-
Posts
69,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by B-Man
-
Your 2025 Democrat Party - the New Red Guard
B-Man replied to Big Blitz's topic in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
-
Click on to 'embiggen' Yes Elon, that is their fallback position. . . . . . . . . even here.
-
Your 2025 Democrat Party - the New Red Guard
B-Man replied to Big Blitz's topic in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
-
USAID has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive US government financed NGO, "Internews Network" (IN), which has “worked with” 4,291 media outlets, producing in one year 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people and "training” over 9000 journalists (2023 figures). IN has also supported social media censorship initiatives. The operation claims “offices” in over 30 countries, including main offices in US, London, Paris and regional HQs in Kiev, Bangkok and Nairobi. It is headed up by Jeanne Bourgault, who pays herself $451k a year. Bourgault worked out of the US embassy in Moscow during the early 1990s, where she was in charge of a $250m budget, and in other revolts or conflicts at critical times, before formally rotating out of six years at USAID to IN. Bourgault’s IN bio and those of its other key people and board members have been recently scrubbed from its website but remain accessible at http://archive.org. Records show the board being co-chaired by Democrat securocrat Richard J. Kessler and Simone Otus Coxe, wife of NVIDIA billionaire Trench Coxe, both major Democratic donors. In 2023, supported by Hillary Clinton, Bourgault launched a $10m IN fund at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The IN page showing a picture of Bourgault at the CGI has also been deleted. IN has at least six captive subsidiaries under unrelated names including one based out of the Cayman Islands. Since 2008, when electronic records begin, more than 95% of IN's budget has been supplied by the US government (thread follows)
-
Back to the DOGE thread,
-
Due to "lack of standing"
-
-
I'm not one for bring back old threads. There are some fascinating replies in the 13 year old thread though. Meanwhile: Most everyone here knows the story. This is well condensed, however. So here's the REAL story: Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to secretly retrieve US made Stinger Missiles that the State Dept had supplied to Ansar al Sharia in Libya WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission. Sec State Hillary Clinton had brokered the Libya deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi, but some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military. On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile. The helicopter didn't explode, but it had to land and an ordnance team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in Qatar by the CIA. Obama and Hillary were in full panic mode, so Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Stinger Missiles. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to multiple rescue teams during the siege of the US Embassy. It was the State Dept, NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies because Gen. Petraeus at CIA would not approve supplying the deadly missiles due to their potential use against commercial aircraft. So then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus when he refused to testify in support of Obama’s phony claim of a “spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video that insulted Muslims.” Obama and Hillary committed TREASON! THIS is what the investigation is all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of the YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not. Furthermore, the Taliban knew that the administration had aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission, so they began pressuring (blackmailing) the Obama Administration to release five Taliban generals being held at Guantanamo. Bowe Bergdahl was just a useful pawn used to cover the release of the Taliban generals. Everyone knew Bergdahl was a traitor but Obama used Bergdahl’s exchange for the five Taliban generals to cover that Obama was being coerced by the Taliban about the unauthorized Stinger Missile deal. So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised, as well and a Sec of State that is a serial liar, who perjured herself multiple times at the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft were called upon for help in Benghazi: because the administration knew that our enemies had Stinger Missiles that, if used to down those planes, would likely be traced back to the CIA cache in Qatar and then to the State Dept’s illegitimate arms deal in Libya. .
-
Your 2025 Democrat Party - the New Red Guard
B-Man replied to Big Blitz's topic in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
-
J.D. Vance: Mainstream Anti-communist
B-Man replied to BillsFanNC's topic in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
-
Joe Biden’s Fake Job Numbers Scandal Just Got Worse Matt Margolis Joe Biden (and several PPP members)has often touted his job creation numbers as a key part of his legacy. He claimed to have “created” 16 million jobs, even though fact-checkers have repeatedly pointed out that these jobs didn't come from Biden’s policies but simply the natural rebound from pandemic-related shutdowns. Even the bogus numbers are worse than what we were originally told. On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released the latest jobs report, and in addition to reporting a slowdown in job growth during Biden’s final month in office, there was a scandalous downward revision to the jobs numbers that were reported during President Biden’s final year in office. According to the report, the BLS has adjusted its previous estimates, revealing that on average, the Biden administration overestimated the monthly employment numbers by an average of roughly 626,000. https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/02/07/joe-bidens-fake-job-numbers-scandal-just-got-worse-n4936786 .
-
FTA; If you take seriously the fact that the President runs the executive branch–indisputable, under Article II–then, if the president learns that money is being wasted, that an agency has gone rogue, that its officials are pursuing policies that contradict those of the administration they serve–the president’s duty is to stop it. Stop the spending, fire the employees, neuter the rogue agency. Of course it is true, as the Democrats say, that the President doesn’t have the power to abolish an agency that Congress has created. Thus, for example, President Trump cannot, by executive order, abolish the Department of Education. But he can run the Department of Education, and if that department is spending resources in ways that are wasteful or that contradict his administration’s policy goals, he can stop or redirect that spending. The Democratic Party press has the current crisis exactly backward. The fact that President Trump is asserting control over the federal employees who work for him is a natural, if long-overdue, return to constitutional norms. The idea that the executive branch is somehow beyond the control of the president is the real crisis, one that has been long in the making. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will sort out the respective powers of Congress and the President with regard to the agencies that are established by Congress. In the meantime, President Trump needs to continue to assert his constitutional responsibility for the executive branch. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/the-real-constitutional-crisis.php .
-
Harry Bolz Reinstates BIG BALLS.
B-Man replied to BillsFanNC's topic in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
What ? Daz missed the point of Elon's tweet ? Unbelievable. -
.
-
A Critically Important Trial Has Just Begun, and No One Involved Will Speak About Motive Robert Spencer When the defendant entered the courtroom, he was dressed respectably in a blue button-down shirt and dark slacks. When his presence was announced, he stood up, said “Good morning,” and gave all present a cheery wave. And thus began one of the most important trials of our age, although everyone involved is doing everything possible to ignore all the reasons why it is so important. Hadi Matar finally went on trial Tuesday for attempting to murder the novelist Salman Rushdie back in Aug. 2022. There is little, if any, doubt about Matar’s guilt, even though he has pleaded not guilty, for he stabbed Rushdie multiple times in full view of a shocked crowd at the Chautauqua festival. Matar was supposed to have gone on trial in Jan. 2024, but Rushdie wrote a book about the attack, and Matar’s defense attorney, public defender Nathaniel Barone, received a delay in the trial so that he could review the book. It’s hard to fathom how what the victim thought about what happened might affect the guilt of his client, but nevertheless, Barone managed to delay the trial for over a year. Now that it has begun, both Barone and his opposite number, Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt, seem curiously intent on preventing any discussion of Matar’s motive. Matar tried to kill the man who, at the time of the stabbing had carried for 33 years the most famous bounty on his head since the days of the Wild West. It was on Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, 1989, that Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini called for Rushdie to be killed for supposedly blaspheming against Muhammad in his novel "The Satanic Verses." By 2022, Iran’s bounty on Rushdie’s head was $3 million. Without Khomeini’s death fatwa on Rushdie, Matar wouldn’t have tried to kill him, and there would be no trial. Nevertheless, neither the prosecution nor the defense wants any talk of that as Matar is tried. Matar himself was upfront about why he stabbed Rushdie. Back in Aug. 2022, he said: “I respect the ayatollah. I think he’s a great person. That’s as far as I will say about that.” Of Rushdie, Matar said: “I don’t like the person. I don’t think he’s a very good person. I don’t like him. I don’t like him very much. He’s someone who attacked Islam, he attacked their beliefs, the belief systems.” Matar isn’t the most articulate person in the world, but what he said was clear enough to establish that he wanted Rushdie dead in accord with Khomeini’s fatwa. Schmidt, however, insists all that is irrelevant, saying: “Here, I don’t believe we have to get into issues of Mr. Matar’s religious beliefs, his nationality, and his background to prove an attempted murder charge, which is what we’re doing. The allegation is that Mr. Matar stabbed Mr. Rushdie and stabbed Mr. Reese in an unprovoked attack. Therefore, I think we can prove that without getting into matters that give rise to prejudice of our jury pool.” Schmidt added: “From my standpoint, this is a localized event. It’s a stabbing event. It’s fairly straightforward. I don’t really see a need to get into motive evidence, whether that’s applicable or not applicable and what that consists of. I’d like to avoid all of that.” Well, all right, but isn’t examination of motive ordinarily a staple of murder trials? https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/02/06/a-critically-important-trial-has-just-begun-and-no-one-involved-will-speak-about-motive-n4936756