Biden Raises Reminder of Infamous Dodd – Kennedy Sexual Assault

You can’t get any more self unaware than to mention “waitress” and “Dodd” in the same sentence. His mind wandered to Dodd and his BFF Ted Kennedy and the infamous Dodd-Kennedy Waitress Sandwich Story apparently. His filter was on the blink. One would not want to be the waitress. Recall it was Dodd who was chosen to lead Biden’s pick for the VP, thus we have Kamala Harris.

Biden says former Sen. Chris Dodd would never ‘disrespect the waitress’

President Biden raised eyebrows Friday when he praised former Senator Chris Dodd — and inadvertently referenced a notorious episode of alleged sexual assault involving the Connecticut Democrat and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Biden lauded his longtime Senate colleague during remarks dedicating the Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, saying he measures a person’s character by how they treat workers in the service industry. More from the NY Post

Let us not forget-

Notorious Sexual Harasser Chris Dodd named to Biden VP selection Committee

The Kennedy-Dodd Waitress Sandwich Information Clearinghouse

In 1985, Dodd and fellow Senator Ted Kennedy were out (with dates) for a night on the town at La Brasserie. Much liquor was consumed–that will come as a shock to those of us familiar with Ted Kennedy–and the two Senators were at one point unaccompanied by their dates. The Senators made a “Waitress Sandwich” out of some poor, unsuspecting waitress.

If you’re not entirely sure what that means, let’s just say you wouldn’t want to be the waitress
“Dodd and Kennedy were also reported to have made a ‘human sandwich’ with a waitress at La Brasserie, another Capitol Hill restaurant. The report had it that Kennedy threw the woman on Dodd, who was slumped in a chair, and then jumped on top of her. She was said to have run screaming from the room.”
Summary of 1989 Penthouse magazine article, summarized by the Washington Times:

“When she put in an appearance in their private retreat – ‘The Teddy Kennedy Fun Room’ – the Massachusetts senator picked her up and heaved her onto a table. The crystal candlesticks and champagne glasses shattered as he grabbed her again and flung her on top of Dodd.

“Then Kennedy threw himself on top of the woman. The waitress implored Mr. Kennedy to ‘Get off me!’

“Another waitress entered to find ‘things all tipped over and Kennedy was on top, [the waitress] was in the middle and Dodd was on the bottom.’ At that point the sandwich was disassembled.”

Here’s the story, originally reported by GQ in 1990 here Included in the link is the long history of his debauchery.

Bonus: Joe up to his old tricks.

That is the best of the swamp today.

For the best in conservative news push the button

Facebook ‘whistleblower’ plant wants to fool the GOP at hearing

When former Facebook Haugen  a “whistle blower” is represented by Jen Psaki’s PR firm and Eric Ciaramella’s legal team you are definitely on the Dems page.

Isn’t it amazing how a Facebook “whistleblower” can appear on 60 Minutes, Facebook has a worldwide outage, “whistleblower” gets a congressional hearing, and Facebook agrees to censor more after the hearing – All in 48 hours.

Isn’t it amazing she now moves on to the E.U. to shop her censorship wares? What a coincidence. 

When the Dems and the GOP appear on the same page on a subject, Houston, we have a problem.



The Facebook civic integrity team that leftist activist whistleblower Frances Haugen was a member of, worked to counter misinformation about the 2020 election.

Which in October of last year meant making the decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and the New York Post’s reporting on it.

…Along with mentioning that Frances Haugen is represented by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s PR firm, and is traveling to Europe soon to testify for the EU parliament.

Her views on free speech aside, the issue is worth exploring deeper.

On Tuesday, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before a Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection about the situation inside the company.

Read more


Glen Greenwald at Substack has a good read on this as well:

And that is Facebook’s only real political problem: not that they are too powerful but that they are not using that power to censor enough content from the internet that offends the sensibilities and beliefs of Democratic Party leaders and their liberal followers, who now control the White House, the entire executive branch and both houses of Congress. Haugen herself, now guided by long-time Obama operative Bill Burton, has made explicitly clear that her grievance with her former employer is its refusal to censor more of what she regards as “hate, violence and misinformation.” In a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night, Haugen summarized her complaint about CEO Mark Zuckerberg this way: he “has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful and polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach.” Haugen, gushed The New York Times’ censorship-desperate tech unit as she testified on Tuesday, is “calling for regulation of the technology and business model that amplifies hate and she’s not shy about comparing Facebook to tobacco.”

Agitating for more online censorship has been a leading priority for the Democratic Party ever since they blamed social media platforms (along with WikiLeaks, Russia, Jill Stein, James Comey, The New York Times, and Bernie Bros) for the 2016 defeat of the rightful heir to the White House throne, Hillary Clinton. And this craving for censorship has been elevated into an even more urgent priority for their corporate media allies, due to the same belief that Facebook helped elect Trump but also because free speech on social media prevents them from maintaining a stranglehold on the flow of information by allowing ordinary, uncredentialed serfs to challenge, question and dispute their decrees or build a large audience that they cannot control.

…A Pew survey from August shows that Democrats now overwhelmingly support internet censorship not only by tech giants but also by the government which their party now controls. In the name of “restricting misinformation,” more than 3/4 of Democrats want tech companies “to restrict false info online, even if it limits freedom of information,” and just under 2/3 of Democrats want the U.S. Government to control that flow of information over the internet.

Read more

Best of the swamp today.

For the best in news push the button


Trump versus Milley – the knives are out!

No doubt you had already figured out the knives are out in the Biden’s administration over who is going to take the fall over Afghanistan. Things took a strange twist with the forthcoming Woodward book in an attempt to turn the tables on Trump one last time and finish him. At least that is the suspicion, or was it Milley who planted much of this story thinking it would elevate him as the man?  The question left is how much truth is there to it, and if Milley went to the dance or is it more of a figment in Woodward’s mind.

The framework of the CNN article is that General Milley:

…”called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.
“Got it?” Milley asked, according to the book.

“Yes, sir.” ‘Milley considered it an oath,’ the authors write. (read more)

First here is the orange man himself with his take.

Trump himself has difficulty believing the Woodward on Milley.

Former President Donald Trump reacts to new reports about General Mark Milley story – Via Newsmax’s ‘Spicer and Co.’

We have Tucker Carlson. Retired Army colonel reacts to accusations against Gen. Mark Milley on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ and gives us a good overview.

The Conservative Tree House posted an interesting outline of the players involved yesterday before much of the story had shaken out. Worth checking it out.

TEAM One – The Department of State is aligned with the CIA.  Their media PR firms are CNN, CNNi and the Washington Post. Their ideology is favorable to the United Nations.  Their internal corruption is generally driven by relationship with foreign actors.  References: Hillary Clinton, Clinton Global Initiative, John McCain, Qatar, Muslim Brotherhood, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Cass Sunstein, Brookings Institute, Lawfare, China-centric, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Council on Foreign Relations.

♦ TEAM Two – The White House is aligned with the Pentagon (DoD) and National Security Council (NSC).  Their media PR firms are domestic in nature. New York Times, Politico, etc.  Their internal corruption is generally driven by domestic influence.  References: Barack Obama, George Bush, Wall St, Big Banks, Multinational Corporations, Defense Contractors, FBI (state police), Judicial Branch, and community activists writ large.  [Presidential elections only affect Team Two (nationalism -v- globalism).  In the modern era Team One is independent.]

Read more

Bonus time! All the old players want in on the game.

The Lieutenant Col. who broke chain-of-command and usurped his authority is complaining about the Joint Chief’s Chairman breaking chain-of-command and usurping his authority.

Alexander Vindman was the national security council operative who worked with the CIA to frame Donald Trump by leaking a manipulated transcript of a presidential phone call.   Today he tweeted this about General Mark Milley:

Read more

And that for sure is the best of the swamp today.

For the best in conservative news push the button. Welcome reader from What Finger News!

Once Upon a Time

By Mustang

Once upon a time, a kingdom became a Republic, and the Republic became an Empire, and then the Empire collapsed.  It took a little over 1,100 years to accomplish all that, but the end was sure, and no one was prepared for that future event until it arrived suddenly and unannounced.  Some say that Rome never died a natural death.  Others claim that it was a suicide.  People drank poisoned Kool-Aid for well over 1,000 years.  Suicide appears to be the correct analogy.  Let’s briefly discuss what happened —

The Fall of Rome“The Fall of Rome” by Always Curious is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

  • The very barbarians whom the Romans assimilated to share their power with began to attack the state and ultimately, by chipping away at its institutions, caused Rome to implode.

  • Arable land became a scarce resource. People starved, increased taxes drove millions into the poor house, the tax base eventually collapsed, and the only people who benefitted from Roman society were the rich and politically elite.

  • The people grew distrustful of and unhappy with Rome’s institutions (government, courts, the military).  They initiated several civil wars, all of which Rome’s government brutally defeated, which led to people becoming increasingly and psychologically more anti-Roman.

  • The decline of Rome, some argue, was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness.  Prosperity accelerated moral decay, the decay weakened the supporting mechanisms, and the edifice collapsed upon itself.

  • Some even blame Christianity for the fall of Rome, preferring cruel religions based on murder and mayhem to love and tolerance.

But wait … are we actually discussing Rome or a more modern Republic?  We could be discussing the United States of America (or any other western society) if we simply substitute “barbarian” with “progressive,” and/or the attempt to assimilate people who are culturally anti-western.  Suppose we also replace “limited arable land” with our insane over-emphasis on the environment (at the expense of agricultural production), if we then carry forward widespread unhappiness, moral decay, and blaming Christians for the immorality of the politically elite — then yes. In that case, we could be discussing the USA.

How will Western civilization end?  How will America be destroyed?  Hmmm.

Where the Buck Stops

by Mustang

President Joe Biden recently parroted an earlier Democrat, who famously stated, “The Buck Stops Here.”  Well, it sounds nice, but no president or high-ranking cabinet official ever faced more “buck” than losing an election or being asked to resign.  It occurs to me that “accountability” should involve more than looking for another high-paying job.

I actually do marvel at our system of government.  We (sort of) choose our president; he alone determines the people who serve in his cabinet and whom, for the most part, dig our graves (with the blessings of the Senate, of course).

History tends to suggest that cabinet secretaries, particularly those involved in foreign policy and national defense, too often do more harm than good.  No matter who these people are (whether they benefit the American people or make matters worse), their product is always associated with the president who appointed them.

For example, American citizens suffered the consequences of the Truman Policy or doctrine, even if Truman had little more to do with it beyond some vague idea that he passed along to a subordinate.  Truman’s Policy led to armed conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, where nearly 100,000 Americans died.  So far in his administration, Biden’s foreign policies appear to rival those of Neville Chamberlain.

Presidents and their spokespersons often explain policy decisions in this way: “I have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to …”  They never seem to get around to providing any details, of course, because for the most part, the specifics are none of our business.  We still do not know how the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq was in the United States’ national interests.  All we know is that thousands more Americans (and coalition partners) died, along with tens of thousands of Afghan/Iraqi civilians.  Did either of these decisions benefit the United States or the American people?

The State Department (also known as Foggy Bottom) claims that it has four primary policy goals: (a) Protect the United States and Americans; (b) Advance democracy, human rights, and other global interests; (c) Promote international understanding of American values and policies, and (d) Support US diplomats and other agencies at home and abroad.

Well, the State Department did not protect the United States or its people in 2001.  Given the amount of human suffering that resulted from our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot say that the State Department achieved its second goal, either.  None of our allies seem interested in lining up behind our attempts to promote international understanding … in fact, most of our allies shake their heads in wonderment and may even ask themselves, “Who are these idiots?”

In protecting the United States, the State Department argues that it uses diplomacy to address terrorism.  Well, again, it hasn’t worked because most terrorists hold little interest in floating position papers with American diplomats.  Terrorists are, for the most part, non-state actors who receive the direct or indirect support of states known to sponsor terrorist activities.

We know, for example, that Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism.  They send vast amounts of money to Pakistan, whose intelligence service launders the money and uses it to purchase and distribute arms and munitions to their surrogates — Wahhabists who are more familiar to us as “Taliban.”  The Saudis also fund the massive increase in Islamic mosques throughout the western world — physical structures that proselytize Islamic imperatives and recruit madmen to assault western societies.

We also know that Pakistan, in partnership with Saudi Arabia, funnels lethal weapons to terrorist organizations and diverts US Foreign Aid, intended to help feed the masses, into terrorist-centered programs and to help pay for their nuclear weapons platforms.  The Pakis also shift US technology to China and North Korea.  In essence, Pakistan provides our technology to our potential enemies, who will undoubtedly use these platforms against our armed forces.

Given the foregoing, I can’t understand how our State Department can assert “friendship” with either the Saudis or the Pakistanis.  We also know that Saudi Arabia started the civil war in Syria. Yet, we side with the Saudis against the Syrians — and do so for no other reason than to maintain the pretense of Saudi-American friendship.  Why?  What have Syrians ever done to the American people?

Has the State Department protected the United States and the American people from Saudi-sponsored terrorism?  Answer: NO.  In fact, by virtue of the government’s reassurances that the Saudis and Pakistanis are our friends, our presidents and State Department have made ongoing terrorism a near-guarantee.

As responsible citizens, realizing that once we elect a president, he alone appoints cabinet secretaries, and armed with the knowledge of recent history, who are these selected people who contrive to make our lives more complex and, in some cases, horribly miserable?

Bill Clinton appointed Madeline Albright as the first female Secretary of State.  Her name at birth was Marie Jana Korbelova, a Czech who immigrated to the United States and obtained advanced degrees from Columbia University.  Before becoming Secretary of State, she worked as an aide to Senator Edmund Muskie and later as an acolyte of Zbigniew Brzezinski on the National Security Council.  This made her an “expert” in foreign affairs and a much-sought-after advisor to Democratic candidates.

Today, Albright remains a celebrity and continues to inflict her hubris upon the American people. She believes (even today) that the United States has a moral obligation to interfere in the affairs of other nations.  She insisted that the United States was justified in imposing sanctions against Iraq, even if a half-million children had to die due to them.

In defense of this incredible “foreign policy objective,” Academic (with no real experience outside the classroom or air-conditioned NSC offices) Albright asserted, “We stand taller and see further into the future.”  There is no evidence to support her claim, but that’s where she was coming from. On the use of military force, she asked Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

As Secretary of State, Albright thought of our service personnel as pawns in a global chess game, readily sacrificed if she determined that it was necessary.  But how much “good” has Albright, and others just like her, done for the United States in implementing failed foreign policies?  Succeeding Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Rex Tillerson just continued to dig that bottomless hole to contain the human remains of people whom some of us loved.

And then we have other cabinet secretaries, few of which deserve more than our scorn.  As Secretaries of Defense, we’ve had Dick Cheney, Les Aspin, William Perry, William Cohen — all of whom we could classify as obnoxious pricks.  Donald Rumsfeld had a few good ideas, and he was honest enough to admit to his staff that he was out of his depth about the Afghanistan situation. Still, we cannot offer him or Paul Bremer our gratitude for his handling of the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

Robert Gates may qualify as our best Defense Secretary since 1947, a man who seemed to care most about the injury and death of our forward-deployed combat troops, but I cannot think of one Interior Secretary whose policies substantially improved the lives of our Native American populations.

So, then, where does the buck stop?  Do we ever ask, before an election, specifically whom the presidential candidates have in the queue to advise them?  If we did ask, would they tell us?  And if they didn’t know, should we vote for them?  I’m only asking because grasping at straws does not a policy-maker make.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

For the best in conservative news click on the button.

CA Secretary of State Devises ‘Print-Your-Own Ballot From Home’ Program that’s Audit proof

Just in time for the September 14 recall election of Governor Newsom.  The California Secretary of State is Shirley Weber.

According to her statement, the print-your-own ballot from home program takes effect on August 16, the beginning of Newsom’s recall election. There are claims that it is audit proof.

Did she invent this? Just who is she?

The State biography:

Shirley Nash Weber, Ph.D. was nominated to serve as California Secretary of State by Governor Gavin Newsom on December 22, 2020 and sworn into office on January 29, 2021. She is California’s first Black Secretary of State and only the fifth African American to serve as a state constitutional officer in California’s 170-year history.

Weber was born to sharecroppers in Hope, Arkansas during the segregationist Jim Crow era. Her father, who left Arkansas after being threatened by a lynch mob, did not have the opportunity to vote until he was in his 30s. Her grandfather never voted as custom and law in the South, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, systemically suppressed voting by Blacks. Although her family moved to California when Weber was three years old, it was her family’s experience in the Jim Crow South that has driven her activism and legislative work. She has fought to secure and expand civil rights for all Californians, including restoring voting rights for individuals who have completed their prison term. 

Ripley’s believe it or not. Call this “equity” voting no doubt.

California Globe:

The Globe received a tip from a source about the Remote Accessible Vote by Mail (RAVBM) system.

It turns out this Remote Accessible Vote by Mail (RAVBM) system, which appears to have been created for the November 3, 2020 General Election, allows voters to mark their selections using their own compatible technology to vote independently and privately in the comfort of their own home. It appears to be a published but not menu-listed page. Are they hiding it on purpose?

And how many ballots in the 2020 General Election were cast using these make-your-own ballots?

CA SOS Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail. (Photo:

Here are more details from the SOS page:

How to Request RAVBM

A voter can request a RAVBM when they review their information on My Voter Status or by contacting their County Elections Office by phone, mail or email or by going to their County Elections Office website for more information.

How to Use RAVBM

A voter using RAVBM:

  • Downloads the application to mark their selections,
  • Marks their selections for each contest using their compatible technology, on their computer or tablet,
  • Prints and returns their marked selections by mail using the postage paid envelope included with their vote by mail ballot or using their own envelope which would require postage. The return envelope used in any instance, must have the voter’s signature on the outside of the envelope. The voter can also return their selections in person to a voting location, drop box, or their County Elections Office. A voter cannot submit their selections online. It must be mailed or returned in person.

The vote-by-mail envelope being mailed to all Californian’s, includes punched holes that will help guide visually impaired voters where the signature is needed. However, if a voter is using their own envelope, they can sign anywhere on the outside of the envelope.

The Secretary of State’s Office currently has four certified RAVBM systems:

Patty Murray at Gateway Pundit asks a good question: “So, how does California prevent ballots that are printed at home from bleeding through flimsy printing paper? The answer—they don’t.”

Well, there are a few more questions that need to be asked:

Can you print out more than one ballot? How are these verified and by whom? Why can’t these ballots be dropped off? Why must they be mailed?

What could possibly go wrong?

Did California invent an audit-proof way to steal elections?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Gateway Pundit has more here

CA Implements Audit-Proof Way To Steal Election That Goes Into Effect Just In Time For Newsom’s Recall Election

Of course the GOP are a dollar short and a day late. Where is the media? Simple me.

For the best of the swamp push the. button.

Why for sure this is the best of the swamp today.

American Sovereignty

On the Question of Sovereignty

by Mustang

By now a long-held principle in American government, popular sovereignty holds that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the people’s consent.  Should this ever become no longer true, the government is unlawful, and the people are entitled to overthrow it.  How people maintain their sovereignty may vary from country to country.  In the United States, the people give their consent to Congressional representatives, who then act in accordance with the will of their constituents.  Supposedly, the people are the sole source of political power.

Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Capitol

That’s what everyone learned in civics class (back when we had such things).  It is true that the notion of popular sovereignty, as espoused by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, was incorporated into the concept of our Constitutional Republic.  Over time, however, Mr. Benjamin Franklin’s assertion that “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns” turned out not entirely accurate.

Political reality in America today proved Mr. Franklin wrong.  We, the people, are not in charge of anything.  Career politicians rule the roost, and this has been going on for so long that the politicians themselves have stopped pretending that they work for us.  They do not, and if the truth were told, maybe they never did.

We must evaluate the foregoing as a startling shift away from the intent of the founding fathers.  Government organization is up to political leaders, of course, but the relationship between the people and their government is not a matter of the government’s preferences.  In the House of Representatives, elected officials must carry out the people’s will in matters of spending, law, and war.  Congress has no mandate to support any president.  They do have the mandate to support the people.

Note: Only the House of Representatives (through the will of the people) may impeach a president.  Only the Senate may convict a president of high crimes and misdemeanors.  Other than Congress, neither the president nor any member of the federal judiciary answers directly to the people.  The people may vote for the president, but they do not elect him.  The Electoral College does that.

If the preceding is true, then why are members of Congress so dismissive of we the people?  There are several explanations for congressional behavior toward us.  One is that the average citizen hasn’t a clue how politics works inside the nation’s capital.  Most of us have no clear idea about how our economy works, the federal budget, taxation, or the necessity or process of making laws.  We do not understand many of these things, but they do.  So, we aren’t as bright as members of congress.  We’re like the elderly uncle who must be reminded to wash his hands before dinner.

Another problem that we created is that we put these people in charge, but we also leave them in charge for years.  They are career politicians, and the longer they remain in office (because we keep reelecting them), the more arrogant and insufferable they become.  How arrogant?  For one thing, they’ve forgotten who they work for and take it for granted that they’ll be reelected again and again.  Some of these people no longer respond to letters or emails from their constituents, and even when they do, the tenor of their response is almost insulting.  Another example of their arrogance is that they expect voters to reelect them even though they no longer live in the districts they represent.

The takeaway from all this is that we little people are no longer in charge; the political elite is running the show.  Congressional membership has become a cash cow and corrupt in the extreme.  Once an elected member of Congress reaches five years in office (two and a half terms), they become vested in full retirement (currently, $139,200 a year for the rest of their lives), beginning at age 62.  If they serve twenty years in congress, they may retire at age 50.  If they remain in congress for 25 years, their pension begins immediately upon retirement.  Most members of congress acquire wealth in other ways, some of it entirely legal for them, but not if we did it.

