90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, March 25, 2019

The Truth About 'Russian Collusion'

Girls With Guns

These Blogs Provide Links To Rule 5 Sites:

What is Rule 5?

The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Katharine McPhee

Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around

The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style

EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA

The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama

The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

The Aftermath Of The Tiananmen Square Massacre, 4 June 1989

For a few minutes, forget your troubles, forget your worries, open up and take a journey...

Camels and burning Kuwaiti oil fields that had been blown up by retreating Iraqi troops, 1991.

The Zeppelin Columbia over the Empire State Building in 1931

One of the first underwater photographs ever made - 1893

To demonstrate the superiority of the Red Army, 57.000 German prisoners of war are herded through downtown Moscow, July 1944

The last prisoners leaving Alcatraz, 1963

British soldier observing Argentinean helmets after the Battle of Goose Green on the Falkland Islands, May 1982.

Execution by cannon, in Shiraz, Iran, mid-late 19th century

New York City, 1947, photo by Fred Stein

Alligator farm in St. Augustine, Florida, 1926

Depression In America: 1929 - Is This Our Near Future?

Uploading the first 5 MByte hard disk to a Pan Am plane, 1956

Carl Akeley posed with the leopard he killed with his bare hands after it attacked him, 1896

Confederate and Union soldiers shake hands across the wall at the 1938 reunion for the Veterans of the Battle of Gettysburg

Che Guevara and Fidel Castro fishing, 1960

A German U-boat stranded on the South Coast of England, after surrender, 1918

Banksy Parodies Government Spying..

American Soldiers Used For Nuclear Testing In 1953..

The Public Reckoning Over Russiagate Will Not Be Televised

There will be no public mea culpa from the media for two years of feverishly biased hyping of unfounded allegations that the president of the United States is engaged in treason.

The opening scene of the Big Reveal of Robert Mueller’s special counsel report went pretty much according to type: Conservatives “pounced,” the left “pushed back,” and the media turned to each other for comfort and reassurance that everything was going to be alright.

Amidst the misty-eyed cable news anchors and the hastily arranged panels of pundits carrying out a series of televised group therapy sessions, a theme began to take shape—a soothing, healing crystal in the form of an incantation of hope and deliverance: This can’t be the end. There’s got to be more. This isn’t the end. There’s going to be more. Say it with me: This can’t be the end. There’s got to be…

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow got the ball rolling with her traditional stream-of-consciousness opening, rhetorically cursing the gods of sitting-president indictment norms and promising (pleading for?) more, much more, to come from the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Gerald Nadler. CNN threw together a panel of its Russia collusion all-stars, all of whom, like Maddow, played principal roles in bringing the Russia collusion “slam dunk” into our living rooms and embedding the notion of a treasonous president into the national psyche.

They made no mention of the provenance of those great expectations as they were being dashed, ironically, in the same studios from whence they arose, but chose instead to focus on the future. Their message? “It was never really that important to prove that the leader of our country was a compromised asset of the Kremlin. That was just something we liked to talk about while we waited for the serious charges to be brought, like inflating his assets for insurance purposes and paying off a porn star.”

In a rare fit of journalistic pique, Anderson Cooper attempted to ask one of his guests if all of this talk about the Nadler and Schiff investigations didn’t support the notion that the left was simply moving the goal posts from “Just wait until the Mueller report comes out” to “Just wait until the Nadler and Schiff reports come out.” He didn’t get a straight answer.

Nor will we. There will be no public mea culpa from the media for two years of feverishly biased hyping of unfounded allegations that the president of the United States is engaged in treason and actively operating as an agent of the Russian Federation. Nor will we hear any indications of regret from the current and former Democratic politicians and intelligence community officials who initiated, distributed, and sustained those allegations through leaks...

Popular Democrat Talking Point Demolished As 480,000 Pounds Of Drugs Were Seized At Open Parts Of U.S.-Mexico Border

One of Democrat lawmakers’ major talking points on border security has been absolutely demolished by the U.S. Border Patrol who reports they seize more drugs at areas along the border where there is no border wall than at legal ports of entry.

President Trump wants to prevent the influx of drugs and migrants associated with the notorious gang MS-13, but Democrats continue to argue that a wall is not necessary and continue to fight him at every turn.

480,000 pounds of drugs seized by the U.S. Border Patrol may help to change that.

These areas that the Border Patrol is tasked with surveying include areas without a border wall.

From the Washington Examiner:

U.S. Border Patrol, which works in the unfenced or minimally protected space between crossings, seized nearly 480,000 pounds of drugs on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2018.

Drug seizures that occur at ports of entry are documented under Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations statistics. Its four field offices on the southern border — El Paso, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Ariz.; and San Diego — seized 370,000 pounds of drugs in the 2018 fiscal year.Democrat lawmakers have peddled the line that ports of entries were where more drugs were seized, but now CBP data contradicts it.

“President Trump has...

Dershowitz calls Mueller a coward, says it’s ‘a very, very bad day for CNN … they should be hanging their heads in shame’

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says Robert Mueller’s final report concluding there was no evidence of collusion vindicates President Trump because it proves this was a bogus narrative that was recklessly promoted by the anti-Trump media.

Moreover, Dershowitz told Fox News that the Mueller report is a “very, very, very bad day for CNN,” which relentlessly pushed the Russia-collusion hoax for the past two years despite a total lack of evidence.

Alan Dershowitz: Irresponsible CNN ‘Misinformed the Public’

Dershowitz — a lifelong liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton — says CNN and other media propagandists should be ashamed of themselves for trying to gaslight the public with a phony narrative simply because they don’t like Trump.

“This is a good day for the President. And it’s a very, very bad day for CNN. They should be hanging their heads in shame, when you think about how many people [on CNN] went out on a limb and predicted that there would be indictments for obstruction, there would be indictments for collusion, there would be indictments for this [and that].

“And for when they made it seem like this was an open-and-shut case and they misinformed the American public.

They have to have some public accountability when they say things that turn out not to be true.

Look, I’ve been vindicated. I’ve been saying this from Day One. And I’ve been criticized and condemned for simply doing a legal analysis that I think any reasonable, objective, nonpartisan lawyer would have done, and would have come to the same conclusion that I came to — and essentially, the same conclusion made by the Attorney General.”

Dershowitz: Mueller Should Have Stemmed Obstruction Gossip

Dershowitz also slammed special counsel Robert Mueller, saying he should have spelled out a definitive conclusion on the obstruction-of-justice narrative instead of leaving it open-ended.

“I thought it was a cop-out for him to say there was not enough evidence to indict [on obstruction]. The job of the prosecutor is to decide, yes or no. Make a decision.

And then if you say yes, you indict. If you say no, you shut up. You don’t go on and say, ‘No, we’re not going to indict, but let me tell you all the evidence that might have led us to indict.’