Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Hacking the Russian Hack Story

Standard
  • Problems with the Press Accounts of the Intel ‘Report’
  • Tangible Media and Intel Animus toward President-Elect Trump
  • If the Russians Hacked the DNC, Could It Have Been for Bernie?

Like an arrogant rhinoceros waving its wand and puckering its starfish to piss and crap all over the jungle, the media continues to spew and drop faux and fraudulent news and statements and headlines about soon-to-be President Donald Trump and his administration, angling their themes to paint him with dark or doubtful stains.

The dishonest media isn’t alone. At least some of the heads of our American intelligence agencies, and their minions, have compromised the integrity of the agencies they run, polluting the operations with a thoroughly toxic left-wing, selfishly anti-democratic, anti-transition, and anti-collegial spirit. Amid this boiling toxicity, these heads have cooked up intel reports and summaries to damage the president, his cabinet and staff, his program, and our country.

That’s the way establishments are: see things our way and do them our way… or else.

One more day!

I cannot wait until Mr. Trump’s intel, military, and justice (as well as all the others: Go Wilbur Ross!) heads take command on Jan. 20 and CLEAN house of all the lying bastards who have polluted our intelligence and our intelligence agencies with their Buzzfeed mentalities.

Let’s tackle – again – the 35-page report presented by overall intelligence chief James Clapper to the president-elect, the president, and a few members of Congress. We know only what the unclassified version says, not the classified, so we are missing valuable pieces to the puzzle that could confirm what the intelligence agencies allegedly surmised or could disconfirm or cast doubt on those impressions.

In essence, Clapper’s report alleged that Russia conducted a cyber attack on servers run by the Democratic National Committee and used the information they gleaned to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump get elected.

Is that true? Let’s examine the story as it appeared in The New York Times online edition on or about Jan. 7. Adam Goldman, Matthew Rosenberg, and Matt Apuzzo authored the piece.

What The NYT gives us first is:

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday [Jan. 6] to Trump.”

That’s the lead paragraph in the story. Make a note that The NYT labeled the report “extraordinary”. Two paragraphs later, The NYT adds:

Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials released the declassified, damning report (emphasis mine) that described the sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian effort to weaken the United States government and its democratic institutions.”

That’s heavy stuff. The report is damning, presumably for Mr. Trump, and Russia seeks to weaken our federal government and our democratic institutions.

The problem is twofold: 1. how is Trump damned by the report? The Russians have been interfering with our government for decades, and we have been interfering with theirs and with many other governments for decades. Trump isn’t damned by the report; the intelligence and defense communities are damned by the report for failing to adequately deal with any cyber threat from a foreign power! Why were the Russians able to catch them napping?

Second, the Democratic National Committee that was hacked is NOT a democratic institution. Political parties come and go, evolve and morph and become totally different over the course of years. No particular party is an institution. The Democrat Party did not even exist at the dawn of our republic. The DNC is part of the current political fabric, but it’s not one of our democratic institutions.

Now consider the following two points which The NYT buried deeply in its article. The first occurs around paragraph 27, at which the article stated:

Yet the attacks [by Russia], the report said, began long before anyone could have known that Mr. Trump, considered a dark horse, would win the Republican nomination. It said the attacks began as early as 2015… .”

The article adds that the Russians maintained a presence on the DNC server for another 11 months, perhaps even after the private firm Crowdstrike thought it had them booted off.

Two final points to note: First, the DNC denied the FBI permission to look at its servers. This point does not appear in The NYT article but has been reported extensively elsewhere. It isn’t clear whether the DNC allowed any other federal agencies access, but isn’t it suspicious the DNC denied the FBI access when Democrats were complaining about an illegal hack?

Second, the evolution of Russian purposes reported by The NYT doesn’t add up. Overly eager to lay blame on Mr. Trump, the intel heads and the paper admit the Russians began to hack the DNC server in the summer of 2015, when Trump was one of 17 Republican presidential candidates, and the Brits first alerted American intel ops about the DNC hack in the autumn of 2015, but the CIA and other agencies are just writing a report about it now. Why didn’t they do something then!?

So the Russian purpose for the hack was, and always has been, to hurt Hillary Clinton. This stands as a vital point, because it would not have made any difference who the Republican nominee was. The Russians did not know who it would be.

Trump was part of a large pack of candidates in the running at the end of 2015, with commentators and pundits repeatedly saying he had hit a ceiling and would never win the Republican nomination. Five of the 17 Republican candidates dropped out of the presidential race just before the Iowa caucuses; still, Trump lost the Iowa caucuses on February 1, 2016. Although Trump picked up steam afterward, he also hit a rough stretch punctuated by a stinging defeat in Wisconsin on April 5. It could not have been clear to the Russians he enjoyed any significant chance to win his party’s nomination until he took every delegate in the May 3, 2016, Indiana primary.

Even then, with talk bubbling about a contested convention, the Russian mindset about Trump’s chances likely exhibited a similarity to that of Julian Assange and other foreign onlookers (Assange’s quote is from website ZeroHedge):

My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

By the time Mr. Trump won Indiana, the alleged Russian hack of the DNC server was almost over.

The Russians must have figured, as did every political pundit in this country, that Mr. Trump would never defeat Mrs. Clinton. If they did plan and execute the DNC hack to release Democrats’ own secret, damaging information, they wanted to undermine her presidency, as the NYT story and other stories have reported. They may have chuckled that collaterally, at some point, they were “helping” Trump, but NO ONE outside of his supporters thought he had any chance of winning against Hillary Clinton.

In fact, what the media are deliberately NOT writing and talking about is the possibility that Russia, if it hacked the DNC, intended its damage to Mrs. Clinton’s already eroded reputation to help Bernie Sanders. Mr. Sanders is the socialist candidate who had visited Russia years before when it was communist and whose policy proposals most reflected the way Mr. Putin wields centralized power in Russia.

The hypocrisy of it all is that American intel agencies spy on their fellow citizens, the citizens whose privacy and dignity they are sworn to uphold and respect. Even as Clapper excoriates Russia, his agencies gobble up every minute detail about Americans and their lives, analyze it, and store it forever in case it is needed. They intrude into Americans’ computers, tablets, phones, GPSes, TVs, microphones, and every communication. In cahoots with big business, they have become the all-seeing eye!

It is so wrong and so unconstitutional.

So stop your calumny of Mr. Trump, intel agencies. Do what you are supposed to do: obey your commander-in-chief and the will of the American people. Collect accurate intelligence and present it without passion or prejudice. Keep your mouths shut on domestic political issues. Don’t talk and write about hacks after they have happened; stop them from happening!

Advertisements

How Voters May Want to Assess the Reported Russian Hack

Standard

Here’s how voters may want to assess the reported Russian hack:

1. What is being reported:

a. the Russians hacked both Democrat and Republican servers and/or computers.

b. the Russians only released what they found out about the Democrats b/c they wanted Hillary Clinton to fail and Trump to be elected.

c. Trump “knew before election day” the Russians had hacked the servers but no date specified.

d. The GOP knew it had been hacked by Russians.

e. CIA releases “report” to confirm those claims as “high confidence” and follows with assertion they know Putin was directly involved.

f. Election outcome not affected (even president says so) but electoral process meddled with.

g. Calls for investigations and response.

Whether you are glad Trump got elected or upset that Hillary did not win, I don’t think any of us wants election meddling by a foreign power. However, we also do not want a few individuals and groups – an oligarchical establishment – to wield the excessive power they do to hack and hijack our elections either.

Yet the 2016 presidential primary and general election campaigns bore testimony to just such excessive power. That America’s plutocrats and politicrats and their organs of disinformation failed demonstrated two things. First, their failure cast light on the hardships and mighty struggle of the common American and his distrust of the way things weren’t working for him, because they weren’t intended to. Second, it cast light on the establishment’s unpreparedness for Trump’s unique candidacy and politicking.

Bet on the establishment to work overtime to figure out that candidacy and that politicking and to adapt to it so they do not experience a second defeat of their purposes.

Voters must ever be vigilant and ever make their will known with zeal and industry. Every side in the establishment is out to mislead you, to lie to you, and even to use the truth against you and for themselves. I have never forgotten a line from The Exorcist in which Father Merrin, the aging, veteran exorcist, tells young Father Karras, who barely believes what is happening, to beware when they are in the room facing evil directly because it is most dangerous when it “mixes truth with the lies.”

How does all this apply to the Russian hack?

Whether you supported Hillary Clinton or not, the truth is the establishment wanted her because Trump threatened their rule and security, even though he himself was a billionaire. The plutocrats and politicrats and their organs of disinformation (nearly every major media outlet) labored exhaustively to laud Clinton and disparage Trump and to shape the way voters thought.

I’m a Cold War Kid, so I hate the Russians. In this context, that term means the old style Russian government, military, intelligence, and media operations in play by Putin, a former KGB agent. I do not mean the Russian people, who are tough and have borne their share of hardship and war. I do not want the Russians to hack servers and computers in our public or private sectors. The United States should respond, quietly, surgically, effectively. Perhaps we already have.

While the Russians acted illegally and for their own purposes, if in fact they performed the hack, American citizens did benefit. We got to see what Clinton, many of her top aides, and other important Democrats genuinely thought about we common Americans and the policies they wanted to put into play and their collusion with the media. I was appalled. I can’t think of enough words to describe the lack of integrity among people who should have borne the highest integrity: hypocrisy, duplicity, prejudice, bias, ill will, and an utter disregard for the truth and the benefit of Americans and our culture.

Now gulp down this dose of Reality: The Russians aren’t the only ones who hack. As citizens, we have been hacked by our own spy agencies and huge, greedy corporations and tech behemoths who believe our personal business is their business and their right. The fingerpointing and cries against the Russians are the highest hypocrisy of the establishment and its lying media disinformers, all which endorse and/or perpetrate spying on the American people.

The Russians have an excuse: they can say they are our enemies or competitors in the global marketplace. But Google, Verizon, Microsoft, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, Samsung (a Korean company), Facebook, to name a few, are spying on us and collecting and keeping data on us for their own insidious, selfish, greedy purposes, and seeking to control us. They are destroying the fabric of privacy and human decency and of American life. Frankly, their intentions are evil and they act evilly. They are anti-God because they want to become God. They think they need and deserve to know all about everyone. And legislators don’t give a damn because they are bought and paid for. They are traitors. There is no American dream any more, just an American nightmare.

The presidential race of 2016 may be our last or one of our last free elections. We have a far worse problem than the Russians, and it comes from inside the country and our souls. Clinton was not the answer this country needed. Maybe Trump won’t be either. We can only hope in God and band together as common American citizens to secure our future and the future of our posterity as our Forefathers intended.

A Reply to Journalist Michael Voris

Standard

This piece is a response to an article written by journalist and Catholic Michael Voris on the website churchmilitant.com, so it would be well to read his writing first. The link to his article lies below:

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/too-many-secrets

I’m not sure how to take your article, Mr. Voris. I get the basic question: Why isn’t Raymond Arroyo reporting on the Catholic establishment’s partiality in the presidential election? Is it a sign that Arroyo is beholden to them and can’t or won’t?

As a veteran journalist, however, you should be aware of the tensions involved in reporting, the personal dimension journalists have and their right to act within it, and the process and techniques of developing a story.

Besides, your own story is unsourced. Were you there? Did you see and hear the things of which you wrote? You made no mention of that.

Is it possible that Mr. Arroyo is working on just such a story about a cabal of clattering clerics who were out to derail the Donald Trump train? Is it possible he does not have enough evidence yet that he can use? In another vein, don’t journalists agree to embargo information or to listen to sources off the record some of the time as they build their stories?

Journalists assume different roles within the profession. Some are field reporters; others, anchors. Some write features, entertainment, sports, business, tech, general assignment, etc., and some assume the role of investigative journalist. Working at EWTN (itself a bit rogue and not friendly to some of the new, dissolute theology of the church), Mr. Arroyo has become a jack-of-all-trades for the network in news and probably mixes in a fair amount of tact with his reportorial frankness.

Mr. Arroyo’s situation does not differ from that of any other journalist in the business. There is a balance to be found and maintained between what the journalist as professional deems worthy of pursuit and what his editors or the ownership of the organ for which he works deems worthy of pursuit.

