. An innocent Trump would be looking forward to being vindicated. A guilty Trump would try too preemptively discredit his own FBI and Justice Department. A guilty Trump would present half truths and lies and would fire everyone that he could get away with, all to stop the truth from eventually getting out or to discredit its credibility when it does.

    Which Trump do you think that we are seeing every day? Which Trump released this trumped up memo?


    1. You forgot to mention a Trump framed by Democrats.

      Last I checked the name of the Speaker of the House is named Paul Ryan. If you have been paying any attention, you would realize that establishment Republicans wanted nothing to do with Trump? Why? Well, Trump is not your standard politician, but I expect that at first the Republican Establishment actually believed that Trump might have colluded with the Russians. Who would believe that the Democrats would misuse intel resources to try to frame him? Slowly, however, the story has come out. You don’t want to believe it? Not my problem.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. My comments about Flynn were in response to something anon posted. But Flynn is important to to seeing the bigger picture with the facts available to this point. If you think that Flynn plead guilty only to crimes that he committed, then you don’t understand the concept of cooperation plea deals.

    “It is curious, It is quite easy to find things that Obama and Clinton did that were blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical, and you just brush it off. Yet without a shred of proof you have no trouble calling Trump and the people associated with him traitors. In fact, what you have is better proof that the Democrats tried to frame him.
    I honestly don’t understand this behavior.”

    I know you don’t. You find it hard to see basic disagreement as anytging but personal condemnation and you react accordingly. Because Obama disagrees with you on what you mistakenly see as blatantly unconstitutional, you assume he is acting maliciously toward you and all Americans. I think that you are wrong and ignorant about constitutional law, but I don’t think you are treacherous. And even if I did, it’s not my place to condemn you.

    The difference between positive criticism and negative condemnation is a difference of purpose, whether that purpose is love or hatred.

    I don’t hate Trump. I don’t even hate what Trump promotes and does. Hatred is a self destructive act. I love Donald Trump. I just think that what Trump says and does is wrong both morally and rationally. That’s what you don’t get because so much of what you believe is true is wrapped up in hating and condemning what you believe to be false. I think this is the wrong way to look at morality, politically, ethically and religiously but I love you for the effort, and for being just as wrong and human as I am. Besides what pride would lead me to feels superior enough to judge and condemn. I may be wrong too. Only God is always right. But that is way off topic

    I did not condemn Trump as a traitor. I just said that, given the facts known to this point, if Trump is not guilty of something and trying to cover it up, then he sure is acting like it.


    1. @tsalmon

      Did not condemn Trump as a traitor? You are just happily calling Republicans a bunch of liars. Given who you vote for I suppose that to be expected.

      Think about the meaning of that expression, “basic disagreement”. When Obama implemented the DACA program, he did not have the constitutional authority. He had said as much, but he did not care. When Democrats implemented Obamacare, the whole lot of you know it is unconstitutional, but all you care about is getting your program because as Bill Clinton use to say all the time, “It is the right thing to do.” But it was all based on lies.

      So do I see what Democrats are doing as a personal condemnation? Of me? What do I have to do with your choices? You don’t care about me. I am just another privileged, Conservative white guy. By definition, I am just part of the problem. I know there is nothing personal about it. How did the great man put it?

      It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. — Barack Obama

      So do I see what Democrats are doing as a personal condemnation? Of me? No. Democrats would find some other reasons for doing what they want to do regardless. The ends justifies the means is hardly a new excuse. Human beings have been using it for as long as we have been around.

      Is using the end to justify the means just a Democrat thing? No. We cannot trust any politicians. When we are tempted, some of us will give in.

      Still. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand why we don’t learn. How willfully ignorant do we have to be to understand that the end by itself is not sufficient to justify the means?


      1. Tom,

        The Democrats are not my tribe. I don’t believe in everything that every Democrat ever said and did any more than you than you believe in everything that every Republican ever said and did. I don’t even believe everything that I have ever said and done was always right. Does anyone but Donald Trump claim such perfection? Your whole strategy here is not to talk about the facts, the morals or the logic of the memo, but to deflect.

        So let us quit playing this game of my team are angels and that make me an angel, and your team are devils and that makes you a devil.😈


        1. @tsalmon

          You are a lawyer, and yet you spouted this crap.

          That the Steele dossier is untrue?

          No. It may not prove the dossier, but neither does it disprove it either. In fact, much of the Steele dossier has held up as information has become public, and much has yet to be corroborated, but nothing substantial has yet to be disproven. The fact is that just because part of a raw intelligence finding of the dossier may eventually be unproven or proven false doesn’t mean it is all false or that parts may be true but not subject to conclusive proof, and just because part of it is true does not mean none of it is untrue.

          The damn thing was paid for by Democrats. THERE WAS NEVER ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT DOSSIER WAS CREDIBLE! You know damn well trying prove accusation is not true is a fool’s errand. Yet you want the authorities to disprove it or leave the investigation open until they do? Unless the accusation contains details like a time and place and you can show you were elsewhere, that usually isn’t possible. How do you expect Trump to prove he did not collude with the Russians? Is he supposed to nuke Moscow? Even Trump had a good reason for doing it, and no Americans died, truth be told that would not satisfy you either.

          What Democrats demand is that Trump PROVE his campaign did not collude with the Russians, Otherwise, Mueller continues his hunt with open season on Trump. That means Mueller will look for any excuse to indict Trump. You know as well as I do that is not right. Unless there is actual evidence of a crime, there is no reason for prosecutor to do anything. Nobody, especially our president, should have to put up a prosecutor whose sole job is to get him just because his political opponents want to get rid of him.


  8. “You don’t even make sense. Putin has the goods on Trump and Trump is going cover up by preemptive strike against North Korea. That’s is what Putin wants?”

    Well, actually I can see a scenario where that is exactly what Putin wants, can’t you?

    Have you ever been to S. Korea? I have operated out of there before. We have tens of thousands of military personnel there and their families. There are tens of thousands of other Americans living and doing business there. The capital, Seoul, is within N. Korean artillery range. N. Korea has a massive conventional force always on scary high alert, but they also have chemical and biological weapons. We can’t evacuate without giving away the game. For the N.Korean leadership succumbing to a preemptive US strike is an existential dead end. They will at least retaliate in kind and likely overdo it. Even if you believe it is the right way to go, how does a preemptive strike not escalate? What if China intercedes?

    When the smoke a clears, let’s assume we win, but what awful thing does winning look like. N. Korean radicalism is no longer a threat to Russia, but we and our allies paid the price for it. How do our allies feel about us at that point? How has a lucrative trade relationship with China been smashed? The balance of power in the world will have changed dramatically, and it is hard to see an outcome where we are not diminished and Russia is not strengthened.

    This is just pure speculation, but N. Korea sure has developed sophisticated nuclear weapons and ballistic technologies an awful lot faster than expected, and it sure looks a lot Iike the Russian stuff. Do you think that they may have had some help? Why would anyone (meaning Russia) do that?


    1. @tsalmon

      So you are justified in pursuing an agenda to remove Trump from office doing whatever it takes just on the off chance Putin wants him to start what might become a nuclear war with China?

      Is it not amazing how our ends can evolve in magnitude to justify our means? No you don’t hate Trump. You are just deadly afraid of him, except you really don’t believe it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Gotta admit… you guys are all defending your opinions soundly on the memo. In spirit, though, I tend to side with Mr. Salmon, But here’s my “thing”.. it seems the only thing that’s relevant is that Congress do an investigation to prove one thing or the other because two politically motivated memos do absolutely nothing toward solving whatever problems there are… except feed the Great Divide. Strangely enough, the President means nothing in all this “memo posturing”. This is a Congress thing. Obviously the members of Congress have demonstrated their inability to get together… so that means we let the court of public opinion tear the country apart.
        Whether Trump is in bed with Putin or not, Putin is loving all of this.
        People are getting tired.. and whether the issues favor Trump or not.. this is a perfect case of any press is bad press for Trump.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. @Doug

          Think about what follows. Whether we love one party or the other does not make a difference. What matters is what is right.

          What is tearing our nation apart? What once almost destroyed it? What was the American Civil War about? At this point I think most would agree that our country fought over the institution of slavery?

          Why did we have to fight over slavery? The North wanted no part of it. The South, on the other hand, insisted upon spreading slavery into the territories and even making northern States hunt down and return escaped slaves. That is, the South insisted that the entire country affirm the righteous of slavery or else they would quit the Union.

          We have a similar problem today. We have one party that insists upon making the rest of the country adopt its views on long string of issues. What that party has done is turn their politics into a religion. That party is not tolerant of those who disagree.

          1. Abortion is okay up until the moment of birth, and government has to pay for it. This is supposed to be an indisputable “right”.
          2. Immigration is an indisputable “right”, not a privilege.
          3. We have indisputable “rights” to a bunch of different things (entitlements) government is supposed to give us: an education, a job, healthcare, housing, food, a retirement, welfare/unemployment benefits, public transportation, and so forth.
          4. Every cotton-picking identity group we can think of, except old white guys, is entitled to claim certain indisputable “rights”. Minority racial groups get affirmative action. Homosexuals get marriage. Women, when they charge men with sexual harassment, get to be automatically believed. Minority religions, (not Christians, of course) get inordinate respect from government officials. The disabled get others to pay to adapt their facilities so that the disabled have access and can work in those facilities. And so forth.
          5. And so forth.

          Just as slavery was an abuse of the power of government, so is allowing one political party to impose to impose its vision of Utopian on people who don’t want it. Because we each have the right to pursue our own version of happiness, no one has the right to impose their version of happiness on anyone else.

          You want to better understand the issue? Look up the difference between positive and negative rights. The academics have defined as “negative” those rights which allow us to be left in peace to go about our own business. On the other hand, the academics have defined as “positive” those “rights” that they think our government should give us.


    2. So…just to be sure I understand.
      You’re saying that Russia has been arming the DPRK for decades, in the hope that some day we’d get a president that they can blackmail into launching a preemptive strike against the DPRK in order to distract everyone away from said blackmail?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Nope anon. Just theorizin. But in theory, a crisis with N.Korea works for Putin no matter who is President. Getting a useful idiot who can be blackmailed by a common porn queen would just be a bonus, wouldn’t it?. Makes a hell of a spy story. Hope for the world it’s not true.

        BTW, how are those sanctions against Russia that Congress passed going? Oh yea, the Trump administration came up with “a list”. Whoa! That will teach em not to mess in our elections.


        1. “BTW, how are those sanctions against Russia that Congress passed going?”

          They’re still going. No sanctions against Russia have been lifted, which includes the sanctions passed just last summer.

          “Just theorizin.”
          That’s quite a theory.

          I do not see how the crisis in the DPRK “works” in anyone’s interest.
          But it has been a very slow moving train wreck for a long, long while. That Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 was filled with DPRK kit and staffed with DPRK technicians and scientists.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Here is a good place for determining who is arming whom in the world.

          Stockholm’s International Peace Institute offers a list of (legal…obviously extralegal activities would not be a part of this ledger, but it’s still informative).
          We’ll just look at the time period after the cold war ended.

          Russia has been selling them weapons for a long, long while. The DPRK’s nuclear facilities go back to the 1950s. You can see when the sanctions were finally placed on DPRK. Way after their nuclear program was running well. The Chinese have also been funding them and refusing to allow sanctions, the ROK has been funding them indirectly also for years (the Sunshine policy was a dismal failure).

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I guess a good political tactic for the Democrats now is to demand more sanctions on Russia, every six months or so. And if Trump doesn’t approve more (though even the EU didn’t go for that last round as this is costing them a lot of money) he’s obviously a Russian shill.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. I’ll just add a fifth post (insomnia sucks).
          Trump is doing the right thing with the DPRK. I’ve been keeping up with politics in the ROK since I lived there a couple of decades back.
          Can’t remove families or we’d “give up the game”?
          On the contrary, removing families is about the only way to convince the DPRK we’re serious.
          It would be very expensive, but we did it in Turkey (smaller scale).
          I’m still hoping that mountain will implode. Last time they tried to shoot a ballistic missile it hit their own city.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. Oops…just looked it up and I was wrong. That missile wasn’t the last. That was April, they had another in november.


        6. Hillary did a lot for the nuclear program in the DPRK (and around the world). When you attack the country that voluntarily dismantled its nuke program it kind of sends a message. So I guess by the convoluted logic that war with the DPRK is good for Russia, yes, Hillary was their candidate.

          Liked by 1 person

        7. Heh, just looked up the Russian sanctions from last summer and I guess I wrong there! I knew the EU didn’t like it.

          “This summer, Democrats teamed up with Never Trumpers to punish Trump for daring to call for a detente with Vladimir Putin. Sanctions were upgraded and extended to sanction doing business with Russian energy firms worldwide, codifying them into law so Trump cannot remove them on his own. Nord Stream II was put in the cross-hairs.
          But like that old Warner Bros. “wascally wabbit” Bugs Bunny, congress is like Elmer Fudd, shooting and missing one crafty critter that seems to quite skilled at dodging one bullet after the next. Despite three years of sanctions against Russian energy companies, Europeans have continued doing business with their Russian counterparts, while many U.S. firms have been sidelined.”

          “The financing comes before U.S. sanctions were implemented, making it harder for these companies to back away from the project now. That means more money will find its way into Nord Stream II unless Trump pulls the trigger and sends Treasury to collect its kill fee.

          Liked by 1 person

        8. While I’m making a long stream of internet posts, I’ll share the latest from theDiplomad. His take (of course) is similar.
          He cannot understand the rationale of what Russia “gains” (at least in respect to what is bad for the US, but good for Russia) with Trump.
          His opinion on the memo, which he calls “Memwow” is interesting too….very similar to yours, Tom. I’m not as certain it’s THAT important, though it is important. I always like to see something in its entire context. One thing the memo does do is offer context to what seemed kind of inexplicable at the time. Comey’s testimony is an example.

          “Let’s say, that, indeed, there are “mountains of evidence” showing collusion (however defined) between Trump and Putin to get Trump elected President of the USA. Let’s say that Trump and Putin were on the phone every night like giddy high school girls “colluding” away. Let’s say that Putin funded the whole Trump campaign; that he KNEW all the polls and pundits were wrong and that Trump would win; that he had a magic crystal ball that told him that Trump’s long-shot campaign at the White House would succeed. Grant all that, OK?

          We still face the issues I raised back on December 10, 2016,
          But did Putin want Trump to win? Why? Not clear to me. Yes, Trump has made favorable nosies about seeking an alliance with Russia against Islamist terror, but he also has promised–and I believe he will keep that promise–to revitalize our military and industry and promote American energy independence, including, of course, fracking and other fossil fuel development in the USA–a devastating prospect for Russia’s oil-based economy. The power balance will swing back to the US in a way it would not had Hillary and her cohorts taken power.
          What did Putin get with a Trump victory? He got as I predicted back in 2014, when I discussed the issue of sanctions on Russia,
          I previously wrote what we need to do in the long-run is to avoid creating the environment that allows situations such as the one we now see in Ukraine from arising. Instead of announcing sanctions that won’t work, we should do something for ourselves that will immunize us from the lawless behavior of petty tyrants.
          Frack. Yes, frack.
          Get US oil and gas production going full scale. The US government should announce an end to restrictions on fracking on federal lands, and an end to the absurd restrictions on maritime drilling. We should also announce our intention to become Europe’s biggest supplier of natural gas. Just the announcement will drop the price of oil and gas and shave tens of billions off the oil- and gas-dependent Russian economy and hit the Russian government budget. It will, as I have written repeatedly, kick off a new wave of prosperity in the USA.
          As long as we continue with self-destructive policies such as limiting our ability to achieve energy independence, we will limit our ability to respond to actions of petty tyrants.
          Trump did exactly that, just as he had promised during the campaign. The result is a Russian economy, still heavily dependent on oil and gas, in a serious downward spiral, with pressure put on the Russian military budget. He’s got a President in the USA who has announced a renewal and expansion of our nuclear forces in keeping with the renewal and expansion of our conventional forces. He has gotten a US President who has re-established strong Israel-US ties while at the same time maintaining strong ties with key Muslim players such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. He has a President who is defeating ISIS, containing the Iranians, and arming the Ukrainians. And on and on . . . fill in the rest.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. “Consider.
    1. Abortion is okay up until the moment of birth, and government has to pay for it. This is supposed to be an indisputable “right”.
    2. Immigration is an indisputable “right”, not a privilege.
    3. We have indisputable “rights” to a bunch of different things (entitlements) government is supposed to give us: an education, a job, healthcare, housing, food, a retirement, welfare/unemployment benefits, public transportation, and so forth.
    4. Every cotton-picking identity group we can think of, except old white guys, is entitled to claim certain indisputable “rights”. Minority racial groups get affirmative action. Homosexuals get marriage. Women, when they charge men with sexual harassment, get to be automatically believed. Minority religions, (not Christians, of course) get inordinate respect from government officials. The disabled get others to pay to adapt their facilities so that the disabled have access and can work in those facilities. And so forth.
    5. And so forth.“

    I agree with your criticism of the extreme Left. Sadly, you see the splinter of ideological extremism in the eye of the Left but don’t see the log in the eye of the extreme Right. I don’t see much compromise on either side these days.

    Speaking of the right to be left alone verses the right to extend a duty to others, how about the right to be left marry who you want? How about the right not to participate in something that you don’t believe God sanctities? How about the freedom not to be a life support system for a potential human for nine months? But what about the basic right to be born? How about the duty to help and welcome a stranger in distress? How about the right to refuse help?

    You want a formula – negative verses positive rights. If it were that easy we could just kill all the lawyers. But none of this is as morally black and white as either side screams at the top of their lungs all the time. We have a moral duty to community and to each other, but we also have a moral duty to leave each other alone as much as possible to live in freedom. These two moral duties sometimes collide and the best we can manage is a shifting compromise. However, compromise is only possible if we get through our wooden ideological blindness to see the other side’s perspective and then find that compromise.

    Some days I think “a pox on both your houses” but then I repent my despair. We live in a finite and fallen world. It’s not about winning. Its about how virtuously and lovingly we all play a losing game. You want absolute justice. There is no such thing in this world. Justice is a scale where we measure compassion, and we never completely measure up, do we? That’s the beauty of it all – a pretty blind (disabled?) lady weighing justice as a balance. Why justce is blind is obvious but I’ve always wondered how she got that way? Maybe it was what was left when all that wood was finally taken out of her eyes.


    1. Well, is it not after all, called the “pursuit” of justice for a reason? Will we ever get there? Maybe, but likely not, yet we continue the pursuit. This business of governance being “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is the entire problem… people are all different. Yet that is also our strength as a nation. Yeah.. a nation.. a world… the entire human race is simply a body of contradictions. You said it very well… it’s about the road to compromise in order to build a status quo. It isn’t anyone’s perfect Utopia… but when reached it is in fact our Utopia.

      I’ve always been a student of history and now that I am getting way older than most folks I encounter, a fair amount of that (modern) history I have witnessed up close.. or rather, lived through. Democracy and prosperity does not exist in a vacuum of ideological theory. It’s all about passing through real life cycles of social, cultural, ideological, technological, and political change. The trick is knowing when it happens then doing what you can to either lead, follow, or get out of the way in order to get through it. You’ve heard about those decade nicknames.. roaring twenties, turbulent thirties, flying forties, fab fifties… all represent in some way how the decade was lived. Sometimes it also represented a struggle of culture and/or politics… a phase of heightened awareness of inside change. We are smack in the middle of such a flux in our reality continuum. But this impact is being felt in all areas.. politics, economy, culture, religion, social.. and very likely the big trigger of it all was advancements in technology; information passed from individual to the world , and back, at the speed of light, at a rate far exceeding our ability to understand and process it all. The fad word to describe the impact is “vitriolic”. In other words, we are impassioned and pissed at the same time; immovable opinion coupled with downright hate at the widespread pressure of change.. and the people we perceive are causing the gut wrenching change.

      So where does this leave us? We just have to ride it out day to day and look for those small windows where compromise can sneak in past all the noise of the media. Small victories. There is also a point where people just plain get tired of it all and begin to move past their stubbornness. One of the reasons the Civil War ended the way it did was that people simply got tired of all the hatred.. and death… and destruction… as the original reasons became not-so-critical as they were in the beginning. The reflecting back.. what the hell was this all about and was it worth all this misery? Well, we ain’t there yet.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. @anon

    You are overwhelmingly. Sort of like stream of consciousness speculation. Bravo!

    In the end, however, we both know it’s all just speculation based on what little facts and expertise, we or the speculators we believe, throw out there. That is at least until the speculation is obe or new facts. And as long as we don’t confuse pure speculation with certainty, but who here would do that?😏

    Don’t get me wrong. I love speculation. It’s the reason why I read and post here. Your research and breadth of understanding are quite admirable. My fear is one that you perhaps may share in a different way. As actual new evidence presents itself, how hard will each side ideologically cling to the speculative narrative that they wanted to begin with and ignore that evidence?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Sort of like stream of consciousness speculation. Bravo!”
      Yeah, I was busy rambling in the early AM.
      And.. I’m female so that should be…
      Brava. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Talk about Trump wet dreams, Cadet Bone Spurs now wants a big military parade with lots of hardware to make him look even more impotent, I mean important.


    1. I suspect Trump has enough military people around him to come up with something appropriate. Before you put your foot into your mouth, why don’t you wait and see what comes out of it?


    2. “Wet dream” implies fantasy. A military parade is certainly within his capabilities, so more a wet dream (for him) than flying on Airforce one.
      I don’t get it. What’s the problem with a fourth of July military parade?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Marching troops, marching bands, military bands, veterans organizations… Boy Scouts… Girl Scouts… Shriners… politicians… all the way it should be. Just don’t parade military hardware like we are bragging about something…. or satisfying our child President because he likes the pomp & circumstance of another country. You don’t need a damn M1A1 Abrams tank chewing up the city street at 1 mile a gallon fuel rate to pay homage to our active and former military. The image of an American in uniform is all the world needs to see.


  12. Cadet Bone Spur has delusions of generalissimo grandeur. Maybe he should have some garish uniform designed so he can really play the part. We have troops in action and a military that is begging for money, but the chicken hawk, Cadet Bone Spur, wants to waste military time and resources playing tin pot dictator. It fits the whole corrupt administration he’s running.


    1. We have military appreciation day parades all over the country. We also have airshows. Should we cancel all of those too? They’ve been going on for years. No politician has complained…on the contrary, they all trip over themselves to be present and prove they care more than anyone else.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Really?
      Are they going to call it the “Trump Awesomeness Parade”?
      I think the intention of the parade is the same as the intention of others.
      The standing joke is typically, “We sure do have to work hard to get honored…”
      because those things are always a lot of work.
      But morale is important (for the population too).
      That’s why they have parades and airshows, even though they are expensive (though not really, relatively), even though it’s some extra work for some folks on duty.

      I just went to an award ceremony last night which cost money and time and energy for a lot of people. Why not just mail everyone their award and announce it on the internet? Because the ceremony makes the event significant, and builds a sense of pride and purpose.

      It’s pretty obvious you don’t like Trump, and the Democratic party doesn’t like him either. They won’t even offer the courtesy of clapping appropriately after a speech. This has an impact and reflects poorly on them. They might call Trump an armchair warrior, but their ranks are filled with virtually nothing but armchair warriors.


        1. @doug

          ……when I heard of an idea for a parade, the FIRST thing that came to mind was:

          Why not thank these men and women, BEFORE they give their lives for you and I.
          Why not thank them by looking into their eyes before their eyes are lifeless and can’t return the appreciation.

          Why not thank them by a public recognition, for giving you and I the freedom to roam about this country, WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE, for when they are dead, they know not nor can hear your thanks.

          It is not a Russian display with tanks rolling up the streets to strike fear into their own countrymen, neither is it a moronic N. Korean missile fest, surely you can see the difference.

          If you can’t see the difference between the US military………….

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Oh Pluhheeze… did not General Honore instruct his troops as they moved into New Orleans to provide assistance to the citizens there, to shoulder their weapons rather than carrying them at some port arms at-the-ready because the image of advancing troops in a civilian environment is an image we don’t really wanna see?


        3. Just seems to be an idea that shows Americans are proud of their military.

          I don’t attach such nefarious imagery doug. 😉 Maybe a gentle reminder that arms actually serve a purpose…. Some people are clueless.


        4. Absolutely no question that some people are indeed proud enough of our military and the military industrial complex for having created our military hardware (when the public is not picking on their abuses and alleged secret conspiracies), to the point of wanting to parade it all in front of the world. That’s certainly valid.
          But when a presidential ego and narcissism and admiration for child-like pomp & circumstance is the only motivation… sorry.. no.


        5. And how pray tell doug do you know pomp and circumstance is the ONLY motivation…………..

          You cannot possibly know this. You are not God. C’mon tell the truth and shame the devil.


        6. Uh.. I made that clear in my post about this subject; Trump’s own quote as depicted in The Guardian… not one mention of honoring any military personnel. Just crazy “we need to do a parade better than the French”. remarks.


        7. Have you ever marched in a holiday parade, Tom? I don’t ask that as some precursor lead to assign some great value to the experience to pick on your opinion. If you haven’t, so be it. Of and by itself it’s not a great achievement. But unquestionably it does tend to provide a perspective that is not from a spectator… in my case, especially a major Chicago city parade. I was in high school ROTC; to that point I had achieved nothing in life.. I was still young. We all dressed in military-style uniforms, essentially “pretending” because we represented a government program through the education process… a kind of military preparatory thing… and people cheered us as we marched by. We had absolutely no claim to any sort of being honored for even the slightest suggestion of having defended the country to that point in our lives.
          But here’s the takeaway… to the spectators we likely represented more the military preparedness of the nation by instilling in the young who “volunteered” for ROTC some idea of obligation to service to country. We were just as proud marching as the spectators were in watching. At no time did any of us think we were there for pomp & circumstance.

          No doubt the many high school ROTC units marching with our school on those special days had members that ended up on the Vietnam Memorial Wall, some became politicians, and likely most, like myself, just went on to average lives. But the parades I remember were about people… not tanks and missiles.


        8. @Doug

          You may have noticed, but I rarely personalize my arguments. Part of it is ego. I don’t see why people who personalize their arguments think it add any force to their arguments. Rarely are they calling upon any special expertise.


        9. Why deny your own human expression, Tom? That’s what gives each of us depth of character, solicits some measure of empathetic respect, and can add to some credibility derived from life’s hard knocks. This “I am a rock” anal thing you balance between your politics and religion is really not necessary. But.. in the end, we are who we are.. and that much I can respect.


        10. @Doug

          It is just the way I deal with a personal weakness, but I want to see the point-of-view of other people. When we personalize our arguments, we sanctify our our own point-of-view. When my argument is about me, that’s tends to make it more difficult to see what others see.


        11. @Doug

          Prison? No. If I confine myself to my own point-of-view, then I have very little liberty. If, however, I strive to see what others see, ultimately to see as God sees, then I seek complete liberty.

          To understand the consider this post => In particular, please read the excerpt from “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” by Adam Smith. It is about how we form a mature conscience.


        12. Doug

          To understand why we need to put ourselves in the shoes of others, we first have to admit we have a bias.

          We never rid ourselves our our personal bias. It is akin to humility. As soon as one believes himself humble, he is filled with pride.


      1. @anon

        The are a couple of other items worth mentioning that would make the money well spent.
        1. If we hold the parade on the 4th of July, it provides instructional opportunities. We can hold competitions for historical reenactors to participate in the parade honor the men and women who contributed to the defense our nation.
        2. We can use the opportunity to show the people who pay for it what the Defense Dept. does for our nation.
        3. We can use the event for recruiting purposes. What young men and women see honored, they wish to be a part of.


  13. Ok, this will be tough, but stretch your imagination. With two wars going on (one not going so well) and more wars one the horizon, President Obama wastes money and military preparedness to order a big N. Korea style parade with tanks and missiles and troops continuously parade saluting him in the main grand stand.

    Wait, sorry I mentioned this because your enraged screaming in that reality is hurting my ears


    1. President Obama? A military parade?

      If Obama had held a military parade Conservatives would have been trying take you and other Liberal Democrats to the emergency room. We probably would be unable to make it, however. The roads would have be rendered impassible due to auto accidents as Liberal Democrats listening to their radios suffered fainting spells and heart failures.


  14. Sorry, I guess I musta stretched the limits of what chicken hawk Republicans who fawn all over a five deferment Cadet Bone Spurs could imagine about their own hypocrisy. 😝


    1. I am not an especially great fan of parades, but I enjoy military airshows. Since that would be included if they follow the French parade as a model, I would certainly consider attending this parade. My guess is that you are just jealous.

      Anyway, before you use the word so carelessly, i suggest you reflect more on the meaning of hypocrisy =>

      My guess is that Obama would have had no problem with a military parade IF the soldiers in it were loyal to him personally instead of sworn to support and defend our country and its Constitution.

      Need I remind you that the most authoritarian governments that have ever been claimed to be socialist states?

      You may also find this post relevant.

      What you are doing with Trump’s parade is Habit #4.


  15. The essence of leadership is honor and integrity, Cadet Bone Spurs has no honor and no integrity. He has never served the country for one day in his entire life.

    Every day someone else in the corrupt swamp that is the Cadet Bone Spur administration is outed for dishonorable behavior and corruption. Even his top national security advisor left in disgrace and plead guilty to a crime. The list goes on and on after that.

    But the pompous Cadet Bone Spurs is the Republicans’ “Dear Leader” so no matter how blatantly corrupt, self-serving and narcissistic he is, you own him. You parade for him and leave our brave men and women in the service who actually have better things to do, out of it. Cadet Bone Spurs only brings dishonor on everyone he has anything to do with.


    1. “Cadet Bone Spurs only brings dishonor on everyone he has anything to do with.”

      Have you been paying attention to politics for the past quarter century?
      That’s not how it works. (fortunately)
      A dishonorable person working for the government is about as common as a wet where a piece of ice used to be.
      I too would prefer a person with military service. If it’s so very important to the Democrats they wouldn’t have made Hillary their anointed candidate for president.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. the Democrats are really really overplaying their hand here. They seem to be doubling down on all the behaviors that got Trump elected in the first place. Who are they trying to convince?
        They’re certainly not going to convince anyone this way. Maybe this is some sort of cognitive dissonance a team building exercise.
        Good thing they have a token veteran to make up childish nicknames!
        And CBS isn’t even a good acronym.
        Maybe they can come up with a better one to form the acronyms “SISSY” or “SNAKE” or some such. Wouldn’t that be classy?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have no idea what will happen in the next three years. No idea where our country will be, of who the Democrats will nominate next (I sure hope it’s someone better than last time).
          But whoever it is, I hope the Republicans call that person a rich, arrogant expletive. “Oh, that person is rich and pompous! Too rich and pompous for the office of PONTUS!” State it sincerely as though their sensibilities can’t get over the shock.
          Maybe, just maybe the Democrats will get it then. Maybe a little bead of awareness of the rank hypocrisy will reach their frontal lobes? But I doubt it.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. It’ll be great.
          “But Trump was a rich arrogant expletive..”
          “Oh! Don’t drum up the past! That doesn’t matter…we’re the poor man’s advocate now, don’t speak of last year….”
          Good Lord.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. Okay, the more I think about this the angrier I get.
          I need to take a break from the internet. My husband joined up just about exactly the time Clinton was elected. Of all the hypocrisy the Democrats have thrown out over the years, this is by far THE WORST.
          THEY are criticizing the president for not serving in the military? TRULY?
          Their policies have been catastrophic for the military. Ash Carter was heinous. He cared so little he didn’t even meet with his own Chiefs of Staff until six months after he was appointed. Good grief. I’m off the computer for at least until after the weekend. Never post angry. (that would be my advice to Trump as well with his tweets)


        4. @anon

          Anger has its place, but it is a good idea to cool off.

          The other side needs our pity. When they behave as they do, they hurt themselves. What we must do is be careful to avoid committing our own sins (no doubt that after I die God will point to things I should not have written when I blogged).

          Typically, Christians point to the Pharisees as hypocrites. We often forget that some of those Pharisees became devoted Christians.

          Jesus appealed to the Pharisees to change their hearts. Their hypocrisy obviously angered Him, but I think it sadden Him more. He hated the pride that made the Pharisees hypocrites, but He loved them, nevertheless.

          No doubt Jesus’ accusations of hypocrisy shook up the Pharisees, but His love did more to change their hearts.


        5. 😘😘😘
          That good enough?

          Seriously, I don’t spend much time with people I don’t like. It doesn’t do them or me any good.

          Jesus said to love your enemies. Well, that is hard. So I try not to make any, and I expect you do the same. Makes life easier all around.


    2. @tsalmon

      Is repeating libel, baseless accusations, slander, curses, and frothing at the mouth now the same as rational discussion? So you hate President Donald Trump? That’s a personal problem only you can fix.

      Consider the futility of your cause. Do we build ourselves up by tearing others down? Doesn’t that just result in an illusion? Does not what we see just feed our pride because we rise above those whom we have helped to break down? Is anyone — even our self — actually any better off?

      We rise up by standing for something worthy of our support. It is futile — instruction in hypocrisy — to force others to stand for what we believe. We don’t wrest what others have earned — steal — out of their hands. We stand on our own two feet, and we built up each other up with the work our own two hands. We glorify our Maker with our example. We give to Him — to His Glory — the first fruits of our own works. All else is just an expression our our pride in our own power.


  16. Cadet Bone Spurs acts like Mussolini at the SOTU and calls people unamercan and treasonous just because they don’t applaud for him, and you’re angry because people simply point out what a self serving narcissist he is? I’d say that’s funny, but there is nothing funny about this hypocrite draft dodger.


  17. “We rise up by standing for something worthy of our support. It is futile — instruction in hypocrisy — to force others to stand for what we believe. We don’t wrest what others have earned — steal — out of their hands. We stand on our own two feet, and we built up each other up with the work our own two hands.”

    Exactly, and that’s why a self serving and corrupt president using grand marshal displays to prop up his own ego and inadequacies of honor is beyond sad.

    Historically, we only have such displays to celebrate our military’s victories. One was considered the last time we pulled out of Iraq, but the military demurred saying it would be inappropriate while we still had troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. What changed? Only that Cadet Bone Spurs has a Caesar complex to be assuaged.

    I say again. You want someone to go goose step to glorify a draft dodger, then you do it. Our military has enough to do with trying to get us out of all these nation building debacles that Republicans got us into in the first place.


    1. Okay, I lied above. This is my last post and then I’m going to use this outrage energy to go for a nice, long run.

      I’m not a big fan of parades. They seem a waste of time and energy to me. I’ve never voluntarily marched in a parade, nor have my children. I don’t do

      Your party has an unbelievable PR problem right now. Yes, worse than Trump and his angry tweets. Why? Because these are folks pretending to be the adults in the room. By purposefully not clapping after a SOTUS, they look like a bunch of toddlers in soggy diapers.

      The actual tweet: “And you have the other side — even on positive news, really positive news like that — they were like death. And un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not! I mean they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much.”

      Many many Americans identify with the above remark. These people who cannot muster up the courtesy to simply clap out of politeness are not sending the message they think they are. Rhetorical question we all know the answer to: Do you think they’d at least clap politely if it were the leader of a foreign country, making similar remarks? They really do seem to not like America much. And that is a big public relations problem.

      You’ve mentioned immigrants a good many times, and have shared that your wife is a very successful person. I have to wonder how many immigrants you really know personally? I am first generation and my husband is first generation….and our parents do not think as you do. They support Trump and his policies. Last place I lived was 60 percent immigrant. About 35-40 (just a guess there) were from Cuba or Puerto Rico. Again, their opinions were much different from yours. They too were Trump supporters (Rubio, a Cuban, lost to Trump in Florida…and the Cuban population is large enough to make a big impact there…consider Elian Gonzales lost Gore the election).

      Liked by 1 person

    2. @tsalmon

      May as stop giving soldiers medals, I suppose. Some Liberal Democrats in their 60’s are bound to find some kind of reason to be offended have a temper tantrum more appropriate for a 2-year old.

      All that parade is to you is an excuse to attack Trump. It really does not matter to you what he does.


  18. Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Purple Heart Recipient who lost two limbs when her helicopter was shot downin action is the one who coined the term “Cadet Bone Spurs” to describe Trump. Ya, she’s an unamercan traitor because she didn’t stand up and clap for a five deferment draft dodger.

    Calling people unamercan and treasonous simply because they don’t sufficiently applaud you is what’s unamercan. Ordering our military to a stupid parade just prop up his corruption with their bravery is what’s unpatriotic.

    What a pompous buffoon you’ve chosen to defend.


    1. Being an injured veteran does not offer carte blanche for needless rudeness or childish behavior.
      Yes, he’s very pompous (though I don’t think he is stupid).
      I was under the impression from what you’ve stated recently that you were interested in discussion. I’m telling you this is not helping the Democrats at all.
      Do you want to win the next election or divide the country more?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “I was under the impression from what you’ve stated recently that you were interested in discussion. I’m telling you this is not helping the Democrats at all.
        Do you want to win the next election or divide the country more?“

        Paul Ryan recently praised the their massive tax giveaway to Trump and his cronies by saying that the $1.50 per week that some working woman gets will be more than enough to pay for her Costco membership. “Let them eat cake” comparisons aside, what Ryan failed to mention is that the tax windfall to Exxon alone is enough to buy all of Costco.

        I heard one Democratic strategist compare the tax package to giving average workers a one time extra bag of peanuts way back in the knee cramping economy section while the real winners in the super-luxury section get a lifetime of cucumber facials. All that before the plane then takes off without enough fuel to go anywhere.

        You don’t think it’s good politics to keep hammering Republican corruption and self dealing at the expense of the American people? I disagree, but regardless of how it is polling in the moment, it is the right thing to do. If doing the right and honorable thing doesn’t unify us in the end, then what is the point of unity anyway? If you really think it’s better to be applauding an unabashedly corrupt, self serving narcissist, then you applaud and prance around doing tricks for him, and quit calling everyone else who doesn’t think it either prudent or honorable a traitor.


        1. @tsalmon

          Corruption is not taxing corporations? To defend Liberal Democrats, that is how you have to define corruption? You act like they stole their own money from the IRS. That’s perverse!

          When investors keep the own money — when the government does not take it from them — that’s is not a windfall. It is just part of their profits, and they are being allow to keep it.

          Investors risk money they have already earning by investing it. If they invest well and the market favors them, they make profit. That’s just part of the nature of commerce.

          Government, on the other hand, exists off the earnings of others. Like a parasite, it does not ask permission from its host. It just feeds. As voters, the people who ultimately control this parasite, we have the obligation to make certain that government has a symbiotic relationship with its host. That is not something you seem to have any interest in doing.


    2. PS

      Enjoy the run. That’s also my favorite form of meditation when the hypocrisy and corruption of Cadet Bone Spurs gets to be too much. Too bad Cadet Bone Spurs’ ego is either too big or too fragile to be capable of any such form of introspection.


    3. @tsalmon

      Think about anon’s post here =>

      There is nothing rational about the way Liberal Democrats are going after Trump. It is pure bitter hatred. In spite of a clearly biased news media, that is what people are slowing starting to notice.

      Is Trump a pompous buffoon? Who are you or I to judge? What I care about is what he has done, his performance as compared to what we got from Obama or would have gotten from H. Clinton. That’s a topic you have avoided. Instead, you attack the man. That’s just a logical fallacy, and I know you know it. Shame on you.


      1. But, Tom.. maybe it’s YOU that’s missing the point. You’ve made the same complaints about me as well… it is indeed the man himself that is affecting the country far beyond what you are imagining as his great accomplishments. Words matter, Tom. Morality matters, Tom. Persona matters, Tom. You are suggesting that the person matters not.. it’s what he accomplishes that matters. Well, that rather assumes the end justifies the means. I simply refuse to want to pay that price for a… well, buffoon. I’ve stated often enough.. hell, let Pence carry the Trump agenda.


        1. @Doug

          We had an election. We had a choice of candidates. Trump won. You don’t like it? That’s a personal problem. You have to wait until the next election. That is just the way the system works.

          What have Liberal Democrats done? They don’t want to wait. It appears that DNC, the H. Clinton campaign, and officials in the Obama administration tried to frame Trump. That is far worse than anything that Trump has done.


  19. A heads-up regarding the Nunes memo. The memo claimed, that the FISA applications did not disclose the Steele dossier being part of opposition research. Now Nunes on “Fox and Friends” has dialed down this claim to the language being not explicit enough. As it turns out, the initial application, as well as the following applications, had footnotes indicating the political nature of the dossier. Nunes further revealed, that he had not read any of the FISA applications he is criticising.

    You will also want to keep in mind, that the FBI was aware, that Russia had targeted Carter Page years before the campaign as a possible source or spy. Reason enough to keep an eye on Page, especially as Page has called himself an “informal advisor” to the Kremlin.


      1. FISA warrant applications are written by legal experts for legal experts. If a piece of evidence is marked as “political” in a footnote, then the judges know that this piece of evidence is tainted and weigh it as such. For the finding it does not matter, wheter evidence was paid for by “candidate 2”, “candidate 3”, “candidate 4” or “HILLLLAAAAAARRRRRRYYY!!!!!!”

        The language used in the Nunes memo implies that the Steele memo was not characterized as being paid for as opposition research. Now Nunes retreated to saying the language was not clear enough “for the American people” (never mind it never was the target audience, but law professionals). If you can not tell the difference between “They never said A” and “They did say A, but in a way I do not approve of” I am sorry for you.


        1. marmoewp

          It appears you saved your strongest argument for last. “I am sorry for you.”

          The HPSCI Memo explicitly states what was omitted. It is quite obvious the FISA judge should have be told key details that were omitted. Still, I appreciate your pity. I suppose it is better than being hated. Thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: