There’s a simple solution to the House GOP/Dem ‘dueling-memos’ kerfuffle

When heavily redacted innuendo is needed to make a point…there is NO point.

Most of the oxygen spent on vindicating Schiff’s memo response to the Nunes memo is focused on lead sentences artfully implying contradictions…but then heavily redacted.

Which explains our use of the ‘artfully’ terminology.

The Nunes memo baldly accuses the DOJ and FBI of flat out abusing the FISA system to surveille Trump during his political campaign, and his transition after being elected.

The Schiff memo refutes that accusation, but with leading sentences very skillfully set up to be heavily redacted, leading one to believe there’s more ‘there’ there…when in actuality, there may be nothing but more fluff, with no substance to such implications.

But, ah-ha! Guess who has a copy of the un-redacted memo? President Trump.

(Democrat Schiff sent it to him un-redacted, trying to trap him into forcing redactions.)

And, if President Trump sees anything ‘curious’ about unneeded redactions that might mislead one into assuming there’s actual substance, he can ‘trump’ Schiff’s efforts.

Besides, as of today, there’s still no explanation why Obama’s DOJ and FBI…

  • Used the dirt-dossier with unsubstantiated rumor as the basis for a FISA warrant;
  • Failed to advise the court the rumors were 3rd hand, anonymous hearsay;
  • Failed to advise the court the opposition Democrat campaign funded the dossier;
  • Failed to update the court during warrant renewals that its author lied to the FBI;
  • Failed to interview the warrant target (Page) before applying for the warrant.

Had any of this been properly revealed, the FISA warrant wouldn’t have been ok’d.

(French’s article fails to answer any of the abuses noted above, while trying to make the point that ‘corroboration may be there, but had to be redacted’…which makes no sense. If there was corroborating information, stating that would NOT require redacting.)

(And we couldn’t finish this post in good conscience without noting this gem closer from French…“The Democratic rebuttal undermines important Republican assertions without decisively refuting the key allegations.” Mr. French –

In any event, we’re fed up with all these slow-motion oneupmanship games, we tire of the partisan Democrat rancor and of useful idiot anti-Trump Republicans like David French…so willing to help the Democrats with bogus efforts to substantiate LIES.

So, c’mon, Mr. President – compare Schiff’s original version to the redacted…


Then order your Justice Dept. to start knocking heads…this has gone on too long.

A Michelle O’ presidential run brings into question how black community will vote

Will it still be ‘the economy, stupid’ in 2020…for minorities?

Black Americans suffered economically during Obama’s presidency, but now that a Republican’s in the White House, economic conditions have improved in a YYUGE way – black unemployment is at record lows, and household income is on the rise.

Trump’s GOP-led tax cuts are adding to take-home pay, benefits, and bonuses.

BlueCollar was one of the first to speculate Michelle Obama would plan a White House run, and there are now more pundits pondering the likelihood of her plans in 2020.

Considering the raw deal Black Americans have received from Democrats all this time,  and the great things that are happening for them because of the Republicans now…

…we wonder if skin color will be enough for Michelle O’ in 2020…

…or if Black Americans will vote for the Party that REALLY benefits them?

We know that peer pressure is a tremendous thing, and unreasoning black followers of the Party of the KKK and Jim Crow can be very influential (if also illogical) in such times.

You can’t predict the future – but you can judge your economic situation.

Our recommendations? For the many Black Americans who finally have awoken to the economic benefits of Republican policy, remember that you cast your vote in private

...and if necessary, you can lie about your vote to those ever-Democrat friends after.

Dozens of system and law enforcement process failures can’t be blamed on the NRA…or lawful gun-ownership

Learning that the Florida school shooter was reported as a potential problem over 20 times, and that four sheriff deputies failed to confront him during the shooting, it leaves us with no doubt these were system failures that resulted in the deaths of 17 students.

That said, attacks against guns or the NRA is just wrong. Human failure is evident here; arguably, 17 lives could’ve been saved had laws and processes in place been followed.

And, with all the laws that went by the wayside during those process failures, what good does legislating MORE laws do…if they would have gone unenforced as well?

Blaming guns for such human failures is like blaming a 757 for pilot error in a crash.

This may explain why Nancy Pelosi thinks tax-cut income hikes for workers are ‘crumbs’…

“Nancy Pelosi’s Net Worth More Than Tripled During Financial Crisis 2008-2010”

Think maybe that has anything to do with her saying a worker now taking home an extra $130 per month on average (as a result of Republican tax-cuts) is merely ‘crumbs’?

Her net worth climbed from $30 million to $99 million while others lost their life savings.

Isn’t it odd, how everyone who had pension funds invested during the 2008-2010 crisis  took a tremendous beating; yet during that same time frame Pelosi tripled her worth?

Idiots at CNN continue to insist on exposing themselves…

Just when you think you’ve dealt with the most idiotic thing a CNN ‘journalist’ can spew, another one pops up…like some bizarre whack-a-mole idiocy gone wild dementia.

Van Jones can’t seem to accurately portray the NRA, now Chris Cilizza can’t seem to recognize the difference between a ‘good guy’ action…and possible cowardice.

Writing at ‘The Point’ for CNN, Cilizza posts an Op-Ed: “Here’s definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn’t always stop a bad guy with a gun”

We felt duty-bound to email the following response:

Seriously, Chris…? A ‘good guy’ with a gun would’ve at least tried to do something. A coward with a gun, who fails to do what he’s sworn to do – protect the innocent – can’t be equated with a good guy. Unless, evidently, you’re associated with CNN.

Our subject line?

“Here’s definitive proof…that a CNN journalist doesn’t know a coward from a good guy”

(Ed. Note: We didn’t link to his article, for the obvious reason.)

With the right to pardon, how can anything Mueller do to Trump aides be intimidating?

“…he shall have Power to grant…Pardons for Offences against the United States…”

Article II, section 2, subsection 1 of the Constitution clearly states the President has the power to pardon anyone (which some argue includes himself) if he so desires.

That said, we’re at a loss how Mueller indicting former Trump aides for wrongdoing long before they ever became Trump aides can possibly help in the special counsel probe.

General consensus is that the indictments are meant as a way of coercing the aides. It puts pressure on them to be more cooperative with the Mueller team witch-hunt, and that the President would be too fearful of negative optics to exercise pardon options.

But, as many seem slow to learn, President Trump isn’t your typical politician, and with his popularity rising despite the best effort of FakeNews, optics are an illusory thing.

As noted in an earlier BCP post, the American public has little patience for a one-sided ham-handed version of a glaring political ploy this special counsel probe has become, with its GOP-only tunnel vision…while ignoring very real Democrat criminality.

So, that said, President Trump can make a very real case for ending the charade, and while doing so, pardoning Flynn and other aides being hammered with legal extortion.

We never cease to be amazed how Hillary Clinton can walk among free society, while others are bludgeoned with the selective hammer of partisan grand-jury indictments, no matter how lesser or insignificant the charges used against them may be.

Someone, please remind CNN that the KKK was a Democrat construct…

Is it any wonder why young skulls are full of mush?

Further proof that CNN has no honesty in its ‘journalistic’ corps…

“CNN’s Van Jones: For Young People ‘The NRA Is Like the KKK’ “

Van Jones is a self-avowed Communist, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that he has no problem passing on false, incendiary, and spurious propaganda against conservatives.

We take this opportunity to remind Mr. Jones – the KKK was a Democrat construct, with the goal of blocking the Constitutional rights of black Americans through intimidation…

…whereas the NRA wants to support the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans.

In truth, if you consider that FakeNews media is trying to take away Constitutional rights of Americans through the use of thuggery, intimidation, and inflammatory tactics…

…an accurate comparison to the KKK…would be the journalists of CNN.