Archive for the ‘Election’ Category

Russia Sanctions Humiliate Hillary

July 31, 2017

I’ve been trying to find a logical reason for the Congressional vote for the extreme action of imposing sanctions on Russia.

Sanction supporters talk about what they call “fake news”,but the term is just another word for propaganda which governments produce all the time. We didn’t impose sanctions on the British government for its “fake news” stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Russian spying on candidates cannot justify sanctions because spying on political figures is a common government activity. Besides the CIA had already infiltrated the Russian hackers who were the alleged spies.

The only significant difference in the situation is that the person Congress is concerned about is a woman, Hillary Clinton. I believe Congress is upset because members think the big old Russian bear was mean to poor little defenseless Goldilocks.

Does anyone believe Congress would have taken a similar action if Donald Trump had been the alleged victim? Or, for that matter the previous losing Democratic candidate John Kerry?

Congress didn’t impose sanctions when Vietnam meddled in the 2004 election by producing story claiming that potential Democratic presidential aspirant Sen Bob Kerrey had participated in a war crime in Vietnam 50 years earlier.

Was “Russian Hacking” a CIA Sting?

June 30, 2017

Until I found stories about FSB’s [Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation] arrest of Col.Sergei Mikhailov, I thought the claims about Russian hacking during last year’s presidential
election  were probably false.   I know  the FSB is unlikely to be as effective as the legendary KGB, but  I wouldn’t expect it to engage in the amateurish activities attributed to Russian hackers.  The CIA’s connection with Col. Mikhailov raises the possibility the CIA was operating a sting to discredit Donald Trump.
s

For example,  the KGB wouldn’t have been satisfied with using hacking to get some emails from the Democratic Party headquarters.  The old KGB would have planted an agent in Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters.  This agent  would have occasionally downloaded documents, including summaries of meetings,   onto a zip drive.   Russians have been planting people in American organizations for 70 years. Why would the FSB switch to  a less productive means of acquiring  information?  A human agent can overhear conversations that contain information that doesn’t get into the computer.

The CIA could have used Col. Mikhailov for more than just a  source of information about Russian activities.  The association potentially allowed the CIA to use Russian hackers to spy on Americans or on “friendly” governments like Britain or Germany.  Those detecting  the hacking would blame the Russians rather than the Americans.  European governments would complain if they caught the CIA spying on them.  Using Russian hackers potentially allowed the  CIA to gain information risk free.

CIA could also have had Mikhailov send Russian agents to try to compromise American politicians.   Spy agencies sometimes have trouble resisting an urge to become power brokers.  The CIA has a history of involvement in other countries, particularly in the Middle East.  An agent of the World War II OSS [predecessor to the CIA]  admitted before he died that he was responsible for killing American World War II General George Patton.  Many Americans believe the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The following statement is not intended to accuse the CIA of attempting to interfere in the process of determining who is the President of the United States.  I merely want to point out its actions are consistent with that possibility.  The CIA could have used the Russian hackers to keep Hillary Clinton from winning the election and then used other Russian agents to discredit her opponent Donald Trump and make him appear to be responsible for the Russian hackers.

Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller obstructing justice?

June 22, 2017

American prosecutors often treat the concept of obstruction of justice as if the concept only meant efforts to prevent them from successfully prosecuting a case.  That concept of obstruction might be acceptable in a country like  Nazi  Germany or the Soviet Union, but it is not acceptable in the United States of America.  The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights to American citizens accused of illegal actions.

A prosecutor who uses illegally obtained information in an investigation is guilty of obstruction of justice.   The Constitution guarantees those accused of crimes the right to confront their accusers in court because the British government had allowed convictions based on anonymous claims that might have been fabrications. Government agencies wanting to obtain information by electronic eavesdropping must first obtain approval by a judge.      Eavesdropping information obtained without court approval may be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and thus unusable by the prosecution.  The courts may prevent prosecution of individuals whose possible involvement in an activity is learned from “fruit of the poisonous tree”

Russia Didn’t “Hack” Election

December 15, 2016

Thoughts on the fake news claim that Russia “meddled” in or “hacked” the presidential election.

