MORE FBI

Seriously folks, how much more of this can we take from what is arguably the most important law enforcement agency in the country? I don't expect them to have no political leanings but I do expect them to be honest and put their idiotic political opinions aside when they are discharging the duties of their job. I expect any law enforcement organization from the FBI to the smallest department in the country to at least know the elements of the crime they are trying to prove. 

There is no way to prove that what happened at the Capitol building on January 6th was more than a protest that turned into a riot. The FBI has been abusing their authority and putting hundreds of people in prison for crimes they know their victims did not commit. The majority of the people inside the Capitol that day knew they shouldn't be there, but none of them were carrying guns. Perhaps a dozen or so carried any type of weapon at all. Yet the FBI has set out to prove that thousands of them were armed insurrectionists and federal judges are letting this charade play out. The worst part of this is that it's just part of a continuing effort to discredit one man simply because democrats are afraid of him and actually hate him and the FBI has been working for the democrat party since the day king Barry took the oath of office. 

Fear is a fierce motivator and it is being used to scare all Americans into fighting each other over nonsense that no one really believes once they take the time to think about the issue being discussed. Just look at the misinformation being spread by the media and the FBI about the protest that day. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP ORGANIZED AN ARMED INSURRECTION AGAINST AMERICA

The only source for this claim is an obscure assistant to President Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows named Cassidy Hutchinson. Cassidy has been touted by a tribunal that would make Joseph Stalin proud. I'd love to know what the democrats promised her in return for her perjured testimony before the January Six Congressional committee. She claims to have been in attendance at some high level meetings which is not likely considering her age and position. With a Bachelor's degree in political science from an unknown university in Virginia she would not have been present at any serious planning meetings, certainly not a meeting where the president planned the armed take over of the government. Most likely she was bring coffee, pastries, pens, pencils, notebooks, whatever the people actually involved in the government whatever items they needed. Possibly a young and impressionable idealist she may have heard pieces of sentences and words that allowed her to concoct a story about January Six turning it into some sort of fantasy involving an 'armed' rebellion made up of people who wanted to take over the country.

Nobody has ever testified that anyone involved in the protest was armed except for the law enforcement personnel who were present. 

FIVE POLICE OFFICERS DIED IN THE VIOLENCE THAT DAY

There may have been some people who died at or near the Capitol building that day, but none of them died as a result of any violence (except for Ashli Babbitt) during the protest and none of them were police officers. 

The only person who died at the Capitol that day was murdered by a Capitol police officer named Michael Byrd.  Ashli Babbitt was an unarmed woman who was killed by a frightened police officer as she attempted to enter the chamber he was in via a broken window. There were a number of other armed police officers in the same hallway he was in and none of them fired any shots at all.  And there were several others just a few yards behind the group Ashli was part of and none of them fired any shots either. Luckily for Byrd this was a protest supporting President Trump who is hated by the democrats and the democrats control federal law enforcement in America.

No major news source hates the police more than CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS. They couldn't care less about the police. They lie about police deaths only because of their hatred for Donald Trump. 

WHAT HAPPENED WAS AN ARMED INSURRECTION AGAINST AMERICA

This claim is similar to the first claim I listed and it is the most important point I'm making against the FBI. They are treating this as if it were some large scheme against the Union; a violent insurrection against the United States of America. The dumbest Special Agent in the Bureau knows this was not an insurrection against the country. Like so many protests, especially during the last three years, this was a legitimate protest over apparent election fraud. And there was election fraud. Still whether you agree or disagree isn't the point. The point is that on January Six there was no armed insurrection against this nation by anyone. 

First of all in order to have an armed insurrection against the United States of America you have to have an army of people with guns. A lot of them. And the army you bring better be very well trained, organized and equipped. No one in this army brought any guns at all. There was no evidence of any large scale training or organization. And it looks like about ten thousand people were present on the grounds for the protest waving 'Tump' flags and American flags, Gadsden flags, all sorts of flags. There might have even been some 'Stars and Bars' flags from the Confederacy, but I haven't seen any photographs of that. It is a morally bankrupt argument to try to sell that protest as an insurrection. 

Democrats want us to believe that several thousand well organized people couldn't have disarmed a hundred and seventy five poorly armed and ill trained police officers and forced entry into the senate chamber where the electoral college ballots were being counted? The FBI is intimidating people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit. The protest was not at all well organized and neither was the police force that deployed that day. It is very clear that the police didn't feel like their lives were in danger except for the coward already mentioned who murdered an unarmed woman inside the Capitol that day. 

THE FBI DISGRACED ITSELF; AGAIN

They couldn't manufacture enough evidence to prove Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to help him win the election and they really did try. They even coerced a army general into confessing to lying to the FBI knowing that they had already forced him to spend every cent he had defending himself against false charges they made up. After many hours of interrogation over several days they were able to find a statement that appeared inconsistent with another statement he had made weeks earlier and they decided to charge him with lying to the FBI.  

He knew he was innocent, he also knew he was bankrupt so he plead 'guilty' so the entire FBI induced nightmare would be over. A disgraceful judge, Emmet Sullivan, told General Flynn he was disgusted by his conduct. He should have been looking into a mirror.  

They tried to manufacture enough evidence against President Trump to help the democrat Congress impeach him on two separate attempts at removal from office. They lied repeatedly to federal judges so they could conduct electronic surveillance on Candidate Donald Trump and they paid informants to spy on Candidate Trump. It is actually a crime to knowingly falsify an affidavit to a FISA court, unless you work for the FBI. Evidently a FISA court judge was at least worried about the appearance of impropriety between the FBI and the court so an 'investigation' was conducted after which an FBI lawyer was scapegoated into pleading guilty to a charge that he falsified an internal FBI memo which caused a Special Agent of the FBI to file a false affidavit. 

The FBI attorney was named Kevin Clinesmith. He was convicted of falsifying the memo, or something like that, and given twelve months probation and ordered to complete 400 hours of community service. He also was allowed to suspend his own law license for a year. I'm not sure how that works. I doubt he ever even completed four minutes of his community service sentence. It does pay to be on the winning side, especially if you are a democrat. And now they are trying to manufacture evidence to prove Donald Trump led an attempted coup against the United States of America. I can't say it enough; the FBI has disgraced itself, possibly for all time.  

It can't happen as long as Uncle Joe is president, but as soon as we elect a president with integrity and courage (Donald Trump) the FBI cannot be cleaned out. The entire upper floor of the J. Edgar Hoover building needs to be publicly escorted from the building. Then a search of the entire country needs to be conducted to find someone, whether inside the FBI or among the many dedicated county sheriffs, who has the ability to overlook the politics of the president and tend to the business of enforcing the law and defending the country against spying from other countries which is much more important than participating in the overthrow of the United States government. 

We need the FBI so it has to be cleared of all of its corrupt leaders as soon as possible. The longer the Directorship of the FBI is allowed to work outside the law the greater the risk that the entire organization will become corrupted. A lot of people think FBI agents have been rogue for l long time. It is well known that they cheat when they feel the need and sometimes the result of their sloppy work has terrible consequences like the well known fiasco at Ruby Ridge Idaho, and David Koresh in Texas. The FBI may occasionally stumble onto something major, but usually I think when they make a big discovery it is something that has been handed to them by another intelligence gathering organization from a country looking for a favor from the USA. Corrupt or not, the FBI would be a good thing to have in your pocket.

Seriously, for about seventy years just about everyone in the country thought the FBI was an agency to be looked up to and trusted completely. Now there are very few people who have any faith in them at all. And the Department of Justice is just as recked as the FBI. The swamp does need to be drained and the swamp creatures need to be sent home in disgrace before the entire country disintegrates.  

 

Big Baad D.A.

Alvin Bragg won't be intimidated. What a brave man he must be. He is breaking the law and attempting to intimidate other people and he claims he won't be intimidated because he has finally bullied the wrong people. Even if Donald Trump did pay a woman money to stop saying embarrassing things about him, who cares? Whether she's telling the truth or not why was she trying to publicly humiliate Trump and his family? Whenever a democrat get's caught cheating on his wife it's always, "Look everybody does it!" or when they are reminded about their transgressions when they are picking on someone else who did the same thing their guy did its always, "Hey, two wrongs don't make a right!" 

I guess in a way it must be nice not having a conscience. If you have no conscience you really have nothing to worry about ever. You can say or do whatever you want and then deny you did it or justify your actions; sometimes both, depending on which way the wind blows. Not many people could look at a porn star and gush, "Wow! What a savvy business woman!" We all know it's dirty work, and a disgusting way to make a living and no decent woman would debase womanhood in such a foul and degrading way, but Stephanie Clifford has. The on again and off again hero to the democrat party is back in the news. And she is a hero. I was always told in my youth that we were known by the company we keep. The point was if you hang out with shady people it won't matter what type of person you are, you will be seen by others as someone who is untrustworthy. 

Does anyone even remember Michael Avenatti? He's another democrat hero. Why is he one of their heroes? Because he had the courage to defend a porn star who had the courage to try to publicly humiliate a public figure and his family. And of course she didn't expect anything in return; she is an honest woman who only thought the world should know that Donald Trump was one of the thousands of men she'd been with. And she was afraid his wife and kids didn't know so she was going to be honest and virtuous and brave and she didn't want anything in return. She was just being a good citizen who wasn't looking for any reward. Of course Michael Avenatti is also a virtuous man who occasionally works pro bono for a sympathetic cause. And there is no better cause than helping a porn star embarrass a political candidate right? 

