Skip to main content


  • ElkArte - Just Installed!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Diego Cordero

Pictures / Re: Beautiful Pictures of the day

An Attacus atlas butterfly sits on the face of a visitor to the Botanical Garden of Masaryk University in Brno, Czech RepublicPicture: RADEK MICA/AFP/Getty Images

The Munich Oktoberfest, which began on September 20 this year, is a huge crowd-puller and justly lays claim to being the largest of its kind in the world. Last year more than six million people attended, between them consuming 6.7 million litres of beer and eating more than 114 oxen. The festival spans just over two weeks and is held annually in a meadow just outside Munich's city centre. In addition to eating, drinking and dancing, visitors can enjoy colourful parades, a variety of fairground rides - and for those not themselves in traditional Bavarian gear, admire those that are.

Visitors enjoy the atmosphere at Augustiner Beer tent after the Parade of Costumes and Riflemen (Trachten- und Schuetzenzug)
Picture: Getty Images

A waitress carries 11 liters of beer in the Hofbraeu tent during the 181st Oktoberfest in Munich


Wars since 1941 in Latin America
When discussing whether or not South America is headed towards an arms race, or already involved in one, tend to raise fears of an eventual interstate conflict. However, it is often overlooked that wars between Latin America nations have seldom occurred since World War II, but they have come close to beginning several times. Here is a brief listing of them:

1) 1941: A three-day war between Peru and Ecuador. Ecuadorian troops invaded northern Peru but were successfully repelled. The Peruvian army took the offensive and temporarily occupied the Ecuadorian province known as El Oro.

2) 1969: The "Soccer War" or "100 Hour War" between Honduras and El Salvador.

3) 1981 and 1995: Conflict broke out between Peru and Ecuador. Military operations occurred but were short lived only lasting a few weeks at a time and casualties were relatively minor. The hostilities were limited to specific areas in the border highlands in Paquisha and Cenepa.

4) 1982: The Falklands War/Guerra de las Malvinas. Though one of the combatants was not a Latin American state, this war is still worth mentioning. Argentina, then under military junta, decided to invade the Malvinas (Falklands), which had been a matter of dispute for decades with the United Kingdom. The UK forces defeated Argentines, and speeding the dissolution of the Argentina junta and expedited the country's return to civilian rule.

5) U.S. military operations: For the sake of argument, it is worth mentioning that the U.S. carried out military operations in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.

6) Also, it should be noted that the last "great" conflict in South America was the Chaco War in 1932-35.

Historic Conflicts
As different analyses of the mounting arms race point out, there are some ongoing disputes between different South American countries, especially between Venezuela (at heads of state and upper governmental levels) and Colombia; between Peru and Chile; Bolivia and Chile and Argentina and Chile; just to name a few. Below is a brief list of ongoing tensions and disputes between Latin American countries:

1) Peru and Chile: Historical tensions tracing back to the 19th century War of the Pacific include an ongoing Santiago-initiated dispute over the maritime border between the neighbouring countries.

2) Bolivia and Chile: La Paz presses demands that Chile should return the coastal territories it has occupied since the War of the Pacific.

3) Argentina and Chile: Both countries dispute their exact borders; there is a disagreement about the dividing line along the Southern Patagonian ice fields. In 1894, the countries signed a Peace and Friendship Treaty. However, in 1978 the countries seemed to be drifting towards war, but the Pope intervened and mediated the fracas. It is all but certain that Pinochet provided Margaret Thatcher's government with intelligence that helped London defeat Argentina in the Falklands War (discussed at the end of part three). There is ongoing tension between Argentina and Chile over the Antarctic, due to Chile and England having overlapping claims on Argentine Antarctic claims

4) Peru and Ecuador: Even though there has not been warfare between the two countries since the 1995 incident in the Cenepa region and the resulting 1998 Treaty, tensions have occasionally arisen. Peru is preoccupied over the fact that Ecuador is a close ally of Chile, Peru's historical nemesis.

5) Venezuela and Guyana: Caracas historically has claimed up to 1/3 of Guyanese territory, dating back to the end of the 19th century. In 1966, after a tripartite agreement between Venezuela, Guyana and the United Kingdom, Venezuelan soldiers and civilians entered Guyanese territory, namely the Guyanese side of the Ankoko Island. The Venezuelans built an airstrip there, as well as a military outpost. In February 1970, Venezuelan and Guyanese soldiers engaged in a firefight, though no injuries were reported. Fears of a Venezuelan build-up at the time did not translate into major military operations. In 2007, a Venezuelan general and 36 soldiers entered Guyanese territory apparently with the intention of blowing up an improvised dam set up by illegal gold diggers. It was never confirmed why this operation took place, and whether Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had given the order to enter Guyana.

6) Guatemala and Belize: These countries have a historical boarder dispute in which Guatemala claims major amounts of Belizean territory. Land claims have moderated however, as conciliatory discussions have taken place over the past few decades. Belize declared independence from its protector, the United Kingdom in 1975, but Guatemala only recognized Belize as a sovereign entity in 1994. However, the two countries have never lapsed into armed conflict against each other.

7) Colombia and Nicaragua: Both countries claim the ownership of the San Andres and Providencia Islands.

8) Bolivia and Paraguay: While these countries have had amicable relations for the most part, military build-ups have caused some concern due to the persisting memory of the bloody 1932-1935 Chaco War. Bolivia became concerned after Paraguay hosted a number of military exercises with U.S. National Guard units. More recently, Paraguay asked for more information about Bolivian military purchases from Russia and China after news began to circulate of a $100 million credit issued by Moscow for the purpose of weapons' acquisitions mentioned after in this article.

Next: PART THREE: Close Calls and the South Atlantic War
I sat down the other day and thought that it would be a good idea to write a brief history of South America and the interrelationships between each nation, so over this next week I will fatigue you all with my end less dribble of a university professor. But hopefully we will all learn a bit more about this section of the world that is as misunderstood as the African continent.

I will divide the presentation into several sections that will include a history of the past conflicts in the region and the relationships between nations; arms purchases and domestic production; and finally what the future may hold. I will try to be as un-bias as possible. I would like making this educational and open for discussion. Hope you all enjoy. As always it is a pleasure to openly debate topics on this forum. Thanks.

In 2011 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized then Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez for his extravagant purchases of Russian and Chinese military equipment, arguing that this could begin a cascading arms race in South America. The statement has added fuel to the ongoing discussions about what direction South America's rearmament, or arms increase, is taking and what this could come to mean for the security of the region. Some people, including myself, fear an inter-state war could break out due to long standing feuds, an increase in force projection and geopolitical tensions.

Venezuelan Su-30 on flyby

The ongoing reports about major purchases by Venezuela, Brazil, and Chile tend to blur the actual geo-security situation in the region, as several countries -- with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay as the most prominent examples; have carried out only limited military acquisitions. The common perception is that an arms race raises the possibility of conflict. However, the reality in South America (and Central America as well) is that interstate warfare has seldom occurred since World War II; it has come very close at times (we will discuss this later) Additionally, it is misleading to assume that all South American countries are carrying out their arms purchases with the same gusto as Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela.

Chilean F-16 preparing for training mission

It is generally assumed, by most outsiders, that South America is either already engaged in an arms race or is about to enter one. This view is somewhat inconsistent because the start of an arms race is not easily defined, though one could say I was when Venezuela purchased Su-30s or Chile Purchased F-16s. It could also be argued that what is occurring is not so much a general arms race as it is a product of certain militaries capitalizing on weak civilian governments (like an updated version of former Uruguayan President Bordaberry in 1973) to increase their defence budgets. Furthermore, in spite of domestic security issues in several South American countries, most notably the insurgent movements in Colombia and Peru, the reality is that full scale interstate wars in the region have been notably scarce in the past few decades, which raises the question: is interstate warfare necessarily the future of South America? We will discuss whether an arms race could lead to general warfare in future instalments, maybe later this evening or tomorrow.
Antifa, BLM, Occupy Wall Street, Et. Al. / Riots
Protester Gameday: Was Liberal Politics To Blame For The Violence In Charlottesville?

The Daily Caller
Henry Rodgers, Political Reporter
1:19 PM 12/02/2017

[Too short to excerpt]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Daily Caller News Foundation breaks down the new bombshell report regarding the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12 in a must-watch episode the of the show "Protester Gameday."

Two DCNF reporters discussed the new report released Friday morning by the city of Charlottesville, which detailed a series of failures by the Charlottesville Police and Charlottesville City Council that helped contribute to violence at a white nationalist rally in August, a report released Friday details.

The new report explained that the death of Heather Heyer was due in part to mistakes made by the city council and Charlottesville police.

The DCNF was on scene in Charlottesville on August 12 and discuss the new information released in the 220 page report in the new episode.
American Politics / Re: Trump-Russia Dossier
Robert Mueller, Agent of Willful Ignorance
Robert Spencer
November 28, 2017

It has come to light that as director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, who is currently the special counsel looking for any dirt he can find on Donald Trump, presided over the 2012 removal of all counterterror training materials of any mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism. Since then, our law enforcement and intelligence officials have been blundering along in self-imposed darkness about the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat. This, it turns out, was Mueller's doing.

In February 2012, the Obama Administration purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counter-terror training material for the FBI and other agencies. This material was discarded at the demand of Muslim groups, which had deemed it inaccurate or offensive to Muslims.

This purge was several years in the making, and I was - inadvertently - the one who touched it off. In August 2010, when I gave a talk on Islam and jihad to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force -- one of many such talks I gave to government agencies and military groups in those years. While some had counseled me to keep these talks quiet so as to avoid attracting the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the possibility of that pressure seemed to me to make it all the more important to announce my appearances publicly, so as to show that the U.S. government was not going to take dictation from a group linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who had urged silence were proven correct, however, for the Obama administration was indeed disposed to take dictation from CAIR. CAIR sent a series of letters to Mueller and others demanding that I be dropped as a counter-terror trainer; the organization even started a "coalition" echoing this demand, and Jesse Jackson and other Leftist luminaries joined it.

At the FBI, Mueller made no public comment on CAIR's demand, and so it initially appeared that CAIR's effort had failed. But I was never again invited to provide counter-terror training for any government agency, after having done so fairly regularly for the previous five years. CAIR's campaign to keep me from taking part in counter-terror training was, of course, not personal. They targeted me simply because I told the truth, just as they would target anyone else who dared do so.

Although Mueller was publicly silent, now we know that he was not unresponsive. And the Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies didn't give up. In the summer and fall of 2011, the online tech journal Wired published several "exposés" by far-Left journalist Spencer Ackerman, who took the FBI to task for training material that spoke forthrightly and truthfully about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

In a typical sally from one of these exposés, Ackerman condemned the training material for intimating that mainstream American Muslims were "likely to be terrorist sympathizers." Certainly all the mainstream Muslim organizations condemn al-Qaeda and 9/11; however, as we have seen, some of the foremost of those organizations, such as ISNA, MAS, ICNA, the MSA, CAIR, and others, have links of various kinds to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. A mainstream Muslim spokesman in the U.S., Ground Zero Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, refused to condemn Hamas until it became too politically damaging for him not to do so; another, CAIR's Nihad Awad, openly declared his support for Hamas in 1994. Other mainstream Muslim spokesmen in the U.S., such as Obama's ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, and media gadfly Hussein Ibish, have praised and defended Sami al-Arian, the confessed leader of another jihad terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Do these men and organizations represent a tiny minority of extremists that actually does not express the opinions of the broad mainstream of Muslims in this country? Maybe, but there simply are no counterparts -- no individuals of comparable influence or groups of comparable size -- that have not expressed sympathy for some Islamic terror group.

Nonetheless, in the face of Ackerman's reports, the FBI went into full retreat. In September 2011 it announced that it was dropping one of the programs that Ackerman had zeroed in on.
American Politics / Re: Trump-Russia Dossier
Is The Mueller Special Investigation Going To Result In A Massive Political Explosion...Over Nearly Nothing?

The Daily Wire
By Ben Shapiro
December 1, 2017

While the mainstream media projects that former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's guilty plea in lying to the FBI presages the possibility that the case of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government will break wide open, there's another possibility: that special counsel Robert Mueller is about to unleash a wave of minor charges with no underlying crimes.

Here's how.

