Liberals show their tendency to threaten our freedoms

Democrat Ted Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’

In a recent CNN interview that was subsequently reported in a 12 December 2018 Washington Times article, Democrat Ted Lieu revealed his dictatorial tendencies.

Rep. Ted Lieu told CNN on Wednesday that his desire to regulate speech is only thwarted by the U.S. Constitution.

An interview on Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s testimony before lawmakers with House Judiciary Committee took a tyrannical turn when the California Democrat expressed his “love” for the idea of controlling free speech.

The moment happened after host Brianna Keilar asked if Mr. Lieu failed to “press” Google’s CEO on Tuesday regarding the company’s vulnerabilities to “outside interference.”

“It’s a very good point you make,” Mr. Lieu replied. “I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don’t get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech.”
Viewers on The Washington Free Beacon’s YouTube channel were stunned at the lawmaker’s admission.

(Read more at Washington Times)

This remotely sounds like Barack Obama before he decided to circumvent immigration law by creating DAPA and DACA.

Thankfully, we have been saved from the effects of DAPA and hopefully will see the demise of DACA. Nonetheless, you have to wonder if Rep. Lieu will make a move on the freedom of speech now that the Democrats have the House.


Project Dragonfly

Google denies its partnership with the repressive government of China to repress free speech

Report: Google Hasn’t Halted ‘Project Dragonfly,’ Continues to Devote ‘Substantial’ Resources

As a possible preview of the free-speech-killing acts available to Democrats, Breitbart reports in a 12 December 2018 article (at least in the title) how Google may be hiding the development of a tool that the government of China may use to direct searches.

In an article, Wednesday, the Verge analyzed Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s comments about Project Dragonfly, Google’s censored Chinese search app project, during his hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

The Verge reported that though Pichai claimed there are “no plans” to “launch a search product in China,” the company is indeed still working on the project.

“[Pichai] made it clear that, whether the company currently has ‘plans’ to launch the product, Google certainly hasn’t halted work completely,” declared the Verge. “In fact, it has continued to devote substantial resources to the project. While saying the effort was ‘limited,’ Pichai at one point said Google had devoted about 100 people to it, although The Intercept has reported the number is closer to 300.”

During the hearing, Pichai repeatedly denied Google’s intentions to launch Project Dragonfly in China, after Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) asked multiple questions about the project.

After Marino then asked, “Am I then to understand you have no plans to enter into any agreements with China concerning Google, how it’s used, in China?” Pichai replied, “We currently do not have a Search product there… Right now there are no plans to launch a Search product in China.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Considering the times Google has been caught lying about its censorship of conservative videographers, lying about conservative cancer survivors, lying to Congress about the bias built into its search engine, lying about meddling in the campaign of Rep. Blackburn, and caught in many other lying events — something tells me not to trust them here.

Lies from Islam and from the left on behalf of Islam

The 2017 London Bridge Islamist attacks

 The AP reinvents the reality of the London Bridge attack on 1st anniversary

The Associated Press reports in a 3 June 2018 article how the United Kingdom has come together on the one-year anniversary of the London Bridge Islamist attack. (Emphasis is mine.)

British Prime Minister Theresa May joined survivors, victims’ families and emergency workers at a memorial service Sunday to mark a year since a deadly vehicle-and-knife attack brought terror to London Bridge on a warm Saturday night.

Eight people were killed and almost 50 injured when three Islamic State group-inspired extremists ran down pedestrians on the bridge, then stabbed people at packed bars and restaurants in nearby Borough Market, one of London’s main foodie hubs. The three attackers were shot dead by police within minutes.

The rampage came two weeks after a bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester Arena that killed 22 people.

More than 700 people gathered Sunday inside the centuries-old Southwark Cathedral, nestled between the bridge and the market on the lively south bank of the River Thames.

Dean of Southwark Andrew Nunn said he hoped the service of remembrance “helps our healing.”

“Love is stronger than hate. Light is stronger than darkness. Life is stronger than death,” he said. “It was true a year ago. It is as true today.”

After the service, families of the dead planted an olive tree on the cathedral grounds, using compost made from floral tributes left by mourners after the attack.

May, London Mayor Sadiq Khan and some of the injured laid flowers beside the bridge before a national minute of silence at 4:30 p.m. The words #LondonUnited were due to be projected onto the bridge at dusk.

The London Bridge carnage was one of a string of attacks in Britain in 2017 involving Islamic or far-right extremists that killed 36 people in all.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

So, even though only Islamic men in Islamic garb took ceramic knives and various other weapons during this and similar melees across Britain in 2017, now the AP wants to have non-participants share the blame with the participating Islamists. Maybe the AP thinks that, if the “far right” had not resisted the Islamists, then everything would just be hunky-dory and no killings would have happened at the hands of the Islamists.

Odd thing is that, in the rest of the Western world, we hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions (and not a second or third party). This is based on a concept that began in the Bible where “(t)he one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekial 18: 20 NASB).

AP calls self preservation from Islamists “far right”

“A dream of uniting UK soccer fans swerves to the far right

In another Associated Press article, the reporter characterizes the self-preservative instinct of Britons as a “far-right” resistance to Islam.

John Meighan had a dream.

A property manager and fan of the soccer team Tottenham Hotspur, he envisioned a group bringing together working-class people who felt excluded from political influence — to stand up in opposition, not to Muslims or Islam, but to extremism. They would be people like himself, fans with a passion for their teams and, in many cases, a fondness for a fight. He would cajole them to set aside team rivalries, put down their fists and march through London as an expression of anger and defiance against zealotry.

At the first demonstration of Meighan’s Football Lads Alliance, 10,000 people marched to protest several bloody weeks in which Islamic extremists had attacked British cities with vehicles, knives and a bomb — the deadliest assaults on the nation in more than a decade.

The FLA drew little notice. But several months later, a second Football Lads march swelled to 50,000 demonstrators, and Tommy Robinson was among them. A seasoned anti-Muslim street agitator and far-right media star, he filmed himself praising the group as standing “against Islam.”

“I think we’re seeing the birth today of a huge organization in the U.K.,” Robinson predicted.

And so Meighan’s dream began to lose its luster. His group — formed during a particularly fractured time in British politics and society — soon was yanked into the orbit of the far-right. Its members-only Facebook page grew to 65,000 members, some of whom shared anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic and racist cartoons and posts attacking Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela and London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan.

The FLA emerged during an unstable time, not long after Britain’s 2016 vote to leave the European Union, which was fueled by concerns about immigration and a sense Britain had lost control of its borders. The group’s aims, supposedly directed against extremism, dovetailed with the ideas of the country’s growing far-right culture — a potent mix of nationalism, anti-Muslim prejudice and conspiracy theories that thrives online.

The far right was energized by the brutal attacks that hit Britain in the spring of 2017. In March, a Muslim convert mowed down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge before stabbing a police officer to death outside Parliament. In May, a Libyan-British suicide bomber attacked crowds leaving an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, killing 22 people, many of them teenage girls. Two weeks later, three young men inspired by the Islamic State group killed eight people by driving a rented van into pedestrians crossing London Bridge and then attacking passers-by with knives.

That bloodshed had been the final straw for Meighan, a soft-spoken, red-haired man who likes to wear Lacoste sweaters, button-down shirts, tartan scarves and tweed caps — uniform of the clothes-conscious brand of football fan known as a “casual.”

The group had barred flag-waving, chanting and pre-march drinking — for many, essential parts of football fandom. “We didn’t want to be stereotyped,” Meighan said.

He saw the peaceful march as a vindication, proof that often-maligned football fans could have a voice — could do something, “rather than beating the crap out of one another.”

At first, the FLA claimed to be “inclusive and acceptable to all colors, creeds, faiths and religions,” and laid out deliberately broad goals. Its website spoke of “making a safer environment and community for all of our children and grandchildren,” and its proposals sounded modest — tougher police action, better intelligence, curbs on hate preachers, more controls on terrorism suspects.

Meighan said racists were “moderated out” of its Facebook group.

Hope Not Hate, a group that monitors the far right, said the FLA initially “made a genuine attempt to ensure that it was not a racist group and tried to focus on Islamist extremists, rather than Islam in general.”

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Here, the Associated Press figures “The far right was energized by the brutal attacks that hit Britain in the spring of 2017.” Never mind that 37 people were murdered by people yelling “Allahu Akbar” during an Islamic holiday where leaders encourage Muslims to struggle against the world. Never mind that. In the minds of the AP, this violence is not due to the obvious, but to far-right extremism.

Slovenians turn back the Islamic wave at the border – the AP calls it anti-immigrant

In a 3 June 2018 Associated Press article, the AP characterizes a Slovenian vote as anti-immigrant.

A right-wing opposition party led by a former Slovenian prime minister won the most votes in Slovenia’s parliamentary election Sunday, but not enough to form a government on its own, according to preliminary results.

The State Election Commission said after counting some 90 percent of the ballots that Janez Jansa’s Slovenian Democratic Party received around 25 percent of the vote. The anti-establishment List of Marjan Sarec trailed in second place with over 12 percent.

The Social Democrats, the Modern Center Party of the outgoing prime minister, Miro Cerar, and the Left all received around 9 percent.

The preliminary tally means no party secured a majority in Slovenia’s 90-member parliament, and the likely next step is negotiations to form a coalition government.

Slovenia was once part of the former Yugoslavia and is the native home of U.S. first lady Melania Trump. Bordering Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Italy and a slice of the Adriatic Sea, the country joined the European Union in 2004 and has used the euro as its official currency since 2007.

Jansa, who served as prime minister during 2004-2008 and 2012-2013, said at a press conference that his party is ready for postelection talks with other parliamentary parties.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Again, the AP seems to have forgotten the attacks and threats across Europe during the recent past. Moreover, the AP seems to be ignoring the war that occurred in the former Yugoslavia between Islamic and Christian factions. Could they even be so dense as to ignore a struggle that had been going on since Islam crossed Greece? They will only if you let them.

How Islamists tortured a Christian for his faith

Conversely, a 4 June 2018 Clarion Project report shared the account of Majed el-Shafie, who has been tortured for his Christian faith.

Meet Majed el-Shafie. He is the founder and president of One Free World International, a humanitarian aid organization that helps minorities across the world including the Christian community. He currently lives in Canada, but his origins and roots lie elsewhere.

He grew up Muslim in Egypt and became interested in Christianity while in university studying law. He started looking into Christianity specifically because the Copts were so discriminated against and persecuted in Egypt.

As he says, “It is my opinion that you don’t torture or persecute somebody unless you are afraid of the truth that they carry.”

Majed eventually decided to act on his convictions and converted to Christianity. However, this choice was not without its consequences.

He was arrested by the government and put in prison for seven days. His head was shaved, his shoulder cut to the bone (from which he still bears the scars): He was waterboarded, beaten, hung upside down and hung on a cross for two and half days.

Although he was released from prison, he was eventually summoned to court to receive sentence for his “grave” crime. The judge sentenced him to death by hanging for sowing “national disunity and rebellion against the government,” a common phraseology used to incriminate Christians and other minorities.

Seeing that he did not have much time, Majed quickly figured out a way to be smuggled out the country and miraculously escaped to Israel by jet ski, from where he would become a free man.

(Read more at the Clarion Project)

For all of the claims that Islam constitutes a “religion of peace,” this testimony and the word of any non-believer who has endured sharia stands as a marker of the truth.

Something tells me that — if a convert to Islam were to have their shoulder cut to the bone, subjected to waterboarding, beaten, hung upside down, hung on a cross for 2 1/2 days — Obama and other Democrats would be coming as unglued as they have over staged photos and Melania’s jacket. Instead, the main stream media and other Democrats totally ignore the horror of this story.

What I learned at Christ at the Checkpoint

In an 1 June 2018 OneNewsNow article, Michael Brown discusses life as a Christian commentator during a planned event within the Palestinian Authority.

I understand that an international event like CATC would necessitate the presence of Palestinian Authority leadership – but the Christian celebration of that leadership was beyond the pale.

My time at the Christ at the Checkpoint (CATC) conference in Beit Jala, near Bethlehem, was both wonderful and terrible, powerful and painful. As I said to the leaders face to face, the people were even warmer than I expected; their positions even worse than I expected. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the deep chasms that exist can only be bridged through prayer, humility, and forthright dialogue.

By God’s grace, I am committed to continuing the journey with my newfound Palestinian Christian friends. (For those unfamiliar with the controversies surrounding Christ at the Checkpoint, see here.)

Let me start with the positive, which was very positive.

I was received with open arms and without restriction by the Christian leaders there. They could not have made me feel more welcome, and they truly honored me as a respected brother in the Lord. As for the conference attendees, about 300 in number, they went out of their way to thank me for coming as the lone, public voice of dissent.

The message I brought was quite intense – although bathed deeply with love, which was apparently quite evident – bringing a very public and open challenge. Yet I received applause and even hugs rather than jeers and scorn.

As difficult as it was for me to bring the message, it must have been difficult for the audience to hear it. Yet hear it they did.

Not only so, but the leaders made clear that their greatest desire is to honor our Lord. They often expressed love for their Jewish brothers and sisters and emphasized that Israel had every right to exist as a secure nation in the Land. They simply wished for equality and dignity as neighbors and friends.

I believe and hope that they now count me as one of their friends.

As for the negative, it was very negative.

Aspects of the conference were embarrassingly political, to the point that I said in my message that the opening night was Palestinian with a capital P and Christian with a small c. This was hardly Jesus-centered in approach or emphasis.

And while I understand that an international event of this size would necessitate the presence of Palestinian Authority leadership – this would be a matter of honor – the Christian celebration of that leadership was beyond the pale. (Should I also mention that one Christian leader was pleased to announce that more churches were joining the BDS movement against Israel?)

On a larger ideological level, I was amazed to see how every possible anti-Israel narrative was enthusiastically embraced. In fact, it seemed to be the only narrative known.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

On one hand, God does promise in Isaiah 55:11 that “ My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” Therefore, any effect that God meant for the Bible to have during this conference will be felt. Nonetheless, we should also remember that God allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart.

On the other hand, it is sad that this “Christ at the Checkpoint” conference has so little to do with Christ. In fact, it has so little to do with Christ that “the opening night was Palestinian with a capital P and Christian with a small c.” Admittedly, though, this has a ring of many American interfaith initiatives that end as only being events where the organizers break their own arms patting themselves on the back.

Priest who had protected tourists was stabbed by Palestinians

Through a 3 June 2018 article in Israel Today, find that a Palestinian gang attacked a priest who had been protecting tourists.

The following video clip is making the rounds on Israeli social media, where folks are none-too-pleased with claims that Israel is the reason for the dwindling Christian population in the Palestinian-controlled territories, while incidents like these are completely ignored.

The footage was taken from a security camera at the entrance to a church or monastery in Bethlehem. Several foreign Christian tourists are seen being harassed by at least two young Palestinian men. A local monk or priest quickly opens the gate and offers them shelter, before chastising the assailants.

One of the young Palestinian men is having none of being told what to do by a Christian, and so pulls out a knife and stabs the priest through the gate.

The timestamp reveals that this happened on Friday, June 1.

(Read more at Israel Today)

Considering the number of  “Visit the birthplace of Jesus” ads I get, seeing this type of attack is disturbing. 

Thank God that this priest followed the mandate of Psalm 82:3-4 by protecting the defenseless. It is understandable that, if these attacks are occurring regularly throughout this area and Israel without any response from the West, there might be a bit of resentment regarding the interest this case has gathered.

Taxi hits pedestrians near Moscow’s Red Square, injuring 8

Once again the Associated Press throws together an account of an issue that resulted in the deaths of non-Muslims near the end of Ramadan. The cabbie claims to have fallen asleep behind the wheel, but was well awake when he ran away.

Eight people, including two from Mexico, were injured Saturday when a taxi crashed into pedestrians on a sidewalk near Red Square in Moscow.

Russian police said the driver in the crash has been detained. Moscow’s traffic monitoring agency said the driver claimed the crash wasn’t premeditated.

Video circulating on Russian social media and some news websites showed the taxi approaching a stopped line of cars, then veering onto the sidewalk and striking pedestrians. It then hit a traffic sign and bystanders tried to wrestle the driver out of the taxi, but he broke their grip and ran away; it was not clear how he was finally detained.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

The driver says that he fell asleep for a few seconds after three days of continual work. However, that driver quickly popped back to wakefulness without losing his balance as a person normally would. Additional complicating factors include (1) the fact that Ramadan was ending, (2) Moscow has been in conflict with Islamic extremists from numerous former Soviet republics, (3) Putin suppressed all news that might suppress soccer tourism, and (4) since the cabbie was caught, maybe the concept of taqiya came in handy.

Muslim Somali Teens beat Donald Giusti to death with bats

World News Daily reports in a 17 June 2018 article how two men were beat while in a Maine park. One has died.

Last month, two dozen Somali youths swarmed and attacked two Maine residents in a park in Lewiston, beating them with sticks while laughing, as video of the incident shows.

One of the victims was hospitalized, but no charges were filed.

Then, last Tuesday, a group of Somalis fired pellet guns at non-Somalis in the same park. A fight broke out and one non-Somali, a 38-year-old father of two, died days later from his injuries.

Kennedy Park in Lewiston has become the focal point of such clashes, according to reports.

Previously, a 10-year-old girl was jumped and beaten by a Somali girl at the park. As such occurrences become more common in Lewiston, many lifelong residents are now afraid to bring their own children to play.

According to local news accounts, on any given day, dozens if not hundreds of Somali youth – most of them under 18, can be found occupying the park.

Last Friday, Donald Giusti, 38, died after being treated for injuries sustained in the latest melee in the park last Tuesday. He had been hospitalized ever since.

(Read more at the World News Daily)

When searching out information on this occurrence, I found multiple reports calling the attackers “teens” and “gangs.” However, none of the local stories singled out the nationality or religion of the attackers (which seemed odd when I ran on articles describing how Somali Muslim leaders in the area of Lewiston, Maine started calling for peace).

Additionally, number of stories that I ran across claimed that Donald Giusti died in a brawl (as opposed to mentioning that two men were surrounded and beaten by 24 Muslims with bats). So can all of these oversights in all of these articles be attributed to bad reporting or have journalists committed themselves to killing the truth in the dark?

Erdogan’s Fifth Column

An 18 June 2018 article by the Christian Broadcasting Network describes a brewing conflict that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to be setting up across Europe.

When the Ottoman Turks tried to invade Europe 500 years ago they were defeated at the Gates of Vienna. Today Turkey again has designs on Europe, but it’s using a different method.

It’s being called Turkey’s fifth column in Europe – a vast network of radical Islamists, working inside Turkish mosques and under the control of Turkey’s ambitious president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Austrian government shut down seven mosques and expelled 60 Imams recently because they were being funded illegally by the Turkish government, and because photos from inside the mosques surfaced on the internet showing Turkish children being trained to be martyrs.

Austria’s move against the mosques infuriated Turkey’s government, and President Erdogan warned of a “coming war between the cross and the crescent.”

Followers of Islam: if you don’t want to have preachers expelled and your adherents labelled as an invading force, then consider:

  1. Don’t fund your places of worship in Western nations by way of funds from Islamic dictatorships or theocracies
  2. Don’t have your children enact simulations of murders of Jews, Islamic army attacks, terrorist attacks, or suicide attack enactments
  3. Don’t force yourself on the people of countries where you constitute 10% or less of the population
  4. Don’t encourage your athletes to pledge allegiance to Islamic dictators

Parents: CAIR lied in ‘Islamophobia’ lawsuit

OneNewsNow reports in a 3 May 2018 article how the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) seem to have been caught in an illegal cooperative and have been lying about it.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is being accused of intentionally lying about the legal basis of a complaint waged by parents against the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) regarding the terrorist-tied group’s “anti-Islamophobia” initiative taught in classrooms.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) contends on behalf of SDUSD’s parents that the Muslim group partnering with the district intentionally distorted key aspects of the lawsuit, filing a response alleging that CAIR is trying to distract the court from the true issue at hand in the case – whether the group’s initiative is neutral toward religion or not.

“[SDUSD is] collaborating with a sectarian organization on an initiative that discriminates in favor of one religion,” FCDF argued in its response to the court Tuesday, according to WND.

Can’t break district’s Muslim ties

In the existing lawsuit, attorneys with FCDF point out that SDUSD has worked with CAIR to allow it to not only produce and provide materials for the school curriculum in the name of “anti-bullying,” but also permitted CAIR members to actively teach students about Islam while promoting it.

“The parents assert the initiative singles out Muslim students for exclusive accommodations and empowers CAIR to radically revise school curriculum to portray Islam more ’favorably,’” WND reported. “The special protections, they insist, violate the Establishment Clause and creates a double standard, arguing the district would never adopt a program to stop bullying against Christians.”

Besides CAIR’s active promotion of Islam and encouragement of students to embrace its teachings, it has been established by the federal government that the Islamic group is indeed a terrorist-tied organization.

“The FBI has provided an abundance of evidence that CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, Hamas [an internationally known Islamic terrorist group],” WND’s Art Moore recounted. “And even a Persian Gulf state, the United Arab Emirates, has designated the Washington, D.C.-based organization a terrorist group.”

Despite the lawsuit demanding that San Diego school officials terminate their partnership with CAIR – which it subsequently professed it did – legal evidence has been mounted by FCDF that SDUSD is continuing its relationship with the group often referred to as the “Muslim Mafia.”

(Read much more at OneNewsNow)

So, just as the media seems willing to overlook the crimes of 24 bat-wielding Somali Muslims, the liberal leadership in our educational bureaucracy seems willing to align with an unindicted co-conspirator in the funding of terrorist organizations.

Reasons for No Trust in the FBI

James Comey, party to Obama’s crippling the FBI

The Observer Comments on How the FBI was Compromised by Democrat Rule

In light of the recent revelation that Obama lied about his knowledge of Hillary’s illegal e-mail server, one British paper has exposed the sham of justice surrounding Obama’s refusal to prosecute Hillary for the crimes committed in reference to her e-mail server.  In the 25 September 2016 edition of The Observer, the damage that Obama inflicted on the now-biased FBI (and the overall justice system) comes to the forefront.

“From the moment the EmailGate scandal went public more than a year ago, it was obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation never had much enthusiasm for prosecuting Hillary Clinton or her friends. Under President Obama, the FBI grew so politicized that it became impossible for the Bureau to do its job – at least where high-ranking Democrats are concerned.

As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. ‘Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,’ I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.

This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary ‘unclassified’ email server of bathroom infamy.

This week, however, we learned that there is actually no mystery at all here. The FBI was never able to get enough traction in its investigation of EmailGate to prosecute anybody since the Bureau had already granted immunity to key players in that scandal.

Granting immunity is a standard practice in investigations, and is sometimes unavoidable. Giving a pass to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary’s IT guru who set up her email and server, made some sense since he understands what happened here, technically speaking, and otherwise is a small fish. The wisdom of giving him a pass now seems debatable, though, since Pagliano has twice refused to testify before Congress about his part in EmailGate, blowing off subpoenas. Just this week the House Oversight Committee recommended that Pagliano be cited for contempt of Congress for his repeated no-shows. That vote was on strictly partisan lines, with not a single Democrat on the committee finding Pagliano’s ignoring of Congressional subpoenas to be worthy of censure.

Now it turns out the FBI granted immunity to much bigger fish in the Clinton political tank. Three more people got a pass from the Bureau in exchange for their cooperation: Hillary lawyer Heather Samuelson, State Department IT boss John Bental, and – by far the most consequential – Cheryl Mills, who has been a Clinton flunky-cum-factotum for decades.

Mills served as the State Department’s Chief of Staff and Counselor throughout Hillary’s tenure as our nation’s top diplomat. Granting her immunity in EmailGate, given her deep involvement in that scandal – including the destruction of tens of thousands of emails so they could not be handed over to the FBI – now seems curious, to say the least, particularly because Mills sat in on Hillary’s chat with the Bureau regarding EmailGate.

This was in fact so highly irregular that Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Oversight Committee, pronounced himself ‘absolutely stunned’ by the FBI’s granting of immunity to Cheryl Mills – which he learned of only on Friday. ‘No wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case,’ Rep. Chaffetz observed of Comey’s Bureau: ‘They were handing out immunity deals like candy.’

Not to mention that Mills has a longstanding and well-deserved reputation in Washington for helping the Clintons dodge investigation after investigation. When Bill and Hillary need a fixer to help them bury the bodies – as they say inside the Beltway – trusty Cheryl Mills has been on call for the last quarter-century.

She played a key role in the Whitewater scandal of the 1990s – and so did James Comey. Fully two decades ago, when Comey was a Senate investigator, he tried to get Mills, then deputy counsel to Bill Clinton’s White House, to hand over relevant documents. Mills went full dog-ate-my-homework, claiming that a burglar had taken the files, leading Comey to unavoidably conclude that she was obstructing his investigation. Mills’ cover-up, the Senate investigators assessed, encompassed “destruction of documents” and ‘highly improper’ behavior.

How exactly Cheryl Mills got immunity, and what its terms were, is the long-awaited ‘smoking gun’ in EmailGate, the clear indication that, despite countless man-hours expended on the year-long investigation, James Comey and his FBI never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton – or anyone – for her mishandling of classified information as secretary of state.

Why Comey decided to give Mills a get-out-of-jail-free card is something that needs proper investigation. This is raw, naked politics in all its ugly and cynical glory. Corruption is the tamest word to describe this sort of dirty backroom deal which makes average Americans despise politics and politicians altogether.

How high in this administration EmailGate went is the key question, and it’s been reopened by the latest tranche of redacted documents that the FBI released – on Friday afternoon, as usual. There are lots of tantalizing tidbits here, including the fact that early in Hillary’s term at Foggy Bottom, State Department officials were raising awkward legal questions about her highly irregular email and server arrangements.

Most intriguing, however, is the revelation that Hillary was communicating with President Obama via personal email, and he was using an alias. The alias he used with Hillary, and apparently others, was withheld by the FBI, and let it be said the fact that the president wanted to disguise his identity in unclassified email is not all that odd.

What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from ‘news reports.’ How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, address, not a account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.

Indeed, when she was being interviewed by the Bureau, Hillary’s ever-faithful sidekick Huma Abedin, was asked about President Obama’s emailing to Hillary using an alias. ‘How is this not classified?’ inquired the mystified Abedin.

How indeed?

The fact that the FBI redacted the contents of that email indicates that is was classified, although it was sent to Hillary’s personal email and transited her personal server.

This, like so many aspects of EmailGate, seems destined to remain a mystery, at least for now. The State Department won’t release the full collection of Clinton’s emails until after our November 8 election. Just this week a Federal judge blasted Foggy Bottom for its slow-rolling: “The State Department needs to start cooperating to the fullest extent possible. They are not perceived to be doing that.” Nevertheless, the public won’t get to see all of Hillary’s emails until after Americans decide who the next president will be.

… “

Somehow, I don’t expect even an edited version of this to appear in the New York Times or as much as a blurb referencing a few of the central facts to appear at the end of the ABC World News Tonight.

Nonetheless, I certainly hope that the American people do the sane thing and do not elect this lawless apprentice to another lawless president.

Obama’s and Hillary’s Two Big Lies

Thanks to

Obama’s Lie on Not Knowing of Hillary’s Illegal E-mail Server

PJmedia Calls it Obama’s Colossal Email Lie Final Test for Tarnished MSM

In a 24 September 2016 article that introduced me to the fact that Obama knew about Hillary’s server when he claimed he learned about it in the press, PJmedia had the following critique of this crooked, crooked situation:

“That Barack Obama communicated in 2012under a redacted pseudonym—with Hillary Clinton on the then secretary of State’s permeable home-brew email server and then claimed he did not know of that server’s existence until it was reported in the press in 2014 is far more than the usual politician’s prevarication.

Since the fish rots from the top—and in this case it stinks to high heaven—the surfacing of this particular presidential lie calls to question the entire FBI inquiry into the Clinton server, an investigation whose credibility was paper thin in the first place and has now completely vanished.

It’s time to ask that age-old question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

That we do know (as of this Friday’s dump) that one of Clinton’s own IT workers referred to her then just-announced 60-day email retention policy (who does that?) as “Hillary’s coverup operation” almost (but not completely) tells the story in those three quoted words. Even though they say it’s not the crime, but the coverup, in this case, it’s both.

The seriousness of this crime/coverup—involving the national security of our country—makes Watergate seem like a minor kerfuffle at a sewing circle. If the mainstream media does not investigate this thoroughly, they are unquestionably the court eunuchs many of us have accused them of being. Worse, they are the enablers of the decline of Western civilization.  Without a free and honest press — some of it anyway — not to mention adherence to the rule of law, such a civilization cannot survive.  And the decline can come remarkably swiftly.  We have plenty of  examples of that from twentieth century Europe.

If the mainstream broadcast media can bring itself to report on its golden boy and its golden girl, it will break an existing record of under-reporting on and covering for Democrats. Luckily, there is still the print media, a few conservative media outlets, and the British press. Otherwise, we would be at the whims of the CBS, NBC, and ABC nightly infotainment.

Obama lies to the face of CBS correspondent Bill Plante

For the Doubters, Here is the CBS article and the video where Obama LIES

In a 8 March 2015 CBS article, Obama lies (though not exposed until the above article submitted how Obama s-mailed to Hillary using a pseudonym).

“President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton’s private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

‘The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,’ the president told Plante.

Mr. Obama’s comments follow a long week of media scrutiny surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email address and the “home-brewed” server that hosted it.

‘The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed.’

Despite widespread criticism from Republicans who believe Clinton acted inappropriately, the president continued to defend his former Cabinet member’s record.

‘Let me just say that Hillary Clinton is and has been an outstanding public servant. She was a great secretary of state for me,’ Mr. Obama said.

Following the New York Times report Monday, the House Select Committee in charge of investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks issued a subpoena of Clinton’s private emails. Clinton herself took to Twitter late Wednesday in her first public statement regarding the server controversy.

‘I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible,’ the likely Democratic presidential candidate tweeted.

The president reiterated his support of these actions.

‘I think that the fact that she is putting them forward will allow us to make sure that people have the information they need,’ Mr. Obama said.

Plante, who was a reporter covering ‘Bloody Sunday’ for CBS News 50 years ago, sat down for an interview with the president to talk about the recent Clinton controversy, foreign affairs and the state of race relations in the United States.

Obama’s and Hillary’s Big Lie on Serin Gas Supplied to Syrian Rebels

Evidence Points toward Obama/Clinton Supplying Rebels

In a 11 May 2015 Slate article, the suspicions of Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh point toward cooperative action between Obama, Clinton, and Syrian rebels in the gasing of Ghouta, Syria:

“But the criticism of Hersh’s latest piece echoes the controversy that recently met Hersh after he published two other stories—in December 2013 and April 2014, also in the London Review—about the Syrian civil war. Both stories cited anonymous sources, corroborated by second- and third-hand accounts, saying that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, were the first to use chemical weapons in the country’s ongoing civil war, specifically in a sarin gas attack on Ghouta, Syria, on Aug. 21, 2013.

At the time, President Obama had recently issued a ‘red line,’ saying that if Assad used chemical weapons, the U.S. would intervene in the conflict on the rebels’ behalf. Hersh argued that the government was blaming the rebel attack on Assad to justify direct involvement in the war. (The U.S. ultimately decided against entering the conflict directly.)

Hersh’s first story, from December 2013, said that the rebel group responsible for the sarin gas attack was the al-Nusra Front, an affiliate of al-Qaida. As the Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone and others noted at the time, Hersh also said that al-Nusra had ‘mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity.’ This first story asserted the administration “cherry-picked” evidence and deliberately manipulated intelligence to avoid implicating al-Nusra. But the story raised eyebrows, in part because the New Yorker and the Washington Post declined to publish it. But that wasn’t all: At Foreign Policy, Eliot Higgins cited open-source evidence—including YouTube videos—to show that the munitions in the gas attack had been used repeatedly by the Syrian military. ‘There is no evidence of Syrian rebel forces ever using this type of munition—and only Syrian government forces have ever been shown using them,’ Higgins wrote.”

Let’s see, Is the Obama/Clinton cabal lying about this one, too? Did Hillary lie about 2,800 emails? Did Hillary promise to bring 200,000 jobs to New York as senator fall flat just before she started blaming a 4-year-distant President Bush for her inaction?

Is There Anything Hillary Does Not Lie About

At least the camera does not lie.

They Say “You Can’t Make This Up”

I Say “Why Make It Up? Hillary Does that For You”

In an Effort to Humanize Herself to the Humans of New York, Hillary Lies Again

In an effort to humanize herself to Humans of New York, Hillary related the following story in a 8 September 2016 post to their Facebook page:

As noted in a 15 September 2016 article by Red Alert Politics, there are two problems with this narrative:

  1. The Draft Deferment during the Johnson Administration had Ended

    “The problem with the former first lady’s story is that the draft exemption for law school students ended long before she ever would have taken the Harvard entry test.

    First of all, it’s odd that Clinton has never told this story before, considering she penned two autobiographies Living History and Hard Choices. Secondly, as is the case with multiple lies told by Hillary, the dates are entirely off.

    President Lyndon Johnson ended the draft deferment on Feb. 16, 1968, when Clinton was a junior at Wellesley College. She didn’t graduate until June of 1969 and probably didn’t take her LSAT until 1969, more than a year after she could have been accused of taking someone else’s spot.”

  2. Her Previous Account

    Another strike against Clinton’s claim was that she told the story to The New Yorker in 1996, and in that version she said that men were jerks to her, telling her to “go home and get married,” but no one told her they were going to die in Vietnam if she got accepted and they didn’t.

    The Humans of New York post was Clinton’s attempt to tell young women that she has been ostracized for being female and understands what it’s like, but the best she could come up with was a fabrication.

    Just like Clinton’s claims that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, or that she never sent or received classified information on her private server, this was another time the Democratic nominee was caught lying to the public.”

Hillary’s Track Record for Running Lies Up the Flagpole

Considering Hillary’s bald-face lies on numerous issues, why should we be surprised that she would lie about her health?  During the recent past, she has lied about all of the following:

Hillary Partially Suspends Lying About Her Health

Just as the lies regarding her history (financial, work, and e-mail) did not match with reality, her health history started to show discrepancies.  Parallels between the coughing spasms that began in January 2016 and earlier protracted coughing fits during February 2011 have surfaced due to the efforts of Dan Merica.


A 4News Video Plays Clips of Hillary Taking Both Sides of Important Issues

Although changing one’s mind is not a lie, it is a lie to profess complete commitment to a cause and then to turn away from that cause without explanation.


A 6th Problem with Hillary’s Accusation

More at Pinterest Stop Hillary

Hillary’s Playing Fast and Loose with the Truth Has Its Fruits

Hillary began running an ad on Thursday, 25 August 2016 that tried to tie Trump to the KKK.  However, in contradiction to her claim that Trump fits the KKK mold, the leader of the California branch of the KKK has claimed that Hillary received $20,000 from his organization.

Washington Times Reports $20K in Donations Alleged by KKK Leader

In a 26 April 2016 Washington Times article, we get a nugget of truth (accentuated by my bolding) after a dollop of lies:

“Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group said Monday.

‘For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,’ said Will Quigg, California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights, Vocativ reported.

Mr. Quigg, the leader of the Klan’s California chapter, announced last month that he had abandoned supporting Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in lieu of backing his likely Democratic opponent. The Klansman claims that members have raised more than $20,000 for Mrs. Clinton and have donated it anonymously to her campaign.

‘She is friends with the Klan,’ Mr. Quigg told Vocativ. ‘A lot of people don’t realize that.’

Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwein disputed the grand dragon’s claim and said the former secretary of state has rejected the group’s endorsement.

‘This is completely false,’ Mr. Schwerin told Vocativ. ‘We want no part of them or their money and vehemently reject their hateful agenda.’

The Clinton campaign has ‘not received anywhere close to $20,000 in anonymous donations in total, [so] it is impossible that they are telling the truth,’ Mr. Schwerin added.

According to Vocativ, Federal Election Commission filings suggest the same. Nevertheless, Mr. Quigg claims that the presumptive Democratic candidate’s agenda aligns with the Klan‘s.

‘All the stuff she’s saying now, she’s saying so she can get into office, OK?’ Mr. Quigg said. ‘She doesn’t care about illegal immigrants — she’s acting like she does so she can get into office. Once she’s in office, then she’ll implement her policies. She’s a Democrat. The Klan has always been a Democratic organization.’ “

Although Mr. Quigg’s claims are highly suspect (in light of the Federal Election Commission information), so is everything that comes out of the mouth of Mrs. Clinton.  More specifically, Hillary has been known to sling lies against opponents just to see what will stick.

Oddly enough, the problem pointed out by this particular is the extreme lack of trust anyone can have for Hillary.

Plant Lies and Get a Crop of Lies

Plant Envy and Find a Green Crop of Envy

As a gardener, I can tell you that one tomato seed (planted, watered, and weeded over a period of months) can produce over two bushels of tomatoes. Likewise, sin produces a crop. Sometime later and very much bigger (but of the kind sowed), there will be a crop gathered from the sin planted.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. (Galatians 6:7-9 NASB)

Five Facts That Expose Obama’s Lie About the $400 Million in Ransom to Iran

Thanks to Fox News for this screen capture of Iranian TV.

Obama Denies Paying $400 Million in Ransom to Iran

As dutifully parroted by the New York Times in a 4 August 2016 article, Obama claimed that it was only coincidence that $400 million was handed to the Iranians on the day an imprisoned American pastor, a journalist, a former Marine, and a researcher were released.

President Obama on Thursday flatly denied that a $400 million pallet of cash delivered to the Iranian government in January, on the same day that four American citizens who had been detained by Iran were released, was a ransom payment, calling the latest uproar over the landmark nuclear pact with Tehran ‘the manufacturing of outrage.’

Mr. Obama said the payment was part of a decades-old dispute with Iran that had been litigated before an international tribunal, adding that his administration publicly disclosed the agreement in January.

‘We do not pay ransom for hostages,’ Mr. Obama said during a news conference at the Pentagon. In a forceful rebuttal to accusations from critics who said that the payment could put more Americans in danger of being held, he called ‘he notion that we would start now, in this high profile way,’ one that ‘defies logic.’ “

However, in light of five issues not addressed by the New York Times, Mr. Obama’s bluster seems nothing more than a cover for lies.

Five Things Stand in Testimony Against Obama’s Tall Tale

  1. Obama Admin Hid Details and Still Stonewalls Congress

    If the transfer of $400 million in a mixture of francs and other currency were nothing more than the release of Iranian holdings from American banks, then how is it that the Washington Free Beacon reports in a 4 August 2016 article that Obama took measures to hide the transfer from all of Congress and an intelligence committee? In that article, the extent of the stonewalling comes out:

    “The Obama administration took steps to withhold from lawmakers the details of a $400 million cash payout to Iran and continues to rebuke inquiries from Congress for information about how another $1.3 billion in taxpayer funds was awarded to the Islamic Republic, according to multiple conversations with congressional sources apprised of the matter.

    U.S. officials familiar with the recent transfer of $400 million in hard currency to Iran withheld details of the exchange from Congress during briefings in classified and unclassified settings, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

    The disclosure threatens to complicate efforts by the administration to downplay new reports detailing how U.S. officials used an unmarked aircraft to transfer $400 million in “pallets of cash” to Iran on the same day it freed several U.S. hostages.

    Lawmakers and others have claimed for months that the payment was part of a ‘ransom’ aimed at securing the release of the hostages. The White House denies this claim and has said the payment was part of a settlement to resolve decades-old legal disputes with the Islamic Republic.

    Nearly eight months after congressional officials demanded a formal accounting of this payment–which amounted to $1.7 billion in total–the administration is still declining to provide lawmakers with the full story, sparking outrage on Capitol Hill.

    ‘It has been seven months since President Obama announced that he was giving the Islamic Republic of Iran almost $2 billion,’ Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Free Beacon on Wednesday. ‘And we are just now finding out damning details about how $400 million, which is less than half of the total, was sent to Iran using foreign aircraft and foreign currencies.’

    Pompeo led several unsuccessful inquiries into the cash payout. He said the administration has been stonewalling efforts to obtain a full readout of the exchange in both classified and unclassified settings since January.

    Pompeo expressed anger that the administration is ‘totally stonewalling congressional inquiries,’ while leaving it to the press to unearth the details of the exchange.”

    Mr. Obama, why the cover up and stonewalling unless you are covering another scandal?

  2. The Cash was provided in an Untraceable Form

    Cybercast News Service quotes Senator Tom Cotton in a 4 August 2016 article where the senator reveals the clandestine methods used for what Obama claims was an ordinary transaction:

    “Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday likened the manner in which the Obama administration paid $400 million to Iran on the day five imprisoned Americans were released to a ‘drug cartel transaction.’

    Speaking to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, Cotton described the incident last January as ‘$400 million in small unmarked bills, flying into Iran on a unmarked aircraft, like it was a drug cartel transaction, not a legitimate negotiation between two governments.’

    State Department spokesman Mark Toner, asked whether flying in banknotes stacked on a pallet in an unmarked plane was ‘typically how we do business,’ said he was not going to confirm the ‘allegations’ about the manner in which payment was made.

    But his next words came close to doing just that.

    ‘What I will say is that when we’re forced to get a little creative – let me put it this way – when we’re dealing with a country that was largely cut off from international financial institutions and the international banking system due to years of sanctions, and so operating in that environment we had to look at available options to us in order to get that money to them.’

    And when asked whether a cash transaction was ‘unseemly,’ he described it as ‘the most efficient way to do it.’ “

    Much like the “drug cartel transaction” format described by Senator Cotton, CNN noted in a 4 August 2016 article that:

    (t)he money was flown into Iran on wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies …

    Mixed currencies strapped to a wooden pallet in an unmarked cargo plane: that really does not sound like an above-the-board transaction by “the most transparent administration.”

  3. The Department of Justice Objected to the Payment

    The “optics” of loading a plane with $400 million in foreign cash was reported to not look good to the Department of Justice officials as reported in a 3 August 2016 Wall Street Journal article.

    “Senior Justice Department officials objected to sending a plane loaded with cash to Tehran at the same time that Iran released four imprisoned Americans, but their objections were overruled by the State Department, according to people familiar with the discussions.

    After announcing the release of the Americans in January, President Barack Obama also said the U.S. would pay $1.7 billion to Iran to settle a failed arms deal dating back to 1979. What wasn’t disclosed then was that the first payment would be $400 million in cash, flown in at the same time, as The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

    The timing and manner of the payment raised alarms at the Justice Department, according to those familiar with the discussions. People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment,’ said one of the people.

    The prisoner-swap negotiations were led by the State Department, with help from the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The cash settlement talks were handled principally by State Department lawyers. All of that work was overseen, and ultimately approved, by the White House.”

    In a case like this, half of the truth remains in the heads of those receiving the cash. If the Justice Department thought that Iranians would see this as a ransom patient, then the pallet of cash should not have been sent.

  4. A Hostage Testified that the Iranians Would Not Release Him or the Others Until the Cash Came

    In a 4 August 2016 Independent Journal Review article, it was reported that former hostage Pastor Saeed Abedini had the following conversation at Fox News:

    Saeed Abidini: I just remember the night at the airport sitting for hours and hours there and I asked police— why you not letting us go — And he told me we are waiting for another plane and if that plane take off we gonna let you go.

    Trish Regan: You slept there at the airport?

    Abidini: Yes, for a night. They told us you going to be there for 20 minutes but it took hours and hours. And I ask them why you don’t let us go, because the — was there, pilot was there, everyone was there to leave the country. And he said we are waiting for another plane so if that plane doesn’t come we never let us go.

  5. Iran Calls It Ransom

    As reported on 5 August 2016 by the Washington Free Beacon, Iranian state TV calls it “an expensive price” for freeing the hostages.

    “Iranian television has broadcast what some say is purported footage of the $400 million pallets of cash that officials claim was part of the ‘expensive price’ paid by the Obama administration to free several U.S. hostages.

    The footage, which could not be independently verified, shows images of large stacks of hard currency and features claims that the Obama administration sent this money over as part of an effort to free several U.S. hostages. The White House vehemently denied these claims this week following new reports about the cash exchange.

    BBC Persian reporter Hadi Nili posted the footage on Twitter, describing it as showing the “pallets of cash” and quoting officials as saying ‘this was just part of the expensive price to release Americans.’

    The footage, which is from an Iranian documentary published a few months ago, contradicts claims by Obama administration officials maintaining that the payment was completely unrelated to the release of these U.S. hostages, despite the payment having been supplied on the same day these individuals were freed by Iran.”

It sounds like we have been Grubered again since — if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, dives like a duck, and flies like a duck — it is probably not a dog despite the administration’s claims.