Stupid is as Dirty Man posts. So, if there is a peace treaty and Trump gets serious concessions you will, 1. never acknowledge that it happened, 2. Say it was because of Obama's previous efforts, or 3. Say that it was not Trump at all but rather Kim Jung Un's sister who pulled it all off... So typical of libs these days.

Out of the blue????? I have told you before some months back that I do not need your advice on how I should comport myself on these threads. If you really think that I care how a bunch of people who are driven by the mindless talking heads of MSNBC, CNN, and the NYT think of me, please, if you want to see me behave like the polite person that I am in public catch up with me in the photography forum, I am even civil with SS over there.

This is the post to I retorted with a big FU. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-525798-3.html#8944557

So Mr. Circle Jerk, if Trump goes over to wherever it is that he will meet with the N. Korean leader and comes home with a substantial agreement, will you eat crow?

I will also point out to you that I have tried to find on the internet an instance of Trump acknowledging the hero who stopped the church massacre in Texas, you know the guy who confronted another guy with a working AR-15, a lot more ballsy, he saved the lives of the remaining members of that congregation. I don't see Trump acknowledging his heroism anywhere, he was a white guy, does this mean that Trump h**es white people too?

You people are i***ts.

PS. I don't do cartoons, you post a cartoon like that directed at me and you will get that same response again.

Lastly I will say your mindless mob mentality that chases unfounded accusations and outright lies while echoing them from the highest perches you can find are damaging this country far worse than anything that Donald Trump will do as president. You are d******e, you can't just accept the political loss you suffered. If you keep going you will finally get to the place where you are headed and you won't like it because it will be ugly, very ugly and possibly filled with violence that you maybe never intended but never stopped asking for.

I will add that the race card in a political argument has always come far to easily to the lips of a democrat, but you people are beginning to believe that behind every R there is a r****t. You are the ones who no longer think, who no longer try to understand and communicate, you are noting but lemmings and you have become beyond ugly. My language maybe crass, your thoughts and rationalizations are just despicable.

I am sick and tired of the group think and the democrat lies, it is as if you have to not only keep this lie alive but it does appear that you feel that your political fortunes hang in the balance. Really? Are you so craven to think that America has elected a W***e S*********t to the office of president? Step away and think about that for a moment and realize how sick you folks have become.

Fuck you, our president is a w***e s*********t? A white Nationalist? A r****t? You people are sick, and no, I make no apologies for my statement.

You people are f'ing sick, you all are f'ing crazy... Sick bastards is all I can say about any of you.

LOL... I was out birding yesterday and the camera was still set up from that outing.

Judges who join the #Resistance are trouble for our legal system - by Rich Lowry

There’s a lawlessness rampant in the land, but it isn’t emanating from the Trump administration.

The source is federal judges who are making a mockery of their profession by twisting the law to block the Trump administration’s immigration priorities.

If the judges get their way, there will, in effect, be two sets of law in America — one for President Trump and one for everyone else.

In this dispensation, other presidents, especially Democratic presidents, get a pen and a phone. Trump gets a judicial veto — even when he is simply trying to undo the unilateral moves of his predecessor.
This is the clear implication of the latest decision against Trump’s rollback of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. US Judge John Bates in the District of Columbia held that Trump’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” If nothing else, the judge is an expert on arbitrariness. He’d force the administration to begin granting new DACA permits if it doesn’t explain to his satisfaction the decision to end the program.

This would make some sense if Trump were stretching to defy a legal regime duly passed by Congress. He is not. That is what President Barack Obama did.

Because Congress declined to pass the DREAM Act, Obama implemented a version on his own. He justified DACA as prosecutorial discretion and to this day denies that he rewrote the laws. But if that is true — and it’s the only legal defense of DACA — there is nothing to stop Trump from reversing it via his own pen and phone.

Prosecutorial discretion must work both ways, or the law is a ratchet always working against immigration enforcement.

Especially given how Obama’s defense of DACA as prosecutorial discretion was a t***sparent rationalization. It wasn’t as though immigration authorities were coming across so-called Dreamers during traffic stops and deciding that pursuing removal would be a poor use of time and resources.

No, DACA set up a shadow immigration system outside of and in defiance of congressional enactments. This is why DACA’s sister program, DAPA, which would have applied to a wider population of i*****l i*******ts, was rightly blocked in the courts.
All the same arguments that sank DAPA should apply to DACA, but once Trump is part of the equation, all the rules change. Bates wants to hear a more extensive argument from the administration on why DACA is illegal. More to the point is the fact that there isn’t any remotely plausible case that it is unlawful to apply the law to i*****l i*******ts.

Obama himself long maintained that he lacked the authority to issue a unilateral amnesty for Dreamers. We’ve gone from everyone assuming that the president can’t act in defiance of the i*********n l*ws to judges insisting that a president must act in defiance of the i*********n l*ws.

Books have been written about the coming descent of the US into f*****m, but evidently no one who promotes or buys these tomes cares about the black letter of the law, at least not when it doesn’t suit their political interests.

The complaints on the right, meanwhile, about an unelected deep state trying to destroy the president are overdone. Yet here is an unelected branch of government overstepping its constitutional bounds to frustrate a core priority of a president who ran and won on the issue of immigration. This is corrosive of faith in our system, counter to the rule of law and sophomoric on the part of men and women who are supposed to be neutral arbiters of justice.

The saving grace of the judiciary is that the Supreme Court, as of now, takes its responsibility more seriously. The oral arguments suggest that the court will, despite absurd rulings below, uphold Trump’s travel ban.

This is something, but it doesn’t remove the shame of those judges who, when it comes to Trump, substitute the logic of #resistance for common sense and the law.

See, I can cut and paste too!

By Jonathan Turley.

Friday’s release of the House Intelligence Committee report generated much coverage over its finding of no evidence of collusion with the Russians. Receiving less attention was a small section entitled “Finding #44,” where the committee suggested that then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper leaked information from the so-called Steele dossier. Even worse for Clapper, the alleged leak was made to CNN, which later hired him as a contributor.

If true, both the national intelligence chief and then-FBI Director James Comey leaked information while denying such violations to Congress. Moreover, even if Clapper waited until shortly after leaving office, it is deeply troubling that he would confirm details of the dossier, which was under investigation.


The report recounts how Clapper gave “inconsistent testimony” to Congress when he denied ever “discuss[ing] the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 e******n with journalists.” That has proven to be untrue. Clapper later admitted he discussed the “dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper” and indicated he may have discussed the material with other journalists.

The timing is notable.

Clapper discussed the information in “early January 2017.” There was no compelling need to confirm the information, given the ongoing investigation and that it was still a subject of highly classified deliberations. Indeed, with FBI personnel looking into the matter, confirming the information could be viewed as unhelpful. Its most obvious value was to undermine Donald Trump.

In other words, the disclosure advanced political, not public, interests.

Clapper allegedly gave CNN the confirmation around the time that President Obama and President-elect Trump were given classified briefings on the dossier. On Jan. 10, 2017, Tapper and CNN ran with the breaking news that Obama and Trump were briefed on the “memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative.” Tapper cited “U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” and even described the “two-page synopsis” given to Obama and Trump. (The dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed after CNN’s disclosure.)

After leaving office, Clapper began regular commentary with CNN and became a paid CNN contributor in August 2017.

Clapper is accused of not only lying to the public but to the media for which he now works. After Trump objected to the leaking of the dossier story, CNN covered Clapper’s statement that he assured the incoming president neither he nor anyone in the intelligence community was responsible: “I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.”

In March, Clapper, again on CNN, insisted, “I didn’t have any contact with media until after I left the government on the 20th of January, so I don’t quite understand, at least what I’ve read, that somehow I leaked about the dossier.” CNN host Don Lemon then asked, “So you didn’t leak anything about the dossier to any media?” Clapper answered, “No, not — I mean, I talked about it after I left the government, but not during that period, and certainly not between the 6th of January and the 10th when the president-elect himself talked about it.”

If Clapper confirmed the information before he left office on Jan. 20, he could again be accused of perjury. However, there remain concerns over Clapper discussing the internal review of the dossier in the midst of the ongoing investigation; doing so shortly after his departure from office does not alter its unprofessional character. It is even worse if Clapper is seen as leveraging such insider information while considering a possible media deal with CNN.

This is not the first time Clapper has been accused of giving false testimony to Congress and the public. Ironically, when Clapper was discussing this information with CNN, the statute of limitations was winding down on his lying to Congress about the controversial surveillance program that impacted virtually all Americans. Clapper denied the existence of the program to the Senate and, when later confronted over his perjury, insisted his testimony was “the least unt***hful” statement he could make. That still makes it unt***hful, but in Washington, people like Clapper do not get indicted for perjury. Clapper was made a CNN contributor after the statute of limitations expired on his alleged perjury.

Notably, Comey wrote in one of his memos that CNN had the information on the dossier and was looking for a “news hook” to run it. That news hook became the leak that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier. CNN has appropriately declined to answer media questions of whether Comey or Clapper were sources for its dossier story.

After leaving as DNI, Clapper was used repeatedly by CNN without mentioning his alleged perjury on the surveillance program. CNN, for example, did not mention it in using him to rebut Trump’s allegation that his campaign staff was surveilled under the Obama administration; Clapper categorically denied it and said he would have been aware of such secret surveillance. In fact, Trump associates, including Carter Page, were under surveillance.

Democrats have rushed to shield Clapper and denounced questions about his conduct as a “smear campaign.” They note that, when later confronted directly in his testimony about his discussions with Tapper, he said: “Well, by the time of that, they already knew about it. By the time it was — it was after — I don’t know exactly the sequence there, but it was pretty close to when we briefed it and when it was out all over the place. The media had it by the way.”

That, however, is different from what he said in his public statement. Nor does it change the gravity of his conduct. Having the dossier did not change CNN’s need for confirmation from government officials. Indeed, Comey admitted the media was looking for a hook and still required confirmation of the information. If Clapper gave it to Tapper, he lied to Congress, other media and the public. Moreover, Clapper told Congress “it was pretty close to when we briefed it.” The briefing (which Clapper includes himself as part of) occurred before Jan. 10, not after Jan. 20. “Pretty close” is not a defense to perjury.

Of course, neither is describing a lie as the “least unt***hful answer” — but that worked fine for Clapper in his prior "inconsistent" testimony.

CNN will be rightfully celebrated for its disclosure of the dossier during Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The assembled press will honor the network for its story and how “the CNN team later reported that then-FBI Director James Comey personally briefed Trump about the dossier. Thanks to this CNN investigation, 'the dossier' is now part of the lexicon.”

Many will be looking in the audience for CNN’s national security expert — James Clapper.

Canon 5DSR with the original EF 500 f/4.

Yes, well I was posting in the photography forum, have you ever tried that?