Now we know which Dem. faces DOJ criminal probe

The Department of Justice is investigating a member of the so called Squad, a leftist group of Democrats who call to "Defund the Police," and for Israel to stop shooting back at Hamas, and other such nonsense.

 The person being investigated is Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), according to a report on Tuesday.

Sources, who didn't want to be named in fear of being canceled or worse, told Punchbowl News that a subpoena for records that was announced in the House on Monday, was connected to a criminal probe into Bush, specifically regarding issues related to her Member Representation Allowance (MRA).

House Sergeant at Arms William McFarland said in a message conveyed by the reading clerk that he consulted with the Office of General Counsel and determined that compliance was “consistent with the rights and privileges of the House.”

Punchbowl News reporter, Max Cohen, posted on X that he asked Bush "directly" about the investigation but "[S]he repeatedly declined to comment and reprimanded me for approaching her as she had a toothache." 

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, declined to comment on the DOJ probe news on Tuesday, saying “that’s something for the Justice Department.” 

Fox News had reported that Bush has spent over $750,000 on private security since being elected to office. The congresswoman has previously said she was doling out money for protection because of attempts on her life and added that she had a toothache and needed to be left alone.

In addition to the federal spending, Cori Bush's congressional campaign committee has also spent over three quarters of a million dollars on security since 2020, far and away the campaign's biggest expense category. https://t.co/GylrJyLvnJ pic.twitter.com/mdyRygRUPK

— Rob Pyers (@rpyers) January 30, 2024

Conservative watchdog groups have raised concerns about tens of thousands of campaign dollars in payments to Courtney Merrits, whom Bush married nearly a year ago after hiring him as a security guard, though the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended last year that a complaint be dismissed, but it really sounds like a Fani Willis move on Bush's part, if you follow my drift.

Bush issued a statement to the New York Post at the time that said right-wing groups “want me to expend energy and financial resources to defend myself against these distractions. But their grift won’t work.”

Attacking your accusers is right out of "Rules for Radicals" handbook by Saul Alinsky: RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

And Cori Bush is definitely an Alinsky fan.


Tweet

FBI hunts high and low for crimes to support Biden's "extremism" claims against GOP

"The fish was this big; no joke"

The people working the mouth of the dummy [aka the Biden administration] are reportedly pushing law enforcement to magnify the threat the country faces from white supremacists [aka: all Trump supporters and other Republicans] in order for our mush-mouth president to use these alleged threats as political talking points. 

It's obvious that conservatives work to solve problems while the Left works to complain about conservatives.

FBI members, both current and former, say Biden's administration is pushing the bureau to use more resources than is required to combat domestic terrorism, particularly with racial components, The Washington Times reported.

The FBI leadership’s “demand for white supremacy … vastly outstrips the supply of white supremacy,” an FBI agent told the Times. “We have more people assigned to investigate white supremacists than we can actually find.”

It's merely a talking point for the Left. Maybe they'll have to make things up.

The FBI leadership has directed investigative efforts primarily toward domestic extremism cases, especially those with racial components, the agent said. 

The agent suggested that the push is so forceful that otherwise legal activities are sometimes swept up in the FBI’s scrutiny of certain actions for a potential extremist link. This is why the Jussie Smollett hoax gained so much media attention.

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” he said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

Of course, the FBI denied picking targets based on any other determination than dangerous or criminal activity because to admit it would be criminal.

“The FBI aggressively investigates threats posed by domestic violent extremists,” an FBI spokesperson claimed to the Times. “We do not investigate ideology, and we do not investigate particular cases based on the political views of the individuals involved. The FBI will continue to pursue threats or acts of violence, regardless of the underlying motivation or sociopolitical goal.”

Yeah, sure--we can tell how unbiased the FBI after they took Mike Lindell's [the My Pillow guy] mobile phone with all his business work on it. What the FBI appears to be doing is finding a crime for a particular individual who always tends to be on the right side of the aisle.

Biden emphasized the threat of “extremism” coming from “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans” in a September 1 speech that he had to later walk back because it sounded too much like he got the idea from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

1.  "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
2.  "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
3.  "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
4.  "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
5.  "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
6.  "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7.  "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
8.  "Keep the pressure on."
9.  "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. "

Check out these rules and see which ones you believe the Left is using the most. By the way, Alinsky was no genius when you consider that these rules are basically common sense with an air of pretentiousness.

Biden speech was in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall and claims “MAGA Republicans” are an existential threat to the republic [see rules 5, 9, and 13].

“There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans — and that is a threat to this country,” Biden said, calling rule 8 to the mix.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth, but in the shadow of lies. Together, we can choose a different path.”

* * *

Hey folks, 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. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

This divisive rhetoric is the real danger, not so-called MAGA Republicans, whose acronym says "Make America Great Again." 

So Joe, what's the alternative to MAGA? Make America Marxist, Man?

Tweet

Who really won the Dem debate?

Who won the Democratic debate Saturday? Easy--the winner was . . . ISIS.

All three candidates went through excruciating calisthenics to avoid using the word "radical Islam," on the heels of a radical Islamic attack in Paris, France.

I'm not surprised Hillary Clinton wasn't honest about it--hell, she's the type of liar who can tell the families of four dead Americans from the radical Islamic attack in Benghazi that the cause was a video a handful of people in the world got to see.

But for Bernie Sanders to tap dance around those words is almost sad. Sanders obviously didn't want to talk about Islamic terrorism and said that he didn't think the term "is what's important." (It sounded more like he used the word "impawtant" but I looked it up and it doesn't exist.)

 As a Jew, Sanders is a member of Islam's most hated group of human beings. Jews are so hated by Muslims throughout the world, that Muslims don't consider them to be human, Nobel Prizes aside. Jews are  referred to as 'apes,' by the religion of peace.

They aren't fond of Christians either, referring to us as 'pigs.' But look who's calling the kettle 'black.'

When the panel was asked if they agree with Sen. Marco Rubio who said that "We are at war with radical Islam," the wife of former President Bill Clinton said that calling it such would be "painting with too broad a brush," and also said the term was "not particularly helpful."

"I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we're at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists," the Scandal Queen said, as if jihadists and Muslims were of different religions and had nothing to do with each other.

Guess which party Muslims are going to be voting for. And guess how many "radical Islamic extremists" are going to be entering the country as refugees. The winner of this guessing contest wins an AK-47 and a year's supply of ammo.

On the other hand, Hillary did concede that we are at war with "violent extremists" who use religion for "power" and "oppression." That must have been hard  for her to say, what with her closest aide, Huma Abedin, tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and Sisterhood by her own family.

Actually, Hill, Islam itself calls for power and oppression over ''unbelievers", but you would have known that if you had read the Koran, the Islamic version of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," a book you so love, a book dedicated to Lucifer. Even President Obama has quoted anarchist Alinsky to Israeli students.

Former Maryland Gov. O'Malley, like Hillary and Bernie, took the low road to avoid offending terrorists and non-violent Muslims. "I believe calling it what it is . . . radical jihadis. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that all our Muslim-American neighbors in this country are somehow our enemies here. They are our first line of defense . . . We need our Muslim-American neighbors to stand up and to be part of this," said the man who backed down after saying that "all lives matter."

It looks like our "first line of defense" is being very quiet about the latest Paris attack, just like they were with the Charlie Hebdo attack back in January. If Muslim-Americans are our first line of defense, they need to speak up, speak out, and tell us who in their community sees us as the enemy.

But they don't.

O'Malley and his ideas are as useless as they were when he was the mayor of the failed city of Baltimore.

So far, French President Francois Hollande has shown strength--he called the Paris attack "an act of war" with ISIS. Now the ball is in his court, so to speak; we shall see what he does to back up his rhetoric.

Hopefully, Hollande will not take Hillary's advice of "showing "respect even for one's enemy," and to try to "empathize with their perspective and point of view." These are the words of an idiot who has no business being commander in chief of our nation. She tried to walk it back by saying "It is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react."

When you drop napalm on the bastards that immolated the caged Jordanian pilot, who gives a damn what they are thinking? We know how they will react--they will scream a lot and then they will stop screaming very quickly.

That's how you fight a war--shock and awe--the strategy comes from knowing their ideology and calling it for what it is so that you can predict their next move and know where to find them.

Mosques might be a good place to look, but liberal idiots like Bill DeBlasio don't want to infiltrate them where they plan because like all PC leftists, they don't want to offend them.



Tweet

Obamalinsky

Barack Hussein Obama is clearly not the best president we’ve ever had; so far he’s our worst. But when all is said and done, you have to give him credit for his ability to implement Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals.

I like to think that Obama relies most heavily upon Rule Number Five. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” In spite of the fact that he said he will bring the country together, he has cleaved us so much that it would make Dolly Parton envious. You can’t defend against ridicule; it isn’t usually rational. It creates anger, and it’s damn mean. You can hear in his talking points how crazy the tea party is, for example, or how the GOP is a bunch of racists who want nothing more than to see Obama fail. There’s probably nothing worse than a person who is not a racist to be called a racist.

The word most favored by liberals seems to be the word “racist.” Idiots like Chris Matthews use it almost as much as Obama uses the word “uh.” But you have to wonder how many non-– whites Matthews associates with – – my guess is that he associates with his many non—whites as attended his son’s wedding. None.

The problem as I see it is that conservatives need to be more aggressive when responding to liberal lies. Perhaps we need to use Alinsky’s Rules to wage mental war. Maybe we need to use Rule 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That is, isolate the target from sympathy. Go after specific people like Obama, Biden, and Hillary, and not the Democrats as a whole. Alinsky acknowledges that this is cruel but effective. He believes that direct personalized criticism and ridicule works.

I know that I called Chris Matthews and idiot, but I should warn you that ad hominem attacks tend to be the weakest. Of course, they are the easiest to use by liberals because there are no facts to support their wild claims. If liberals actually used facts they would be Republicans.

So if you don't mind a president whose greatest skill is that of a community organizer and his greatest love seems to be for socialism and radical change within the government, you probably don't mind with happening with Obamacare, nor the fact that our president has been meeting with Muslim Brotherhood members in the People's House. I know Chris Matthews doesn't mind – – he still gets a thrill up his leg. But I suspect that the thrill is in going as far up as it used to.

Tweet