Avenatti wasn't in it for the money either. Of course no one really knows why else he would be involved. As it turns out he really didn't need the money since he was in the process of bilking his regular clients out of millions of dollars. Because he is a valiant man, a man of great passion, virtue and truth he agreed to help this poor defenseless woman pro bono. A man who only wants the world to be a safer place for everyone. And democrats were so enamored of this dynamic duo they were already planning the campaign slogans for Michael Avenatti, Man of the People! The future president of the United States of America! Every cheer squad in the journalism business was touting the virtues of this great man. He was going to make a great president someday according to all of the talking heads at the usual cheer locations; CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, they were all gushing over this great heroic man. Any man with the courage to stand beside this soiled dove, this virtuous porn star who wants nothing more than to leave that life behind and help make the world a safer place, free from despots like Donald Trump. 

Whew! I think some of them hinted at the possibility of an Avenatti/Daniels ticket. Now that would be something to see. A thief and a porn star in the White House (kinda like Uncle Joe and Kamala?). Unfortunately I'm not at all certain they would have lost. I am quickly losing my confidence in the American people. Even Donald Trump is a poor presidential candidate, but currently he's the best we have to offer. He's smart, hard working and aggressive, but he has very little diplomatic capability and I'm not sure he has any patience with those who do. Given a choice between a thief and a porn star or a hard working businessman with the courage to say the things that need to be said, and follow through by doing the things that need to be done, I'll take the latter.

Like so many democrat heroes Avenatti was sentenced to fourteen years in prison for stealing millions of dollars from his clients. Alas, leaving the virtuous Stephanie Clifford out in the cold to fend for herself. A poor helpless woman, a woman of virtue who only wants to make the world a better place and in order to do that she has to shame a man who has never harmed her, and hurt his family. There is no way to know if she is telling the truth or not, but there was a way to get this virtuous woman of great courage to stop telling her story and you guessed it. She didn't get involved for the money but for a small sum she would be willing to stop telling her story. So a payment was agreed upon, she got paid, and she shut up. She had done her civic duty by telling the world Donald Trump was a scumbag who took advantage of her so there! Now you know. And now that my courageous and virtuous lawyer is in prison I guess I can forget about ever becoming Vice President of the United States (or whatever this place is called; it's kinda pretty though) so I'll just go back home. 

And she did. Until a marionette in the form of Alvin Bragg came along and started doing George Soros' bidding. And democrats continued their quest to demolish the Trump family. Donald Trump collaborated with the Russians, he's a traitor. Melania used to be a model. We've seen pictures of her naked. What kind of a woman would make a living selling herself like that? And his kids. Donald and Eric hunt poor defenseless wild animals. And that Tiffany is an airhead who is only famous because of her dad. And Barron? Well he's kind of young and we don't really like him very much but we're not sure why, and even a democrat knows that picking on a child is dangerous business, not a bad idea but it could blow up in your face so we'll just leave him alone for now. Two attempts to remove President Trump from office via impeachment failed even with two Republicans participating along with the democrat lynch mob, Sorry dems, no criminal indictment there either. No evidence that he's a traitor, and the J6 thing? Well it's a little thin too. President Trump did not plan or intend to start an insurrection against the United States of America. Nobody did. There was no insurrection. 

So there sits little Alvin What's his Name in his big office in Manhattan. Oh yeah, Bragg. What a fitting name for a guy who is about to ride his fiery steed into the Little Big Horn valley to get massacred. Like Custer Bragg has no idea what he is getting himself into, but unlike Custer his only motivation is hate. He hates Donald Trump. Not dislikes or disagrees with, but hates. He is a good little democrat. Not overly bright but that's okay. He's doesn't have to know all that much about anything he just had to get himself elected then follow the instructions he was given by his handlers. Even Alan Dershowitz who is hardly a Republican has a big issue with what the democrats have done with Donald Trump, and one of the very few things I would probably have in common with Dershowitz is respect for the Constitution of the United States. Dershowitz is appalled by the flagrant disregard democrats are showing the Constitution. 

Actually my problem with Dershowitz is his willingness to intentionally lie to a judge and jury in order to make sure a man he knew murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend avoided a guilty verdict just because the man on trial was willing and able to pay him a ton of money. As much as I hate it, that is what defense attorneys are supposed to do. Alan would probably be among the first to admit that in any court the truth doesn't matter. For one thing it is difficult to know what the truth is in many cases, but in the OJ Simpson case the truth was clear. When OJ brutally stabbed his wife and her boyfriend to death he accidentally cut himself in the process and bled at the scene of the crime, leaving drops of blood on the ground at the crime scene, inside his Ford Bronco, in the driveway of his residence, and in his clothing. Obviously Alan Dershowitz is smart enough to know that a blood trail like that can only happen if the guy who committed the crime was bleeding. Dershowitz may be a liar, but lying is not a crime. Suborning perjury is a crime, but one that is difficult to prove. Nobody saw Simpson kill anyone so there is really no proof that he did. Except for the blood trail he left that led the police from his ex-wife's house to his house. 

How did his blood get there? That's obvious; Dershowitz theorized the police wanted to frame OJ Simpson. The problem with that is OJ Simpson was a hero to most police officers before he practically cut off his ex-wife's head in front of her house while their children slept upstairs. Simpson was a professional football player and he had been in a few clever commercials and appeared in a couple of movies. He appeared to be very likable. He had even employed a few Los Angeles police officers to work for him off duty as security officers. There was absolutely no reason why they would want to frame him for such a horrific crime. They really hoped he didn't do it. And what OJ did after murdering his ex-wife, the mother of his children, was probably necessary if he didn't want to be convicted of a crime, was understandable even if it was unforgivable; he left his two young daughters alone sleeping upstairs. 

Alan knew all of this and he still made up multiple stories in an effort to distract the court from the evidence. One of the theories why the police would want to frame a man as popular as OJ Simpson was because of his race. After all the LAPD was notorious for its racism against black people and as anyone could see Simpson was a black man. And a star struck judge made Alan's job even easier by allowing such things as racial bias to be introduced during the trial. The judge further assisted the defense by allowing them to put the prosecutions DNA analyst to a test that lasted for a couple of days and was designed to put jurors, judges, and anyone else paying attention to sleep. The custom in criminal and other court cases is to allow the defense and the prosecution to attack the scientists credibility by asking questions about the expert's background, training, and education, including any certification the expert had been awarded, not to make him read DNA charts that even the defense really didn't understand. The judge was on TV and he seemed to enjoy the attention he was receiving so he let the defense do whatever they wanted. But even a man like Dershowitz, a man who admittedly will lie for money and has been a knee jerk democrat his entire life, now believes that perhaps we should respect the law. I don't know why the transformation took place but I welcome it. 

And Alan says what the House of Representatives did was a horrible violation of everything sacred. They knew Donald Trump was not guilty of collusion with the Russians and they still held their sham impeachment process. Twice. Once for abuse of power and obstruction of justice, and the second time for incitement of insurrection. Alan Dershowitz, arguably an expert in criminal law since he practiced it for decades and has taught it for decades has become troubled over the reckless way in which the law is being applied now. Even he sees a multi tier system of justice as dangerous to the survival of America. If whichever party is in power is allowed to charge people in the opposite party with a crime for which there is no evidence that a crime was even committed, then all of us are in real danger. 

That is precisely what was being done in Congress, until Americans finally woke up enough to oust democrats from power in the House of Representatives, and now since Congress failed, and even a democrat owned DOJ failed to file any criminal complaint in the porn star civil case, somehow a district attorney from New York City wants people to believe that he thinks he has enough evidence to indict a former president of the United States for a criminal offense. Normally when we say no one is above the law we are talking about rich and powerful individuals who are escaping the clutches of justice because of their position. In this case we are talking about a wealthy man who was president of the country who lost his bid for re-election during an election process that a lot of people think was tainted. President Trump didn't try to hide his frustration with a process he thought had been violated, and voiced his objection to a lack of any real investigation into allegations of election fraud. Literally millions of Americans agree with him. A lot of us wanted to see an actual investigation and we never did. All we got was a statement from someone saying there had been an investigation and there was no evidence of fraud. 

After the presidents speech there was a protest at the Capitol building that turned into a riot during which the capitol police murdered an unarmed woman. Since then democrats have been in a frenzy to prove that President Trump orchestrated an insurrection against the USA. Democrats spent over a year trying to prove Trump was guilty of committing a crime that never occurred. Failing that they resurrected the porn star. Since Trump paid her to stop spreading rumors about him he must be guilty of something so they subpoena'd all of his financial records and they think they found a book keeping error they can use to send him to prison. Once again since no crime occurred it is going to be impossible to prove anyone committed the crime. Stephanie Clifford couldn't stop talking about Donald Trump until she reached a financial agreement with Trump's lawyer. Once payment was received she stopped talking about him. For Stephanie it was all about the money. 