We cannot lay this situation at the feet of career politicians.  The blame for arrogant career politicians is no one’s fault other than the people who keep electing them.  Some of these people served for nearly sixty years.  Can you even imagine that?  Currently, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been feeding at the public trough for 34 years, Maxine Waters (D-CA) for 30 years, Don Young (R-AK) 48 years, Hank Johnson (an utter moron) (D-GA), 14 years.  Some members of the Senate have served 30, 40, and 50 years.

Members of the House of Representatives no longer work for us; we work for them.  We pay their salaries; we suffer the consequences of their political point of view.  Their job is to spend our money; our job is to do what we’re told.  I will add to the preceding that when one considers the weight and power of the federal government, “doing as we’re told” becomes an ominous proposition.  If no one realized this before 6 January, they would have to be an idiot not to know it now.  And, as I said earlier, the blame for this completely unsatisfactory relationship is entirely our fault.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

For the best of the swamp push the button.

California Gives Female Inmates Condoms, Offers Abortion After State Forces Them To Stay With Transgenders

The California prison system is now taking on its first wave of those prisoners that are requesting transfers into women’s prisons. There are three hundred waiting to transfer since January when the bill became law. Twenty have been processed so far. No one has been turned down. 1237 now claim as being transgendered. Women’s prisons are known to be an easier place to do your time, so no doubt just the beginning of co-ed prisons. Violent males, rapists all are welcome to apply.


There are no exceptions in the bill to make sure that men who have committed violent or sexual crimes against women are not placed in prison with women. Once transgender inmates are housed and classified by gender identity as opposed to biological sex, crimes they commit in prison are cataloged with the stats of the opposite sex. This will make it impossible to track how many male-to-female transgender inmates abuse their male-bodied privilege and assault, harass, or attack female prisoners. In practical terms, this would both skew the violent crime stats and make it that much harder for women inmates to differentiate their male attackers from the rest of the prison population.

Statistically, men commit the majority of crimes against women. The World Health Organization estimates that 35 percent of women internationally have experienced sexual violence, most of it at the hands of intimate partners, and 38 percent of the murders of women are committed by male intimate partners. Women in prison who have perpetrated crimes have, in many cases, also been the victims of crimes. As they serve their debt to society, they should not be further victimized.

Here we go:

2013/01/26 Rally at Chowchilla Valley State Prison for Women

As The Daily Wire reported last September, inmates in California are now housed according to their self-proclaimed gender identity. SB 132 — signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) — states that prison officers must privately ask inmates in the intake process if they identify as transgender, nonbinary, or intersex. Inmates can then request a move to the facility that houses other inmates in line with their preferred identity.

The Women’s Liberation Front — a left-wing feminist organization that opposes gender identity legislation due to its negative effects upon women and children — revealed that corrections facilities are now offering contraceptives as a result of the policy:

Women incarcerated in California’s largest women’s prison are describing the conditions as “a nightmare’s worst nightmare” after the introduction of new pregnancy resources in the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) medical clinics. The new resources are a tacit admission by officials that women should expect to be raped when housed in prison with men, where all sex is considered non-consensual by default within the system. 

New posters recently appeared in medical rooms outlining the options available to “pregnant people” in prison, including prenatal care, abortion, and adoption. The poster also declares that women have the right to “contraceptive counseling and your choice of birth control methods by a licensed health care provider within 60-180 days prior to scheduled release date.” However, the only methods available to incarcerated women to prevent pregnancy are condoms, which appeared shortly after the men, and Plan B emergency contraceptives.

Women’s prisons across the state appear to be making final preparations such as these for a massive wave of transfers after nearly 300 requests were initiated following SB 132 going into effect in January of this year. So far, only about 20 of the transfers have been processed (and exactly zero transfer requests have been denied) — leaving hundreds of men, many of whom are sex offenders, awaiting entry into the women’s estate.

As more men arrive at the women’s facilities, the crisis will only worsen. In just six months since the enactment of SB 132, the number of incarcerated people self-identifying as trans or non-binary (thus becoming eligible to request a facility transfer) has increased from 1,088 to 1,237. The nearly 300 pending transfers are only the beginning of the invasion of women’s prisons by violent male inmates, including convicted murderers and rapists.

“You might as well declare the prison is co-ed and ship us off to Pelican Bay!” one devastated woman currently incarcerated in CCWF said.

More at Daily Wire


The best of the swamp today.

Our Saudi and Paki Friends

Our Saudi and Paki Friends


Some Facts

by Mustang

International relations theory holds that national policies always follow national interests — as do interests in forming and maintaining foreign alliances.  Before 2001, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the primary supporters of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (also known as the Taliban).  If international relations theory holds, then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia presumably supported the Taliban because doing so served the interests of all three governments.


“saudi-pakistan” by coolloud is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Thirteen days before the Saudi attack against the United States, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia dispatched a letter to U. S. President George W. Bush, stating, “A time comes when peoples and nations part.  We are at a crossroads.  It is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests.  Those governments that don’t feel the pulse of their people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran” [Note 1].  For more than a year after 9-11, Saudi Arabia’s interior minister insisted that the attackers were “dupes in a Zionist plot.”  In December 2002, the Saudi government claimed that America’s ire concerning the 9-11 attacks resulted from the intolerance of the American people and their hatred of Arab peoples.

In 2003, the Saudis directed additional Islamist attacks against several US compounds in Saudi Arabia.  Since 2001, the British people have suffered 21 separate Saudi-inspired attacks [Note 2].  According to the US State Department, Saudi Arabia has been (and continues to be) the most significant source of terrorist funding in the entire world.  Moreover, agents of Saudi Wahhabism initiated and continue to operate as the primary source of civil strife in Syria.

Despite these facts, the US State Department claims, “The United States and Saudi Arabia have a common interest in preserving the stability, security, and prosperity of the Gulf region and consult closely on a wide range of regional and global issues.  Saudi Arabia plays an important role in working toward a peaceful and prosperous future for the region and is a strong partner in security and counterterrorism efforts, in military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation” [Note 3].  Additionally, Saudi Arabia is the United States’ most significant customer of foreign military sales.

After the Islamist attacks against the United States on 9-11-2001, Pakistan suddenly became one of America’s “key allies” in the war on terror — pressured to do so by President George W. Bush.  It wasn’t that Pakistan was much interested in helping the US in its so-called war on terror, but rather that Bush agreed to pay bounties for the capture and execution of known Pakistani terrorists.  President Bush “forgave” a $1 billion debt owed to the United States to sweeten the deal further.  In 2005, additional taxpayer-funded millions went to “rebuild” Kashmir following an earthquake there.

Again, according to the US State Department, the United States has been one of Pakistan’s largest foreign investors, with concentrations in consumer goods, chemicals, energy, agriculture, “business process outsourcing” [Note 4], transportation, and communications.  In essence, Pakistan has become part of the American welfare system.

Ranked immediately behind Nigeria in purchasing power parity (gross domestic product) is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ranked 25th globally.  Pakistan’s primary resource is exploitable minerals, but its ore deposits are generally poor, with only two regions of the country noted for high-grade ore.  Irrespective of its poor material wealth, most of Pakistan’s exports are sent to the United States, while its primary source of imports is China.

At the heart of diplomatic alliances is the balance of power among nations, and what must always determine the formation of a partnership is perceived national interest.  Since 1947, the United States has provided Pakistan with close to $100 billion in foreign aid and assistance, most of it in military equipment assistance.  Given that the United States provides arms and equipment to Pakistan — and Pakistan turns around and supplies the Taliban with financing, arms, equipment, and manpower, what are the United States’ national interests in supporting a grossly failed regime such as Pakistan?

Note also that since 2001, 2,312 US military personnel have died in Afghanistan; 20,066 American men and women received debilitating wounds.  In this same period, an estimated 40,000 Afghani civilians have been killed due to military operations.  The cost of the Afghan War to the American taxpayer is roughly $842 billion. The fact is that despite this massive economic burden paid for by the American taxpayer, Pakistan is the primary source of funding, recruiting, and arming the so-called Taliban insurgencies in Afghanistan.


Experts have observed that (in their opinion), the Saudi royal family hangs on to its power by a thread.  Whether true, which I find doubtful given that 85% of the Saudi people are Sunni Moslems, it benefits the Kingdom of Saud to domestically support and export one of the most radical forms of Islam: Wahhabism.  The Wahhabi sect of Islam is akin to puritanism.  Its adherents prefer the term Salafi.  The house of Saud supports Wahhabism because, in doing so, it satisfies the radical-most segment of Saudi society.  Once more, from the mouth of the Saudi Interior Minister, “… governments that don’t feel the pulse of their people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.”  It’s a survival thing.  I understand “survival.”  I do not know why the United States seeks to maintain a “national interest” in a nation that seeks to destroy all Christian and/or secular societies.  Shall we bare our throats to a dangerous enemy by calling him “friend?”

What do we know about Pakistan?  First, it is on the verge of being a failed state — as most Islamic states are.  There is nothing about an Islamic state that is compatible with the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.  Nothing.  In Pakistan, the government also hangs on by a thread.  In a nation of well over 180-million people, 90% of whom embrace radical Islam, the government’s only chance of hanging on to power is to accede to the demands of its predominantly Sunni Salafi Moslem population.  The only word to describe Pakistan is “chaos.”  With that as an easily observable fact, why is the United States government paying Pakistan billions of dollars to make war on the United States in Afghanistan?  Perhaps it has something to do with the additional fact that Pakistan possesses more than 100 nuclear warheads.  The thousands of dysfunctional morons running the government of the United States have no concept of such terms as “national interests” or “integrity.”

United States foreign policy with respect to Pakistan has funneled billions of dollars into that country, first to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and completely ignored the fact that Pakistan spends a large amount of that money toward the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.  The fantastic part of this is that ANYONE in the United States has even an iota of confidence in the United States government.  In exchange for its promise to keep its nuclear weapons secure, the United States has turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s direct support of radical Islamic terrorism.  Who is running Pakistan today?  No, not the orthodontist who serves as president.  The power in Pakistan is the Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI).  The ISI is a divided house: moderate and radical Sunni Moslems.  Pakistan’s government could be the most unstable of all US “allies.”  But — we keep pumping in American tax dollars to prop them up.

China may be the least of our problems, but not by much. In this hazardous environment, the American people continue to elect such unbelievable imbeciles as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Granted, Biden’s corrupt relationship with China should at least demand impeachment … but while China confines itself to killing our people through bio-warfare, Saudi Arabia is content to murder our innocent citizens as they make their way to work in the morning, and Pakistan has its finger on a nuclear trigger.

What could possibly go wrong with our traditionally inept foreign policies?  By the way, Democrats … when you send you children off the school in the morning, will that be the last time you ever see them?



[1] Reported in the Wall Street Journal on 1 October 2001.

[2] The Saudi government continues to claim that terrorist attacks are individually sponsored incidents with no tie to the Saudi government — except that factually, the majority of money supporting terrorists’ attacks comes directly from members of the royal family.

[3] Some 37,000 Saudi students’ study at US colleges and universities each academic year.

[4] Business process out-sourcing is a method used to subcontract various business operations to third party vendors.  By business process out-sources, one might assume that the US State Department means telephone help lines that hardly anyone in the United States can understand.  One can understand why a major US company would out-source certain business practices to the IRP once they realize how cheap labor is in Pakistan and the tax benefits from sending US jobs to overseas locations.  At the present time, the top US companies who engage Pakistan (and other third world countries) to handle their call centers are Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi Group, Hewlett Packard, Sykes Enterprises, Convergys, T-Mobile, and Prudential Financial.  The first five of these companies “went off shore” after receiving taxpayer-funded federal bailouts; Hewlett Packard, Sykes, and Convergys are able to use off-shore call centers because of multi-million dollar federal contracts, and T-Mobile and Prudential Financial receive federal subsidies to operate off-shore call centers.

Thanks Whatfinger for the link… click on the button and check it out.

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Check it out –

Kamala Harris Absurdly Says It’s “Almost Impossible” For Rural Americans To Photocopy Their ID


“Rural Americans avoid photography in general. They’re frightened the magic camera box will steal their soul.” That apparently is the nub of it. So now Harris is worried about rural voters?

The expression “dumb as rocks” gives rocks a bad name as Harris gives her latest interview. Here is Biden’s best insurance against being removed from office opining on rural voters. Gee, I never knew she cares do much about rural voters. Did you?

How does she think millions get their welfare every month? They manage to come up with ALL the ID requirements for that somehow. No problem.

Kamala Harris Absurdly Says It’s “Almost Impossible” For Rural Americans To Photocopy Their ID




For some reason I don’t think Kamala has in mind helping out these voters. But then again, black city folks started to get offended that there was an implication that they were too dumb to figure out how to get an I.D. And it was getting absurd. So this is the latest. Rural voters. As if she cared.



The best of the swamp today.

Thanks WHATFINGER NEWS for the shout out! A great site.

%d bloggers like this: