John Bolton's Classified Documents Lecture Tour Ends With an Awkward Plot Twist

For years, John Bolton has been one of President Donald Trump's loudest critics, happily appearing on television to explain why mishandling classified documents was practically the crime of the century. On Friday, that moral lecture tour hit an unexpected speed bump when Bolton pleaded guilty to a felony count of illegally retaining sensitive national security information.

Turns out the self-appointed hall monitor wandered off with the answer key.

Under a plea agreement, Bolton will pay a $2.5 million fine while avoiding prison. The court could still impose probation, home confinement, or another penalty, but the former national security advisor walked away with far less than the mountain of charges he originally faced, just like most high-level politicians.

Federal prosecutors initially charged Bolton with 18 counts related to retaining and transmitting national defense information, a crime that should result in capital punishment or at least a life sentence. However, most of those charges disappeared as part of the deal, but Bolton admitted guilt to one serious felony involving sensitive national security information that could have endangered the country if it landed in the wrong hands.

The case stems from Bolton's time serving as Trump's national security advisor between 2018 and 2019 and the tell all memoir he later published after reinventing himself as one of Trump's favorite cable news critics.

According to prosecutors, Bolton kept detailed diary style notes on his personal computer and stored them at both his Maryland home and his Washington office. The notes reportedly included information from intelligence briefings, meetings with senior officials, and conversations with foreign leaders, including material classified at the Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information levels. But alas, no firing squad, no life sentence, just a big fine and loss of pension. 

Whoop-dee-doo!

Investigators also alleged Bolton handed more than 1,000 pages of these notes to two relatives who had no security clearance, reportedly so they could help with his book.

The FBI raided Bolton's home and office last August, recovering documents and other evidence. Bolton initially pleaded not guilty, insisting the notes were merely personal records used during the writing process. He also maintained that the published version of his memoir successfully passed prepublication review and contained no classified information. He lied.

The irony here could not be thicker if it were poured over pancakes.

Bolton spent years insisting President Trump belonged behind bars over the classified documents case Democrats aggressively pursued during the 2024 campaign.

"I think this is a potentially catastrophic turn of events for him. It certainly should be, because if proven in trial it should put Trump in jail for a long time," Bolton declared during a June 2023 interview with NPR.

He also argued that the government should "hold everyone accountable equally, and that does not exclude the president. I think this is a real issue that's going to have profound impacts on our national security if we don't take it seriously."

And still he gets no prison time or a rope.

Fast forward a few years, and suddenly accountability comes with a plea bargain instead of dramatic cable news predictions.

After the Justice Department indicted him, Bolton sounded remarkably familiar, claiming he had "become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts." He lied.

Funny how quickly someone discovers the dangers of a weaponized Justice Department once they're sitting in the defendant's chair instead of the commentator's chair.

The plea agreement closes the criminal case without any admission of wrongdoing related to the classified information that ultimately appeared in his book. Even so, Bolton's guilty plea leaves behind one unforgettable lesson: if you're going to spend years demanding that everyone else be treated equally under the law, it helps not to end up pleading guilty to the very kind of offense you insisted deserved harsh punishment.

Still, the walrus gets to stay out of the slammer.

What do you think? Feel free to comment.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

PBS and NPR losing their funding as Senate sides with Trump's rescissions package

Hey guys, the Senate just delivered a win for President Trump and taxpayers everywhere, passing his rescissions package on a nail-biting 51-48 vote. That’s $9 billion in cuts, including a long-overdue ax to every last federal dime propping up National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Finally, we’re one step closer to defunding biased outlets that sneer at us and the America we love. NPR and PBS are not vanishing, but they’ll have to hustle like the rest of us in the media game. Sink or swim,  it's welcome to the real world. The Senate, in its usual vote-a-rama circus, tweaked the bill, so it’s headed back to the House for another round. Politico’s got the scoop:

Senate Republicans early Thursday greenlit President Donald Trump’s proposal to claw back billions in global health and public media funding, pushing past frustrations within the GOP conference about the White House’s transparency during the process. The White House requested spending cuts narrowly made it through the Senate in a 51-48 vote after GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine voted “no” alongside Democrats because they are RINOs and we all know it.

Because Senate Republicans made changes to the legislation it will need to bounce back to the House, which is expected to vote on it later Thursday. Trump will need to sign the rescissions bill by the end of Friday, otherwise he will be forced to spend the money Congress previously approved.

Meanwhile, Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) missed the vote, laid up in the hospital after feeling under the weather Wednesday night. Speedy recovery, Senator, but your absence didn’t stop the train.

The House has until Friday to get this done and send it to Trump’s desk for his John Hancock. That’s tomorrow, folks.  If they miss the deadline, the money Congress already approved gets spent, and we’re back to square one. Let’s hope the House doesn’t fumble this one as is their wont. Time to keep the pressure on.

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

SecDef Hegseth demands stricter orders on credentials to "protect national security"

Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, has issued orders Friday for journalists with access to the Pentagon, as the Trump administration is trying to plug the holes where sensitive information had been leaking like a used three-day-old baby diaper.

According to the new rules, credentialed reporters from most DoD headquarters in Arlington, VA, will not have access without official approval and escort, Hegseth's memorandum states.

The SecDef describes this move to protect classified national intelligence information and even sensitive unclassified information regarding operational security as "an unwavering imperative for the Department."

"While the Department remains committed to transparency, the Department is equally obligated to protect [Classified National Security Information] and sensitive information - the unauthorized disclosure of which could put the lives of U.S. Service members in danger," the secretary, a former US Army Major, said.

The new order will soon have members of the Pentagon press corps sing a form acknowledging their responsibility to protect national intelligence and sensitive information. [It's amazing this hasn't been standard operating procedure prior to Hegseth's appointment.] Journalists will also be issued new shiny badges that clearly identify them as members of the Pentagon press corps.

"We also anticipate a forthcoming announcement of additional security measures and enhanced scrutiny on the issuance of [credentials]," the memo said. "Failure by any member of the resident or visiting press to comply with these control measures will result in further restrictions and possibly revocation of press credentials."

The Pentagon Press Association (PPA), a membership organization representing the press corps covering the U.S. military, whined that the new rules seem to demonstrate a "direct attack on the freedom of the press." [What, is the PPA funded by China?]

"The decision is purportedly based on concerns about operational security," the group said in a statement. "But the Pentagon Press Corps has had access to non-secured, unclassified spaces in the Pentagon for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, including in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, without any concern about OP-SEC from DoD leadership."

Yes, and thus the leaks, you dolts. Just last month, the Pentagon fired three officials after announcing a leak investigation in March at the Department of Defense, so Hegseth is getting out ahead of the curve.

The Pentagon has also required legacy news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, NPR, CNN and NBC News, to vacate their office spaces in the building, and will have their offices fumigated from the stink. They plan to bring in more administration-friendly outlets like the New York Post, the Daily Caller, One America News Network, and Breitbart. 

The department said the rotation system aimed to allow other media outlets the opportunity to cover the Pentagon as resident members of the press corps.

Hopefully these outlets will report honestly and not simply be typists for the administration. Based on their track record, it's likely we will get a better, more honest perspective of government than we did in the past.

Finally, the administration has begun using lie detector tests to probe unauthorized leaks at federal agencies. Some Department of Homeland Security officials were told they could be fired for refusing polygraphs. It's like a cop asking you to take a breathalyzer test to see why you rear-ended a car parked in a driveway and you sound like Joe Biden when you speak but you refuse the test. You're going to jail and lose your driving privileges for a period of time.

The White House said President Trump will not tolerate leaks to the media and that federal employees who leak material should be held accountable.

Hegseth is ensuring it doesn't happen on his watch.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

NPR, PBS on hotseat--their leaders defend the indefensible

Imagine this: Wednesday rolls around, and the House DOGE subcommittee decides it’s time to drag "public" broadcasting into the hot seat. Why? Because NPR and PBS have been happily cashing taxpayer checks while pretending half the country doesn’t exist. 

Under a relentless GOP grilling, NPR CEO Katherine Maher—who’s clearly been practicing for the “oops, my bad” Olympics—admits it was a "mistake" to shrug off the Hunter Biden laptop story like it was a bad TikTok trend. She also wrings her hands over some pre-NPR tweets where she called Trump a "deranged racist sociopath" and mused that looting’s no biggie (it’s just "counterproductive," you see). 

Oh, and if reports are true, NPR’s newsroom has zero Republicans? She says that’d be "disturbing." Uh-huh. Sure, Kathy, as if you didn't know.

Now, how much airtime did this spicy little showdown get on ABC, CBS, and NBC? Zilch point pooh. Nada. Crickets. Not a peep on the evening news, not a whisper on the morning gabfests the next day. You’d think a hearing with this much red meat would at least get a nod, right? You would be wrong.

But don’t worry—the Big Three weren’t too busy to obsess over "Signalgate." 

Yep, Trump’s crew chatting up a Houthi strike on the encrypted Signal app—while letting Trump-hating leftist journo Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic and PBS’s "Washington Week" host, eavesdrop—was apparently the story of the century. If he gave a fig about the country, he would have immediately told the host on the Signal meeting that somehow they screwed up by having him on. Instead, he quietly took notes and later reported on it. As it turned out, the Houthi strike went without a hitch in spite of it all.

ABC’s "World News Tonight" and "NBC Nightly News" trotted out footage of CIA boss John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard sweating under Democrat questions about the breach. NBC’s Lester Holt hyped it as a "bombshell text" to kick off his broadcast—because of course he did. Over on "CBS Evening News," Ed O’Keefe was practically salivating for scalps, asking if heads would roll. He even roped in Goldberg and Obama’s old Defense Sec Chuck Hagel to fan the flames. 

By the end, O’Keefe noted the Senate Armed Services Committee’s bipartisan call for a probe, with GOP chair Roger Wicker grumbling that it’s "a shame this security question is distracting the public from the success of that mission." A shame? You don’t say.

The networks’ playbook is predictable as a sitcom rerun: bury Trump wins, amplify Trump stumbles. 

So let’s dig into the PBS-NPR hearing they conveniently ignored: NPR’s Maher finally copped to the Hunter Biden laptop fumble. Back in 2020, they dismissed it as a "pure distraction"—now, with GOP heat on and taxpayer bucks at stake, she’s all, "Our current editorial leadership thinks that was a mistake, as do I." Breaking news, folks: NPR admits a screw-up! Mark your calendars.

Maher also did a mea culpa on her unhinged tweets—like calling Trump a "deranged racist sociopath" and saying America’s "addicted to white supremacy." She’s "evolved," she claims in the style of Barack Obama on gays in the military, but those hot takes fit NPR’s woke vibe like a glove. Bet they were on her résumé under "qualifications."

PBS prez Paula Kerger and Maher swore up and down their news is "nonpartisan and unbiased." Then Texas Rep. Pat Fallon dropped some NewsBusters truth bombs: "News Hour" slapped "far-right" labels 162 times but only used "far-left" six times. PBS’s 2024 convention coverage was 72% negative for the GOP, 88% positive for Dems. Kerger’s response? "Never heard of those studies." Great prep work, Paula, if you're being honest.

Remember NPR editor Uri Berliner’s exposé? He found 87 Democrats and zero Republicans in NPR’s D.C. newsroom. Another zero.

 Maher called it "disturbing" if true, but after a year on the job, has she hired a single non-lefty? Nope. Berliner wasn’t even GOP, and they still canned him.

GOP reps pointed out NPR interviewed Dem Rep. Adam Schiff 25 times during the Russia hoax—some say 32, but who’s counting? Meanwhile, Rep. James Comer, the Republican Oversight chair, got zero chats about his Biden probe. Fallon asked Maher about it; she drew a blank. Zero’s the answer, Kathy. The Sunday shows pull the same stunt.

This isn’t new. For 50 years, broadcast news has hyped Democrat hearings—Watergate, Iran-Contra, Anita Hill, January 6—like they’re Super Bowls, while GOP-led ones get tossed in the shredder. PBS and NPR had to cover this DOGE hearing, but they weren’t happy about it. NPR’s David Folkenflik whined it was more about "scoring points than finding facts." Pot, meet kettle.

The networks? They’ll skip any fact that messes with their narrative. It’s not about truth—it’s about winning. And they wonder why we don’t trust ‘em.

And this has been where our tax money has been going without our permission.

"Thanks for reading! If you’d like to toss a coffee my way, check out my Buy Me A Coffee—means a lot!"

Tweet

Uvalde 'copwards' knew people were wounded inside classroom, bleeding out--they waited because it was dangerous

To serve and protect is not how it went down in Uvalde, Texas on May 24th at the Robb Elementary School when a gunman took the lives of 19 children and two teachers while the police waited in their safe space.

It turns out the police knew the gunman was locked inside a classroom with young, terrified children, and they knew the bastard had already fired many rounds, but they did nothing to serve and protect. As the gunman continued shooting, the cops had to know that some of those bullets were piercing the bodies of children, likely not killing every child he shot, but wounding them and putting their young lives on a timeline with death as they laid bleeding.

The cops waited in the safe space of the hallway for 45 minutes. They had to know some of the kids needed immediate medical help, but they waited, safely away from the danger, neglecting their sworn oath to serve and protect.

The police chief, Pete Arredondo, along with other law enforcement personnel at the scene knew that some of the kids were still alive, the documents revealed. There was also a report from a school district police officer whose wife, a teacher at the school, was wounded and had spoken to him by phone from one of the classrooms as she slowly bled out. 

For 45 minutes.

More than a dozen of the 33 children and three teachers originally in the two classrooms remained alive during the total of 77 minutes from the time the shooting began inside the classrooms to when four officers made entry, investigators have determined. By that time, 60 officers had assembled on scene.

Arredondo, who had initially focused on evacuating other classrooms, began to talk about breaching the room where the shooter was holed up ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER HE STARTED HIS KILLING at 11:33 a.m. The Chief finally did so after several shots could be heard inside the classrooms, after a long lull, around 12:21 p.m., video footage showed.

The cops didn’t breach the classroom and shoot the gunman until 12:50, half an hour after the shots at 12:21 for them to get inside, when every second counts for them to serve and protect.

The teacher who was wounded had called her policeman husband from inside the classroom and he told his fellow officers on scene about the call when he arrived there at 11:48. His fellow officers waited over an hour from that point before they mustered up the courage to go in.

The officer's wife, who had called him died in the ambulance.

Three children who were wounded were still alive when the brave cops finally got to them. They all died at the hospital. “He could have been saved,” said one man of his 10-year-old grandson. “The police did not go in for more than an hour. He bled out.”

Apparently, they were held back because there were no protective shields for officers at the scene and they were scared of getting hurt while attempting to serve and protect. 

The shields had to be retrieved and that wasted time, in spite of the previous training the district cops had weeks prior to the mass shooting. One would think necessary equipment would be at the ready for such an event.

But the clusterfrack didn't end there.

The local police radio system didn't work properly inside the school. Classroom doors couldn't be locked quickly in an emergency. The exterior door from which the shooter entered the school, did not lock automatically. 

All the police hung back for 40 minutes, perhaps hoping the shooter would run out of ammunition or maybe his gun would jam, or maybe there were no more children to shoot. The cops stayed a safe distance in their safe spaces in the hallway, all wearing uniforms they apparently did not deserve to wear.

Arrendondo didn't even have a radio when he arrived at the carnage, and it was discovered that the radios had been designed for longer-distance communication, not in the close confines of a building.

The radios were apparently designed for longer-distance communication, not the close confines of a building. Arredondo didn’t even have a radio when he got there. And the exterior door through which the shooter entered didn’t lock automatically either.

Some of the cops who first arrived on scene had rifles, meaning they were not outgunned by the shooter.

The district wants to hire more school police, as if the 60 cops on scene weren't enough. It isn't the number of cops responding to a mass shooting--it's the willingness of the cops you already have to serve and protect.

A former FBI agent who developed the Bureau's active-shooter protocol was asked by the media [NPR] about her thoughts of the response in Uvalde. “That the law enforcement was there for an hour on the other side of a wall is just unheard of. I couldn’t have written this if I’d written a script,” she said. 

"The FBI rule is simple: When you’re responding to a mass shooting, you move towards the shooter until he stops you or you stop him.


"When there is active shooting underway, even if it’s a single officer, you must pursue to the sound of the shooting or where you believe the shooter is. You must pursue all the way to the shooter and neutralize the shooter. That is the lone objective, and that — you should never waver from that.

"A law enforcement officer, if they’re trained, should continue moving forward, even if it means busting through a door, shooting through a door. I recognize the risks that are going through their heads, ‘oh, my gosh, there’s children in that classroom. I don’t want to hurt a child. I don’t want to’ — but we need to pursue, pursue, pursue, because the shooters have already proven that they’re willing to kill people, and they’ll continue doing it. That’s why the priority is, you keep moving forward, even if it means you go through walls and if you go through windows and if you go through doors."

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

The Uvalde PD has offered no comment as to whether Pete Arrondondo is still Police Chief. If he is, then the clusterfrack is not over.

Tweet

NC leftist wanted to kill Biden to "save Bernie"--praised 911 and had pro-jihad video

Don't believe the mainstream media on this one, and think twice whenever the left describes someone as a "right-wing extremist" or "white supremacist." They called Ben Shapiro that latter slur some time ago, and he's an Orthodox Jew who is one of America's biggest targets of white supremacist anti-Semitic verbal attacks and threats. 

Alexander Hillel Treisman is being labeled a "right-wing extremist" but the truth was out there, buried in the ether.

The Times of Israel reports, in the 16th paragraph of its story about Treisman:

 “after Senator Bernie Sanders dropped out of the Democratic primary, Treisman posted on Reddit that he had to ‘save bernie.’ According to the court document, on April 15 he posted on iFunny, ‘should I kill joe biden?'”

Treisman, 19, may not be a Muslim, but he is a flaming Leftist and gets all moist when thinking about murdering people. In fact, this puke admires jihadis for all the death and destruction they brought upon the West.

The original article by Laurel Wamsley,  NPR, headquarters in Washington, D.C., October 23, 2020 titled “Man Arrested In N.C. Had Plan To Kill Joe Biden, Feds Say,” explains that in late May, employees at a Kannapolis, NC bank called the cops to report an abandoned white van in their parking lot. 

[H/T The Religion of Peace]

When cops arrived, they looked into the van's windows and saw an AR-15 rifle, a box for a handgun, explosive material and ammunition. So they towed it and searched the van finding over $500 thousand in cash, drawings of swastikas and planes crashing into buildings. There were books on bomb-making, survival and six firearms.

Later that day, not being the brightest star in the galaxy, Treisman reportedly walked into the bank and asked about the towed van – and the idiot was promptly arrested.

He has been indicted by a federal grand jury on child pornography charges and evidence provided by federal agents indicated Treisman's fascination with mass shootings and terrorist attacks. He had also plotted to kill Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, without realizing that mentally, Biden is already not quite sentient.

According to government testimony, between March and May of this year, Treisman searched online for Biden’s home address and looked up state gun laws, rifle parts and night vision goggles. In April, the poster boy for creeping cretinism is said to have posted a meme online with the caption “should I kill joe biden?”

It's almost surprising that Treisman didn't post his own home address.

