Shameless John McCain

Americans elected Donald Trump their president last November. Not John McCain. Not squeaky Lindsey Graham.

Arizonans elected McCain to represent their interests in the senate. I don’t know why. However, that should constrain McCain from his hyperbolic antics and speech-making. It doesn’t. McCain believes he has some kind of mandate to thwart the reasons Americans elected Trump: to stem the flow of illegal immigration; to stem the flow of Muslim terrorists into the United States; to win the war on terror against ISIL; to help create millions of more jobs by relocating factories back to the U.S. or by helping to build new ones here; to take care of our vets; to repeal and replace Obamacare; to lower taxes; to rebuild and strengthen our military; to help restore law and order nationwide.

McCain isn’t a maverick; he’s a deep-rooted, toxic weed hellbent on strengthening the establishment and weakening Americans and our Constitution. I’d call him a shameless political whore, but that would be incorrect; McCain is a stout narcissist who only finds a worthy cause when he looks into a mirror.

The Arizona senator’s power grab will impede the will of American voters, but my recommendation is that President Trump smack down him and establishment sock puppet Lindsey Graham as quickly as possible, relegating them to meaninglessness. They do not speak for Republicans any more. They do not speak for conservatives. They do not speak for Constitutionalists. They do not speak for Americans.

McCain and Graham speak only for themselves and their cherished establishment, and stridently so, and it’s time to begin to nullify them. McCain’s resume is littered with failure. Was McCain able to win the presidency in 2008? No. Loser. Was he able to enact serious, significant campaign reform? No. Loser. Did he strengthen the U.S. Military his last eight years in the senate? No. Loser. Did he enact or enforce legislation to protect Americans from terrorism? No. Loser. Did he help to balance the budget at all? No. Loser. Did he stop the national debt from increasing by trillions of dollars the last eight years? No. Loser. Did he cut taxes for the middle class? No. Loser. Did he stop the enactment of Obamacare? No. Loser. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, did he prevent huge cost overruns on the F-22 and the F-35 programs, among others? No. Loser. Did he save or create jobs? No. Loser.

Why would such a loser want to pick a fight with a winner like Trump? Call it political penis envy. Old man McCain wants to call the shots, but he’s worried because someone with real success credentials has been voted onto the scene and placed into his sandbox, and McCain will be damned – let’s hope not – if he is going to let someone else call the shots, even though he laid down for Obama all these years.

If you want to accomplish something, don’t bring John McCain and whiny sock puppet Lindsey Graham along. Don’t even try. They won’t cooperate unless they can plunge their mouth-holes into the special interest trough and gobble away like a couple of porkers!

Let McCain try to thwart Trump. Mr. President, we elected you and your ideas and your plans, not loser McCain’s. If he won’t help, cast him aside and work with other, smarter people who want to make this country safe, who stand for America First and not for globalism, who place the interests of American citizens and their culture and their Constitution first and not the interests of illegal aliens and refugee terrorists and strange, violent religious beliefs.

I am so sick of the moralizing social engineers in this country, the people like McCain and Obama who think they get to decide how Americans are going to be shaped and dictated to and who spit on the elections results, our American election results! Get out and go somewhere else!

Pundits Like Rachel Maddow Well Inaugurated into Dishonesty

President Donald Trump’s inauguration speech broke new ground for Americans when he stated emphatically he will put their interests and the interests of the nation as a whole first in every policy and law he wants enacted.

Abandoned by a globalist special interest view of the world, Americans suffered loss of jobs, of income, of property, of finances, of freedoms, and of dignity in the years since the Ronald Reagan presidency. Instead of a federal government driven by the will, defense of, and welfare of the American people, Americans were driven by the will, defense of, and welfare of the establishment, its special interests, its media machine partners, and the perverse left-wing globalist philosophy that sought to extinguish our Spirit of ’76 and to reshape the individualist, liberty-loving thinking of Americans to conform to establishment principles and practices.

