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

AOC develops incredible self-awareness: runs away when challenged

Rep. Alexandria Obviously-Cowardly (Socialist-NY) is one of the more cowardly freshmen in the House of Representatives. In fact, what she represents to many who have been listening to her whine about things without offering any solutions, is that she isn't very bright but has finally come to realize that about herself.

At the Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York, she ran away from a reporter who had a question to ask her.

But most recently, she is running from an opportunity to perhaps actually learn something about which she is totally ignorant.

AOC compared the situation at the border to concentration camps. People were taken aback.

She has been saying that the term concentration camp has nothing to do with the Holocaust, in spite of her also using the term never again, an obvious Holocaust reference and the stance the Jews took after the Second World War. She tried to convince people that concentration camps are distinctly different from death camps, but everyone knows she's full of unicorn poop.

When she was challenged by Jews and others who disagreed with her she doubled-down, then tripled-down and so on.

On Sunday, AOC was invited by a Holocaust remembrance group to visit first hand Nazi concentration camps and be accompanied with a Holocaust survivor. Instead of going along and actually learning something, she went searching in Saul Alinsky's "12 Rules for Radicals" to figure out what to do and bingo! Rule number 5 was perfect: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

So instead of going along with going along to the Nazi concentration camps and coming away with something, she suggested that the invitation to go there was part of a "far-right" scheme designed for "political gain."

Her remarks came in response to a tweet from Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who was removed from all his congressional committees by Republican leaders after inappropriate remarks he made about white nationalism.

King tagged her in a tweet that linked a report from The Hill. He encouraged AOC to accept the invite from the Holocaust remembrance group, but she declined because it would have made her look like a loser, believe it or not.

King wrote: "I went to Auschwitz & Birkenau with Eddie Mausberg & Jonny Daniels with In the Depths. I went with a deep understanding of the Shoah and had a profound personal experience. Please accept their offer."

The simpleton rejected the offer believing it was part of how "the far-right manipulates these moments for political gain." 

Yeah, right.

So instead of going along with the offer, she wrote: "The last time you went on this trip it was reported that you also met w/ fringe Austrian neo-Nazi groups to talk shop. So I’m going to have to decline your invite. But thank you for revealing to all how transparently the far-right manipulates these moments for political gain."

In other words, the idiot who helped New York lose about 25,000 jobs with Amazon, made it sound like King was inviting her to go to the concentration camps with him, which isn't true. AOC just turned it around in her dishonest way. In truth, she was to go to the Nazi concentration camps with a 93-year-old survivor, Edward Mosberg.

Jonny Mosberg is founder of From the Depths and Edward Mosberg was to be her tour guide which includes visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek and Mauthausen concentration camps. It was Jonny who wrote the open invitation, and AOC's refusal, as is her history of running away from anything that confronts her ingrained beliefs, exemplifies her shallow thinking and explains her attraction to socialism where the government takes care of all your needs . . . until they don't.

Seriously, it's urgent that people like AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib become "one term wonders."

Please consider following Brain Flushings and also visit the ads on the pages. Follow me on Parler.com, my handle is @Heyrobo, or on Twitter--my handle there is: @RobHoey
Thanks

Tweet

Florida teens marching for gun control have quiet leftist sponsors

It's pretty bad when adults use children to make their point, to put them on display as if they are the moral authorities and people who disagree with them are evil. Jimmy Kimmel did that with his baby son--he used him as a prop to make the point that people who didn't support Obamacare are heartless creatures who want children to die.

That's vile and disgusting.

Now we've learned that large progressive organizations, donors and other high-powered people are backing the March For Our Lives movement, ostensibly run by some of the teen survivors of the Stoneman Douglas school shooting that happened on Valentine's Day.  

The other teen survivors, those who oppose gun control and believe that having trained armed staff inside schools would prevent or eliminate these violent attacks, have not been heard from, supported, or given voice in the mainstream media because it doesn't fit their agenda.

In days following the Parkland, Florida shooting, which killed 17 people, the survivors were all over cable news and went from a handful of Twitter followers to a bazillion followers and organized a rally in Washington D.C. in support of gun reform.

It was only two weeks ago the teens were hanging out in one of their parents' homes and planned a trip to Tallahassee to meet with state lawmakers and planning to deal with the media.

But since then large organizations such as Everytown, Giffords, MoveOn, Planned Parenthood and the Women's March LA helped the kids with logistics, strategy and planning for next month's March For Our Lives rally and more, according to BuzzFeed News.

It's unclear exactly what resources are being provided by the organizations, but it sounds as if they are funding these kids and using them like a Jimmy Kimmel prop to push for more gun control.

Giffords is an organization that was started by former Rep. Ganrielle Giffords. It's purpose is to fight gun violence and is working with Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America to plan the huge march on Washington along with rallies across the country.

They never let a tragedy go to waste, as "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky teaches, a book followed by Obama and Hillary Clinton, both who viewed Alinsky as a god.

Giffords "will be lending support in any way the students need, especially helping to operationalize these marches from logistics to programming," they told BuzzFeed. 

And probably footing at least part of the costs, I suspect.

"We applaud these students for demonstrating incredible leadership and demanding that our lawmakers do more to help protect Americans from gun violence," their spokesperson said.

If they really want to do something to help protect Americans from gun violence, they would have more to say about the Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, as well as the FBI along with the mental health facility that said the shooter wasn't a danger to himself or others.

Instead, the teens attacked the NRA, proving they really care more about their leftist agenda than solving the real problem. This one was totally preventable.

And isn't it ironic that Planned Parenthood is all in for gun control to "save lives," but are willing to take the lives of the unborn.


Tweet

No Moochelle, we don't like you because you're detestable

"All this for a flag?"

Whenever Barack Obama went up against anyone who disagreed with his leftist policies, he reached into his back pocket and pulled out the race card. Sometimes he was quite vociferous but usually he was subtle in his claim.

"I think there's a reason why attitudes about my presidency among whites in northern states are very different from whites in southern states."

Obama used racism because, like Islamophobia, it tended to shut off the real debate and put the "offender" on defense. It's right out of "Rules for Radicals," by Saul Alinsky.

Rule number four states: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Therefore just pull out the race card and you win every time . . . if we conservatives keep playing this game.

Michelle Obama, who identifies as a woman, made her largest public appearance since Barack thankfully left office. She spoke before 8,500 people at the Women's Foundation of Colorado's 30th anniversary in Denver.

Lauren Casteel, the foundation president claimed Mooch broke the glass ceiling as the first black lady, but asked about the fallout that came of it, the Denver Post reported.

"The shards that cut me the deepest were the ones that intended to cut," she said, referencing being called an ape and people talking about her bottom. "Knowing that after eight years of working really hard for this country, there are still people who won't see me for what I am because of my skin color."

Gag me with a spoon.

She said she can't pretend like it doesn't hurt because that lets those who do the hurting off the hook.

"Women, we endure those cuts in so many ways that we don't even notice we're cut," she said. "We are living with small tiny cuts, and we are bleeding every single day. And we're still getting up."

The poor thing. 

"Michelle Obama is part of the affirmative action generation of above-average but far-from-stellar performers who were granted preferential admission to America's most elite institutions," Dinesh D'Souza wrote in 2008.

And even when she was an undergraduate, he thesis was primarily concerned about the trials and tribulations of being a black woman at an Ivy League University.

Here is a typical passage of her "poor me":

"By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."

No Mooch--we don't hate or dislike you because you're black. Your skin color has no bearing on who you are inside. We dislike you because you are dislikable. 

You made millions as the wife of a government worker. You have taken lavish vacations on the taxpayer's money and we don't even hate you for that. 

We're just sick and tired of your whiny bull crap and how much of a racist you are, because that's all you ever focus on and how you divide us, just like your husband did.


Tweet

Congress probes US funding for Soros groups

Billionaire leftist George Soros has allegedly meddled in European politics just like he meddles in U.S. politics. Now it has caught Congress' attention.

The Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, raised concerns about Soros' involvement  of his empire deploying "tons of money and international heavy artillery" to push his radical far-left agenda. 

Republican lawmakers in Washington have started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars are also being used to fund his projects in conservative-led Macedonia. 

Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) led House lawmakers in corresponding to Ambassador Jess Baily--an Obama appointee and obvious Soros-loving lackey--demanding answers. Also, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros' Open Society Foundations as part of much bigger concerns that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.

Big surprise, eh?

Lee wrote in a letter: "I have received credible reports that, over the past few years the US Mission to Macedonia has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia, as well as the shaping of its media environment and civil society, often favoring groups of one political persuasion over another."

One simply cannot imagine which political "group" (aka party) Lee may be referring to.

The concerns depict growing conservative pushback against the leftist's European operation.

It wasn't enough for the jerk to organize U.S. protests groups against conservative governance, he has to go 'all global' on us.

Last week, Viktor Orban attacked Soros' "trans-border empire." (Sounds a lot like an Obama ideology, doesn't it?) Orban is one of the European voices speaking out against the push by EU leaders to take in Syrian refugees and he has taken a lot of flak for his hardline stance.

Shame on Orban for wanting to keep Hungary safe again.

If it were up to Soros' Open Society Foundations, the entire EU would be entirely socialist with handpicked leaders ruling Europe. There would be no borders and no stimulation of corporate competition. 

And Soros would still be a billionaire. But he hates that conservative Macedonia has a flat tax rate of a mere 10 percent and they greeted President Trump warmly with a pledge to work with him.

There's a citizen initiative called "Stop Operation Soros" which claims U.S. money has been funding hard-left causes in the country, including violent riots in the streets and a Macedonian version of "Rules for Radicals," their version of Saul Alinsky's leftist handbook that Obama has dog-eared since college.

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