Flynn's plea deal suggests that his crime was lying to the FBI about conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- after the election. Supposedly, Flynn spoke with Kislyak about backing off of retaliation against Obama administration sanctions, and also about delaying a late-Obama administration United Nations resolution designed to condemn Israeli settlements. It's completely unclear why Flynn would lie about such conversations; they weren't illegal. In fact, most Americans would want the transition team to talk to foreign governments about the policy to be implemented in mere weeks.

But Flynn apparently lied, and now admits to it.

That means that Flynn will be testifying against other members of the administration who supposedly told him to speak with Kislyak. Speculation suggests that the top official was Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. But so what? Kushner committed no crime in telling Flynn to reach out to the Russians in order to quash bad Obama policy, particularly on Israel.

Unless Kushner fibbed to the FBI too, for some unspecified reason.

One reason could be simple inexperience. It's possible that Flynn and that unspecified upper-echelon official simply didn't know it wasn't a problem to speak with Kislyak. It's possible that they did it without the permission of Trump. Incompetence is always a more obvious answer than malice when it comes to the administration.

But if that upper-echelon official lied to the FBI, Mueller could charge him along the same lines as the charges against Flynn, hoping to ensnare further officials in a chain of lies about contacts with the Russian government that (a) weren't illegal and (b ) were post-election.

This sets off the distinct possibility of a bevy of legal charges based on untruth, but with no underlying crime. This wouldn't be about collusion or election-rigging, but about ensnaring Trump administration officials in their own words. It would look less like Watergate, and much more like the political prosecution of Scooter Libby, the assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was prosecuted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for supposedly lying about a phone call with Tim Russert -- even though the underlying investigation centered on Richard Armitage leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media. President Bush ended up commuting Libby's sentence.
U.S. State Politics / Red State Revolt
The Red-State Revolt Spreads to Oklahoma
The Atlantic - Russell Berman

Officials in both parties attribute the Democrats' run in part to the party's motivation to fight back in the Trump era, scandals that have forced Republican legislators to resign, and the low-turnout quirkiness of special elections. But the overriding factor is likely a budget crisis that has starved funding for Oklahoma's schools, resulting in a teacher shortage and prompting more than one-quarter of the state's districts to hold classes only four days a week.

"The people are just not happy," former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, a Republican, told me in a phone interview. "Government appears dysfunctional, and government officials appear unwilling to solve the problems of the state and the nation. And there will be hell to pay."

Oklahoma Democrats view the situation as evidence of a fundamental failure on the part of Republicans who spent years railing against government spending and blaming the state's fiscal woes on a federal government led by Barack Obama, whose unpopularity in the state made his administration an effective foil. "They can't blame it on Obama anymore, so they have no choice but to take responsibility for the failures across the board in Oklahoma," said State Senator John Sparks, the Democratic leader.
American Politics / VOTER ID IN AMERICA
Contested Virginia Races Put Spotlight On Noncitizen Voting

Legislative contests could determine control of the House of Delegates in a state having a serious problem with illegal votes

by Brendan Kirby
Updated 01 Dec 2017 at 7:02 AM

Disputed races for the Virginia House of Delegates -- which could determine control of the chamber -- highlight the potential for fraud and even innocuous bureaucratic glitches to impact elections.

It has been three weeks since Virginians voted for governor and representatives in the House of Delegates, and the tenuous Republican hold is still not confirmed. Democrats swamped Republicans in the election but -- as things currently stand -- will hold only 49 seats to the GOP's 51 when the new members take office.

Several losing Democrats are seeking recounts, however, and a federal judge has left open the possibility of ordering a special election. Close outcomes include:

The 28th District in Northern Virginia, where Republican Robert Thomas beat Democrat Joshua Cole by 82 votes in a race to succeed retiring House Speaker William Howell.
The 88th District in Fredericksburg, where incumbent Republican Delegate Mark Cole beat Democrat Steve Aycock by a little more than 4,000 votes.
The 40th District in Fairfax County, where Republican Delegate Timothy Hugo defeated Democrat Donte Tanner by 106 votes.
The 94th District, where Republican incumbent David Yancey of Newport News beat Democratic challenger Shelly Simonds by just 10 votes.

No one has suggested that voter fraud played any role in the outcome of any of those races. But elections experts contend that the close races refute the argument that voter fraud is too rare to make a difference.

Even small numbers of illegal ballots could make a difference in races separated by handfuls of votes, said Hans von Spakovsky, a legal analyst at The Heritage Foundation and a member of Presidential Donald Trump's election integrity commission.

"That should be a big concern," he said.

In Virginia, illegal voting is not just a theoretical problem. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has uncovered documentation showing thousands of noncitizens on the voter rolls -- including some who have actually cast ballots. Since the 1980s, according to a report by the voter integrity group, 7,474 ballots have been illegally cast by noncitizens who never should have been allowed to register.

And those are just the people who voluntarily came forward and asked to be removed from the rolls. Representatives from the advocacy organization have said there is no way to determine how many ineligible voters might be on the rolls.

Von Spakovsky said Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe has shown no interest in preventing illegal voting. He noted that the legislature passed a law requiring jury commissioners to alert election officials any time someone picked for jury duty admits to being a noncitizen. That way, von Spakovsky said, election officials could check to see if those people are on the voter rolls and remove them.

"And McAuliffe vetoed it," he said.

Von Spakovsky said the only possible motive is that the governor believes removing noncitizens would hurt Democratic election prospects.

"You can understand why he's doing that," he said.
American Politics / Re: Hillary and Russian Uranium
Larry Klayman Lobbies Trump To Be Hillary Clinton Special Counsel

Washington Examiner
by Steven Nelson
Oct 30, 2017, 6:43 PM

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman is petitioning President Trump for an appointment to be special counsel to investigate possible crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and her associates.

Klayman, a colorful litigator with three decades of head-turning pursuits, told the Washington Examiner he will form a "citizen's grand jury" to review evidence against Clinton if Trump doesn't appoint him special counsel by the end of November.

On Monday, after two indictments and a guilty plea in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of possible Trump ties to Russia, Klayman said signatures were pouring in for his online petition, which he intends to deliver to the Justice Department and the White House.

"I do know a lot of people in and around him. President Trump will get this, and I know he follows what I do," Klayman said. "Trump has the authority to tell [Attorney General] Jeff Sessions to appoint me."

Trump has pointedly criticized what he called Sessions' "very weak" approach toward Clinton. Klayman imagines himself as a second special counsel alongside Mueller, though he also believes Mueller should be fired.

If he can't get the job, Klayman said he will convene a "citizen's grand jury" in Ocala, Fla., to review allegations against Clinton. He imagines an 18-person representative body formed after sending out mailers at random based on voter rolls.

"I'll be, in effect, my own special counsel," he said. "That's the way it used to be done in the Old West."

If Clinton or any of her associates are indicted, Klayman said "then we'll try her and I'll be the prosecutor" and "we'll find a judge who's neutral, maybe a retired judge."

What if Klayman's informal trial sentences her to prison? "I believe the verdict would be valid," he said. "At that point, the executive branch would have to execute on it."

Trump Land / Re: Mueller Investigation
Mueller's First Indictments A 'Letdown' For Anti-Trumpers

The special counsel's initial charges against Manafort and Gates aren't the 'smoking gun' of collusion many Dems had anticipated

by Kathryn Blackhurst
Updated 30 Oct 2017 at 12:22 PM

Conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan said Monday on "The Laura Ingraham Show" that the charges leveled against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe are "going to be something of a letdown" to Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans.

Buchanan, former communications director to President Ronald Reagan and two-time presidential candidate, noted that the charges President Donald Trump's two former campaign officials fielded don't provide the "smoking gun" evidence tying Trump's campaign to Russia's 2016 U.S. election interference for which many anti-Trump Americans had hoped.

"I thought the investigation was supposed to be about collusion between Trump and [Russian President] Putin. And what they have done is they have taken a campaign manager who was with Trump for three months and apparently gone back all the way to 2012 or 2010, 2011 and indicted him for income tax evasion and things like that," Buchanan said.

"So what it tells me is that after a year of investigation, or more than that by the FBI, and many, many months by Mr. Mueller, they haven't got it. They have not found the smoking gun ... on the collusion between Trump and Vladimir Putin," he added. "And so I think that, you know, I think this is going to be something of a letdown to these folks."

While the country responds to Mueller's first charges in the Russia probe, Buchanan also urged the U.S. to pay attention to the revelations that have been pouring in over the past couple of weeks tying the Democratic National Committee and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign to the discredited dossier on Trump and Russia.

Buchanan told LifeZette Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham that the news revealing the Clinton campaign and the DNC helped fund the research that went into compiling the salacious allegations in the dossier should warrant significant attention from anyone who claims to be interested in and focused on Russia's election interference.

Trump Land / Re: Mueller Investigation
Gowdy criticizes illegal grand jury leaks by Mueller's office

By Rick Moran
October 30, 2017

House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy told Fox News's Chris Wallace that Special Counsel Robert Mueller should crack down on leaks from his office regarding grand jury deliberations.

A leak on Friday revealed that charges had been filed in connection with the Russian collusion investigation. Although at the time, no names were mentioned, we discovered today that former Trump campaign chief Robert Manafort and a close aide had been charged.

"It is kind of ironic that the people in charge of investigating the law and executing the law would violate the law," Gowdy told host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "Make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. So, as a former prosecutor, I'm disappointed that you and I are having the conversation because somebody violated their oath of secrecy."

"The only conversation I've had with Robert Mueller, it was stressing to him the importance of cutting out the leaks with respect to serious investigations," Gowdy said.

Still, the South Carolina Republican said he's not pushing for Mueller's investigation to be curtailed or shut down.

"I readily concede I'm in an increasingly small group of Republicans," Gowdy said. "Bob Mueller has a really distinguished career of service to our country. I don't think any of your viewers can think of a single thing he did as the FBI director that caused them to have a lack of confidence in him."

"He's a pretty apolitical guy," Gowdy added.

Does an "apolitical guy" manipulate the media by getting Washington in a tizzy for an entire weekend anticipating whom the grand jury has indicted? Mueller knew full well that the leak on Friday that promised an indictment without revealing who would be charged would create a sensation inside the Beltway. It did.

The leak was not only illegal. It violated the due process rights of the accused. But constitutional rights apparently pale in comparison to Mueller's media strategizing.

Mueller is forced to play the media game because he has nothing so far on the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. He has indicted Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, on charges relating to activities before the two men even worked for Trump. His obvious ploy is to get one or both men to flip on other principals being investigated. Mueller may have something specific in mind, or he may simply be involved in a fishing expedition - shaking the tree to see if anything falls to the ground.

Trump Land / Re: Mueller Investigation
Robert Mueller Should Resign

New York Post
By Michael Goodwin
October 28, 2017 | 10:11 pm

Forgive yourself if you are confused about developments in the Russia, Russia, Russia storyline. In fact, there are so many moving parts that you shouldn't trust anybody who isn't confused.

Consider this, then, a guide to the perplexed, where we start with two things that are certain. First, special counsel Robert Mueller will never be able to untangle the tangled webs with any credibility and needs to step aside.

Mueller, whose office is apparently leaking the "secret" news that a grand jury has approved charges against an unidentified defendant, assumed his role with one big conflict, his relationship with his successor at the FBI, James Comey. That conflict has morphed into several more that are fixable only by resignation.

That became obvious last week when events showed that any honest probe must examine the Obama White House and Justice Department. Mueller served as head of the FBI for more than four years under President Obama and cannot be expected to investigate his former colleagues and bosses.

But without that necessary step, his work would be incomplete at best. So it's time for him to say ¬bye-bye.

The second thing we know for certain is that Hillary Clinton had a worse week than Mueller. Much worse.

The revelation that her campaign and the Democratic National Committee secretly funded the discredited dossier on Donald Trump's supposed connections to Russia rocked the political world. The Clinton connection, denied by the campaign for a year, throws more doubt on the entire Trump-Russia-collusion narrative and shows that Clinton worked with Russian officials to meddle in the election.

The Washington Post reported that her campaign and the DNC paid millions of dollars to a law firm, Perkins Coie, which hired a shadowy company called Fusion GPS, which hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile the dossier, much of which was said to be based on Kremlin sources.

The bombshell sent Clinton into hiding, and no wonder. She probably thought three degrees of separation from the dossier would be enough to insulate her. In her absence, her defenders offered a dog's stew of evasions, half-truths and diversionary attacks.

Their claim that nobody in the campaign or the DNC knew anything about the deal doesn't pass the smell test. When as much as $12 million goes out the window for a document that aimed to win the election -- and failed -- everybody knows something.

While the link to Clinton answers some questions, it raises others. For example, while it is certain her campaign spread the dossier among the media last summer, it remains uncertain whether the dossier was used by the White House and the FBI to justify snooping on the Trump campaign.

One hint that it was is that Comey, while still in office, called the document "salacious and unverified," but briefed Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents last January. And the FBI never denied reports that it almost hired Steele, the former British spy, to continue his work after the campaign.

The mystery might soon be solved because the FBI, after months of stonewalling, agreed last week to tell Congress how it used the dossier and detail its contacts with Steele.

Trump Land / Re: Mueller Investigation
Tucker Carlson Says Mueller Has 3 People In His Crosshairs

"He said he was motivated to contact us by the disgust he felt watching media coverage of the Russia story."

The Daily Wire
By Ryan Saavedra
October 29, 2017

Fox News host Tucker Carlson reported earlier this week that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials has three people in its crosshairs.

Carlson revealed that a source who spoke to Fox News said that media reports that the investigation is centered around only Paul Manafort are not true:

The man, whose name we can't reveal for the time being, is a former senior employee of the Podesta Group. He said he was motivated to contact us by the disgust he felt watching media coverage of the Russia story. Not only were most reporters getting it wrong he said, they were getting it backward. The Russians were in fact deeply involved in American politics, but the real story had almost nothing to do with the 2016 presidential campaign.

The source told Fox News that Manafort is at the core of the investigation -- but only partly because of his connection to the Trump campaign. Instead, Manafort is under investigation because of his years working on behalf of Russian governent interests, on occasion with members of the Podesta Group, headed by John Podesta's brother, Tony.

American Politics / Congress
What Does Maxine Waters Actually Do In Congress?

Timothy Meads
Posted: Oct 28, 2017 6:15 PM

Maxine Waters (D-CA) has rebranded herself in the Trump Era as a strong public servant standing up to the corrupt, demagogic president. Repeatedly, she has harangued the president during speeches that range from AIDS fundraisers to LGBT Gala award dinners.

Today in Michigan, Waters led a raucous chorus at a women's rally, chanting "Impeach 45! Impeach 45!" But, people would be wise to remember that her career is one of corruption and failure.

Rep. Waters has passed just three bills in her 27 years in Congress. That means on average, Waters produces something noteworthy for constituents every 9 years. One of the bills was renaming a Post Office. Impressive stuff.

In the interim, she is busy making money for her family and allies. Her family has accrued more than a million dollars during her time in the House, according to Red Alert Politics.

Furthermore, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has given Rep. Waters the most corrupt member of congress four separate times. Waters' shady financial dealings should concern all Americans. Democrats still have produced nothing that shows President Trump should be impeached, but financial kickbacks abound for liberal members of Congress like the "great stateswoman" Waters in a slew of various ways.

American Politics / College Liberals
California Students Storm Library to Shut Down College Republicans Meeting

The New Democratic Fascists continue their assault on free speech on college campuses. Amazingly...they do not hide their intent. They intend to violently and aggressively shut down any speech or any assembly of persons, with which they disagree. Why? Fascism. A social media post from Haik Adamian read:

"White Supremacist, fascist sympathizing College Republicans are having a meeting at McHenry library, room 0332. Everybody be aware of this violent, racist activity happening evryyday on this campus!

We need a movement of people on this campus that rejects the "right of assembly", or "right of free speech" for white supremacists and fascists."

Ridiculous. And, of course, they followed through. Here's how Campus Reform described the scene:

College Republicans meeting at the University of California, Santa Cruz was taken over by protesters screaming that the group's existence is a threat to the safety of students.

Shortly after the CR meeting convened, one student entered the ground floor room of McHenry Library to ask attendees which group was assembling. After being informed that the meeting was a gathering of College Republicans, the student returned about 15-20 minutes later with company.

When they came back, they shouted, they threw fits, they accused the College Republicans of causing a "violent environment on campus." (Let that sink in for one second, considering who was being attacked and who attacked.) They also used words like "fascists," "racists," and "white supremacists" to describe the conservative students. To top it off, they said "dialogue is violence."

These children (and I use that term intentionally) are not operating in a vacuum. They are being taught these ideas by professors at these institutions, and by the broader leftist movement