General Michael Flynn Completely Exonerated

Yesterday (May 07, 2020), the Justice Department has abandoned the prosecution of the retired Army general Michael Flynn after running “a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.”

UPDATE May 13, 2020

Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order on Tuesday soliciting “Amicus Curiae” (“friend of the court”) briefs. Dan Bongino explains why Judge Sullivan goes against his own earlier ruling by doing so. (Full show.)

Publish by Dan Bongino on May 13, 2020

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

White House press secretary — Kayleigh McEnany — during her press briefing today (May 08, 2020) when talking about the prosecution of gen. Flynn said:

If the top leadership of the FBI can target a three-star general who served this country for three decades, make no mistake, they can target you.

Published by Fox Business on Apr 08, 2020

It’s hard to believe that this happened in the United States of America. General Michael Flynn’s life was forever changed. He had to sell his home. He faced financial ruin. His family was even threatened with prosecution.

It appears that, as Tucker Carlson said on his show, gen. Flynn was set-up by corrupt government officials, and his life destroyed because he was viewed as an obstacle in the way of taking pres. Trump and his administration down.

They know Michael Flynn is not a dangerous criminal. If he was a dangerous criminal they’d be working to free him from jail. No, they wanted Flynn crushed purely because he happened to be in the way of the power they seek.

Published by Fox News on Apr 07, 2020

Gen. Flynn is waiting for a judge presiding over his case to sign off on the motion by Justice Department to drop the case against him. Hopefully, all will be buttoned-up and gen. Flynn will be able to start to rebuild his life, including suing everybody responsible for his raw deal.

Thank You For Reading

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google

A Quick Thought.

Tulsi Gabbard: 7/29/2019

Here’s the bottom line. This is really about the unchecked power that these big tech monopolies have over our public discourse and how this is a real threat to our freedom of speech and to our fair elections.

Tulsi Gabbard

After the first Democrat debate, GoogleTrends showed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as the most-searched candidate of Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, after entering the event in Miami as a relatively unknown. That would have been a critical time to feed the curiosity with a targeted ad campaign to benefit from such an enormous spike in interest.

Unfortunately for Rep. Gabbard, decision-makers at Google weren’t particularly amused by her new-found popularity, and her campaign encountered a strange and unsuspected obstacle. While the searches for Gabbard were at viral levels, Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account..

Google has 90% of the search engine market share worldwide.

“Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign,” Gabbard told The New York Times, “are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values. This is a threat to free speech, fair elections, and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”

It’s interesting to see that the internet aristocracy is targeting not only conservatives but also democrats who don’t have “approved by the management” stamp on their forehead.

Even if a $50 million lawsuit means nothing to Google, the gentlemen who run that company need to rethink the way they use the publicly-traded corporation to advance their private agenda. This lawsuit is just a first step in a marathon run, and there’s going to be many more runners joining the race.

It won’t surprise me to see multiple class-actions against Google (and other internet giants). It happened to the tobacco industry, and it can happen again, this time to the internet Barrons who think that no one can touch them.

Well, we will see what the next decade or two will bring us. As Steve Jobs said: “The future is long.” So, let’s take a seat and enjoy the action.

Thank You For Reading

Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade? Relax, It’s Just a Movie.

The pro-life movement is working on a new movie, and the pro-choice community is going crazy. Why?

A small group of people is working on a low budget movie with intentions to present a conservative take on January 22, 1973, Supreme Court landmark decision in Roe v. Wade that established a woman’s legal right to an abortion.

I don’t have a problem with it. Preventing others from sharing their opinions is not my thing. I don’t necessarily listen to what people have to say, but I’m not going to stop them in the middle of the sentence either. So, ladies and gentlemen, go for it – make that movie.

Now let me point your attention to the other player in this event – Progressives. (Progressive don’t like Conservatives because they believe that Conservatives are against progress, and Conservatives don’t like progressives because, in their opinion, the Progressive Movement is progressing in the wrong direction.) Men and women who subscribe to the progressive point of view believe that woman has a right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy so, understandably they get a little upset when someone decides to challenge the validity of that belief.

So. What’s up with that?

Roe v. Wade is not in theaters yet (Its release date is set for January, 2020), but the movie already caused enormous controversy and generated a very emotional, and unfortunately biased reaction from supporters of abortion. Critical statements about the film, ranging from comments about the movie and people involved in the production process – worthless flick, made by idiots, with idiots in it. Thru reports of catastrophic events, where actors and crew members were running off the movie set after discovering that they been unknowingly working on the pro-life project. And ending on an accusation of physical assault on the journalist by a member of a production crew.

Two teams, two entirely different viewpoints on the same subject – the right to choose.

Let’s get ready to…

In the blue corner – Progressives. They’re pro-choice, and they have chosen to support woman’s right to abortion.
In the red corner – Conservatives. They’re also pro-choice, but they have chosen to support the right of unborn children to have a shot at life.

Facts Or Fiction? You decide.

Secretive movie.