Treisman bought the AR-15 rifle in New Hampshire and then traveled to a Wendy’s restaurant about 4 miles from Biden’s home in Delaware, federal agents say. He allegedly wrote out a checklist that had as its last task: “execute.”

After his arrest, Treisman was interviewed by Kannapolis police and investigators from the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. He allegedly told them that he has an interest in terrorist incidents and mass shootings and that he had lost friends over jokes he had made about mass shootings and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He can't understand what they found offensive.

Investigators found video on Treisman’s cell phone that apparently was taken while driving by Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas — the site of a deadly 2017 mass shooting — as a male voice is heard saying, “There it is. That’s it. That’s the one, that’s where they did it. Allah Akbar! Ah hah, nice.” Another video on the phone, taken at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, includes a male voice suggesting it would be “awesome” to hijack a plane and fly it into a building….

Treisman is not a Trump supporter. He is a Bernie Sanders supporter, just like the scumbag who, in 2017, shot and nearly killed House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, congressional aide Zack Barth, lobbyist  Matt Mika, and U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner.

The difference is, Republicans don't blame Bernie Sanders for the behavior of a supporter of his, while Democrats blame everything bad that a Trump supporter might do, on Trump himself. They take away the responsibility of the act from the actor and blame it on their favorite target for political gain. Worse, half on the left believe this crap.

C'mon, man, gimme a break. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear. C'mon.

Tweet

Outgoing Loser McCaskill gets it half right

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) lost her re-election shot in the midterm elections in November, and doesn't have the ability to understand, at least in part, as to why she lost.

She blames her loss on how her party tried to destroy Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's life over bull crap accusations, not one of which was corroborated, on sexual assault.

She doesn't see her own role in the hearing as to why normal people were disgusted with the Democrats.


"I don't think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred," McCaskill told NPR host Rachel Martin last week.

The very fact that she didn't have the courage to vote against her party is why she lost her seat. There was no evidence but still she was ready to condemn a man to a ruined career.

"There were mistakes made by my party in terms of how that was handled. I don't think that communication [from Christine Ford] to the judiciary committee should have been kept private as long as it was. The FBI deals with a lot of confidential information, and that would have absolved [judiciary committee ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein] of the very real perception that this was an 11th-hour attempt to gut a guy."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) received the allegations from Ford on July 30, 2018 – nearly a month after Kavanaugh had been nominated and before his confirmation hearings. Feinstein didn't share the letter with fellow liberals and didn't bring it, or its contents up, during the confirmation hearings. It wasn’t until the letter was leaked to certain members of the press that Feinstein acknowledged its existence. 

It was a plan to "gut a guy," as McCaskill said, and still, she voted against his confirmation.

Kavanaugh's name was dragged through the mud over empty allegations that had no evidence to back them up. In fact, there is more evidence that points to the allegations being mistaken or flat out untrue.

But let us not forget that McCaskill paved the way for these types of accusations with her support of the Obama administration’s war on due process, something that all accused deserve. She is the freaking Queen of the "Believe Women" movement that insists due process is an impediment to justice.

It is truly excellent that she lost the election. She deserves to be put out to pasture in the field of politics. The American voters who refused to cast their trust in her have everything to be proud of because, by their vote, they support due process and our rule of law.

Now Missouri has Josh Hawley waiting to be seated in the U.S. Senate. I don't know much about him [and I plan to learn] but he has to be better than someone who has no regard for ethics, law and decency.

Hello fellow conservatives. Please click the "Follow" button in the margin to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, if you would visit the ads on this page it helps the economy grow and it does a world of good for me.

Tweet

Firefighters 'get real' from advice of NPR on climate change

Lightning, careless use of fire or arson are not the real problems causing Texas wildfires. It's global warming, so says National Proletariat Radio (NPR). And the best way to put fires out is by "getting real" on climate change.

Getting real. How profound.

So in response to that wisdom, Texas firefighters have put down their hoses, grounded their fire assault aircraft, and have taken to lobbying Washington for tighter regulations in support of global warming measures.

Rather than spraying water or chemicals on the raging blazes, fire crews are picking up plastic bags along the sides of roads and stopping motorists along Texas highways to check pollutant levels in their vehicles.

"It's working," Fire Chief Bobby  Freetoe told Vinny Boombots, a field reporter for Brain Flushings. "It's going to take a few more years, maybe a few more decades, but if we're really serious about these damn fires, we're going to have to nip climate change in the butt."

Public radio KUT in Austin reported: "It's Been A Bad Year For Texas Wildfires. It Will Probably Get Worse."

The station claimed four recent wildfires in Central Texas are part of an "uptick in fires" that "bares the fingerprints of climate change."

NPR quoted Geeta Persad, a climate scientist who claims that climate is "partly to blame" for 100-degree weather, a record originally set in 1925 and far from an anomaly in Austin.

But Donald Falk, an ecologist who is a member of University of Arizona's "Climate Justice Network" places global warming as the main problem, proving that ecologists like Falk are ideologues. He said the only way to fight wildfires is by "getting real and confronting climate change."

It was Falk's words that inspired the new approach by Texas firefighters.

So far it hasn't worked and people are dying. But there's hope that if we just recycle, drive electric cars, watch our carbon emissions, and prefer paper over plastic, those fires will die out.

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.


Tweet

Obama goes after the Donald

President [but not for long] Obama accused Donald Trump of using the administration's messed up economy and job growth to scare and frustrate those of us who already were and still are. Mustering more emotion on this topic than all the emotion he showed on San Bernadino, Paris, ISIS and all Islamic terrorist attacks, he gave the most direct criticism so far, to the Donald.

This can only mean one thing: the Democrats are worried.

Mr. Obama spoke on NPR radio, the taxpayer-funded radio station that overtly supports the Democratic party, but although that is illegal, nothing will be done about it because Congress lost it's testicular fortitude long ago.

And the media wonders why Trump is doing so well?

The president spoke on NPR as he began his highly expensive and lavish Hawaiian vacation. I believe the entire family flew on the same aircraft this time and will boast about how that is saving the environment, unlike the Paris agreement designed to save the world in spite of emitting about 300,000 tons of CO2, according to Wired.com. 

Obama said "particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck, you combine those things and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear.

"Some of it justified but just misdirected," said the man who has never taken the blame for his incompetence as president. "I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign."

Much like Jonathan Gruber said he was exploiting the stupidity of the American voter when it came to Obamacare.

When asked to expand on his claims and talk about the concerns of those who believe Obama is trying to make unwelcome changes, the Divider in Chief got into a contentious exchange with Steve Inskeep of NPR that discussed the issue of .  .  .  wait for it .  .  .  race!

Big surprise.

This provided Obama with a perfect opportunity where he suggested there are "certain circumstance around being the first African-American president that might not have confronted a previous president," then pointing out about "specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I'm different, I'm Muslim, I'm disloyal to the country, etc., which unfortunately is pretty far out there and gets some traction in certain pockets of the Republican Party." 

He quickly added: "But that's not to suggest that everybody who objects to my policies may not have perfectly good reasons for it."

It's good to know that we are allowed to disagree with him without being labelled a racist. 

He then pretended that the government isn't telling us about "the work we've been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL," as he then bragged about the 9,000 airstrikes we've carried out in over a year. That's like a piddle in the pool: 9,000 is nothing, especially when the rules of engagement are so strict. Over 75% of the sorties return with their ordnance load.

I may or may not vote for Donald Trump, but I certainly enjoy his lack of self-censorship. He says what he's thinking--not always the smart thing to do, but at least we know where he stands.

Some of his ideas are ludicrous, like not allowing Muslims into the country. It's not only unfeasible, it's unconstitutional. 

You can't complain about Obama circumventing the Constitution and be okay with Donald Trump wanting to do the same thing. But at least he's changed his tune on that somewhat.

Tremendous.


Tweet