Perhaps in a perfect world, these pursuits would be congruent; in today’s factious and truculent times, they loom nigh impossible.

So you’re right, Mr. Voris. It’s tough to report on your bosses, and Mr. Arroyo would not be anywhere near the first journalist to encounter that wall (hhhmmm… think about that, Francis). I have not watched Mr. Arroyo enough (though I did watch his Trump interview and the wonderful “bigly” or “big league” finish) to grade him on how well he has done. I did watch some of his coverage of the process by which Pope Francis was elected, etc., and thought he did well to identify different factions within the church and how they were jostling for position and controlling the flow of information.

This is what I would contend, Mr. Voris: You have a much deeper problem in journalism and in the church than you have in your elementary rebuke of Mr. Arroyo.

At one time, the facts may have reigned supreme. Today, message reigns supreme, and people, including journalists, cannot get out of the way of facts fast enough so they can write and speak their stories. The message is no longer tailored to the facts; the facts are tailored to the message, and when those facts are inconvenient, they are simply tossed into the rubbish and replaced with labels, vague ideas like “dangerous”, divisive”, and “xenophobic”.

In that light, Mr. Arroyo may not have fared as badly as you suggest.

That the Catholic hierarchy stood against Mr. Trump does not surprise me much. It seems a number of bishops and priests, not to mention Francis himself, have long derogated Mr. Trump and the policies he has been supporting, all the while turning a blind eye to faux Catholic Nancy Pelosi and anti-Catholic Hillary Clinton, the proponents and enablers of Molochian policies like baby-killing and draconian policies like sucking the financial life and self-esteem out of American middle class workers they’ve dumped on the unemployment line.

The church has a long and rich spiritual, scriptural, intellectual, and pragmatic tradition. That tradition has been and is being sabotaged by the currently accepted biblical criticism. This criticism, known as “historical criticism”, promotes the idea that each of the New Testament writers cooked up fictitious stories or details to get a message across. It is the message, taken as a vital spiritual truth that only can be ascertained and gleaned and communicated by the Magisterium, that is eternal and truthful, not the facts, er, fictions, used to convey it!

In fact, the vital spiritual truth in the message allows one to alter both the facts and the accepted understanding of the facts and to create new ones!

Thus, eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ isn’t eating and drinking his body and blood so God communicates the power of his grace to believers visibly and tangibly through his son’s unjust torture and execution; it is a community meal of love and warmth and mutuality, blah blah, in which we accept our humanity and the humanity of Jesus.

That same warped principle weaves its way through today’s news reporting and rhetoric in all their ramifications. I don’t know how many news people stated as fact that Mr. Trump said on the Access Hollywood recording that he groped women “against their will.” During the presidential debate he moderated, CNN’s Anderson Cooper claimed that Mr. Trump said he was sexually assaulting women, then asked him if he ever had. Fox News’ Megyn Kelly also used the phrase “against their will” on one of her shows and suggested Mr. Trump was a “sexual predator”, if he had practiced what he talked about on the recording.

On the recording, Mr. Trump states exactly and explicitly that women “let” him grope them because he was a star. “Let” means permission granted, allowed. That’s NOT against their will.

And Megyn Kelly’s use of the legal term “sexual predator” during an exchange with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, later despicably echoed by shill and outgoing Senator Harry Reid, was completely inaccurate and incorrect and unethical. She used the false label as a ploy to grab ratings and create the illusion of toughness. She claimed that if Mr. Trump was a sexual predator, then it was a huge story that should be covered. She then added that she did not know that he was a sexual predator. So she brought up the term, not to cover it because it was a fact, but because it was a conditional, which if it were a fact, would justify coverage. She was covering possibility so she could repeat the term.

It’s nothing more than salacious sensationalism, a message the embittered Kelly wanted to get out (likewise with Clinton surrogate Cooper on the network that gave Clinton debate questions in advance) to harm Mr. Trump and affect the outcome of the election.

Feel free to surf the archives to check for posts about faulty reporting where the message took precedence over the facts. It continues in this post-election frame.

Mr. Voris, please scrutinize the “message” state of affairs in both journalism and the church. Mr. Arroyo is hardly the problem. Some of those bishops and priests might be. What happens to the Catholic Church – what happens to believers – when someone’s message gets propped up by the ultimate justification: the notion of infallibility?

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”

Elites and Media Don’t Get It

Standard

A vital block of Americans cast off the chains of anti-Americanism, elitism, political correctness, and media dishonesty to drive 70-year-old Donald Trump to triumph in the 2016 presidential election Tuesday night.

With votes still being counted and confirmed, Trump had earned at least 276 electoral votes, six more than necessary, while Clinton was at 218. The popular vote was neck-and-neck, with both candidates earning over 59 million votes each so far.

Trump and his supporters swept aside the narrow-minded concerns of the political and media elites like a purifying white squall across the bloody deck of a slave freighter. Supporters refused to give answer to reporters and pollsters who sought a predetermined outcome. Instead, each took cover in his or her personal privacy, waiting for early voting or election day to pull the lever for Trump.

The Trumpers pulled it mightily again and again. Their votes tore down the so-called “Blue Wall” of the Democrats, the imaginary boundary Democrats believed protected them from defeat in those states.

The result bestowed an astonishing mantle of victory on the shoulders of Trump, the never-say-die candidate and accomplished billionaire who overcame the media’s monstrous partisanship and endless effluent of innuendo: the false or unsubstantiated accusations about his finances, businesses, taxes, campaign and debate statements, marriages, and sexual habits.

It seemed a mountain too high to climb, and the media, particularly national outlets like CNN (oft dubbed the “Clinton News Network”), MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, network news, etc., doubled up on the shots they took at Trump by turning a blind eye to Hillary Clinton’s reckless, criminal email behavior, the sordid pay-to-play scheme of her Clinton Foundation, her pimping the media for debate questions against Sanders and Trump, and her salacious campaign operation designed to bring out the most sordid unsubstantiated details about Trump and present them even to the eyes and ears of children through their media minions.

Instead of journalistic investigative reporting into any of those aspects of Clinton’s character and practices, the major media rode the bench while Wikileaks and Russian hackers did the job the media should have done.

The media decided it had a more important job to do than communicate facts to voters. Their job was to assuage the “deplorables” with faux sympathy while paying no heed to what they were saying. Instead, the media portrayed voters’ support for Trump as at best a misdirected emotional venting of a barbarous and baleful national pride that led down a slippery slope of xenophobia, racism, and general hatred and national endangerment.

This distillation denied any value to what citizens – those drawn to Trump and his message – held in their hearts and in their minds: the policies of the last 25+ years had deprived them of jobs, income, opportunity, freedom, personal and national pride, and their sense of society and culture while bestowing all kinds of benefits and attentions on special interest groups and illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees with no amity for the American political and religious culture.

Trump advocates were Americans unwelcome in their own country, Americans who could find no succor and respect in their country’s policies, Americans abandoned because they were deemed expendable by the elites and their minions, the collateral damage of today’s ineluctable global, social, economic, and technological evolution hailed as the natural progress of things.

So bad have circumstances become, and does the future look, that one columnist at The Washington Post has proposed the government provide a living wage to all Americans who are no longer needed in the workforce. 

Of course, the elites and their minions seem themselves to be immunized from the tumult of such evolution. 

In short, the ivory tower, elitist, leftist media didn’t get it. They didn’t get it that citizens have not conceded that this evolution is natural. Rather, government policies have artificially induced these conditions. Further, those who made the choice to support Trump have adduced correctly and rightfully that the constitutional mandate that infuses the American government is to make laws and policies that promote the common welfare and defense of American citizens, not foreigners.

The American government was not established to promote globalism, open borders, big corporate tyranny and license, and immigration just for the sake of immigration. The purpose of American government has always been to promote liberty and justice for each and every one of its citizens through the common welfare and defense.

No person would know this by reading the election reporting, especially that perpetrated by the national media outlets. If one reads their journalism, one sees that Trump supporters are ignorant, emotional, and prone to grave biases and prejudices, all of which produced an irrational choice to vote for Trump, a man whose flaws, the media crowed, were too profound and essential to permit him to win the presidency. On top of that, Trump offended the media’s sense of good taste. 

No. While Trump supporters may have entertained distaste for some of Trump’s personal qualities, they greatly preferred his ideas and proposals to Hillary’s. They did not want terrorists to have an easy time entering their country, and Hillary stood for that. They did not want illegal aliens staying in America, and Hillary stood for that. They did want our existing laws enforced. They did want illegals to be held accountable to the law, just like everyone else is. They did not want free trade agreements that robbed them of their jobs and devalued their labor. They did want American companies to build and operate factories in America. They did want to be able to pay their bills and have some left over for fun with their families. They did want their kids to be proud of them. And we all have wanted to see more “Made in America” print on products. 

Furthermore, Hillary’s experience was contrived, and she herself was deeply flawed. Hillary’s handling of Benghazi was both a substantial and a public relations disaster. Americans, including our ambassador, paid for her blunder with their lives. Like Trump, she offended many Americans’ moral sensibilities. Beyond Trump, however, Hillary engaged in criminal email activity but got away with it because of who she was. The media will argue she has never been convicted of anything; but in the court of public opinion, many, if not most, believe she has flouted the law repeatedly over the years. As a member of the elite, she was inoculated from prosecution. The perceived stain of criminality, however, sullies her person.

Good sense, good ideas about policies, and different ideas about what it means to be American and what the purpose of American government is, propelled people to support and vote for Donald Trump. He was the one person, the one candidate, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, who heard them and who identified what the problem was: an elite, stuck-in-the-mud establishment used to running the show on its own and shaming those who dissented with labels of political incorrectness.

As of today, that time is over. The fight will continue, but that time is over for now. It is the elites who better get used to the natural order of things, and that means the adoption of a true civic spirit that includes their fellow citizens.

Last Ditch Manipulation by the Shills!

Standard

The panicked, last ditch efforts to thwart democracy and manipulate American citizens to vote for Hillary Clinton have broken out of the gate.

Examine a few of these latest laughers (though they have serious implications)!

1. President Obama tells men to cast aside their reluctance to vote for a woman, just as he acknowledges that Michelle, his wife, is superior to him; then how come he ran for president instead of Michelle?

The significance: men are hateful dirtbags unless they vote for the female presidential candidate this year. Sounds an awful lot like, uh, prejudice.

2. Clinton operatives are huffing and puffing to push the Trump University civil case into the front and center of viewers, but viewers’ vision is obscured by 650,000 wayward emails.

The significance: Hillary is so blemished and rotten, she has to go hunting again for anything to try to make Trump look worse. This one’s been tried already. And Hillary isn’t going to win with her policy positions, like supporting Obamacare, which will punish citizens with draconian rate hikes and benefit cuts next year and on.

3. Microsoft and USA Today have rolled out a story with a seductive headline about former President Bush and his former governor brother, Jeb, possibly voting for Clinton. In the end the source, Jeb’s son, George P., says he does not know how his father and uncle voted. George P. himself says he supports Trump.

The significance: We already knew the Bushes were picking up their marbles and running to Hillary when Trump took Jeb out to the woodshed during the primaries. At least, that’s what they said they were going to do. If they retained any loyalty to the Republican Party, they voted Trump. If not, they voted for the Clinton Crime Family.

4. Another article on the MSN website touts a looming credit cut to Great Britain once it severs ties with the European Union. Moody’s made the threat. It had already downgraded the sovereign nation’s credit to “negative” when British subjects voted to depart the loose confederation. Others grimly warned of a testing of Britain’s “constitutional and legal frameworks” now and beyond; others, what a byzantine mess Britain’s departure will make.

The significance: voters who assert their constitutional prerogatives and national sovereignty will be punished for getting in the way of the elite establishment and its globalism. It’s their way or they will make your lives miserable. So much for the invisible, guiding hand of the free market! It’s more like the Invisible Fist!

You know what to do, right? Vote and be counted, then join the NRA!

5. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman begged Trump voters to listen to him, the voice of political reason crying out in the wilderness of the… the… the… whatever. Here was his key thought to change your minds: “Yes, Hillary Clinton is a flawed leader… . But she is not indecent… .”

