When I was in the service, I had a very high security clearance.  Even to this day, I never discuss highly classified information.  Neither does anyone else who really knows.  It is quite simple.  The really important stuff is handled by people who are trained to keep secrets and these things almost never leak.  The thing that continues to impress me is how little really classified information is ever leaked.  Most of the “leaks” come from people who don’t actually have access to the facts.

The principle that is followed is quite simple: “need to know.”  Even if someone has the right security clearance, they are not automatically granted access to information.  In addition to having the proper clearance they must have a “need to know” this information.  None of the people I worked with would ever have considered any news source to fit the requirements of a need to know.

The reason I mention this is that recent reports indicate that the FBI has a special team investigating the Clinton Foundation. Attorney General Jeff Session acknowledged this.  There are some further details in the report by Sara Carter:

All we really know is that the FBI interviewed this informant.  We don’t know what he was asked and we don’t know what was said.  No one really involved in this investigation is likely to leak anything.  Even the attorney representing William Campbell did not discuss her client’s testimony; she just refuted the defamatory leaks about her client from Democrats who participated in congressional hearings:

“The Democratic memorandum “falsely accuses Mr. Campbell of criminal conduct, alleging that he had taken “kickbacks from [the Russian] firm before he was authorized to do so,” Toensing stated.

“Mr. Campbell never took one kickback, not a one,” she added. “He paid for the kickbacks, under FBI direction, out of the salary he received.  In fact, these payments, totaling about $500,000, were the bases for his requesting repayment from the government.”

I will add that I am personally familiar with how the FBI works with confidential informants and if Mr. Campbell paid for kickbacks under FBI direction this is certain to be well documented.

The fact that you do not know what questions were asked and that there have been no leaks is evidence that this is a serious criminal investigation being handled by professionals.  That makes this very dangerous.  Don’t expect any leaks from this investigation.  The real professional never leak.  The first public release of information is likely to be a news conference to announce criminal indictments.  The less you hear the more likely this is a real investigation.




The only thing we know for sure is that Stormy Weather is a liar; we just don’t know if she was lying before she signed the non-disclosure letter, she was lying after she signed the non-disclosure letter or she is lying now. Odds are that to some extent she was lying in all three cases.

Based on what we know about Donald Trump, it would hardly be a surprise if he had an affair with this woman. Trump was rather famous for this and she clearly was a willing participant. The real issue is why this is even being reported. The main stream media totally ignored the “private” activities of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton. They totally ignored any hint of a sex scandal involving Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The stories are out there, and whether they are true or not they are definitely ignored by the MSM. The MSM only cares about a persons’ personal sex life if the person is a conservative Republican. That does not excuse Trump’s philandering it just puts the media coverage in perspective.

I was watching Fox News one night when Rudy Guiliani was running against Hillary Clinton for the United States Senate.  Brett Hume pointed out that the media was discussing Rudy Guiliani’s sex life, shouldn’t they also be reporting on that fact they all knew Hillary Clinton was a lesbian.  He said Hillary was as “dykey” as they come.  No one argued that Hume was wrong, but they quickly said:  “no, that is not the same thing.”   They then quickly changed the subject. I am sure that the video tape of that panel discussion has long been buried.

The only reason the MSM is covering this story is that they absolutely hate Trump so much that they will publish any story that has the potential to harm him. The liberal left loves to report sex scandals on Republicans because they believe this creates political advantage. They believe that voters who agree with Trump with regard to his policies decisions will desert him because of his salacious personal life. What they fail to understand is that none of this is a surprise to the people who voted for Trump. No one paying attention thought Trump was a choir boy. They just know that the people running against him have done the same or worse. They also know that while Trump should hardly be elevated as a Christian role model, the people running against him are often openly hostile to Christianity.

There are no perfect people in this world. None of us are perfect and people who think they are perfect are often the worst offenders. In my opinion the worst sin of all is self-righteousness. Something the liberal left practices on a daily basis yet is totally incapable of recognizing in themselves.

One other thing. Regardless of what did or did not happen Stormy Weather is not worth one second of airtime. Why on earth should any of us care about a porn star’s version of morality?  The most unethical thing Donald Trump could have done is lose to Hillary Clinton.



California is guaranteed to lose its war with the United States of America.  The only question is whether some lower court, such as the 9th District Court will delay the ultimate.  The problem for California is that several cases have gone to the Supreme Court regarding situations where state laws conflict with federal laws.  One case is specifically on point dealing with the federal government’s authority regarding immigration laws.

Arizona had passed a statute know as S.B. 1070 in 2010 designed to let the state enforce immigration laws since the federal government was not enforcing them.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government has sole authority to establish immigration laws and enforcement.

The law sought to:

  • Make it a crime for immigrants to fail to obtain and carry federal registration documents.
  • Make it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work.
  • Authorize warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a public offense warranting deportation.

Every liberal judge voted for this decision.  Four conservative judges voted against it.  Odds are very high that if this reaches the Supreme Court again it is likely to be a 9-0 decision in favor of the federal government. I doubt any of those conservative justices are going to tell the Federal Government they lack the authority to enforce immigration laws.

Even a liberal court like the 9th District court may sustain the government’s position, because no court likes to be overruled by a 9-0 decision.  That is particularly true when a previous case, directly on point, has already decided the issue.  This isn’t even close.

Recently Judge Orrick, who previously ruled that Donald Trump could not issue an executive order withholding federal funds because of sanctuary city/state law, reversed himself and authorized Attorney General Jeff Sessions to withhold grants directly related to law enforcement.

Upon review, in his previous decision, Judge Orrick did not rule that the federal government lacked the authority to cut off funds.  He ruled that only congress could do that.  Orrick is a far left judge and odds are he wanted to rule against Sessions.  He didn’t because the law is very clear regarding conflicts between State and Federal law is settled law.

California is destined to suffer a humiliating legal defeat on this.  The “legal” arguments by Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Senator Kamala Harris are simply absurd.  While they are playing well in the liberal press, loud screams of protest are not a substitute for the rule of law.  The only question is how long it will take for this to happen.

Democrats are probably hoping to delay this until after the mid-term elections in the hope that their defiance of the Federal Government will inspire the democratic base.  The either do not know or do not care that their legal position is patently absurd.



It is routine for partisan calls to appoint a special counsel.  These are usually ignored.  Several people have requested a special counsel to investigate the abuse of the FISA warrants.  Those were also ignored.  Attorney General Sessions referred the matter to the inspector general.  That all changed this morning when Sessions reported he is considering appointing a special counsel:

What changed was that Trey Gowdy is the one requesting a special counsel and he included legal reasons why this is required.  Gowdy pointed out, correctly, that this investigation cannot be conducted by the Inspector General because it will require interviews of people who are not associated with the DOJ and the DOJ cannot do this because it cannot investigate itself.  Trey Gowdy has high credibility because he has been reluctant to request a special counsel and he has always supported Robert Mueller.  I believe that Sessions is already looking for the special counsel and that an appointment is imminent.

Robert Mueller was appointed to look at Russian interference in the election.  This one will look into the FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation’s role with regard to Uranium One and the alleged abuse of a FISA warrant.  This will be much broader in scope than the Mueller investigation.  This has the potential to be earth shattering because unlike the mythical Russia collusion unicorn we already know that many of these things happened and that there is a mountain of documentation.

Sessions handled this in a way that makes it difficult if not impossible for the liberal left to dismiss this as a partisan witch hunt.  We are headed toward a whole new world and the results are likely to be monumental.  If any of the reporting by Sara Carter and John Solomon is accurate, a lot of people, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and many more should be lawyering up.  Expect the liberal left to fight back with even more outrageous allegations against Donald Trump.  However, if a special counsel is appointed, that tactic will have little if any impact on the investigation.  It is a lot harder to sell a snow job to a special counsel than it is to CNN.

If a special counsel is appointed, the most important impact will be that the MSM.  They will be compelled to investigate and report on this and that is likely to be devastating for all those involved.  In many ways this is like the Weinstein fiasco where everyone ignored the obvious problem for years until they were finally forced to admit that it mattered.  The main stream media switched from defense mode to attack mode within hours.

A word of caution; any thorough investigation is extremely likely to uncover other misconduct by people not currently on anyone’s radar.  Expect surprises.  In a situation like this there are likely to be casualties on both sides.



The entire Russia collusion theory has collapsed.  The last thin straw supporting this house built upon the sand was destroyed in the following article by the Hill:

The FBI claims that the entire Russian collusion investigation began because of a tip received by an Australian Diplomat.  The timeline is beyond significant.  This is documented in the following New York Times article:

“The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.”

The story is that Papadopolous was drinking heavily at an upscale bar in London in May 2016.  He allegedly told Australian Alexander Downer a bizarre story about Papadopoulos meeting with an obscure Russian professor who claimed to have dirt on Hillary and that Russian had Hillary Clinton e-mails.  In July 2016, after the DNC e-mail were published by WikiLeaks this brave but obscure Australian diplomat told his story to the FBI.  This allegedly began the entire Russia collusion theory and investigation.  Now we know that this Australian diplomat literally arranged for the Clinton Foundation, sound familiar? to receive $25 million in tax payer money from Australian to fund aids research.  The FBI either did not know about the Clinton Foundation connection or they considered it to be irrelevant.  Either way, they certainly failed to disclose it.

This means that the entire Russian collusion theory was founded on a house of cards directly connected with either the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Clinton Foundation.  One has the increasing suspicious that the Trump campaign is only guilty of being incredibly stupid and unwittingly falling into the murky web of the Clintonian network.

In summary, the more we learn about the forensics of Russian interference in the 2016 election the more we keep finding Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints on every single piece of crucial evidence.  One must ask whether at some point this will become so obvious that even the main stream media will notice the stench.



I remember the “Spy vs Spy” cartoons when I was growing up.  Each spy was constantly trying to outfox the other one.  Just when on spy thought he had won, he realized he had fallen for another booby trap.  I thought the cartoons were hysterical.

Donald Trump is the master of the spy vs spy routine.  Trump has an easier task because liberals are gullible.  Today was a classic example.  Trump sent out the following tweet at 6:34 a.m.

“Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!”

6:34 AM – Feb 28, 2018

The main stream media immediately seized the day.  They viewed this as another example of the angry out of control Trump trashing his Attorney General.  But in their haste, they overlooked something important.  The main stream media is finally commenting on the abuse of FISA by the Obama administration.  Because Trump criticized the choice of Mike Horowitz to lead the investigation, Democrats cannot accuse Trump of orchestrating a partisan investigation. Brilliant!

That makes this investigation far more dangerous for liberals.  We already know that there was systemic abuse of the FISA system, that is already documented.  The facts are there, but they are ignored as just irrelevant Republican hit pieces not worthy of comment.  Horowitz has already proven that he will follow the facts and the facts are devastating for the Obama administration. Trump just made his report impossible to ignore.

Once again, the main stream media has been snookered by the master and they are too stupid to even realize that.



We have lived in California for over 30 years.  During that time the unions have gained more and more power.  Today, every elected statewide office is a union supported liberal democrat.  Those of you living in more civilized states might be surprised to learn that Governor Jerry (“Moonbeam”) Brown is more conservative than anyone likely to replace him.  The 2016 Senate race was between two extremely liberal democratic women.  The most liberal woman, Kamala Harris, won.

This has all been possible because of the power of public sector unions.  There are reports that 18% of public sector union employees are in California.  Employee do not have to join the union, but they still must pay union dues.  This is under the fair share theory, where even employees who despise the union are required to pay the cost of running the union, because theoretically the union benefits everyone.

In 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education the Supreme Court distinguished between two kinds of compelled payments.  The court agreed that forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violated the first amendment.  But the court also said that non-members could be required to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts because it allegedly benefited everyone.

Janus vs American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees argues that forcing non-members to pay any union dues violates the First Amendment because almost everything the union does is political.  Shortly after Justice Scalia died, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on this issue.  If he had not died, the court would probably have ruled against unions.  Most people expect Judge Gorsuch to vote with conservatives, breaking the tie.

Perhaps the most significant exchange was by Justice Kennedy.  He pointed out, correctly that when union attorneys argued that ending fair share fees would harm union power they were admitting this included political power.

Kennedy: “If you do not prevail in this case the unions will have less political influence, yes or no?”

AFSCME attorney David Frederick admitted that this was true even though fees don’t go toward political causes.

Kennedy: “Isn’t that the end of this case?”

So how bad is this?  The Sacramento Bee is seldom right about anything, but this time they nailed it.

“Everything is at stake:  California unions brace for a Supreme Court loss”

Unions that operate in both “right to work” and “fair share” states say the shift could drive down membership by 15 percent to 30 percent.

Several months ago, I wrote a blog called: What Color is California”. A lot of people are assuming that California is permanently a liberal democratic state.  The reality is that everything moves in cycles and the political climate in California is equally subject to change.  Even the Sacramento Bee has figured that out.



It turns out that the Mueller investigation brilliantly disclosed a vast Russian conspiracy that looks a lot like an article published by Russian Business Magazine last October:

In a 4,500-word report titled “How the ‘troll factory’ worked the U.S. elections,” journalists Polina Rusyaeva and Andrey Zakharov offered the fullest picture yet of how the “American department” of the IRA used Facebook, Twitter and other tactics to inflame tensions ahead of the 2016 vote. The article also looked at the staffing structure of the organization and revealed details about its budget and salaries.

This is worse than a joke. None of these indictments will result in prosecution. These people are more likely to get a secret congratulatory state dinner personally hosted by Putin. The Russians are literally gloating over their Troll factory and how brilliantly it fooled everyone in the U.S. The only good news is that while the MSM and especially CNN swallowed this hook, line and sinker, the rest of us laughed it off. When this becomes public knowledge the Mueller investigation will quickly morph from an evil witch hunt to a pathetic joke.

Even parts of the MSM are catching on. John Podesta, Hillary’s Campaign manager, was asked why the Russian trolls knew Wisconsin mattered and he didn’t? He had a very similar expression on his face as the French ice dancer who flashed the world when she suffered a wardrobe malfunction.



We now know that thirteen Russian nationals tried to mess with our 2016 election.  They did try to help Donald Trump, although as soon as he was elected, they turned on him.  We know what happened.  The question is, will we learn the right lessons from history.

Hillary Clinton spent $1.2 billion trying to win the election.  She had complete control of the DNC.  She also had total support from the Obama administration that possibly included the DOJ and the FBI.  She had fawning support by the main stream media “MSM”).

Donald Trump, was a political newcomer repeatedly slammed by members of his own party.  The MSM hated him.  He spent less than half of what Hillary Clinton spent.  An audio tape showing him making extremely rude and outrageous comments was widely published by the MSM.  Even former President George W. Bush could not bring himself to vote for this man!

So how did he win?  If the latest liberal theory is accurate, the election was won by 13 obscure Russian men working online in their underwear from Kiev, or wherever.  They organized mass rallies sometimes drawing as many as 60 people.  It may seem ridiculous to some that this group could have determined the outcome of a U.S. election, but how else does one explain the results?

Then I realized something very important! If this latest theory is correct, then America truly dodged a bullet.  If the greatest woman in world history, with all that support was unable to protect the country against a vicious assault by 13 internet ghosts from Russia, how could we even hope that she would protect the country against anyone.




Rob Rosenstein delivered a death blow to the last shred of lame stream media credibility.  For the last year we have heard a stead chorus about the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  It turns out 13, yes that’s right folks a whopping 13, Russian nationals were trying to agitate people on social media.  They were trying to help Trump and hurt Hillary, at least part of the time, but there were other times they were anti-Trump.  They were mostly anti-American.  Ultimately, nothing they did appears to have had any impact.

Rosenstein said that NO U.S Citizen wittingly participated in these activities.  This means that all the time CNN was sure that Mueller was zeroing in on Donald Trump, he was actually investigating 13 Russian nationals, probably surfing the web in their pajamas.

They organized protests.  The “Heart of Texas” took place on May 21, 2016, under the banner of “Stop Islamization of Texas.”

On that same day, another Russian-controlled Facebook group, called United Muslims of America, publicized a competing rally to “Save Islamic Knowledge” at the same place and time.

This must have been a really significant event, because it was specifically mentioned in the article on today:

I was curious, so I looked it up.  Turns out the Houston Chronicle reported on this massive event at the time:

An enormous crowd of 60 people showed up at the pro-Muslim event. A whopping crowd of 10 showed up at the Heart of Texas rally.  It is a miracle the country survived.  One has to ask whether liberals are six times more likely to believe nonsense than conservatives.  They are certainly six times more likely to show up in waving signs even though they had no clue with regard to who organized this.

CNN had a panel today and they were absolutely flailing.  One even said that Trump campaign officials could still have been colluding with Americans.  Duh..they call that campaigning.  They were desperately trying and failing to convince themselves that Mueller is investigating: “something.”  One even mentioned obstruction of justice.  What do they think Trump was trying to obstruct, the investigation of 13 nerdy Russians?

The CNN panel looked like Alan Rippon in his famous interview during the Olympics.  He was asked what was going on in his mind while he was on the ice preparing to skate:

“I want to throw up.  I want to go over to the judges and say, can I just have a Xanax and a quick drink?”