The establishment has been executing an ongoing pacification of the American people, training them in the docility of political correctness and socially engineering the acceptability of profane, anti-religious norms and the unacceptability of individuality and Godly instruction.

President Trump’s inauguration speech is a massive poke in the eye of the establishment. It breaches their constricting wall by giving the president’s word that American patriotism, life, liberty, prosperity, and defense are the only things that matter. Americans come first. America comes first. Indeed, that is the constitutional mandate of all three branches of our federal government.

Naturally, the establishment and its media machine have been doing and will continue to do everything they can to torpedo Trump’s efforts to Make America Great Again. They will lie, dissemble, mix truth with their lies to confuse and mislead, mis- and disinform, calumniate, and create the illusion that Trump is either evil or mentally unstable or so far out of the mainstream, or some combination of two or more. They will never acknowledge any thing good he does or proposes. They will paint it as something that happened because of forces or circumstances outside of Trump’s control or that happened collaterally, unintentionally.

Here is a case in point: MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow’s dishonest take on President Trump’s meaning of “America First” in the inauguration speech. Maddow is another media minion who painted President Trump and his supporters nasty reds and blacks with her anti-objective rhetorical graffiti. Like Martha Raddatz, Maddow’s eyes welled with tears election night when it became clear the country favored Mr. Trump as its president instead of the candidate she preferred, Mrs. Hillary Clinton.

Former President Ronald Reagan used the slogan, “Let’s Make America Great Again”, and President Trump wanted to promote that quintessence in his own campaign, though reports vary on when he actually learned that Reagan had used it.

So Maddow does not look through President Trump’s eyes to see what he saw that prompted him to set Make America Great Again as his campaign’s slogan: Americans out of work and out of opportunities and out of money, factories shuttered across the country, a country whose policies its own citizens no longer liked or respected, a country with nearly $20 trillion in debt and adding to it every day, a country whose deep and vast unemployment was masked by bogus government statistics, a country giving away benefits to foreign nations and their illegally migrating people while denying benefits to its own.

No. What Maddow sees in the phrase “America First” is something that Donald Trump is not referring to: an obscure committee formed to keep the United States out of World War II (75 plus years ago before Mr. Trump was born), infiltrated by some Nazis and holding some anti-semitic views.

“It was militant and it was dark”, Maddow sputtered about the speech after the president finished. “The crime, the gangs, the drugs, this American carnage, disrepair, decay – you can’t imagine the outgoing president giving a speech like that.”

She added that President Trump established “our guiding principle will be ‘America First’. We know how he has used that as a campaign slogan. That also has very dark echoes in American history. There was an America First Committee that formed in this country… formed by some of the richest businessmen in this country… who were part of it. They were formed to keep us out of World War II, they were infiltrated by the Nazis. Many of them were anti-semitic, part of why they weren’t alarmed by Hitler’s rise in Germany. The America First Committee is something that means a specific thing in this country. To re-purpose it now is not that far down the historical path. Uh, it’s hard, hard to hear.”

Let’s dissect Ms. Maddow’s baloney. First, the speeches Mr. Obama gave aren’t the bar by which anyone judges the value of other speeches, except, perhaps, for Mr. Obama’s most flattering fanatics.

Second, despite the best efforts of the incredibly untruthful media organs, and Ms. Maddow in this case, when they weren’t covering the elections, and sometimes when they were, the media acknowledged the problems of which President Trump spoke: the lethal and catastrophic effects of drug use on communities around the country, but particularly in places like New Hampshire, the tsunami of murders in Chicago, the horrific damage done by the Mexican drug cartels here and abroad, bloody acts of terror here and around the world that have claimed scores of innocent human lives, factories and lost businesses all across the country, etc.

Third, even the former president, Mr. Obama, has acknowledged the carnage of ISIL and related terrorists and spoke of how we are tirelessly at war with them (dark and militant, Ms. Maddow?), and he himself has stated our national infrastructure had fallen into disrepair and decay. In fact, during his second term, Mr. Obama chided Republicans for the poor state of our country’s infrastructure, and he invoked Reagan’s description of it and his proposal to remedy it to persuade Republicans to enact his (Obama’s) own plan to upgrade it!

That’s the reality, Ms. Maddow. The hope and change Mr. Obama so casually promised never materialized for tens of millions of Americans and for the country as a whole. You didn’t notice their plight, and if you did, you ignored it. President Trump acknowledged to those Americans that he had seen and heard what they had experienced, and he gave his word he would do something about it. One has to take stock, take inventory before proceeding with action. President Trump did that. If the reality was darker than you cared to admit, yet you ignored with malice aforethought the light of the action President Trump said he would take to overcome it: placing Americans first in all policy considerations.

Not only did you ignore President Trump’s action plan, Ms. Maddow, you contrived to link his guiding principle to something you knew was a false connection: a Nazi-influenced committee that happened to have a similar name formed to keep Germany free from American opposition so the Nazis could win WWII! You knew it was false because President Trump’s daughter and son-in-law and their children, his grandchildren, are Jews, Jews who are leaving their businesses to become senior White House advisers. You knew it was false because President Trump has said it may be time to move Israel’s capital to Jerusalem, something I disagree with, but I still love what the guy is trying to do over all.

Which brings us to the fourth point: President Trump has never “re-purposed” anything from the America First Committee, nor can you tie him to the AFC. Fifth, “not that far down the historical path? Really? You failed to supply any signposts or benchmarks that might demonstrate President Trump’s use of America First is powered by the influences or reasoning of anyone who formed the America First Committee of WWII. Do you know why? That’s right, because there aren’t any, none, zero, zilch! Absolutely no connections exist between President Trump’s policy principle of America First and the significance of the same two words in the WWII body called the America First Committee.

How can you be so dishonest, Rachel Maddow?

Unfortunately, that’s what we as citizens must expect from the privileged and prejudiced pundits of the media machine. Lying has become second nature to them. They will tell us what they think we need to know, how we should adjust our perceptions so we “understand correctly”, and how we should judge what we know, ceding all authority and individuality to them.

Ain’t gonna happen!

I am willing to listen to what the new president has to say, what he thinks is dark and light, and to make up my own mind about what the problems are and the solutions he proposes to rectify them. America First has NOTHING to do with Nazis and antisemitism, so keep your lies to yourself, prejudiced, privileged pundits.

Like the Visitors in V, The New York Times Wants to Shape Your Mind!

The New York Times posted an article on Donald Trump to its website today, Saturday, Dec. 10, about 1 p.m. It’s headlined “Trump, Mocking Claim That Russia Hacked Election, at Odds with GOP” and is written by David Sanger accompanied with a photo of Trump at a Grand Rapids, Michigan, rally yesterday by Doug Mills.

Below lies the link to the version curated by MSN:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-mocking-claim-that-russia-hacked-election-at-odds-with-gop/ar-AAloKpW?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

Several problems raise their ugly heads in the headline and the article. First, let me deal with a few points of what I think is reasonable agreement.

I do not want any country to be able to hack our public or private computers or to affect our lives, including our electoral lives. Don’t want anybody messing with my vote!

I doubt President-Elect Trump wants Russian President Vladimir Putin or his intelligence/cyberwarfare agencies to be able to hack the U.S. That would be inconsistent with his message of America First and his desire to win at everything.

Thirdly, at least at this point, the intelligence assessment seems to be, if we can rely on The Times article, that despite the alleged Russian hacks, the electoral process itself, and thus the election, was not tampered with.

The principal claim appears to be that a hack or hacks of the Democratic National Committee emails occurred, the hacker(s) sent many of them to Wikileaks, who in turn released them to the public.

The emails from the DNC that Wikileaks released contained material that cast several Democrats, including their candidate, Hillary Clinton, in a dark light by showing their true, but negative, opinions of several groups, including blacks, Muslims, and Catholics, showing collusion with the press that was cheating, and revealing Clinton’s self-described “private” and “public” selves, as she showed Wall Street high rollers her “private” self in confidence. Think of “private” and “public” selves as two faces.

We don’t know whether the revelations that sprang from the hack(s) changed any votes, and if so, how many. It is reasonable to assume that at least some people changed their votes. Whether the revelations changed the outcome of the election may never be known. Again, if I read The Times correctly, the groups of officials mentioned seem to think not, but they do take the Russian threat seriously.

The flip side to that is the concern I have as a voter about the ability of candidates and their campaigns to utterly lie and deceive us about who they are and what they stand for, and the ability of the press to aid and abet the side of its choosing, as it did raucously for Hillary in this 2016 presidential campaign, chief among them The New York Times.

That conjunction of candidate deception backed by press partiality also destroys the electoral process and our republican democracy. In that light, release of material from the hack(s), while illegal, did help voters. The help was incomplete because no hack(s) of the other party’s computers with subsequent revelations happened.

Reasonably, we must say that with the election over we are facing more imminent dangers to our cybersecurity and national security than the hack of the DNC. As a body of citizens and as freedom-loving individuals, we must improve our cybersecurity all around. However, our country’s defense and intelligence agencies need to focus on the hydra-headed national security threats from despotic nuclear powers, like Russia and Red China, nuclear power aspirants under autocratic or theocratic tyranny, like Iran and North Korea, and maniacal Muslim terrorist organizations, like ISIS, that seek to arm themselves with the deadliest weapons possible to murder civilians and destroy everyday life in the Middle East and in the West.

Trump reflects the desire to make our intelligence agencies the best and to give them the most effective and technologically advanced tools to be the best. He challenges them to be better than they have been.

Most Americans want to win the economic and political wars we fight to sustain our own liberty and to offer it around the world to those who want the same.

With all that said, let’s analyze The Times article. First we have the headline, “Trump, Mocking Claim That Russia Hacked Election, at Odds with GOP”. The first thing to correct The Times on is that no one hacked the “election”. You can’t hack elections. You can hack computers. No election computers were hacked, at least no reports have stated such that I’ve heard. A DNC server or computer was hacked, or perhaps more than one. By Sanger’s own reporting, intelligence agencies did not and still do not think the outcome was affected. So no “election” has been hacked and no one was saying it was for the story.

Second, The Times declares in the headline that Trump is “at odds” with the GOP. Really? Is Trump at odds with the entire GOP, all registered GOP voters, all party and elected officials? If not, do we know what percentage of the GOP with which he is at odds? The Times article mentions two important House Republicans and Senator John McCain, who’s had an acrimonious relationship with Mr. Trump. The two House Republicans want deep investigations and a detailed report into what happened.

The problem for us as voters is that we can only get a sense of the disagreement among Trump, the intelligence agencies, and two members of the House GOP. Getting a grip on what the facts are is more difficult. With cybersecurity, answers may not always be clear. Does the CIA, for example, know that the DNC was hacked (one must keep an open mind – a renegade Dem may have provided the emails or copies thereof to Wikileaks)? If so, does it know who did it? What is the answer to “how” in both cases? Does the CIA offer levels of certainty or probability? If the hackers were Russian, can we tell whether they were government hackers or private hackers?

Sanger writes about the “national security establishment”, but what is that and who belongs to it? How many agencies have examined the hack of the DNC? Is it just the CIA, or did the FBI’s cybersecurity division look at it, or the DIA’s, or the NSA, etc. The Trump transition team members and the many advisors to them have tons of national security experience. Why do they disagree with the vaguely termed “national security establishment”. The Times tried to paint General Mattis as biased because he appeared on Russian television, but that’s flimsy. Mattis wants America and her capabilities to be better than Russia’s. He’s not going to tolerate cybersecurity weakness.

Leaders pick their fights, too, and it may be useless to pick the DNC hack for lengthy and arduous investigation by members of a feckless Congress who have much, much, much work to start and finish. Moreover, better to do it quietly than noisily like The Times and others seem to want. Lots of noise usually means its PR and a tool to achieve something else.

The Times wrote the article to highlight what it claimed was “an extraordinary breach” between Trump and the GOP and between Trump and the “national security establishment”. I’m not sure what’s extraordinary about it. Yet Sanger wrote the article that way, and he wrote it to downplay the obvious “breaches” that have occurred over and over in the past. Sanger’s article mentioned the case of Tunisia and Egypt and the bad estimate the intelligence community gave to Obama. It did not but could have mentioned the shaping of intelligence reports to suit the Obama administration’s tastes. It did not but could have mentioned Benghazi, in which the Obama/Clinton State Department ignored intelligence assessments about the growing danger in that Libyan city. Sanger’s article did mention the situation which gave rise to Trump’s described mockery: the Bush Administration’s contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that compelled the U.S. to invade it in 2003.

It’s particularly galling of The Times to write about that botched assessment because the newspaper has lashed former President Bush and his national security team for it.

Consider, too, that The Times downplayed the botched assessment by Bush’s national security team in Sanger’s article (only when Trump played that card, not itself) by stating the existence of a running debate about whether the intel itself was bad or whether it was read “selectively”, whatever that means, to reach a desired conclusion.

Funny, but I remember General Colin Powell going to the United Nations and submitting several photos detailed with lines and with arrows from caption boxes pointing to trucks and buildings, etc. Search for them online. You’ll find one of “Chemical Munitions Stored at Taji”, another titled “Terrorist Poison and Explosives Factory, Khumai”, and another depicting a chemical munitions bunker with a decontamination vehicle alongside it, etc.

It would seem either someone from Bush’s national security team created those exhibits or someone from one of the intelligence agencies did. Either way, would they not be members of “the national security establishment”? Breaches are in the eye of the beholder.

If The Times calls Trump’s statement against the claim of Russian interference mockery, what does it call its own statement about the Bush administration’s conclusions, which the article’s author, Sanger, labeled “the disastrously mistaken assessments of Iraq”.

Further, The Times lets Michael Hayden take a shot at Trump in Sanger’s article, the same Michael Hayden who directed the National Security Agency (NSA) under Bush during the Iraq assessments and who oversaw that agency’s warrantless collection of Americans’ electronic communications. Is he part of our “national security establishment”. If so, I’m fearful of him, not Trump.

What we have to understand as citizens is that the purpose of this New York Times article, as with many of its articles and the articles and reports from other media, is not to provide news or information that voters can use intelligently; rather, it is to hold and continue to emit an unrelenting laser beam of criticism at Trump to foster discord and strife among all voters, to shape the way we perceive and think about events so that we will reach the same conclusion that The Times wants everyone to reach about Trump and his administration.

Sometimes The Times articles will feature truth and sometimes they won’t. It doesn’t make much difference. In the end, the articles are calculated to have an effect on you, the effect The Times wants. The only way to avoid that, if you read them, is to be discerning and discriminating. Ask questions about every statement The Times makes. Compare what it writes internally to itself and externally to previously established facts. Do not assume anything, such as the significance of “the national security establishment”.

Keep in mind, too, that other motivations may be in play. The grandstanding by House Republicans sounds, uh, grand. I sure want my democracy and my electoral process to be left untampered. But is that really on the minds of some House Republicans, or are they jockeying for position and leverage against their party’s president, Trump, so they can limit the enactment of his policy proposals while promoting and enabling their own?

How cute of The Times and Mr. Sanger to use Republicans against themselves. Clever and sophisticated.

Bear in mind, House and Senate Republicans, that many, perhaps a majority, of us, voted you in not because of you, but because we needed you to support Mr. Trump. Fail to do that? Get in his way? Watch how we pull the voting lever down against you. You are a constitutional necessity, but in poll after poll we have judged you virtually worthless and shockingly ineffective compared to even the current president.

You got used to being establishment bootlickers, so don’t puff your chests out because a Republican won the presidency. He didn’t run on your ideology or mandate. He ran on the people’s mandate. So make Mr. Trump’s path smooth, then get the hell out of the way!