British politics discussed at American Thinker. It's an interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. The title is theirs and I don't know why James Lewis asks the question if Britain planted the Hillary bomb when it's already well understood that Steele wrote the dossier that included Trump paying Russian prostitutes to pee on a bed that Obama slept in. Apart from that, Lewis makes an opportunity to convey some interesting aspects about British and European politics.
His premise is that Steele is described as an ex-spy while in Britain there is no such thing. Once a spy always a spy, and a retired spy will still have worked with his contacts and whatever work he did would be submitted through their offices and Teresa May will certainly have known about it.
Lewis describes a British t.v. show, titled Yes Minister, in which a running gag was the Prime Minister constantly thinking of things to do to break through the bureaucracy, all appointed, and being told repeatedly by the top bureaucrat that unfortunately that couldn't be done. So the dossier was was their swamp acting in support of our swamp.
The Brussels swamp also wanted Hillary and not Trump. So by allowing the dossier to be created Teresa May is pleasing Washington swamp and Brussels swamp simultaneously.
There is a lot more detailed information Lewis passes his readers including tidbits on Russia and James Bond. Well worth the time of reading even as entertainment.
And he demonstrates why any political discussion with a British citizen, having received their BBC swamp education from childhood, is like talking to a whole class of retarded people who all know so very much and all of it wrong.
Then, the very first commenter uses the acronym PIAPS in such a way that you don't have to look it up. (The article has 68 comments, all rather astute.)
Guess what PIAPS means. If you don't already know it.
Come on, be a sport. Guess!
6 comments:
People in a Permanent State?
I gave up, looked it up, and never ever would had gotten it.
On another note, mentioned in the AS article; just above what Chip quoted, why is it ok for the UK to interfere with the US election, but not Russia? Why is it cool for Obama to interfere in the Israeli election as President, and the French elections after leaving office?
Do Progressives really want to go down this road that we should have laws against these things? Because I suspect they will be the ones most likely to violate such laws. Heck, if imagine if the Logan Act was enforced? Veterans across the country will rush to Jane Fonda to citizen arrest her ass to be prosecuted under the Logan act.
Pig in a pantsuit.
Yeah, the guy actually spells it out in comments lower down. But I never would have come up with it. Primarily because I didn't really the acronym was for just one person. On the ASP part of it, I was on the line of thought: Arrogant Self Promoter, and then trying to figure out with PI would be (other than 3.14).
One thing to consider is that our Preezy during WWI wanted so dearly to junk that old Yankee Constitution and go to a Parliamentary system, so the Limeys didn't have to push very hard.
And, if you know anything of British black ops during WWII, it's hard to believe they didn't end up allying America to the Narzis.
Can we temp Hillary with a big white purse? It's filled with cash, honey - go ahead and open it!
Post a Comment