When I reflect on how the MSM has covered for this administration for a full year I challenge my readers to consider this question:

Are we seeing today, what Watergate would have been if the president had been a Democrat beloved by the MSM?

I say yes!

DaTechguy The deliberate ignorance of the MSM vs Katie Pavlich et/al  6-21-12

I remember being at an event in Manchester when George Stephanopolous asked his infamous “contraception” question at the GOP debate that threw Mitt Romney for the biggest loop of his life.  The whole, “Can Trump Pardon himself” meme (he can btw) is basically the same thing.  Since no actual wrongdoing has been found, the media’s idea is to suggest wrongdoing via the whole pardon thing.  After all you don’t need to be pardoned for something you didn’t do, do you?

Nevertheless, in my opinion that President Trump should exercise his power to pardon the President,  or more properly stated on the FORMER President and chief executive Barack Hussein Obama.

Don’t be so surprised, back in February I was already tweeting this out:

A lot more has come out since then. As the investigation into the spying on the Trump campaign which started out with the media meme of “Trump is crazy for saying we were wiretapping him” and has currently progressed to “It wasn’t ‘spying spying'” continues to bear fruit it’s becoming increasingly clear that the last administration actively used the power of the federal government to attempt to illegally fix the 2016 election .

That Obama was the 2nd coming of Nixon was of course known to those of us who actually covered the Obama years with a critical eye even as the media was doing all they could to shield him

But the media understands what the developments in the IRS scandal means, and they can’t investigate, because if they do then the results of their investigations might reveal what many on the right suspect, that Barack Obama & his administration is involved in this up to his ears.

But it is not the illusion of Barack Obama as an honest & capable President that worries them the most, it is their own illusion that they want to preserve.  The illusion of their own self-righteousness.

If these journalists discover that the first black president of the United States is a cheap crook in the tradition of Nixon then a choice has to be made. Do they report that information,  or do they withhold it?

This tweet perfectly encapsulated the media’s tactics at the time:

which is why back in 2013 I was already tweeting:

Well those days of protection for Obama are in the past and the crisis that is likely going to occur once more of the spygate details come out makes Donald Trump pardoning Barack Obama both the right and the smart thing to do.

It’s the right thing to do because unlike the current phony media mantra of “a constitutional crisis” if it reaches the point where enough evidence comes out implicating the former White House in spygate the AG will be put in a position where he has to decide if he is going to subpoena and/or indict the former president for crimes committed while he was in office, that is using the power of the federal government and federal law enforcement to illegally intervene in a presidential election .

The potential for an explosion will be incredible. Even though I don’t think he deserves one and it might anger Trump base I suspect it would be far better for the country if President Obama was preemptively pardoned.  Not only would it solve a constitutional crisis before it begins but it would make it more likely that the truth will come out.  After all if only a reputation, vs one’s freedom is at risk then there is a greater likelihood that the uncovering of relevant facts will not be hindered as vigorously.  The only question would be does he limit the pardon to Obama or extend it to the Obama administration.

It’s the smart thing to do because it instantly changes the conversation. Instead of the media playing the “will Trump pardon himself” game to hide the lack of evidence of crimes the conversation will instantly turn to:  Is there evidence of crimes by the Obama administration and were said crimes done with the prior consent or later approval of Barack Obama?

Even more importantly while the media and the left will howl with indignation at this very suggestion of this the administration would not be leading public opinion on this matter but following it…

A majority of 51 percent of voters now believe “senior law enforcement officials are likely to have broken the law in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the presidency,” according to a poll from Rasmussen Reports.
Only 42 percent of voters believe it is “unlikely that these officials illegally attempted to stop a Trump presidency.”

In other words, we now live in a country where only 42 percent of voters believe it is “unlikely” federal law enforcement officials tried to illegally meddle in a presidential election.

Only 26 percent believe it is “not at all likely.”

That being the case a Pardon of Obama by Trump becomes the act of the bigger man as well because unlike Ford’s pardoning Nixon the man who made him President, and getting grief for it, Donald Trump would be pardoning the man and administration who wronged him to try to keep him out of the White House.  Talk about claiming the high ground.

