Monthly Archives: July 2016

The Quisling Sabotage of the Cloud People

Standard

If a citizen were to type into the DuckDuckgo search engine field a term like “Republican Quislings”, a number of opinion pieces would pop up. For many of the writers of those pieces, the quislings are the Republicans and conservatives who support Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. People like George “self” Will, Bill “the crank” Kristol, and Rich Lowry of the petulant National Review, share a belief that Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency should be sabotaged at any cost.

In my opinion, Lowry in particular is a lowlife bastard who played a role in Andrea Tantaros’ disappearance from Fox News, all because she disagreed with him. He isn’t worthy to lick the dust off her high heels!

I don’t watch Fox News any more – any of the program hosts. Gretchen Carlson’s departure has only added fuel to my fire, and I believe there is merit to her allegations of sexual harassment by Roger Ailes, the Fox News chief executive. Yes, I enjoy seeing beautiful, intelligent women offering news and commentary, but they should not be harassed, nor should they be treated with less respect than their male counterparts.

I don’t find Bill O’ Reilly more credible than Andrea Tantaros. Quite the opposite: O’Reilly’s pomposity often gets in the way of any intelligent give and take, whereas Tantaros provides fresh and poignant insights. Carlson reeks of integrity, and while I disagree with her position on guns, she should be able to proffer her take on policy. Fox’s lockstep approach to discussion renders it little more than a network of faux issues and commentary.

Fox makes me sick even though I tend to agree with their commentators on many issues. Then again, most of the news networks are pretty biased.

The point of all this is that the people behind “Stop Trump“, whether officially or unofficially so, have lost what I will call their “Americanness” and in the process have betrayed their party.

These quislings have perverted the Declaration and the Constitution and abandoned the welfare of the common American for confabulated hoity toity principles like “free trade” (which isn’t free – it costs Americans jobs!) which serve only the few, the cloud people, the monied interests who don’t seem  much affected by whether a Republican or Democrat gets elected. They buy legislators who craft laws that benefit them and their continued security and domination in finance, forcing citizens to borrow through loans or credit, and making exorbitant profits off the debt of their “fellow citizens.”

And they have the gall to cry “foul” whenever a socialist policy is offered! They pay a little more in tax and whine and take their money and their companies overseas, even though they are making money hand over fist and enjoy reserves of money larger than ever! While the average American must fight a lifelong war with debt, the cloud people complain that they cannot make as much profit as they demand! They can only make $9 billion a year instead of $10 billion!

What America’s financial Fuehrers leave out is that what they pay in tax, proportionally, does not even come close to comparing to what the average American pays in interest, over the course of a year, over the course of a debt, over the course of a lifetime!

If interest rates were not low now because of various weak economic factors, someone who bought a home for $200,000 would, in the end, pay $600,000 for it. In other words, over the course of 30 years one would pay twice as much in interest as the cost of the home itself! You get to enjoy 30 years of financial servitude. Yay!

So now Donald Trump is calling out these anti-American bastards, not on everything, mind you, but they fear that he will rain on their selfish party. He wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States and jobs to Americans, something the quisling cloud people don’t want! In fact, they will tell us over and over again that it cannot be done! They will scream it and say that we must get used to the way things are now.

And because Donald Trump will rip their faux world apart, they want to stop him. Stop him and crush him. They even are willing to put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. After years of telling us how evil she was, they are willing (just look at the traitorous Koch brothers, for example) to support her presidential bid, de facto if not de jure.

Why? Why would any so-called Republican or conservative do that?

The reason is: they don’t care about the Republic. They care about their own selfishness. They care about their own money. They care about their financial liberty and about your financial servitude. Hillary will not interfere with them. She has her own self-enrichment going on, so they are, tacitly, for her.

They are lying, selfish, greedy bastards who want everything for themselves and financial slavery for you. Work! Work! Work your whole life to pay off the money you owe them for your house, your car, your schooling, your privilege of existence! They own you!

It’s hilarious!

They preach liberty, but they mean their own liberty, not yours. And they cover it all with the golden mantles of “freedom” and “free market” and “America” and “opportunity” to get you thirsting and craving for a piece of the pie, knowing full well that only a small percentage will ever make any kind of transition in such a controlled economy.

The quisling Republicans and conservatives will fill you with pap, a kind of material spiritism, to tell you that “market forces” are creating our economic situation.

Bullshit! They are creating the “market forces”. It’s time for a new conservatism and a new Republican Party!

Donald Trump is the first person in a very, very long time to come along and identify the corruption and the riggedness of the system, political and economic.

Wittingly or not, Trump has been peeling away the layers of bullshit, and the quislings like Will and Kristol and Lowry and the anti-feminine assclowns at Fox News and the Koch brothers don’t like being naked and exposed. It endangers their power, their iron grip on America and on American lives!

Like old, withering men, they will not stand to have their power and control threatened. They will betray what America is really about, including the Republican Party, and even destroy that party so they can sabotage Trump’s candidacy and remain the country’s financial Fuerhers!

Prayers for Dallas and America

Standard

Amid all the political theater reality intrudes, often raising its ugly hydra-heads. My heart and prayers go out to all the police officers, their family members and friends, who lost their lives or suffered wounds from last night’s shooting.

My prayers also go out to my fellow Americans who are black who have been killed, their family members and their friends.

I am a strong supporter of the police. I am a strong supporter of equal rights and fair treatment for Americans of all races. I know the tensions, fears, and anger are high on all sides. The danger remains that any one of us may act wrongly – morally, ethically, or legally – and do or say some thing that will actually make matters worse.

It may be a platitude, be we need God’s wisdom and strength to treat each other with respect and value. If we descend into bitter recriminations, then we will just spiral downward until something even worse happens.

We have to deal with racism – on both sides. No one has clean hands. And no one is fully dark with evil except a few on either side. We have to get control of this situation and remedy ills that should have been remedied long ago.

May God have mercy on all those who have fallen, and may He guide each one of us to be a better human being and citizen, in the name of Jesus!

 

When Trust Collapses

Standard

It has become common practice to label candidates from opposing parties as liars. Though the designation may be true, it loses its force as we writers employ it repeatedly and as the partisans in the political theater insert it into their scripts repeatedly.

I, too, am guilty.

So what is one to do? Say it in a fresh, meaningful way remains our only recourse.

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced the findings of his bureau’s investigation into then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of her own server to send and receive State Department communications, including messages deemed classified, i.e., designated as owning a level of security beyond the normal, such as “Top Secret”.

Comey stated the investigation did not find evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton when she exposed classified material to public scrutiny, including the scrutiny of our enemies.

The FBI director did find that Hillary Clinton was careless and reckless in the way she set up and used her private email account for the nation’s secret business. He also noted that her legal hirelings scrubbed the server so thoroughly that neither the FBI nor the State Department was able to recover all her government emails, emails that do not belong to her but that belong to we, the people, through our elected representatives and their agents. Further, Comey observed that Hillary Clinton, shall we say, uttered several falsehoods.

That means she either asserted the existence of something that did not exist, or she asserted the nonexistence of something that did exist.

I won’t belabor the outcry that she should be prosecuted for her actions. As a foreign policy buff, I am shocked by her attitude and her actions, but it seems pointless to dwell on the legality or criminality of them. We need to determine the damage and remedy it. We need to ask ourselves why such a person is running for the highest office in the land.

As voters, we must ask ourselves the significance of her utterance of falsehoods, falsehoods she repeated often in the same or modified form.

The first falsehood we will examine is when Hillary Clinton claimed that she turned over all her State Department emails to both State and to the FBI. Comey said that was false, that, in fact, they still have not all been turned over, in part because not all were recovered, and they likely never will.

A second falsehood is her coy deflection of what it meant to “wipe” a server, asking reporters what they meant, like “with a cloth”. Not only was her expression utterly disingenuous and a spitting on the intelligence of American citizens, a sign that she knew exactly what she had been doing, but she did, in fact, have her server wiped.

A third falsehood: no classified material ever made it to her server. She neither sent nor received classified material at her private email account. The falsehood of this claim was established early on, so she mutated her claim to say that she did not send or receive material that was labeled classified from her private email account.

That mutation became a fourth falsehood. Comey made it clear that at least some of the emails, and he pointedly remarked both emails that originated with her and emails that were sent to her, were labeled classified, including those with the highest confidentiality rating.

Yet a fifth falsehood is Hillary Clinton’s claim that she only used one device to access her private email server onto which she hijacked the nation’s business. Comey stated she used multiple devices, which opens up greater theft of secrets for our enemies’ hackers.

Which brings us to a sixth falsehood: the private email server was not exposed to hackers. Comey said there was evidence that hackers attempted and may have succeeded in breaking into her vulnerable, private servers, or that they accessed email contents from the recipients’ end, the unsecured accounts of those persons to whom she sent her emails.

We could go further and address other utterances of falsehood she directed to American intellects, such as her stated reasoning for using a private email server: her convenience so she could access both work and private emails. Knowing that her government emails were subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, why would she or anyone else want to place their truly private emails on the same server, much less the same account, and risk having them exposed to the public?

She wouldn’t. The ONLY reason she would, would be to have the ability to destroy her government emails. In other words, hiding the public’s business from the public so that the public would not know what she had been doing or saying. She was using the private email as a cover to control access to her performance as a public servant.

So what should we call Hillary Clinton? What noun or adjective adequately describes her native propensity to prevaricate? How does any voter place his or her trust in Hillary Clinton?

Both Adolf Hitler and one of his lieutenants, Joseph Goebbels, said essentially the same thing: “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”

Now, I won’t use any extreme rhetoric, so be clear that I am not comparing Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler or Joesph Goebbels in terms of their Nazi program, their slaughter, their fascism, their cruelty, etc. However, a comparison is to be made in regard to a tool that both have chosen to employ: big lies. Where does it stop for Hillary Clinton?

She won’t release transcripts of her richly compensated speeches to the Wall Street financial barons, not a lie, but clearly she wants you, and especially the average working man and woman, to stay in the dark about what she told them. She claimed she came under fire in Bosnia, a falsehood that she manufactured to be held in higher esteem. She uttered a falsehood to explain why our ambassador to Algeria and three other Americans were killed at Benghazi, an anti-Muslim film produced by an obscure filmmaker, then repeated that falsehood to the relatives of the victims. She then called the relatives of the victims liars when they revealed what she had told them, though they had documented her words. She placed what she thought were Muslim sentiments over those of her fellow countrymen!

Yet Hillary Clinton has the gall to point at Donald Trump and to accuse him of bigotry and racism because he wants to enforce our nation’s lawfully enacted immigration laws and national security protocols.

Does Hillary Clinton really believe in anything she says or does, or are they just covers for what appears to be nothing more than a program of self-entitlement and self-enrichment?

Donald Trump is far from a perfect candidate. In fact, the whole field, both Democrat and Republican, represented the best our country had to offer at this point in history, yet most fell far, far short of evincing any sort of genuine love for fellow Americans, and love of country and service to it, as well as qualifications to govern it. More than ever, we can discern the biases, the narrow and mulish viewpoints, the manipulations of special interests, and the “principles” used to provide cover for those special interests, and the selfishness with which these professional officeholders approach their “public service”.

Whatever a voter’s ideology is, can he or she abide someone like a Hillary Clinton, who of her own choice tramples on the truth?

Ask yourself: Is Hillary Clinton trustworthy? If the answer is “no”, you know for whom to vote. If the answer is “yes”, you need to ask yourself two questions: how many falsehoods does she get to utter to your face before she loses your trust; and are you enabling Hillary Clinton’s falsehoods by avoiding their significance?

The Implications of the Benghazi Report, Part II

Standard

This is Part II of my post on the Implications of the Benghazi Report by Congress. For Part II, I have relied on reporting by NBC News.

 

In the first sentence of its article, NBC states the Benghazi report “details an array bureaucratic miscues and inter-agency blunders.

NBC added in the second paragraph that the report “paints a more nuanced portrait of incompetence.

Further, in its third paragraph, NBC asserted that the report offered “new details about why U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, one of the casualties, was at the compound of the Libyan city [of Benghazi] with only two State Department bodyguards, months after the British and others had evacuated the area.

(In a side note, the reason was to lay the groundwork for both the creation of a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi and to seal that with a visit by Hillary Clinton herself. Do you think she would have been attended by the type of security her ambassador received? Of course not! Yes, I understand she would have been a target of greater value in the eyes of Muslim terrorists, but it’s also true that if you know a place is dangerous, then you provide security commensurate with that danger.)

Two Republicans on the committee wrote their own report that criticized Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, directly.

The bottom line? The committee’s findings could underscore accusations that the Obama administration – and [Hillary] Clinton’s State Department – were more concerned with public perception that with acting decisively to save American lives.

How do we reach that conclusion, indeed, go further, by moving from “could” to “did”? How do we as informed citizens scrutinize the assertion that a disconnect existed between the Obama administration and Clinton State Department on one side, and the diplomatic and security officers on the ground in Libya on the other? We identify the facts needed to underpin such a conclusion and make sense of them.

In light of the presidential campaign, remember that Hillary Clinton herself has nailed competence and fitness for the presidency to the table as paramount prerequisites. So before we continue or reiterate those facts, let’s take a quick look at how Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration have responded to the release of the congressional committee’s report.

Hillary Clinton responded to the report’s release by saying the investigation “took on a partisan tinge.” She added that “I think it’s time to move on.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest gave this description: political fantasizing.

Ask yourself whether those attitudes betray the very disconnect the committee report describes.

That the report was partisan is without question. Both Democrats and Republicans made political hay with it. That is where the facts will lead us to a sensible position.

The Obama administration and Clinton State Department contracted for U.S. personnel to be protected – not by American forces – but by a Libyan government sanctioned paramilitary group called the February 17th Martyrs Brigade. Just before the ambassador and his fellow Americans came under attack, including those at a “secret” CIA station, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade abandoned its posts, defected, vanished!

That abandonment is portrayed in the motion picture 13 Hours.

Who did eventually come to the aid of the Americans? Former forces of Muammar Ghadafy, whose government Obama and Hillary Clinton had helped to topple! Who didn’t come to the aid of the Americans? The Muslim paramilitary force Obama and Hillary Clinton paid to do the job as part of the alliance with the new Libyan government!

Martyrs indeed!

Already you can see two facts and a pattern emerging from those facts. The United States moves into an area (Benghazi) that every other government and private organization flees because it is too dangerous; and the United States places American lives in the hands, not of its own trustworthy forces, but in the hands of forces hostile to us and our way of life.

What’s the pattern that’s emerging? Neither the Obama administration nor the Hillary Clinton State Department knew or understood what was happening in Libya, so they glibly took actions that endangered, then cost American lives.

And get this: the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, which did not martyr itself for your fellow Americans as it was paid to do, was “recommended by the Libyan government.” That’s some government you are doing business with, Mr. President and Mrs. Secretary of State!

I will deal with two additional points, two double-talking confabulations uttered by the State Department and the Pentagon respectively. Examine their wording carefully.

First, we entertain some words from State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner:

“We received diplomatic clearance, as is standard, to send a flight into Tripoli to evacuate our personnel. The process of gaining clearance did not delay or cancel any asset going to Libya. Concerns about what they wore had no bearing on the timing of their arrival.”

Toner is the trickster, he is. Let’s assume for argument that everything he just said is true. Does this mean there were no delays in acting? No. Does this mean that there were no things that could have caused a delay if we weren’t late in acting anyway? No.

Just hearing that the Marines had to change in and out of uniforms/civilian attire four times should be enough to boil the red blood in every American. You don’t waste time launching a military mission, any mission, even less so one designed to save American lives. The State Department should keep its nose out of military assignments because they will botch them every time.

More importantly was the delay in knowing and understanding the situation, in seeing the facts and patterns as they developed, and governing oneself accordingly. This was critical for Ambassador Stevens, and it is critical for us to understand.

By the time the State Department made a decision to act, it was already too late. All the evidence the report cites, some of which I detailed in Part I of the Benghazi Report, illustrates the lethal ineptitude of the State Department and the Obama administration, the former managed by Hillary Clinton, the latter by Obama. The bucks stop with them (that is, ironically, even truer in Hillary’s case!).

Hillary Clinton and Obama ignored what other private organizations and countries did in the face of growing violence in Benghazi. They ignored al-Qaeda in Benghazi. They ignored the repeated threats against particular people and countries on social media and elsewhere, which were carried out, including against their own ambassador, months in advance. They ignored the findings of their own security analysts. They ignored the pleas for more help and protection from their own ambassador. And they ignored the threat to kill Americans in Libya made the day before the attack began.

Yet they trusted the recommendation of the new Libyan government and its phony paramilitary force!

Second, NBC reported that several of the witnesses the Benghazi committee interviewed told the committee that the orders to deploy did not include sending forces to Benghazi! Instead, “Their understanding was that the assets needed to be sent to Tripoli to augment security at the embassy, and that the State Department was working to move the State Department personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli.”

NBC’s reporting is not clear on this, but it appears that the State Department requested troops to protect its embassy in Tripoli, 400 miles away from Benghazi, instead of at Benghazi, where the attack was occurring. That’s kind of like the FBI sending all its agents to Atlanta to investigate the Orlando night club massacre.

How can any citizen, regardless of political persuasion, sanction such incompetence, such demeaning and devaluing of American lives and operations!?

Hillary Clinton is not competent. It’s a label her partisans throw out repeatedly. She had no prior diplomatic experience when she was appointed secretary of state, and it showed, badly. The wounds of her tenure as secretary of state remain desperately in need of care.

Hillary Clinton lied to the relatives of the Benghazi victims about why they were murdered, then lied about lying to the relatives. She lied about coming under fire as she landed in Bosnia.

A person lies to create or maintain a perception. As we come full circle in our discussion of the Benghazi report, we can see Hillary Clinton wanted to create and maintain a perception that she was acting successfully within the new Arab spring, as the seemingly democratic movement that toppled a number of dictators was called. It was one of the bricks she wanted to lay as she built a stairway to the Oval Office. But she got it all wrong, and still gets it wrong, and Americans lost their lives because of it.

Hillary Clinton continues to lie. I’m not sure she is able to do otherwise. She lies about being competent to serve as commander-in-chief when she has never spent a single day in training, defending, attacking, wielding effectively a weapon, tasting the battlefield, and serving in close proximity to death. Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, has always held the military in the lowest regard. The commanders must be bristling to think such a person void of experience, truth, and understanding could possibly be selected by the American people to lead our forces.

God help us and keep us from her!