The Mueller Fallout




My favorite liberal political pundit is Caitlin Johnstone who is oft quoted by various media outlets.  I like her mostly because she is fearless and is not afraid to openly confront the political establishment.

Here is what she said recently in an article entitled “What Progressives Hopefully Learned From Russiagate:”

 “…I hope progressives have learned that we’re never going to manipulate our way into progressive reform. Truth is the one and only weapon we have…If there’s any strength left in what remains of America’s progressive movement to effect real change, that change will come solely from grassroots populism….”

I agree with Johnstone that real change has to originate with grassroots populism.  The problem is that populism is the platform that Trump is running on (and winning).

In the last couple of years, however, the progressive movement has been hijacked by the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party.  They claim to represent the people and that Trump is “challenging America’s core values”. Well, in reality, the opposite is actually true. What AOC is talking about is that Trump is challenging the core values of her political ideology which are at odds with mainstream America. This explains why AOC has such poor polling numbers. 

Most of the elites and the political pundits live in places like New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles, completely out of touch with the pulse of America. Real Americans lead pretty mundane lives and call places like Keokuk, Iowa, Peoria, Illinois and Birmingham, Alabama home.  In order to understand their core values, you have to live where they live, work where they work and perhaps pray where they pray.  It would be a real wake-up call for most progressives to understand these people and to learn what America is really all about.

The problem in America is that the political establishment does not represent mainstream America (the people of Keokuk, Iowa), or their core values. So, how are they ever going to have a real “grassroots” movement?  It was none other than Rahm Emauel, former Chief of Staff for Barack Obama, who recently had to warn progressives that open borders and free healthcare for illegals is crazy and stupid (politically speaking).  Unfortunately, no one was listening as blind ideology still rules the day. As usual, Caitlin was right…but her solution, unfortunately, is not attainable.


 My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.” – Caitlin Johnstone


Everything Mueller



Everyone has an opinion about Robert Mueller’s testimony in Congress.  I wasn’t going to comment but the reaction was so very predictable and all the talking heads were saying somewhat similar things. So, here’s my take:

The Mueller Report, itself, was a legal piece of garbage. Mueller made legal history by changing the Rule of Law from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent.” The report was so poorly written, perhaps to obfuscate the truth. Further, it wasn’t even Robert Mueller’s report.  He didn’t even know what was in it (who is Fusion GPS?).

The most interesting thing about the Mueller Report, however, is not what’s in it, but what’s not in it.  Remember, it’s not what politicians say but what they don’t say that matters.  In the case of the Mueller Report, it’s who Mueller didn’t interview (and why).

Here’s just a few of the people who could have testified as to what actually happened, but were not interviewed by Mueller:

  • Natalia Veselnitskaya – Veselnitskaya was the “Russian attorney” at the infamous Trump Tower meeting. She could have testified as to who in the Obama Justice Department granted her special entry into the U.S. on multiple occasions and why she met with Fusion GPS owner Glenn Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting. Veselnitskaya has already given her account of the Trump Tower meeting to Senate investigators. The Mueller Report does not square with her account.

Comment: Mueller didn’t interview her because, if she had told the truth, she would    have had to testify that she was part of a Fusion GPS effort to entrap Donald Trump Jr.

  • Joseph Misuf – Misuf was a central figure in the plot to entrap George Papadopoulos and he was a Russian agent according to the Mueller Report. In reality, Misuf was a Deep State double-spy working with American and British intelligence, with strong ties to Italian intelligence. The Italian government has since fired a number of top intelligence officials who worked with Misuf on the plot.

Comment:  Mueller never even charged Misuf for the crimes that the Mueller Report identified.  Why not?  Because if Misuf had ever been brought to trial, the whole Russian collusion storyline would have collapsed.

  • Bill Binney – Binney is a NSA official. Binney has gone on record as saying that the DNC servers were not hacked from the outside (it was an inside job), therefore, obviously not by the Russians.  Obviously, if anyone knows what happened it’s the NSA.

Comment: The DNC servers were absolutely vital evidence in the case. Despite this, Mueller didn’t examine the DNC servers because he knew that if he did he would have had to conclude that it wasn’t the Russians who hacked the DNC servers.

