People Unclear

This is number 78 of a series

Yes, it’s Sunday again, and there are still people who have not been reading the daily memo. Actually, Sunday doesn’t matter. This happens every day of the week, even Christmas and New Years.

Who’s in the box today? How about White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

White House says Congress ‘not smart enough’ to understand Trump’s taxes

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders spent Sunday morning in full defense of President Trump on everything from his reluctance to release his taxes to his change of heart on WikiLeaks and tweeted attacks on a Muslim congresswoman.

Sanders told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace that she thought members of Congress “weren’t smart enough” to understand Trump’s tax returns.

“This is a dangerous, dangerous road,” said Sanders. “And frankly, Chris, I don’t think Congress, particularly not this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume that President Trump’s taxes will be.”

“My guess is most of them don’t do their own taxes,” she added, “and I certainly don’t trust them to look through the decades of success that the president has and determine anything.”

Whoa! Did somebody ever miss the boat. All right, let’s give an inch. Members aren’t smart enough to understand Trump’s tax returns? Let’s spot Sanders that point and go for the win. Let’s assume Democratic members of Congress, who last year turned up a few moss-covered rocks and exposed stuff underneath, going on to trounce Republicans in the House races. Now those not-so-smart Democrats don’t need to be smart enough to understand President Trump’s tax returns. They don’t need to be smart, because there are such things as tax lawyers and certified public accountants, and the House Committee for Oversight and Reform has some and can hire more if needed.

Do I quit now while I’m ahead, or do I twist it some more? How about a few inches deeper. Where to start?

  • Monetary commitments to associates of the Russian government
  • Money from the Trump Foundation going into private pockets
  • Trump Organization [official name of Donald Trump’s business] revenue from foreign dignitaries

There are multiple reasons Donald Trump has, despite campaign promises, refused to release his tax returns. Mrs. Sanders may not want to know these reasons, but I do, the American public does, and the House Committee for Oversight and Reform does. And they are the ones who count.

And that should clear up a few matters for White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The National Divide

Number 11 of a possibly infinite series

The hard line that divides the nation is anchored in matters of personal integrity. This became apparent once more this week in a gruesome manner:

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff came face to face with calls for his resignation during an explosive House hearing on Thursday.

This comes as Schiff continues his assertions of collusion after the Mueller report found that the evidence “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” according to Attorney General William Barr’s summary.

Texas Republican Congressman Mike Conway blasted Schiff saying, “Your willingness to promote a demonstratively false narrative is alarming. The findings of the special counsel conclusively refute your past and present assertions that have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information…As such we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner consistent with your Constitutional responsibility and urge your immediate resignation as chairman of the committee.”

The Republican members of the committee, during the time it was controlled by that party, steadfastly resisted efforts to probe the dealings of a patently dishonest administration. Now that Congress is beginning to work in earnest to peel back the coverings that have for the past two years protected the Trump administration from a full accounting, the response of Republican members is unseemly to the core. They want the discovery to stop, and they will work any means to achieve that goal. We see them echoing the sentiments of their failed leader:

So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!

The congressman from California responded in a way that should alarm right-thinking citizens:

The typically soft-spoken Schiff responded angrily, accusing Republicans of ignoring voluminous evidence of the Trump campaign’s efforts to accept Russia’s help in the election. He noted that Donald Trump Jr. met secretly with a Russian lawyer who he hoped would provide dirt on Hillary Clinton and told an associate he would “love” the Russian government’s help.

He also noted that Trump helped dictate a false story about his son’s meeting, saying it was about adoption, and during the campaign, openly asked Russia to obtain Clinton’s emails — a comment Trump later construed as a joke.

Schiff said that Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort allegedly provided polling data to a Russian intelligence-linked associate and that his former national security adviser Michael Flynn lied to the FBI about his post-campaign conversations with Russia’s ambassador.

“You might think that’s OK. I don’t,” bellowed Schiff. “I think it’s unethical. I think it’s unpatriotic. I think it’s corrupt and evidence of collusion.”

“I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to conspiracy is another matter,” he continued, adding, “But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is OK. And the day we do think that’s OK is the day we will look back and say that is the day America lost its way.”

I am thinking that America has not lost its way, but a political party that had, until now, a grand history has. Forgive me if I do not shed a tear.

The National Divide

Number 10 of a possibly infinite series

This is a tale of two political systems, illustrating vividly the hard line that separates divergent segments of this nation. People need to decide which side of the line they want to come down on. The choices are clear.

I will spell it out. At the top Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is questioning former Donal Trump lawyer Michael Cohen:

Did the president ever provide inflated assets to an insurance company?

In the second we see Representative Jim Jordan threatening the same witness:

Tread very f…ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be very f…ing disgusting.

And that’s all I’m going to say about that.

The Age Of Embarrassment

Number 16 in a series

This takes some telling. Bear with me.

Start with a paper published in the journal Science 26 June 2015. It’s by Karl Thomas and others, and it carries the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.” Here’s the abstract:

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

That was a couple of years ago. Now come forward to September of this year:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), an early and loyal supporter of President Donald Trump, likes to make noise about the liberal media’s coverage of climate change, often dismissing it as “fake news.”

In February, however, this vocal denier of near-universally accepted climate science promoted a story about a climate data manipulation scandal that is about as flawed as they come.

The representative of Congressional District 21, just up the road from me, has, from all appearances, a mental block regarding aspects of modern science:

Smith publicly denies global warming. As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress. In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry.

Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of climate change deniers, subpoenaed the records and communications of scientists who published papers that Smith disapproved of, attempted to cut NASA’s earth sciences budget, and “the committee has earned a reputation for questioning climate scientists and environmental groups that say human activity, like burning fossil fuels, is the main cause of rising temperatures.” In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history. In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation. On December 1, 2016 as Chair on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he tweeted out on behalf of that committee a Breitbart article denying climate change.

Smith has been criticized for conducting “witch hunts,” a “campaign of intimidation,” and “a direct attack on the rights of scientists and others to conduct research independent of government interference” against climate scientists. Smith has a lifetime score of 6% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters. Smith is an “outspoken climate naysayer in Congress”, according to Scientific American magazine. Smith has been described as a “climate change denier” by Vice Media and by Organizing for America and as “Congress’s preeminent climate change denier” by Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times.

As a life-long Texas, this brings a small lump in my throat. Such notoriety and so little merit.

It is worth linking to the Breitbart posting at issue:

Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year – the biggest and steepest fall on record.

But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence by the world’s alarmist community. You’d almost imagine that when temperatures shoot up it’s catastrophic climate change which requires dramatic headlines across the mainstream media and demands for urgent action. But that when they fall even more precipitously it’s just a case of “nothing to see here”.

Yeah, let’s chase that down. Breitbart links to a story that ran in MailOnline, an organ of the British Daily Mail.

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.

The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.

The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

Obviously there is much more, and you need to read the complete posting. So, what happened next?

IPSO adjudication upheld against MoS climate science article

Following an article published on 5 February 2017 in the Mail on Sunday, headlined ‘EXPOSED How world leaders were duped over global warming’, Bob Ward complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Mail on Sunday to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported on claims made by Dr John Bates, a climate scientist formerly employed at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about a paper published in the journal Science that suggested that there had been no ‘pause’ in global warming in the 2000s. Dr Bates had published a blog criticising the way the data used for the paper had been analysed and archived. The article detailed at length the complainant’s concerns with the data; it then characterised them as demonstrating ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the paper had been based upon ‘misleading, unverified data’.

And more. Read.

So, MailOnline published an item based on faulty information, and IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organization, called them down on it, and the item had to be disclaimed. On a side note, IPSO is a UK institution that oversees press standards. Ever wonder whether American outlets could use some oversight?

And the total of all this is that MailOnline published what was essentially a baseless claim, leading readers to conclude anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax.

Next, Breitbart, that stellar exemplar of journalistic integrity, regurgitated the item, I’m guessing much to the delight of their readership, said readership being the cream of American conservatism.

Finally, the Republican chair of the House Science Committee, tweeted out the gist of the Breitbart posting, apparently considering it justification for his anti-science position.

Get this, readers. A fatally flawed item in a British on-line journal worked its way into shaping this country’s science policy. I’m thinking the Brits have never gotten over Yorktown.

People Unclear

From Wikipedia

From Wikipedia

You only live once. So we thought. Until last week:

Zach Dasher, the Duck Dynasty clan cousin currently running to represent Louisiana in Congress, argued that the phrase “you only live once,” often abbreviated “YOLO,” is an “atheistic message that has brainwashed a generation,” Buzzfeed reports.

How many different ways are there to spell “quack?”

Buzzfeed notes the objection to YOLO appeared on a website owned by Dasher in 2012:

“The lyrics are pornographic so I would not recommend you download it. But what about the message in the title,” Dasher wrote. “Do we only live once? If the atheist is correct then yes, you only live once. You have about 80 years if you are lucky. And then it’s six feet under you go to push up daisies. If this is all there is I have a bit of advice for you. Go get after it. Consume as much as you can for tomorrow you die.

“The most dangerous part of YOLO is not the porn lyrics but the clearly atheistic message that has brainwashed a generation.”

Dasher concludes by saying, “Drake and Little Wayne are wrong.”

“Folks the bottom line is this, Drake and Little Wayne are wrong and Jesus was right. YOU CAN LIVE TWICE,” wrote Dasher.

The problem is … The problem is Dasher has yet to appreciate that everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

The actual fact is not so tragic. You do only live once. The notion that there is such a thing as “life after death” was likely concocted thousands of years ago by people unclear on the concept and was subsequently resurrected—if I may be allowed to use the term—any number of times in any number of human cultures. The particular reincarnation in this instance was about 2000 years ago with the death a radical Jewish rabbi in Jerusalem. He supposedly, after being posted for the greater part of a day on a wooden cross by the Roman government, came back to life and continued living for 40 days before ascending into the sky, never to be seen again. However, before lifting off he managed to get out the word that all who accepted him as the redeemer for their sins would, following death, likewise ascend into the sky and live again for all eternity in heavenly bliss.


Despite the fact that nobody has ever been known—not even Jesus—to die and then come back to life, this idea has found favor with thousands, yea millions, actually over a billion people. All this is well and good. Lots of people have wacky ideas.

The problem is when people start making life decisions based on these wacky ideas. Could it be that Zack Dasher is one such? It’s a sobering thought. Dasher is not the kid who sacks your groceries at the H-E-B store. He is a candidate to represent Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District. Were he to be elected to Congress, he would be in a position to wield his wacky ideas in such matters as the national debt, immigration policy, defense appropriations and maybe even foreign trade.

For me it’s a scary thought that somebody who cannot recognize where reality ends and fantasy begins might be involved in matters of such national weight. If there were a time for mental clarity, this may well be it.

I paid $123,000, and this is what I got?

From the Lenar Whitney official website

From the Lenar Whitney official website

Readers, either inflation has run amok in this country, or else the quality of the merchandise we are getting is in the sewer. I mean, you purchase a candidate for Congress of the United States, and you get this:

But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday. It’s tough to decide which party’s worst nightmare she would be.

That was David Wasserman writing for The Cook Political Report and recalling the day Whitney showed up along with some campaign consultants for an interview. We can assume the interview went swimmingly up to a point. Then Wasserman started to ask some hardball questions.

In her attempt to appeal to conservative donors, Whitney’s campaign has produced a slick position video titled Global Warming is a Hoax.

In the video, Whitney gleefully and confidently asserts that the theory of global warming is the “greatest deception in the history of mankind” and that “any 10-year-old” can disprove it with a simple household thermometer.

Unfortunately, when Wasserman quizzed Whitney on the sources for her facts “[S]he froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal or news source to back up her beliefs.”

That’s a big OOPS. Wasserman says he then changed the subject.

I asked whether she believed Obama was born in the United States. When she replied that it was a matter of some controversy, her two campaign consultants quickly whisked her out of the room, accusing me of conducting a “Palin-style interview.”

Wasserman says in his time he has interviewed hundreds of candidates, but this is the first one that ever went running for the door.

He mentions that Whitney has so far raised $123,000, putting her fourth among GOP candidates for Louisiana District 6. So what did generous conservatives get for their money? Glad you asked.

Apparently Whitney wants to brand herself as “the Palin of the South.” That may have been an unfortunate choice, since the like minded former governor of Alaska demonstrated similar difficulty with facts. In a previous post I recalled Palin’s interview with Katie Couric back during the 2008 presidential election:

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media, coming f—

COURIC: But like which ones specifically? I’m curious that you—

PALIN: Um, all of ‘em, any of ‘em that, um, have, have been in front of me over all these years. Um, I have a va—

COURIC: Can you name a few?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where, it’s kind of suggested and it seems like, ‘Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?’ Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

It may be that Whitney also likes to compare herself to the congresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, again an unfortunate choice. In a previous post I cited some comments that appeared in The New Yorker:

Another member of the delegation, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), decried what she called the “alarmism” surrounding reports of the collapsing Ice Sheet.

“The Ice Sheet melt is only a problem if you live in Antarctica, which, honestly, is a pretty dumb place to live,” she said. “Polar bears live in Antarctica because they have no choice, but we’re not polar bears.”

Call me an alarmist if you will, but when polar bears start to show up in the Antarctic the world is going to be in terrible trouble.

It may be that Wasserman’s birther question is what finally set Whitney off. “[T]hat it was a matter of some controversy?” Well, yeah. Since President Obama was born in the United States, it would be controversial if some people questioned the fact. Facts are like that.

And a  conducting a “Palin-style interview?”

Linguists of the world, be of good cheer! A new word, rather a new term, has entered the lexicon. Along with “GI Joe,” “walk in the park,” and “the bottom line,” “Palin-style interview” will now be enshrined in the language of Shakespeare. It will mean asking somebody questions they should be able to answer but, for reasons left to God, they are unable.

In her defense, Whitney has tweeted her own version of the events:

It was obvious from onset of the interview that @Redistrict had planned to jump me bc he is a liberal shill who despises conservative women

What @CookPolitical printed about me is an outright lie. I left interview w/ @Redistrict several ?s later, after he asked if I was a birther

“[A]sked if I was a birther?” Actually, it would appear that Wasserman only asked Whitney if she thought President Obama was born in the United States. That should have been a simple question to answer. There are two possible responses: “No, I do not believe Obama was born in the United States” and “Yes, the President of the United States was born in the United States.”

I’m thinking that what made this question so difficult for Whitney is that either answer would be problematic for her campaign:

  • “No, I do not believe Obama was born in the United States.” That make her a birther and a fool. Not a good thing for a congressional candidate.
  • “Yes, the President of the United States was born in the United States.” That’s a bad answer, as well. Now she’s going to lose valuable campaign contributions from conservative donors.

If there really were a God in Heaven I would so rewarded. I would pray to God to have Lenar Whitney run for election in my congressional district (Texas 20). Then I could vote for her and hope that she would serve at least two years in the hallowed seat of our national government. And I would have two more years of joy writing about the $123,000 candidate.

And may Jesus have mercy on our souls.

Wacko Come Home

Texas' own

Texas’ own

I keep telling myself, “I can stop any time.” Really, I can. But before I do, just this one more:

Mocking non-believers for failing to grasp the logic behind the existence of God, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) cited an exchange with the late Texas entertainer Bob Murphey to disprove atheism during a prayer rally in Washington, D.C. Wednesday.

“Bob Murphey used to say, ‘You know, I feel so bad for atheists, I do,’” Gohmert recalled at “Celebrate America,” a three-week-long revival event. “‘Think about it, no matter how smart they think they are, an atheist has to admit that he believes the equation: nobody plus nothing equals everything.’”

“How embarrassing for an intellectual to have to say ‘Yeah, I believe that,'” Gohmert said, citing Murphey. “Nobody plus nothing equals everything.”

Gohmert delivered his final point to a chorus of applause as he concluded, “You couldn’t get everything unless there was something that was the creator of everything and that’s the Lord we know.” Gohmert did not elaborate on how he leapt from something to nothing to everything to the “Lord we know” rather than to, say, a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gohmert also neglected to explain who would have created the Lord he knows, or whether the Lord created Himself before He existed.

I want readers to take a step back and look at this exchange through a wide angle lens:

  • An elected official representing voters from a major state is using this argument.
  • Grown people, people who can drive cars and vote, are eating it up.

Where’s my bunker? The zombie apocalypse has already started.

But wait. Maybe it’s not the zombie apocalypse after all. Maybe it’s just stupid people being stupid. Let’s start with the wisdom of Texas’ own Congressman Louie Gohmert of District 1. Casey Michel of the Houston Post has honored us with a snapshot:

  • So when [caribou] want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline. … So my real concern now [is] if oil stops running through the pipeline … do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?
  • [Regarding the shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado] You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place. … We’ve threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God’s name, they’re going to be jailed … I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don’t want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present.
  • [N]ominating Florida Rep. Allen West as Speaker of the House … after West had already lost his reelection bid.
  • This administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America.
  • [Terror babies] [The children] could be raised and coddled as future terrorists [and] twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.

I have previously noted the undeniable fact that Oklahoma fosters its home grown wacko just to make Texas look good. The problem with that ploy is that excess wacko keeps filtering south across the Red River.

Keep trying, Oklahoma. We need all the help we can get.

And may Jesus have mercy on our souls.

Is There No Shame?

Today started out drab for me. Then dawned the light:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Tuesday grilled a pastor who supports the separation of church and state, asking him why he did not share the “good news” that non-Christians were going to Hell.

Wait! Why am I laughing. This guy is from Texas.


From a Facebook posting

Let’s talk about “crazy.”

Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Texas, represents the Texas 1st Congressional District. The episode described above took place Tuesday this week at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and the “pastor” in question was the Reverend Barry Lynn with the United Church of Christ. Since 1992 he has been executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Before I get further into the details let me lay out the situation. This is the Congress of the United States. This was in a building owned and operated by the federal government at taxpayer expense. These congressmen are employees of the United States government, and they were receiving their salaries for their participation in this conference. More specifically, these are all grownups and are not under a doctor’s care.

That said…

Lynn pointed out that he had received the Medal of Freedom from the Roosevelt Institute for his work supporting the freedom to worship.

“But that wasn’t awarded by Roosevelt himself?” Gohmert interrupted, before asking if the pastor understood that the “meaning” of being a Christian was to evangelize.

Did a member of the United States Congress actually say that? Oh, Jesus. It gets worse:

“So, you do not believe somebody would go to Hell if they do not believe Jesus is the way, the truth, the life?” Gohmert pressed.

The pastor argued that people would not got to Hell for believing a “set of ideas.”

“No, not a set of ideas. Either you believe as a Christian that Jesus is the way, the truth, or life or you don’t,” Gohmert shot back. “And there’s nothing wrong in our country with that — there’s no crime, there’s no shame.”

Unfortunately, there is shame, and it’s on us. On the people of Texas, that is. More specifically on the people of the First Congressional District.

May Jesus have mercy on their souls.

