‘They had a backup plan to basically frame Donald Trump and that’s what’s been going,’ says Kallstrom

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom suggested Sunday morning that the constant shifting of high-ranking government officials over the last year is related to an internal plot to help Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

“I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted,” Kallstrom said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo.”

Kallstrom, who worked at the FBI for 27 years, was responding to Bartiromo’s question about whether he thought that someone in the FBI was directing officials to protect Clinton.

“Do you think somebody was directing them or do you think they just came to the conclusion on their own, this leadership at the FBI and the Department of Justice, that they wanted to change the outcome of the election?” Bartiromo asked.

Kallstrom also said officials had a scheme to blame Trump for the Russian interference during the 2016 election.

“They had a backup plan to basically frame Donald Trump and that’s what’s been going,” Kallstrom said.

Report: Obama Campaign Hired Fusion GPS in 2012 to Dig up Dirt on Romney and Donors


A new book claims that the Barack Obama presidential campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012 to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Mitt RomneyThe Daily Caller reports.

Obama for America (OFA) reportedly obscured its payments to Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie, an international law firm, in an arrangement similar to the one that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee used to pay Fusion to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.

In 2012, Fusion reportedly dug up dirt on Romney’s donors as well so that the Obama campaign could publicly slime them on its official website.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that OFA has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, an international law firm, since April of 2016.

The book, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and Donald Trump’s Election” by Michael Isikoff and David Corn alleges that OFA hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Mitt Romney for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

In 2012, then-president Obama had an “enemies list” on his campaign website with the names of  Mitt Romney’s biggest donors.

The Obama campaign website (laughingly titled “Keeping the GOP Honest”) shamed eight Romney donors for “betting against America,” accusing them of having a “less-than-reputable” record.

“The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money,” wrote the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel in an April 2012 article.

One of the names on the list was Frank VanderSloot, an Idaho businessman who had contributed to a group supporting Mitt Romney in 2011.

Mr. VanderSloot soon learned what it meant to be on a presidential enemies list.

“Just 12 days after the [Obama campaign] attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records,” Strassel wrote in “Obama’s Enemies List Part II.” “This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.”

That oppo-research firm was — you guessed it –Fusion GPS.

It wasn’t long before VanderSloot was targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service informed him that his tax records had been “selected for examination.”  The audit also encompassed VanderSloot’s wife, “and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).”

Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.

Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.

VanderSloot told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto at the time that he had lost a “couple hundred customers” as a result of being falsely labeled as “a bitter foe of the gay rights movement” on the Obama website (titled “Keeping the GOP Honest”).

The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord wondered: “Who paid Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS to investigate Romney contributor Frank VanderSloot?”

Who was the Obama supporter who supplied the bucks to pay Fusion GPS to burrow into files in the presumed bowels of an Idaho Falls county clerk’s office? With the goal of wrecking the reputation and business of a Romney contributor named Frank VanderSloot?

And why isn’t there a demand to the Obama campaign for an internal investigation and the necessary five minutes to supply this name? After all, this whole incident originated with that official Obama site “Keeping the GOP Honest,” on which VanderSloot’s name was published along with several other Romney SuperPAC donors.

I think we now have our answer.


Deep State in league with Dems, says WikiLeaks founder

Chris Menahan | Information Liberation – MARCH 10, 2018

If Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms, as many as half of their new reps will be former military intelligence personnel, according to a bombshell new report from the World Socialist Web Site.

Julian Assange tweeted out the bombshell report Friday on Twitter:

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 12.16.25 PM

“An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

[…]A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, “homeland defense” and cyber warfare.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called “Red to Blue” program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats–in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.

[…]One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates. National security operatives (57) outnumber state and local government officials (45), lawyers (35), corporate executives, businessmen and wealthy individuals (30) and other professionals (19) among the candidates for Democratic congressional nominations.

[…]The military-intelligence candidates are disproportionately favored by the party apparatus, encouraged to run in districts that are the most likely takeover targets. Military-intelligence candidates account for 10 of the 22 districts selected for the most high-profile attention as part of the “red-to-blue” program, or nearly half. In some cases, military-intelligence candidates have amassed huge campaign war chests that effectively shut out any potential rivals, an indication that the financial backers of the Democratic Party have lined up behind them.

[…]Abigail Spanberger, seeking the Democratic nomination in a district in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia, has the following declaration at the top of her campaign website: “After nearly a decade serving in the CIA, I’m running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District to fight for opportunity, equality and security for all Americans. My previous service as a law enforcement officer, a CIA officer, and a community volunteer has taught me the value of listening.”


Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 12.19.18 PM

Spanberger worked for the CIA as an operations officer, in which capacity, “She traveled and lived abroad collecting intelligence, managing assets, and overseeing high-profile programs in service to the United States.” Her opponent for the Democratic nomination is a career Marine Corps pilot, Dan Ward, in one of nearly a dozen contests involving multiple military-intelligence candidates.

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 12.20.40 PM

Check out part two and part three for a giant list of all the candidates and their military intelligence backgrounds.

It’s literally just one after another after another after another.

Look at this insanity:

That’s just a small sampling. The deep state is openly staging a total takeover of the Democratic Party.

New York Times Sends Reporter to Find 5 People Unhappy With Tax Cut


Democrats and their media mouthpieces really, really don’t like it when hard-working Americans get to keep their own money. In their minds, the all-holy government should be able to access as much money as it wants to redistribute.

All of the boilerplate leftist anti-tax cut rhetoric has been blowing up in their faces since the passage of the GOP tax bill last December. After screaming at the tops of their lungs that PEOPLE WERE GOING TO DIE because of the bill, the Democrats were quickly confronted with a reality that featured repeated news of corporations giving unplanned bonuses to employees and a decided lack of dead people.

A narrative shift was obviously in order.

As the bodies kept not piling up (maybe there just weren’t many people left to kill after the repeal of net neutrality ended the world), Democrats decided to inform the beneficiaries of the bonuses that they weren’t really getting much money.

Nancy Pelosi sobered up long enough to refer to a thousand dollars as “crumbs,” then doubled-down on the remark when given an opportunity to back off of it.

This tactic has rather predictably not yielded a lot of public relations upside for the Democrats, so their little helpers at The New York Times came up with a new approach: travel to real America to find people who aren’t thrilled with how the tax cuts are affecting their paychecks.

Not really angry, just sort of “meh,” as the kids say today:

At Slyder’s Tavern, Matt Kazee, a machinist, drank a couple of beers as he waited for burgers to take home for dinner. His tab was about equal to the increase in his take-home pay after President Trump’s tax cut found its way into the nation’s paychecks.

“I have seen a little uptick in my paycheck, about what I expected, about 30 bucks,” said Mr. Kazee, who voted twice for President Barack Obama before backing Mr. Trump in the 2016 election. “It felt to me about like where things were 15 years ago.”

His underwhelmed reaction was not what Republicans had in mind.

An extra bar tab a month may not seem like much to a New York Times reporter, but there are plenty of us who’d sign up for that deal in a heartbeat.

Then the reporter gets to the serious business of spinning the “news” to fit the narrative:

But the result has hardly been a windfall, economically or politically. Other workers described their increase as enough for a week’s worth of gas or a couple of gallons of milk, with an additional $40 in a paycheck every two weeks on the high side to $2 a week on the low. Few are complaining, but the working class here is not feeling flush with newfound wealth.

Of course there hasn’t been a windfall. Tax cuts that return money to employees via paychecks don’t work that way, thanks to the insidious way payroll taxes are done in this country.

One of the reasons that it is easy to tax American workers to the point of financial paralysis is that it’s done incrementally. Many on the lower-taxes side of the aisle have long said that if every American had to pay taxes like we self-employed people do there might never be another Democrat elected again.

The twin built-in feature of this slow torture taxation model for the pro-tax side is that they can be stealthier about increasing the burden, then dismissive about any incremental relief.

Per the article, the median household income in the area where the people were being interviewed is $46,000 a year.

That $40 in the bi-weekly paycheck comes out to over one thousand dollars for the year. Anyone making $46K isn’t going to sneeze at that.

Unless, of course, their government doles it out in increments to small to cause any excitement.

When someone wins a huge lottery jackpot, he or she is given the option of taking a lump sum single payout, or having a larger sum paid out over a period of years.

People tend to opt for the former, even though it’s less money.

People want all of their money now, not in an allowance.

No one gets truly excited about the allowance. The Times knew that.

If they really wanted to do some reporting, they’d send someone to interview a decent sample of people who had received the bonuses on top of the reduced paycheck tax burden.

Probably a lot less shoulder shrugging going on there.

Your Tax Dollars Are Helping to Pay for a Clown College in Nancy Pelosi’s District


As you file your taxes, try not to think too hard about the revelation that your hard-earned money is helping someone achieve their dream of becoming a clown. Because, apparently becoming a clown requires going to college, and going to college requires taxpayers footing the bill. Next time you’re at the circus, demand a “thank you” from a clown.

CNS News provides more information about the bad news regarding the gross misuse of our taxes: “The federal government is funding a clown school located in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco-based congressional district that has classes and workshops on ‘Precision Idiocy’ and how to act like a ‘Buffoon,'” CNS wrote. “The school, which is called the ‘Clown Conservatory’ and is part of the nonprofit Circus Center, received a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts that runs from June 2017 through May 2018.” Clown Conservatory claims to be “the United States’ only professional training program for clowns and physical comedians.”

The Clown Conservatory is split into two sessions over 24 weeks. Tuition is $6,000. While much cheaper than many colleges, I’m not sure if the return on investment is quite the same.

Although, I may not be treating the Clown Conservatory fairly. As my editor pointed out, I may just be jealous. It’s true that I have taken mime classes and had to pay for them out of my pocket; I received no federal financial aid to help pay for my mime classes. So, in the issue of full disclosure, I may simply be bitter that I’m now having to pay for other people’s mime classes via my tax dollars.

With that in mind, maybe we should allow some of the student testimonials offer a defense of the school’s value:

  • “The SF Clown Conservatory is the most important springboard into the world of clown I’ve received.”
  • “The program helped me to realize how to work the funny bones I’ve always had. If I wouldn’t have found the Clown Conservatory, I wouldn’t have found myself.”
  • “Sara Moore [the school’s director] is simply the greatest thing to have happened to me. She taught a clowning master class when I was 19 years old, and within those three hours she had given me the key to unlock the door to The Silly inside, and helped me train it and use it to the fullest.”


The testimonials have only made it worse. I’m still angry, if not angrier, that my idiotic government thinks that paying people’s tuition to clown college is an efficient use of my tax dollars. I mean, the person who “wouldn’t have found [them self]” if it weren’t for the Clown Conservatory makes me wonder if I shouldn’t ship my kids off to military school before it’s too late and they end up clowns.

Tax day is almost upon us. Every year, as the amount of money I am forced to turn over to the government becomes larger and larger, the more irritated I get at my liberal “friends” who insist that they know better how to spend my money than I do—and the more fiscally conservative I become. This nonsense about tax dollars financing people’s dreams to become clowns is only going to make April 15 that much harder. If liberals want to pay for people’s clown college tuition, nothing is stopping them from writing a check to the Clown Conservatory. But it’s flat-out theft for the government to forcibly take my money so that someone can take a class called, “Human Cartoon: The Art of Elastic.”