Dershowitz is not a Trump supporter but he is still concerned about this pending prosecution because not only is it unprecedented for a former president to be arrested, but Donald Trump is a candidate for the presidency in the 2024 presidential campaign. Among the many potential problems Mr. Dershowitz has outlined is the corruption inherent in the Manhattan district attorney's office. The joke has always been that in Manhattan the DA can get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Mr. Dershowitz has pointed out that in Manhattan you can also convict a ham sandwich and he thinks that could easily happen in an area where the district attorney will be able to impanel a jury of Trump haters who are eager to convict him if there is any evidence or not. They could easily be thinking, "This is Trump we're talking about and he lies about everything. Now we have a chance to punish him for his past lies and so he is guilty..." 

That could easily happen. And now this idiot district attorney is facing the possibility of being somehow forced to appear to testify before Congress. Democrats are of course demanding that Republicans stop harassing the district attorney and let him do his job. And of course that is exactly what Republicans want the district attorney to do. In Manhattan the district attorney has announced he will refuse to prosecute certain cases including resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration in some situations. Included in the list are selling narcotics and prostitution. It looks like Alvin is pro crime. If resisting arrest is not a prosecutable crime why would any police officer risk being sued for making an otherwise legal arrest? 

On the surface it looks like Donald Trump has nothing to worry about, but as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, this proposed arrest will be carried out with the district attorney knowing he doesn't have enough evidence to convict, and possibly knowing there isn't even enough evidence to show that a crime occurred. Like most bullies Mr. Bragg wants desperately to be considered a danger to anyone who dares to stand up to him. Apparently he hasn't been paying attention because all indicators are that Donald Trump is the one who won't be intimidated. I challenge any democrat to explain to me why we need prosecutors who refuse to prosecute criminals. 

Even if Bragg is lucky and somehow secures a conviction by selling his fiction to a sympathetic jury he won't stand any chance at all at the appellate level. I really think he is doing Donald Trump a favor. That booking photo is going to be on millions of t-shirts all across America. He is going to find out that even a few democrats hate a bully and they will cross the line and support Donald Trump over his demented opponent and his cackling hyena. And the police officers of the NYPD stand to make a lot of money on overtime. Now democrats are going to feel the wrath of Republicans who have finally been pushed too far and are going to protest. Most of them will be peaceful, but they will be infiltrated by a handful of hate groups and there will be violence and people will get hurt, I just hope they will respect the police. The police officers are not there to support either major party. It is a fair assumption that even in New York City a lot of the police officers are Trump supporters.

So I hope the protesters are peaceful. I hope there are a hundred thousand of them choking the sidewalks. Their voices need to be heard and democrats need to feel the righteous indignation of a group of Americans that are not the enemy, we are all citizens (I know democrats hate that word) of the same country. We need to listen to each other and respect each other. Stop the name calling and the demagoguery. And if at all possible stop that madman district attorney. Talk sense to him. If he manages to bring his case to trial even if he wins he will look like a fool. If you hate Donald Trump fight him with ideas and goals, not with fake investigations and illegal prosecutions. There is no need to make him a political prisoner like democrats are doing with the J6 protesters. Far too many of them are being imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. 

Stop prosecutorial misconduct. Restore the respect for our system of justice. Keep the blindfold on Lady Justice because that is such an important ideal to work for. And let's elect district attorneys who respect the law and have no respect for people who break the law. We need strong district attorneys who want to put criminals away. 

Democrats really are Fools

Protesting is a very old sport in America. In the days leading up to 1776 Colonists protested a lot. The king was pushing them around and they were starting to resent it. The two most famous protests were the Boston Tea Party which was a peaceful event during which patriots boarded ships at night and threw hundreds of boxes of tea into Boston Harbor after Great Britain imposed a duty on tea. The other famous protest became known as the Boston Massacre. Colonists were throwing snowballs, and other things at a group of British soldiers who ended up firing their rifles into the crowd killing five civilians. An officer was subsequently tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter. His sentence was to have his thumb branded with the letter 'M'. 

Both of these protests were the beginning of a much larger protest; the American Revolution. And the American Revolution was fought against the king of England who kept taxing the Colonists without allowing them to have a voice in the British parliament. There were lots of protests actually in those days which lead to 'The Shot Heard 'Round the World' when a bunch of British soldiers were ordered to march to Concord Massachusetts to disarm a Colonist militia they believed was operating in the area. The colonists didn't want to be disarmed and opened fire on the soldiers. It became known as the shot heard around the world because no one could believe that a small bunch of colonists with little or no military training would dare to try to take on the most powerful country in the world.

They did and they won. Today democrats are acting like they are a parliament passing laws that encroach on everyone's liberty. Americans have grown fond of the First Amendment. They liked being allowed to say what was on their mind without fear of government interference. Democrats have protested violently to take away that right. We cannot disagree with such things as abortion, global warming, and transgender equality without risking our livelihood and our standing in the community where we live. 

Democrats are so angry about the First Amendment that they attack people with whom they disagree in a variety of public places. A Republican governor was having dinner with family members in a famous Washington D.C. restaurant when a group of democrats angry at the governor's stand on just about everything surrounded their table and began shouting at them and telling them they were not welcome there or anywhere else in Washington D.C. The restaurant manager then joined the chorus and demanded that the family leave. Incredibly before leaving the governor paid the bill for their partially eaten meal. I don't if that included a tip but I'd be surprised if it didn't. That doesn't seem very open minded to me. You can talk to a Republican about anything without fear of any type of attack. Republicans have their faults, but they are not closed minded bigots. They may disagree with a person but they will listen politely. 

The USA today has become frighteningly divided. Republicans oppose just about everything democrats want because they just don't see the need to destroy our nation to appease a political party. If something is needed then both sides can get together and agree upon the best way to accomplish the goal. Neither side will get everything they want, but both will get something. That honorable and respectful way used to be considered the strength of America. Now any negotiation begins with the lead democrat telling the Republican representative something like, "This is the way it's gonna be like it or not! If you disagree get over it because there can be no negotiation since we've already decided what will be done!" Then they start telling the world how a bunch of racists Republicans disagree with their ideas because Republicans are afraid to do anything that would help black people. Then Black Lives Matter shows up to 'protest' and ANTIFA shows up to 'counter protest' which only means that both sides get to burn buildings and cars and loot businesses until there is nothing left, maybe kill a police officer or two, go home and watch themselves on TV. And if by accident a couple of them get arrested a handful of democrats will pay their bail and once they are free they are never heard from again until the next riot. 

In the days of King Barry it was always, "Sit Down, Shut Up!" "We Won, You Lost!" Until democrats finally have decided to take the same road as the king's army in 1775. The democrat party is so afraid of a free and open election process that they have decided that they have to use whatever means they can think of to ensure Donald Trump can never become President of the United States again. They lied during two impeachment hearings in an effort to illegally remove him from office when he was president. During his two election campaigns the FBI lied repeatedly to FISA courts, claiming that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to get them to help him win the election. They resorted to illegal wiretaps and getting informants to work inside the Trump campaign. The goal was to find enough dirt on him to ensure he could not be reelected. The fact that they didn't find anything, at all, speaks volumes about how innocent he was. It also speaks volumes about how low the FBI has become. 

And he was not reelected. There is a ton of evidence that the election was not the orderly process it was designed to be and there were multiple irregularities at lots of polling places. There were complaints filed and legal briefs presented, but no actual investigating ever took place beyond asking the guilty parties if they had followed the rules. Each of the guilty parties thus 'interviewed' said they followed the rules to the letter and that nothing was done to help either major party have an advantage over any other party. And since democrats never lie about anything that was the end of the 'investigation'. And the investigation lasted a couple of weeks. 

Having failed at every attempt to stop Donald Trump politically democrats have decided to try to stop him via false allegations of criminal activity. The democrat party has become so reckless that they are about to gleefully and foolishly arrest a former president of United States who is wildly popular with a lot of people. If they thought their foolishness that led to the riot at the Capitol building in January was bad just wait until their current Idiot Du Jour, Alvin Freaking Idiot, Bragg handcuffs Donald Trump in front of millions of people. Just like they did almost a hundred and sixty years ago they will get the revolution they think they want and they very foolishly think they can win. 

I've said it for over ten years; the United States of America, very regrettably is finished. Lady Liberty was mortally wounded and her demise is very close. I say that, but there is a chance she may survive. While she is gasping for life, there is a chance that several million patriots, 1775 style, will fight back hard and kill enough democrats to save whatever is left of the Union and put it back together. It could be that although mortally wounded, Lady Liberty may be able to survive long enough on life support to be revived and rebuilt. 

Not 'build back better' like that demented fool Uncle Joe likes to say, and he sounds like an idiot every time he says it, but restored to her full glory. Uncle Joe has been caught plagiarizing several times during his pathetic life and this 'build back better' sounds an awful lot like Make America Great Again to me. Only MAGA has a much brighter and more positive sound that Uncle Joe's BBB. 

So go ahead and arrest one of the most popular presidents we've ever had for a crime that never occurred. Put him in handcuffs and endanger all of Manhattan to suit your over bloated ego. Then manufacture enough fake evidence and shop for the jury that is most sympathetic to your cause, throw in a carefully selected judge and have you lynching. Put one of the most popular presidential candidates ever in prison and see what happens. You will ensure he is elected in a landslide. An appellate judge will throw the case out, overturn the verdict with prejudice and President Trump in his righteous indignation will wreak havoc on your liberal world. 

That's not a pretty picture to any true American, but that's the picture democrats want to see. They don't care how many innocent people die, or how badly the world's economy suffers. Just like their hero, Vladimir Putin, they only care about their personal power. In the end Vlad will probably hang on to his power. He has already made a visit to a city he ruined in an effort to at least bring about the appearance of healing. The democrats will not be that lucky. They will destroy themselves and cry a river of tears as they watch Americans rebuild. Not Republicans, they are almost a disgraceful as the democrats. Republicans are timid and have allowed the country to sink to the point it finds itself in now. It will take Americans who don't like either major party to work together and Make America Great Again.  

Jacob Chansley

We've always known that the riot at the Capitol building on January 6th was not a resurrection or even a rebellion. It was a riot. A lot of us believe that there were substantial problems with the 2020 presidential election and that it is likely that Donald Trump was the actual winner of the election. The main reason we can't prove it is because there was never any effort to investigate most of the abnormalities. In the few instances where anyone pretended to investigate the people being targeted were given ample time to dispose of any evidence or to refuse to participate with the investigators similar to the sham investigation the FBI carried out when Hilary Clinton was caught storing sensitive top secret information on a private server in her home. The information on her server was probably read by every potential enemy the United States had at the time, including Chinese and Russian leaders and that was why once when President Trump was asked about a question about Bloody Hilary his answer was something like, "I don't know why don't you ask the Russians?" The geniuses at CNN, MSNBC and others, all exclaimed, "Look! He's in cahoots with Putin! He works for the Russian government! He cannot be trusted! He's a traitor....!" And they're still doing it. 

He knew about the private internet server Bloody Hilary kept and that it had been compromised and read by every spy in the world who cared to read it. He also knew the FBI was not going to do anything about it. Personally I don't know if the 2020 election was valid or not, which is a real problem all by itself, but this country has a much bigger problem. The press likes to make a big deal out of crackpot groups like 'Q-anon' that make outrageous claims that don't make any sense and should be ignored. I don't like Hilary Clinton and I believe she has been involved in the murder of some people who could have done her harm politically if they wished, but I don't believe she was ever involved in any satanic rituals involving the killing of children at a pizza restaurant in Washington D.C., that's the sort of story the press gets excited about. Some idiot claiming Hilary Clinton was involved in the ritual murder of children. They let that story play for a couple of days before debunking it. What they were hiding was the fact that they were in the process of suppressing a real news story. They worshipped Bloody Hilary and didn't want everyone to know that her private internet server, that had inadequate protection, and was loaded with sensitive top secret documents, had been compromised and read by a lot of unauthorized people. And who knows? President Trump was not for sale, but he was a businessman who had made some contacts in Russia who probably were politically connected and knew all about the information on Hilary's unauthorized server and found a way to diplomatically pass it on to the president. President Trump made it very obvious to everyone in the world that he was not sympathetic to Putin. The truth is he practically owned Putin. 

And because they know they are guilty democrats never want to open their books to anyone. And that is why there are so many of us who believe the election was rigged. They tried to rig Bloody Hilary's campaign against Donald Trump and they were very confident that they had succeeded. Fortunately they didn't and the nation was saved for at least four more years. No one knows for sure, but there is ample evidence that the election of Uncle Joe Biden was rigged. The FBI, an organization that has become hostile to our Republic, refused to investigate a computer owned by Joe's son, Hunter, that may have sensitive information implicating Uncle Joe himself and since the FBI hated Donald Trump they were not going to take any chances. Special Agent Peter Strzok sent an email to his girlfriend, Lisa Page, promising that Donald Trump wold not defeat Hilary Clinton, when Page sent Strzok an email which stated, "Trump will never be president Right?" Strzok responded, "No, no he won't, we'll stop it." The FBI had been working relentlessly to find anything that wold cast real suspicion onto Donald Trump and Strzok seemed to be ready to use his power as an FBI Special Agent to stop it. When asked about it Pete said, "Hell boys I was just kiddin' Just tryin' to impress my gal! I'd never, ever violate the oath I took." Oh, okay he was just kidding. As if he would simply come clean if he had part of a plan to kill the president. If only they would be that understanding when interviewing people who don't threaten to stop the election of the President of the United States.  

And the big shots at the FBI drew the conclusion, "Whew! That is a relief. I thought we might have a problem here, but he said he was just fooling around, trying to placate a disappointed girlfriend." And that was almost the end of it. If he said he wasn't a threat then he wasn't a threat. The fact that Strzok had repeatedly attacked Donald Trump in emails should have been a red flag to the FBI. It probably would have been if the leadership of the FBI hadn't been desperate for Bloody Hilary to win the election. For one thing, as members of Swamp leadership, their jobs were on the line. There were seventeen Republican candidates for the GOP nomination and each one of them were career politicians and they all hated Trump. Donald Trump was not a polished politician he was different. Not a Republican or a democrat, he had selected to seek the Republication nomination because he didn't think any third party candidate had a chance no matter how strong they were. And it had become painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that the democrat party wanted to destroy America and he was, and is, opposed to that. Everybody was afraid of Donald Trump. He was recklessly swing axes, telling the truth about D.C. And what he was saying was not new. Everybody knew Washington D.C. was a swamp and the people who worked there were swamp creatures and he was promising to change that. 

It should surprise no one that Strzok felt confident sending emails disparaging Donald Trump. They all hated Trump. They were all incompetent and they really didn't want that fact to become public knowledge. As the leaders of the most respected law enforcement organization in the country they wielded tremendous power. People who knew them knew they were not above cheating and breaking the law to crack a case that was important to them. I've talked to several people who have told me how they were treated by Special Agents of the FBI who were conducting an investigation into the actions of the police department they were working for. In every case I was told the agent had them sit in an interview room alone for a very long time, forty five minutes to an hour and a half before walking into the room and beginning the interview. Each person I spoke to mentioned the accusatory tone the agent used and how the agent laid out a series of 'testimonies' from other people who had supposedly already been interviewed. And each time the agent said he already knew what had happened and if the police officer 'lied' he would be charged with lying to the FBI, a felony. Each time the person being interviewed asked if he could have a lawyer present the agent acted surprised and then indignant. "Why would you need a lawyer, this is about the way your department does its training and conducts business with the public, it has nothing to do with you personally?" Then, "Look we're all in law enforcement, we know your agency is basically honest and treats the public with respect, I just need to complete this for my superiors so I can move on to the next assignment. Relax, you are not being charged with anything." 

Each police officer I spoke to said the initial interview lasted about two hours and each officer said he was then called back multiple times for interviews that were often shorter, but equally intimidating. Each one said after awhile they realized they were being foolish for allowing the interview to take place without being represented by a lawyer, but lawyers are expensive and at that time they still trusted the FBI. The interviews became gradually more accusatory, not against the officer being interviewed, but about other people. "What do you know about so and so...What happened at this incident?" 

Then the officers realized that in the file the agent was holding he had reports written by the officer being interviewed and that was part of the source for the questions being asked. The agent wanted to know specifics like what happened to evidence that was discovered at the scene, and is that standard procedure or do you sometimes do things a little differently. Then a gentle reminder, 'relax we're all on the same team here, but remember that lying to the FBI can be serious. The officers weren't lying, but they knew they didn't always follow procedures either. Sometimes some violations were overlooked for practical reasons, small amounts of dope could be destroyed at the scene or thrown away later if that was the only violation and the suspect was being cooperative. Why waste valuable time and resources on a case the distrit attorney's office was going to reject anyway? Yes the department manual was important and we were always expected to follow the law, but hell, two tenths of a gram of coke doesn't always have to end in an arrest, but yes it is a felony and now what do I do? After awhile they realized they really did need legal representation because this jackass is not on their side, just the opposite. Yeah, I did let that guy destroy his rock, and I did allow that crackhead informant to smoke a small amount of coke after he gave us some good information about a suspect we needed to find, hell I even bought him a Big Mac and a large order of fries and now this FBI genius wants me to be fired or worse because in his opinion I don't respect the department manual or the law? 

Special Agents of the FBI don't have any idea how police work is done. One of the officers who had been interrogated by the FBI was accused of 'lying to the FBI' because some of his answers were different from a previous interview. The questions were asked in such a way that it was difficult to know it was the same topic, but yeah, in a way the officer was confused enough by the questions that his answers were different. And each of them involved interactions with other police officers who had been involved in the same incident, but saw it a little differently. The FBI agent was very, very clear that he was not going to submit the lying charge to the United States attorney's office for review because it was such an obvious violation that there definitely would have been a conviction and he didn't want a police officer to be convicted for making such a simple mistake, so he just let the department's Internal Affairs Division decide what to do. And of course the officers department was more than willing to give the 'offending' officer a forty five day suspension without pay to prove that they did value the law and department procedure. I learned a great deal about how far the FBI will go to entrap a witness if possible, but if they have to just make something up that works too.

The officers knew the people in the area where they worked and sometimes a parolee was having a hard time and got a little coked up and got caught. He had a job, he was trying to help take care of his three year old child, let's give him a break this time and see how it goes. I believe the main reason for this mass overreaction to what actually happened at the Capitol is because people at the top levels of government were scared. They were afraid of hearings that were sure to come if Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives. And they knew they were guilty of manufacturing evidence, knowingly making false statements to Congress and lying to FISA judges. 

When powerful men feel threatened they are dangerous. Their fear of Donald Trump caused them to be desperate. They had a report written by a former British spy that made all sorts of claims against Donald Trump that were never verified. In fact when the FBI agents assigned to investigate the claims they only found one person to talk to and they later charged him with lying to the FBI. Not only was the Steele dossier not verified, it was unverifiable. The so-called evidence was nonexistent, but at least it had been put in a report submitted by a man they thought would be presumed credible since they considered him an expert. It was all the  evidence they could manufacture, and since Peter Strzok hated Donald Trump enough to frame him if possible they put him in charge of Operation Candidate Trump, or whatever code name they gave it. They are so incompetent or arrogant, or both, that they didn't care that Strzok had written hundreds of emails detailing his pro Bloody Hilary bias. He emailed somebody after the debate between Trump and Hilary that she should win the election '100,000,000-0.' The leaders of the FBI didn't care because they believe they are untouchable. They may not be above the law, but they are the people who would be assigned to investigate their own corruption. Nothing to see here folks, case closed. 

Never mind that a lot of us thought Trump won that debate. Some democrat had hired a retired British spy named Christopher Steele to dig up some dirt on Trump, specifically to interview an unidentified person who claimed that government officials, unknown names, had contacted the Trump campaign multiple times to try to interest them in damning information about Bloody Hilary. Mr. Steele delivered. He produced a report on Trump for Bloody Hilary and they paid him for his work. As far as anyone knows the report was total fiction. The FBI ended up with it and treated it like Holy writ. They probably didn't believe a word of it, especially after they verified that it could not be corroborated, but it was the only weapon they had so they determined to make it the center of their 'investigation' (witch hunt). 

Mr. Steele told multiple sources that he didn't know if the report was true or not, he got people to tell him stories and he wrote those stories in a report. This fable is so fantastic as to make one wonder if anybody at the top of the FBI has any conscience at all. Still Chris was a former British spy which made him an expert so that's how the leadership of the FBI presented it to the FISA court. They stated that they had absolute confidence in it and it was very damaging to Trump so the judge presented them a blank check to do whatever they wanted to Trump. Apparently there were a total of four warrants approved by the court. Later, after the warrants had been used, two of them were determined to have been granted based on false information that had been presented to the court. No one was disciplined for presenting false information. It is possible that the judge who signed the warrants didn't believe they were based on facts, but this is Trump we are talking about, so no harm no foul. It is possible that the only reason the FISA court decided two of their warrants were bogus was an attempt to allow the court to save face. 

So in that environment, one of suspicion largely created by the democrat party again, the FBI embarrassed itself by using an anti Trump report, funded by the Clinton campaign. The FBI offered to pay Steele up to a million dollars if he could offer any evidence to support the allegations in his report. Mr. Steele was unable to produce even for a million dollars. Knowing Steele's report was most likely fake the FBI forged full steam ahead with an investigation they knew full well was based on nothing but hatred for Candidate Trump. When their incompetence was made public, in an effort to save face they conducted a sham investigation of a private server that was unprotected and used by Bloody Hilary to store top secret information. 

Of course Strzok was part of that investigation and when it was completed one of the FBI findings was that Bloody Hilary had been "Grossly Negligent" with top secret documents, which is a criminal charge. After reading the FBI report Strzok suggested changing the wording to "Extremely Careless" which has no legal definition hence while very damaging to her personally it did not rise to a criminal complaint. Thus James Comey reported that no United States Attorney would file a case against a person for simply being careless. Strzok helped Comey save Bloody Hilary's candidacy again. And that wasn't the first time the FBI came to her aid. After she left a U.S. special mission in Libya, with a nearby annex practically unprotected the FBI pretended to investigate what went wrong. No one will ever know what was going on at that 'mission' but it attracted the attention of Libyans who attacked and destroyed the mission, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three men assigned to defend the operation. 

The subsequent investigation cleared Bloody Hilary of any wrongdoing. In spite of the fact that she refused to answer any of Ambassador Steele's pleas for help the DOJ reported that there was nothing she could have done since there were no United States assets nearby. Of course the entire operation was and is shrouded in secrecy. Nobody will ever know what the purpose of the 'mission' was. They claim it was there to provide cover for groups fighting against Al Qaeda but not facilitating the movement of  any weapons, which probably means that weapons were stored at the site and that was what the terrorists wanted. At the very least, just the fact that Christopher Stevens was being used as camouflage for moving weapons, which makes no sense at all, would be enough for a group of anti America poorly educated, fairly well armed and murderous al Qaeda fanatics to decide to attack the compound. The subsequent hearings allowed Bloody Hilary to bravely accept responsibility for what happened that day, but only because as Secretary of State technically she was in charge of the operation. 

That's what true leaders do after all; heroically take responsibility for a failed operation while at the same time placing the blame on the people on the ground doing the work. She probably had no idea what was going on there. Washington loved her but they weren't going to trust her with sensitive information about an operation taking place right in the middle of a terrorist hotbed. It is very unlikely that President Obama knew nothing about it. It was probably an operation the CIA had hoped would succeed and maybe it did. Since we have no idea what was going on there we have no way of knowing if it succeeded or not. The FBI and DOJ had a long history of covering Bloody Hilary's tracks so they were reluctant to do anything to damage her candidacy. Unfortunately for her at that stage of the game they didn't want to look blatantly partisan so they pretended to conduct an investigation into the potentially illegal actions of Mrs. Clinton. They whitewashed the whole thing, found her to be  reckless but not criminal. And they hoped that would be enough to appease the masses. Luckily they were wrong and they accidentally saved the nation. Their allegiance to Bloody Hilary was not shaken and their loathing of Candidate Trump became stronger than ever. 

They hated Trump and lied about him and did everything they could short of assassination, which I bet was discussed at some level, to destroy him as a person and as a candidate and they failed. Candidate Donald Trump became President Donald J. Trump. The leadership of the FBI was appalled. How could this happen? Undaunted by the evidence against Strzok FBI leadership continued to allow him to 'investigate' President Trump. Finally toward the end of 2018 the FBI leadership decided they could no longer take a chance on Strzok and fired him even though their Employee Disciplinary Office recommended a sixty day suspension and a demotion. With Strzok gone the 'investigation' could continue unfettered by accusations of bias. And they kept swinging to the bitter end. 

President Trump survived two attempts by democrats and two lying Republicans to remove him from office. And he survived an attempt by the DOJ to manufacture evidence that would lead to a criminal indictment using information they knew to be false. They were so desperate to take down a sitting president that they even resorted to lying to federal judges. Of course President Trump was distrustful of the entire process. On January 6, 2020 President Donald Trump, having lost the election under very curious circumstances,  made a speech while Congress was in the process of certifying the election. There were about ten thousand people listening to him as he posited his opinion that the election should not be certified until after there had been a thorough investigation into allegations of election fraud. After his speech most of the people in attendance walked over to the Capitol building to stage a loud protest. A few dozen of the people in attendance incited violence and forced their way into the building. They broke windows and doors and there were some pretty violent fights with a few police officers. Some of the people inciting violence were probably paid informants for the FBI. That's a problem. Informants can gather information about possible illegal activity but they cannot actively engage in violence; especially against the United States of America. 

What we don't know and may never know is how extensive a role the FBI played in that protest. We do know that they had informants in the crowd. We don't know how many or what their assignments were that day. What has been learned about that day should actually be a cause for concern for every single American. The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful with very few people causing any damage to the building or its surroundings. There is lots of video evidence showing what happened inside. What it shows is hundreds of people walking around looking at displays on the walls and taking pictures of themselves with their cell phones. It also shows a lot of Capitol police officers walking around with them, apparently unconcerned by what was going on. At least if they were concerned they weren't making any attempt to escort them out of the building or detain them, which would have been very easy to accomplish. In addition to that there was no mutual aid from neighboring states, counties and  cities. Forget the national guard, where were the Maryland and Virginia State Troopers? County sheriff's departments, and finally the national guard? The video also shows some people outside the building breaking windows and forcing their way through closed doors, allowing others to enter the building, but once inside the group almost appears reverent. Except or a small number of people who continued to attempt to force their way onto the floor of the chamber where the certification was taking place while hundreds of others seemed to have no idea about any effort to stop the vote certification. None of the protesters were armed with any type of firearm. The police were fairly well armed and appeared nervous but not really scared, except for the coward who murdered Ashli Babbitt. 

In contrast to what Chuck Schumer and other idiots, especially far too many so called reporters claim, this was not in any sense an attempt to take over the country or subvert the Constitution. No Capitol police officers were killed that day as has been claimed by the democrat cheerleaders at CNN, MSNBC, and at least a dozen other so-called news outlets. Instead of murdering Ashli Babbit why didn't someone negotiate with some protesters to allow a handful of them to address the members of Congress? And it would have been painfully simple to fill that hallway with tear gas and clear that section of the building. Clearly the Capitol police are not trained in crowd control and they probably shouldn't be. The Washington D.C. police should have been there in minutes clearing streets and restoring order. A good example would be the Los Angeles Police Department that is frequently faced with crowds numbering in the thousands and they are very effective at clearing streets and even protecting buildings. I don't know why the Washington D.C. police made no attempt to help with an obviously overwhelmed Capitol police force. My only complaint with the Capitol police is their apparently extremely flawed leadership who claimed that they expected trouble that day yet still only deployed about a hundred and seventy-five police officers when their roster boasts almost two thousand. Even if some were sick or on vacation they could have deployed far more personnel than they did. If, like they now claim, the FBI really suspected an insurrection was going to take place that day they should have ensured that all necessary resources were in place to stop it. 

