Tag Archives: punditry gone wild

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

The Hillary-Obama Axis of Contempt for Americans

Standard

angry-hillary-02-crop

The Obama Pentagon has decided to rescind its demand that American soldiers return the re-enlistment bonuses they earned and had been promised.

Still, thousands of soldiers were stripped of millions of dollars, and it remains uncertain whether those who complied with the Scroogean order will get their money back.

The fiasco highlights the contempt in which Obama, his hoped-for successor Hillary, and some Democrats have held our valiant military men and women. In their eyes, it wasn’t enough that our young men and women had put their lives on the line for our country.

The Obama administration wants to squeeze our soldiers for a few extra bucks. They don’t mind spending billions of our tax dollars to fund illegal aliens and Muslim refugees, but they want to penny pinch our own citizens, demanding the return of bonuses and hoarding money from VA hospitals that suffer from gross inefficiencies.

Hillary will continue those erratic, imbalanced, anti-American policies. She will take money from veterans and soldiers and give it to illegal aliens and Muslims.

Donald Trump will stop that misfeasance. He will not fund people who are here illegally. He will not pay to relocate potentially violent Muslims to a democracy and Western culture that they hate.

What Trump will do is spend money to make VA hospitals take care of the men and women they were supposed to take care of in a timely, effective manner – veterans. He will pay and allow soldiers to keep the bonuses they were promised. Trump will NOT cheat them.

Does that not make sense? Aren’t our president and our government Constitutionally mandated to look out for the common welfare and defense of our citizens?

The answer is, “Yes!”

Is our government supposed to take care of the citizens of other countries? Is that a Constitutional mandate?

The plain and simple answer: “No, it is not!”

Was not the whole point of the American Revolution to liberate ourselves from a dictatorial monarchy that not only failed to look out for all its subjects but made those subjects feel like they were NOT subjects.

Now Hillary and Obama make American citizens feel like they should be second class to foreigners, and the disturbing duo claim they are representing “American values” to con Americans into feeling guilty about demanding their government look out for them first.

They are not telling Americans the truth. How do we know? We know because America has NO tradition of encouraging ILLEGAL immigration. None. Yet they cunningly omit the word ILLEGAL when they speak of immigration. The only tradition America has encouraged is LEGAL immigration. Bring your poor and your tired LEGALLY.

When you don’t have a conscience, and when you see illegal immigrants as votes who can overwhelm the votes of real American citizens, it is easy to lie. That’s what Hillary and Obama do.

You are being conned, fellow citizen!

Vote for the candidate who stands for Americans and America, not the candidate who despises the military and puts foreigners first.

Megyn Kelly Preys on Trump, Fights Newt

Standard

megyn-and-newt

Newt Gingrich called out Megyn Kelly for inflammatory and untruthful reporting during a Fox News interview on her show Tuesday, Oct. 25.

A video of the heated exchange can be found at the link below:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/26/hot-debate-megyn-kelly-vs-newt-gingrich-trump-and-alleged-media-bias

Kelly, unable to get past Trump’s put-downs of her during the primaries, zeroed in – again – on the statements the business mogul made during a secret taping prior to an Access Hollywood episode 11 years ago.

She incorrectly stated – as she and others have in the past – that Trump said on the recording that he liked to grope women in their private areas “and kiss them against their will.”

That is false. Megyn Kelly lied. She spoke untruthfully. Trump absolutely never says that on the recording. Yet Kelly relayed as fact something that was and has always been fiction to continue to claw at Trump and to avoid losing a war of words to Newt Gingrich, which she did lose.

What does the recording say? What does The New York Times transcript of the recording say?

And when you’re a star, they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Does everyone see the word “let”? Does everyone know what the word “let” means?

In other words, the women to whom Trump refers allowed, permitted, gave consent to him to do that – much in the same way groupies consent to have sex with the groups they follow – if, in fact, he actually ever tried to grope and kiss anyone and was not simply sticking his male chest out and thumping on it.

What’s more, what actually happens in the recording? What actually happens when the Access Hollywood bus arrives and Trump and Billy Bush are greeted by the beautiful Arianne Zucker? After just boasting about his actions with women, does Trump try it with beautiful Arianne in front of his friend to whom he boasted?

No. He doesn’t.

In fact, Trump only gives a verbal greeting to Zucker at first. He hugs her only after Bush suggests Arianne give Trump a hug. Then, with his own beautiful wife on his mind, Trump gives the hug saying, it’s okay with Melania! He was telling Arianne the only reason he is hugging her is because it’s okay with Melania!

The mendacity of mendacious Megyn Kelly would be astounding in any other context if it were not for the fact that she is just one of many of the mendacious, such as lying, cowardly, won’t-stand-up-for-gays Anderson Cooper.

She wanted to stand out as the filthiest of the filth, so Kelly went further by suggesting that Donald Trump might be “a sexual predator”. Below lie her exact, dissembling words:

What I said was, if Trump is a sexual predator, then it’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will.”

Do a DuckDuckGo search for The New York Times Access Hollywood transcript and read the whole thing. Nowhere does Trump speak about doing anything to women against their will.

You are a liar, Megyn Kelly, a vicious prevaricator, deceiver, and dissembler who deliberately lied so people would think Trump said it and you would appear to be a relevant, incisive journalist. Like your words, your are utterly lacking in substance.

Further, Megyn Kelly supposedly has legal training. Yet she employed the term “sexual predator”, one of the gravest of designations a court, and only a court, can impose on a convicted defendant. It is a worse designation than “sexual offender”, which itself is a serious designation.

The designation “sexual predator” is usually, if not entirely, applied to those cunning men and women who stalk and violently molest or rape much younger victims, often torturing or killing them. Kelly used the term deliberately to shock voters and viewers, and her unfounded use of it, even in a conditional statement, represents a most grave, ethical breach for a journalist.

Fortunately, she subverted her own “logic” when, just prior to repeating the sexual predator term, she admitted she did not know if Trump was, in fact, a sexual predator.

We can go further. We don’t know that Trump did anything with anyone with their consent, much less against their consent.

Then why was she using the term???

I don’t know that Megyn Kelly is a pervert, but if she is, or if she is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story. Since she keeps using the word, sexual predator, maybe she has sexual predation on her mind. So if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story that must be covered, just like we’re covering it right now by talking about it over and over again.

Please, make sure you tweet and post on Facebook and on any other social media that IF Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator – I don’t know that she is, and I’m not saying that she is, but maybe she is getting defensive if she denies it or takes issue with any talking about it – but if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story, and we will cover it from now until Kingdom Come!

And even if we don’t know that it’s true, we are going to keep doing stories about if it is true. We’re going to keep driving it through your ear holes like a spike into Dracula’s heart!

Gingrich said it best in his righteous reply: “You are fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

Well, if Megyn Kelly is fascinated with sex… .

Uh, never mind!

Do You Want Hillary to Sell Out America?

Standard

I have been telling you about the need to peel away the layers of BS that cocoon the candidates and which isolate you from the truth, crippling your ability to vote wisely.

This need to peel away the layers applies to both the candidates and the people who speak for them, as it does to the media which filters the information that reaches you.

Some of you may be aware already of the comments of legendary journalist Bob Woodward, who broke the Watergate story for The Washington Post in the 1970s. That story led to the downfall of then President Richard M. Nixon. Others of you will not be aware, because most of the media seem to have ignored or to given the most cursory play to what Woodward said in an interview Sunday with Chris Wallace of Fox News.

Please keep in mind that I think most people and journalists would consider Woodward a reporter who looks through a liberal lens.

So on Sunday, with news out from Wikileaks that the King of Morocco gave $12,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for a visit from Bill and Chelsea Clinton, and perhaps other considerations, Wallace asked Woodward for his take on the accusations that the Clintons used their foundation as a pay-to-play scheme.

It’s corrupt. It’s a scandal”, Woodward said in a quote provided by mostly secondary news sources but which was included in a story that appeared in the left-leaning Huffington Post. “The mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined. And it’s corrupt. You can’t just say it’s unsavory.”

That’s a damning judgment based on the facts, coming from a veteran, legendary journalist like Woodward.

We can extrapolate two things from Woodward’s judgment.

First, we see how the standards of journalism have changed. Forty years ago, the pattern of facts demonstrated by the Clintons, Hillary’s campaign, Hillary’s operation of the State Department, and their “charitable foundation”, would have undergone massive, relentless scrutiny by the press. Newspapers and TV networks would have pursued the story until they had uncovered everything. Character, or ethos, the ethical attitude given off by the person being examined in the public light, possessed a significance to news people and voters that it does not today. Hence, we see little meaty reporting on the Clintons.

Nonetheless, we arrive at our second and most important point, and it comes to you in a question: Do you really want to elect Hillary to sell out America?

Hillary is not going to change. She is not going to uncorrupt herself. She is not going to stop using elected office to enrich herself by selling what she can of her country. She cannot. Her habits have grown long, thick roots into her soul. She does not want to change. She could not change even if she wanted.

You can change, however. You can look the facts straight in the eye. You can acknowledge you have been misled, that a person you thought was good and well-meaning in fact was not. It’s a tough admission to make to yourself. I get it. The facts aren’t going to change for us, though.

Hillary says all the right things, but she does something different.

You can exercise your reasonableness and your foresight and say, “I cannot vote for someone of such weak and poor ethical character. I cannot vote for someone who bases her decisions on what will enrich her. I cannot allow Mrs. Clinton to expose our national security and our American lives to unnecessary danger. I cannot allow Mrs. Clinton to sell out my country.”

Join Americans of all political stripes, some who have not even voted in thirty or forty years, and take a stand.

I won’t let Hillary sell out my country!”

If You Want a Job, Vote for Trump

Standard

Most Americans want to be and feel valuable. They derive their value by their adherence to their personal beliefs, the usefulness and excellence of the products they make or the services they provide, and by the amount of money which they make.

Which candidate offers the best hope and help to give Americans the opportunity to merit the self worth they want?

Donald Trump does. Why?

The reasons Donald Trump gives Americans the best hope and help to achieve their self worth are his business savvy and his successful experience financing and building his businesses.

How many years have Americans been saying it was time to get someone, not merely outside of the Washington establishment, but outside the profession of law to enter the political sphere and run it successfully because of his executive business experience?

Now we have that person, Donald Trump. His confidence, his strong leadership, his savvy, and his skill at executive administration have allowed him to negotiate the most profitable deals and to complete projects on or ahead of time at or under budget.

Can you imagine the benefits to us by having a person like that seize the reins of government? Would he not gain control over this beast of bureaucratic federal government and make it more efficient, profitable, and responsive to Americans?

Donald Trump is the sterling candidate to restore America’s dwindling economic fortunes.

Why isn’t Hillary Clinton that person?

Hillary has no business experience. She’s an ivory tower lawyer. She has no experience creating jobs. She has no experience completing projects on time and on budget.

Hillary has created an institution, the Clinton Foundation, which has been described as a vast money laundering machine that enables special foreign and financial interests to obtain government favors by enriching the Clintons. That’s good for her but does not help Americans.

Hillary wants more illegal aliens and Muslim refugees to come to the United States, and to keep here those who are already illegal. Those policies not only create a strain on public budgets, but they add huge numbers to the potential employment pool, which means job creation has a harder task keeping up with the growing numbers of available workers.

Add to that Hillary’s support, not merely for open borders, but for globalization, which means manufacturing plants will continue to close in the United States, making more Americans income-less, and reopen in foreign countries.

All those Hillary policies mean more unemployment and loss of money to spend!

Finally, Hillary wants to force on Americans a medical insurance program, Obamacare, whose costs will skyrocket by 25% in 2017 and will continue to rise in subsequent years. Yesterday, the White House acknowledged the impending cost increases.

Hillary Clinton’s plan will take away jobs from Americans, create a greater likelihood Americans will not obtain employment, create a few, low-paying, part-time jobs, make Americans pay more for medical insurance, likely raise taxes even on middle and low income Americans, and increase our national and public debt, all while enriching herself and a few wealthy friends.

Donald Trump’s plan calls for reducing taxes, reducing expenditures, creating more wealth for the average person, creating more jobs, creating more income, returning manufacturing to the United States, expelling illegal aliens, and keeping out bloody terrorists and their sympathizers, which creates public safety and a more stable business environment.

If having a job and making money to support yourself and your family are NOT important to you, vote for Hillary.

If you want a job, if you want an opportunity to make more money and to take care of yourself and your family, vote for Donald Trump.

It’s that simple. It’s that clear.

Trump: the Lesser of Two Evils; the Greater of Two Goods!

Standard

Greek rationalists and rhetoricians identified a principle of reasoning: if the lesser of something was true, the greater of the same thing or kind was true. Similarly, if the lesser of something was worthy of acceptance, the greater of something was, too.

Therefore, if battery on another human person was wrong, then torturing them or murdering them would be wrong. If helping others by uttering a kind words was a good or acceptable practice, then helping others with knowledge, wisdom, finances, or material resources was a good or acceptable practice.

These ideas or principles of thinking about things enabled the Greeks to develop logical, emotional, and ethical arguments to persuade people to action.

Jesus of Nazareth was an expositor of such thinking. He identified that the seeds of adultery lay in the heart that began to form a desire and a plan to obtain one’s sexual gratification from another human being regardless of circumstances or the consequences. Fulfilling goodness out of sincerity, even if it meant the basic goodness of regret and sorrow, superseded the righteousness of the appearance of having done everything right ceremonially.

We in America are about to vote for who will be our next president. Will it be Donald Trump? Will it be Hillary Clinton? We can apply the Greek principles in two ways to these candidates: the lesser of two evils and the greater of two goods.

We have briefly examined the lesser of two evil principle. We know that Trump lies or exaggerates sometimes, perhaps even many times. We know Hillary does the same. The difference between the two lies in the magnitude of the things they lie about. Trump by and large lies about little things, most of which he does not need to lie about. Hillary lies to cover up her criminal behavior and her flaws and the grave practical and moral mistakes her flaws spawn.

Trump spoke graphically and profanely about touching women inappropriately. Hillary through her husband enabled the sexual abuse of several women over many years, and she spearheaded the effort to shut them up and to crush their hopes of obtaining relief through the law.

The never-before-heard allegations against Trump that have sprouted out of the woodwork in these last days of the campaign lack the force of fact and truth. They have arisen to give advantage to a hard-pressed political opportunist, Hillary, at a moment that has greatly benefited her campaign by casting a huge shadow of suspicion over Mr. Trump and by crippling his election effort, all with the knowledge the allegations cannot be proven, which is why no one has ever filed even a civil action against Trump in regard to these allegations.

Many witnesses have stepped forward to refute the earliest allegations but then, as if on cue, the orchestrated emergence of other women occurs to breathe apparent new life into the beast so that it may continue spouting its calumnies.

If the lesser is true, the greater is true. Hillary’s sins extend beyond the Donald’s in gravity and consequence for our country.

Then there is the question of the greater good.

If the enforcement of immigration law is good and acceptable, as proven by its practice in all nations; then practicing what is necessary to enforce those laws, i.e. increase border patrols, build a wall, expedite the obtaining of citizenship, is also good and acceptable.

If lowering taxes for some citizens allows them to keep and spend more of their hard-earned money in the way they think best, then lowering them for as many citizens as possible allows more citizens to spend their hard-earned money in ways they think best, including in ways that will stimulate economic growth and job creation.

Conversely, if spending excessive amounts of money creates debt and a servitude to that debt, as well as other ill effects, then spending even oodles and oodles more money when a country is already $20,000,000,000,000 (trillion) in debt creates an even more Titanic economy, one on the verge of being gashed by an iceberg of fiscal irresponsibility. Maintaining the not-so-Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), picking up student debt, creating more debt through the imposition of excessive and harsh regulations and tax burdens to fund new or expanded welfare programs, and providing support for illegal aliens are all part of that iceberg.

If accepting more Muslim refugees improperly vetted has produced a greater amount of Muslim terrorism in those countries taking them, then increasing our own intake of unsolicited refugees increases the likelihood of Muslim terrorism. If restricting the immigration of Muslims produces greater safety for Americans, then it should be instituted, at least until effective vetting can be established.

Hillary wants to embed a policy with greater danger to Americans; Trump wants to effect a policy that will offer greater safety.

During the third debate, Trump said Hillary had more experience than he did, but the wrong kind: She had “bad experience”. The Russian rest failed. The Iran treaty concretized that country’s path to the development of nuclear weapons. Her neglect of Benghazi cost American lives. The trade pact she supported – and hollowly claims she now does not – gives American jobs to foreign powers and creates an extra-constitutional legal power that would pre-empt American law.

Trump has little foreign policy experience, but drawing on his business experience, he can vastly improve our negotiating skill and the outcomes that go with it; and he can replace the treaties that hurt Americans with ones that help and that make us financially and militarily stronger.

Trump is the lesser of two evils. Trump is the greater of two goods.