Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (212045)	8/17/2018 10:32:19 AM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Investor Clouseau rayrohn TideGlider Respond to of 224777

Hey, Sarah Jeong! How racist is a black candidate in Detroit who says 'don't vote for the ching-chong'? - CHING-CHONG JEONG! THIS BLACK CANDIDATE HAS STRUCK COMEDY GOLD. THANK YOU MS. SCOTT... americanthinker.com In Michigan's state Senate race, Democrat Rep. Bettie Cook Scott had the perfect vote-getting pitch in her primary race against fellow Democrat, Rep. Stephanie Chang: " Don't vote for the ching-chong." According to Detroit's Metro Times: Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as "ching-chang" and "the ching-chong" to multiple voters outside polling precincts during last Tuesday's election. She's also said to have called one of Chang's campaign volunteers an "immigrant," saying "you don't belong here" and "I want you out of my country." Chang and Scott were running in the Democratic primary for state Sen. District 1. Chang won the election with 49 percent of the vote; Scott came in third with 11 percent of the vote. What a charmer, and such a perfect Democrat. She's since been forced to apologize. Yet what she said is perfectly in line with left-think. Wasn't it just two weeks ago that we learned that "oppressed" people are incapable of racism? That's what leftists argued in their insanely illogical bid to justify the New York Times' decision to hire Sarah Jeong as a voice-of-the-paper editorial writer for technology, after several years of anti-white racist tweets were unearthed, calling for, as Andrew Sullivan listed: ... language that wishes an entire race could be wiped off the face of the earth: "#cancelwhitepeople." Or: "White people have stopped breeding. you'll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along." One simple rule I have about describing groups of human beings is that I try not to use a term that equates them with animals. Jeong apparently has no problem doing so. Speaking of animals, here's another gem: "Dumbass f------ white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs p------ on fire hydrants." Or you could describe an entire race as subhuman: "Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins." And then there's this simple expression of the pleasure that comes with hatred: "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." I love that completely meretricious "old" to demean them still further. And that actual feeling: joy at cruelty! Jeong got a pass for this because only whites are capable of racism, see. The left went hog wild with that "logic" in the pages of Vox, Splinter, and academically plummy publications. "Racism is a problem of White Elites," Vox summed up. Here's a choice tweet from Vox's Zack Beauchamp: After all, they're oppressed. They're an "elect," as Sullivan put it. Anyone who's not white can spew hatred and venom toward other races to his heart's content because it's racism that's not racism-racism, or something. Tucker Carlson has a pretty good monologue on that logic. Now Scott has taken the left's Sarah Jeong Doctrine about racism to its logical conclusion – and brought it in for a landing on Jeong's own Asian-American community. "Don't vote for the ching-chong." What a slogan the left can be proud of. Scott, to her credit, has apologized. Jeong, not so much.

To: TideGlider who wrote (212045)	8/17/2018 10:48:36 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 224777

Howie Carr: Peter Strzok drank that dirty water bostonherald.com FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, testifies before a House Judiciary Committee joint hearing on "oversight of FBI and Department of Justice actions surrounding the 2016 election" on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 12. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) Disgraced, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok worked in the Boston office of the Famous But Incompetent agency. Why am I not surprised? The most corrupt G-man in American history getting his start in the most corrupt outpost of the squalid agency — it makes perfect sense. So why won’t the FBI admit Strzok’s impeccable pedigree? I asked the FBI to confirm his years in the Boston crime school and got back this terse response: “The FBI does not comment on personnel matters.” But it’s true, and of all the horrible, slimy, sleaziest agents to come out of Boston, Strzok may be the worst. The others just wanted to take bribes and booze from gangsters, and maybe kill one or two “rats” who crossed their underworld paymasters. Strzok, on the other hand, wanted an “insurance policy” to fix the 2016 presidential election, even though he knew that when it came to crimes by Donald Trump, “there is no there there.” Right now, friends of the crooked Strzok have started a gofundme.com page, which has raised more than $400,000 from trust-funded leftists in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome. “Peter is a proud husband,” the pitch says, which I’m sure will come as a surprise to his wife, who he was running around on with his gal pal Lisa Page. Now that we’ve met the proud husband, feel free to call him “Pete,” as the appeal does. “Pete handled some of the agency’s most important cases, thwarting numerous attacks ...” By cuckolded husbands? “... by foreign and domestic adversaries.” Domestic adversaries? The Boston FBI’s leading “domestic adversaries” in the Strzok days were honest cops — mostly the DEA and what was then the relatively clean Mass. State Police. Yesterday I called the office of special counsel Robert Mueller, the former U.S. attorney for Boston, who knew all of the six or seven FBI agents who were accused in federal court of taking payoffs from gangsters. Some of them were the agents who framed four innocent men for a murder they did not commit, while taking cash from Stevie Flemmi, whom they refused to arrest for 30 years while he was, by his own account, committing 50 murders in four different states. Yes, the Boston office was the perfect place to train “Special” Agent Strzok. My question for Mueller was, after he hired Strzok for his witch hunt, did they ever talk about how the FBI allowed the four innocent men to languish in prison for 35 years? Mueller’s office declined to comment. But it makes perfect sense that Mueller would want somebody from the Boston office to handle his frame-up, I mean investigation. Who knows more about railroaded people who didn’t commit a crime than the Boston FBI office? Just ask former U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner. In 2003, she threatened to cite Mueller for contempt of court for his refusal to turn over exculpatory evidence when the wronged men sued. (She eventually awarded them $107 million.) “The position the FBI is taking is chilling,” she informed Mueller. “This Court is not remotely satisfied.” Remember what Strzok had to say to his married girlfriend about Trump voters? He called them “ignorant hillbillies.” He said that he could “smell” them in the local Walmart. So I was surprised yesterday when I began researching his years in Massachusetts and discovered that he apparently lived not in Cambridge or Brookline, but in North Attleboro. Amazing — a snob who lived in North Attleboro. I emailed his lawyer, and I left a voicemail at a number that may belong to Strzok in the 703 area code. But no one got back to me, which is too bad because there were so many questions I wanted to ask the extinguished G-man about his years in the corrupt FBI office here. Like, when you first showed up, did the other crooks, I mean feds, show you Zip Connolly’s desk, where he used to throw his paychecks into the bottom drawer unopened in those pre-direct deposit days because he didn’t need them, given the $235,000 cash he took over the years from organized crime? Did you ever meet the G-man known as “Agent Orange,” who gave the mob 40 pounds of C4 plastic explosives, some of which they tried to use to blow me up with? Peter Strzok and the Boston office of the FBI — a marriage made in heaven, unlike his marriage to Mrs. Strzok. Buy Howie’s book “Kennedy Babylon” at howiecarrshow.com.

To: TideGlider who wrote (212045)	8/17/2018 11:06:19 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By rayrohn TideGlider Respond to of 224777

What Was Bruce Ohr Doing? WSJ › KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL AUGUST 16, 2018 outline.com The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department have continued to insist they did nothing wrong in their Trump-Russia investigation. This week should finally bring an end to that claim, given the clear evidence of malfeasance via the use of Bruce Ohr. Mr. Ohr was until last year associate deputy attorney general. He began feeding information to the FBI from dossier author Christopher Steele in late 2016—after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a confidential informant for violating the bureau’s rules. He also collected dirt from Glenn Simpson, cofounder of Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and employed Mr. Steele. Altogether, the FBI pumped Mr. Ohr for information at least a dozen times, debriefs that remain in classified 302 forms. All the while, Mr. Ohr failed to disclose on financial forms that his wife, Nellie, worked alongside Mr. Steele in 2016, getting paid by Mr. Simpson for anti-Trump research. The Justice Department has now turned over Ohr documents to Congress that show how deeply tied up he was with the Clinton crew—with dozens of emails, calls, meetings and notes that describe his interactions and what he collected. Mr. Ohr’s conduct is itself deeply troubling. He was acting as a witness (via FBI interviews) in a case being overseen by a Justice Department in which he held a very senior position. He appears to have concealed this role from at least some superiors, since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that he’d been unaware of Mr. Ohr’s intermediary status. Lawyers meanwhile note that it is a crime for a federal official to participate in any government matter in which he has a financial interest. Fusion’s bank records presumably show Nellie Ohr, and by extension her husband, benefiting from the Trump opposition research that Mr. Ohr continued to pass to the FBI. The Justice Department declined to comment. But for all Mr. Ohr’s misdeeds, the worse misconduct is by the FBI and Justice Department. It’s bad enough that the bureau relied on a dossier crafted by a man in the employ of the rival presidential campaign. Bad enough that it never informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of that dossier’s provenance. And bad enough that the FBI didn’t fire Mr. Steele as a confidential human source in September 2016 when it should have been obvious he was leaking FBI details to the press to harm Donald Trump’s electoral chances. It terminated him only when it was absolutely forced to, after Mr. Steele gave an on-the-record interview on Oct. 31, 2016. But now we discover the FBI continued to go to this discredited informant in its investigation after the firing—by funneling his information via a Justice Department cutout. The FBI has an entire manual governing the use of confidential sources, with elaborate rules on validations, standards and documentation. Mr. Steele failed these standards. The FBI then evaded its own program to get at his info anyway. And it did so even though we have evidence that lead FBI investigators may have suspected Mr. Ohr was a problem. An Oct. 7, 2016, text message from now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok to his colleague Lisa Page reads: “Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT,” which could be a reference to Mr. Ohr. The FBI may also have been obtaining, via Mr. Ohr, information that came from a man the FBI had never even vetted as a source—Mr. Simpson. Mr. Steele had at least worked with the FBI before; Mr. Simpson was a paid political operative. And the Ohr notes raise further doubts about Mr. Simpson’s forthrightness. In House testimony in November 2017, Mr. Simpson said only that he reached out to Mr. Ohr after the election, and at Mr. Steele’s suggestion. But Mr. Ohr’s inbox shows an email from Mr. Simpson dated Aug. 22, 2016 that reads, in full: “Can u ring.” The Justice Department hasn’t tried to justify any of this; in fact, last year it quietly demoted Mr. Ohr. In what smells of a further admission of impropriety, it didn’t initially turn over the Ohr documents; Congress had to fight to get them. But it raises at least two further crucial questions. First, who authorized or knew about this improper procedure? Mr. Strzok seems to be in the thick of it, having admitted to Congress interactions with Mr. Ohr at the end of 2016. While Mr. Rosenstein disclaims knowledge, Mr. Ohr’s direct supervisor at the time was the previous deputy attorney general, Sally Yates. Who else in former FBI Director Jim Comey’s inner circle and at the Obama Justice Department nodded at the FBI’s back-door interaction with a sacked source and a Clinton operative? Second, did the FBI continue to submit Steele- or Simpson-sourced information to the FISA court? Having informed the court in later applications that it had fired Mr. Steele, the FBI would have had no business continuing to use any Steele information laundered through an intermediary. We could have these answers pronto; they rest in part in those Ohr 302 forms. And so once again: a call for President Trump to declassify. Write to kim@wsj.com.

To: TideGlider who wrote (212045)	8/17/2018 5:00:02 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 224777

Cops Need to Be Wary of Social Media for These Critical Reasons Some people have 'no regard for the potential dangers' to which they expose our dedicated police officers and their families today lifezette.com By Steve Pomper \| Friday, August 17, 2018 This advisory may seem obvious in the current anti-police environment in this country, but it still merits repeating: Cops need to beware social media. This is good advice for anyone, but it’s vital for law enforcement officers, especially after the anti-cop actions of a particular university professor in New York. In Seattle, I remember we had this malcontent who’d made it his life’s mission to acquire and publish every tidbit of information he could collect on the city’s police officers. Under the guise of conducting a “public service,” he worked to make public as much about officers as he could. He seemed to have no regard for the potential dangers to which he was exposing officers and their families. Hey, some bad guys don’t like cops all that much. Imagine that! Well, that guy isn’t the only anti-copper with wicked intent. It’s bad enough when cop haters target law enforcement in all sorts of despicable ways, but are cops helping these anti-police miscreants do their dirty work? The Left is expanding their attacks against government officials they don’t like to areas of life that used to be off-limits — places like at home, at restaurants and movie theaters, and even at church. These places are no longer off-limits. For the Left, harassment is a free-for-all. CONT...