Saturday, December 31, 2016
By Jim Emerson, staff writer
On Thursday, Obama announced retaliatory measures against Russia for no other reason than Donald Trump having won the Presidential Election. Russia has been accused, by liberals, of hacking the election to favor the Republican candidate. Democrats and the rest of the far left are behaving like sore losers, refusing to accept the fact that the American people have rejected them. Blaming Russia for their loss is denial. Of course, all along the left has been hoping to distract voters from the contents of the leaked emails by manufacturing a Russian boogeyman. The scheme didn’t fool American voters yet Democrats continue to blame the rejection of their agenda on anyone but themselves.
Calling Trump Voters Racists, blaming the lost on Russian Hacking, questioning vote counting and trying to pressure members of the electoral college are classic schemes manufactured by Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals. Number 8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.” Nothing more than a series of ploys to delegitimize Trump’s victory in November. But it didn’t work in the election and it’s not going to work now.
During the sanctions announcement, Obama’s administration released a Joint Analysis Report (GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity) claiming to outline Russia’s hacking political data base or computer systems during the election.
The report, however, is nothing more than an ambiguous and disingenuous hacking activity report that is no different from any other hacking report involving foreign entities. There is no substantive proof that the hacker[s] were either Russian or some kid in his parent’s basement in Hoboken, New Jersey.
John Podesta’s G-mail account was hacked by a simple phishing attack during which the target readily gave up his password. Yet nowhere in the report was it indicated that the former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign had been hacked. Why did he have a Gmail account? Certainly it was not very secure for someone running a political campaign.
The DNC server emails were leaked from an insider according to former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray who passed the files to WikiLeaks. Mr. Murray insists that the claims are pure BS; that “They are absolutely making it up.” To date there is no there’s still no evidence the DNC was hacked.
The Podesta and DNC leaks are two entirely different issues which the Obama administration is attempting to conflate simply for political and ideological purposes. The various agencies are just going along with the charade. Folks, it’s not worth starting a war to satisfy a narcissist. My guess is Mr. Putin is laughing like hell at the self-infatuated, lame duck in the White House.
Friday, December 30, 2016
By Gene Tierney
Is outgoing US President Barack Obama buying a palatial mansion in Dubai; a lavish, overseas residence in order to impress those who will select the new UN Secretary General when Ban Ki-moon steps down at the end of this year? A Bill Still report gives some credence to this internet buzz by claiming it originates in “…a Russian, Foreign Intelligence, non-classified report."
Adding further drama to the Obama family mystery, the Militarycorruption.com website exclusively says, "We don't buy the official line" from Navy Third Fleet Commander, Vice-Admiral Nora Tyson who claims Navy Rear Admiral Rick Williams, the esteemed newly appointed commander of Carrier Strike Group 15, was ripped from command a mere six months after being appointed as a result of "allegations of misuse of government computer equipment." Militarycorruption editors bluntly ask the question, "Why would Williams, who's had an impeccable record over more than three decades, do such a self-destructive and foolish thing?"
The editors refer to a web rumor that Williams got into trouble "when he e-mailed or posted remarks about Obama and a multi-million dollar seaside luxury resort in Dubai." The editors also suggest a property deposit was made by an Obama-Clinton insider.
The Militarycorruption analysis parallels the Bill Still report concerning a Russian based intel investigation. The editors clearly here are not comfortable with derogatory remarks about the outstanding rear admiral because "the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) (that) blocks such sites in the first place." Snopes, on the other hand, declares as FALSE any connection between e-mails and being relieved of command, saying "that action had nothing to do with any presidential real estate scouting in Dubai." Of course, fact-check information flowing through Snopes may have to be taken for what it has been described—the work of the far left.
At any rate, see for yourself what a gorgeous piece of property our Secret Service soon may be protecting. The yellow colored, sun splashed mansion on the Dubai waterfront is located in a gorgeous, lush greenery setting. Luxury yachts awaiting wealthy owners provide a clear line of site into several rooms of the mansion. Views of the waterways appear over the kitchen sink. However, one thread commenter warned that this may be a sniper's dream. Roger in KC said, "Will someone please water the poor plant by the door?" A neat chess niche can be seen as the viewer's eyes pass by enormous wealth, state of the art luxury, a spare no expense green world of water, plantings, and a security detail's many challenges.
It must raise the question: how could Barack afford this palatial estate on the $400,000/yr salary of a president? Remember, he claimed to be about broke when he entered the White House.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Just when you think the left has advanced every idiotic claim, made every nonsensical statement and proposed every frightening agenda item to further damage the United States, along comes the incomparable Maxine Waters to again prove that DC is home to more delusional, self-infatuated assholes than any other city on earth. Editor
The following article was posted in the Independent Journal Review.
By Mike Miller
As Democrats continue to wrestle not only with Hillary Clinton's loss, but also the loss of more than 1,000 seats from state legislatures, governors' offices, and the U.S. Congress over the last eight years, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has identified the problem:
Democrats are 'way too nice.'
Waters made the observation during an interview with MSNBC Monday, saying she has no intention of trying to find common ground with President Trump.
“That has been a problem in my party, that when we’re in power we’re nice. We bend over backwards to work with people. Trump has stepped over everybody. He has no respect for his own colleagues, let alone those on the opposite side of the aisle.”
Waters, re-elected to her 14th term in California's 43rd District in November — a large part of South Central Los Angeles — says she won't even meet with Trump, let alone work with him.
“I have no intention of pretending everything is alright. This business of calling names, and lying, and retreating on your promises, etcetera, why should I trust him to be any different with me?”
Waters made similar comments to MSNBC three days after the election.
"I don’t believe anything Donald Trump says. He has lied and distorted information all throughout this campaign. I want to know when he is going to show us his taxes?
I want to know when he is going to reimburse all those students that got ripped off [by] Trump University.”
Incidentally, the House Ethics Committee brought three charges against Waters — the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee — in 2010, accusing her of helping a California bank secure federal bailout funds... in which her husband owned stock.
This article was posted on December 21st in the Washington Examiner
By Gabby Morrongiello
Democrats still mourning the outcome of last month's election have added a new step to their grieving process: leveling charges of racism against those who support the constitutional method of electing the president.
In keeping with the process stipulated in the 12th Amendment, 538 electors representing all 50 states gathered on Monday to cast their ballots for the 45th president. The result – that Donald Trump will officially enter the Oval Office on Jan. 20 – was affirmed by the Electoral College, an institution the Left is now casting as racist and anti-Democratic.
Mere hours after Trump topped the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted: "Hello rest of the world! My fellow Americans are asleep right now so I thought we could talk and maybe explain what happened yesterday."
Then came his explanation.
"This racist idea, the Electoral College, 225 years later ended up benefitting the candidate who spewed racism hate," he opined.
The New York Times, in an editorial on Tuesday, described the centuries-old institution as "a living symbol of America's original sin," arguing that it was created at a time when "slavery was the law of the land" and a national popular vote would have "disadvantaged" Southern slave states, where blacks could not vote but were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of a population count.
"The whole point of the Electoral College was an effort by the founders to balance large states versus small states because of the fact that we are a federal republic," Hans von Spakovsky, a conservative scholar of election law at the Heritage Foundation, told the Washington Examiner. "They were afraid that if the president were elected simply by the national popular vote, then candidates would simply go to the big urban areas and ignore the more rural parts of the country."
According to Spakovksy, there is "absolutely no discussion" about designing the Electoral College to protect slave states in James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"Latching onto this claim, that 'Oh it must be racism,' is just ridiculous," he said. "All you have to do is look at a map that breaks down the entire country by counties and you can see that Donald Trump's support was countrywide whereas Hillary Clinton's support was in very narrow geographical areas of the country."
"So the idea that the entire rest of the country and many of the electors who cast their ballots yesterday were racist in voting for Trump is just an insult to Americans," Spakovsky added.
The assault on the Electoral College by Moore and his progressive cohort isn't new. Many Democrats, including both President Obama and Clinton, have supported eliminating the unique American institution and electing the president and vice president through a popular vote.
"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton told reporters shortly after the 2000 election, when Al Gore won more of the popular vote than elected President George W. Bush.
"I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president," she added.
Last week, Obama dubbed the Electoral College a "carryover from an earlier version of how our federal government was going to work that put a lot of premium on states."
It's not clear if Obama was referencing the charges that the Electoral had a "racist" origin. "States rights," which was used as a justification for slavery, is sometimes still associated by the Left with racism.
But other liberals in recent days have clearly pressed the claim that the Electoral College is not only anachronistic, it's a vestige of slavery.
"The Electoral College is an instrument of white supremacy – and sexism," read a headline on the left-leaning website Slate three days after the election.
"Born of slavery, the Electoral College could stand against racism in 2016," read another by Salon.com.
Earlier this month, after a forum on the Electoral College on Capitol Hill, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., described the institution as "anti-democratic" and "rooted in slavery."
"The Republican Party has put itself on the wrong side of history here. Fifty years from now, this is the party that stood for denying people the right to vote," former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told liberal comedian Bill Maher during a discussion about the Electoral College in mid-November.
Holder may think supporters of the Electoral College are on the "wrong side of history," but to claim the institution is an instrument of racism is to misconstrue history as it is written, Spakovksy said.
Those hoping to abolish the Electoral College because they view it as racist, outdated, anti-democratic or for other reasons face the profound uphill battle of amending the Constitution, which would require a three-fourths majority vote among state legislatures.
Outgoing Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, Calif., initiated that process one week after Trump's victory when she introduced a bill to end the Electoral College because it is "an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society."
Boxer's bill is the 701st attempt in the past 200 years to scrap the Electoral College in favor of a different system and is just as unlikely to succeed.
Democrats "are only arguing to benefit themselves now, not to defend principle," John Yoo, a UC Berkeley Law professor and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in the Hill last month.
"Nothing better shows how liberal attacks on the Electoral College amount to nothing more than sour grapes and constitutional cherry-picking," he added.