Thursday, February 7, 2019

Here's The Difference.

As you'll recall, back when Devin Nunes was still chairman of the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff launched an 8 month ethics inquiry into Nunes because Nunes had met with a source without informing the committee. This arguably slowed down the GOP investigation into the Russia Hoax.

Today we've learned that Schiff met personally with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS in July at a security conference in Aspen, CO. It now seems certain, based on Bruce Ohr's recently leaked testimony, that Simpson lied in his own testimony to the Intel Committee.

Will GOPers play turnabout and demand an ethics inquiry into Schiff?

They may, but here's the difference.

When Nunes was sidelined the Speaker of the House was NeverTrumper Paul Ryan.

Nancy Pelosi, also a NeverTrumper--same party!--is now the Speaker.

See the difference?

Won't happen.


  1. The value of incidents like these is that it demonstrates conclusively to the American people that the level corruption within all branches of the federal government is extensive and severe. And DC cannot heal itself because to do so would bring down the entire edifice of government. IG Horowitz has documented numerous Class I felony criminal acts by many senior Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, yet no one will be fully investigated or prosecuted for these crimes because conviction of these master criminals would then taint prior official acts by these perpetrators. Specifically, if DOJ/FBI officials were ever convicted of lying under oath (which would be a lessor charge than sedition), then all prior criminal cases that they oversaw would then be subject to appeal by defense lawyers claiming similar corruption was feasible in regard to their clients. Potentially thousands of criminal convictions could be overturned as a result.

    The only hope for redemption is via the American people. We need a Yellow Vest Movement here.

  2. Unknown, I agree with much of what you're saying, but the big problem is that it's "the American people" who elect and tolerate the rascals (or much worse). What's needed is what amounts to a spiritual makeover of "the American people," one that would allow for a principled remake of the country. Without that, no Yellow Vest Movement. Sadly, I'm pessimistic about that. I never say never, but realistically ...

  3. Mr. Wauck,

    I recently attended a Catholic men's conference. As a fellow Catholic, I'm guessing that you agree that we Catholics aren't too good about evangelizing. I guess we take it for granted that since Catholics are the largest individual Christian denomination in the US, we can coast. Catholics also don't talk too much about the End Times.

    At this conference, the theme was the need to evangelize. One of the speakers also talked about the End Times. In my opinion, this country's Christians are asleep. We need to wake up and heed the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. The terrible comments in Virginia by the Governor about late-term abortion and infanticide should shock all men of good will into action. Jesus says that no man knows the hour when the end is coming but it sure seems like a lot of the signs He says to look for are occurring. I'm not saying the End Times are here. As Jesus says, stay awake and be alert.

    In a long-winded way, I'm agreeing with your comments about a "principled remake" of the country. My mom is temporarily staying with us. Each night my wife, mother and I pray. The country's morality is one of our themes. In His Mercy, maybe The LORD will grant us an undeserved revival.

  4. Thanks, Joe. It's a complicated situation, as "tortuous as the human heart," but beyond a doubt a return to principled beliefs and morality is an essential part of any solution. All I can offer is that each of us has to do the best we can in the circumstances that we find ourselves in. Which, of course, includes reaching out to others as the opportunities arise.

  5. Hi Mark. Obviously, I don't speak as a Catholic, but I wanted to refer others to the Catholic concern over Islamization and other issues as expressed by William Kilpatrick. See:

    I was just reading Kilpatrick's most recent essay on Pope Francis. As with Obama and others of that ilk, the question has always been: "Does this guy really have the interests of the US (or the West, or Catholicism) at heart, or is he working for the other side?" And being of a conspiratorial nature, I would just point out that Obama has been accused of engineering the downfall of Pope Benedict. I also suspect that he played a role in Merkel's decision to allow the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe. Just saying...

  6. Steve, actually I'm quite familiar with the claims that Obama was involved in the removal of Ratzinger--whether actively or permissively isn't clear. I have no particular theory to advance, but I think it's pretty clear that there were powerful forces gathered that disapproved of the direction in which he was leading the Church--and therefore those parts of the West that were open to that influence. If you look through my past posts, you'll see that from a philosophical standpoint I'm by no means a fan of Ratzinger. In fact I've been strongly critical of him for many years. That said, I did appreciate some of his actions, particularly his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. These are very complex matters, so I refer you to my blogs on the subject of Ratzinger if your interests lie in that direction.

    I assume your primary interest in the removal of Ratzinger has to do with the anger among the elites at Ratzinger's "anti-Islamic" views and his outspoken desire to lead the West toward its Christian roots. I agree that that probably factored into his removal, although his views on that score are complex and widely misunderstood. For example, I examined his famous address at Regensburg in Benedict at Regensburg (not perhaps my best organized essay) and pointed out that in his address Ratzinger is critiquing especially Western types of thought--including Catholic schools of philosophy--that share the orthodox Islamic viewpoint in philosophy. He suggests that this common danger--as he sees it (and I agree)--could form the basis for dialogue with elements in the Islamic world that are more open to the West. He also propounded a more critical view, fearing that any "reform" of Islam was likely to lead it back to its roots, to fundamentalism, and seeing that as a real danger to the West.

    Re Bergoglio, it may interest you to learn--if you're not already aware--that he cooperates very closely with the Soros crowd. Just do a search of "pope francis soros" and you'll see what I mean. If you think that includes influencing Merkel, well, you're right--but the influence works both ways. In fact, the whole topic of the close connection of the German Church and the German government is one that is very important but little understood. The Vatican, from a financial standpoint, is largely owned by the German Church, which in turn gets its enormous financial clout through the Kirchensteuer (Church Tax) system. Nor is it coincidental that Soros recently shifted his HQ to Berlin.

    While I don't generally blog on these matters, I do follow them closely.

  7. Steve, there's another aspect to Bergoglio that you may not be familiar with. He is extremely close to--and has been for much of his life--certain types of Jewish thought. I believe it mostly has to do with Kabbalah or Kabbalah influenced schools of thought. My understanding is that he works some of that into his overall syncretist views. Also Emmanuel Lévinas.