August 1, 2017

"De-funding" sanctuary cities -- by a whopping 0.5%

In another lesson in "reading beyond the headline," it turns out that the DoJ's supposed crackdown on sanctuary cities will de-fund less than 1% of federal grant money to state and local governments. From the LA Times:

The new policy, announced by the Department of Justice, will apply to all cities that get grants from the so-called Byrne Justice Assistance grant program, for which the administration has requested just over $380 million for the coming year.

So far, the new policy applies only to those justice assistance grants, which local jurisdictions can use for a wide variety of programs related to law enforcement, including drug treatment, witness protection and prisoner reentry programs.

Although the move carries considerable symbolism because of the high-profile debate over sanctuaries, the money involved is roughly half a percent of federal grants to state and local governments, according to figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Somehow I think the very wealthy cities that are being targeted will be able to withstand half a percent of their grant money being taken away -- whenever that's going to happen anyway. Here we are, half a year into the Trump era, and they haven't gotten squat taken away. And that's with Mr. immigration hardliner as the Attorney General -- c'mon Sessions, hit them with your best shot! Time is running out.

"Cracking down" on sanctuary cities makes me think of the National Guard storming the city and hauling illegals away by the hundreds every day in the largest 10 cities. Or tightening the screws on all federal funding the city gets, not just through the DoJ, and not just through one little program within the DoJ.

This fits into the general pattern we have seen, and probably will continue to see, with the most hot-button topic of the election season, immigration. Adrenaline junkies want to just pop the headline in their mouth and get amped up all day -- whether they're raging against it or pumping their fist in favor.

That allows the Establishment to do nothing but token gestures -- they will get the same reaction from the haters and fan-boys no matter what level of action they take, and since they want to preserve the status quo, just make it a minimal action.

That makes immigration one of the main issues on which we will have to try to primary the cucks -- not just national politicians trying to get into the Congress, but governors and state legislatures as well.

But in order to repeal and replace the Republican Establishment, we're first going to have to take a cold hard look at what is actually going on in the Trump era. If we just look at every headline and respond with "All right, never tired of winning!" then there is nothing to be upset over, and no reason to primary the GOP sell-outs.

A Panglossian tone will never motivate ordinary voters to get out and do the grassroots activities that need to get done in order for a populist and nationalist insurgency to take over the GOP.


  1. OT:
    Cassandra Fairbanks earthquake.

    Sy Hersh with the Wikileaks-Seth Rich reveal... And the entire Russia thing is a Brennan op?

    Rocked. Heart palpitations. Never experienced anything like this ever: so much abuse and vilification and to be so utterly vindicated. That night spending hours transcribing the Craig Murray interview for the Unz Review... Being told I knew nothing about Intel so to butt out (but anyone can transcribe an interview and the fundamentals of investigation are, well, fundamental and universal). Called hurtful names and had hateful things said about me....But nothing compared to so many other brave souls who were mocked and vilified by our "betters". Julian Assange still imprisoned...

    Never give up. Stick and hew closely to the fundamentals. When the corrupted and the sociopaths come at you, be confident in what you know to be correct. Keep pushing out the truth to the best you know it.

  2. Cernovich is going all in on McMaster now on twitter and was going hard on Kushner earlier as Kushner's guys leaked stuff about Donald Jr. to the NYT. There's some hard shilling against Cernovich /pol/ at the moment too which conveniently happens the same time the coordinated attack on the Seth Rich story appeared. And all of this comes right after Mooch got ousted by Kelly which happened right after Priebus got fired and it was said Trump is going to go after the GOP. All, too, happening just as the Awan story has started picking up steam.

    It seems as if the Deep State and globalist snakes are mighty spooked that their entire house of cards is about to collapse.

  3. He deleted the tweets about Kushner, focusing just on McMaster for now. I didn't see anything, though, about Kushner seeding info on Don Jr. to the NYT, and I was refreshing his timeline whenever there was a new tweet.

    The replacement of Priebus by Kelly looks more like a Pentagon boarding party escalation. Like they thought Priebus was doing a poor job of representing the Establishment against the Trump faction, and now Kelly is going to do a better job in that intended role.

    He and Mattis have a history of forcefully reining in Trump on matters of globalism vs. nationalism:

    They made a pact in the early weeks to monitor Trump's executive orders -- at least one of them would stay in the country, coordinating their travel plans. That way if Trump got too Trumpist, at least one would be there to intervene and steer the ship back toward globalism -- like with the Muslim ban.

    That was just the pre-hijacking period. Once all of Trump's cabinet (minus Mattis, who dodged the issue) said we were no longer committed to regime change in general, and in Syria in particular, they said enough is enough and hijacked the White House.

    A whole bunch of awful trends from the Establishment's perspective came about last week, so the Pentagon boarding party said enough is enough again. Kick out the ineffectual Priebus, and put more of a WH dictator in his place.

  4. I think the tranny banny especially shook up the Pentagon overlords. How dare the Commander-in-Chief mess with the PC bureaucracy of the modern American military?

    Mattis was appalled (and only got one day's warning, while on vacation out of the country), Pentagon spokesman said we won't change anything until we get specific orders, brass in disbelief, and now the head of the Coast Guard openly defying the Commander-in-Chief -- not just asking for protocol to be followed, but virtue-signaling about muh tranny soldiers.

  5. Ivanka rarely makes big-splash political statements, but she was recruited to post about how wonderful the General will be in the role, looking forward to his leadership, etc.

    The only other time she made a high-profile statement on the news was to make the case for striking Syria.

    Both times she's advancing the Pentagon's agenda? Either the corporate lifestyle feminist daughter of the guy from The Apprentice is secretly an influential military operative sent to do its propaganda -- or she's having her arm twisted by the Pentagon, just as her father is.

    Even when she was against leaving the Paris Climate Accords, it was reported in the third person -- some outlet reports that Ivanka wants to remain in the Accords, bah bah bah. She didn't come out with a high-profile, first-person statement of her own. And that was something she truly believed in, not invading / striking Syria or putting a General in charge of the White House operations.

  6. - The Pentagon/C.I.A./Deep State (but I repeat myself) can always be counted on to wreck our foreign policy, which was most evident under either Bush for obvious reasons. Post-1970 on the GOP side, they conspired to knock out Nixon who they never fully trusted, foisted Bush 1 on interloper Reagan (and probably tried to kill Reagan), and are now busy trying to taint Trump's regime from within and without.

    - Wall Street/corporate America can be counted to wreck our economic policies.

    - The media has been thoroughly corrupted by the above forces to an increasing degree since the end of WW2 at least, if not earlier.

    70 years of increasing malfeasance and corruption, among the power elite sections of our nation. The rot is so deep that even tossing out the bad ones won't be enough; it's looking more and more like the only way we can truly get back on the right path is via ourselves employing threats, intimidation, and violence. Dversicrats, cultural Marxists, and militarists have gotten their way for decades by now, and they didn't do it with good faith, kindness, or logical reasoning.

    As it now looks, Trump is going to be dragged into the same old same old of heating up tensions with various regimes that the Deep State has run out of patience with. A survey showed that US regions hit by high military casualties liked Trump's detente/Deescalation campaign platform. Suppressing the D. State urge to start more pointless violent conflicts/coups would be a step in the right direction, but all the same going to great lengths to wind down our existing ineffective engagements in the apparently never ending Irag/Afghan theater would be very popular with much of the public, old-school liberals included.


  7. I was struck by Sy Hersh saying that Brennan, et al., hatched the Russia collusion narrative to keep Hillary in because they don't want to just live on their pensions:

    "I don’t know whether you- Anyways, Wikileaks got access, and before he was killed- I can tell you right now Brennan is an asshole. Uh, I’ve known all these people for years. Clapper is sort of a better guy but not rocket scientist, the NSA guy’s a fucking moron, and they don’t- you know the trouble with all of those guys is that the only way they’re going to make it to a board or two and get hired by (?) and get some fat cat contracts is if Hillary stayed in. With Trump they’re gone, they’re done, they’re going to live on their pension, they’re not going to make it. And I gotta tell you guys, they don’t want to live on their pension, they want to be on boards (?)."

    The election of Donald Trump, including the votes of millions of working class in financial and moral crisis who voted for Donald Trump, needs to be nullified so some rich guys can get on boards and make even more money.

    More profiles in corruption:
    As of this writing, the only outlets I've seen carry the Sy Hersh on-tape revelations (plus Rod Wheeler on tape) are Big League Politics (who broke it), Inforwars, and Zerohedge.
    I began monitoring last night how it was breaking... Fairbanks stories got attention and promotion from Cernovich, et al. as well as H.A. Goodman and Caitlyn Johnston. Oh, and of course, Wikileaks. *It did not exist* for anyone else, not MSM, neocons, etc. There were a few trolls out and bots, though.
    Then this morning, the neocons came out with gusto. All but one or two pretending the Fairbanks bombshells do not exist. I expect that to change, and surely is as I'm writing this. The Dem-MSM gang is still pretending the bombshells don't exist, but after being silent last night as the Fairbanks stories broke, is back to pushing the narrative that it's all a conspiracy. But it's the neocons that are coming with the energy, like this is an existential crisis.

  8. Seymour excerpt about Seth Rich's contact with Wikileaks:
    "What they find is he makes cont- first of all this is what you have to know, you have to know some basic facts, one of the basic factors, in that there’s no DNC or Podesta emails that exist beyond May 22nd. May 21st, May 22nd is the last email from either one of those groups. And so what the reports says is that sometime in late spring, we’re talking June you know summers in June 21st, late spring would be after, I presume, I don’t know, I’d just say late spring, early summer and he makes contact with Wikileaks. That’s in his computer and he makes contact.
    Now, I have to be careful because I, I’ve know, I, met Julian 10 or 12 years (ago?) I stay the fuck away from people like that, you know. He’s invited me, and when I’m in London I always get a message “Come see me at the Ecuadorian” but I say fuck no I’m not going there I’ve got enough trouble without getting photographed. And he’s under total surveillance by everybody but anyways. So, they found what he’d done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some juicy emails from the DNC, and you know, by the way all this shit about the DNC, um, you know, whether it was hacked or wasn’t hacked, whatever happened, the democrats themselves wrote this shit, you know what I mean? All I know is that he (Seth) offered a sample, an extensive sample, you know I’m sure dozens of email and said “I want money”. Then later Wikileaks did get the password, he had a Dropbox, a protected Dropbox, which isn’t hard to do, I mean you don’t have to be a wizard IT, you know, he was certainly not a dumb kid. They got access to the Dropbox. He also, and this is also in the FBI report, he also let people know, with whom he was dealing, and I don’t know how he dealt, I’ll tell you about Wikileaks in a second. I don’t know how he dealt with the Wikileaks and the mechanism but he also, the word was passed according to the NSA report, “I’ve also shared this box with a couple of friends so if anything happens to me it’s not going to solve your problem”. Ok. I don’t know what that means.
    I don’t know whether you- Anyways, Wikileaks got access...
    I have somebody on the inside, you know I’ve been around a long time, and I write a lot of stuff. I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful, he’s a very high-level guy and he’ll do a favor. You’re just going to have to trust me."

  9. Reminder to newbies why the interest in the Seth Rich case is not "baseless", short and sweet:

    A young man, working for the DNC, was murdered and Wikileaks took a lot of interest in it.
    Wikileaks shining a light on his murder formed *the* base. Didn't provide proof, but formed the "base", i.e., made people wonder why Wikileaks was interested. Acting in good faith, bad faith, the questions don't matter, just that this formed the "base".

    Later, Julian Assange, the man who received and published the DNC and Podesta emails, said they were from insider leaks, not hacks. So, people wondered, naturally, if the murdered DNC worker Wikileaks had taken such an interest in was the leaker.

    Second, human rights activist and Assange confidant Craig Murray said he knew for a fact that the DNC and Podesta emails were leaks because he was involved (even going so far as to all but say he was personally involved with the Podesta emails themselves).

    So, these are the bases. Not a single MSM "debunking" report has ever brought up Craig Murray because his character is unimpeachable. They try to tar Assange with "rapist", but I guess because Wikileaks reputation for accuracy is so stellar, they also pretend that Wikileaks' interest in Seth Rich is non-existent as well.
    The "debunking" reports are 100% psy-ops. There is one person I know for a fact knows about Craig Murray, but instead of writing about him, secretly attacked and insulted me in the most personal terms for being upset about his covering up of Murray.

    1. In case he's thinking of doxxing, I will protect the guilty. Who you are doesn't matter. 0 interest in causing trouble.

  10. World Net Daily 4 hours ago is the latest reporting outfit and in their lengthy article, they note the prior suspicions of former CIA, Fred Fleitz:

    he “was suspicious because it reached unusually clear judgments on a politically explosive issue with no dissenting views.”

    Fleitz was then surprised to hear Clapper explain in his May testimony that two dozen or so “seasoned experts” were “handpicked” from the contributing agencies and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)

    Wrote Fleitz, “This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.”

    Describing just how unusual that was, he said, “Hand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure.”

    Furthermore, “The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization.”

    Fleitz also noted that former FBI Director James Comey had testified that the report’s conclusion of Russian interference was based on logic, not evidence.

  11. New exposure tonight: Mike Whitney with Counterpunch, republished on front page of Unz Review, includes the Sy Hersh/Seth Rich audio while going over many of the basic facts alleged that "Russia Collusion" was a conspiracy cooked up in a panic to save Hillary's campaign:

    "Did you know that there are two eyewitnesses in the case that have not yet been questioned? That’s right, there are two people who claim to know the identity of the person who gave the stolen emails to WikiLeaks; Julian Assange and Craig Murray.

    Murray, who is the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and a human rights activist, claims he met the person who took the emails from the DNC in a wooded area in Washington DC last year. In other words, Murray can settle this matter once and for all and put an end to this year-long witch-hunt that has consumed the media and Capital Hill, prevented the Congress from conducting the people’s business, and increased the probability of a conflagration with nuclear-armed Russia.

    But here’s the problem: The FBI has never interviewed Murray or made any effort to interview him. It’s like he doesn’t exist. In other words, we have a credible witness who can positively identify the person who leaked the emails, gave them to WikiLeaks and set off a political firestorm that has engulfed the Capital and the country for the last year, and the FBI hasn’t interviewed him?"

    Cassandra Fairbanks, Mike Cernovich, et al., do your homework on Craig Murray and get his story out there. I transcribed his most informative interview (from 7 or 8 months or so ago) and it can be found in the forum thread Ron Unz created below for this case. Murray clears up and clarifies what he did and what he knows (prior there had been some misreporting that went viral and I still run into it on the net):

    1. Amend: video only included within article on Unz site, not Counterpunch's (though he discusses Hersh). Ron also included the audio on the front page, above Steve Sailer's blog.

      So, getting Ron Unz's attention is a *really* great thing. He greatly respects Hersh, even more than most. Funny, how some of Hersh's stuff is widely known, and other, like his stuff on McCain, well, you have to already know about it and actively search it out. Not even his Osama bin Laden stuff is as controversial as that!

    2. Sorry, my bad! I was thinking of Sydney Schanberg, not Hersh, as the journalist behind the McCain story:

  12. Heart palpitations and trembling are back: Wikileaks just tweeted out video of Sy Hersh and Gavin MacFadyen together.

    "Sy Hersh and Gavin Macfadyen in Berlin, March 2016."

    The image alone is a 4-alarm bell, will watch video in morning. Utterly overwhelmed. What more does Julian Assange have to do? MacFadyen was alleged at some point (Wheeler?)to be intermediary between Seth Rich and Wikileaks.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."