The significance: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Clinton’s desperate dog-and-pony shills have run out of smoke and mirrors to alter the appearance of her reckless, criminal activity and her elitist, globalist policies that will rifle through your pocketbooks to meet higher costs and export your jobs to other countries.

To vote for Trump is to vote for American individualism and excellence, it’s to vote for the hard-fought liberty and laws our forefathers won, it’s to vote for a culture of faith and freedom, it’s to vote for creating jobs and prosperity, it’s to vote for getting things done on time and under budget, it’s to vote to take care of our own citizens and veterans instead of another country’s citizens, especially those who hate our faith and freedom.

Won’t it be great to have that kind of country? Make America great again!

It’s Hillary’s Fault

Standard

Sometimes we do not want the light spotted on us. We prefer the spotlight draw attention elsewhere, particularly to someone else who is doing wrong so that our sin is not exposed or given attention.

Such is the case in this 2016 presidential race. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, who boasted she had built herself a resumé of accomplishment, has discovered during the rough and tumble of an actual campaign that merely having a job or a title does not make a person qualified for his or her next job. A jobholder has do do something significant, something significantly good, or better, a series of significantly good things.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton, while touting her experience, has become aware that the objective evaluation of her performance differs vastly from her perception of that performance in her politically motivated appointment.

Worse, her argument that she performed admirably has been blocked out by the deafening thunder of her national security transgressions. She has been left to shout and scream that the FBI is interfering in her election, that the Russians are interfering in her election, and that nobody is spoiling Donald Trump’s election in this post-Access Hollywood moment. Where are her media collaborators?

She and they are, of course, trying to turn the spotlight elsewhere. The truth is that she is responsible for turning the spotlight on in the first place. Handle your national security emails properly and lawfully, and you don’t have a problem. Take them off your job site for your “convenience”, and you expose them to the computerized hacking of foreign powers, allow them storage on additional devices at additional places that are off your job site and away from care and security, and make a mess of doing your job.

Then comes the criminal investigation, as it should, a faux exoneration, and then more criminal investigation when it becomes clear, despite your best efforts to “wipe” the evidence and eliminate the devices carrying it, your transgressions, and those of your staff, were more egregious than first contemplated.

It’s true we do not know yet what the 650,000 emails ensconced in the virtual world of Anthony Wiener’s computer will tell us (though the sheer volume does not bode well). That does not permit Mrs. Clinton to cry “foul”. She created this mess. She created the mishandling and violations of law willfully and intentionally.

Mrs. Clinton gave us her intention when she declared that she wanted to make life more “convenient” for herself, merging her government business communications – the people’s business, mind you – and her personal communications into one account so that she, and not the government for whom she worked, could exercise sole control for whatever ends, good or bad, she saw fit.

Hillary Clinton placed herself above the people whose interests she was hired to protect in the role of an agency head.

She failed to do her job. She failed the people.

So don’t blame FBI Director James Comey that he had to reopen the investigation he thought was closed because his agents found what appears to be more of your emails. Your reckless placement of national security affairs and classified material on your personal, private server stashed in the basement of your Chappaqua, New York, home was your fault. Because you and your staff connected to your private, personal server, instead of doing all your business on secure government servers like you were supposed to, national security and classified emails are all over in places they should never have been.

Please don’t blame the Russians either, even if they did meddle. If the media, which has been aiding and abetting your campaign and trying to sink your opponents’, had done their job and reported and investigated objectively and completely, we would not have needed the Russians and Wikileaks. Had law enforcement been doing its job, we would not have needed the Russians or Wikileaks.

The shame – your shame, Mrs. Clinton, and ours – is that the Russians had to teach us that you behaved very, very badly, that you were crooked, and that you have been using every cheating and dirty trick in your power to win your party’s nomination and to win a presidential election for which you don’t even deserve to be running.

So if your quest for convenience has come back to haunt you, if your own haughty defiance of law and procedure has returned with a vengeance to devil your campaign at a most inopportune time, look in the mirror and point a bony finger at the withered image you see.

It’s your fault, Hillary Clinton! Blame no one else. It’s your fault!