And of course the priceless media reaction of them insisting loudly that the man who regularly invited Harvey Weinstein to the White House did absolutely nothing wrong would pale next to the potential Obama reaction. Would he accept the pardon while insisting there was no wrongdoing or that it’s a cynical ploy? Would he angrily refuse the pardon? Would he be smart enough to completely ignore it and more importantly how would this play with former Obama era officials who know what they did and might still be subject to charges.  I suspect they might decide they wouldn’t mind a pre-preemptive pardon to save their necks.  The conflict there would be priceless.

I think this would not only be the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, but it would also be the fun and hilarious thing to do.

If it was up to me I’d go for it the day after the midterms


If you think the cost of what we do is worth it to counter balance the MSM and the various online censors I would ask you to hit DaTipJar below



Consider subscribing. We need another $200 in monthly subscribers to make up for attrition in 2018 thus far


Choose a Subscription level


Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

By John Ruberry

Theodore Herzl School of Excellence, Chicago’s West Side

Is a new beginning the only way out for Chicago Public Schools?

That’s what crossed my mind this morning while I was watching Mike Flannery on Fox Chicago’s Flannery Fired Up.

The show opened. with an interview of David Jackson, one of the investigative reporters who penned a disturbing yet indispensable series of articles about sexual attacks at Chicago Public Schools.

“I was flabbergasted to learn the frequency of sexual assaults against students in Chicago’s schools,” Jackson told the host. “I expected dozens of cases. There were hundreds.”

What did Chicago Public Schools do about it, Flannery asked?

“Very little,” Jackson replied.

During the ten-year period the Tribune investigated those attacks, which include rape, there were 523 reports of sexual assaults inside city schools. That’s about one a week. Not included in that total are sexual attacks off property.

CPS protected its employees, to the detriment of students, as did the Chicago Teachers Union. The accusers–victims, I should say–were aggressively assailed by CPS lawyers who were more interested in protecting the teachers, coaches, custodians, and security guards than serving justice and safeguarding its students.

Over at the Chicago Sun-Times, readers leaned that a “blitz” health inspection of 125 schools found that only 34 passed. Rat droppings, filthy bathrooms, and unsanitary food preparation equipment were discovered. The most egregious violations were centered on facilities Aramark was hired to keep clean. Who was in charge of CPS facilities? A former Aramark employee, Leslie Fowler, who resigned her high-paying post last week. While the bidding process was open for a food contract, an inspector general’s report cited “questionable conduct” when Fowler twice dined with the president of Aramark

Her ex-employer won the bid.

Prior to her hiring as CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Barbara Byrd-Bennett was a consultant for SUPES Academy, which produced training programs for school administrators. Once in charge of CPS, the woman known as BBB steered a $23 million training contract to her old employer. She was to receive a ten-percent kickback from that contract as well as a promise of a job whenever she left CPS.

In an email to a couple of SUPES bosses, Byrd-Bennet added to the already voluminous lore of Chicago corruption by boasting, “I have tuition to pay and casinos to visit.”

It’s suspected that such crony-capitalism between CPS brass and their former private-sector employers is widespread. If true, then such private-public cross-pollination is simply a revolving door of corruption.

Dunne School on the South Side, where your blogger atteneded kindergarten

Byrd-Bennett, along with those two former big shots at SUPES, are now incarcerated in federal prison.

Despite the reputation of CPS for failure, Barack Obama chose one of BBB’s predecessors, Arne Duncan, as his first education secretary.

Obama’s daughters attended a private school in Chicago.

How is CPS doing in regards to educating children? Not very well. Not even one-in-four students read at grade level. Yes, I am aware that unlike kids in most suburban schools, there are additional challenges in teaching city children, many of whom come from abusive homes. But one-in-four? After years of so-called reform?

And what about the filth and the sexual assaults?

