Still not a conspiracy...but

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Honestly. There are a lot of reasonable questions being asked:

Not a conspiracy

I've always claimed to not be a conspiracy theorist and when I talk about conspiracy theories it's generally because I am wondering about the possibility of there being any truth to it in a specific instance.  So it might seem like I actually be a conspiracy theorist. I'm not. I tend to believe the simplest, most obvious explanation is generally the most likely. Right now, there are a lot of theories floating around about the lax security at the assassination attempt on Trump. One common posit is that security was so poorly organized that it had to be an inside set-up job. 

I don't think so. I think the Secret Service was more concerned about Diversity Equity and Inclusion than it was about Security, Safety and Protection. DEI is leading to incompetence. The best person for the job, IS the best person for the job, quotas which are no longer legal in college admissions should most certainly not be applied to secret service security, it's absurd.  And yet, it's a practice.

Guys is it just me or is the agent who cowered behind DJT instead of protecting him the same one who couldn’t holster her gun?

Who is she?

She needs to resign or be fired. pic.twitter.com/WEmjLPQFLd

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 14, 2024

Most of the agents on the ground did remarkable work. What was missing was the pre-planning; how was that building not secured?  Where was the coordination with local police who were warned about a man on the roof of the building?  The incompetence was primarily in the planning of the security; that is at a higher level. Failures in planning led to this possibility.   But that is not a deliberate conspiracy, it's fundamental incompetence.

Obummer's anti-white conspiracy theory film

Is former president Obama a racist? Tim Pool discusses the Obama film in a broader context.

Look, I'm no conspiracy theorist but uh...

 Mark Dice predicted this:

Media keeps censoring anyone who disagrees with them (COVID-19 edition)

Surprising no one, the mainstream media and social media are co-conspirators once again.

Are the Democrats deliberately torpedoing their own candidates? If so, here's why.

This is not exactly crazy.  It's possible,  Something odd is happening with the impeachment of president Trump, and theories have developed as to why.  One such theory is that Democrats are creating a self-inflicted wound, deliberately. Democrat could be torpedoing Senators Warren and Sanders primary chances.  But that's only the beginning of the story. 

Firstly, Tim Pool explains the Sanders supporters' conspiracy theory and the background and rationale:

So who does that help? As Tim Pool points out in the above video, not surprisingly mostly Biden and Buttigieg. But Democrats have to know that not only has impeachment helped president Trump's support levels, but they also have to know that Republicans have a Joe Biden investigation looming. It's possible that the Republicans could be holding that in abeyance until Warren and Sanders until after Warren and Sanders are critically hurt by the Pelosi impeachment timing ploy. Democrats surely are aware of that. Then Biden could possibly be critically hurt too. While that could turn out to be a positive for Joe the same way impeachment has for president Trump, it's not exactly the same thing and my calculus says it will hurt Biden - a lot. That would leave Buttigieg as the front runner.

Could Pelosi be hoping a wipe-out in 2020 could lead to a socialist purge in the Democrat party? It would be an admirable goal. That's why I don't buy into it. 

 It's more likely she and other establishment Democrats could be angling for a fractured, brokered convention and the opportunity for Hillary Clinton to swoop in and save the party with a late candidacy, minus the campaigning, which Hillary is clearly truly terrible at doing. Not only that, it would allow Hillary to save her war chest for the general election too. It would keep her from scrutiny for the primaries as well.  There are a lot of reasons to do it if that's the end goal.

I'm skeptical.  It's not that I don't believe Democrats are that political, that nefarious. They are.  But there are some big ifs to the theory.  It would require that Pelosi drop the impeachment on the Senate during the primaries.  That has yet to happen, so the proof at this point is mere speculation (almost as bad as the wishful thinking of the impeachment itself).  Until that timing occurs, take the conspiracy theory with a wheelbarrow full of salt.  

But suppose it does.  It also requires the notion that Democrats are willing to risk their primary voters' wrath to pull off a Clinton nomination, or a purge.  As closed-door establishment as the insider Democrat cabal is, that is an awfully big risk.  It requires the belief that they are not sick of Hillary Clinton and her anemic record of presidential runs.  It also requires the belief that they are smart enough to come up with this idea but dumb enough not to see it's fatal flaws.  Long term purging of socialists from the party would be a healthy move, but Democrats, especially establishment Democrats are not long term thinkers.  Political expedience is their forte. So that is the most far-fetched scenario.

Is it possible that a Democrat plan is afoot? Yes.  Is this the plan? I doubt it, highly.  As much as I would love for it to be true, I just don't see it.  Not yet, anyway.  It's more likely that they just do not have a way forward with the impeachment and in their zeal to get it done because they have nothing else, and they are indeed on an all-in strategy that they have lost control of managing.

Glenn Beck helps expose American ambassador Yovanovitch blocked entry for Trump investigation

More information that needs to get pushed into the conversation because the mainstream media will ignore it otherwise.

Via Glenn Beck: 

John Solomon breaks down the timeline: starting last year, several Ukraine officials working under former Prosecutor General Lutsenko raised alarms concerning the conduct of US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. They say not only was she meddling in Ukraine domestic affairs, trying to control who the government there could and couldn't prosecute, but that Joe Biden was also up to something fishy concerning his son, Hunter, and Burisma. They tried to bring it to the attention of American politicians, but could never get the visas they needed to travel to America. Why? You guessed it...Yovanovitch blocked their visa applications from ever going further than her desk. And this all happened BEFORE Giuliani ever touched ground there.

This, if verifiable, is criminal behavior.

More on Hillary Clinton Corruptocrat

Google's in on it, and everything is rigged.

WikiLeaks: DNC did indeed conspire to defeat Bernie Sanders

On Friday, WikiLeaks released,

...a bombshell cache of DNC emails obtained by Russian hackers. Among other things, the documents purport to show the party apparatus favoring Clinton's campaign over the insurgency of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The DNC did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.

The news took center stage on social media, threatening to upend the Democrats' messaging and steal attention from a chaotic and divided Republican National Convention, which wrapped up on Thursday night. The email exchanges may reopen the wounds of a bitter Democratic primary season, just as the party kicks off its own national conference designed to highlight a unified, energized party.

Surprisingly so far the response from Team Sanders seems, underwhelming;

Bernie Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said his team was "disappointed" by the emails from the Democratic National Committee leaked through WikiLeaks, which seemed to reveal staff in the party working to support Hillary Clinton.

"Someone does have to be held accountable," Weaver said during an interview with ABC News. "We spent 48 hours of public attention worrying about who in the [Donald] Trump campaign was going to be held responsible for the fact that some lines of Mrs. Obama's speech were taken by Mrs. Trump. Someone in the DNC needs to be held at least as accountable as the Trump campaign."

Team Trump at least, took it for what it was - an affront to a democratic process. Via Twitter:

Leaked e-mails of DNC show plans to destroy Bernie Sanders. Mock his heritage and much more. On-line from Wikileakes, really vicious. RIGGED

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 23, 2016

This should not only overshadow the Tim Kaine pick as VP, it should open the eyes of Sanders supporters as far as the DNC's impartiality is concerned. They should rightly up in arms over it, as should Sanders himself.

WikLeaks meanwhile is concerned that Twitter might be censoring their revealed information too. #TwitterGestapo apparently continues unabated.

Many people say @Twitter is censoring links to #DNCLeak emails. Please search https://t.co/kpFxYDoNyX select a result and try posting.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) July 23, 2016

If Americans let Hillary win, it might be game over for the United States.

ADDENDUM:  More detail on some of the emails can be found here too.

An Obama note from a friend

Photo via "Right, Wing-Nut!"

So, I'm not all about conspiracy theories but I know people who are - or at least are some particular conspiracy theories.  One of the theories that comes up a lot, still, is along the lines of president Obama's sympathies towards Muslims.  I'm not sure how anyone can really believe that the president is a Muslim. After all, he was supposedly a Christian for decades and didn't even listen to the sermons of his reverend (or so he claims).  My opinion is that the president is not a man of faith at all, but rather a man of calculation,  He uses religion as a matter of convenience - to court voter blocks.

Now, I don't know that for a fact, but I believe it to be true.  Nevertheless, the president's religious beliefs or non-beliefs are his own business.  You can't judge a person as effectively on their affiliations (to which church they belong for example) as you can on their own actions.  Obama's affiliations with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright were troublesome in 2008 when it was all we had to go on.  But now, we have his performance in office which is a much more compelling concern.

Obama = Carter

Is Obama recycling the old Carter playbook? On some issues, such as energy it sure seems to be the case.

Most striking, in this quick comparison on the issue of energy policy is the fact that for 4 minutes, Carter didn't say much except that we've got a problem and he wants to fix it. Obama was able to do the same thing in in a 31 second commercial. They've gotten more efficient at pointing out a problem, and offering a straw man solution.

Claims are great when you don't have to back them up with facts or even offer details as to what your solution might possibly be.

Carter:




And Obama;



If you're old enough to remember Carter's admonishment to wear sweaters and turn down the thermostat, you might have the insight already to realize that Obama's urging people to inflate their tires equates to pretty much the same tripe.

The real question is whether President Obama is deliberately taking a mid-East crisis in Iran's nuclear program and trying to leverage it to destabilize the oil supply, and oil prices to further his green agenda, during a time of economic pain. He's a smart guy, he's got an agenda. The thought easily could have crossed his mind. I'm just throwing out ideas here, but it seems to me, these foreign policy gaffes, could either be a sign of incompetence or a sign of mad genius being used for a sinister purpose.

Blagojevich one smart cookie!!

Today Illinois Governor Blagojevich appointed former State Attorney General Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate to fill President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat. It's an interesting decision on many levels. He's appointing a black candidate who we're being told shouldn't be lynched. Odd.

He's being lambasted by Harry Reid who is saying he will refuse to seat the appointee. Obama has even finally called for Blagojevich to resign. Such indignation. Such moral certitude. But is Burris going to be in the Senate? Apparently. He won't caucus with Democrats. He will, on the surface at least be a pariah. So why accept the appointment if he can't caucus with his party and won't be an effective representative of his electors?

I'm no conspiracy theorist but...

So why would he appoint anyone, and why would anyone accept? Maybe I'm just being paranoid but doesn't this just play right into the Democrat narrative? Their narrative is that the Republicans are corrupt and they are pure as the wind driven snow. They represent real change. Then along comes the Blagojevich seat sale scandal and it punches a hole in that imagery. So what do the Democrats do? Political ju-jitsu. They turn the disadvantage to their advantage by doing the only thing they can do - try to appear clean and pure by condemning the immoral actions of an immoral man after he does something they've advised him not to do.

Except why did he do it? He had to know what the reaction would be. So maybe, just maybe (and I'm speculating here, I want to make that clear) he was advised to do something stupid in exchange for some type of leniency down the road. Perhaps a pardon is in the cards. By giving this opportunity for Democrats to foam at the mouth against one of their own and show their purity, the Democrats have the chance to look solid on ethics and government reform.

This is just pure speculation, but it just seems so oddly coincidental that a scandal within arms reach of the hope and change guy, suddenly is cast as Democrat outrage. And where are the Republicans on this? Nowhere. Why? They can be outraged but it comes off as political. Or they can come out in favor of the appointment, which would come off as insane. Or, they can shut up and let it play out. And if they do that, the Democrats control the narrative AGAIN, because they are the sole team in the game.

Somebody, somewhere, it is very possible, is pulling strings and laughing at us for our political naivete.