Mueller’s plateau?

Posted on by

Senior US Judge T.S. Ellis III, Eastern District of Virginia.

Has Robert Mueller reached his plateau?

Two rather surprising pieces of news emerged this past week regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of Trump Fishing Expeditionists.

And, in case you failed to notice, Monday was the one year anniversary of the multi-million dollar special counsel appointment via the Mueller Fishing Company.

First, from FoxNews.com:

Federal judge accuses Mueller’s team of lying, trying to target Trump: ‘C’mon man!’

by Jake Gibson

A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

If you thought that was glorious, like BTO, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”

Who is US District Judge Thomas Selby Ellis III? He happens to be a 78-year-old Senior US Judge assigned to the Eastern District of Virginia. A Reagan appointee in 1987, he was born in Bogota, Colombia and graduated from Princeton with a BA in Engineering. He subsequently served in the US Navy as an aviator and took his JD magna cum laude from Harvard in 1969.

Judge Ellis has presided over cases such as the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh, espionage act cases, Khalid El-Masri, and now the Paul Manafort case. In three words, Ellis has “seen it all.”

Continuing:

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.

Which, by the way, Mueller’s team has roughly three more days to produce.

The hearing, where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe – in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Manafort’s attorneys argue the special counsel does not have the power to indict him on the charges they have brought – and seemed to find a sympathetic ear with Ellis.

Damn the judge for asking a particularly logical and pointed question.

The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.

“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said.

He summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, “We said this is what the investigation was about. But we’re not going to be bound by it, and we weren’t really telling the truth in that May 17 letter [appointing a special counsel].” 

There is this article from TheFederalist.com about Robert Mueller.

Why Robert Mueller Is The Clown Prince Of Federal Law Enforcement

by John Dellaportas

As we enter the second year of Robert Mueller’s sprawling investigation, Hanlon’s Razor teaches us to ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.’

Other than the president himself, perhaps no public figure is more debated and discussed these days than Special Counsel Robert Mueller. On the Right, former Speaker Newt Gingrich has called him “the tip of the deep state spear aimed at destroying or at a minimum undermining and crippling the Trump presidency.” On the Left, best-selling author J.K. Rowling has tweeted: “If someone, somewhere, isn’t rushing Robert Mueller Christmas angels into production right now, I will be bitterly disappointed.”

Could both sides be off-base? As we enter the second year of Mueller’s sprawling investigation, with no apparent end in sight, Hanlon’s Razor teaches us to “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” What if Mueller were not some sort of avenging angel, but rather just a bumbling bureaucrat? To put it somewhat differently, why assume that the same folks who brought us Amtrak, the U.S. Post Office, and Healthcare.gov somehow knocked it out of the park with the Office of Special Counsel?

OMG. I utterly failed to see that one coming.

Whatever else one might say about Washington DC, it has never been accused of being a meritocracy. Rather, it has always been a place where people trade on connections. Until President Obama came into town and shook things up a bit, for centuries our federal government was mostly overseen by a bipartisan old-guard of WASP privilege.

Hang on. The trip’s gonna get bouncy for a bit.

If anything, the story of Robert Swann Mueller III reads like a parody of that privilege. Born to a wealthy DuPont executive, Mueller was sent off to St. Paul’s, the elite New Hampshire boarding school (where he was John Kerry’s lacrosse captain), before matriculating at Princeton, New York University, and the University of Virginia. In 1966, he married Ann Cabell Standish, an alumnus of Miss Porter’s Finishing School in Farmington, Connecticut, and Sarah Lawrence College. (To his credit, Mueller did volunteer post-college with the Marines, and served bravely in Vietnam.)

Are you now wondering if there’s a proverbial time bomb in here somewhere? Wonder no more.

As Alan Dershowitz recalled on “The Cats Roundtable” podcast, Muller is “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer. … And that’s regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial history. And Mueller was right at the center of it.” 

Anyone also remember that, during that time, FBI agent John Connolly was providing information to Whitey Bulger? Bueller?

Mueller not the idyllic beacon of goodness, light and truth? Heaven forbid. Anyone recall this?

One week after the 9/11 attacks, letters with anthrax were mailed to various media outlets and the offices of two U.S. senators, killing five and infecting 17 others. Coming as soon as it did after 9/11, hysteria naturally ensued. This was Mueller’s first true test as FBI director. The results were not pretty. As Mollie Hemingway noted, Mueller “completely botch[ed] the anthrax killer case, wasting more than $100 million in taxpayer dollars, destroying the lives of multiple suspects, and chasing bad leads using bad methods.”

Want the “dirty little lies, the dirty little truth?” You’re going to get it.

To appreciate why the FBI so inept at catching terrorists during these years, one has to understand the transformative changes Mueller inflicted on the Bureau. In law enforcement, experience is key. One would expect it to be encouraged. But Mueller took the opposite tack, instituting a policy that required all FBI employees in any type of supervisory position for five years to either move to Washington to sit at a desk, or else leave the FBI.

The policy drew a stinging rebuke from the FBI Agents Association, which said the program hobbled local field offices by forcing out seasoned agents. The numbers bear that out. In the first nine months of 2007 alone, according to NPR, some “576 agents found themselves in the five-and-out pool. Less than half of them – just 286 – opted to go to headquarters; 150 decided to take a pay cut and a lesser job to stay put; 135 retired; and five resigned outright.” Overall, Mueller’s “Five and Out Policy” devastated the FBI ranks.

For surrounding himself with an army of “yes men,” however, Mueller’s personnel practices were a smashing success. It was so much so that at the end of his stint, Mueller managed to talk his way into a two-year extension to his original ten-year term.

Ah, the beauty of office politics. But wait; I thought Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots insisted and continue to insist that all of our beloved Alphabet Agencies are completely unbiased and apolitical? Notice how I failed to throw “competent” in there?

I’ll leave you with this final bit. And please read the rest of Dellaportas’s article.

That is how Mueller came to still be in charge on April 15, 2013, when two homemade bombs detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Three persons (one an eight-year old boy) were killed and hundreds were injured. More than a dozen runners lost limbs.

Once again, a subsequent congressional investigation uncovered that Mueller’s FBI had been notified but did not act in time. In March 2011, the Russian intelligence agency FSB cabled the FBI, warning that the man who would become the lead bomber, a Chechen immigrant named Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was known to have associated with militant Islamists. The FBI investigated but quickly cleared him.

The FSB in September 2011 sent a second cable, this time to the CIA. Again, the FBI did not act. In 2012, Tsarnaev traveled to and spent six months in Dagestan, a terror-filled Russia region next to Chechnya. The FBI was alerted to his travels, but decided neither to detain nor question him.

Once again, Mueller did not apologize. Rather, he told Congress the agent who handled the matter “did an excellent job in investigating, utilizing the tools that are available to him in that kind of investigation. … As a result of this, I would say, thorough investigation, based on the leads we got from the Russians, we found no ties to terrorism.”

“We found no ties to terrorism.” That wasn’t Comey’s cock-up. It was Mueller’s. It’s as convincing as the Paris police saying, regarding the May 12th knife attack, that the “suspect’s motives were unclear.” Because, after all, nothing indicates a lack of clarity like the phrase “Allahu Akbar.”

Then there was this little bit of frippery from Monday’s TheHill.com:

Mueller may have a conflict — and it leads directly to a Russian oligarch

by John Solomon

Special counsel Robert Mueller has withstood relentless political attacks, many distorting his record of distinguished government service.

But there’s one episode even Mueller’s former law enforcement comrades — and independent ethicists — acknowledge raises legitimate legal issues and a possible conflict of interest in his overseeing the Russia election probe.

In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.

Now hold up on that thar car wash, cowboy. Is it being said that — gulp — Mueller may have a Russian Collusion Connection instead of Donald John Trump, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head?

Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.

Helping him then, hurting him now? Just a wee bit of smegmatized Mark I Model I Conflict of Interest? Hell-ewww? But hang onto your girdle. It gets better.

One agent who helped court Deripaska was Andrew McCabe, the recently fired FBI deputy director who played a seminal role starting the Trump-Russia case, multiple sources confirmed.

So why should anyone care about Oleg Deripaska?

Two reasons.

First, as the FBI prepared to get authority to surveil figures on Trump’s campaign team, did it disclose to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that one of its past Russian sources waived them off the notion of Trump-Russia collusion? 

Second, the U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish Vladimir Putin — using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission. And to seek his help on a sensitive political investigation. And to allow him into the country eight times.

As Scooby-Doo says: “Ruh-roh.”

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told me he believes Mueller has a conflict of interest because his FBI previously accepted financial help from a Russian that is, at the very least, a witness in the current probe.

“The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law,” Dershowitz said.

Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a “far more significant issue” is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: “It’s possible the bureau’s arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services.”

Too “inside baseball” for you? I should care to remind: we are a nation of laws.

George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: “If the operation with Deripaska contravened federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller in an impropriety.”

Then, despite the best wishes of Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots.

In the meantime, the episode highlights an oft-forgotten truism: The cat-and-mouse maneuvers between Moscow and Washington are often portrayed in black-and-white terms. But the truth is, the relationship is enveloped in many shades of gray.

Finally, again from TheHill.com:

How about a few questions for Robert Mueller?

by Mark Penn

Robert Mueller has plenty of questions for President Trump, and maybe he will get to ask them. Most of them seemed like perjury traps rather than real questions for the president and, surprisingly, they contain very little that wasn’t in the public domain though prior leaks. In other words, the president is not a target because they have nothing implicating him, and so they want to use the interview to create such material.

But the conduct of the investigation by the special counsel and his team has raised a lot of questions as to its foundation, conflicts of interest, fairness and methods. Most of the public, based on the last Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, supports Robert Mueller going forward with his investigation, but I wonder whether that would still be the case if he were required to answer a few questions himself.

Perjury trap? Oh yes. Every question aimed at Donald Trump will be a perjury trap. The Perjury Trap of perjury traps in modern history.

Just a few questions from Penn’s article.

  1. When you interviewed for FBI director with President Trump, had you had any conversations with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comey or any other current or former officials of the U.S. government about serving as a special counsel? Didn’t you consider going forward with the interview or being rejected as FBI director to create the appearance of conflict?
  2. When you picked your team, what was going through your mind when you picked zero donors to the Trump campaign and hired many Democratic donors, supporters of the defiant actions of Sally Yates, who at the time was deputy attorney general, and prosecutors who had been overturned for misconduct? What were you thinking in building a team with documented biases?
  3. When you were shown the text messages of FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, why did you reassign them and not fire them for compromising the investigation with obvious animus and multiple violations of procedure and policy? Why did you conceal from Congress the reasons for their firing for five months and did you discard any of their work as required by the “fruits of a poisonous tree” doctrine?
  4. What were your personal contacts with Rod Rosenstein and James Comey during the investigation as special counsel and before that as a private attorney? Would you be considered a friend of James Comey? Would that personal relationship not disqualify you as a prosecutor on the case under Justice Department guidelines?
  5. Doesn’t the fact that Rod Rosenstein wrote a memo urging the firing of James Comey and, therefore, is a witness to key events you are reviewing, disqualify him as your supervisor under Justice Department guidelines?
  6. Did you see in advance any of the text of the book by James Comey or have any conversations related to its contents? Are you reviewing the contradictory statements made by James Comey on key issues for possible perjury or referral for perjury?

You get my gist. You understand the thrust. There are many more questions.

Am I the only one that’s beginning to think this whole Special Council thingie kinda stinks?

BZ

 

 Share

Why you can trust the FBI

Posted on by

Oh wait; no you can’t.

From the ACLJ.org:

by the ACLJ

After twice denying their existence – first lying to the ACLJ, and then once caught, claiming it had turned over all documents to the ACLJ – the FBI Deep State has just admitted in federal court that is has found new documents – 16 pages and 2 text messages – that it will be forced to turn over to the ACLJ by the end of the month.

In recently filed court documents, the FBI finally admitted – on its supposedly third search attempt – that it has located another batch of documents responsive to the ACLJ’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information relating to former Attorney General Lynch’s suspiciously timed and highly secretive meeting with former President Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona just days before it publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton.

Come on. Isn’t that just a tad severe, calling it “lying”? Maybe the agents or their IAs (the FBI employs what are termed Investigative Assistants, civilians who do an assload of background/scut-work for agents) were just feeling a bit lethargic those days. Bad allergies. Delayed borborygmus. Ankle swelling. Pimples. Who knows?

Specifically, the FBI reported that it has located an additional 16 pages and 2 text messages. The FBI informed the court that it will produce these documents to the ACLJ on or by May 31, 2018.

Hallelujah! It’s a miracle! They’re feeling fine now.

As we reported a few weeks ago, just days before the FBI was to file a response to the ACLJ’s motion for summary judgment challenging the adequacy of the FBI’s search for documents, the FBI, instead, filed a motion with the court requesting that summary judgment proceedings be stayed while the FBI conducted a third search for documents. Yes, you read that right. A third search.

Because, after all: nobody’s perfect. Right? Just try lying to an FBI agent during an interview. “Hey look, I wasn’t really lying. I was just sort of, well, you know.”

The FBI’s earlier searches were less than sufficient to comply with federal requirements under FOIA. In fact, following its first supposed search, the FBI claimed that “no records” existed responsive to the ACLJ’s FOIA request. The ACLJ later obtained evidence that proved the FBI’s claim false, and the ACLJ demanded another search. While a second search was conducted by the FBI, which produced some documents, it quickly became clear that the search was, again, inadequate.

Oh come on. No one’s perfect. We’re the US government. We have standards.

Right. Standards that we expect others to uphold — just not us. Or the U.S.

Nonetheless, the FBI did not volunteer to conduct another search for documents. The ACLJ had to demand another search in federal court. In fact, when it finally was forced to conduct this third search, we learned that it was going to be searching the FBI’s “Central Records System” – for the FIRST time. It was that bad.

Here is the ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow from August 4th of last year.

Kevin D. Williamson wrote on January 28th this year for NationalReview.com:

Why Trust the FBI?

There is a reason for the crisis of faith in our institutions

One thing about which thoughtful progressives and conservatives generally agree is that institutions matter. It is important to have a First Amendment and other protections for a free press, but you also need the New York Times, National Review, Wired, CNN, and, the times being what they are, In Touch Weekly and its Stormy Daniels coverage — or else the First Amendment is only a hypothetical. The irreplaceable nature of functioning institutions is why we can’t just drop off copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in Somalia and Afghanistan and expect to find thriving constitutional republics there a few years later. The right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean much if your courts are corrupt or inept. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances means nothing if the government is impotent or indifferent.

As the Washington Post is these days wont to say, “Democracy Dies In Darkness.” BZ suggests, instead, that “Democracy Dies In DC.”

When the IRS was in trouble for targeting tea-party organizations and other conservative groups in the run-up to the 2012 election, thousands of emails — evidence under subpoena — went missing. John Koskinen, then acting commissioner of the IRS, lied to Congress about how and why that happened, a fact he was later forced to acknowledge. As a legal question, the result of all that malfeasance — destroying evidence — was precisely squat. Lois Lerner walks the streets a free woman with a fat federal pension, and John Koskinen is perfectly comfortable showing his face in the daylight. And now it is the FBI’s turn. With serious questions being posed about the bureau’s activities during the 2016 election — about whether the bureau protected Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in the matter of their habit of using off-the-books email communications to avoid ordinary oversight — the FBI has suddenly discovered months’ worth of communication between FBI counterintelligence specialist Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The two exchanged politically charged messages about Trump and the Clinton email investigation, and Strzok wrote darkly of developing an “insurance policy” against Trump’s election, still regarded as highly unlikely at that time.

Ruh-roh. Actual damned questions. I sense some quivering from the Left Coast.

The texts went missing, and then were recovered. Or some of them were recovered. All of them? Whose word would you take on that? And why would you take the FBI’s word? Aaron Blake, writing in the Washington Post, argued that the “insurance policy” message looked bad, but not as bad as some on Trump’s side insisted. Well. He allowed that “it’s 100 percent true Mueller and his probe aren’t above reproach.”

And that, of course, is really what this is all about.

And that, of course, is factually correct.

It means, at the very least, not destroying evidence in a federal investigation. And no sane person believes for a nanosecond that those “lost” communications represent anything other than willful obstruction of justice. If you are on the FBI’s radar and you got a parking ticket in Sheboygan in 1983, the FBI knows whether you paid it. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a federal bureau in the business of conducting investigations.

Stand by for focusing like a laser beam.

No one believes that the IRS or the FBI is above reproach. No one seriously believes that the editors of the New York Times would have treated a President Hillary Clinton and a President Donald Trump in the same way. (One likewise wonders what Fox News would have made of partially documented claims that President Bill Clinton had paid $130,000 in hush money to a porn star who says she had an affair with him.) President Obama’s so-called scandal-free administration was in fact rife with abuses of power, from the IRS to the ATF to the EPA to the NLRB. Trump may sometimes attack our institutions without good cause; the Obama administration gave critics good cause to attack our institutions.

James Comey leaked. Let’s be honest.

Former US Attorney Joe diGenova nails it. “Comey, the dirtiest cop in America.”

James Kallstrom weighs in again. He is a former FBI Assistant Director who has his own thoughts on his former-beloved agency.

If there is anyone who should love the FBI, it is Kallstrom, a man who ascended into the heavens like Zeus. But then somehow managed to crash to earth like Daedalus.

What do agents think of the FBI’s situation?

But wait. Wasn’t it all the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots who insisted that we must trust all the alphabet agencies? Hashtag #BecauseTrust?

James Clapper lied before Congress. He cannot even hold his head high whilst he lies.

Rand Paul stated so.

James Comey clearly lied.

And this.

But wait; most recently we discovered, courtesy of SaraACarter.com:

Former FBI Director Comey Consulted with Mueller on Russia Testimony

by Sara A. Carter

Judicial Watch discovers emails revealing coordination

A government watchdog group revealed Thursday that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by senior FBI officials to seek Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s advice prior to testifying before “any congressional committee” about President Donald Trump’s campaign and its alleged collusion with Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, according to new emails obtained by Judicial Watch.

Nothing like the FBI again indicating its politicization and bias.

Comey was also advised to seek Mueller’s counsel on the circumstances surrounding his firing by Trump before providing testimony to Congress, the Department of Justice emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. It is the first time evidence reveals there was coordination between the Special Counsel and Comey in the long drawn out controversial Mueller investigation.

This not navel-gazing. This is proof. The only collusion is between the Deep State vs President Donald John Trump, et al.

“These documents show that James Comey, who was fired by the president, nevertheless had easy, friendly access to the FBI as he prepped his infamous anti-Trump testimony to the Senate,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, in a press release. “This collusion led to Comey’s attacking President Trump and misusing FBI records as part of a vendetta against the president.”

This is about keeping our country free because, as all Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots know, as well as Lucifer:

The devil is in fact in the details.

But wait; it’s not even ending there. From FoxNews.com:

Strassel: Did FBI outright spy on the 2016 Trump campaign?

We could go here.

There are so many other places.

Perhaps it’s simply time to stop now.

It is, frankly, just so bad for the FBI.

BZ

 

 Share

Maxine Waters, an embarrassment again

Posted on by

Maxine Waters, the Demorat gift that keeps on giving.

At least she has one unique trait other Demorats don’t. Her mouth, when opened, can rival that of an A-7 Corsair.

Let’s listen to Maxine Waters embarrass herself once more on the floor of the House following Mike Kelly.

But while we’re on the topic — and I love the internet for immuring many quite amusing points in history — I believe it’s time to larf out loud at the rampant doltishness of Mad Max once more.

I could go on, but, I think I’ve made my point.

She is indeed low-hanging fruit.

BZ

P.S.

I’m sorry, I just can’t pass this up either. Let’s re-simmer our brain pans with this ageless Hank Johnson Million Dollar Monster Classic.

Some things never get old. And no, he wasn’t joking as he suggested in retrospect. Perhaps he simply picked a bad day to switch from Courvousier to bathtub gin.

Oh my, sorry, my boundaries know little limit now. I simply must display this as well.

Hank and Maxine. Wotta pair.

 

 Share

Bisexuals in college need food

Posted on by

Figure 1: Bisexual female withering away in a college dorm, physically located in a room that is tens of feet too far away from the dormitory cafeteria.

And they’re dying. You can see their bodies littered throughout most any American campus today.

Because I need to larf, I quote the HuffingtonPost.com:

The Truth About Bisexual College Students And Hunger

by Heron Greenesmith

In a USA Today opinion column published Thursday, contributor James Bovard takes issue with a new study finding 36 percent of students at colleges and universities experienced food insecurity in the last month. The study looked at data from 43,000 students at two- and four-year schools from 20 states and Washington, D.C. Researchers also found that 36 percent of students experienced housing insecurity in the past year.

Despite what appears to be a crisis for many students across the country, according to Bovard, “better research shows” these young people are simply “overweight and lazy.”

You have been warned: Bovard’s column is rife with hateful stereotyping and mean-spirited bullying.

Stop. Wait. Did the author write anything similar to “not factual” or “factually incorrect” or “this is unmitigated factual bullshite”?

“Almost half of the more than 2,000 bisexual students at universities experienced food and/or housing insecurity, compared to about one-third of their heterosexual peers,” researchers found.

The study also uncovered that “more than one in five bisexual community college students and 18% of homosexual community college students experienced homelessness, compared to 11% of their heterosexual peers.”

You can read the rest of the breathless, melodramatic article if you can withstand the pain, oh, the pain. Cue Dr Smith.

One must ask: there has to be a good reason for this, correct? Clear and obvious bias by stores nationwide who refuse to sell food to the bisexual community, the LGBT community? Histories of keeping bisexuals and gays from good jobs, keeping them out of the general economy? Continuing discrimination by states and the federal government against bisexuals and gays in terms of acquiring food stamps or meal assistance? Being able to clearly create said bias because, as we all know, every bisexual sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb.

After all, there are no solutions to hunger. Or are there? How odd is it that YouTube removed my ability to embed this video offering a solution to college hunger?

In college I was on my own. I had a car payment and insurance and an apartment to pay for. I worked five jobs from roughly 5 AM to, sometimes, 11 PM. Weekdays and weekends. Same for classes. I was young. I could take it. I didn’t know any better. It was what you did. On top of that I found the time to drink heavily, swive women, be happy and — evidently — be blissfully ignorant of my terribly oppressive college plight.

Then there’s this from USAToday.com:

Starvation issues in universities? The real college problem is obesity.

by James Bovard

A new report claims college students are ‘food insecure’ and starving. But better research shows they’re overweight and lazy.

Starvation might be stalking among college students, according to shocking headlines in Newsweek and elsewhere, and The Washington Post warns of “The hidden crisis on college campuses.”

In reality, last week’s report from Temple University and Wisconsin HOPE Lab is typical of the baloney that spawns policy hysteria nowadays.

Oh my God. Cue the exploding Leftist heads.

Temple University/HOPE researchers assert that 36% of four-year college students and 42% of community college students are “food insecure” — a vaporous term beloved by pro-welfare advocates.

“Food insecure”? They’re not acquiring a sufficient caramel shot in their MaccaFrappaChoppaRippaLatte’s? The twist of lemon is too meager? You can’t get a gluten-free Twinkie or Bergers Cookie? Perhaps they should be more concerned about being “test insecure” with regard to their studies, their classes?

This analysis is modeled on the Department of Agriculture’s annual Food Security survey. USDA is emphatic that its survey does not measure hunger, but that neon-sized warning sign was ignored by this study (titled “Still Hungry and Homeless in College”).

“It does not measure hunger”? Then what’s the damned point? Translated: it appears these people aren’t actually starving. In fact, the reverse may be true.

But wait. Here’s how stupid it really gets.

Temple/HOPE respondents were asked questions such as whether they feared “food would run out before I got money to buy more,” or “Did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food?” Redefining hunger as abstaining from second servings makes for a push-button crisis.

It gets better.

The study asserts that 26% of students with a college meal plan are “food insecure.” Did they oversleep and miss breakfast? 

Precisely. That’s how dire are the current circumstances for bisexual and LGBT students in American colleges. Thank you. Just where were the persons responsible for waking them for daily meals? Who should be punished? Their parents? Government aids? Friends? Relatives?

But wait BZ. Don’t we ship cash to students? Can’t programs be identified, located and then subscribed-to? Where is all this taxpayer cash going?

Half the respondents who received Pell grants ($26.6 billion for 7 million low-income students in 2016) were labeled “food insecure.”

This study offers no clues on what happened to that largesse — or to the other $100 billion in federal assistance provided to college students in 2016.

I suspect it really will take another level of government to solve this incredibly-serious problem.

Apparently, no matter how many handouts government provides, students still cannot be expected or trusted to feed themselves.

You see? Just as I suggested. Bisexual and LGBT students need further government assistance in terms of figuring out how to eat, when to eat and where to eat. How can they be expected — with all the chaotic trauma in their lives — to keep track of any of it? They are the victims here.

Please read the rest of Bovard’s article because, frankly, the silliness of it all is becoming tedious.

Bisexuals, gays, lesbians, LGBT members are such incredible dullards as to fail to realize where to go for assistance, how to get it, whom to call, and where Kraft Mac N Cheese resides. They cannot be counted on to ask friends, check programs, consult parents, walk into a grocery store?

Yet they somehow managed to navigate the bloody, chummed waters of government student loans — the point is that they’re poor, right, so they need loans? —  but somehow lack the requisite fecundity to open their mouths and feed themselves?

But wait. We need to address this massive issue as well. Ahem. Don’t we?

Thank Gaia. I was about to faint due to lack of food and Leftist navel gazing.

BZ

 

 Share