American Thinker

| August 14, 2019 | 40 Comments

doj

Poetrooper sends us a link to American Thinker, where the author of a post questions the wisdom of Attorney General Barr’s decision to use the FBI to get to the bottom of the purported Jeffrey Epstein suicide. Something about corruption, cover-ups, and, well, here’s the article:

Let this FBI investigate Epstein’s death? You gotta be joking

Pardon my cynicism, folks, but Attorney General Barr’s declared determination to dig to the bottom of the purported Jeffrey Epstein suicide rings a bit hollow. Had he said he was appointing an independent investigative team headed by an assistant attorney general on loan from one of our southern red states — say, Texas, Alabama or Georgia — where cultural sophistication doesn’t rise to the level of blasé acceptance of pedophilia found in blue, coastal urban enclaves, I might feel more confident. Had he further announced an investigative team comprising veteran sleuths from state police departments from similar red states, with no federal presence other than scientific criminological support, I would be truly heartened.

But to tell this nation that the same federal investigative agency that, we have learned, and still are learning with every passing day, was thoroughly corrupted at its head, leading to deceptive cover-up investigations of powerful political figures, is to conduct an investigation that most of this country now believes may involve powerful political figures from those previous pretend probes is, to borrow A.G. Barr’s word describing the suicide itself, “appalling.”

I know, I know — many of you are going to tell me I should not distrust all the good, honest, hardworking rank-and-file members of the FBI who played no role in their leadership’s treachery. After all, we’ve been fed that line endlessly by politicians and talking-heads. However, it was those same pols and pundits who told us what a reliably trustworthy cop James Comey was when he was heading up the Hillary email inquiry, and that Robert Mueller was such a straight-arrow professional, one who could be relied on to conduct a fair inquest into Trump’s possible Russian collusion. So much for their character-reading skills.

Thanks Poe. Read the rest of the article here: American Thinker

Category: Crime, Guest Link, Legal

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. LC says:

    …doesn’t rise to the level of blasé acceptance of pedophilia found in blue, coastal urban enclaves.

    That was enough to get me to stop reading. When you try to tie something like an acceptance of pedophilia to a particular political alignment, you have serious problems.

    • Poetrooper says:

      LC, while you and other liberals vehemently deny it because, for now, it is politically incorrect to do so, there is a demonstrable connection between pedophilia and homosexuality in both genders, but far more so with males. This predatory aspect of homosexuality is the proverbial fly in their ointment of cultural acceptability. Deny it all you want, but life events tell us it is so–look at the Boy Scouts.

      I will ask you just where in America that homosexuality enjoys its greatest acceptance and you know as well as all the rest reading here that it is in the urban coastal areas, where they migrate from flyover country seeking that acceptance. It just so happens that virtually all those areas tend to be under Democrat governance.

      It is liberal Democrat, not conservative, organizations that advocate for uncritical acceptance of all manner of sexual aberrations, including the acceptability of sexual interaction with minors. Mind you, I’m not making that a blanket charge–but there are SOME liberal organizations that do push the envelope that far. These kinds of organizations also tend to aggregate where they can find social acceptance.

      So I ask you, LC, just where might that be and who just happens to be governing those places? I can’t link a political alignment to an acceptance of a sexual aberration?

      Who the hell are you kidding?

      • LC says:

        So let me start with taking your assumptions (because the research is not quite so simple) and say, sure, a connection exists between homosexuality and pedophilia. How in the world do you get to the asinine conclusion, then, that support of the former means support of the latter?

        I don’t give a rats ass what two consenting adults do with each other, but the operative words there are ‘consenting’ and ‘adults’ – if you remove them, pretty much anyone except pedophiles finds it abhorrent.

        Sure, you can find fringe cases of groups who align more liberally who push that envelope. But guess what, I can find groups of people who believe the earth is fucking flat, too. And probably in greater number. That doesn’t mean this is a trend, it’s a bit of statistical noise that occurs when you’ve got 7+ billion people in the world.

        And while I’m thankfully not well versed in the statistics of this miserable topic, and a quick google search didn’t bring up numbers of pedophiles itself, you can find sex offenders per capita by state. So I decided to look that up, your words in my ears, fully expecting to see those evil liberal enclaves with numbers so high that 2 out of every 3 must surely be a sex offender!

        And lo and behold, that’s not the case (link below). Oregon, those fucking hippies, they are tops, with around 676 per 100K, so 0.6% of the population. Number two? Arkansas, which you’ll now tell me is probably a liberal enclave, with 544 per 100K. Now maybe you’ll tell me all those people in Arkansas were just liberals living there, sure. Or maybe the Oregon hippies were all pedophiles, but the ‘sex offenders’ in Arkansas are honorable types who were screwed by the justice system. I’m sure you’ll find some way to dismiss the data.

        But the fact is, at the end of the day, you’re talking about shit that is so reviled on both sides, and with no discernible signal within the statistical noise that actually makes your point, and yet still trying to tie liberals to it. That’s pathetic, and emblematic of the worst kind of political division in this country.

        Simply put, this blog, and this country, deserve better than this sort of nonsense.

        • 5th/77th FA says:

          Well, LC, we found what it takes to make you stop reading, now if we could just find what it takes to keep you from stopping by and seagulling the place up. It was too late and too tired in the evening for me to wrap my head around your wanna be Larsi boi drivel.

          In your typical fashion you have taken the entire point of the post and gone out into left field. (c what I did there?) If there is ANYONE that believes that nothing very sketchy went on with the the pervert’s death, then I have a bridge leading to prime ocean front property to interest them in. The corruption in politics of the supposed “Deep State” is a very real and present danger to our Republic and you know it as well as anyone. It was to the advantage of some very powerful and monied people that Jeffy Boy NOT be allowed to stand in a court of law. You may want to go back to the FIRST post on this subject where I left a list of possible answers to this subject. I choose (I) We’ll never know the truth of what happened. You have no clue as to what can be done when you have the massive amounts of money and power that these people have. To paraphrase Fletcher from Josey Wales…”I don’t want to hear that Epstein is dead, I want to SEE Epstein is dead.”

          Good Post Poe!

          • LC says:

            If you said you like sex, and I extrapolated from that that you’re fine with raping kids, I’d be an asshole, would I not? I’d be ignoring the fact that you said something with some implicit rules about it, and then went and ignored those rules.

            People who support the rights -that whole ‘freedom’ thing!- of consenting adults to do as they please with each other aren’t in any more danger of supporting pedophilia than people who hunt are in danger of supporting people who shoot up schools. There are implied rules in both cases that go beyond the act of ‘sex’ and ‘shooting’, respectively.

            Dismiss it as ‘seagulling’ if you like, but trying to tie your political opposition to arguably the most heinous act around by using faulty logic despite the fact it’s widely denounced by all is .. well, maybe deplorable would be a good word.

            • Fyrfighter says:

              LC,
              You’re not wrong about some things having “Implicit rules” as you put it, and as you point out, what “consenting adults” do between themselves should fall under that. (sorry for the quotes, I can’t figure how to do the whole italics things).. The thing is, those pushing gay marriage are all about destroying any and all implicit rules. They are not trying to just replace what exists with something different, ie a new definition of marriage, they are just destroying the old one. This leaves a vacuum that those who practice such abhorrent behaviors are more than willing to exploit. NAMBLA made it clear that was their goal immediately after gay marriage laws started passing, so there is more than a casual relationship between the two. Here’s one study that shows there is definitely a higher ratio of pedo’s among gays.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

              As to your comments about Oregon (definitely a liberal state, and as describes, a coastal blue enclave) and Arkansas, your comments suggest that you looked at “sex offenders” not “pedophiles”.. while both are reprehensible, they are not the same thing, and conflating the two could be seen by some as a straw man argument.

              • Poetrooper says:

                Yeah, Mr. “Specificity” who says my logic is lacking, seems to be a bit sloppy there himself when he classes all sex offenders as pedophiles.

                He also fails to consider that one reason why a state like Arkansas could have a higher percentage of sex offenders than, say, a “coastal enclave” like California, is the simple matter of how stringent the laws are in each state and, more importantly, the degree of local enforcement of those laws.

                I’m sure California health laws preclude public defecation, but lack of local enforcement, due to Democrat control and liberal tolerance, in some of its largest cities effectively nullifies sane health codes. Try crapping on the sidewalk in downtown Little Rock and see where you very quickly end up.

                Like Lars, LC can be counted on to always find fault with my writings. When I ignite these little fires in their houses, it tells me I’m getting it right–small blazes that warm an old man’s heart.

                Heh…

                • FuzeVT says:

                  You know what else “Mr. Specificity” did? He was looking up – and making a big deal of – where the sex offenders were. That wasn’t the point. The point was that Leftists, no mention of sex offenders (although they COULD be), were likely to be the ones pushing for a rejection of sexual morality. No one mentioned anything about numbers of sex offenders and where they live being relevant.

                  • LC says:

                    I didn’t get a chance to reply yesterday – I’ll do so below on your other post in more detail, but I looked up sex offenders as a proxy for pedophiles to give some data -not just Poe’s bias- on how this is not biased towards ‘liberal elites’.

                    And unless someone can make a good reason why, say, ‘sex offenders’ in conservative states have a lower number of pedophiles, statistically, than liberal states, I think it’s a decent proxy.

                • LC says:

                  I find fault any time someone casts such wide aspersions – imply that liberals are somehow more accepting of pedophilia, and I’m going to say you’re a fool. For that matter, say anyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist, and I’m also going to call you a fool.

                  And yes, laws vary state by state, but absent any direct numbers on pedophiles, the data on sex offenders is a more useful proxy than, “liberals suck”.

              • LC says:

                The thing is, those pushing gay marriage are all about destroying any and all implicit rules.

                This is where I disagree – most gay couples I know loathe pedophilia just as much as any sane person, and aren’t pushing to legalize it. They want rights for consenting adults, not pedophiles.

                Looking at fringe groups like NAMBLA is like finding the occasional second amendment sort who argues we should be able to own personal nuclear weapons. There are always groups who want to push things to an absurd level, but they’re the exception, not the rule.

                As for the study you link, that’s why I said it’s more complicated than it initially appears – here’s a quote (and a link) that talks specifically about that:

                To this point, it does appear that the proportion of male children among all victims of childhood sexual abuse indeed exceeds the proportion of gay men among all men. It does not follow, however, that gay men are disproportionately responsible for these offenses.

                Link: https://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html

                And yes, I only looked at ‘sex crimes’ because I don’t have data on pedophilia – if you know of any source with just that, I’m all ears. But absent evidence that pedophilia is regional, and to my knowledge none exists, the fraction of sex crimes that are pedophilia should be fairly constant – it’s a more useful proxy than, say, Poe’s particular biases.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              How come the Left does such a lousy job excluding the “crazies” ?

              Unless they are kept around to make the ones just inside that curve look reasonable?

              I mean, isn’t that classic Marxist agitation 101?

              • LC says:

                Exclude them from .. what? How do you tell someone not to identify with you? Even the act of doing so gives them publicity?

                If some jackass thumps his chest and proclaims his conservative ideology, and then talks about how we need to get rid of the Jews, or the Blacks, or something, does the Right exclude them? Or is it that that isn’t what the conservative ideology is about, so it’s generally deemed not necessary to speak up?

      • Perry Gaskill says:

        A problem with using the Boys Scouts as an example of coastal depravity is that in a major lawsuit filed earlier this month, there were 300 claimants who said they were the victim of pedophilia. The claimants came from 48 of the 50 states.

        Still, I’ll grant there’s some substance to the claim that California, for example, attracts more than it’s fair share of the type found at the bottom of a cereal box. A lot of those fruits, flakes, and nuts do indeed show up in California but don’t always remain. A rough analogy is that it’s like a toilet bowl; turds drop in but tend to get flushed because they are too weird even for Berkeley, or can’t cope with the cost of living.

        On the other hand, sometimes effluent remains and you’re left with people like Nancy Pelosi, she’s from Baltimore, who never go home.

        It seems to me LC has a point in that if you want to tease out the facts to a problem, it’s often best to avoid stereotypes. Saying there’s a high propensity for pedophilia in coastal regions, without solid data, is like saying only redneck hillbillies who marry their sisters live in Arkansas.

        • Poetrooper says:

          Perry, I do believe the expression I used that so torqued LC’s shorts is “blasé acceptance of pedophilia found in blue, coastal urban enclaves,” not “high propensity” in coastal “regions,” as you just said. To my way of thinking (and writing) those are far from the same thing.

          Also, “urban enclaves” should show that I most assuredly was not implicating entire coastal “regions.” My interpretation of the term enclave has always been that of an area that is relatively small and contained, not a broad region.

          Having been up and down both coastlines, I can assure you I do not believe there is any “blasé acceptance of pedophilia” in the coastal area of, say, North Carolina, South Georgia, or even most of Florida, for that matter.

          As for incestuous hillbillies, we’re taking the rag-top up into the Ozarks on a little road trip tomorrow so I’ll keep a lookout. One of our way points is named, I kid you not, Dogpatch.

          Heh…

    • FuzeVT says:

      I’ll leave the long, well written responses to Poetrooper, but I do have a quick point.

      In exactly which party is the push for there to be almost no moral limitations sexually? The whole “you do you” concept is based around an “I’m not one to judge [unsaid: and if you do judge you are a bad, bad person]”. Why is abortion held in such high regard? In it’s essence, it is a method by way you eliminate the results of careless sexual activity. Go in the Public Square of today and say that what we need in America is a return to sexual morality. In which party (and by extension, what geographic enclaves – blue, coastal urban areas, perhaps?) would you be called out, ridiculed and (as odds have it) probably threatened?

      Hints and multiple guesses are probably unnecessary.

      • David says:

        1) Conflating all registered sex offenders with pedophiles is a red flag.
        2) Show me a Republican with an endorsement from NAMBLA. I’ll wait.

        • LC says:

          It’s not a red flag; it’s a first-order approximation, since we don’t seem to have data on pedophiles alone.

          And who are the Democrats endorsed by NAMBLA right now? Honest question – I looked, but couldn’t find a list.

      • LC says:

        It’s not ‘no limitations’, unless you’re focusing on the crazy few. It’s ‘let consenting adults do what they want’ – with a big, flashing-neon limitation of, ‘must consent, and must be adults’.

        • FuzeVT says:

          Oh, I’m very libertarian when it comes to things like this. I’m not suggesting that there should be laws against depravity unless it infringes the rights of others.
          If leftists were like that (i.e. having a live and let live attitude), I wouldn’t have a problem. My problem is two fold:
          1) They tend to want to force their version of morality on others. They own entertainment, social media, and the news media so that is pretty easy. TV shows that normalize sexual immorality. At one time, getting knocked up was a source of shame. (Remember when Murphy Brown as a single mother was a source of controversy?) Now there is no stigma at all. I believe pop culture had a lot to do with that not being acceptable. Transsexuals readings to pre-schoolers? Not an invention of the right.
          2) They don’t have a live and let live attitude. If you disagree with leftists, they aren’t content to let you be. Ask any number of Christian based photographers or pizza shops, for example. There were plenty of alternatives who would have been willing to (photo) shoot the wedding or cater it (a pizza shop catering a wedding?) but the point was not to get a service, it was to shut down opposition. They tried this with Chick-fil-a but the American people gave the woke-skolds a giant middle finger (the same giant middle finger that delivered unto the United States President Trump).
          So once leftists start to not force their views on everyone and stop trying to destroy (personally, financially, etc) anyone who opposes them, then I will buy the ‘let consenting adults do what they want’ trope.

          I gotta get back to work.

          • rgr769 says:

            Seems like LC has never heard of Cass Sunstein and his agenda or NAMBLA.

            • 5th/77th FA says:

              Hey Dippy! Yeah calling you out LC. Again, your seagulling a$$ missed the whole point of the post and my reply. Did you go to the Larsie Boi school of no reading comprehension? The post was about the supposed suicide of a peodophile NOT about pedophiles in general. YOU are the dipsh^t that high jacked the conversation and, again, went out into left field with your BS. I usually don’t waste keyboard ribbon ink on you and/or Larsie Boi, but entertainment is at a low ebb here at Firebase Magnolia. Let me be the FIRST to ask you, why don’t you just go eff yourself?

              • LC says:

                Oh no! I’m being called out?!

                You say I lack reading comprehension, then point out what the post was about – a post which I said I stopped reading early on because Poe started on such an outrageously stupid insinuation that I couldn’t be bothered.

                Imagine, just for a moment, that I wrote an article that said, at the beginning, “Well, this is going to be complicated, and clearly beyond the capabilities of racist, inbred conservatives to understand,…”

                Would you keep reading? Or would you dismiss that as the ramblings of an asshole? Maybe you would, and all credit to you for that. I get tired of the demonizing of half the country purely on political boundaries.

          • LC says:

            I think we agree on more than you’d initially suspect, but for the sake of (attempted) brevity I’ll focus on the areas we disagree about.

            I’m not sure what is meant these days by ‘sexual immorality’ – and, maybe, that goes partly to your point. But I do have a ‘live and let live’ attitude, and that’s where the conflict comes in. You rightly point out some of the idiotic things about sexual lifestyles that have been normalized in entertainment, but I also see ‘small government’ conservatives up in arms about things like birth control and gay marriage even though, frankly, that shouldn’t be any of the government’s business. And some religious conservatives even try to define ‘morality’ in totally alien ways – is it sexually immoral to have sex for any reason other than procreation? The Catholic Church disagrees. Is it sexually immoral to masturbate? The Mormon Church says so. Hell, is it sexually immoral to marry a 15-year old? Some smaller churches say that’s totally fine, especially if you’ve already gotten her pregnant. To me, that’s pretty fucked up.

            The point being, it’s hard to define ‘sexual immorality’ – maybe it’s like porn, where you know it when you see it. But absent that, I take the approach of not caring what consenting adults do… and holding anyone, no matter their politics, in utter contempt should for involving kids in sex.

            That doesn’t seem so crazy to me.

            • FuzeVT says:

              I DO ACTUALLY have work that I have to do, but there is one thing that I want to respond to. You’re better at the whole quotey thing than me, so I’ll have to go old school and just do “”s:

              “I think we agree on more than you’d initially suspect”

              I think you are absolutely right. I think that most people that are on the left and right have WAY more in common than they may ever know. It used to be (at some point in my 47 years) that people everywhere loved the country and people just disagreed on how to govern while protecting and improving the nation and her people. People knew that and whereas disagreements, they were generally civil about it.

              Somewhere along the way, there was the “Rules for Radicals”-ization of politics. You’ll have to forgive me here, LC, but I do see it being a majority left thing. As the rhetoric got more heated (how common is it for Republicans to be called NAZI, racists, bigot, homophobe? And that is nothing new) people started to get less willing to see the parts of the Venn diagram where we do agree. If the opponent is a NAZI (and you have little historical knowledge to give any context as to what a NAZI was/is) then how do you EVER work with them?

              This led to a “well screw you!” attitude from the the right. This is what you can thank for the election of President Trump. So now we continue to have a society that seemingly cannot agree on the most basic of things. Or – and I think this is important – we have been led to believe this through media and the social networks. Not sure if that is the case, but we are certainly being trained to believe it and act accordingly. People are much less likely to take an opposing viewpoint with calm and a well thought out response.

              I’m sure it behooves someone to think that the political opposition is a bunch of vermin that need to be eliminated electorally and then be forced to agree with you, but I don’t know why. My brain just doesn’t think that way. That’s why I don’t name call and get emotional in my posts.

              Except for valor thieves and liars. Fuck those guys.

              Hopefully, we can start down a path toward [true] tolerance of others in the near future. Tolerance in the sense of actually believing that the opposition does share a common humanity and that disagreement isn’t a declaration of hate. Maybe it is social media that has taken off the restraints to civil discourse that we have had when it was done face to face. Its relative newness is maybe something we just have to work through. I’m hoping the pendulum swings back to sanity and civility soon. This shit sucks.

  2. Ex-PH2 says:

    Isn’t that kind of like asking the KGB to investigate itself?

  3. Not Stupid Enough To Sign My Name says:

    I am retiring soon from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and I worked at the other Federal Detention Center in NYC.
    EVERYONE in the ‘chain of command’ at MCC New York is scrambling to cover their asses. I bet the Warden who was relieved gets to RETIRE with full benefits.
    Management makes NO real efforts to get GOOD people hired to cover shortages. Oh, NO MORE LEADERS in the BOP, just “managers” these days. Certainly NO one inspiring you to work hard in a dangerous environment.
    EVERYONE that works in the BOP can do officer posts if needed. They don’t get any less “training” than the C.O.’s get.
    NO ONE was forced to work double shifts 5 days in a row. That person did it VOLUNTARILY.[In emergencies, we usually go to 12 hour shifts]
    Saying all of that, I feel NO pain for the loss of the piece of human excrement Epstein EXCEPT if he was going to bring down HRC’s husband. The staff working SHU that night f_cked up and need to be punished.

    • AW1Ed says:

      I recommend anyone commenting here to use a nom de guerre. There are people out there who wish us ill, and no one wants to be part of a lawsuit, frivolous as it may be. Dave and Steve are the exceptions, but they’re pretty bullet proof, legal-wise.
      That being said, thanks for your insight in the New York prison system. Pretty much confirms what was suspected.

  4. Docduracoat says:

    Jeff Epstein’s last words
    “Hillary, don’t strangle me”!

  5. Hack Stone says:

    Hack Stone mentioned this in the first Epstein thread this past Saturday, but did we not all agree that the correct verbiage for someone who (allegedly) died by their own hand is self-murder?

  6. MI Ranger says:

    Putting on my Conspiracy Theory Hat: PoeTrooper maybe that is exactly what Mr. Barr is doing, he is just also having the FBI investigate it to see who the corrupt people are, and to out them. You know, like in Scooby Doo style!
    So you get them to talk to the corrupt Security Guards and tell them it will all be ok, they have it covered (recording the whole thing secretly). Then when they go to kill them, you swoop in an grab them, send them to an undisclosed “safe house” to speak with them about who is really pulling the strings. You release them so they can report back to their leadership that they “didn’t report them” and then when they get killed you arrest the folks that did that…and start up the chain until you can prove who is at the top!

  7. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Interesting that the guy who supposedly hanged himself by bedsheet tied to the top bunk, and kneeling to death,

    Had significant fractures to his neck that one typically sees in a “long drop” hanging, or in a strangulation attack.

    Odd that.

  8. RGR 4-78 says:

    I wonder if epstein had video of the important people with deep pockets and where those videos are.

    I also wonder when the story will be changed to “erotic asphyxia” gone bad.

  9. Poetrooper says:

    Another point to ponder in this Epstein epic is the possible role of the Israelis. Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Lord Maxwell, was long reported to be a Mossad asset and was in fact, while being a Hungarian-born, British subject at the time of his own mysterious demise, buried with full national honors in Israel, in a ceremony attended by several former and the then-current Israeli Prime Ministers.

    Could Ghislaine Maxwell, the favorite child of Lord Maxwell, also be a Mossad asset and Epstein’s handler? That could explain where Epstein’s otherwise unexplained wealth came from. Mossad is reputed to have long tentacles into world finance. Such a pedophile blackmail operation could buy Israel a lot of badly needed support from powerful, well-placed American and British sources.

    Cynical? You betcha–but when it comes to British and Israeli intelligence operations many such cynical things have happened. Look up probable British intelligence interference in our 1940 presidential nomination process.

  10. Perry Gaskill says:

    Something that bothers me about the Epstein scandal is the question of where were the parents who might have provided a moral compass for the young ladies involved. With that in mind, here’s a thoughtful guide for those who might need to screen potential predators:

  11. Poetrooper says:

    LC likes to throw the “stupid” about quite freely when he just might want to consider that throwing such an absolute hissy-fit over his poor comprehension of a phrase in my American Thinker piece, reflects that perhaps something’s lacking in his own cerebral quickness, which happens to be one dictionary definition of stupid.

    Here is the phrase that fired his ire:

    “…headed by an assistant attorney general on loan from one of our southern red states — say, Texas, Alabama or Georgia — where cultural sophistication doesn’t rise to the level of blasé acceptance of pedophilia found in blue, coastal urban enclaves…”

    Please note that I did not say “found throughout,” meaning that one could conclude an implied, “found within,” which means I was painting with a far more narrow brush than LC would like you to believe.

    I think most of us who are regulars here will not find my contention that sexual deviancy, including pedophilia, has, as I stated, greater cultural acceptance in certain circles (enclaves) in urban areas among sophisticates who pride themselves on their open-mindedness in matters sexual. Many such “sophisticated” thinkers raised in flyover country do tend to migrate to such coastal urban enclaves seeking acceptance of themselves and their views.

    It also just happens to be a fact, one that LC apparently got himself all choked up on, that governance of these urban areas within which such enclaves exist, is almost exclusively under the control of liberal Democrats.

    Another fact is that LC, like Lars, is frequently critical of my writings because I always challenge their criticisms, as I’m doing now. I have occasionally agreed with both of them but the operative term there is occasionally because Lars is almost always far out in left field while LC is a sometimes Lefty shortstop.

    So, LC, you go for it; go ahead and get yourself all worked up over what I write–keep flashing that left cheek of your butt at me–it’s just more free entertainment for this old geezer.

    Heh…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *