Yes, these are the new “journalistic” “buzz” words, along with a few others. Keep your eyes and ears open for them while reading political articles or watching/listening to news and news commentary shows (which are basically the same these days).

Some other words you may come across are, “might,” “possibly,” may,” “may be” and “anonymous or unnamed” sources.

You will also commonly hear “reporters” refer to generic “experts,” “analysts,” and “strategists” as trusted sources.

Here are some recent examples of actual article headlines:

What Putin May Really Have on Trump. (Newsweek)

GOP strategist says Cohen investigation could be the end of (Trump’s) presidency.’ (ABC News)

This may be the scariest thing Donald Trump has said as president. (CNN)

CNN’s Acosta on Trump: “Deep Down This President May Just Be A Racist.” (RealClear Politics and CNN)

Trump’s CNN attacks may hobble legal case to block AT&T-Time Warner deal. (Reuters News Service)

Trump Impeachment Articles Could Include His Slurring of Elizabeth Warren as ‘Pocahontas.’ (Newsweek)

You should be aware that once a “journalist” enters the world of “would’a, could’a, should’a,” they are basically free to pursue any fantasy they may have, or pursue any narrative that they want to weave into the fabric of “the news.”

Anything can be attributed to an “unnamed source.”

Anything “might” happen.

Anything “could” happen.

Anyone could “possibly” do anything.

Anyone can potentially be an “expert,” an analyst,” or a strategist.”

Here are some headlines I predict you won’t see from the biased mainstream media any time soon:

“President Trump may be the most effective president in the last 50 years.”

“President Trump could win the Nobel Peace Prize for his deal with North Korea.”

“According to anonymous sources in The White House, The First lady is a wonderful wife and a wonderful mother.”

Just sayin’.

 

 

According to a report, issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), on Friday, April 13, 2018, Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director at the time, received a phone call on August 12, 2016, less than three months before the presidential election, from the Obama Justice Department. During this call, he was apparently pressured to shut down the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation, an organization that some critics allege was used as a multi-million dollar pay-for-play operation to buy access to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

(Of course, President Obama and/or Attorney General Loretta Lynch and/or FBI Director James Comey would have no knowledge of any of this. We’ll see.)

This report also detailed how McCabe had “lacked candor,” even under oath, on four occasions, that dealt with a leak to the Wall Street Journal. For this misconduct the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that McCabe be fired, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions did on January 29, 2018.

However, the OIG also reports that the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation in 2016, an election year involving Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

She already was being investigated for her illicit use of a private email server, by McCabe and other FBI agents, when she was Secretary of State under President Obama.

The OIG report states, “McCabe told the OIG that on August 12, 2016, he received a telephone call from the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (PADAG) regarding the FBI’s handling of the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

“McCabe said that PADAG expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation Investigation during the presidential campaign.

(Translation: They expressed concerns that the FBI was actually investigating the Clinton Foundation.)

“According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ‘are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’

“McCabe told us that the conversation was ‘very dramatic’ and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high level Department official in his entire FBI career.”

Why is a top official from the Obama Justice Department apparently pressuring the then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to shut down the Bureau’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

Remember that James Comey, the FBI Director at the time, has since said, “The FBI drove this investigation and we did it in a competent and independent way. I would bet my life on that.” (I hope you are “in good hands” Mr. Comey! If you know what I mean!) It is almost comical, the indignation expressed by Mr. Comey, regarding what he felt were inappropriate practices and requests by President trump, when it has become apparent that the Obama administration routinely directed the FBI in an effort to promote its own interests.  

Commenting on the matter, J. Christian Adams, an attorney who formerly served (2005-2008) in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said, “This is a top-level DOJ official who called the FBI and said shut down the Hillary Clinton (Clinton Foundation) investigation.”

“What kind of Justice Department do we have, that a couple weeks before the election, that presidential political appointees are calling the No. 2 guy at the FBI, essentially saying, give Hillary a pass?” said Adams. “That’s in the OIG report! That’s the real bombshell!”

(And you know that if the No. 2 guy at the FBI is involved then so is the No. 1 guy! Right Mr. Comey? Would you like to adjust any of your comments about “inappropriate” requests coming from The White House Mr. Comey? I guess the level of “inappropriateness” depends on whose side you’re on, right Mr. Comey?)

The Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General serves under the deputy attorney general. In 2016, the deputy attorney general was Sally Yates.

(Ah yes, Sally Yates. The one who foolishly trashed her own career thinking that “the swamp” could protect her in her defiance of President Trump. She was wrong. She ended up being one of the earlier ones to be “drained.”)

She was fired by President Trump on Jan. 30, 2017 because she refused to enforce the administration’s policy on limiting immigration from certain countries.

The Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General in 2016 was Bill Baer. Baer was initially selected by President Barack Obama in 2012 to serve as assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division.

Do these people realize how tired the law abiding, hard-working, people of this country are with this legal double standard? Are there two sets of laws or do our laws apply to everyone? If it is “the swamp’s” intention that we have a two-tiered system of justice, our country is in real trouble. Otherwise, some of these people need to be charged with crimes, prosecuted, and serve time in prison. Period.

Thank you to CNSNews.com and Michael W. Chapman for some information that appears in this article.

How do you like it Starbucks?

How do you like being the brunt of racial accusations, criticism and boycotts?

Just as a reminder, Starbucks took a “holier than thou” attitude during the 2016 campaign and openly opposed Donald Trump (because of his supposed racism), while causing friction with customers who were Trump supporters. Now in 2018, it is Starbucks who has mistreated two of its African-American customers, causing an uproar in the African-American community.

When you are hyper-critical of others, you invite hyper-critical views of your own behavior as well.

The truth is though, nobody, or no company should be held to this type of hyper-critical standard.

The fact is that no one is perfect, and as a result, no company is perfect either. People do unthoughtful and careless things from time to time.  That is just the nature of being human and dealing with other humans on a daily basis.

The problem is that when you put yourself in the role of judge, jury, and executioner, you are setting yourself up for a fall.

In this specific case, we have a good example of karma, or of “what goes around comes around.”

“Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged. For with whatever judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.” – Matthew 7:1-2

“When someone judges you, it isn’t actually about you. It’s about them and their own insecurities, limitations, and needs.” – A wise unknown person

“Don’t judge someone just because they sin differently than you.” – Another wise unknown person

“Give so much time to the improvement of yourself that you have no time to criticize others. – Christian D. Larson

“Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.” – (Jesus) John 8:7

We are all entitled to our opinions, but remember, that is a two-way street.

 

The Problem:

The problem that we are addressing here is the fact that, “Nationwide, two out of every three Fourth-Graders are not proficient in Reading, according to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.” (From the article “Early Warning! Why reading by the end of Third Grade matters,” by a group called Voices for Children, 2010).

The same article also reports that, “Children who do not read proficiently by the end of Third Grade typically remain poor readers through high school and are less likely to graduate. Without a high school diploma, these youth will have significantly limited opportunities as adults.”

Another article (“Preventing Early Reading Failure and Its Devastating Downward Spiral,” by Joseph K. Torgesen, Ph.D., 2004) reinforces these beliefs by stating, “The evidence is in. The children who we hoped would be ‘late bloomers’ in Reading rarely are. Their early and modest reading weakness impedes enjoyment and deters practice. Soon, their small reading problems spiral into devastating ones.”

Did you know that our state and federal governments use the annual Third Grade Reading scores to estimate how many prison beds they’ll need and how many will require government assistance when they reach adulthood? It’s true.

Within our current educational system, up until Third Grade, the students are learning to read. Once in Third Grade, they begin the transition to reading to learn.

If the children are not reading at least at grade level by this time, they begin to experience difficulties in all subjects, and that only gets worse as time goes by. Only a limited amount of genuine learning, within the current standard classroom curriculum, can take place for the student experiencing significant Reading difficulties.

Reading deficiencies cause poor performance in school across all subjects. Children who do not experience success in school typically begin to exhibit negative behavioral issues as well. These behaviors can be disruptive ones that effect the learning process for other students as well, or a withdrawal from the whole educational process.

And, as we have learned, a significant number of these challenged readers will probably go on to become citizens that cost society rather than contribute to it.

Being an educator myself, I really don’t need the results of any studies or the citations from any “experts.” I have seen the problem in living color every day.

So, there you have our problem, and a significant one it is. It is so significant that it is hard to believe that we have not addressed it with more resolve or with more success.

Wouldn’t it be exciting to be able to report that nationwide we were able to raise the percent of children reading at grade level before entering Third Grade to 90%, 95%, or even more? I believe these are reachable goals that correlate to improving the lives of real children and their real futures!

The Solution:

Here’s how we do it!

The Special Targeted and Appropriate Reading System (STARS).

Children entering school (Pre-K to 2^nd grade) are assessed to determine their Reading level. Those children that can read at or above their grade level continue on the standard curriculum path.

Those determined to be reading below grade level are routed into the STARS program.

The STARS program focuses exclusively on Language and Reading instruction, primarily, but not exclusively, through the use of computers, lap tops, tablets and the appropriate software.

The premise here is that general knowledge in other subjects can be caught up on once the Reading has been has been brought up to Grade level.  

Teachers in the STARS classroom will find themselves being more facilitative than instructive.

The task of learning the English language and learning to read has to become more inviting, more fun, and more effective for these students.

The process is currently anything but that for children who have little or no support at home, and very limited success at school.

These students need focused and direct instruction, tailored individually for them. It is, of course, not practical for each student to have his or her own teacher, dedicated exclusively to them, but they can have their own computer and their own individualized learning path towards becoming a successful reader.

The whole world is learning via computers, iPADS, iPHONES, etc. We need to move some of our Reading and Language instruction into the 21^st century.

Children love working and playing on a computer, and much of the available learning software looks more like a video game than an educational tool.

Children’s progress can also be rewarded with “game time” in many other educational game sites.

Children in the STARS program can be reassessed and integrated back into the standard classroom at any time, given they have attained the appropriate Reading level.

(Note: The STARS program and concept was developed by MrEricksonRules.com in 2014. The program has been submitted to school boards and community outreach programs, as well as The United States Department of Education and The White House. Hopefully someday, someone with some level of authority will recognize the potential of the program and at least initiate some level of a pilot program. Please help by getting the word (STARS) out there. Thank you.)

So which is it? Well, let me explain.

First of all, if we look at a typical classroom from 200 years ago, or more, and compare it to a typical classroom today, they would look pretty similar.

Think about it.

Are our schools that good that they have not merited any form of basic change in over 200 years?

Not many other things, if any in or society, have survived without changing with the times. Certainly not in the course of 200 years.

How is it that the Education system has managed to pull this off?

How is it that we have allowed this “treading of water,” educationally, to go on, and on, and on?

Well, in most cases, especially those involving our children, we tend to defer to “the experts.”   We also tend to defer to options that don’t squeeze our wallets either.  At least any more than they’re already being squeezed!

Secondly, I feel we should go “old school” and separate girls and boys from fourth grade through High School in the education process.

This would allow them both to concentrate on school without being distracted by the opposite sex. Striving to impress members of the opposite sex is the crux of a lot of stupid behavior at school as well.

Doing this one simple thing, that really wouldn’t add any significant cost to education, would address quite a bit of behavior issues at school, as well as improve overall learning.

For those concerned about impeding social development somehow, special co-ed events can be set-up occasionally for during school and after school to address this issue.

These are just two of my observations/ideas. Who am I to question our educations system you might ask?

Well, I must admit I am no “expert,” I’m just a teacher.

 

 

“When someone asks, ‘What do you do?’ You answer, ‘Whatever it takes, baby, whatever it takes.’” – Mr. Erickson

“Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well.” ― Robert Louis Stevenson

“Stand up for what’s right, even if you are standing alone.” – Suzy Kassem

“Your comfort zone is a nice place, but nothing exciting ever happens there.” – Unknown

 

A group of “bipartisan” senators (please note that “bipartisan” means “swampy establishment politicians these days) are introducing new legislation to limit President Trump’s ability to fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

According to an article from “The Hill” by Jordain Carney: Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) will introduce the legislation for the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act today.

(They sure didn’t waste any time pounding this legislation out! DACA supporters, please make a note of this!)

The legislation would let Mueller, or any other special counsel, receive an “expedited judicial review” within 10 days of being fired to determine if it was for a “good cause.” If it was determined it wasn’t, the special counsel would be reinstated.

It would also specify that only a senior Justice Department official could fire a special counsel and that they must provide the reason in writing.

“We need to ensure not only that special counsel Mueller can complete his work without interference, but that special counsels in future investigations can, too,” Coons said.

Tillis added that the “compromise bipartisan bill helps ensure that special counsels, present or future, have the independence they need to conduct fair and impartial investigations.”

(Translation: “This will help ensure that special counsels, present or future, have unlimited time to conduct their investigations until they manage to find something.”)

The new legislation comes after Trump lashed out following an FBI raid on the offices and hotel room of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. A referral from Mueller’s team reportedly prompted the raid.

“Attorney–client privilege is dead!” Trump said in a tweet, adding, “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!”

He also refused to rule out the possibility of firing Mueller, telling reporters, “We’ll see what happens.”

Previous legislation to protect Mueller has largely stalled on Capitol Hill.

(I didn’t even know there had been any prior legislation. I guess “the swamp” didn’t want it advertised before that they were already formulating ways to protect Robert Mueller.)

Tillis and Coons introduced legislation last year that would let Mueller or any special counsel challenge their firing in court.

A separate bill, from Graham and Booker, would require a judge to approve a Justice Department request to fire Mueller or any other special counsel.

Just remember, “swampy” is as “swampy” does.

Perhaps we they should consider passing some legislation called “The Presidential Protection Act from biased, overzealous, and ill-conceived special prosecutors!

Ha! Sometimes I just crack myself up.

 

The world’s largest collection of ocean garbage is twice the size of Texas!  Say what?!

This giant island of plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean holds as much as 16 times more debris than was previously thought, posing a significant threat to the food chain, according to an international team of scientists.  And the world’s largest collection of ocean garbage is growing.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a collection of plastic and floating trash, is halfway between Hawaii and California, and has grown to more than 600,000 square miles, a study published Thursday found.  That’s twice the size of Texas!

Winds and converging ocean currents funnel the garbage into a central location, said study lead author Laurent Lebreton of the Ocean Cleanup Foundation, a non-profit organization that spearheaded the research.

First discovered in the early 1990s, the trash in the patch comes from around the Pacific Rim, including nations in Asia and North and South America, Lebreton said.

Using satellite imagery, and our knowledge of ocean currents, it should not be too difficult to determine who is dumping all of this garbage into the ocean.

I would imagine that one of the biggest ocean dumpers is Japan, since land is such a premium there, and they produce massive amounts of waste.  After them, I’m not sure who else would be guilty of all of this pollution, but I’m sure Japan is not alone.

The patch is not a solid mass of plastic.  It includes about 1.8 trillion pieces and weighs 88,000 tons, the equivalent of 500 jumbo jets.

The study was based on a three-year mapping effort by an international team of scientists affiliated with the Ocean Cleanup Foundation, six universities and an aerial sensor company.

Sadly, the Pacific patch isn’t alone.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest of FIVE such trash collections in the oceans, Lebreton said.

There is basically a huge garbage patch in the middle of the North Pacific, the South Pacific, the North Atlantic, and the South Atlantic.

No governments have stepped up to clean the trash, which is in international waters, so it’s been up to privately funded groups such as the Ocean Cleanup Foundation to take the lead in getting rid of the garbage.

But I don’t think this should be left up to privately funded groups. This problem should be addressed by The United Nations. Whomever is causing this gigantic problem needs to be held accountable before this situation gets way out of hand, if it isn’t already. I mean, how big does this garbage patch need to get? Three times the size of Texas? Four times the size of Texas? As big as The United States? How big is too big? I would argue it is way too ridiculously big already.

There’s a sense of urgency, said Joost Dubois, a spokesman with the foundation. (That’s nice to know.)

“It’s a ticking time bomb of larger material,” Dubois said. “We’ve got to get it before it breaks down into a size that’s too small to collect and also dangerous for marine life.”

Since plastic has been around only since the 1950s, there’s no way of knowing exactly how long it will last in the ocean.  If left alone, the plastic could remain there for decades, centuries or even longer.

“Unless we begin to remove it, some would say it may remain there forever,” Lebreton said.

Ya, it may even outlast the Human Race!

Some information taken from an article by Doyle Rice, USA TODAY, March 22, 2018.

 

James Comey just had an exclusive interview with ABC News’ chief anchor George Stephanopoulos that aired Sunday night ahead of the April 17 release of his book “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

(A “higher loyalty” to who is my question? I guess he’s referring to a “higher loyalty” to all of his “swampy,” liberal friends. But shouldn’t the FBI Director’s loyalty be to The President of the United States, whether he agrees with him or not, and the American people?)

Just to provide some level of perspective, prior to his career as a “journalist,” Stephanopoulos was an advisor to the Democratic Party. He rose to early prominence as a communications director for the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and subsequently became The White House communications director. He was later a senior advisor for policy and strategy for the Clintons, before departing The Clinton White House in December 1996.

So anyway, here is a rundown of the “top” moments from this biting interview.

“I’m about to meet with a person who doesn’t know me, who’s just been elected president of the United States … from my watching him during the … campaign, could be volatile,” Comey said. “And I’m about to talk to him about allegations that he was involved with prostitutes in Moscow and that the Russians taped it and have leverage over him.”

(Hmmm, that’s funny. I thought the FBI already knew by that time that the dossier was a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. I guess it was just wishful thinking on Comey’s part, and a desire to keep the “Russian collusion” narrative alive at the time.)

He said that at least on a physical level, Trump lived up to Comey’s expectations.

“He had impressively coiffed hair … it looks to be all his. I confess I stared at it pretty closely and my reaction was ‘it must take a lot of time in the morning,” Comey said. (That’s weird!)

“His tie was too long as it always is … he looked slightly orange up close with small white half-moons under his eyes, which I assume are from tanning goggles,” he said.

(Hmmm. Again, interesting. I don’t recall this type of critical assessment regarding President Obama or Secretary Clinton, although I could easily come up with a few if that’s what I was inclined to do, such as President Obama’s ears and his condescending attitude towards the hardworking American people, and Hillary’s impressive collection of pant suits, along with her inclinations to fall down, and her condescending attitude towards the hardworking American people as well.)

Comey commented that he thought the Trump presidency is a “forest fire” that can cause “tremendous damage.”

(Again, a “forest fire…that can cause tremendous damage” to who is my question? I guess he’s referring again to all of his “swampy,” liberal friends, and “the swamp’s” infrastructure.)

Comey said it felt as if Trump and his team were trying to make it feel like Comey and the other intelligence heads there were all working as part of the same team, or in mafia terms, part of the family.

(Hmmm. Yes, this is very strange for The President to express his belief that they were all working for the “same team,” which would be for the American people and The President that they just overwhelmingly elected. Apparently in Comey’s twisted mind this is strange behavior.)

Comey said he believed it’s “very strange” to be comparing the then-incoming president to a mob boss, but it was a comparison he included in his book. I’m not trying to … suggest that President Trump is out breaking legs and shaking down shopkeepers. But instead, what I’m talking about is that leadership culture constantly comes back to me when I think about my experience with the Trump administration,” Comey said.

(With all due respect, and I am saying “with all due respect,” please Mr. Comey, you have got to be kidding me. After President Obama essentially weaponized the FBI and conspired, along with Hillary Clinton, and the DNC, to spy on and negatively influence the Trump campaign and the election overall, you have got to be kidding me.)

Russian involvement in the election was not the only topic of conversation when Comey spoke to Trump in that transition meeting in January.

He also discussed the “dossier,” a 35-page document containing raw intelligence compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele.

Comey said he didn’t talk to him about the financing of the “dossier.”

(That would make sense, since Comey knew the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton!)

He even told Stephanopoulos that he doesn’t recall using the term “Steele dossier” at all. One of the more salacious topics covered in the “dossier” relates to unverified claims, which have been denied by Trump since, that he had been involved with prostitutes during a 2013 trip to Moscow.

“He interrupted, started talking about it, you know, ‘Do I look like a guy who needs hookers?’ I didn’t answer that, and I just moved on and explained: ‘Sir, I’m not saying that we credit this, I’m not saying we believe it. We just thought it very important that you know,”” Comey said.

(Excuse me, but you must assume we are all idiots just like you are. Comey says, “I’m not saying that we credit this (the dossier), I’m not saying we believe it.” No, we, the FBI, just used the dossier as the basis to spy on the Trump campaign in the FISA court!!!!!! Is this where the “lies” part of the title comes from?)

Comey said he knew the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server was going to present a “no-win situation” for him. “One half of the partisan divide is gonna be angry at us no matter what we do,” he told Stephanopoulos.

(Ahhh, again, excuse me, but should the FBI Director be worried about what some people are going to think about him? Shouldn’t his main concern be finding out the facts? I mean, if the FBI is such a non-political organization, just loaded with integrity from top to bottom, why would it matter?)

The email saga became a major part of the 2016 presidential campaign, as Clinton was the Democratic candidate.

Clinton opponents, including Trump, regularly criticized Comey and investigators for choosing not to bring Clinton before a grand jury, but Comey defended that decision in the ABC News special as well.

Comey describes how Loretta Lynch’s (Obama’s Attorney General) credibility gap propelled him into Clinton email saga. (Note, it only “propelled” him in his own mind.)

Comey says his assumption Clinton would win was ‘a factor’ in the email investigation.

(We know what happens when we “ass-u-me” don’t we?!)

“We would prefer with a subject of an investigation to do an informal interview. Lot more flexibility there,” Comey said, adding that “they’re still required to tell the truth.”

(Oh sure…completely understandable…, especially since Comey had written his letter exonerating Hillary months before any part of his investigation even took place!” Man, the FBI is REALLY good! They could even see into the future apparently!)

He also defended his actions because he viewed it as an effort to defend the independence of the FBI and its investigation. He added that there were certain concerns about then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who reportedly asked him to call the email saga a “matter” and not an “investigation.”

“It worried me. It gave me an uncomfortable feeling because the Clinton campaign had been trying to come up with other words to describe it,” he said.

(Again, WHO CARES what the Clinton campaign wanted you to do or was trying to do!!!! Apparently, the FBI was not quite as “independent” as Comey was portraying them to be.)

“I decided I have to step, as much as I like her, I have to step away from her and show the American people the FBI’s work separately,” Comey said of Lynch.

In the end, Comey believes the investigation achieved its goals. (I beg to differ Mr. Comey. The FBI achieved all of its goals except one…, Donald Trump won the election!)

“The FBI drove this investigation and we did it in a competent and independent way. I would bet my life on that,” he said.

(Ooooh, I wouldn’t do that. It might be a bet you’ll regret in the very near future!)

Comey also admitted that he is surrounded by Hillary supporters (No kidding!!!) and he revealed that while he didn’t vote in the 2016 election (I’m calling BS on that.), that as the FBI director he was “trying to be outside of politics,” there were a lot of Clinton supporters in his family.

“I’m pretty sure that at least my four daughters, probably all five of my kids, wanted Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president. I know my amazing spouse did,” he said. Patrice Comey, his wife of more than three decades, told Stephanopoulos that she was a strong supporter of Clinton’s.

“I wanted a woman president really badly, and I supported Hillary Clinton. A lot of my friends worked for her. And I was devastated when she lost,” she said.

Patrice Comey and the couple’s daughters participated in the Women’s March, which was held the day after the inauguration. (I wonder if they wore those pink vagina hats?!)

Comey was invited to the White House for an event with law enforcement officers, but he was hesitant. “I worried very much about that independence of the FBI. And, remember there were a whole lot of people who thought that I had helped elect Donald Trump and so why would I wanna go to a public reception with the president two days after he takes office?” Comey said.

He decided to go, and thought he was potentially going to be overlooked because his suit was roughly the same color of the blue curtain, but that didn’t happen.

Trump called him over.

“I remember the walk … it seems like 1,000 yards across the blue room, the oval Blue Room … and my family’s had a lot of fun watching my face as I walk across … ‘cause they know that’s my ‘Oh no’ face,”

(Soooo dramatic!)

Comey said, going on to note how, among family, that look is known as his “oh s—” face.

Days after that Oval Office photo opportunity, Trump called Comey and invited him to dinner at the White House.

“He said, ‘You know, a lot of people would wanna be FBI director and, given all you’ve gone through, I would understand if you wanna walk away. But it would look like you’d done something wrong if you did that. But I figured I should meet with you and … see what you wanna do,'” Comey said.

“He said, ‘I expect loyalty, I need loyalty.’ And I just stared at him and had this little narrative with myself inside, saying, ‘Don’t you move, don’t you dare move. Don’t even blink,'” Comey said.

“I think because I was caught totally by surprise. I couldn’t think of a clever response. And by the second time he came back to it, I had my wits about me and had a better answer,” Comey said.

“He said, again, ‘I need loyalty.’ And I said, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ And he paused and then he said, ‘Honest loyalty,’ as if he was proposing some compromise or a deal. And I paused and said, ‘You’ll get that from me,'” Comey recounted. (That was a lie.)

Another uncomfortable moment came on Feb. 14, 2017, the day after then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been forced out. After a security briefing, Comey said that Trump asked everyone else to leave, including Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was Comey’s boss at the time.

“It’s so unusual for the FBI director and the president to be alone at all. But to kick out the vice president of the United States and the attorney general, who I work for, so you could talk to me alone, something was up,” Comey said.

Comey said Trump “said he hopes I can let it go,” referring to the criminal investigation into Flynn.

“His words were, though, ‘I hope you can let it go.’ I took the expression of hope as, ‘This is what I want you to do,'” he told Stephanopoulos.

Trump has denied saying this.

Comey said he didn’t stop Trump from making such a request, and told Stephanopoulos “maybe I should have.”

“As I’ve thought about it since, if he didn’t know he was doing something improper, why did he kick out the attorney general and the vice president of the United States and the leaders of the intelligence community? I mean, why am I alone if he doesn’t know the nature of the request? But it’s possible that in the moment I shoulda, you know, another person would have said, ‘Sir, you can’t ask me that. That’s a criminal investigation. That could be obstruction of justice,'” he said.

(Oh boy, that’s cute. James Comey worrying about obstructing justice!! I guess it all depends on who’s “justice” we’re talking about. Just think about all of the Obama and Clinton surrogates who got away with questionable behavior with either a pardon or no consequences whatsoever. Maybe that’s the type of consideration President Trump was referring to?)

So let’s review what terrible concerns Mr. Comey had regarding President Trump:

The President had the nerve to call him over to talk during a public reception at The White House! Ahhhh!

The President invited him over to The White House for dinner! For the love of God!!!

President Trump expressed to Mr. Comey that loyalty was important to him! They are limits to how much a human can endure!!

And finally, The President may have suggested to Mr. Comey, at least according to Comey, that it would be nice if members of his administration got the same level of consideration as the members of the last administration. Ohhh, the pain of it all! Please make it stop!

“Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country. The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president,” Comey added.

(I beg to differ with you Mr. Comey. I believe President Trump does “embody respect” and he does “adhere to the values that are at the core of this country.” Definitely more so that our previous president.)

Do ya’ll have any more of those pink vagina hats floating around? I think our friend, James Comey, could use one!

Thanks to Meghan Keneally, from Good Morning America and Yahoo News for contributing to this article.

 

Over 76% of Americans believe that the public will never find out the whole truth behind the John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and that the resulting investigation was either badly mishandled or intentionally sabotaged.

I’m in that 76%.

Keep in mind that we are talking about the assassination of an American President, the government’s handling of that event, and the associated investigation.

Here are some of the many unresolved mysteries surrounding the JFK Assassination that haven’t been adequately explained to this day:

1 . What happened to Mary Moorman’s missing fifth photo in Dealey Plaza? Moorman is known for her famous Polaroid photo that captures the JFK assassination at nearly the precise instant the head shot occurred. What is less well-known, though, is that Moorman took other photos that day. One photo she took moments before the assassination reportedly depicted the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The photo was reportedly turned over to Secret Service agents shortly after the assassination and vanished from sight. It has never been published and it remains missing to this day.

2. Why was Oswald’s handwritten note to FBI agent James Hosty destroyed? Oswald wrote a note to Hosty a week or two before the assassination. Within hours of Oswald’s death on Nov. 24, 1963, the note was torn up and flushed down the toilet by Hosty. Hosty had claimed his superior had ordered him to destroy the note, however, this was denied and Hosty was never prompted to share what was in the note. Why would that be and how could that be?

3. Did Joseph Milteer have knowledge of the assassination beforehand? 13 days before the assassination, right-wing extremist Milteer gave tape-recorded comments to a Miami police informant that eerily predicted key details of the JFK assassination. Milteer claimed that a conspiracy to kill Kennedy was in the works and described a scenario in which the president would be shot “from an office building with a high-powered rifle.” Milteer also predicted that, in the aftermath of the assassination, the police would arrest a patsy “to throw the public off.”

4. The Mysterious Autopsy. After the shooting, Kennedy was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. According to Texas state law, the President’s body was not allowed to be taken from the hospital until after an autopsy had been entirely performed. However, the Secret Service chose to ignore this, taking the body straight to the airport and securing it on board Air Force One.

According to a doctor at Parkland, this led to a heated confrontation between Secret Service agents and the Dallas Chief of Forensic Pathology, Earl Rose, during which the agents displayed their guns menacingly. Dr. Rose and others forced against a wall while the body was taken away.

The body was flown to Maryland’s Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was finally carried out.

Why would the Secret Service, of all organizations, refuse to let the Parkland Memorial Hospital’s professional surgeons perform the autopsy? Who ordered them to “grab the President and run, and to not let anybody stand in their way?”

5. How was Jack Ruby able to get close enough to Lee Harvey Oswald, with a gun, to shoot him at point blank range in a Dallas police station? Why did they feel they had to transfer him in the first place? Don’t you think security would have been better than that? The silencing of Oswald would be a key component to perpetuating some of these questionable theories relating to the assassination.

6. Eventually, an autopsy was conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital, back in Washington, where neither of the two surgeons in charge had much experience with autopsies at all. These two were later joined by another doctor who hadn’t done one himself in two years either. Does this seem to you how an assassinated president would be autopsied? Me either!

7. One of the strangest mysteries surrounding this dark event actually took place after the president’s autopsy. In 1978 a special government organization published findings that stated that the deceased president’s brain had vanished. What!?

Yes, apparently, the remaining part of his brain was surgically removed during his autopsy.

The brain remains were put into a metal box and stashed in the White House by the Secret Service. Again, what!? They remained there until 1965 when a report showed that Robert, the president’s brother, had the brain put into the national archives, nobody knows why he chose to do this.

During a routine archive check twelve months later it was discovered that the Kennedy brain had indeed gone missing. Many archive workers were interrogated but not one of them had any sort of information. Of course they didn’t.

8. Among the many JFK assassination controversies, none is more controversial than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The Single Bullet Theory proposed that a single, nearly whole bullet, that was later recovered, had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by President Kennedy and Governor Connelly. But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.

That a bullet, supposedly fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient.  Suspicions it had been planted followed.

9. There were 38 “strange” and “convenient” deaths, of people with knowledge, surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, within two years of the assassination, and 103 overall, spanning into the early eighties.

10. A recent release of documents was made to satisfy a 25-year deadline set forward by the Oct. 25, 1992, enactment of the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. However, many of the files were held back from release by after the CIA and FBI asked for more time to redact information that could cause “potentially irreversible harm.” That sure sounds familiar doesn’t it. The question is, “could cause harm to who?”

If you weren’t in that 76% that I mentioned earlier, you should be now!