Exploitation is her middle name

By Jim Campbell

June 19th, 2018

Seriously, if her parents would have had an inclination that she would turn out to be among the most infamous female psychopaths in U.S. History they could have warned us.

This harridan makes a text-book example for the Constitutional Amendment allowing abortion in Roe V. Wade.

The DSM-5 describes psychopaths as being callous and showing a lack of empathy, traits which  describes as “cold heartedness.”

The criteria for psychopathic personality disorder include a “callous unconcern for the feelings of others.”

There are now several lines of evidence that point to the biological grounding for the uncaring nature of the psychopath. For us, caring is a largely emotion-driven enterprise.

There is an incongruity in classifying her as a classical psychopath.

What is it?

It’s the clear demonstration that she is in love with money, particularly those considered ill-gotten gains!



The brains of psychopaths have been found to have weak connections among the components of the brain’s emotional systems.

These disconnects are responsible for the psychopath’s inability to feel emotions deeply



“Never let a crisis go to waste,” the Clintonista Rahm Emanuel once said.

Hillary Clinton is very concerned about what’s happening on the southern border, and despite not being a candidate for anything (yet), she wants Americans to give her money to do something about it. (Sure she is !)

Hillary as a young girl.


The failed Democratic candidate for president sent a fundraising email this afternoon to supporters, asking them to donate to her organization so it can exploit the “humanitarian crisis” she says is being created by “Trump’s immigration policies.”

For those of you who agree with Hillary, here’s the complete text on President Trumps vision of Immigration Reform. (Source)

If the reader still believes Hillary, please ask yourself what part of “Illegal,” don’t you understand?

Canada Free Press

By Kyle Olson

June 19th, 2018

She writes:

What’s happening to families at the border right now is horrific: Nursing infants ripped away from their mothers.

Parents told their toddlers are being taken to bathe or play, only to realize hours later that they aren’t coming back.

Children incarcerated in warehouses and, according to more than one account, kept in cages. This is a moral and humanitarian crisis.

Everyone of us who has ever held a child in their arms, and every human being with a sense of compassion and decency should be outraged.

Even as I warned this could happen on the campaign trail, that Trump’s immigration policies would result in families being separated, parents being sent away from their children, people rounded up on trains and buses, I hoped it would never come to be.

But now, as we watch with broken hearts, that’s exactly what’s happening.

We can be heartbroken, but we shouldn’t be hopeless.

There’s something you can do to help.

Clinton goes on to ask supporters to donate to her organization, Onward Together, so it can in turn give money to organizations, such as the ACLU, as well as others, like “Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project,” and “La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE).”



“I still believe in the vision we share for our country, and I won’t let scared children become victims of partisan politics.

Alongside the organizations that Onward Together partners with, we can and will elect politicians and enact legislation to protect the most vulnerable among us — but first, we have to address the urgent needs of families at the center of this crisis,” Clinton writes.

Hillary has claimed she won’t run for president a third time in 2020.



Continue reading

Posted in Exploitation is her middle name | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

How much do we know about Operation Crossfire Hurricane?: Up to date investigation into the Mueller’s Investigation

By Jim Campbell

June 18th, 2018

The struggle to uncover the FBI’s conduct in the Trump-Russia probe has made some congressional investigators deeply suspicious of the bureau.

But what do those investigators think the FBI actually did in its investigation of the Trump campaign, Russia, and the 2016 election?



The Democrats most involved named their operation  Crossfire Hurricane after the Rolling Stones hit, Jumping Jack Flash.



First, they’re convinced the FBI has something to hide.

In the last 12 months, the bureau has, at various times, ignored, and slowed down the entire process by refusing to turn over unredacted documents the FBI possessed that President Trumps attorneys needed to plan their legal approach.

What do Republicans suspect really happened in the FBI Trump-Russia investigation?



The struggle to uncover the FBI’s conduct in the Trump-Russia probe has made some congressional investigators deeply suspicious of the bureau. But what do those investigators think the FBI actually did in its investigation of the Trump campaign, Russia, and the 2016 election?

First, they’re convinced the FBI has something to hide. In the last 12 months, the bureau has, at various times, ignored, slow-walked, resisted, and downright stonewalled congressional requests, not to mention subpoenas, for information on the Trump-Russia investigation.

Each time the bureau hunkered down, suspicion grew on Capitol Hill. The FBI seemed particularly reluctant to reveal to Congress not what Russians did, or what people in the Trump circle did, but what the bureau itself did.

When did the investigation start?

How did it start?

What measures did the FBI, and its lawyers, and its informants employ? Getting facts out of the FBI has been a long and arduous task.

First to cause serious suspicion was the Trump dossier.

Eyebrows were raised when investigators learned that the FBI, at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, offered to hire a former British spy who was collecting allegations about Trump and Russia.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., pushed for information.

Among other things, he learned that the former British spy, well-connected with the FBI, was paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

That apparently did not matter to the bureau.

Then Nunes and others wondered: What did the bureau do wth the sensational allegations in the dossier?

That gave birth to the so-called “FISA abuse” investigation, when Republicans looked into whether the FBI used unverified allegations from the Trump dossier in proceedings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

It turned out the FBI did just that, to win a wiretap on Carter Page, who for a short time was a volunteer on candidate Trump’s foreign policy advisory board.

Congressional investigators came away with the impression that the FBI was hiding something. It was.

Now, Congress is trying to get information about the informant(s) the FBI used in the Trump-Russia probe, and precisely what those informants did.

As part of that line of inquiry, investigators have discovered a number of times in which Trump figures were approached, sometimes by people with FBI connections, with offers of derogatory information on Clinton.

Each incident was before the FBI says it began the Trump-Russia investigation, code name Crossfire Hurricane, on July 31, 2016.  (Below)


Starting in late May or early June 2016, a Cambridge University professor named Stefan Halper, who was a longtime FBI informant, contacted Page, and also Trump campaign official Sam Clovis, and finally Trump volunteer adviser George Papadopoulos, seeking contacts and information on the campaign.

The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross has reported that Halper “randomly asked Papadopoulos whether he knew about Democratic National Committee emails that had been hacked and leaked by Russians.”

In early June 2016, a Russian lawyer who was working closely with the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which had commissioned the Trump dossier, asked for and received a meeting with top Trump campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., by promising dirt on Clinton.

The meeting came to nothing.

In late May 2016, a Russian who had apparently been an FBI informant for years contacted an associate of Trump campaign official Michael Caputo, and later met with Trump figure Roger Stone, reportedly offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Stone told the Washington Post the Russian asked for $2 million, and the meeting went nowhere. The Russian said he was not working for the FBI when he met Stone.

Stone has on a variety of occasions denied he met with any Russians during the campaign — so take that into account when considering his credibility.

The problem for congressional investigators is that the probe has become a two-front battle: dealing with the un-trust worthiness of some of the figures in the investigation while also fighting the FBI to learn the basic facts of what happened.

Lawmakers would not be shocked that Roger Stone might lie to them.

But they expect the FBI to be open and transparent with constitutionally-empowered oversight committees.

The bottom line is that some Republicans are wondering whether in the above instances, and perhaps others, someone actively tried to frame, or entrap, or set up, Trump figures.

And those Republicans wonder whether the FBI knew about it or played some sort of role in it.

In short, there is suspicion that the FBI might have abused its tremendous powers in a highly politicized investigation undertaken in the middle of a presidential campaign.

The suspicions are behind the House move to force the FBI to give up information. Last Friday evening, top House lawmakers, including Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., met with bureau and Justice Department officials to demand compliance with House subpoenas.

They gave the FBI a tight deadline to produce the subpoenaed information or face serious retaliation, like contempt proceedings, from the House.

Some Republicans believe the FBI will, finally, comply.

Maybe that will happen, and maybe it won’t.

But the only thing that can reduce suspicion in the current atmosphere is more openness.



Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Supreme Court rules against Wisconsin Democrats in gerrymandering case, punts on how to draw district map: Why it matters

By Jim Campbell

June 18th, 2018

The term, gerrymandering sounds quite boring to be sure.

What follows is an explanation on how it effects the vote.

This would be a states rights issue.

A “Political Ruling,” by partisan judges would have caused chaos in our currently woeful voting system

The United States Supreme Court was right to punt on this on even though it didn’t help Republicans in this instance.


Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome.

A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged.


Otherwise, the court will rule that you “lack standing” to bring the suit and dismiss your case.

There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:

  1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.
  2. Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.
  3. Re-dressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury. (Source)

The Washington Examiner

by Melissa Quinn

June 18, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against Wisconsin Democrats by sending a gerrymandering case challenging the legislative map drawn by Republicans in the state back to the district court.

Justices said the plaintiffs in the case, Wisconsin Democratic voters, did not have standing to bring the case.

The court did not dismiss the case, but sent it back to the district court “so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence, unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far, that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their votes.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the other seven justices that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing.

**For those who don’t know the player without a score care, Justice Gorsuch is standing on the right with Justice Thomas sitting in front of him to his right.



However, they said they would have dismissed the case instead of sending it back to the district court.

Monday’s opinion was released alongside a decision in a second partisan gerrymandering case involving Maryland voters who challenged a single congressional district, the lines of which were drawn by state Democrats.

In both cases, the justices declined to put forth a workable standard for addressing claims of partisan gerrymandering, and instead punted on that larger question.

For more than 10 years, the justices have been stumped by how to address claims involving the partisanship involved in the redistricting process.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Democratic voters after state Republican lawmakers created and enacted a redistricting plan after the 2010 census.





Continue reading

Posted in punts on how to draw district map: Why it matters | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Merkle’s Immigration policy against allowing Muslims into Germany isn’t sitting well with Germany’s Citizens


By Jim Campbell

June 17, 2918


The EU and Germany may be dying and it’s time Angela Merkle fall on her sward.

She has walked on the high wire for far too long without a net, and this may be signaling the end.



Will that make any difference and the Muslim vermin seize control over Germany as they have when they have taken over peace-loving countries in Western Europe?

What could possibly go wrong with Merkle’s plan?



Gates of Vienna

By Dymphna

June 17th, 2018


Dr. Turley thinks the whole globalist dream is Humpty Dumpty – or at least, it soon could be ol’ HD:

He seems to be saying that the German people’s rejection of open borders may well cause Mutti Merkel to be strapped into her rocking chair for a well-deserved rest.

Further, if her coalition fails, then ultimately so does the globalist, multi-cultural project known as the Europe Union.

And a lone woman spoke

Perhaps it’s too early to break out the champagne, but certainly, it’s time to order a bottle before supplies run out.

Or maybe some Rhine wine would be more appropriate?

Or, if you don’t imbibe, at least have some sauerkraut; it’s also fermented.

Meanwhile, think how nice it will be to use the past tense when describing the over-reach of the EU.

It’ll be just as much fun as saying “Former President Obama” or “failed candidate Hillary Clinton.”

It can’t come too soon, though, for the Germans who have died under Merkel’s Madness; for those tragedies and for their families, it will always be too late.




Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Defining Completely Normal

By Jim Campbell

June 17th 2018

At least during his career as life insurance for Obama Vice President Biden was already known for making inappropriate moves/molesting older women.

Now he has clearly run amok.



Note, nothing can stop him, he’s playing “Huggy Body.” with his wife in the same picture.




It’s not too late Joe, turn yourself in.

P.S. Stay off the Viagra.



Then again, going to prison for rape will allow you to make new friends and the word is out you will be in the same cell as Bubba.



But it wasn’t a big turnout.

Only one kid came.

She came prepared and got away unharmed, no worries.


fortnite party joe

H/T to Earl for the above Image.

Continue reading

Posted in Defining Completely Normal | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Perjury is a crime against justice

By Jim Campbell

June 17, 2018

The over-riding question here, is that if an individual voluntarily comes before congress to testify can he avoid charges of perjury if they are found to have perjured themselves.

According to legal precedent they can be guilty of perjury because they have committed a crime against  “Justice.” (Source)

The Washington Examiner


The top FBI agent explicitly named throughout the recent Justice Department inspector general report as having anti-Trump bias will voluntarily go before Congress.



In a letter sent Saturday and made public Sunday to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the lawyer for Peter Strzok says he will voluntarily appear and testify before the panel, and “any other Congressional committee that invites him.”

Aitan Goelman said the idea that Strzok would have to be subpoenaed to appear is “wholly unnecessary.”

As your president I don’t have time to play games, I have real work that must be done.
Politico reported Goodlatte, R-Va., had started the process at the end of the week to subpoena Strzok.

Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence officer, worked in a senior role on both the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Strzok was removed from the Mueller probe after it was discovered he and his mistress, a former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, exchanged anti-Trump, pro-Clinton messages.

Texts — many of which were already made public before Thursday’s IG report — between the two included their thoughts about the 2016 presidential election, and harsh criticisms of then-candidate Trump, calling him words like “idiot,” ”loathsome,” ”menace” and “disaster.”

The IG made public a newer, more inflammatory text where Page wrote to Strzok in August 2016: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”




Strzok responded: “No. No he won’t.

We’ll stop it.”

If that isn’t an admission of guilt, what is?

The IG concluded that Strzok’s text, along with other disparaging messages, “is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.”

The text messages “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the IG report said

The inspector general, Michael Horowitz, referred his findings on Strzok to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility for possible disciplinary measures.

“Every witness asked by the OIG said that Strzok’s work was never influenced by political views,” Goelman said in a Thursday statement.

It is not immediately clear if Strzok will appear before a joint hearing of the Judiciary and House Oversight committees Tuesday morning. So far, Horowitz is scheduled to appear.



Continue reading

Posted in perjury is a crime against Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Any question why he was called “Meat Head” and always will be

By Jim Campbell

June 17, 2018

Rob Reiner is quick with sound bytes yet likely knows little about that which he speaks.

A Hillary Clinton suck up Reiner tells us how liberals are more open-minded than Republicans.

Yep, please call when you can tell me anything the liberal agenda has had legislation signed into law that was good for all Americans.



He still bloviates calling the President Trump  being a racist.

Reiner is still battling his own version of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, perhaps he should be removed from society before he really blows his cork and is taken in advance to a home for the criminally insane.

Reiner and his ilk are so blind that are incapable of giving the Trump administration for their accomplishment in a year and a half which has totally eclipsed the Obama’s attempted taking the U.S. economy into the financial abyss.



June 17, 2018

Director Rob Reiner denounced Robert De Niro and other celebrities for their remarks against President Trump, saying it only helps the president.

During an exclusive interview with The Hill’s new TV show “Rising,” which aired on Wednesday, Reiner addressed the controversy surrounding actor Robert De Niro’s “F—Trump” speech during the Tony Awards on Sunday.

De Niro called the president a “f—ing idiot” and a “f—ing fool,” which was met with a standing ovation.


“You’re helping Trump by saying ‘F— Trump,’ because he can say ‘look at these people, these elitists,’ ” Reiner told “Rising” co-hosts Krystal Ball and Buck Sexton.

Reiner doesn’t disagree.



Reiner said he thinks celebrities are ultimately hurting Democrats when they go on expletive-ridden rants against Trump.

“There’s a very fine line between energizing the base and energizing the other side,” Reiner said.



Trump responded to De Niro’s rant two days later, saying the Academy Award-winning actor was “a very Low IQ individual” and suggesting he had “received too many shots to the head,” in his roles playing boxers.

This isn’t the first time De Niro has criticized the president.

The actor is one of Trump’s harshest critics in Hollywood. 

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, De Niro called Trump “an idiot” and said he’d like to “punch him in the face.”



Bring it moron, all we are hearing is your jaws wagging.




Continue reading

Posted in Any question why he was called "Meat Head" and always will be | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments