John Dough Says:
July 8th, 2016 at 1:13 am
5 years ago I was saying that we are 25 to 30 years away from a shooting civil war.

Within 50 years from 2007. After the election of Hussein, however, the Left accelerated their pace. Which reduces it to 15-25 years from 2012. Given the number of variables, the likeliest time is the next Presidential term, or kingdom.

And they’re getting woken up right now. For those that believed elections could solve the problems, for those that believed the Leftist alliance was merely a clown car full of clowns or at best a political party you could defeat at the polls, consider this. What you have seen is merely a small taste of the Leftist alliance’s power. And even if you fear Islamic Jihad’s foreign influence and foreign terrorists, know this, the Left can produce a number of terrorists domestically, that equal Islamic JIhad’s brutality. Remember that, when you talk to your fellow Democrat friends and associates.

Schussel is not a good source for information; she twisted the facts of that case.

However, I’ve already pointed out Comey’s history (Whitewater, Clinton pardon case, in this post), and suggested that his history indicated that he was always going to let Hillary walk in the present case. You may have missed the end of that post, where I briefly go into that history of Comey’s.

Let me add that just because something’s in the LA Times that does NOT mean it’s untrue. Do your own research, look at many sources, trust no one without checking and checking—not the left, and not Schussel, not the right. Put it all together for yourself and try to be as objective as possible.

Now I’m not a big fan of Schlussel, she’s irascible, cantankerous and highly opinionated. I go there mainly for her hilarious movie reviews. She has lots of contacts deep in the DHS, particularly concerning the MI Muslim enclaves of Dearborn and Hamtranck, and breaks lots of stories about Muslim entrenchment in that agency and Islam in general that the media won’t touch.

I read the the links you provided – The LA Times and CBS. Really? Like they’re going to give a rising Republican star prosecuting suspected Muslim terrorists a fair hearing? I spent a couple hours reading more stories about the affair. The case that Comey made against Convertino and the government investigator seemed awfully thin to this non-attorney, and a federal jury found them not guilty of all charges in 45 minutes. Of course, both their careers were destroyed in the process, so the left won anyway.

And the link that makes her site “questionable”? I’m Polish and I can certainly sympathize with her blaming Poland for the deaths of her family in the Nazi’s Polish concentration camps the same way many don’t want to let Germany and all its people off the hook for Hitler’s atrocities.

Because she might get things wrong now and then and pick fights with big-name conservatives is not a reason to dismiss out of hand everything she says. That’s one of the left’s favorite ploys: scour the enemy’s books, speeches and the public records, find a date wrong here, an incorrect factoid there, an opinion they disagree with and proclaim “liar!” and trash their credibility for all time. (You know, like certain Republican candidates might do to rivals.)

That lengthy set-up is to explain why I believe that it’s Comey’s integrity that’s questionable. After 50 years of watching the left’s nearly complete long march, it’s obvious to me that Alinsky’s tactics and philosophy are now built into their DNA, and honor, integrity, principles have been bred out. Comey, like other leftists, may be good to his family and friends, and in cases with zero political considerations, fair and unbiased, but their religion is collectivism and all of us on the right are their devil, who must be destroyed by any and all means.

I have learned not to trust anyone on the left, about anything, because taqiyyah.

i had a few…
at one time i with a few others started MGTOW on mancoat

and the other blog i had, i was visited at home, and threatened… but this was in the early days of the internet world

now, i do not want to end up in prison when i travel to a foreign state for what i say, or want to be on the no fly list for my opinions, and more so.

neo-neocon Says: July 8th, 2016 at 3:27 pm
You really would do well to focus on stating the facts in as brief a manner as possible to get the facts across, and leaving off the imagining about what other people remember or forget. You don’t read minds.

neo- after you learned that santa clause and the easter bunny dont exist, do you reference them as if they do? doesnt take a mind reader to know when someone knows some information or not… does it? there are lots of clues in peoples writings… ie. do you tell the story that was for consumption, or do you reference the actual historical facts that most have forgotten? if you know those facts you can tell when someone knows or doesnt know… i would rather not think that they know and are using the wrong information purposefully to mislead.

if your well versed in something, its pretty easy to tell that another person has no idea of what they are talking about as they make idiotic points that have no bearing to the information that one knows!!!

why is this so hard for you to get?
lots of people know surface details, but fewer know inner details…

but if your talking about certain things and you dont know the names of the people or that it started long before they are claiming it started and so on, then you know the bs. my sister is a teacher, my cousin is a teacher… you think students dont try to bs their way through things?

one thing people wont do easily is admit they dont know…
even now, your harping on me to believe people know when i have yet to hear them quote the sources, give the names, and reference the material, makes no sense other than ego protection

Vincent van Gogh cut his ear off… yes? or no?
did he give it to a prostitute? or is there some other fact?
once you know the fact, can you then reference the wrong information and ignore it?

Read “Pakt des Schweigens”

“the official version is largely based on Gauguin’s accounts. It contains inconsistencies and there are plenty of hints by both artists that the truth is much more complex than the story we’ve all known.”

“We carefully re-examined witness accounts and letters written by both artists and we came to the conclusion that van Gogh was terribly upset over Gauguin’s plan to go back to Paris, after the two men had spent an unhappy stay together at the “Yellow House” in Arles, Southern France, which had been set up as a studio in the south.”

“On the evening of December 23, 1888 van Gogh, seized by an attack of a metabolic disease, became very aggressive when Gauguin said he was leaving him for good. The men had a heated argument near the brothel and Vincent might have attacked his friend. Gauguin, wanting to defend himself and wanting to get rid of ‘the madman’ drew his weapon and made a move towards van Gogh and by that he cut off his left ear.”

“We do not know for sure if the blow was an accident or a deliberate attempt to injure van Gogh, but it was dark and we suspect that Gauguin did not intend to hit his friend.”

Gauguin left Arles the next day and the two men never saw each other again.

so.. now that you know that Gauguin cut his ear off… will you still tell the story of the mad man who cut it off and gave it to a prostitute?

a bit more if you dont believe:
In the first letter that Vincent van Gogh wrote after the incident, he told Gauguin, “I will keep quiet about this and so will you.” That apparently was the beginning of the “pact of silence.”

Kaufmann also cites correspondence between van Gogh and his brother Theo, in which the painter hints at what happened that night without directly breaking the “pact of silence” – he writes that “it is lucky Gauguin does not have a machine gun or other firearms, that he is stronger than him and that his ‘passions’ are stronger.”

again. will you now tell the world the wrong story of the madman, or the right story of Gauguin

if you hear people discussing the mad man angle, would you not assume that they dont know the Gauguin history and the promise that protects both?

THATS how i know… no mind reading needed…
in fact i assume that people who know the Gauguin story, will not pretend to have factual discussions and entertain the madman story just to keep the wrong information going

it doesnt take mind reading
it takes knowlege and thinking
if one knows the sky is blue, one does not converse about how yellow it is
its really that simple… if one knows the facts from the books and mostly forgotten history of the early century AND the history that came after that changed the facts, one does NOT keep saying the wrong information

here is another one… people believe that Notstradamus predicted the rise and fall of hitler, but mispelled his name, hilter or hister… do you think that he did this? or do you know the real story?

if you search your going to be buried under information as to his predictions
but if you know to look at the pamplet drops during WWII… you will then know that this was faked and dropped in germany… the west thought that hitler being superstitious would beleive that nostradamus predicted his rise and fall, and so, would make mistakes

Nostradamus prophezeit den Kriegsverlauf is a British brochure, written in German, which in 1943 was spread in Germany. On page 224 in Die schwarze Propaganda (Berlin, 1983, a translation of The black game, London, 1982, the British researcher Ellic Howe, who back in those days had printed this brochure, wrote that the text of Nostradamus prophezeit den Kriegsverlauf was written by either the author/astrologer Louis de Wohl, who in the fourties worked for section 1 of the Special Operations Executive, an office which was occupied with psychological warfare, or one Rene Hakets.

now… if you know that, will you still claim that he predicted hitlers rise and fall???

so give me a break already… there is tons of this. and even more of it after the revisionist left has swept took their long march through the institutions…

What is this “we forget them” business?

You really would do well to focus on stating the facts in as brief a manner as possible to get the facts across, and leaving off the imagining about what other people remember or forget. You don’t read minds.

You can always start your own blog instead of berating our hostess. It is her house by the way.

how could you not remember that stuff neo?

too bad they will now go to your new post and will not post here or read what i put up. i will repost the second one there too.

How is this for Reality instead of opinions.

Who is more likely to be shot in a confrontation between a police officer and a black man?

A police officer is 17 1/2 times more likely to be shot by a black man than a black man is likely to be shot by the police.

Something MSM isn’t interested in. Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

a sample article written 6/2016
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/deadly-cost-americas-anti-cop-ideology-9027.html

I had not yet seen your comment when I wrote my most recent post, but it has some overlap.