Those who claim that Russia “meddled” in the recent presidential election have an even lower opinion of President Barack Obama than the Republicans who call him the worst president in American history.. Countries can only “meddle” in countries that are weaker than they are, including countries that are weak because of weak or inept leaders. For example, President Barack Obama frequently meddled in middle eastern countries. So far those alleging Russian meddling have not provided evidence that Russia tried to meddle by influencing election officials or providing financial assistance to candidates. Spying on government officials or would be government officials is normal governmental action that governments do year round so they can be prepared for actions that might adversely impact them. Attempting to influence public opinion in other countries is also normal action that is done year round and is not “meddling”. Governments are likely to try to discredit opinion makers who portray their country, or its leaders, in a negative light to prevent the development of sentiment for war or other adverse actions against their country..

The media are misrepresenting the hacking issue. Russia, China, Israel and North Korea and possibly others along with the NSA probably did hack into insecure email systems, but that does not mean they altered election results as media stories falsely imply. Foreign nations have often made significant efforts to influence American public opinion since WWI, but there is nothing illegal about that. Seeking to influence public opinion isn’t “hacking” What would be improper would be if CIA employees are deliberately misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to overturn the election of Donald Trump. Such actions would subject individuals to impeachment and would indicate Congress should turn the agency’s functions over to other departments

If Russians helped us learn Hillary’s dirty secrets we should thank them just like many Americans thanked Daniel Ellsberg for revealing the Pentagon’s secrets about Vietnam During the Cold War the United States operated radio stations that broadcast news to communist countries that their governments didn’t want them to know.

Why don’t you media children grow up? If the Democrats, or Republicans, used insecure communications foreign governments would have spied on them. Russia, Israel, China and North Korea would certainly have led any “hacking”, but others might also have participated. Governments have to spy on each other, and on political candidates, so they can prepare for actions that might negatively impact them. If the Russians informed us of Hillary’s secrets the way Daniel Ellsberg did the Pentagon’s secrets we should thank them rather than complain. Foreign governments have been making significant efforts to affect voters’ opinions since at least WWI so any Russian effort to affect the 2016 election wouldn’t be anything new.

Democrats need to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate. Party leaders had discouraged people from running against her for the nomination because they knew she was a lousy candidate.

The Real Deplorables

October 25, 2016

The Media Sheep Morons are the real deplorables.  They blindly follow Hillary Clinton like sheep following a Judas Goat into the slaughter house.   The MSM Deplorables think Hillary is an empress wearing a beautiful gown.

Many of today’s journalists aren’t fit to clean the soles of Walter Cronkite’s shoes.   If the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens had occurred on Cronkite’s watch he wouldn’t have rested until he found out why Secretary of State Clinton left the Ambassador  to die in Benghazi on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.  The British withdrew their diplomats from Benghazi after a terrorist attack on the British
Ambassador’s motorcade.  Why didn’t the United States?  American law enforcement agencies recognized terrorist activity could occur on or near the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.  Why didn’t Secretary of State Clinton?

Hillary Clinton’s inability to remember information about this major event should raise a red flag. Maybe she let him die because she forgot he was in danger.  Her stated inability to remember a major event could indicate Alzheimer’s.   What if Hillary happened  to forget  important information during a crisis?

Most of us are suspicious of people who become rich while working for government like the Clintons have done.   How do the Media Sheep Morons explain how the Clintons gained a fortune without winning the lottery?   How do they explain Secretary Clinton ‘s official meetings with her campaign contributors?

As a young woman Hillary Clinton got a job with a Senate Committee investigating dirty tricks in the 1972 presidential campaign.  Apparently she decided such dirty tricks were such a good idea she used some of them to get the presidential nomination.    The Washington Post  worked hard to expose President Nixon’s dirty tricks.   If Hillary gets away with using dirty tricks to become president, she may  make President Richard Nixon look honest when she runs for re-election.

The Media Sheep Morons see Hillary as an empress wearing a beautiful gown.  Millions of Americans see her as the Wicked Witch of the East and the Media Sheep Morons as her flying monkeys.

According to Noah Webster “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation.”

Hillary Debates Like a Girl

October 3, 2016

During the first presidential debate I initially wondered about Hillary Clinton’s debating style which didn’t seem very presidential.   She seemed to prefer personal attacks unrelated to presidential matters over a discussion about policy matters.   After thinking about the  debate for a few days I realized that her behavior reminded me of the way women are portrayed as arguing on television shows.

Clinton didn’t take the debate seriously.   Her red pant suit and perky demeanor are more appropriate for a party than a serious debate of the issues.

Donald Trump remained serious during the debate, but Clinton grinned whenever she found an opportunity to use one of her favorite catch phrases or made a personal attack on Trump.  As I was writing this statement I realized what some of her facial expressions remind me of child who looks for approval when she thinks she has said  something special.

Clinton’s “perkiness” is disturbing because she appears perky even when discussing serious subjects as if she doesn’t really understand the seriousness of the situation.

I’m a week older than Bill Clinton.  Those in our age group are alert to indications that others are possibly deteriorating mentally.  Hillary at times reminds me of those little old lady characters who are out of touch with reality.

How Could Hillary Be so Stupid?

September 28, 2016

I didn’t really think too much about how Hillary Clinton was dressed for the debate until a couple of hours ago.  Like most bachelors I don’t think much about the significance of  women’s clothing unless it’s kind of revealing.

I thought Hillary’s old lady type pantsuit looked vaguely inappropriate,  but didn’t recognize that red is not a good color for the wife of a sexual  predator to wear to what is essentially a job interview.   Red is a color long associated with prostitution dating back at least to the fall of Jericho when the prostitute Rahab hung a red cord on her house to let the Israelis know not to harm her or her family.    Areas where prostitutes are sometimes called “red light districts”  because railroad workers would leave their red lanterns outside while taking a break.

Many women, especially those of Hillary’s age,  seem to use the type of pantsuit Hillary wore like men use a t-shirt and jeans. I sometimes see women wearing such attire at Walmart.   I call her a attire a “pantsuit” because that is how it was described by one of the women helping with the broadcast    My first thought when I saw it was “why was Hillary wearing pajamas?” At the very least it looked like “comfort clothing” rather than something that indicated the person wearing it was serious about wanting a job.

Her clothing may be one reason I got the impression she was just there to have fun.  The happy expression she showed when she got recite one of her favorite catch phrases was almost childlike.  I previously published a post wondering if Hillary had Alzheimer’s.  This type of inappropriate behavior would be consistent with that hypothesis.

How Severe Is Hillary’s Health Problem?

September 8, 2016

The request from New York Times technology columnist Farhad Manjoo that Google censor searches for information about Hillary Clinton’s health strongly implies  that Manjoo knows she suffers from some type of severe health problem.   So does the Huffington Post’s banning of David Seaman because of an article about Clinton’s health.

There would be no reason to censor health related searches about Clinton if her problem is something like Parkinson’s as rumors attributed to Secret Service agents suggest.   Rev. Billy Graham has Parkinson’s as did Pope John Paul II and various American political leaders and other celebrities.  Medication allows people with Parkinson’s to continue to function.

There would be no reason to censor health searches if Clinton has heart trouble.  President Dwight Eisenhower was reelected in 1956 even though he had had a heart attack in 1955.

Censorship would make sense if Hillary is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s or some other form of dementia.  Alzheimer’s can be difficult to diagnose because the individual symptoms can also occur normally.   Hillary’s desire to spend a large sum on Alzheimer’s research could be for personal reasons.

For example,  Alzheimer’s could have played a role in some of Hillary’s controversies.  Some of her actions such as the ones listed below,  are consistent with symptoms of Alheimer’s.

Poor judgement:  Her decision to leave American diplomats in Benghazi after an attack on the British ambassador’s motorcade involved poor judgement.   Alzheimer’s could also explain the poor judgeent shown in using a private email server.

Memory loss is the symptom most of us think of as being associated with Alzheimer’s:  Thus, Hillary’s inability to remember important facts about Benghazi and other events could be a symptom of Alzheimer’s.

Misplacing things:   Those lost emails could indicate Alzheimer’s.

Withdrawal from social situations: Hillary’s unwillingness to hold press conferences could indicate Alzheimer’s.

Alzheimer’s can be difficult to diagnose in its early stages.   The above examples of Hillary’s behavior could indicate Alzheimer’s or could indicate normal conditions.   For example, her poor decisions could just indicate limited intelligence.

Were Benghazi Deaths Result of Incompetence or Murder One?

April 17, 2016

After I published the previous post suggesting the Benghazi massacre demonstrated Hillary Clinton’s incompetence I received an email asking about the possibility that Clinton or someone intended for Ambassador Chris Stevens or another American to be murdered. I’m still inclined to believe the best explanation is incompetence, but I recognize the incident could have involved premeditated murder.

The death resembles an ancient murder from Israeli history. King David of Israel had gotten Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers named Uriah the Hittite, pregnant. When an attempt to cover up the situation failed, David sent orders for Uriah to be placed in the hottest part of the battle and have the army pull back so he would be killed. David then married Bathsheba so that most people would think her baby was the result of the marriage. Ambassador Stevens was also placed in a situation in which death was virtually certain.

A potential problem with this scenario is that Clinton had no apparent motive for killing Stevens. However, President Barack Obama could have had a motive if claims about his and Stevens personal lives are accurate. I’m not sure whether or not the claims are true, but believe that those who read this blog deserve the opportunity to make up their own minds.

There are claims that both Barack Obama and Chris Stevens. The claim that Stevens was homosexual seems to be more accepted than claims that Obama is even though the claims that he is homosexual have been made by those who describe themselves homosexuals. Larry Sinclair wrote a tell all book claiming to have had an affair with Obama. Homosexual blogger Kevin Dujan claims that Obama is homosexual.

The mother of Trinity Church choir director Donald Young believes his murder was to protect Obama from Young claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with Obama. There also has been a claim that Trinity Church had a program to help homosexual men avoid exposure. The killing of accuser Larry Sinclair by a hit and run driver is a disturbing coincidence that could support a claim that Chris Stevens was sent to Benghazi to die.

I’m a commentator rather than an investigative reporter. The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens certainly needs further investigation. I still believe the Benghazi incident indicates Hillary Clinton is incompetent, possibly in more ways than one. A competent politician certainly wouldn’t have gotten involved in a situation in which she could be accused of murder.

Conservative organizations have been claiming that Obama is blocking an indictment of Clinton for her violation of security regulations by using a private email service. Perhaps Obama is worried she might expose his involvement in the death of Stevens.

Donald Trump’s Abortion Answer Wasn’t Wrong, the Question Was

April 7, 2016

Donald Trump was correct when he said a woman who had an outlawed abortion would likely be punished. However, the most likely way of ending abortions would be through regulation of those providing medical treatment. Chris Matthews question implied that abortion would become a criminal offense. In that case the woman as a participant in the “crime” would be subject to prosecution probably as an accessory, an accomplice or a “co-conspirator”. The courts might not allow prosecution unless the woman was potentially subject to prosecution. In such a legal environment prosecutors might use the offering of immunity from prosecution to abortion recipients in exchange for testimony against the abortion provider.

In American medicine medical procedures that can pose a treat to health generally have to be approved by government. The most likely way to prohibit abortions would be through prohibiting specific medical procedures. This approach at the federal level wouldn’t necessarily require congressional action because the executive branch has authority to prohibit medical procedures.

The deaths associated with the most popular form of abortion in which the doctor basically pokes around in the woman to pull out the baby, sometimes in pieces, could justify prohibiting the procedures on the grounds that it poses too significant a threat to the woman’s health. The procedure sometimes causes fatal bleeding because the doctor cannot tell if he has caused bleeding. There is an alternative procedure available for late term pregnancies which poses less of a threat. Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding. Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy would have the benefit of the child being removed alive. This approach to ending a late term pregnancy should give both sides what they want. The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy and the child would be born alive.