Day: December 4, 2017

Another Hillary Mole



Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller’s investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI’s human resources office — an obvious demotion — in July.

Are we to believe that Strzok was diligently and impartially examining evidence related to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump while being unable to contain his anti-Trump bias? Is he the only Hillary mole? Just look at Robert Mueller’s staff and James Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton after the infamous tarmac meeting between AG Loretta Lynch and unindicted conspirator in Uranium One William Jefferson Clinton. Stop when you detect a pattern.

This news comes as House Republicans, tired of leaks and finding out about things in the legacy media, are moving to find both the FBI and the DOJ in contempt of Congress for failing to provide requested material:

U.S. House Republicans are moving to bring a Contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray for stonewalling the production material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.


According to Bloomberg, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republicans decided to move against Rosenstein and Wray after the New York Times reported Saturday about the removal of a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the alleged Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

If it’s hurtful to Team Trump, it gets leaked. If it’s damaging to Team Hillary, it’s treated like the gold at Fort Knox. That’s not really surprising in a probe where Michael Flynn gets dinged for making false statements to the FBI, the same crime committed by famous Russian colluder Martha Stewart, but Hillary Clinton is not. But then, Hillary was never put another oath in an interview for which no notes were taken, unlike former FBI Director James Comey’s meeting with President Trump. Comey did not attend that meeting, nor was a grand jury convened. And where are the Podesta indictments, pray tell?

Comey had the fix in for Hillary. We now know why the FBI made the absurd claim that it would not release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation for alleged lack of public interest. The FBI was covering up its obstruction of justice in the, er, “matter” knowing full well that former Director James Comey had already exonerated Hillary Clinton before the alleged investigation was complete and all witnesses had been interviewed, and months before Comey falsely claimed in his announcement that no competent prosecutor would take Hillary’s case.

In withholding the files sought under Freedom of Information Act requests, the FBI forgot that it and former Secretary of State Clinton are and were employees of the American taxpayer, taxpayers who have a right to know whether justice is being served or denied. Claims that Hillary had privacy rights that trumped the public interest were absurd:

The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.


Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation….


In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges….


On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.


“If you seek disclosure of any existing records on this basis, you must demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests,” the letter stated. “In this regard, you must show that the public interest sought is a significant one, and that the requested information is likely to advance that interest.”

Say what? Did it serve the public interest — or James Comey’s interest — when he publicly detailed all the reasons Hillary Clinton should be criminally charged before saying lack of intent, a criterion which appears nowhere in the law, was the reason Comey was giving Hillary a get out of jail free card, a judgment he did not have the authority o make? Didn’t his exoneration announcement violate Hillary’s alleged privacy rights by detailing the criminal violations of a subject that was not going to be charged?

If James Comey was seriously looking for evidence of intent, he couldn’t have possibly taken a single step without tripping over it. Wasn’t having a private server that contained classified information, multiple devices that were later physically smashed, and using Bleach Bit to destroy 33,000 emails that were under subpoena sufficient evidence of intent?

Only a corrupt and complicit FBI director, acting as Hillary Clinton’s surrogate campaign manager, who months earlier had decided he would exonerate her, could ignore the damning evidence:

As FBI director last year, James Comey began writing drafts of a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, even before all witnesses in the investigation — including Clinton herself — had been interviewed.


The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the Comey memos as part of its investigation into his firing by President Trump, which occurred on May 9. The revelation that Comey had begun drafting memos of his exoneration statement comes from transcripts of interviews given last fall by two FBI officials.


James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyberlaw at the FBI, gave the interviews as part of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.


In a July 5, 2016, press conference, Comey said that he would not be recommending charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information despite her use of a private email server as secretary of state.


While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Having already decided that he would exonerate her regardless of the evidence explains why he did not attended the July 2, 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton, did not put her under oath, or ever impanel a grand jury in the, there’s that word again, “matter.” The fix was in.

Yes, Virginia, this is a witch hunt. Robert Mueller III was appointed special counsel after his friend, the vindictive James Comey, committed a federal crime by leaking a memo which was a government record to the press. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advisor to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all (snarkiness intended).

Mueller is in fact colluding with Comey to enact revenge on President Trump for Comey’s firing, something which even Comey said Trump was constitutionally entitled to do. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. It is not obstruction of justice for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority.

But the facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller is following in the proud tradition of Stalin’s chief of the secret police, Lavrenty Beria. Just show him the man, or woman, and he will show you the crime.

And then there’s Hillary mole Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was in a key position overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s scandalous and treasonous handling of classified emails on her private server, a position from which he could assist FBI Director James Comey in putting the fix in. As Judicial Watch notes: 

Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”


While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:


While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?


After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.


The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.”

Of course, that statement was a lie. The exposing of Agent Strzok is just another shoe dropping in the course of a corrupt and criminal enterprise masquerading as an investigation in which the FBI, the DOJ, and now the special counsel are all involved.

Lady justice is not blind here. She has been bound and gagged and held for ransom by Robert Mueller and his political cronies.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 

How objective can an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation be when the FBI agent who played a lead role was removed from it this summer for texting his pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sympathies? And why does House Intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes have to read about it in the New York Times and the Washington Post? As Byron York reports in the Washington Examiner:

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued an angry demand to the FBI and Department of Justice to explain why they kept the committee in the dark over the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a key supervising FBI agent off the Trump-Russia investigation.


Stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times on Saturday reported that Peter Strzok, who played a key role in the original FBI investigation into the Trump-Russia matter, and then a key role in Mueller’s investigation, and who earlier had played an equally critical role in the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation, was reassigned out of the Mueller office because of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair. Strzok was transferred to the FBI’s human resources office — an obvious demotion — in July.

Are we to believe that Strzok was diligently and impartially examining evidence related to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump while being unable to contain his anti-Trump bias? Is he the only Hillary mole? Just look at Robert Mueller’s staff and James Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton after the infamous tarmac meeting between AG Loretta Lynch and unindicted conspirator in Uranium One William Jefferson Clinton. Stop when you detect a pattern.

This news comes as House Republicans, tired of leaks and finding out about things in the legacy media, are moving to find both the FBI and the DOJ in contempt of Congress for failing to provide requested material:

U.S. House Republicans are moving to bring a Contempt of Congress resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray for stonewalling the production material related to the Russia-Trump probes and other matters.


According to Bloomberg, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republicans decided to move against Rosenstein and Wray after the New York Times reported Saturday about the removal of a top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the alleged Russia-Trump election collusion had been removed from the investigation.

If it’s hurtful to Team Trump, it gets leaked. If it’s damaging to Team Hillary, it’s treated like the gold at Fort Knox. That’s not really surprising in a probe where Michael Flynn gets dinged for making false statements to the FBI, the same crime committed by famous Russian colluder Martha Stewart, but Hillary Clinton is not. But then, Hillary was never put another oath in an interview for which no notes were taken, unlike former FBI Director James Comey’s meeting with President Trump. Comey did not attend that meeting, nor was a grand jury convened. And where are the Podesta indictments, pray tell?

Comey had the fix in for Hillary. We now know why the FBI made the absurd claim that it would not release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation for alleged lack of public interest. The FBI was covering up its obstruction of justice in the, er, “matter” knowing full well that former Director James Comey had already exonerated Hillary Clinton before the alleged investigation was complete and all witnesses had been interviewed, and months before Comey falsely claimed in his announcement that no competent prosecutor would take Hillary’s case.

In withholding the files sought under Freedom of Information Act requests, the FBI forgot that it and former Secretary of State Clinton are and were employees of the American taxpayer, taxpayers who have a right to know whether justice is being served or denied. Claims that Hillary had privacy rights that trumped the public interest were absurd:

The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.


Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation….


In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges….


On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.


“If you seek disclosure of any existing records on this basis, you must demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests,” the letter stated. “In this regard, you must show that the public interest sought is a significant one, and that the requested information is likely to advance that interest.”

Say what? Did it serve the public interest — or James Comey’s interest — when he publicly detailed all the reasons Hillary Clinton should be criminally charged before saying lack of intent, a criterion which appears nowhere in the law, was the reason Comey was giving Hillary a get out of jail free card, a judgment he did not have the authority o make? Didn’t his exoneration announcement violate Hillary’s alleged privacy rights by detailing the criminal violations of a subject that was not going to be charged?

If James Comey was seriously looking for evidence of intent, he couldn’t have possibly taken a single step without tripping over it. Wasn’t having a private server that contained classified information, multiple devices that were later physically smashed, and using Bleach Bit to destroy 33,000 emails that were under subpoena sufficient evidence of intent?

Only a corrupt and complicit FBI director, acting as Hillary Clinton’s surrogate campaign manager, who months earlier had decided he would exonerate her, could ignore the damning evidence:

As FBI director last year, James Comey began writing drafts of a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, even before all witnesses in the investigation — including Clinton herself — had been interviewed.


The Senate Judiciary Committee obtained the Comey memos as part of its investigation into his firing by President Trump, which occurred on May 9. The revelation that Comey had begun drafting memos of his exoneration statement comes from transcripts of interviews given last fall by two FBI officials.


James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyberlaw at the FBI, gave the interviews as part of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.


In a July 5, 2016, press conference, Comey said that he would not be recommending charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information despite her use of a private email server as secretary of state.


While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Having already decided that he would exonerate her regardless of the evidence explains why he did not attended the July 2, 2016 interview of Hillary Clinton, did not put her under oath, or ever impanel a grand jury in the, there’s that word again, “matter.” The fix was in.

Yes, Virginia, this is a witch hunt. Robert Mueller III was appointed special counsel after his friend, the vindictive James Comey, committed a federal crime by leaking a memo which was a government record to the press. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advisor to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all (snarkiness intended).

Mueller is in fact colluding with Comey to enact revenge on President Trump for Comey’s firing, something which even Comey said Trump was constitutionally entitled to do. There is no evidence of collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. It is not obstruction of justice for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority.

But the facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller is following in the proud tradition of Stalin’s chief of the secret police, Lavrenty Beria. Just show him the man, or woman, and he will show you the crime.

And then there’s Hillary mole Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was in a key position overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s scandalous and treasonous handling of classified emails on her private server, a position from which he could assist FBI Director James Comey in putting the fix in. As Judicial Watch notes: 

Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”


While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:


While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?


After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.


The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.”

Of course, that statement was a lie. The exposing of Agent Strzok is just another shoe dropping in the course of a corrupt and criminal enterprise masquerading as an investigation in which the FBI, the DOJ, and now the special counsel are all involved.

Lady justice is not blind here. She has been bound and gagged and held for ransom by Robert Mueller and his political cronies.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 



Source link

Liberal Lingo: 'Sanctuary Cities'


A sanctuary is a place where people can go to be safe. Generally speaking we think of good people going to sanctuaries to escape evil; some Jews found sanctuary from the Holocaust in England and the United States, for example.

Liberals like to repurpose words with positive connotations, like sanctuary, in order to add a false impression of sanity to liberal positions which are otherwise indefensible.

In the case of the now ubiquitous “Sanctuary Cities” phrase, liberals hope to evoke Americans desire for fairness and our propensity to stick up for the little guy.

After all, even if you’re some coldhearted racist conservative, liberals reason, your heartstrings will be plucked by the idea of cruel ICE agents swooping in on a hard working “undocumented” family who pay their taxes, never take government aid, and work hard at jobs where they are underpaid because “gringo” bosses threaten to call ICE on them; jobs which no citizen would do.

Ignoring for a moment the prevalence, or lack thereof, of such illegals, and also ignoring the blacks who can’t find a job because “honest” illegals will work for less, the reality is that “Sanctuary Cities” have nothing to do with “honest” illegals.

The only people who get sanctuary in “Sanctuary Cities” are criminals. Cities and states can’t stop ICE from enforcing the law; laws supported by generations of Democrat politicians, by the way. They can’t provide safe haven for “honest” illegals; not that they need to since “honest” illegals are not that frequently targeted even by the “racist” Trump administration.

But what local governments can do is shield illegals who commit additional crimes in the US from being deported. “Sanctuary Cities” do so by preventing the police from notifying ICE when an illegal has been arrested for a crime. Historically the police would notify ICE, ICE would go to the police station and conduct a safe — for the illegal and the community — transfer to ICE so that the criminal could be deported.

In “Sanctuary Cities” illegals who drive drunk, for example, are simply allowed back into society without ICE having a chance to deport them.

That’s right; “Sanctuary Cities” exist to ensure that illegals who drive drunk or commit a wide range of other crimes don’t risk deportation. While the specific laws that illegals can break and be protected from deportation vary between different “Sanctuary Cities” they are not restricted to jaywalking, having a taillight out on their car, and littering. In fact, only if the offense is serious enough that the illegal is put in jail, at least temporarily, does the “Sanctuary City” policy have any role; if the illegal doesn’t go to jail the jail can’t notify ICE when he’s going to be released so that ICE can pick him up.

The net effect of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that illegals who continue to commit other crimes are shielded from deportation; that’s right liberal politicians are working hard to increase the criminal population in “Sanctuary Cities.”

Haven’t you ever wished we could just throw drunk drivers out of your city so that they can’t kill people you may know the next time they slip up? Well, we can’t do that for citizens, including legal immigrants, but we can for those who sneak into our country. Yet the whole purpose of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that criminals are allowed to stay in the country enabling them to commit more crimes.

Why would any sane person support such a thing?

Maybe it’s because liberals know that criminals are both likely to not be concerned about illegally voting and likely to vote for liberal candidates who work to make life easy for criminals — so long as they don’t prey on the rich people the politicians schmooze with.

Or maybe it’s the liberals all or nothing approach to issues; either we let all illegals stay or we’re going to force all of them out. After all liberals staunchly defend the right of a woman to abort her viable, pain feeling, unborn daughter because she, or her spouse, wants a boy so extremism in the protection of violence is nothing new to liberals.

Or maybe it’s because illegals provide cheap labor for rich white liberals, and even criminal illegals rarely prey directly on the ruling elites whose safety and prosperity is the main concern of modern liberals.

In any case, “Sanctuary Cities” do nothing to help illegals whose only crime was breaking into our country. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if “Sanctuary Cites” were causing more suffering for the “honest” illegals.

The man who killed Kate Steinle, for example, doesn’t speak English. Given that it’s not absurd to think that illegals like him, with criminal records and minimal English skills, would tend to prey on “honest” illegals more than on American citizens. If that is the case, then by protecting illegals who continue to commit crimes “Sanctuary Cities” are hurting the “honest” illegals they claim to be trying to help, not to mention the legal Hispanic immigrants.

But words have power, so whenever and wherever you see, hear, or read the phrase “Sanctuary City” make sure you explain to anyone you can, in a polite way, that the real term should be “Sanctuary for Criminals Cities.”

It wouldn’t be shocking if most of the people who support “Sanctuary Cities” think that those cities protect “honest” illegals given the way the media covers the issue. Hence by shining a light into the swamp you might be able to get people who would normally vote for a liberal to realize that there’s a huge difference between mass deportation and deporting illegals who drive drunk.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

A sanctuary is a place where people can go to be safe. Generally speaking we think of good people going to sanctuaries to escape evil; some Jews found sanctuary from the Holocaust in England and the United States, for example.

Liberals like to repurpose words with positive connotations, like sanctuary, in order to add a false impression of sanity to liberal positions which are otherwise indefensible.

In the case of the now ubiquitous “Sanctuary Cities” phrase, liberals hope to evoke Americans desire for fairness and our propensity to stick up for the little guy.

After all, even if you’re some coldhearted racist conservative, liberals reason, your heartstrings will be plucked by the idea of cruel ICE agents swooping in on a hard working “undocumented” family who pay their taxes, never take government aid, and work hard at jobs where they are underpaid because “gringo” bosses threaten to call ICE on them; jobs which no citizen would do.

Ignoring for a moment the prevalence, or lack thereof, of such illegals, and also ignoring the blacks who can’t find a job because “honest” illegals will work for less, the reality is that “Sanctuary Cities” have nothing to do with “honest” illegals.

The only people who get sanctuary in “Sanctuary Cities” are criminals. Cities and states can’t stop ICE from enforcing the law; laws supported by generations of Democrat politicians, by the way. They can’t provide safe haven for “honest” illegals; not that they need to since “honest” illegals are not that frequently targeted even by the “racist” Trump administration.

But what local governments can do is shield illegals who commit additional crimes in the US from being deported. “Sanctuary Cities” do so by preventing the police from notifying ICE when an illegal has been arrested for a crime. Historically the police would notify ICE, ICE would go to the police station and conduct a safe — for the illegal and the community — transfer to ICE so that the criminal could be deported.

In “Sanctuary Cities” illegals who drive drunk, for example, are simply allowed back into society without ICE having a chance to deport them.

That’s right; “Sanctuary Cities” exist to ensure that illegals who drive drunk or commit a wide range of other crimes don’t risk deportation. While the specific laws that illegals can break and be protected from deportation vary between different “Sanctuary Cities” they are not restricted to jaywalking, having a taillight out on their car, and littering. In fact, only if the offense is serious enough that the illegal is put in jail, at least temporarily, does the “Sanctuary City” policy have any role; if the illegal doesn’t go to jail the jail can’t notify ICE when he’s going to be released so that ICE can pick him up.

The net effect of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that illegals who continue to commit other crimes are shielded from deportation; that’s right liberal politicians are working hard to increase the criminal population in “Sanctuary Cities.”

Haven’t you ever wished we could just throw drunk drivers out of your city so that they can’t kill people you may know the next time they slip up? Well, we can’t do that for citizens, including legal immigrants, but we can for those who sneak into our country. Yet the whole purpose of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that criminals are allowed to stay in the country enabling them to commit more crimes.

Why would any sane person support such a thing?

Maybe it’s because liberals know that criminals are both likely to not be concerned about illegally voting and likely to vote for liberal candidates who work to make life easy for criminals — so long as they don’t prey on the rich people the politicians schmooze with.

Or maybe it’s the liberals all or nothing approach to issues; either we let all illegals stay or we’re going to force all of them out. After all liberals staunchly defend the right of a woman to abort her viable, pain feeling, unborn daughter because she, or her spouse, wants a boy so extremism in the protection of violence is nothing new to liberals.

Or maybe it’s because illegals provide cheap labor for rich white liberals, and even criminal illegals rarely prey directly on the ruling elites whose safety and prosperity is the main concern of modern liberals.

In any case, “Sanctuary Cities” do nothing to help illegals whose only crime was breaking into our country. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if “Sanctuary Cites” were causing more suffering for the “honest” illegals.

The man who killed Kate Steinle, for example, doesn’t speak English. Given that it’s not absurd to think that illegals like him, with criminal records and minimal English skills, would tend to prey on “honest” illegals more than on American citizens. If that is the case, then by protecting illegals who continue to commit crimes “Sanctuary Cities” are hurting the “honest” illegals they claim to be trying to help, not to mention the legal Hispanic immigrants.

But words have power, so whenever and wherever you see, hear, or read the phrase “Sanctuary City” make sure you explain to anyone you can, in a polite way, that the real term should be “Sanctuary for Criminals Cities.”

It wouldn’t be shocking if most of the people who support “Sanctuary Cities” think that those cities protect “honest” illegals given the way the media covers the issue. Hence by shining a light into the swamp you might be able to get people who would normally vote for a liberal to realize that there’s a huge difference between mass deportation and deporting illegals who drive drunk.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

Did Brits Plant the Hillary Bomb?


 

Americans generally know nothing about our European “allies” and the nefarious plans they may occasionally hatch against us.  But people familiar with history know how the British Foreign Office was a primary mover in getting the United States into World War I.  Winston Churchill certainly wanted us to join the Brits in WWII, and after Pearl Harbor, we did.

By the 1930s, the Soviets had deeply suborned and penetrated the U.K., and sentimental Marxism is still the main religion of Britain, though the name “Mohammed” is now the most popular name for baby boys.  A BBC survey several years ago found that Karl Marx – yes, good old murderous Marx – is widely respected as “the greatest philosopher in history” by the BBC audience.  No wonder, because the Beeb has been telling them so ever sing the Cambridge Spies were recruited by the Soviets in the 1930s.

Ian Fleming’s famous James Bond series was plausibly written by former spy Fleming to cover up the truth, which was deep subversion by the Soviets of the British espionage apparatus in World War II and after.

The public story of the Trump “dossier,” bought by the Hillary campaign to discredit Donald Trump and now being used by corruptocrat Robert Mueller – himself the swampiest of swamp creatures – is that the DNC paid Fusion GPS, which paid Christopher Steele, a “former British spy,” to write an opposition document on Donald Trump.  To spice up that document, Mr. Steele imagined Donald Trump, his wife, and his family going to Moscow and hiring famously sexy Moscow prostitutes to urinate on the bed Obama was alleged to have occupied.  Whether anybody bothered to change the sheets is not reported, but then the whole dossier reeks to high heaven.

Among the many flaws in this story is Christopher Steele, nominally a “former” GCHQ spy, who was hired to do the deed.  But when it comes to keeping the Brits informed of major developments in its biggest ally, the United States, there are no “former” spies.  If Steele was hired by the DNC to come up with dirt on Trump, it was his clear obligation to report said hiring to his old bosses, who would naturally send it up the line to Theresa May, the current prime minister of the U.K.

Ms. May is currently in a nasty political trap, caught between the will of the British voters, who want to get out of the corrupt and incompetent European Union, and the E.U. swamp itself, which is trying by hook and by crook to sabotage the British exit from that particular quagmire.

Let’s put it this way: if Chris Steele is an idiot, he might not understand that the DNC was giving him a golden chance to shaft Donald J. Trump, just when Theresa May wanted to (secretly) please the E.U. swamp and thereby also get gold star points from the U.S. swamp.  Got that?  If Chris hadn’t put that Moscow pee-pee story in the “dossier,” Theresa May would never have forgiven him.

So Christopher Steele claims to be a “retired” spook, when we know damned well there is no such thing.  If a former spook gets a golden chance to manipulate U.S. politics, he will be seriously remiss in not telling the May government all about it.  And Theresa May will jump at the chance to manipulate our election, in just the way the Brits jumped at the chance to get us into WWI and WWII.  Swamp calls to swamp, you might say.

OK, so the “Russian attempt to throw the election to Trump” may actually be a British attempt (with E.U. help) to throw the election to Hillary.  This is not some weird exception to the rule.  Obama tried to throw the Israeli election to the left, last time, against Bibi Netanyahu, whom he hated on sight.

The BBC, which occasionally resorts to telling the truth, once ran a wonderful comedy show called Yes, Minister, with the running gag of the elected minister trying to manipulate his purely appointed swamp department, only to be told time and time again by the chief bureaucrat that, alas, it couldn’t be done.  Yes, Minister is probably on the web today, and it’s worth watching, because it served as a great warning that elections in the U.K. meant nothing anymore.  No matter who was elected, the swamp would prevail.

Now, the BBC is the original swamp propaganda department, always running talking points from the left and, these days, from the forces of jihad.  Things got so bad at the BBC swamp that it protected serial child abuser Jimmy Savile, who ran the most popular children’s program on the BBC, in spite of the fact that he abused hundreds of children.  The U.K. media reported the Jimmy Savile perversion only after he died.

The whole thing was shocking beyond belief, but it was consistent with jihad penetration of Europe, which we now see everywhere.  Jimmy Savile was obviously protected by the police, the intelligence services, and the upper ranks of the BBC itself.  Parents who complained to the cops received no help whatsoever.  Pakistani child-“grooming gangs” are still reported today routinely in cities like Rotherham, and they are likely to exist in many other places.  In rapefugee centers like Germany and Sweden, an increase in child and female abuse can be expected, because in shari’a law, women are second- or third-class citizens, and infidel children are celebrated targets.  The Prophet himself “married” a six-year-old, but he was kind enough to wait until she was nine to consummate the marriage.

So Europe is corrupted and suborned even beyond the standards of Washington, D.C. 

Question: Are we supposed to believe that Christopher Steele really didn’t work with his old buds in the British swamp to make up and spread that anti-Trump dossier?

The U.K. Guardian – the old Stalinist rag from those times – is now protecting Theresa May against Donald Trump’s nasty tweet.

But I’ll bet it all started with ol’ Chris Steele and the pee-pee dossier.

 

Americans generally know nothing about our European “allies” and the nefarious plans they may occasionally hatch against us.  But people familiar with history know how the British Foreign Office was a primary mover in getting the United States into World War I.  Winston Churchill certainly wanted us to join the Brits in WWII, and after Pearl Harbor, we did.

By the 1930s, the Soviets had deeply suborned and penetrated the U.K., and sentimental Marxism is still the main religion of Britain, though the name “Mohammed” is now the most popular name for baby boys.  A BBC survey several years ago found that Karl Marx – yes, good old murderous Marx – is widely respected as “the greatest philosopher in history” by the BBC audience.  No wonder, because the Beeb has been telling them so ever sing the Cambridge Spies were recruited by the Soviets in the 1930s.

Ian Fleming’s famous James Bond series was plausibly written by former spy Fleming to cover up the truth, which was deep subversion by the Soviets of the British espionage apparatus in World War II and after.

The public story of the Trump “dossier,” bought by the Hillary campaign to discredit Donald Trump and now being used by corruptocrat Robert Mueller – himself the swampiest of swamp creatures – is that the DNC paid Fusion GPS, which paid Christopher Steele, a “former British spy,” to write an opposition document on Donald Trump.  To spice up that document, Mr. Steele imagined Donald Trump, his wife, and his family going to Moscow and hiring famously sexy Moscow prostitutes to urinate on the bed Obama was alleged to have occupied.  Whether anybody bothered to change the sheets is not reported, but then the whole dossier reeks to high heaven.

Among the many flaws in this story is Christopher Steele, nominally a “former” GCHQ spy, who was hired to do the deed.  But when it comes to keeping the Brits informed of major developments in its biggest ally, the United States, there are no “former” spies.  If Steele was hired by the DNC to come up with dirt on Trump, it was his clear obligation to report said hiring to his old bosses, who would naturally send it up the line to Theresa May, the current prime minister of the U.K.

Ms. May is currently in a nasty political trap, caught between the will of the British voters, who want to get out of the corrupt and incompetent European Union, and the E.U. swamp itself, which is trying by hook and by crook to sabotage the British exit from that particular quagmire.

Let’s put it this way: if Chris Steele is an idiot, he might not understand that the DNC was giving him a golden chance to shaft Donald J. Trump, just when Theresa May wanted to (secretly) please the E.U. swamp and thereby also get gold star points from the U.S. swamp.  Got that?  If Chris hadn’t put that Moscow pee-pee story in the “dossier,” Theresa May would never have forgiven him.

So Christopher Steele claims to be a “retired” spook, when we know damned well there is no such thing.  If a former spook gets a golden chance to manipulate U.S. politics, he will be seriously remiss in not telling the May government all about it.  And Theresa May will jump at the chance to manipulate our election, in just the way the Brits jumped at the chance to get us into WWI and WWII.  Swamp calls to swamp, you might say.

OK, so the “Russian attempt to throw the election to Trump” may actually be a British attempt (with E.U. help) to throw the election to Hillary.  This is not some weird exception to the rule.  Obama tried to throw the Israeli election to the left, last time, against Bibi Netanyahu, whom he hated on sight.

The BBC, which occasionally resorts to telling the truth, once ran a wonderful comedy show called Yes, Minister, with the running gag of the elected minister trying to manipulate his purely appointed swamp department, only to be told time and time again by the chief bureaucrat that, alas, it couldn’t be done.  Yes, Minister is probably on the web today, and it’s worth watching, because it served as a great warning that elections in the U.K. meant nothing anymore.  No matter who was elected, the swamp would prevail.

Now, the BBC is the original swamp propaganda department, always running talking points from the left and, these days, from the forces of jihad.  Things got so bad at the BBC swamp that it protected serial child abuser Jimmy Savile, who ran the most popular children’s program on the BBC, in spite of the fact that he abused hundreds of children.  The U.K. media reported the Jimmy Savile perversion only after he died.

The whole thing was shocking beyond belief, but it was consistent with jihad penetration of Europe, which we now see everywhere.  Jimmy Savile was obviously protected by the police, the intelligence services, and the upper ranks of the BBC itself.  Parents who complained to the cops received no help whatsoever.  Pakistani child-“grooming gangs” are still reported today routinely in cities like Rotherham, and they are likely to exist in many other places.  In rapefugee centers like Germany and Sweden, an increase in child and female abuse can be expected, because in shari’a law, women are second- or third-class citizens, and infidel children are celebrated targets.  The Prophet himself “married” a six-year-old, but he was kind enough to wait until she was nine to consummate the marriage.

So Europe is corrupted and suborned even beyond the standards of Washington, D.C. 

Question: Are we supposed to believe that Christopher Steele really didn’t work with his old buds in the British swamp to make up and spread that anti-Trump dossier?

The U.K. Guardian – the old Stalinist rag from those times – is now protecting Theresa May against Donald Trump’s nasty tweet.

But I’ll bet it all started with ol’ Chris Steele and the pee-pee dossier.



Source link

The Leaven of Political Football


At the pinnacle (1989-92) of Don James’s (1932-2013) football coaching career with the University of Washington Huskies, he was sabotaged by college officials from within, precisely because of political correctness.  Political correctness brought an end to the glory years of the Don James era (1975-92) which included a national championship, an Orange Bowl win over Oklahoma in 1984 that should have given the Huskies another national title, together with numerous Rose Bowl wins and many bowl appearances that racked up an impressive 10-4 postseason record.  Moreover, the political reckoning of Don James is was and is an important barometer relative to what is now sweeping the NFL as the increasing politicization of football is taking a heavy toll.  Thanks to the leaven of political correctness, the national anthem is now an apparent anathema in spite of the fact that American Football is a uniquely American sport.  If one cannot celebrate the national anthem at a distinctly American sport, can there be any real future to the NFL in America?

What started the ruckus at the UW that led to severe Pac-10 sanctions against the Huskies in the late summer of 1993 actually began in the mid 1980s over politics – from the inside before later being finished off by the outside.  Leftist UW President William Geberding became incensed when Don James introduced President Reagan at a fund raiser and then gave him a signed football to boot – pun intended.  To add insult to injury, President George Bush, Sr. later invited James to dinner at the White House. 

All of this was an affront to Gerberding who sharply reprimanded James for having the gall to mix sports with politics.  Not only was Gerberding incensed by James’s political conservatism, he was envious of his being the essential face of the school, not to mention the highest paid state employee in the state of Washington at the time.  Gerbeding’s political orientation was further insulted precisely because the UW’s athletic department was brimming with tons of cash thanks to the winning ways of Don James. 

To counteract this abomination, Gerbeding first went after Mike Lude.  Lude was Washington’s Athletic Director for many years.  He worked very closely with Don James to build Washington’s football program.  Lude’s previous background as the head coach of Colorado State University (1962-69), and then later as the Athletic Director of Kent State University, also afforded him a very respected and influential position in the NCAA. 

After Gerberding compelled Lude to share the incredible wealth he and James had brought into the UW athletic department with the rest of the school, he then forced Lude out of office in June of 1991.  This proved to be the primary catalyst that would later leave James exposed to the wolves of the NCAA, particularly at the Pac-10 level.  Pac-10 colleges were not happy watching their teams get mauled by the Husky defense.

A very inexperienced Barbara Hedges was then hired to replace Lude.  Hedges had priorities beyond developing the Husky football brand.  This became especially apparent when the Pac-10 finally came down harshly on the UW football program for what James considered to be petty violations that he initially thought would be relatively easy to overcome.  According to James, however, Hedge betrayed him and the entire football team at an emergency Pac-10 meeting in San Francisco by opting for much harsher sanctions rather than lobby for a lighter appeal.  According to other witnesses at the meeting, this decision was ostensibly made for the sake of men’s golf and women’s tennis.  Gerberding did not even attend the meeting. 

The undermining of James became very insidious in that also included Seattle’s very liberal press who were the first to dig up dirt on backup quarterback Billy Jo Hobert (that was later proved not to be illegal) but still managed to put the UW football program under the spotlight that led to other investigations.  Former 49ers coach Bill Walsh, who came to the Stanford Cardinals in 1992, went on to characterize the Huskies as a collection of outlaws and mercenaries that did not belong in the NCAA.  James was livid with Walsh’s insinuations. 

Yet after all of the investigations were completed, the primary allegations that were brought against the UW football program stemmed from the acts of California kids whom James had already dismissed from the team for being unethical.  Such manifest lawyerism, which made a Midwest law firm that specialized in NCAA violations almost one million dollars richer, together with other legalistic ticky-tack violations, which was further compounded by Hedges’s betrayal, led to the highly publicized harsh penalties leveled against the Husky football program.  James finally quit.  True to his word, James warned Hedges that if she does not appeal or lobby for a lighter sentence, he would resign. 

Hypocritically, long after the James Gang was gone, in 2006 Gerberding wrote a letter to Derek Johnson, the author of “Husky Football in the Don James Era.”  In the letter, Gerberding strongly agreed with James that the sanctions against the Huskies were far overblown.  He concluded by admitting the obvious that everyone already knew, “Don James was, of course, a great football coach.  He was also a gentleman and a fine representative of the University of Washington for 18 years.”  Today there is now a statue of James on the UW Campus recently dedicated to him.

At the dedication, future NFL Hall of Famer Warren Moon, who played for the Huskies in the late 70’s, reminisced, “After coach James left our living room and he got in his car, my mother told me: that’s where you’re going to go to school, son.  He wasn’t just a football coach that developed players. He was a football coach who developed young men.”   Here is a huge blind spot that leftist academics refuse to understand about American football – or perhaps they do all too well:  Football a not mindless sport for brutes.  If chess was to be played by real live people, it would be something akin to American football.

Neither is it a coincidence that the last truly dominating defense seen in all of football was the Husky defense of the late Don James era.  The Huskies did not merely defend, but destroyed the opposition. 

This Husky defense held the eventual all-time NFL rushing leader Emmit Smith to 17 yards in a 34-7 rout of the Florida Gators in the 1989 Freedom Bowl.  An even more powerful Husky defense derailed quarterback Todd Marinovich’s quest for the Heisman in 1990 with a 31-0 shellacking of USC.  In 1991, defensive lineman Steve Emtman was such a dominating force on the gridiron that he not only won the Lombardi Trophy, the Outland Trophy, the UPI Lineman of the Year together with the Pac-10 defensive player of the year, but incredibly, he also finished fourth in the Heisman race. 

In the 1992 Rose Bowl, retired Wolverine Coach Bo Schembechler (1929-2006) was shocked by the power of the Husky defense as he commented from the sidelines that no one pushes around a Michigan offensive line like that.   Even the depleted Husky defense of 1994 under Coach Jim Lambright, James’s successor and loyal defensive coordinator for many years, stuffed the Miami Hurricanes that ended their 58 home game winning streak dating all the way back to 1985 – with future NFL defensive Hall of Famers Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp looking on with envy.

The toothless defenses seen on the NFL gridiron today are most certainly the outworking of political correctness that began from within, but is now being taken over from the outside as professional football seems far more concerned about politics in general than playing football.  In 1978, politically correct rules leavened the game in a big way to favor offenses over defenses.  Certain NFL owners and coaches were tired of trying to fight their way through the Steel Curtain and other extremely tough defenses in order to earn their way into the Superbowl.  Claiming the game needed more excitement and entertainment to match the NFL’s growing inroads into Hollywood TV, they began to defang defenses by over-regulating them.  While the Raiders, Bears, Giants, and 49ers kept the defensive emphasis afloat during the 1980’s, the 1990’s saw its eventual demise with only an occasional strong defense seen since.  Now, such anti-defensive measures are touted even more for the safety of the game.

Today, nobody fears defenses.  This is a far cry from John Elway’s 1983 baptism into the NFL when he looked over at the remnants of Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain with a toothless Jack Lambert growling at him.  This is what the NFL used to be all about – competition in the face of intimidation and danger – the kind of drama that has all but disappeared.  Today’s NFL is technocratic, slick, and full of glitz, but increasingly hollow of character and short on drama.  The NFL is now a pass happy basketball kind of game full of short passes and cheap touchdowns together with quarterback and receiver records that mean very little since they cannot be compared to other eras, particularly to the Super Seventies. 

In the 1970s, NFL fans were routinely presented with divisional playoffs, championship games, and Superbowls that were chock full of great competitive drama as the best teams on both sides of the ball collided against each other.  Because of the fierce competition between the offenses and defenses, even the best quarterbacks of that era seldom had more touchdowns than interceptions in any given year.  Moreover, most NFL teams had an exciting and outstanding running back that today is in short supply.  Today, super fullbacks like Larry Csonka are essentially out of a job since fullbacks are virtually non-existent.

The Super Seventies were also full of colorful coaches epitomized best by John Madden.  Madden’s rebel Raiders played three of the best games ever been played in NFL history – all of which were Divisional Playoff games.   First, there was the 1972 “Immaculate Reception” game where Franco Harris of the Steelers stole the win from the Raiders in the waning seconds of the game.  Jack Tatum’s bone-crushing hit that almost blew up the football itself, shot off of Fuqua’s chest like a cannon before implausibly popping into the hands of Harris with no one in front of him to stop him from scampering into the end zone.  Second, there was the classic 1974 “Sea of Hands” game against Miami that ended the Dolphins fourth straight drive to the Superbowl.  Third, there was the 1977 “Ghost to the Post” game that derailed the upstart Baltimore Colts – one of the longest NFL games ever played.

Such was the football drama of the Super Seventies that is today long gone as political correctness, legalism, and lawyerism now dominate the game.  All of this is turning into one big concussion for the fans that goes beyond the Kaepernick antics so that fewer people care much about the game anymore.  These days, Hollywood no longer cares even about entertainment – only politics.  This makes the NFL’s relationship to Hollywood even more insidious than before precisely because Tinseltown and Broadway demand political correctness as the first order of business.  Americans, who are already bombarded with the madness of politics 24-7, do not want to be subjected to it again on Sundays at a football game – a recipe for fewer fans and ticket sales to say the very least.

 

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

At the pinnacle (1989-92) of Don James’s (1932-2013) football coaching career with the University of Washington Huskies, he was sabotaged by college officials from within, precisely because of political correctness.  Political correctness brought an end to the glory years of the Don James era (1975-92) which included a national championship, an Orange Bowl win over Oklahoma in 1984 that should have given the Huskies another national title, together with numerous Rose Bowl wins and many bowl appearances that racked up an impressive 10-4 postseason record.  Moreover, the political reckoning of Don James is was and is an important barometer relative to what is now sweeping the NFL as the increasing politicization of football is taking a heavy toll.  Thanks to the leaven of political correctness, the national anthem is now an apparent anathema in spite of the fact that American Football is a uniquely American sport.  If one cannot celebrate the national anthem at a distinctly American sport, can there be any real future to the NFL in America?

What started the ruckus at the UW that led to severe Pac-10 sanctions against the Huskies in the late summer of 1993 actually began in the mid 1980s over politics – from the inside before later being finished off by the outside.  Leftist UW President William Geberding became incensed when Don James introduced President Reagan at a fund raiser and then gave him a signed football to boot – pun intended.  To add insult to injury, President George Bush, Sr. later invited James to dinner at the White House. 

All of this was an affront to Gerberding who sharply reprimanded James for having the gall to mix sports with politics.  Not only was Gerberding incensed by James’s political conservatism, he was envious of his being the essential face of the school, not to mention the highest paid state employee in the state of Washington at the time.  Gerbeding’s political orientation was further insulted precisely because the UW’s athletic department was brimming with tons of cash thanks to the winning ways of Don James. 

To counteract this abomination, Gerbeding first went after Mike Lude.  Lude was Washington’s Athletic Director for many years.  He worked very closely with Don James to build Washington’s football program.  Lude’s previous background as the head coach of Colorado State University (1962-69), and then later as the Athletic Director of Kent State University, also afforded him a very respected and influential position in the NCAA. 

After Gerberding compelled Lude to share the incredible wealth he and James had brought into the UW athletic department with the rest of the school, he then forced Lude out of office in June of 1991.  This proved to be the primary catalyst that would later leave James exposed to the wolves of the NCAA, particularly at the Pac-10 level.  Pac-10 colleges were not happy watching their teams get mauled by the Husky defense.

A very inexperienced Barbara Hedges was then hired to replace Lude.  Hedges had priorities beyond developing the Husky football brand.  This became especially apparent when the Pac-10 finally came down harshly on the UW football program for what James considered to be petty violations that he initially thought would be relatively easy to overcome.  According to James, however, Hedge betrayed him and the entire football team at an emergency Pac-10 meeting in San Francisco by opting for much harsher sanctions rather than lobby for a lighter appeal.  According to other witnesses at the meeting, this decision was ostensibly made for the sake of men’s golf and women’s tennis.  Gerberding did not even attend the meeting. 

The undermining of James became very insidious in that also included Seattle’s very liberal press who were the first to dig up dirt on backup quarterback Billy Jo Hobert (that was later proved not to be illegal) but still managed to put the UW football program under the spotlight that led to other investigations.  Former 49ers coach Bill Walsh, who came to the Stanford Cardinals in 1992, went on to characterize the Huskies as a collection of outlaws and mercenaries that did not belong in the NCAA.  James was livid with Walsh’s insinuations. 

Yet after all of the investigations were completed, the primary allegations that were brought against the UW football program stemmed from the acts of California kids whom James had already dismissed from the team for being unethical.  Such manifest lawyerism, which made a Midwest law firm that specialized in NCAA violations almost one million dollars richer, together with other legalistic ticky-tack violations, which was further compounded by Hedges’s betrayal, led to the highly publicized harsh penalties leveled against the Husky football program.  James finally quit.  True to his word, James warned Hedges that if she does not appeal or lobby for a lighter sentence, he would resign. 

Hypocritically, long after the James Gang was gone, in 2006 Gerberding wrote a letter to Derek Johnson, the author of “Husky Football in the Don James Era.”  In the letter, Gerberding strongly agreed with James that the sanctions against the Huskies were far overblown.  He concluded by admitting the obvious that everyone already knew, “Don James was, of course, a great football coach.  He was also a gentleman and a fine representative of the University of Washington for 18 years.”  Today there is now a statue of James on the UW Campus recently dedicated to him.

At the dedication, future NFL Hall of Famer Warren Moon, who played for the Huskies in the late 70’s, reminisced, “After coach James left our living room and he got in his car, my mother told me: that’s where you’re going to go to school, son.  He wasn’t just a football coach that developed players. He was a football coach who developed young men.”   Here is a huge blind spot that leftist academics refuse to understand about American football – or perhaps they do all too well:  Football a not mindless sport for brutes.  If chess was to be played by real live people, it would be something akin to American football.

Neither is it a coincidence that the last truly dominating defense seen in all of football was the Husky defense of the late Don James era.  The Huskies did not merely defend, but destroyed the opposition. 

This Husky defense held the eventual all-time NFL rushing leader Emmit Smith to 17 yards in a 34-7 rout of the Florida Gators in the 1989 Freedom Bowl.  An even more powerful Husky defense derailed quarterback Todd Marinovich’s quest for the Heisman in 1990 with a 31-0 shellacking of USC.  In 1991, defensive lineman Steve Emtman was such a dominating force on the gridiron that he not only won the Lombardi Trophy, the Outland Trophy, the UPI Lineman of the Year together with the Pac-10 defensive player of the year, but incredibly, he also finished fourth in the Heisman race. 

In the 1992 Rose Bowl, retired Wolverine Coach Bo Schembechler (1929-2006) was shocked by the power of the Husky defense as he commented from the sidelines that no one pushes around a Michigan offensive line like that.   Even the depleted Husky defense of 1994 under Coach Jim Lambright, James’s successor and loyal defensive coordinator for many years, stuffed the Miami Hurricanes that ended their 58 home game winning streak dating all the way back to 1985 – with future NFL defensive Hall of Famers Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp looking on with envy.

The toothless defenses seen on the NFL gridiron today are most certainly the outworking of political correctness that began from within, but is now being taken over from the outside as professional football seems far more concerned about politics in general than playing football.  In 1978, politically correct rules leavened the game in a big way to favor offenses over defenses.  Certain NFL owners and coaches were tired of trying to fight their way through the Steel Curtain and other extremely tough defenses in order to earn their way into the Superbowl.  Claiming the game needed more excitement and entertainment to match the NFL’s growing inroads into Hollywood TV, they began to defang defenses by over-regulating them.  While the Raiders, Bears, Giants, and 49ers kept the defensive emphasis afloat during the 1980’s, the 1990’s saw its eventual demise with only an occasional strong defense seen since.  Now, such anti-defensive measures are touted even more for the safety of the game.

Today, nobody fears defenses.  This is a far cry from John Elway’s 1983 baptism into the NFL when he looked over at the remnants of Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain with a toothless Jack Lambert growling at him.  This is what the NFL used to be all about – competition in the face of intimidation and danger – the kind of drama that has all but disappeared.  Today’s NFL is technocratic, slick, and full of glitz, but increasingly hollow of character and short on drama.  The NFL is now a pass happy basketball kind of game full of short passes and cheap touchdowns together with quarterback and receiver records that mean very little since they cannot be compared to other eras, particularly to the Super Seventies. 

In the 1970s, NFL fans were routinely presented with divisional playoffs, championship games, and Superbowls that were chock full of great competitive drama as the best teams on both sides of the ball collided against each other.  Because of the fierce competition between the offenses and defenses, even the best quarterbacks of that era seldom had more touchdowns than interceptions in any given year.  Moreover, most NFL teams had an exciting and outstanding running back that today is in short supply.  Today, super fullbacks like Larry Csonka are essentially out of a job since fullbacks are virtually non-existent.

The Super Seventies were also full of colorful coaches epitomized best by John Madden.  Madden’s rebel Raiders played three of the best games ever been played in NFL history – all of which were Divisional Playoff games.   First, there was the 1972 “Immaculate Reception” game where Franco Harris of the Steelers stole the win from the Raiders in the waning seconds of the game.  Jack Tatum’s bone-crushing hit that almost blew up the football itself, shot off of Fuqua’s chest like a cannon before implausibly popping into the hands of Harris with no one in front of him to stop him from scampering into the end zone.  Second, there was the classic 1974 “Sea of Hands” game against Miami that ended the Dolphins fourth straight drive to the Superbowl.  Third, there was the 1977 “Ghost to the Post” game that derailed the upstart Baltimore Colts – one of the longest NFL games ever played.

Such was the football drama of the Super Seventies that is today long gone as political correctness, legalism, and lawyerism now dominate the game.  All of this is turning into one big concussion for the fans that goes beyond the Kaepernick antics so that fewer people care much about the game anymore.  These days, Hollywood no longer cares even about entertainment – only politics.  This makes the NFL’s relationship to Hollywood even more insidious than before precisely because Tinseltown and Broadway demand political correctness as the first order of business.  Americans, who are already bombarded with the madness of politics 24-7, do not want to be subjected to it again on Sundays at a football game – a recipe for fewer fans and ticket sales to say the very least.

 

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link