If the goal of Chicago Public Schools is to educate children in a safe environment, then it is failing–and has been for a long time, despite most schools incorporating such words as “Excellence” and “College Preparatory ” into their names. Before their well-needed demolition, public housing high rises, which never should have been built in the first place, were derided by liberals as “warehouses of the poor.”

Most CPS schools are warehouses of the poorly educated.

If the goal of CPS is to provide a generous income for teachers, maintenance workers, and of course administrators, along with bountiful pensions for them, then it is a fabulous success. Oh, let’s not forget the bottom lines of those contractors. They are doing well too.

As for those pensions, they have long been a slush fund. one that is dancing with insolvency. rather than serving as a retirement program.

Fitch rates CPS bonds as junk.

So, by nearly everyone’s standards, CPS is failing.

Does it continue on its same road to defeat?

When do Chicago taxpayers, who are increasingly angry because of repeated property tax hikes to pay for unfunded pensions, scream, “Enough!”

Firing everyone–and starting over again might be the only way out for CPS, which could be possible if state law is changed and public agencies are allowed to file for bankruptcy protection. Rehire the good teachers and the administrators who fight waste and theft.  Charter schools aren’t the answer. UNO, an Hispanic group with close ties with former Mayor Richard M. Daley, utilized charter schools for crony capitalism and graft. More privatization isn’t the answer, as Aramark isn’t able to keep schools clean. School vouchers? Maybe. But some parents, sadly, don’t have the initiative to better the lives of the children.

Floundering schools are already closed and re-opened with new staff here-and-there in Chicago.

Blogger in downtown Chicago

For those of you who cry out “more money” for Chicago’s schools, keep in mind more cash opens the door to more theft, or at the very least, more squandering of taxpayer funds.

Crime, high taxes, and rotten schools are the primary reasons given by people who decide to move away from Chicago. And Chicago is the only major city with a declining population.

Next year there is a mayoral election in Chicago. One of the candidates, Paul Vallas, is a former CEO of CPS.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit. He attended kindergarten at a CPS school, Edward F. Dunne Elementary School. It is now the Dunne Technology Academy Elementary School.

US Navy 080203-N-0411D-019 A student at the Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school breaks birch bark to start a fire, from Wikipedia

A friend of mine that was ordained last year happened to be passing through the area, so I invited him to join my family for dinner. He’s visited us before, and every time he does my kids and wife line up questions galore about Catholicism, what they hear in school, and other topics. After the kids went to bed, I asked Father what the latest challenge he’s had with things the Pope says.

Plenty of people like and don’t like Pope Francis, but similar to President Trump, I think he gets misquoted a lot. Anytime I have non-Catholic friends gleefully tell me they heard the Pope support homosexual unions, or abortion, or some other crazy thing, I normally do a bit of digging first before finding that they referenced a CNN article instead of actually reading source documentation.

Continue reading “On being uncomfortable”

…because between the “secret” imprisonment of Tommy Robinson for daring to report trials that the British find embarrassing, the state forcibly keeping a British family from seeking treatment of their son, a British subject and the overwhelming vote that will condemn Irish children to death in numbers that over time will make the forced famine look like picnics they British and Irish people have outdone their historic oppressors by their own free will by embracing injustices done to their own children.

Who needs Hitler? Who needs Cromwell?

That free people would do these things to themselves is completely beyond me.

I’m lucky. This week, I’m at a Navy veteran’s group to present a well deserved award to one of my Sailors. It’s held in a nice hotel, and the group of veterans are great to hang out with. You’d think everything would be great.

But there are problems, specifically one problem: I’m the youngest person in the group. This veteran’s group, like so many others, is struggling to attract new veteran’s into its membership. Young enlisted Sailors, and especially young officers, just aren’t joining groups like AMVETS, American Legion or the VFW like they have in the past. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but it’s becoming a big concern now as our World War 2, Vietnam Conflict and Korean Conflict veterans are passing away in large numbers. These groups are at risk of disappearing altogether.

Continue reading “Our Veteran Groups Are Dying”

(Adapted from a post I wrote for Leaven for the Loaf.)

The Trump Administration has announced a proposed Health and Human Services rule that would prevent federal Title X (Ten) family planning money from going to abortion providers. That’s “proposed.” It’s a long road from announcement to implementation. Some pro-lifers are cheering as though it’s a done deal, and abortion providers are screaming as only people who’ve been hit in the wallet can scream.

Take a breath, folks. The proposed rule is good news. It would protect taxpayers from involvement in the abortion industry. But the rule is not in place yet, and may never be. The President has announced a proposal. Tip of the iceberg, you might say. To see what the rest of it looks like, feast your eyes on the rulemaking process as described in the Federal Register.

But, still – this is a start.

The outraged wails of abortion advocates are reminding me of the similar reaction to the Supreme Court’s 1991 Rust decision, establishing that it’s permissible for the federal government to tell family planning clinics that they can’t use taxpayer funds to perform, refer for, or counsel for abortions – since, after all, abortion is not family planning. Then, as now, abortion advocates called funding restrictions a “gag rule.” They called funding restrictions a violation of freedom of speech, instead of what they are: protection of the conscience rights of people who don’t want to help pay for any aspect of abortion.

(A couple of years after the Rust decision, President Clinton suspended the regulations that Rust had okayed – and ever since, abortion providers have lined up for Title X funds every budget cycle.)

As for indignant cries of “gag rule,” the most strident critics of the proposed Title X rule are not noted for their defense of First Amendment rights of peaceful pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities. They only discovered the First Amendment when abortion providers’ pocketbooks were threatened.

Back in ’91, just after the Rust decision, I got a letter from my then-Congressman claiming that the decision was a “devastating blow” to free speech, on the grounds that agencies using Title X funds were being forbidden to counsel for abortions. This was from a man who had for office on a claim that he opposed sending taxpayer funding or subsidies for abortion. He recognized when he ran for office that there is a difference between family planning and abortion, and he realized that family planning funds in the hands of abortion providers simply free up other funds within the providers’ budgets for use in abortions.

Then abortion providers started accusing my Congressman of opposing free speech. Worked like a charm, since no one wants to be accused of violating the First Amendment. He changed his tune.

Today, just as in 1991, it literally pays to disguise funding as free speech. Hence the revival of the misleading term “gag rule.”

The essence of the President’s proposed rule is this, which is no different from the Reagan rule that led to the Rust decision: Title X is for family planning. Abortion is not family planning. Congress is within its rights to forbid abortion providers from using a grant for purposes unrelated to the grant’s goals. If you counsel for, refer for, or perform abortions, you may do so without using family planning funds.

The response from the abortion industry is this: I’ll promote what I please; you should pay for that promotion; refusal to pay equals censorship.

Providers who do both abortions and family planning could, if they chose, separate out the abortion business and do it as a separate enterprise, with separate facilities, equipment, funding and staffing. Title X grants for family planning would then not entangle taxpayers in abortion in any way. But that’s not the path abortion providers want to take.

It’s worth remembering that while the President’s proposed rule is a pro-life initiative, it has no bearing on the right to life. It doesn’t recognize the personhood or humanity of any preborn child. What it does is respect the conscience rights of taxpayers who don’t want to help subsidize abortions.

Even that is more than abortion advocates can tolerate.

Ellen Kolb is a pro-life writer and activist in New Hampshire. She writes about pro-life issues at Leaven for the Loaf. 

Support independent journalism today: hit DaTipJar for DaTechGuy blog. Thank you!

I don’t usually get into Twitter Debates these days but something interesting happened yesterday that illustrated the liberal mindset.

A few days ago I wrote about the Cheesecake factory here and I sent out a tweet concerning it which days later is still getting retweets and likes

Lots of people replied that we should boycott but It was my thought that the cheesecake factory should get a chance to answer my question first.

One response came from a person known as Gennaerphone

I replied pointing out that their ability to go to the Cheesecake factory is completely independent of a conservative boycott (and making what some might consider a startling confession)

Yes it’s true I just can’t stand cheesecake! Our liberal friend replied thus

Now in one sense it’s not a bad point concerning self censorship and considering others although I’ve found the left tends to be rather one sided in terms of such censorship, but there was something in that reply that I was not going to let pass.

Hundreds of thousand died because of the Confederate Flag both in the war and afterwards, Millions died both in war and via extermination under the swastika once the Nazi’s appropriated it. To equate a Trump voter to this is not only obscene but could be used to justify any action, even violent action, against a member of the GOP in general or a Trump supporter in particular.

Again look at the argument here, if you support Donald Trump you are part of a cult, and if you had never encountered Trump supporters, of it your only source of info was the MSM one might believe it.

But I have seen the opponents of Trump enmass in Boston. I have watched a mob go after Trump supporters and I have interviewed Trump voter. Such an argument is contrary to facts I have seen and recorded and I said so.

note I should have said election 2016 but the point is made and I issued the following challenge

You won’t be surprised at the answer to my invitation

At this point I prepared a link so people following my timeline and his would be able to see my coverage, but when I tried to reply with it, it failed. You can guess why

But I sent out the tweet anyways

That he would block me was not a surprise because it’s an action built on fear

How afraid was he that even one of his followers might see my post, watch those videos and see the left and himself int he light of truth? He didn’t just block me, he deleted every single one of HIS tweets in that exchange so that no trace of me would be in his timeline..

How sad must it be to have so little faith in one’s own argument and so much fear that it be challenged? It what turns normal people into stuff life this

For the record my post on the subject is here my videos both interviews with members of the crowd and their actions are unedited shown as they are.

And that’s why folks like Gennaerphone are so afraid of it and why I submit and suggest that it’s worthy of your support




Please consider subscribing, That pays the bills and my writers


Choose a Subscription level



Apparently the owners of Starbucks have never read these words from Kipling:

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

Otherwise they would have never started this new policy

Starbucks baristas and store managers have long found the coffee company’s guidelines on how to treat lingering nonpaying guests vague at best. One company executive told the Journal the guidance on nonpaying guests had long been a gray area, which the Philadelphia incident brought to the forefront.

The company said at the time that it had different guidelines for its 28,000 stores globally, depending on the market. The new policy will apply to its more than 8,000 U.S. company-operated cafes.

On Saturday, the company told its employees in a letter that “any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer.”

Jazz Shaw is exactly right about the abuse of the policy that is coming

This “woke” policy is an invitation to abuse, and history has shown us that when you roll out such an invitation, there will be someone coming along to take advantage of it soon enough. This is particularly true in larger cities where business owners regularly have to deal with individuals looking for a place to pass the time, either to escape the heat or the cold or to find a free bathroom. If the word gets out that Starbucks can’t stop anyone from hanging out there, some of the stores are going to turn into impromptu homeless shelters and that’s not going to do much for the store’s prospects in terms of paying customers.

And he is likely right concerning the goal as well

Starbucks may believe that they’re going to get the SJW crowd off their backs with this policy change. And for a short time they might. But I would wager that many of their outlets will come to regret the new policy in short order.

They will regret it not just because of what will happen, but because SJW’s are never satisfied.  One concession will require another and another and still another.

If the owners of Starbucks read either history or Kipling they would know this, but then again if they read Kipling, the SJW community would likely object to that too.

B-52, by Airman 1st Class Victor J. Caputo – US Air Force, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=68131933

I am completely confused by the headlines. First, any North Korea article is being buried by small news, like a woman smiling in her mug shot after a DUI-induced murder. I mean, yes, it’s a sad story, but hardly historic. So when I do search for North Korea, I get this:

North Korea receives a huge concession.

So I’m thinking, wow, what did we do?

We stopped an exercise.

Seriously? That’s huge? It’s no where near Yuuuuge, and certainly not huge. Let’s rack and stack for a second.

What has North Korea done:
1. Shook hands with South Korean President
2. Said he would negotiate with President Trump.
3. Said he would stop nuclear testing, and took measures to do so.
4. Released some prisoners.

What the US did:
1. Stopped flying some bombers.
2. Suspended some exercises.
3. Uhm…

Seriously. Vox makes a big deal that the bombers are nuclear capable. So? We have loads of nuclear weapons that can hit North Korea now. Like, without flying bombers. And we have plenty of non-nuclear options, from Tomahawks to artillery. That doesn’t count what Japan and South Korea could use.

We just gave the equivalent of a “free glass of water with a full meal purchase” “concession” to North Korea. If anything, we saved money in fuel costs and pilot OPTEMPO. It literally cost us nothing. North Korea can’t get back the prisoners or reverse some of the dismantling of its nuclear site. Our bombers could be flying tomorrow if we wanted. We have done nothing that can’t be undone in a matter of minutes.

Trump gave North Korea this “concession” because it’s dumb and doesn’t matter. Would you throw away a monumental deal over an inconsequential detail? I sure wouldn’t.


This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.

Did you donate to Da Tech Guy yet?

The Most Dangerous thing in the world is an excuse

DaTechGuy

There is no question that radical Islam is a global threat, that the Jihad is an oppression that must be fought, that the only thing worse than Islam’s targeting of critics of Islam from Pam Geller and Robert Spencer and the Murder of folks such as Theo Van Gogh is the west’s indifference to this targeting our willingness to collaborate in our own destruction. All of these things I stipulate and assert.

None of these fact justify this:

At least 120,000 Uighurs have been imprisoned in so-called “re-education camps” in the last two years, according to the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Asia. Other reports put that number as high as one million, which a group of U.S. Congress members last month described as the largest current mass incarceration of a minority population anywhere. Any foreign contact is suspect, with those sent to camps reportedly including a leading footballer as well as the Uighur wives of Pakistani merchants trading across the border.

The Chinese government has refused to comment on reports of mass detention. And it denies repression of the Turkic-speaking Uighurs, some of whom have been engaged in a low-level separatist movement for years. Beijing says it faces Islamist insurgency in Xinjiang, and blames Uighur militants for a number of knife and bomb attacks across the country. It has labeled a group of Uighur leaders as terrorists.

emphasis mine.

Don’t let this fool you, this isn’t China cracking down on their Islamic population to stop Islamic Terror this is using the excuse of Islamic terror to justify the “re-education” of the Uighurs and while they have been the primary target of their new cultural revolution China has no intention of stopping with Islam:

A government crackdown that watchdog groups are calling a “purge against Christians” is reportedly underway in Zhejiang province in Eastern China, with all religious meetings banned, and parents told to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ.

ChinaAid said the local governments of Wenzhou and Shaoxing have banned all religious gatherings, but they are doing so under the guise of fire safety inspections.

“The police often show up and say that they want to conduct a fire safety inspection. They wander around in the church and arbitrarily point out that some facilities do not meet the standards,” shared a Hangzhou Christian by the name of Li.

“Then, they require you to reform in two weeks. Even if you do exactly as they said, they would still deem you ‘unqualified’ in the next inspection. You are helpless.”

The oppression of Christians in China has been going on under the radar and gotten little press outside of Christian sites, but even so it hasn’t reached the level of re-education camps like Islam.

I don’t doubt for one moment that radical Islamists would like to hit China, they are just as much “infidels” as the west and it’s likely that some in the Uighur community support and with this crackdown it’s very probable that eventually the Uighurs might embrace the Islamists in order to resist.

But make no mistake, if radical Islamists hits targets in China and the Chinese government oppresses followers of Islam it isn’t because either has wronged the other it’s because it’s in the nature of each of them. That’s why I object to the title of this piece of at Axios:

Shocking details emerge from China’s re-education camps for Muslims

Nothing in the details of the oppression of the Uighurs should be shocking to any student of history or Communism any more than the details of the actions of radical Islamists around the world should surprise anyone. They both act in within their nature and if there was not one excuse for them to strike or oppress they would find or make up a different one.

None of it makes the actions of the other just or right and the oppression of the Uighurs should be loudly condemned by any person who claims to believe in freedom.