Edna

OK. So if you are the Chief of National Security, i.e. Head of all of the Spy Agencies, and a lowly FBI agent asked you if you had talked to any Russians, would you tell him yes or no? Chances are you would and should tell him no. Now, if the FBI agent had been illegally wire tapping you and knew that you had talked to a Russian, and lying to the FBI is a crime, can the FBI agent arrest you? If so, is the arrest legal or is it a crime. And, is the crime entrapment or sedition if it is an early phase of overthrowing the elected President?

One would think that if there is going to be this high security area with guns, the people in the area would be sober and clear minded. Why would they waste their time on drop-out type students high on drugs and booze?

Well, it seems that after the last olympics, North Korean team didn't win any medals and were sent to a prison camp for a few years because that mad Un angry. So what is going to happen to this North Korean Olympic team and the pretty cheerleaders. Zero medals and the girls have now seen Paris, so to speak. Un has been particularly embarrassed this time since he is in a missile match with Trump. So, what is going to happen?

The Russians are tough. Thinking back to what they did to Napoleon French and Hitler Germans. And it looks like they scored another victory over Hillary Mexicans when she lost the Presidential election. Perhaps America should be happy that it has the Russians protecting America from Obama, just like the Russians had to protect Syria from Obama.

So, if the narrative is that the Russians wanted Trump to win, can we also assume that the Mexicans wanted Hillary to win? Like 13 Russians versus 20,000,000 illegal aliens? If you will recall, the Mexicans even had their ex-Presidente' Vicente Fox touring the US speaking out against Trump's wall and organizing the illegals to support the democrats. So, can a liberal explain why it is OK for an illegal alien Mexican to be for Hillary and think it is not OK for a Russian tourist to be against Hillary. At least the Russian went home.

Through their old family in Cuba?

And today's issues with Russia is probably why they keep the Kennedy assassination secret? It would create too hard of feelings between the two countries and cause even bigger problems. For example, the reason why the Vietnam War was so big was simply JFK's VP and cabinet getting as much revenge and blood as they could.

Is he a bitter old man carrying the scars of being locked up in a cage for 6 years and should have never been elected Senator because it affectes his judgement? If not, why does he direct his contempt towards the right wing of his party instead of being the loyal flag waving conservative. Do you think that his years being a captive makes his mental psychology align with the opposition, like he was obedient towards his North Vietnamese captors in exchange for a bit of food? His behavior is sort of like the classic peccadillo of a judge who has a secret relationship with a stripper, and so he refuses to shut down the strip club. In the case of McCain, you can bet that he will stand against truth, justice and the American Way, instead of being the poster boy for it.

So, any classified information furnished to Congress during the obama administration was furnished to Pakistan or sold to Russia. So, the question is: Why isn't this a huge scandal showing the corruption of the obama administration and democrat party? Or is it just the kind of thing that you would expect if you put democrats and liberals in power? Is voting democrat the same as betraying the nation?

Are not groups like antifa and the anti-Trump protestors demonstrating antisocial personality disorders? Which is basic for being your local criminal thug. But, if they can get you to think it is politically motivated, the criminal behavior is accepted. So what is the political motivation? Why are they not criminal thugs?

It would seem that the liberal left will have to drop the destroying of Confederate statues to take up their new protest to the US commitment to killing radical islamic terrorists all over the world. They would be laughed off the stage if they called traditional Americans terrorists. So, will the radical left join their new adopted brothers, the radical islamic terrorists, to fight Trump and the US? How will the sensitive college snowflakes come up with an excuse to do that? It could be that they will use the excuse that the US is too mean. Winning is too mean. In fact it is so mean that it is almost Russian in nature. And that would prove their original Russian collusion conspiracy, in their minds.

Isn't the defining division really about illegal drug use, because the issues seem to fall on one side or the other, depending upon support for illegal drug use? Are there any liberal causes that require the participants to not be drug users? Are there any conservative causes that require the participants to be drug users. So, then the extension of that is that the bizarre behavior of liberals is related to illegal drug use and drug addiction. An obvious example would be the border wall. Drug users are liberals who don't want the wall. The real reason is because it would hinder the transit of illegal drugs. Or socialized medicine. Drug users want socialized medicine because they will have better access to health care for the illegal drug addiction. Same for tax reform and welfare roles. The drug users want higher takes, since the don't pay, to support more welfare. A liberal needs welfare to support the drug addiction. And, you can just go on through the list and see that all issues advocated by liberals are actually about facilitating their illegal drug use.

Somehow, in a liberal mind this equates to racism. They fail to consider that the first era was about 50 years after the Civil War, which was actually about the end of Yankee oppression of the South. Read up on "Reconstruction" and see what the North did to the South in the years following the War. But, think of it as the first time the South had any money for a statue. The second was in the 1950s-60s when the Yankees again oppressed the South. This time it was called "Civil Rights", but it was imposed only on the South and not on the very racist North. For example, forced busing of school kids was only in the South and not in the North. The lily white areas in the North were protected, mainly because they knew to vote democrat. So, the point is that the charge of racism is an over simplification of bigger issues, one of which is this attitude of liberals that they can boss conservatives around.

Somehow, in a liberal mind this equates to racism. They fail to consider that the first era was about 50 years after the Civil War, which was actually about the end of Yankee oppression of the South. Read up on "Reconstruction" and see what the North did to the South in the years following the War. But, think of it as the first time the South had any money for a statue. The second was in the 1950s-60s when the Yankees again oppressed the South. This time it was called "Civil Rights", but it was imposed only on the South and not on the very racist North. For example, forced busing of school kids was only in the South and not in the North. The lily white areas in the North were protected, mainly because they knew to vote democrat. So, the point is that the charge of racism is an over simplification of bigger issues, one of which is this attitude of liberals that they can boss conservatives around.

Just a regular single engine plane should be able to knock Lee off of Traveller. And a twin engine taking out a corner should turn the slave owner Washington monument into a pile of bricks. So, can't the liberals find somebody as brave as a radical islamic terrorist and stand up for what they believe.

So, today is the funeral of Heather Heyer, the young lady who was killed in the accident during the protest over the removal of the Lee Statue in Charolettsville,Virginia. So, she will be buried in a grave and in a month or so, a monument will be erected at her grave to commemorate her life. And, in a few years everyone will forget her, except for her mom and dad, and a few years later, it will be only the stone monument that will recognize that she ever existed. So, the question is: Do you think that is what she would want? If she wanted memorials of past lives removed, why would she want a memorial to herself? It seems to be an incongruous situation.

The narrative seems to be the thugs are the pro-white outsiders and the victims are the pro-black innocents, and the only way to have justice is to obey the officials and remove the statue. It will only build more resentment.

As you know Britain and much of Europe have succumbed to socialist liberalism and the people who built Europe are pretty much finished. For example, the mayor of London is sort of an anti-British muslim. So, should the mayor of London start making changes to remove the symbols of the old Britain? Especially since it existed only to oppress people all over the world. Of which Admiral Nelson was one of the worst, since he was British Navy hero. The old Brits liked him, which means the new Brits hate him. There is a statue of him on a stone column so high up you can hardly see his statue. This is an obvious eyesore. So should it be removed and put in a basement of a museum somewhere? Would anyone in Britain care?

You do realize that the controversy over Google employment decisions exposes a very sensitive issue that they would like for everyone to ignore. The reason why Google thinks it should be given a pass is because it is very liberal and therefore not subject to the laws that apply to everyone else. The issue was exposed by the recent letter/firing of a Google employee who stated that within Google, the girls do not have the high technology skills and abilities as the boys. But, there is a second part of that they want to keep quiet. That is blacks do not have the high technology skills and abilities as the whites and asians. Now, in times past, employers all across the country were forced to hire women and in particular blacks. It was a Quota System that is cleaned up and called Affirmative Action. It is strongly endorsed as a tenet of liberalism by the universities, large employers, and liberals in general since it is the Law of the Land. But, Google hasn't been following the Law, because they are merit based. So, should Google be sued and forced to hire and promote blacks and women based upon past discrimination? Should the federal government impose a quota system on Google and other high technology companies, or should they be given a pass because they are politically liberal?

Trump is know for making deals, and with the West Virginia Governor switching parties from Democrat to Republican, wouldn't there be a deal to get Manchin for McCain. McCain is finished anyway, and Trump could add a sweetener like adding pre-existing conditions into Trumpcare. So, are you willing to trade McCain to the democrats for Republican Manchin?