  •  Julian Assange – Assange, of course, is the head of Wikileaks who published the Hillary Clinton emails that were taken from the DNC server. Assange has said, on more than one occasion, that he did not get the Clinton emails from the Russians. Assange’s source for the emails is a critical part of the Russian collusion narrative yet Mueller did not interview him or Ellen Ratner, a journalist who did interview Assange.

Comment: Mueller already knew what Assange would have said so he didn’t try to interview him (or Ratner).


Here’s what the Mueller Report, Mueller’s testimony and the commentary of the talking heads didn’t focus on. The why of it all.  What was the real link between the hack of the DNC servers and the Russian collusion narrative?  Could it be that Russian collusion was simply a smokescreen to obscure the hacking of the Clinton emails by someone on the inside at the DNC, especially if that someone later died a mysterious death? The timeline is the untold story.

As for me, the best part of the Russian collusion narrative was all the spy stuff. There were spies from England, Italy, Australia and the Ukraine.  It was way better than any spy novel.  You just can’t make this stuff up. John Le Carre eat your heart out.


“I spent three hours with Julian Assange on Saturday at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Well, I did. One thing he did say was the leaks were not from, they were not from the Russians, they were an internal source from the Hillary Campaign.” 

     –  Ellen Ratner, journalist 



Politicians make the six-o-clock news for what they say, but it’s what they don’t say that’s more important. Here’s a few recent examples:

What they said: AOC wants to give more rights to non-citizens than citizens.  This time it is free lifetime mental healthcare for the children of illegal immigrants.

What they didn’t say: I am going to solve the problem of America’s homelessness first because American citizens are more important than illegal immigrants.

Why they didn’t say it: Of course, she didn’t say it because she views illegal immigrants’ rights as being more important than the rights of citizens.


What they said: AOC wants a 9/11-type commission to find out why the children of illegal immigrants are separated from their families at the border.

What they didn’t say: I know that the immigration laws were written by Congress and since Congress created the problem, it’s their responsibility to solve this problem. Therefore, I’m going to introduce such new legislation into Congress.

Why they didn’t say it: They like blaming others, especially for things that they’re responsible for. Besides, they obviously don’t care about these children or they would pass such legislation.

Comment: President Barack Obama enforced the current immigration rules (and no one said a peep) and President Trump has done the same. How could they have acted otherwise? Of course, this would never be an issue if we had immigration laws like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan or Mexico, to name just a few.  Real countries require tough immigration laws.  Then again, some people don’t want borders because they would prefer that America, in its present form, didn’t exist.


What they said: Rashida Tlaib said that we should take money from the rich and give it back to the people who earned it.

What they didn’t say: That the rich actually earned it whereas the recipients, themselves, never earned it since they generally don’t pay income taxes.

Why they didn’t say it: She was speaking to the NAACP.

Comment: While I’m all for taxing the rich to support social programs for the poor, one has to be a bit jaded over a politician’s call to tax the rich.  They usually are simply pandering to get votes.  After all, notwithstanding what anyone says, the elites effectively write the tax laws.


If you have something that a politician said that you would like me to comment on, please let me know. Remember, though, it’s not what they say but what they don’t say that matters.


It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

                 – Mark Twain

The Deep State, the Illuminati, the elites and the 1%.  Different faces of the same Hydra.  They infect all social institutions in search of more power, although I’m not sure that there’s much more for them to possess.  In this vein, you might enjoy an article by Charles Hugh Smith posted on Of Two  Here’s the link to the full article:

In this country, the elites control both political parties.  These days, when they pose as Democrats they generally pretend to be socialists and when they pose as Republicans they generally pretend to be capitalists.  The result is an ideological food fight which is meant to distract as well as divide and conquer.

As we choose sides during this process of polarization, we actually hasten our own demise. Case-in-point is all the name calling over perceived racism.  I can tell you from my own experience that, while racism is a problem, there is actually less racism in this country than in any other country that I know of (and I’ve lived in or visited quite a few).

For example, Japan, a country which I generally admire, is terribly racist.  One of the more interesting side-effects of their racism has been their ability to maintain their ancient traditions (which are better than a vast majority of countries around the world).  They value their traditions above diversity. In fact, they abhor diversity because, by its very nature, it undermines traditions.  So, I give the Japanese a pass on their racism because I feel that they have a right to decide what kind of society that they want to have, even if it excludes me (which it did).

There’s value in maintaining one’s traditions ala the Japanese. In a country like ours (a nation of immigrants), you can’t be all things to all people.  That’s why, in the past, it was so important for new immigrants to quickly assimilate.  Today, however, everyone wants to live in their own ethnic communities and keep their ethnic cultural values.  That quickly becomes a problem with respect to languages taught in school and spoken in the community.  For example, I went into a McDonald’s Restaurant near downtown Los Angeles and the menu was in a variety of languages, although English wasn’t one of them. Worse, nobody spoke English either. I might as well have been in a foreign country.  Actually, in many foreign countries, you can generally find people who speak English although that wasn’t the case right here in America.

When immigrants isolate themselves by not assimilating, the inevitable result is that the country is no longer identifiable by its culture. When you have separate borders within a country (e.g. sanctuary cities), the country no longer has one common border. Bottom line: When you do not have one tradition that everyone observes and when you don’t have one common border you cease to function as a country…but, of course, that was the general idea all along, now wasn’t it?


 “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”  – President Barack Obama

P.S. If only that were true.



Some of you have asked who are the liberal elites mentioned in my last post The Man Behind The Curtain. This issue came up when Gregory Meeks, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, got into a Twitter war with AOC and later called her a puppet who was controlled by the liberal elites.

Well, the liberal elites are none other than the Deep State. Saikat Chakrabarti, the man behind the curtain, should actually be thought of as the “woman behind the curtain.”  By that, I mean that Chakrabarti’s wife, Kamilka Malwatte, is the actual connection to the Deep State as she has worked for Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, the most powerful law firm in the world.

This is a glimpse inside the hidden world of politics, the world behind the curtain. The world that you have never been exposed to, perhaps until now. And you probably thought that AOC and/or Chakrabarti authored the Green New Deal.


Gradually, we’re beginning to learn more and more about the man who run’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) political career.  He is one Saikat Chakrabarti. Now that he’s openly taken on Nancy Pelosi, he will be more and more in the spotlight and his comments will be dissected by political commentators to try and understand the ideology that drives AOC’s political positions.

Chakrabarti is one of the loudest political voices in Washington with respect to climate change.  According to the Washington Post, Chakrabarti has commented that, “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Say what!? Yes, notwithstanding what AOC says about everyone dying in ten years, climate change’s focus isn’t the environment, it’s about implementing socialism. More about where that idea came from later.

You need to understand that the Green New Deal is a strategy to win elections. As reported by the Washington Post, Chakrabarti explained that strategy thusly: “The whole theory of change for the current Democratic Party is that to win this country we need to tack to the hypothetical middle. What I think that means is, you don’t take unnecessary risks, which translates to: You don’t really do anything. Whereas we’ve got a completely different theory of change, which is: You do the biggest, most badass thing you possibly can — and that’s going to excite people, and then they’re going to go vote.” There you have it straight from the horse’s mouth. Tell people something different, something exciting in order to get them to come out and vote for you. It doesn’t matter if it isn’t true. Political offices are treated as a commodity and the Green New Deal is the marketing strategy to sell that product.

Winning elections is only the first step, however. According to Tom Donohue, CEO the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Green New Deal is really about giving government unprecedented power over people’s lives (as reported by the Daily Wire). In a way, nothing would change.  That is, we would still be controlled by certain unelected elites who would remain faceless behind the Chakrabarti curtain. Socialism would simply be the Trojan Horse.

The infighting in the Democratic Party seems to be escalating, however, since the far left is not “tacking to the middle.” Instead, they are polarizing the party.  Recently, Chakrabarti has decided to target moderate Democrats, particularly those from the Congressional Black Caucus, in the 2020 congressional elections and replace them with people who are far left. Despite Chakrabarti targeting people of color, AOC has accused Nancy Pelosi of being a racist and Chakrabarti tweeted that the moderate Democrats should be renamed The New Southern Democrats. “They certainly seem hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did [during] the 40s.” Funny, but it’s kind of hard calling someone a racist when you are one yourself.

The racially-charged rift in Congress does drop the curtain, though, if ever so slightly. Gregory Meeks, chairman of the Black Caucus, has fired back that Chakrabarti’s group is funded by liberal white elites. Strange how you’ve never heard this before. The media only gives us AOC this and AOC that. There are memes about this former bartender who has been in office for only a little over six months and who knows little to nothing about how government should be run. However, they never tell us about the real powers that be, about the man(elites) behind the curtain…and you probably thought that you were living in a democracy.



“The United Nations heads up the world-wide effort to promote global warming through the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. As reported by Zero Hedge, Christiana Figueres, the then head of that U.N. global warming agency, said that the U.N. goal was not that of environmental activists to save the world from ecological calamity… but rather to destroy capitalism.” – The Ethical, The Politics of Global Warming.  Figueres went on to say that, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” That’s the game plan.  Take out capitalism and replace it with socialism…and scare the hell out of everybody by saying that it’s the end of the world unless we change. It’s a dirty little secret that you weren’t supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.







As you all probably know, I hate politicians of all stripes. So, it’s always refreshing to see an article written by someone of the same ilk. The question posed by James Howard Kunstler in his article “I Hear That Train a’Comin'” is whether or not both political parties will self-destruct (even before the 2020 election).

Check out the following link for the full article:


“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Frederic Bastiat, French classical liberal theorist

Are We Un-American?


I hate politics…and politicians.  It all started growing up in Chicago and watching the Mayor Daley machine dominate all life in the city.  Things sure haven’t changed much.

So, I rarely vote in elections and I don’t usually partake in conversations about politics…except perhaps when I hear socialists spout off about how other people are un-American. After all, what would socialists know about being American?  They stand for things that are the antithesis of our culture and our history.

I don’t consider myself to be an expert on political issues so I typically defer to others on the topic. Here’s one such article that I thought had some merit  The article was written by Professor Gary Galles of the Fee Foundation For Economic Education. As Professor Galles remarked, “America was founded on the idea that we have inalienable negative rights that do not originate with the government, which the government, therefore, cannot take away. But as people have learned to get public support by dressing up more things they wish others to pay for in the language of rights, our government has increasingly turned to violating the rights it was instituted to defend.”

The problem is actually worse than that, though.  At its core, socialist policies are not meant to provide equality but rather to undermine freedoms. So, when a socialist says that something is un-American, what they really mean is that we need to change those things in order to fundamentally transform America…and to establish a new kind of order where the State determines what your rights are, if any. Galles describes this phenomena thusly, “Individual rights only actually existed where and when the state decided it didn’t get in the way of what it wanted to do. More briefly, it meant citizens’ individual rights didn’t exist except on paper.”

This is where the country is headed and why I say that there is a second civil war which is currently being waged. As a society, we can choose to retain the inalienable rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution or we can accept the socialist plan to radically transform the country so that everyone has equal rights (as defined by the State). In the meantime, you will continue to hear people call other people un-American, as if they know what being an American really means.



Every fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history…Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.”    – Vladimir Putin



A Quantum Conundrum



What is a quantum conundrum? It’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma. It exists only at the mysterious quantum level (smaller than sub-atomic particles).

According to the science of quantum mechanics, the quantum world works in ways that do not reconcile with the laws of physics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  Basically, what we have is two connected worlds each with its own set of different rules.  Thus the riddle: How is that even possible?

Here’s what science claims that it knows:

  • Quantum particles exist in all possible states simultaneously. They have distinct properties only after they are measured/observed.
  • Quantum particles come in what is referred to as “entangled pairs.”  The two pairs always know what the other is doing even if they are separated by vast distances.  The communication between the two exceeds the speed of light, thus violating the Theory of Relativity. Einstein referred to this as “spooky action.”

Two connected worlds, with different, incompatible rules, which instantaneously understands what is happening throughout creation. We are left with an enigma that has left scientists searching for a Theory of Everything to reconcile the two worlds.  However, as John Hogan put it in his book The End of Science, scientists will never be able to understand the universe (creation) because parts of it are beyond space and time.

The answer to the dilemma can only be answered by what I would call the supernatural. By supernatural, however, I mean something that is beyond our level of comprehension.  By definition, the supernatural will always be beyond man’s ability to understand.

Our world can only be a subset, or a projection, of “the source of reality.” If you are not standing at the source, you will never understand the cause (even if you can observe the effect). Thus, the answer to the question of “what is my purpose in life” can only be answered in the context of the “cause” and its effect on life in the universe.  We are simply the effect and the cause, whatever it is, is what gives meaning to our lives.

In the end, we have a conundrum.  More to the point, we are the conundrum. We are an extension of something that is supernatural, a riddle wrapped in an enigma. As Einstein simply put it, “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” Welcome to the quantum conundrum.


Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.” –  Arno Penzias, physicist and Nobel laureate