Grimm’s Fairy Tales

From Google Images

From Google Images

United States congressional representatives are elected by people in their districts, and they meet in Washington, D.C. to make laws. That much I think I have figured out. What the representatives do is news, stuff of interest. News reporters tell us all this stuff. That’s one way we get the news. But stories about reporters interviewing congressional representatives are not news. Usually. Here’s how I first learned of the story:

On January 28, 2014, NY1-TV political reporter Michael Scotto was interviewing Grimm in a balcony-hallway of the U.S. Capitol building, asking him about his thoughts on the just-ended 2014 State of the Union Address. He then tried to question Grimm about his campaign finance controversies. Grimm stated that he would only discuss the State of the Union speech, and not the investigation; as Scotto started to mention the investigation again, Grimm walked off. Scotto then turned to the camera and implied that Grimm didn’t want to face the issue on-camera. Grimm then appeared to intimidate Scotto, saying that he would “break (Scotto) in half”, as well as threatening to throw Scotto over the balcony.

Grimm issued a statement defending his behavior, saying that he was annoyed by what he called a “disrespectful cheap shot” from Scotto. The next day, Grimm contacted Scotto to offer an apology for his behavior, which Scotto deemed to be sincere. He also issued a written statement apologizing for his behavior, saying, “I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool.”

[Some links removed]

Wow! Break a news reporter in half. Now that’s tough. Throw him off the balcony? Maybe a little too far, even for an uppity reporter.

I’m guessing the first part came from Grimm’s background.

Grimm entered active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps in 1989. In 1990, he was deployed overseas. He received a combat promotion to corporal, and was awarded the Combat Action RibbonNavy Unit Commendation, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, among other awards.

[Some links removed]

More recently:

Grimm entered the FBI as a professional support employee in 1991. In 1995, he entered the FBI Academy in Quantico Station, Virginia. He graduated as a special agent and was certified to become an undercover agent. He became a U.S. Marshal and uniformed FBI policeman. He began as an FBI clerk and transitioned into undercover agent work, eventually working in the FBI Gambino Squad and was responsible for learning about the inside activities of Peter GottiJohn Gotti‘s brother. Grimm worked for the FBI as an agent for 9 years.

In 2011, The New Yorker magazine reported that Grimm had been the subject of an internal investigation into allegations he abused his authority as a FBI agent in a nightclub in 1999. The New York Police Department and U.S. Justice Department have not released documents regarding the incident. Reporter Evan Ratliff subsequently released additional material corroborating his article.

He also spent two years posing as a small cap stocks broker, uncovering white-collar criminals on Wall Street. According to Grimm, the firm was involved in money laundering, making false trades, and manipulating stocks. After building a strong case for two years, he and the firm’s partners were arrested together, at which point, the police informed the group that they had been infiltrated by an undercover agent. Grimm stated in 2011 that he has long been aware of the possibility that people may try to take revenge on him. He left the FBI in 2006, citing his exhaustion from working long hours.

[Links removed]

Grimm also represents a New York congressional district that includes Staten Island and part of Brooklyn. I’ve been there. This is not Mayberry R.F.D.

This explains the part about breaking Scotto in half, “like a little boy.” What explains the other part, the part about “I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool,” that probably came from some good advice Congressman Grimm received: “Never start a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.”

If Congressman Grimm thought bullying a pesky reporter would make the story go away, he learned the hard way that this is not how to make the story go away. The way to make the story go away is for there not to be a story in the first place. If only Congressman Grimm could put the toothpaste back in the tube.

This week the story came out of the tube in a manner that’s going to make it impossible to go away.

Rep. Michael Grimm, facing federal charges of tax and business fraud, surrenders to FBI

NEW YORK — Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R-N.Y.) was defiant in the face of 20 tax and business fraud charges filed against him Monday by prosecutors in Brooklyn, vowing to “fight tooth and nail until we’re exonerated.”

Grimm accused prosecutors of misconduct in the case, citing leaks to the media, and he promised to serve out his term and win reelection this fall. He later told House Republican leaders, however, that he would resign from the powerful Financial Services Committee until the charges were resolved.

Prosecutors accused of misconduct? Pot calling the kettle black? According to the Washington Post report, here’s what the police say Congressman Grimm has done:

  • Hid over a million dollars in receipts from his restaurant to avoid taxes.
  • Payed workers hundreds of thousands of dollars unreported to avoid paying the payroll tax.
  • Committed perjury when deposed in a suit filed by workers in 2013.
  • Filed false tax returns (three charges).
  • Committed perjury again (two charges).
  • Hired illegal immigrants.
  • Failed to provide required workers’ compensation insurance.

From all appearances Grimm’s more recent life has largely been one of fairy tales. Maybe he should consider writing fiction when he gets out.

Divine Law


This is important news. Ardent students of history take note. It would appear the purported framers of the United States Constitution were plagiarists. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just check with former Texas Congressman Tom DeLay.

DeLay: Americans Have Forgotten That God Wrote The Constitution

SUBMITTED BY Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 2/20/2014 1:23 pm

As we noted earlier this year, Matthew Hagee has been hosting a weekly talk show called “The Difference” where he interviews people like Rick Santorum and now Tom DeLay, who declared that a lot of the problems in America can be traced back to the moment when “we allowed our government to become a secular government.”

DeLay said that Americans have forgotten “that God created this nation [and] that He wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles,” but he is also optimistic that the tide is beginning to shift, noting that when he was in Congress, he sealed off the rotunda in the Capitol building so that leaders from Congress could come together for three hours to get on their knees and seek the face of God.

“And I really feel now,” DeLay said, “that the Lord has heard us and I see the Holy Spirit moving”:

Of course learning this has been as much a shock to me has it has to you. However, on deeper consideration I find Congressman DeLay’s truth to be inescapable. Just look at some facts:

  • The Constitution provides for the separation of powers. Did not God separate the powers of the Hebrews and the pursuing Egyptian army, as well as the Red Sea. We should have picked up on that a long time ago.
  • The Constitution also states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” No mortal being could have come up with such profound wisdom. What next?
  • The Constitution also stated, in its original form, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Who other than a Supreme Being would have thought to encode the concept of slavery into a basic law.

I’m telling you, people, Tom DeLay is on to something here. Apparently the depth of Tom DeLay’s wisdom is without fathom. What more can we learn from this sage of Sugar Land? The world wonders:

DeLay called the Terri Schiavo case “one of my proudest moments in Congress”. DeLay made headlines for his role in helping lead federal intervention in the matter. On Palm Sunday weekend in March 2005, several days after the brain-damaged Florida woman’s feeding tube was disconnected for the third time, the House met in emergency session to pass a bill allowing Schiavo’s parents to petition a federal judge to review the removal of the feeding tube. DeLay called the removal of the feeding tube “an act of barbarism”. DeLay faced accusations of hypocrisy from critics when the Los Angeles Times revealed that he had consented to ending life support for his father, who had been in a comatose state because of a debilitating accident in 1988.

Of course we should keep in mind the maxim, “Not what I do, but what I vote.” Tom DeLay’s concern for our welfare has always been foremost:

DeLay has long been a strong critic of Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s regime, which DeLay has called a “thugocracy”, and a supporter of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. However, in April 2005, Time Magazine published a photo from a government-funded July 2003 trip to Israel, in which DeLay is seen smoking a Cuban cigar. The consumption or purchase of Cuban cigars is illegal in the United States (but was, at the time, legal for U.S. citizens abroad). Since September 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department’s enforcement of the law has been toughened to forbid consumption (smoking) or purchase of Cuban cigars by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world.

Short of Congressman DeLay’s actions Americans would still be smoking socialist Cuban cigars somewhere on this planet. He is a staunch advocate for real science:

DeLay opposes the teaching of evolution. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, he entered into the congressional record a statement saying that shootings happened in part “because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud.”

In the 1990s, in keeping with his opposition to environmental regulation, DeLay criticized proposals to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which lead to the depletion of the ozone layer. In 1995, DeLay introduced a bill to revoke the CFC ban and to repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with stratospheric ozone, arguing that the science underlying the ban was debatable.

Think what you will about Congressman DeLay’s speech and actions, but you dismiss him at your peril. He is one with God at his side.