In Blue Corner, Many bloggers described the Roe v. Wade as a secretly made movie (probably because The Daily Beast called it “the secretive project“). The Red Corner explained that production was kept quiet for a couple of weeks, both for the security of the cast and crew (probably to avoid problems like the, mentioned below, incident with Mr. Sommer) and to obtain shooting locations. Filming has started in mid-June, 2018 and first reports about the film began to come out early July. The Hollywood Reporter dropped the news on July 03, 2018 and The Daily Beast and few others followed on July 06, 2018. It looks like a short-lived secret.

Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos in the movie.

“There are lots of surprising cameos from controversial people.” Said Roe v. Wade director – Nick Loeb, without giving any specifics. The Blue Corner started to circulate Names like Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannopoulos as examples of those controversial personalities and multiple bloggers, writing about the project, had used those names in their articles. The Red Corner, so far, hasn’t denied that gossip but those two names are nowhere to be found on the Full Cast and Crew list.

Project too extreme for Kevin Sorbo and Stephen Boldwin.

Blue Corner – According to The Daily Beast, actors Kevin Sorbo and Stephen Baldwin turned down the project after reading the script.
Red Corner – In reality, both actors had prior commitments. Mr. Sorbo told The Washington Times: “I wanted to do the movie. I loved the movie and loved the part.” He said Roe v. Wade” would have allowed him to work alongside Oscar-winning actor Jon Voight, a friend, and fellow conservative. [ Read Full Story ]

Attack on journalist.

Blue Corner – The Daily Beast reporter – Will Sommer claims to be attacked on the set of Roe v. Wade. Mr. Sommer said, a crew member grabbed his notepad, crumpled the pages of notes and gave it [notepad] back to him.

Red Corner – On the other hand, Mr. Loeb and co-writer/co-director Cathy Allyn said The Daily Beast reporter intruded on the set during filming at the Lincoln Memorial, distracting the cast and crew in the process. “We have actual audio of him verbally abusing one of our interns,” said Mr. Loeb

The Referee – According to The Daily Beast, [t]he police officer, called to the set, “declined to stop the alleged attacker, reveal his name, file an incident report, or talk to other members of the crew, insisting that the problem had already been solved.” The way he managed the situation tells me which account of the event sounded believable to him.

Those are just a few examples of what can be delicately called…

Misrepresentation of facts,

and the question is: does it deliver the intended impact?

Yes and no. Yes, if one controls all the media. It’s worked great for Dr. Goebbels, who used to say: “If you repeat the lie often enough, people will start to believe it.” But, and there’s always a “but,” Mr. Goebbels didn’t have to deal with a little invention called The Internet. The Internet renders that old technique much less effective. Every time one side distorts reality with lies, the other can issue clear, easy to understand rebuttal.

Of course, I realize that all major social media platforms and many other huge corporations which provide a wide range of Internet-related services, lean toward a blue corner and your Internet presence can be significantly limited when suspended/banned by one of the big ones. There’s still lots of room on the Net for anyone in a red corner to share their opinions. Being banned from a social media platform is not the end of the world and more often than not, being under…

Attack by social media warriors can be beneficial.

As someone said: All publicity is good publicity. When hundreds of bloggers write about a movie, thousands, or even tens of thousands of people tweet and retweet about it, one can expect lots of attention brought to the project. It doesn’t matter if people who write about it love it or hate it. The name of the game is exposure, and in case of publicity, the more, the better (especially when it comes free of charge – nothing can beat that.)

In my particular case I found out about Roe v. Wade movie when googling something (forgot what it was), I saw a link titled What the F**k Is This Roe v. Wade Movie? (asterisks are mine), I’ve clicked on it, and I’ve clicked on that link for a very simple reason, I wanted to know what the f**k is this Roe v. Wade movie about and why someone is so pissed at it.
And now, I know.

Check Parler, new alternative to Twitter.
BitChute alternative to YouTube.

Thank You For Reading

Political Crash William Barr

Why Are Democrats Forcing Attorney General William Barr To Break The Law?

William Barr Cited for Contempt of Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday (May 8, 2019) to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt over the Justice Department’s refusal to comply with Democrats’ subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report complete with grand-jury testimony.


In the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 6 states:
Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).”


In addition to above, Rule 7 (Contempt) States:
A knowing violation of Rule 6, or of any guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under Rule 6, may be punished as a contempt of court.


AG Barr has a choice; contempt of court or contempt of Congress. In case of contempt of court, it’s simple. Courts/judges have sharp teeth, and they can bite your head off.
In case of contempt of Congress, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen E. Boyd has explained in his letter to Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler that:
“(T)he Attorney General could not comply with your subpoena in its current form without violating the law, court rules, and court orders, and without threatening the independence of the Department of Justice’s prosecutorial functions. Rule 6(e) contains no exception that would permit the Department to provide grand-jury information to the Committee in connection with its oversight role.”

In brief.

Providing unredacted (containing grand-jury information) Mueller Report to the committee – BAD.
Preventing unredacted report from being seen (as law requires) – GOOD.

One may wonder why…

…if releasing the (unredacted) grand-jury testimony is illegal, every member of Congress who has voted to hold General Attorney W. Barr in contempt of Congress, has not been charged with solicitation to commit a felony?

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on TV. I’m just trying to use a little of common sense.

Thank You For Reading