Megyn Kelly: Obama’s Radical Housing Plan “Social Engineering of the Worst Kind” (Video)

On the Kelly File, last night, Megyn Kelly blasted Obama’s radical housing usurpation – calling it “social engineering of the worst kind,” and possibly an attempt to “change the way neighborhoods vote.”

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has been ringing alarm bells about the “Radical in Chief’s” plan to transform (read: destroy) American suburbia since 2012.

The feds now want to take billions in housing grant money, and condition it on communities proving that they have (what the Feds consider) the correct mix of citizens based on income, race, ethnicity, etc.

“This is what happens when you put a community organizer in the White House – he tries to organize your communities from Washington,” Kelly’s guest Marc Thiessen said.

The good news is – Congress is trying to stop Obama’s power grab by exercising their power of the purse.

Tuesday night, on a vote of 229-193, the House passed an amendment to the THUD (Transportation Housing and Urban Development) bill that blocks any HUD funding that enforces President Obama’s fair housing rule (AFFH). The amendment, offered by Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar, protects local zoning rights from federal overreach.

***

The Gosar amendment  is endorsed by Americans for Limited Government, Freedom Works, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Eagle Forum.

It now goes to the Senate, where the prospects for passage are good — but not guaranteed. Kurtz predicts that Obama’s power grab will likely become a major issue issue in the 2016 presidential campaign should Senate Republicans fail to block the AFFH.

Previously: 

Monday Ketch-Up: Obama’s Secret Collectivist Plan For His Second Term

It Begins: Obama To Force Integration Into Suburban Neighborhoods (Video)

Obama’s Scheme To Destroy Middle Class Suburbia

Following Obama’s Lead, Collectivists Are Coming Out of the Closet

German Paper: “Ist Obama ein Kommunist?”

Former Army Chaplain: Hostile Environment Targeting Christian Chaplains

A former Army Chaplain, Douglas Lee, said that there are “trends and storm clouds brewing” in the military.   The hostile environment toward Christians, he said, is unique to the Obama administration and he it to the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” He said that there has been “a change and shift – not only in the military – but across American culture.”

He went on to explain “a culture of fear” that a chaplain may say something that crosses a political correct line, citing a particular incident in which a chaplain was “set up” by a counselee and charged with counseling “inappropriate messages” that he said was “theological in nature.”

Yep – sounds a lot like what’s going on all across America, now.

Meanwhile, Army morale is reportedly  low despite PC ‘optimism’ campaign; Pentagon surprised:

Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as “I rarely count on good things happening to me.” Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.

Video: RS McCain Explains “Sex Trouble” at #CPAC2015

download (2)

There’s a reason why I rarely cover radical feminism. Those ladies are clearly nuts.

My tendency is to back away slowly from crazy people, and figure they’re just not worth my time.

Someone who does think they’re worth his time is my friend and fellow blogger Robert Stacy McCain. If you’ve visited his blog for the past couple of years, you may have noticed that he has been blogging almost exclusively on the subject. 

RS McCain is convinced that radical feminism is going to be a critical issue in 2016 and the #WarOnWomen rhetoric Democrats had so much success with in 2012, will return with a vengeance (what with Hillary Clinton on the top of the ticket.) I think he’s right about this, and that is why we all should be paying more attention to this unpalatable subject.

I don’t know how he has been able to keep his own sanity after immersing himself into the creepy and disturbing world of radical feminism, but he has, and has a new book to show for it: Sex Trouble,  Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature.

Here’s McCain’s presentation on Radical Feminism and his introduction to his new book for fellow bloggers at CPAC 2015:

SEE ALSO:

The Other McCain: Sex Trouble: Feminism, Mental Illness and the Pathetic Daughters of Misfortune

The Other McCain: Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the Long Shadow of the ‘Lavender Menace’

The Other McCain: Sex Trouble: Yes, Feminists DO ‘Practice Witchcraft … and Become Lesbians’

Obama Preparing To Grant Clemency To Convicted Drug Offenders – May Halt Deportations of Illegal Immigrants

Obama is reportedly getting ready to “grant clemency” to hundreds and maybe even thousands of convicted  drug offenders – a flagrant abuse of his pardon power.

 The scope of the new clemency initiative is so large that administration officials are preparing a series of personnel and process changes to help them manage the influx of petitions they expect Obama to approve. Among the changes is reforming the recently censured office within the Justice Department responsible for processing pardon petitions. Yahoo News has learned that the pardon attorney, Ronald Rodgers, who was criticized in a 2012 Internal watchdog report for mishandling a high-profile clemency petition, is likely to step down as part of that overhaul. Additional procedures for handling large numbers of clemency petitions could be announced as soon as this week, a senior administration official said, though it could take longer.

 NRO contributor Andrew McCarthy was on The Kelly File with Megyn Kelly to discuss this latest example of executive overreach.

“Just as the president uses prosecutorial discretion as a pretext for changing a hole bunch of laws he doesn’t like, he’s now moved on to the pardon power – so the pardon power is going to be his way of rewriting the federal narcotics laws which he personally thinks are too severe. So it evidently doesn’t matter, both that congress has written these laws, that trials have taken place under these laws, and his core constitutional responsibility is to make sure that those laws be faithfully executed. He’s going to rewrite them unilaterally,” McCarthy said.

 

The Obama administration is also apparently getting ready to codify its policy of non-enforcement of immigration laws through executive fiat.

The AP reports that according to two sources, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is considering limiting deportations of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who don’t have serious criminal records. 

The change, if adopted following an ongoing review ordered by President Barack Obama, could shield tens of thousands of immigrants now removed each year solely because they committed repeat immigration violations, such as re-entering the country illegally after having been deported, failing to comply with a deportation order or missing an immigration court date.
However, it would fall short of the sweeping changes sought by activists. They want Obama to expand a two-year-old program that grants work permits to certain immigrants brought here illegally as children to include other groups, such as the parents of any children born in the U.S.
John Sandweg, who served until February as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said he had promoted the policy change for immigrants without serious criminal records before his departure and that it was being weighed by Johnson. An immigration advocate who’s discussed the review with the administration also confirmed the change was under consideration. The advocate spoke on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

This obviously represents a radical departure from existing law, but not how the Obama administration has enforced existing law. As I noted, the policy has been non enforcement all along. This is why the most demoralized Federal employees in America are ICE agents.

As Senator Jeff Sessions recently stated on the Senate floor, our immigration system has been in a state of collapse since Obama came into office and that collapse is by design.

Citing the LA Times story that shows there has been a 44 percent drop in interior deportations since 2009 and the recent analysis which shows that two-thirds of ICE removals last year were actually border apprehensions, Sessions charged that the system is in a state of collapse, and that it is by design.

Sessions condemned U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden for their appalling pro-amnesty efforts:

“So, you come into the country illegally and the attorney general of the United States declares that these individuals have a civil right to amnesty. How can this possibly be: the chief law enforcement officer in America?

“Vice President Biden recently said, quote: ‘You know, 11million people live in the shadows; I believe they’re already American citizens.’ Eleven million undocumented aliens are already Americans? Goodness. The vice president of the United States would make such a statement. It’s stunning beyond belief.”

 “Our law enforcement system is in a state of collapse,” he said. “And it’s a deliberate plan by the president of the United States, and it’s wrong. And, people need to be aware of it and need to stand up to it and I believe the American people are beginning to do so.”

Drug offenders and illegal immigrants are important and thus protected constituencies to this administration, obviously.  But if you’re a cattle rancher, guitar maker, voter integrity activist, pro-lifer, water bottle company CEO, tea partier, conservative movie maker, Republican donor, traditional marriage advocate, ObamaCare critic, polling company, or  lemonade stand proprietor– you can expect bullying, intimidation and often the the full force of the law to come raining down on you – with with guns blazing.

Welcome to ObamAmerica 2014. We’ve got almost three more years of this.

New Record Set Monday At FireFox For Negative Feedback

firefox

 

The blowback continues…

Mozilla experienced its highest level of negative customer feedback ever on Monday, April 7th, as Firefox users continued to uninstall, and left scorching comments on the Firefox Customer Feedback webpage. Users are upset at  the company for forcing out their CEO Brendan Eich because he donated to Prop 8 in 2008.  The previous record for the highest level of negative feedback was reached last Friday..

Around 13,000 14,000 people registered negative opinions at the site. Positive opinions look to be under 1000.

User feedback showed 92% of respondents were “sad” verses 8% “happy.”

You can register your approval or disapproval here.

Previously: 

Rush: Liberal Fascism Is Working (Audio)

Greta Van Susteren: Obama’s News Police Meant to Intimidate, Stifle and Chill Speech (Video)

On Wednesday night’s On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, a panel discussed the Obama Regime’s latest power grab – an FCC pilot program that would send “researchers” to newsrooms to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. Former FCC Commissioner AJIT PAI wrote about the plan in his Wall Street Journal piece, The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

Susteren is outraged. She had on The Hill’s AB Stoddard, The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty and the Washington Examiner’s Byron York to discuss the Regime’s stealth attempt to bring back the  Fairness Doctrine, and they all agreed that it was a horrible idea that no self-respecting newsroom would tolerate.

Greta named three things that she thought she’d never see happen in her own country – the NSA spying on all American citizens, the use of drones to kill American citizens, and now this. Tumulty noted the FCC was also planning to visit newspapers which they don’t even have the power to regulate.

“You ask a news organization what their news philosophy is – it’s to cover the news and make a profit out of that”, Tumulty declared.

Greta retorted, “if they asked me, you know what I’d say? None of your business.” She went on to say she hoped any other news organization would respond the same way.

Stoddard wondered why any newsroom or newspaper would feel like they would have to comply with these FCC inquisitions. “I can’t imagine even the most liberal outfit coming from this profession being willing to share their philosophy and change the way they cover anything…” She said.

Greta asserted that the whole thing is “meant to intimidate and to stifle and to chill,” and expressed shock and horror that someone thought that this was a good idea to begin with.

AB Stoddard agreed, “it seems so ludicrous – so unAmerican – that I can’t believe that it would ever become real, but the fact that someone had an idea about it and it didn’t get slapped down – is more than strange.”

One gets the uneasy feeling that Obama looks to Communist South American Dictators who take control of the news media with great admiration and envy.

SEE ALSO:

Doug Ross: NOT CREEPY AT ALL: Obama FCC Placing Government Monitors in Newsrooms to Police Media:

Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.

It’s an unconscionable assault on our free society.

Imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories in the same way as MSNBC or Al Jazeera. Imagine an Obama Administration official walking in to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and telling it that the American public would be better served if it is stopped reporting on the IRS scandal or maybe that reporting on ObamaCare “glitches” is driving down enrollment.

It’s hard to imagine anything more brazenly Orwellian than government monitors in newsrooms.

Via Dick Morris: 

Surveys will be distributed to reporters, news editors, assignment editors, publishers, owners, on-air reporters, film editors and other station or newspaper staff. These are the questions they will ask:

–What is the news philosophy of the station?

–Who else in your market provides news?

–Who are your main competitors?

–Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?

–Do you employ news people?

–How many reporters and editors do you employ?

–Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic “beats”? If so how many and what are the beats?

–Who decides which stories are covered?

–How much influence do reporters and anchors have in deciding which stories to cover? –How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?

–How do you define critical information that the community needs?

–How do you ensure the community gets this critical information? On-Air Staff? Reporters? Anchors?

–How much news does your station air every day?

–Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management? If so, can you give an example? What was the reason given for the decision? Why do you disagree?

These intrusive questions, prying into station politics and policies, can only send a chilling message to radio and television outlets.

Fox News: ‘The Kelly File’ looks at the FCC’s proposal to study newsrooms:

A Federal Communications Commission proposal to “study” how the news media operates by placing researchers in newsrooms, “The Kelly File” reported on Wednesday.

“It’s very reminiscent of the kinds of questions that were asked of my clients in the IRS matter that is currently in federal court,” said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. “Same kind of questioning process of content, determination on point of view, and I think this government, this administration is bent on aiming and targeting those they don’t like.”

Katie Pavlich, the news editor of Townhall.com, wondered why the Obama administration didn’t learn following the fallout over the Justice Department’s wiretapping of Associated Press journalists.

“Now, they want to send investigators into newsrooms all over the country,” she said. “This is about controlling what people say, and this is about intimidating the news.”

Pavlich agreed with host Megyn Kelly’s assertion that the proposal provides a window into “how the FCC is thinking” when it comes to an independent press.

I emboldened what Sekulow said because I was thinking the same thing and I think it is key.

Do a Google search on this story, and you’ll quickly notice which media outfits are the most concerned about this – the WSJ, which broke the story, Fox News, the ACLJ, Mediaite, and lots of conservative blogs.

Why do you suppose ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,  CNN, the Washington Post and NYTs (the Democrat media complex as Andrew Breitbart used to call them) are mum? Why is this not a big story for them? Could it be because they are already voluntarily complying with the Regime’s PC requirements? Are they not already simpatico with the Regime’s Statist worldview? In 2016, can we fully expect them to run interference  for the Democrat candidate  like they did so shamelessly for Obama in 2008 and 2012? Of course they will. They pretend to be impartial, but when it counts – they will sting the Republican. It is their nature.

So who do you think is being “targeted” here? As usual, it’s the disfavored conservative leaning rabble-rousers who don’t tow the Regime’s Statist line. And the Democrat media complex is once again, looking away from a scandal,  giving the Regime their tacit approval.

Greta Van Susteren has every reason to be horrified.

Andrew Klavan, Truth Revolt: KLAVAN: A Sick Media #BOWDOWN To Their Own Oppressors:

…we don’t need a thuggish FCC to know this administration wants the media choir to sing the White House song castrato. Reporters Without Borders has already downgraded the U.S. fourteen spots to number 46 on the World Press Freedom Index this year alone. The president’s men have tapped reporters’ phones and email. And even Jill Abramson, editor of the leftist New York Times, says, “This is the most secretive White House… I have ever dealt with.”

And yet the Times and the news networks continue to play down presidential malfeasance — including that which threatens their own freedom!

It was unbelievably childish of journalists to believe, as Barbara Walters put it, that Obama was “the next messiah.” It is venal of them to turn a near-sighted eye to his IRS abuse, Benghazi cover-up and unconstitutional non-enforcement of law. But for American news people to #BOWDOWN before an administration that shows open hostility to the First Amendment — that’s just hashtag-pathological.

Ben Shapiro, Big Government: OBAMA CRACKDOWN ON PRESS FREEDOM ESCALATES:

Last week, Reporters Without Borders dropped America in the World Press Freedom Index 2014 from 33rd to 46th. James Risen of The New York Times rightly explained, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.” And he’s right. The violation of press freedoms has been egregious under this administration, even as the press fetes President Obama as an honest and effective commander-in-chief.

Selective Access. President Obama has regularly granted special access to reporters who give him preferential coverage. CBS’ Steve Kroft admitted as much after a late-2012 interview with the President during which CBS clipped Obama’s explicit refusal to label Benghazi an act of terror: “(Obama) knows that we’re not going to play ‘gotcha’ with him, that we’re not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid.”

Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, got special access for a profile of Obama for Vanity Fair – but Obama insisted on redlining his quotes. Lewis explained that “the White House insisted on signing off on the quotes that would appear.” A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle was threatened for covering an anti-Obama protest. As early as 2008, candidate Obama was kicking dissenters off planes after their outlets endorsed John McCain.

