Sunday, March 26, 2017

It's the leak Stupid

The question comes up again and again, what is more important, the leak (or hack) or the damaging information. Well that depends on the leak and who it's likely to damage. The press will always ignore the leak if it's damaging to Republicans and ignore the information if it's harmful to the Democrats. Such was the hack of the DNC supposedly by the Russians. The only thing that mattered was the leak advantaged the Republicans, proof enough that the Republicans were colluding with the Russians, never mind the Democrats has been much more friendly in it's business deals with Russia than the Republicans. First Russia has been the darling of the left, since WW ll and Stalin (this certainly includes Hillary Clinton when Secretary of State under President Obama).Never a word that former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, John Pedesta (of the Pedesta Group) successfully lobbied on behalf of the Russians when they were petitioning the US and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State for oil drilling and Uranium mining rights...."The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, purchased in January 2005 a Canadian company — UrAsia — with uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America, reports the New York Times. This purchase made the Russian agency one of the largest uranium producers in the world....Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One. These Are The Two Companies That Might Land Clinton’s Foundation In Big Legal Trouble

The FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign staff since July 2016 and they have found absolutely no evidence that they had colluded with the Russians (none, nada); this is the only information that is germane to this argument. Yet if this point is brought up in a discussion, those leaning left has turned theses accusations backwards with the illegitimate question, "Well what proof do you have that Trump and/or his campaign staff didn't collude with the Russians?"  Of course the idea that the one needs to prove a negative, is a pointless and intellectually dishonest demand. One of the first leaks the Democrats glommed onto showed that Gen Mike Flynn (then Trumps appointed national security advisor prior to being sworn in as President ) had been less than honest, when he told the future Vice President, Mike Pence, about phone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador. General Flynn told Mike Pence that the subject of President Obama's sanctions of Russia (the result of the DNC hack), never came up. In what appears to be an illegally released of "unmasked" surveillance information, in the conversation between Gen Flynn and the Russian Ambassador, was leaked to the media, showing the subject was briefly discussed; the FBI said Gen Flynn broke no laws during the phone conversation, meaning the Ambassador most likely brought up the subject and Gen Flynn simply told the Ambassador he would have to discuss the subject with Trump. The leak led to Gem Flynn being fired becasue he was not truthful with Mike Pence, but the leak was downplayed by the media.

In this case, the leak itself was one of the most egregious violations in the history of US Intelligence. The government (NSA/FBI) is forbidden to listen in on phone conversations of Americans without specifically authorized in a VISA warrant; this is to protect American citizens from the intelligence agencies in the US from violation their Constitutional rights of privacy. However, there are sometimes when incidentally American citizen conversations are heard as the intelligence agencies routinely listen to foreign entities, such as the Russian Ambassador. In those cases the American's identity is kept secret (masked) by the intelligence agent(s) that are listening to the conversation, so the American's identity is not released, even within the intelligence agency itself. The guaranteeing of masking incidental surveillance of American citizens is the corner stone of the VISA ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) court  allowing for the "requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies" To date, this may be the first time such an unmasking violation has been leaked to the media and the public at large; in essence since it involved the future President of the United states, it is not only flagrant violation of the VISA warrant and the Constitutional rights of the citizenry by the government, but it becomes a serious case of espionage by a person (or persons) inside the government.

So yes, it is the leak that takes president, especially since the unmasked information is at best embarrassing, without showing any illegal activity by any of the parties involved, except the leaking itself. These intelligence agencies have a serious problem on their hands, and unless it is addressed,  their ability to keep Americans safe will be seriously compromised.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Comparing Deportations to the Holocaust

ICE rounds up illegal aliens and deports them, something done by every country in the world to protect their sovereignty, except many other countries imprison their illegal aliens. The N@zi's rounded up their own citizenry and annihilated them; it's the difference between the routine and the ungodly evil. It's sad that one would trivialize the unspeakable horror her family faced from the Holocaust simply because her political party lost an election and she disagrees with the rule of law being enforced. The end result of throwing up Hitlerian similarities of the opposing party, as the Democrats do on a constant basis, is based entirely on the trying to delegitimizing those they oppose by inferring that their opponents are horrible, mean, and totally uncaring, while they have a monopoly on caring and riotousness. The Democrat Party, rather than arguing their policies and worldview, demonize and try to delegitimize their opponents, in an effort to say, "Look at me, I'm a wonderful caring person and they are contemptible", as if attempting to pushing down their opponent raises them up. Well the people have wised up, and thrown them out of office, not only in Washington but across the country. The Democrats are responding by doubling down, now advocating violence against their opponents and randomly destroying property.

There was a time when no matter how much you disagreed with your opponent, the use of violence was mutually abhorred and demonized, but today it is being encouraged (or tacitly approved) as Democrats move to instill fear, disrupt and silence their opponents. It's just another example of how low the Democrats have fallen

Monday, February 20, 2017

Trump wants to outlaw abortions and other lies

The Democrat controlled media, continue to take it upon themselves to ambush Republicans with pointless hypothetical questions, which are designed to create a completely false narrative.  Just like Romney, Trump was confronted with a hypothetical situation about an imaginary country with laws similar to the US, where abortion was illegal. Trump's response was if something is illegal, then there is a punishment for breaking the law. To Trump it was a law and order question that had nothing to do with women's rights and/or abortion. In other words, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. The left then sprung it's trap accusing Trump of wanting to make abortion illegal. What? He was in no way advocating the abortion be made illegal, but that didn't matter to the shameless press and their war on reality; anything to defeat an opponent; ethics be damned. And even today the left still pushes this BS as news.

This was the same as Romney being asked the question, “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Thinking this was a Constitutional question he tried to answer it, eventually saying it was an "unusual topic" and he really didn't know the answer. What Romney didn't know was he was being set up by George Stephanopoulos. The result of this exchange had the liberal press screaming that Romney wanted a law to forbid contraception. It was a total made up story with no facts to support such bizarre accusation, but the Democrat media wanted their Republican's war on women, so they pushed the premeditated lie becasue they wanted to delegitimize Obama's opponent.

So no, there is no Republican war on women, it's just the Democrat war on reality. The first time with Romney it worked, but it didn't work this with Trump. And the left is going guano crazy trying to figure out how they could have failed.

Q&A the Lefts False Narrative about President Trump


The following are obvious responses to the lefts false narrative about President Trump

"You don't think Trump and his minions connections to Putin and Russia are troubling?"

After a through investigation, the FBI has said they found no collusion between Trump and/or his minions with any suspected crimes by Russia.

"Wow, I guess anything unethical, dishonest, or potentially illegal done by those you agree with is a manufactured crisis."

No, there is so far no evidence that Trump has done anything illegal, nor members of his Administration. In the Flynn case, the FBI has reported Flynn violated no crime, period. Again this is a manufactured crisis that will again go nowhere, BTW, if Russia is so much of an adversary, why did the President tell their ambassador that he will have more flexibility to work with Putin after his re-election or why would HRC sell them all those US uranium rights? It's all just more liberal BS..

"You don't think delegitimizing the press, intelligence agencies, judges, and other such arbiters of truth and Constitutional authority is troubling?"

No, these entities  have long sense abrogated their Constitutional roles and are now ultra partisan and tied to an anti Constitutional agenda. On what planet does the President have no freedom of speech against the press or Supreme court  A cursory look at history shows an ongoing battle between the Presidency and the press and supreme court. Further criticism of the Supreme Court such as the Southern Democrat majority Supreme Court,  Dred Scott decision (1857), collated the abolitionist movement leading to freeing the slaves. Further, the Democrat run media is no longer the harbinger of our Democracy having abused it's position as seen by our Founding Fathers, rather the press is simply the propaganda wing for the Democrat Party (ie The Department of Enlightenment and Propaganda).

What is really un-Ameican is pushing the belief that somehow criticizing the press or judge decisions is somehow un-Constitutional, undermining or stifling the freedom of the press. Perhaps you have an example of Trump censoring the press in any way, beyond simply saying if the press mis-reports something about him he is going to speak up about it; and if a particular member or organization of the press is continually falsely reporting the news, he may not call on them during a press conference, something Presidents have done for decades (remember the battle between Obama and Fox news?). Further, the only entity that can undermine the press, is the press itself. As an example, when the press is openly in favor of one political party over another and OOO in continually demonizing and  delegitimizing one party candidate over another, the press will have successfully undermined itself, by the act of self- censoring to conceal the abuses of one party over another; this is what happens in nondemocratic countries, except in America is is not being forced, but truly self initiated and delegitimizing itself to the American people. 

The President and the Supreme Court have always had a confrontational relationship, which is by designed when you have a separation of powers. A good example was FDR, who was in constant battle with the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court shut down many of his programs, "He asked Congress to empower him to appoint an additional justice for any member of the court over age 70 who did not retire. He sought to name as many as six additional Supreme Court justices, as well as up to 44 judges to the lower federal courts" so he could pack the judicatory in his favor. There was also President Obama who took the opportunity during one of his State of the Union Addresses, to criticize the Supreme Court on their recent Citizens United decision; whether you agree with the decision or not, using his State of the Union Address with it's captive audiences including the Supreme Court seek directly in from the of the President, left no question as to his disdain for the ruling.

Every day Trump blames someone for his failures (media, judges, intelligence agencies, Democrats, foreigners, Muslims, Trump University lawsuit plaintiffs, women he's mistreated, workers he failed to pay"

In this list there is not one point where Trump is blaming anyone for a failure on his part at all; nothing. Most are simply cases of a civil nature and others are areas of contention that Trump is vocal about. Trump may blame some on the list for causing major problems in this country, and enough voters agreed with him make him President. While you may disagree with these contentions, Trump has not even been in office long enough for any of his policies to have failed, let alone any blame laying that might occur.

You have pretty much defined why Trump is President and why HRC is not. All the left does is try and drum up these manufactured crisis, and then regardless of the real story, they repeated the stories of suspected wrong doing and possible criminal activity, but never anything substantial that anything of note has actually occurred. It's all just BS and spin with nothing substantial. But hey, keep it up. The delegitimizing frenzy by the left on acts to confirm to those that voted for Trump (and some that did not) that they did the right thing and the left continues to have disdain for the working class Deplorables that simply don't know how to make an intelligent decision or even run their own lives, and forgotten that the US is all about self rule, not rule by the Democrat elite.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The Left is Still In Denial Why They Lost Presidency As They Double Down on Rhetoric

The Democrats have lost about 1200 political positions across the country in the last 6 years, with Republicans running primarily on the repeal of ObamaCare. With it's one size fits all, high premiums and even higher out of pocket prepays (averaging $4,000 to $6000 a year), ObamaCare meant most Americans are being forced to buy healthcare that only kicks in after some catastrophic episode;  IOW no different than not having healthcare, but having to pay for it nonetheless.

The Democrats lost if for no other reason they have lost touch with working Americans as they they have ruled against the will of the people. The Democrats also continues to encourages the reactionary alt-left to shout down anyone that disagrees, which has devolved into a violent opposition to countries Democratic principles and a war on free speech.

The Democrats have pushed for open borders and are demonizing the arrest of criminal illegal aliens. They support Black Lives Matter (an openly racist and terrorist organization), who openly push violence against the police, while they defend captured vicious criminals if they are black. The left refuses to even speak the word(s) "Muslim terrorists"or "Radical Islam". When it comes to Islam they seem to have lost all sense of sanity. They are forever apologetic for Islam, who's laws subjugate women to the level of property and arrest women if they report they have been raped (rape is also dolled out as a punishment). They ignore religious freedoms, when they push homosexuality and abortion on Christianity and Islam. Obama turned his back on Israel (actually sending operatives to Israel to campaign against Netanyahu) while he has ignored the atrocities and buddied up with Muslim terrorists countries, including Hamas who has just announced a collaboration with ISIS. Then Obama tries to bully schools into letting boys use the girls bathroom. All this while they campaign against the American voter calling them Deplorables; and of course racists. The point being the Democrats lost because they have drifted so far from the main stream, while Trump won because he said this idiocy and given a chance, he will make America great again.

The real issue with Flynn and the Russains is rogue US intelligence agents

The real issue with Michael Flynn's from resignation Homeland Security is not a possible violation of the Login Act (a law that has never been charged). Rather what is emerging as a shadow government made of Obama operatives left behind by Obama when he left office. The idea that rogue intelligence officers working for the US intelligence department forwarded highly sensitive (and a possibly classified conversation) to the press, for the sole purpose of destabilizing a new Presidents Administration, smells of a criminal conspiracy. This is not the same as someone hacking into someones email account by guessing the password. This is US intelligence officers using information gleamed using highly invasive NSA technology to be used for Homeland Security, that is strictly controlled to preserve the peoples constitutional rights (the use of such information requires a court order), for a political assassination.


It is presumed that Flynn was recorded by US intelligence that was monitoring telephone calls to the Russian government. The law as I understand it says, that once the phone call was captured, the intelligence operators must get a court order to continue any investigation becasue it involved a US citizen. However, some rogue US intelligence officer bypassed this constitutional barrier, pretty much doing what Eric Snowden has been convicted of; the release of classified and/or sensitive intelligence information without permission.


As of now only the FBI, Trump and probably the person that leaked it to the press, have a transcript, however, some that have seen the transcript say Obama's sanctions against Russia were mentioned, but not discussed; something along the lines of the Russian saying he wanted to talk about what the Trump Administration was going to do about the Obama sanctions and Flynn told told the Russian that was something he would have to take up with Trump. So it's false news that any law was violated. Where Flynn screwed up is he told Vice President Mike Pence the subject of the sanctions never came up in the phone call with the Russians, resulting in Pence defending Flynn based on Flynn's denials. However  it turned out Flynn lied to Pence (or the very least was not forth coming) and left Pence hanging with his lack of candor. If the Trump Presidency is to succeed, all of his cabinet and advisers have to be on the same page. As a supervisor I often explained that I would do whatever I could to back my officers up when mistakes that are made, as long as they were honest mistakes. But there are two things that are in their best interest; 1) be completely honest (ie don't make me look stupid defending you) and 2) let me hear about it first from you; I don't like surprises. Flynn broke both rules, which pretty much showed him not to be the team player he needed to be and Trump said so much. So the issue was not so much a violation of decorum or even the law, Flynn made Pence look bad as Flynn violated an expected level of trust, so he had to go. 

Monday, February 13, 2017

Jeff Sessions Victory After Being Railroaded 30 Years Ago

The Coretta King letter read by Elisabeth Warren was just another delegitimizing attempt by the left, that has no basis whatsoever. For those that don't know, the incident that prompted the anti-(Jeff) Sessions, Coretta King letter centered around allegations of voter fraud in 1984 in Perry County, Alabama. "Perry County has long been plagued by accusations of voter fraud in local elections. As former Alabama Democratic congressman Artur Davis said, “The most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community” that he saw in Alabama was “the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.” What the left fails to explain that both the suspects and victim's were black. Yes black candidates complained of voter irregularities having to do with absentee ballots that was being perpetrated by other black candidates. The Loretta King letter was anger against Sessions for doing any investigations on black politicians, as (she said) there are white politicians doing the same thing. Further this was by no means some crusade by Jeff Sessions,"Von Phillips, a black legal assistant in the Perry County district attorney’s office, later testified, his office received numerous complaints during the 1984 election cycle. Black voters and incumbent black officials reported that voters were receiving absentee ballots they had never requested." How black Democrats stole votes in Alabama ... and Jeff Sessions tried to stop it

A result of the investigation led to a County Grand Jury indictment, not filed by the Federal DOJ (Sessions), but the Perry County DA. "On April 20, 1983, a local county grand jury (with a majority of black members and a black foreperson) issued a report concerning problems in the balloting process that targeted the “aged, infirmed, or disabled.” The grand jury called for the “vigorous prosecution of all violations of the voting laws” and requested “the presence and assistance of an outside agency, preferably federal, to monitor our elections and to ensure fairness and impartiality for all."

In the resulting trail the black jury failed to convict (not unusual at the time),"this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is,a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind".

"The bogus accusation (that Sessions is racists) would be laughable, were it not such a familiar tactic. But this is just another instance of so-called “progressives” going all out to protect their own — even when the victims are black voters."

What seems most likely, besides trying to delay confirming of all of Trumps cabinet positions, is that unlike Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, Sessions would apply the law equally, even if the law beaker is black; something the Obama DOJ refused to do.