Obviously one reason why that didn't happed could be that the FBI wanted there to be a bloody confrontation at the Capitol so they could make Donald Trump look bad and provide more cover for their candidate which was Uncle Joe Biden, friend to the masses. I still believe the democrat party is deeply involved in an effort to undermine the Constitution and they are hoping to use activists on the Supreme Court to pass laws subverting certain constitutional protections that Americans enjoy. To help ensure that happens they have appointed carefully selected top law enforcement officials at each of the Federal law enforcement offices to lead the assault. The FBI most likely failed to show what they knew to ensure that there would be inadequate deployment of Capitol police resources where they could have done the most good. Unfortunately for them the bloodbath they wanted never occurred. 

Uncle Joe has always been corrupt to the core. He didn't just admit to intimidating a foreign government into firing a prosecutor who was in the middle of a corruption investigation targeting a company employing his drug addled son, he bragged about it. The only logical explanation I can come up with for such behavior is that he knows he is untouchable. Just the fact that Hunter Biden, a known drug addict who consorts with prostitutes and who has no expertise in any kind of technology beyond perhaps being able to use a cell phone and a cigarette lighter, sits on so many boards of directors of companies in foreign countries, and is paid millions of dollars for filling positions for which he is obviously unqualified should be grounds for a federal investigation. Especially since a pretty good chunk was deposited directly into the account of his former sister-in-law, turned lover.  Perhaps the people who own those companies really are that stupid, or maybe they are paying for access to a well placed American government official named Joe Biden. No one has even alleged that Donald Trump's family members have used their father's name to collect free money from foreign governments yet the FBI spent millions of dollars attempting to get an indictment against President Trump and made several misleading statements about tax fraud and potentially illegal business dealings with foreign agents that turned out to be totally unfounded. They were willing to swear an oath to a judge that an empty folder in their position contained criminal evidence against the President of the United States of America and nobody cares. 

Why wasn't there better protection for the Capitol building on January Sixth? No one will ever know. The agents of the FBI have no credibility with me. If they really thought there was going to be an armed assault against the Capitol building like they are now claiming, then they recklessly endangered the lives of the police officers of the Capitol police department and thousands of protesters that day. And if they didn't then what occurred on J6 was not a rebellion or an insurrection, but a semi peaceful protest during which a handful of bad apples committed violent acts, some of those bad apples were probably on the payroll of the FBI and the Justice department. And since they most likely knew there was no intent to actually harm any members of Congress then there was no need to murder Ashli Babbitt and that police lieutenant should be in prison for murder. I have no doubt that he was scared, but that alone is no reason to kill unarmed civilians. Now that the hearings have begun we know there was enough information available prior to J6 that their could be some violent individuals at the protest, and some of them might even be carrying firearms the FBI should have made sure that there were enough resources deployed that day to stop any concerted effort to enter the Senate chamber while the ballots were being tallied, or whatever they were doing that day. My question is, how long the FBI be allowed to let this nation down before someone wakes up and takes serious action against the top ranks of that once great law enforcement group? And I'd like to see the democrats do it. They need to show me they are not enemies of the United States of America. 

There was one man who really stood out that day. He was dressed in a very bizarre manner and entered the Capitol building illegally. He didn't break any doors or windows, the FBI informants took care of that, he just followed the crowd inside. He was wearing a hat with buffalo horns and he is not wearing a shirt. In his right hand he was seen holding what appears to be a spear, but is also a flag pole displaying the American flag, and there is a megaphone attached to it. He also has some large tattoos on his chest, stomach and his right arm. He is not seen doing anything at all disrespectful inside the Capitol building. He is being escorted by police officers who are not making any attempt to arrest him or make him leave the building. He is never seen using the spear in his hand as a weapon and the police never asked him to give it to them. I'm not sure why they appear to be giving him special treatment, but they certainly do not appear to be frightened by him in any way and they are making no attempt to arrest him which would have been very easy for them to do.

The fact that the FBI was able to muster enough 'evidence' to land him in prison for three and a half years is a real testament to their ability to scare people into confessing to 'lesser' crimes in order to avoid sentences of twenty years or more. Most likely they sat him in a windowless room, save for the one way mirror installed in one wall, and explained to him all of the potential charges he was facing, and all of the 'evidence' they had against him and told him that he was in fact in very deep doo doo, facing close to a hundred years confinement if he lost in court, but he could 'help' himself out by admitting to a simple obstruction charge and potentially be released from prison in as little as three short years. And if he would consent to that they could help him by putting in a 'good word' with the assistant united states attorney handling the case. So this poor guy hadn't had a decent night's sleep in days, probably hadn't eaten in several hours, hadn't been given the opportunity to consult with an attorney, and had been confined so long he was confused and disoriented, and way too broke to be able to pay tens of thousands of dollars to an attorney who was likely to sell him out anyway, submits to the deal offered him by a couple of Special Agents of the FBI who are only trying to 'help' him. 

This so-called Q Anon Shaman has been railroaded by a couple of Special Agents of the now nearly completely discredited FBI, a once completely trusted arm of the justice system. For all I know Mr. Shaman could be a real jerk or he could be the nicest guy on the block, but he has been severely mistreated by a federal justice system that has run amok. I don't think we've ever seen more than seven hundred people charged with committing the same crime in the history of America. And if the liars at the FBI have their way there will be over a thousand. And all because they hate Donald Trump. And they hate Donald Trump because he had the courage to call Washington D.C. a swamp full of swamp creatures, a metaphor for corrupt politicians and government officials, and the swamp needed to be drained. 

I couldn't care less about Q Anon or their ridiculous views on anything. They may well be a hate group, but nobody cares about them. They are a small unorganized outfit hardly worth mentioning. Democrats turn crackpots into martyrs and that is a stupid thing to do. Whether it's Black Lives Matter, the KKK, Q Anon, or whatever band of idiots that arrives on the scene I've said it a thousand times; extremists can and should be ignored. We don't need the FBI manufacturing evidence to put people in prison. It is obvious that Chansley may be guilty of trespassing but he certainly didn't threaten anyone or damage any property. He is a political prisoner in a land that used to stand for freedom. Now that Tucker Carlson has brought to light hours and hours of video evidence now we know that Q Anon Shanan is innocent as charged. If justice has any meaning in this country we have to set Chansley free and focus on prosecuting anyone, including FBI agents and their paid informants, who lied in court or when testifying at the J6 hearings. That needs to extend to anyone who lied to the FBI. And that must including their own Special Agents and to any FISA judge who overlooked justice out of hatred for Donald Trump. 

It's Official

I'm declaring my independence from everyone around me. Yup, the world has gone mad and I'm not going to take it any more. My own country is paralyzed by fear. Fear of doing anything. Except for those pesky democrats. They have a goal and they are not giving up. They can't tell us what that goal is because if they did they would possibly lose some of their momentum. In order to find out what their goal is all one has to do is listen to what they are saying and watch what they are doing. You will very quickly notice a dramatic disconnect.

They say they love America so they want to begin a plan to "Build Back Better." What the heck does that mean? Well, nobody really seems to know or care. When Donald Trump left office the economy was strong, American manufacturing was returning to America, inflation was low and wages were rising. There were no major wars going on and President Trump was traveling the world meeting with world leaders forging alliances among our allies and understanding among potential enemies. He wasn't afraid to let organizations such as NATO know what they needed to do to improve and to tell them the United States was going to continue its support, but the other nations were going to have to work harder to do what they had already pledged to do. President Trump didn't want any more wars. He was prepared to end American involvement in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. He recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel ending the debate. He let the Chinese government know that Taiwan's independence was important and Taiwan would be defended.

North Korea stopped testing nuclear weapons and launching ballistic missile tests while Trump was president. The invasion across the Southern border slowed to a trickle. Americans were feeling good about themselves again after undergoing constant efforts by the Obama administration to keep racial tensions alive. And now that Uncle Joe won the election we've returned to those bad days of self doubt, racial strife, and self loathing. Uncle Joe has decided that traditional racial strife was becoming boring so he put his people to work on something new and they rallied to the cause. Black vs. white was becoming old news so they beefed up another crackpot idea that has been gaining steam, but was just having a tough time gaining traction; White Men are Evil. And to rope a few gals in on this they decided that all white people were stealing from the other races (read: black people) through an intangible concept called White Privilege and all white people need to just knock it off. 

And of course white people still, according to Uncle Joe and his court jesters, hold all of the power so everybody must tread lightly. "Hey little white person, we understand. It ain't your fault, you don't even know you have white privilege because it's been thrust on you your entire life. You just need to be more aware of how insensitive you are and treat other races  better." So all corporations started putting on seminars to let their employees know how rotten they'd been their entire lives and it was time to step aside and, "Give the people you've been oppressing all your life, without knowing it of course, your job and your position. And tell them you are sorry, and you will never be like that again, and send a donation to Black Lives Matter; a very large donation..." Because face it, white people just are not good people. My favorite was the Pepsi Cola company who just flat out told their employees to 'stop being so white!' 

What? What does that even mean, and how exactly are we supposed to do that? But Pepsi had a list that included such things as, 'don't be so assertive, stop telling everybody about your ideas, don't dress nicer than the people around you...,' there were eight or nine things they suggested white people should stop doing. And as you can imagine a lot of people, including people who don't work for Pepsi were annoyed. I for one haven't purchased a Pepsi product since I saw the list. In case anyone cares I don't drink Coca Cola products either and for similar reasons, I've found the store brands to be every bit as good and they don't tell me I need to be less white or more gender aware or any other stupid stuff. Apparently the backlash against Pepsi was significant since soon after that became corporate policy, at least for the little white people on the ground making all the rich people richer, they blamed the studio that made the training video. The Pepsi Big Shots claimed they didn't know that was part of the presentation and gave the Little People permission to be themselves, as long as the little white people didn't over do it, or something like that. 

Even my former employer, a large American city had us all go through a eight hour training course put on by a black professor from somewhere in Missouri I think. He was very kind and told us he didn't think white people meant to be bad, they just couldn't help it because wwaaaayyyy before any of us were born a bunch of black tribal leaders in Africa offered up people they didn't like for sale and some idiot white guys bought them and transported them across the ocean where they were sold again to other white people, and to a few wealthy black people as well (but we don't need to talk about that) so they could do their work for them for 'free'. So evidently because of a few hundred wealthy idiots a couple hundred years ago I'm supposed to hate myself for profiting from white privilege which is something that doesn't even exist. The only privilege I'm aware of is wealth. We have the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. And that has existed ever since Cain killed Able. And of course I asked the good professor how I could correct something I had no idea I was doing, and according to him I could never change. So how is his presentation helpful to our organization? The truth is he didn't know but that didn't stop him from trying. I can't remember what he said because it didn't make any sense. Something about trying to be aware that I had the white privilege disease and I had to work harder to be nice to people of other races (read: black people). 

And it turns out that Uncle Joe and his minions are very resourceful and they have pretty decent imaginations and a burning desire to create friction in America so they created a whole bunch of different genders. We aren't supposed to describe ourselves as male or female anymore. The truth, according to people who wouldn't know the truth if it punched them in the face, is that we don't know what gender we are. And it is possible that we never will. They teach us that it is possible to live your entire life not knowing if you are male or female. These days we're supposed to refer to ourselves at 'they' or 'them', not 'his' or 'hers' and They-Them are interchangeable ensuring that we never differentiate between male and female because that somehow degrades society as a whole. In grade school Uncle Joe's 'experts' want teachers to waste valuable school time telling kids that they may have been told they are either boys or girls, but whoever has been telling them that could be wrong. To make matters even worse when we introduce ourselves to someone new we are supposed to ask them what pronoun they prefer to be known as, even though it is obvious that they are a boy or a girl. Satan has always wanted to destroy God's children and democrats have signed up to help him achieve that goal. 

Under the direction of democrat 'rulers' we are raising a generation of fools. I was attending a Halloween party recently when I greeted a child I have known her whole life, she's eleven years old now, and I greeted her by saying something awful, humiliating, just plain ignorant. I said, "Hey there she is!" I know, I get red faced every time I think about how unsophisticated I am, but that's just the way it is I suppose. I had no idea how offensive that statement was until she greeted me with, "Did you just call me a she?" 

I was totally humiliated. How could I have possibly thought it was ok to say something so completely insensitive? I really did not know how to respond to her interrogatory. Totally surprised at being braced that way by an eleven year old who has been carefully brainwashed by an education system obviously far superior to the one that taught me, I responded, "What difference does it make?" Perhaps because I'm about sixty years older than she is she gave me a break and didn't pursue the issue any further. I'm not sure I will ever be acceptable in polite company ever again. I may be redeemable, time will tell. Someday there may be a government re-education Kamp where I can be programmed to see the world the way democrats think I should. The honest truth is what they are doing to kids in schools these days is evil. 

They tell me that kids in other industrialized nations do much better in math and science than our kids and I believe it. Our kids may not be able to add and subtract but they know that they don't know if they are a boy or a girl, how many other countries can make that claim? 

So there it is. I'm divorcing myself from just about everyone around me. We are raising a nation of fools and that can only end in disaster. Teachers are even telling grade school children that if they think they have been mislabelled they can change their gender. Girls don't have to be girls and boys don't have to be boys just because that's the label some stupid medical team and their parents have always told them. If a kid was mislabelled there are doctors who can correct the error. No thanks. I am not part of that society. They've even passed laws allowing teachers and administrators to 'help' kids fix themselves and make themselves the gender they know they truly are by taking them to gender reassignment specialists without telling their parents. 

I am a Child of God and an American. Americans are not stupid enough to believe that a person can change their gender. We are born Male and female and I cannot be taught any other way. Real Americans accept themselves the way they are and don't pretend they can mutilate themselves into becoming something else and they certainly don't believe in forcing others to accept a concept that evil. I suppose that if a child goes to school and insists on being honest about gender identity he or she can be expelled from the school. Someday they will probably pass a law that allows some government entity to take a child away from a parent who teaches their children that it is wrong to believe they can change from a girl to a boy or a boy to a girl. 

Anyone who embraces that ideology of confusion is harming children and therefore society as a whole. We don't need confused and weak minded children. We need strong and confident children. 

VIGILANTES!

There was a time when we didn't need police officers or judges, or courtrooms, or juries, we didn't need any of that. It was simple and very cost effective and once the case was handled it was over. Usually in a couple of hours at the most, in case it took some time to find a place tall enough to attach a rope. Bury the body in a cheap coffin and life goes on. Say what you want about vigilante justice it was efficient sort of, the only problem was with the justice part. If you didn't have a receipt for the horse you were leading behind the horse you were riding and some rancher liked the horse he just took it. You obviously stole it or you'd have a receipt right? Ranchers always had rope and they could find somewhere a few feet off the ground where they could tie it. 

Five or six minutes later the guy without the receipt was hanging at the end of a rope. He wasn't dead, just choking to death slowly. And the rancher was two ponies richer, plus the man's boots, gun, belt, saddle, and whatever else the poor man had in his possession. So imagine how much fun the repeat will be. We will still be paying tons of money for a police department. Their job will be traffic enforcement I guess. The police won't be allowed to arrest anyone unless they can't figure out any other way to handle a situation, for example, just let the guy go. Vigilantes will take care of it! No bail will mean that there are far more crooks roaming the streets than at anytime since 1840. And the solution will be quick undeniable sidewalk justice. 

Police departments will be replaced by armed security companies who won't need to make arrests because it will be hard for the thieves they catch to resume their criminal activity with horribly deformed hands and missing fingers. Some of them will brand words on people's faces, "Thief", "Robber", "Liar", "Prostitute", whatever they think is appropriate. Shoplifters will be beaten senseless on the sidewalk, some of them won't survive the beating, ditto purse snatchers. And some of the people will be guilty and some won't. Some bad guys will continue to get away with their crimes because they are better fighters than their security guard tormentors. 

And none of this would be all that bad except for the fact that too many times vigilantes just pick on whoever they don't like or the stranger in town. Too many innocent people are injured or killed by vigilantes, but that is what the democrat party is pulling for. When you tell the world that the police are racists who go out every day looking for young black men to kill, and they only exist to violate people's rights, and they deserve to be killed, you are speaking against the entire police community. And that is what half of the people in this country are doing; advocating for smaller departments and spending less money to equip and train them. Anyone who supports the So-called Black Lives Matter movement supports the murder of police officers and while it is mostly democrats who are involved in this madness sadly there are too many Republicans who also support BLM. The same people claim to support the police but that is simply not possible. Messy is what democrats like and they are relentless. They won't settle for anything less than 'messy' government. 

If you support the police you really can't align yourself with a group of people who advocate murdering them can you? No, you can't. I am a hardcore supporter of the Bill of Rights. I also have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I support law and order. Just to help democrats and a small number of Republicans who will also do or say anything to get elected I'll let you know that vigilantism is the opposite of law and order. Vigilantes are messy. So what's the point? Obviously the point is that either democrats are incapable of thinking for themselves or they support vigilante justice. You cannot be opposed to the police and claim you oppose vigilantism at the same time. That is confusion and confusion is bad. Except to democrats. Democrats thrive on chaos and confusion. In America only a democrat can look at rabid rioters burning an entire block of businesses after stealing everything inside and describe the scene as mostly peaceful as was done repeatedly on many so-called news stations. Ironically those rioters are vigilantes supporter by the democrat party. They are punishing big corporations for not giving enough support to terrorist organizations like Black Lives Matter and the entire LGBTQ+ whatever. You don't have to have a rope to be a vigilante, all you need is a black heart and a scared out of your mind frame of reference. 

Can any democrat explain to me how completely demoralizing police officers, degrading their service and accusing them of horrible crimes helps police departments recruit the best candidates for the job? I bet there are a lot of people on parole who would love to be police officers and they won't care what you call them they'll just beat you into submission and move on to their next victim. Give an ex-con and badge and a gun and you will create one very happy person. And I'm sure many democrats who read this are telling themselves that sounds like a good idea. The individual was probably falsely arrested and convicted in the first place. It is in fact a very difficult job teaching democrats. They thrive on slogans and indoctrination; education plays a very small role in their goals. Or how judges sympathetic to criminals do everything they can to help them avoid the burden of paying for their crime? Most of us are afraid of convicting  an innocent person. That's why we ensure that everyone has access to a lawyer and they get their day in court. They have an opportunity to have a trial by jury and to even play a role in who gets to judge them. Constitutional Republicanism isn't perfect, but it's the best the world has to offer presently. The worst form of justice is a hot temper and a rope. 

Anyone who hates the police, but trusts the central government to disarm all citizens, with apparent intent to create a national police force, really doesn't have their head screwed on all that tight. And I don't want anyone who can't keep a coherent thought in their head anywhere near the leadership of our country. The problem is they do have coherent thoughts but they can't tell us what they really want or most of their supporters would turn on them. The moral of this story is vigilantes are bad. They just are. And a system based on vigilante justice is going to be a very bad system.  

We need police departments that are well funded, with police officers who are paid enough to live a dignified life, and well trained so they know how to appropriately interact with the public and they understand the law. And we need an educated public who understands the need for a well trained and well paid police department. I'm not even going to address the crazies who claim that since there are some bad police officers we need vigilante justice. That is just plain stupid and our goal should not be to become a society of morons. People turn to vigilante justice out of desperation and fear, not because they like it. And they create police departments to bring order into the world. When we are protected by the police we are free to conduct business without worrying about interference from criminals. Even if we support the right to bear arms not everyone will want to own and carry a gun and if we allow the criminal justice system to work not everyone will feel compelled to carry a gun. It still remains the law of the land and we should respect that. 

Democrats are also destroying the court system when they claim that the entire system is racist and certain people are incarcerated at a higher rate than others. Many of us agree that criminals are incarcerated at a higher rate than people who obey the law. Democrats want to make it look like it isn't that simple, they won't admit that more people from a certain portion of society commit a greater proportion of crimes and if they do they have a good reason and that is no reason to put them in prison. I'd like to introduce a little honesty to the discussion even though that makes democrats flinch, but we are talking about black people and they were subjected to a lot of injustice. Slavery was wrong and there is no way to justify it. Unfortunately black people won't allow white people to admit that. I'm not sure why, but it is a fact. We've changed the law, supported their right to live wherever they want to live, provided them legal assistance to stop job discrimination based on race, same with housing, we've even moved them up to the front of the line, based on their race, for college admission and government jobs. That's not enough. We need to do more. And democrats really need to learn how to think and plan ahead. They need to realize that education trumps indoctrination every time. They need to think about the consequences of vigilante justice on one of their main constituency groups; black people. When we resort to vigilante justice the world won't change. Black people will be among the hardest hit groups in the country. Everything Americans have done to help black people recover from the effects of slavery will be erased. 

That's probably one of the main reasons for democrats to want to return to vigilante law; they are losing an ever growing portion of the black vote. There are a lot of reasons why black people are tired of being used by democrats. They don't like it when democrats like Bloody Hilary stereotype them for political gain saying things like, "I ain't feelin' noways tired!" They know she was pandering to them and talking down to them, recognizing publicly that as a group black people are not as well educated as the rest of the population, and a growing number of them don't like it. If democrat philosophy succeeds in America and vigilante justice resumes democrats can make speeches condemning the practice and shouting that white America is racist and there is no justice! In America it is impossible for a black man to succeed..." They like to look like heroes without being heroes. A hundred and fifty years ago their heroes were men like Robert E. Lee, Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson and Jefferson Davis and that kind of backfired on them. Today democrats are trying to erase any memory of the American civil war, but it did happen and they did start it. They are back to the drawing board now hoping to start another civil war with an outcome more favorable to them this time. That's not going to happen. They may get their war, but the outcome will be the same; mass destruction, millions of unnecessary deaths and in the end America will prevail . Many people who think they favor democrat's efforts to divide the country will change their mind when they realize that what is happening is the end of constitutional government. No rational person wants that. 

And to achieve the fall of America democrats have to destroy everything that makes this a great nation. Our justice system is at the forefront of that greatness. They need people to believe that all police officers are racists because if they weren't they wouldn't be allowing white people to kill, rob, and steal while arresting black people for the same thing. It's a very bold lie and too many people are starting to believe it. And since the police only arrest black people because of their skin color and then file false arrest reports, black people shouldn't have to pay any amount of bail money to ensure they appear in court. And while that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with vigilantism, it will lead to vigilantism and it says a lot about the frenzied democrat mind. 

Since most democrats are allergic to reason they will laugh and say I'm just trying to scare people since there hasn't been vigilante justice since democrat president Whozit outlawed it about a thousand years ago (facts mean absolutely nothing to democrats, just listen to a couple of Uncle Joe's speeches). When Republicans make a mistake in one of their speeches it's a total assault on human decency. A conspiracy to destroy our Democracy. Democrats don't like to admit we are not a democracy. When a democrat gets his facts wrong it's "C'mon he just misspoke! He knows what the Declaration of Independence is, ya 'all are just pickin' on 'im." Laugh all you want, vigilante justice is already happening and a captain from the Los Angeles Police predicted it would happen over twenty years ago if the police weren't allowed to do their job. 

He said that home owners associations were going to hire private security. He actually suggested that private security was going to replace police departments in the future and he my have been right. Homeowner associations all over the country have been forced to hire private security because the police have told them that they don't have the manpower to respond to calls for property belonging to the association. And as trespassers are becoming more unruly and violent associations are permitting some of the guards to be armed. There is an association of business owners who began hiring private security years ago to chase homeless people away from their doorways and to catch burglars. They don't make arrests and they don't call the police. They beat the living snot out of anyone who dares to disobey their orders. And they drive very clean cars the same make as the local police and they wear uniforms very similar to those of the local police officers. The thieves think they are being roughed up by the local police so they don't call the police either, they just move on to another city where it's safer to be a burglar. 

The reason the associations are resorting to what amounts to vigilantism is because the police are barred from taking legal action against lawlessness. They are hobbled by top heavy police  departments whose administrators who are afraid of riling organizations like the ACLU, the SPLC, and BLM, and by prosecutors who refuse to enforce such laws as the Three Strikes law, and judges who let criminals go free without paying any bail. The Three strikes law was a great law. It ensured that criminals were given multiple chances to ply their trade without going to prison. Those with any sense at all understood that all they had to do to stay out of prison was stop robbing and hurting people. Those with a little less desire to maintain their freedom would take a few swings, thinking it was worth the risk. And keep in mind bad guys rarely are caught the first time they commit a crime. Most of the time they commit five to ten crimes before finally getting caught. If you want to go to prison in California you have to work at it. It would be easier to get a job and rent an apartment, but not as fun I guess. So in order to to trigger the Three Strikes penalty a bad guy has to commit multiple crimes and get convicted for two of them. That ain't easy to do. So yeah, the third crime is the last for at least twenty five years if the turd manages to get convicted. 

A couple of decades ago a crook who had been arrested multiple times, and convicted twice, threatened a kid in a restaurant and stole his pizza after slapping him. The district attorney decided to make that a third strike offense as he should have. Do democrats really think that kid enjoyed being slapped by that guy who then ate the kids pizza and laughed at him? They probably would agree that the kid may not have deserved the slap, but what's the big deal, is't only a pizza the kid could get another one. The bad guy was arrested and miraculously convicted, but at sentencing the judge said he couldn't justify imposing a twenty five year sentence for stealing a pizza. It became national news. Republicans want to put a black man in prison for twenty five years for stealing a pizza! So yeah. Some judges along with most democrats love criminals and think the rest of just don't pay parolees proper respect. It may sound bad, but 'beat and release' is far more effective than 'catch and release'. If a crook leaves the scene at two in the morning with only nine of his ten fingers after a 'counseling session' with the new community association security guard that crook will be looking for 'safer' neighborhoods in the future. And of course he isn't really missing a finger, it's in his pocket. Our vigilantes aren't thieves. So who needs the Three Strikes law when we can hire people to take care of the problem in less time and for a lot less money?

We need to provide a smooth path that allows all of our people to live their lives without fear of becoming victims of whatever bad guy decides to invade our privacy, steal our belongings and kill, rape, or otherwise maim us and the best way to achieve that is to hire good honest police officers to help enforce well thought out laws. Then we need a court system that respects the law and does its best to make sure criminals pay a price for their misdeeds. We need to elect honest politicians who care about the Constitution of the United States and understand that it protects all Americans and not just the one's they like. 

We really don't have the luxury of being able to engage in experiments that endanger all of our lives. We can't afford to indulge democrat madness that our system of government is messy and it is supposed to be messy. That's nonsense. It's actually maddeningly stupid to even entertain the idea that something that is messy, which I guess means chaotic, is even a good idea, it's no way to live. No, our system of government is meant to be just the opposite, an orderly system where all of the pieces work together. We have three separate but equal branches of government for a reason and anyone who thinks chaos is necessary for our survival is welcome to explain that to me until they finally see the futility in that mind boggling logic. 

War is messy, riots are messy, and crime is messy. Communism, Fascism, and Nazism and Socialism are all messy. Having an orderly system of government is necessary to our survival. Messy governments of necessity will not survive and in the chaos ensuing their demise vigilantes will attempt to take over. Democrats may think messiness is a good thing, and too many Republicans seem to agree with them, but the truth is that orderly and consistent government is far more beneficial than chaos and messiness. 

Vigilantes are messy. A constitutional system of government can help us avoid that terrible path.