Targeting Reporters. In May 2013, the Associated Press dropped the bombshell that the Department of Justice had grabbed phone records for its reporters and editors of the course of two months. Records for 20 telephone lines belonging to the AP and reporters for it were seized between April and May of 2012. Those seizures affected over 100 journalists.

The AP’s President and CEO Gary Pruitt stated, “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.” Fox News’ James Rosen was also targeted by the DOJ after running a story about North Korea nuclear development. His State Department visits were tracked and his movements were followed. His parents’ phone records were even grabbed.

CT Collectivist Gun Grabber Ruthlessly Exposed By Sipsey Street Irregulars

And how. If you haven’t yet read Mike Vanderboegh’s superb expose and  take-down of Michael Lawlor, Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy’s “hatchet man” on the State’s gun control efforts, you need to stop everything and read it, right now. Take it all in and know that there are many more such men and women peppered throughout the Democrat/Media Complex – right to the highest reaches of government. And I do mean highest.

Michael Lawlor CT Office of Policy & Mgt

“You can either surrender the weapon to us, destroy the weapon, or sell it to a federal firearms licensee. After that date (January 1) that hasn’t been declared or register is banned and if you get caught, you’re going to get arrested.” — Michael Lawlor.

An Open Letter to Michael Lawlor, the CT Governor’s Hatchet Man on Firearms Confiscation. “How’s your KGB file hangin’, Mike?”

You know it is quite ironic that on the morning I sit down to write this letter we discover that Adam Lanza (whose evil deeds were the supposed excuse for your Intolerable Act) was something of a twisted fellow traveler of collectivism being an apparently homosexual, environmentalist vegan who was anti-Christian enough to forbid his mother to put up a Christmas tree. “Gee,” I thought when I read that, “This kid could have grown up to be a Connecticut Democrat politician.” That he provided the bloody excuse for tyrant wannabes such as yourself is certainly the Devil’s own joke — send a collectivist killer to enable future collectivist power. Old Scratch must be laughing his ass off.

You know after just a cursory reading of your biography here and here, I realized that I owed you an apology. Previously I had described you as Malloy’s “Eichmann.” But Eichmann was a rather colorless bureaucrat, defining as Hannah Arendt spelled out, “the banality of evil.” But you, sir, are no bureaucratic handmaiden of evil. No, to call you an Eichmann would require an apology to both you and Eichmann. You, sir, are a true believer — more of a Heydrich than an Eichmann. Or, if you raise a Godwin’s objection, shall we say a Felix Dzerzhinsky? Yes. Dzerzhinsky is certainly more fitting.

I note that while you were at UConn in 1977 you “participated in language studies in Russia in 1977″ at Moscow and Leningrad. You then earned a Master’s Degree in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London in 1981. You were, what, 20 when you first experienced the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? It must have fascinated you early on in life. Yet after you got your Masters in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London at a time when that and other British universities were prime recruiting grounds for KGB “political warfare” assets, and you subsequently “received a Fulbright-Hays Scholarship to study economic reform in Hungary in 1982,” you decided to change course and become, in quick succession, a lawyer, a prosecutor and then a Democrat Party politician.

Why the change, Mike?

Your KGB file might provide some clues along those lines, of course. I had a long chat with a former CIA Cold Warrior who is intimately familiar with the KGB infiltration and subversion tactics of the time of your stay in the Soviet Union. He says that you certainly have a KGB file and had a KGB officer assigned to your case with the object of making an asset of you. No one from the United States got into the Soviet Union back then without the close inspection of the KGB. NO ONE.

And what would the KGB be looking for, I asked? “A lot of dewy-eyed kids were going to the Soviet Union back then with this fascination for the other side. They thought the Vietnam War proved the evil nature of American society and they wanted to see what the other side was like. So they (the KGB) would look for someone with those misconceptions and then look for other vulnerabilities. And their recruitment operations were vast. VAST.” What other vulnerabilities? I asked.

“For one, homosexuality or other sexual deviance,” he answered. He drew my attention to these passages regarding the Prime case from The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power by William Corson and Robert Crowley:

Prime exhibited most of the disabilities on the KGB check list and more than qualified as a target for recruitment. A loner, a young man with sexual problems and someone who, by his own admission, believed that the downtrodden of the world would fare better under communism. Such symptoms and attitudes assured that, at an appropriate moment, he would fall into the Soviet bag. The case is not a tribute to the Soviets’ prescience but another instance of their readiness for an event such as Prime’s self-selection, their single-minded patience, clerical effort, and corps of competent case officers who were trained and fully aware of what their jobs entailed.

In Berlin the Soviet support nets are massive. In addition to surveillance, drivers, couriers, police, and postal employees, they include “swallows” who specialize in foreigners who enjoy mild or other forms of perversion. . . The KGB’s ‘girls’ . . . provide the organs with volumes of information about their clients. . . The girls are also alerted to spot the six “d’s” — discontent, disaffection, depression, drunkenness, desperation, and sexual dysfunction — nany one of which might provide a future lever. — pp. 390-361.

It is a matter of record that after being long in the closet, you “came out” only in 2006.

Of course Prime was not a homosexual but the KGB did not lack for male “swallows” if their target had those appetites.

Read the whole thing, here.

UPDATE:

And now there’s…

My Second Open Letter to Mike Lawlor — On “Nightcrawlers” and Treason Played for Laughs. We’ve already established that you are willing to sell out your country. Now we’re just haggling about the price.

 MBV Note to Readers: In my first letter to Connecticut’s own Felix Dzerzhinsky,Mike Lawlor, we explored the subject of that tyrannical collectivist’s KGB file. The response to that missive was very gratifying, as well as rewarding in terms of further clues and offers of assistance. I hope you like this letter as much as you liked the first.
***

You know, it’s the arrogance about you collectivist pricks that always strikes me as ironically misplaced. You’re always the smartest guy in the room, dispensing orders from on high as if to the purple born, yet when it comes to the important things you really aren’t all that bright.

Take that slip you made in the interview when you played the subject of treason for laughs. Of course you have long thought yourself safe from scrutiny of any questions about what you were up to back in the 70s and early 80s. But mentioning that a. you had tried to get a job with the CIA right out of law school and b. that they had turned you down, well, even to a guy like me who’s nothing particularly special other than an amateur student of history, why, that’s just plain stupid.

It raises so many questions and reinforces the ones I’ve already asked. Why would the CIA, at the height of the Cold War when it needed every trustworthy Russian speaker and analyst, turn you down? I guess the key word there is “trustworthy.” The CIA, and not because of the bad joke, must have found compelling reasons to find you untrustworthy. That must have stung, huh? Not that you weren’t accepted — you would play that for laughs, for you are the smartest guy in the room and that just proves their stupidity, right? As a homosexual you already were struggling with issues of identity, loyalty, societal trust, etc. And again, homosexuality is not the issue. It is not now, nor was it then, grounds (by itself) for exclusion from employment by the CIA. According to my sources, the Agency knowingly hired many homosexuals from its inception onward as long as it was convinced of their loyalty, their trustworthiness. And, my sources say, as long as that was understood up front there was no blackmail risk and the Agency only very rarely was proved wrong about their pick.

So why did they turn you down, Mike? What was it that they spotted about you? I am told by sources who were once in a position to know that you have not only a KGB file and a CIA file, but an FBI file as well. We’ll never get anything out of the CIA, but I wonder what a FOIA of the FBI might turn up? Have you got the juice to work your will upon the Fibbies as well?

And again, why apply to the CIA at all? Why did you change your career from Soviet Studies academic to zealous public prosecutor seeking the brass ring of political power? You are a public official. These are legitimate questions. Not that I expect an answer from you, at least not a written one.

Hat tip: Larwyn’s Links.

Linked by Maggie’s Farm, thanks!