Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

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.

Advertisements

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.

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.

Hillary Clinton Acts Guilty in Ambassador Stevens Death

April 26, 2016

There is no question that American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. The question I have been dealing with in two previous posts is whether or not Stevens was placed in Benghazi so he would be killed much like Israel’s King David ordered his general to have Uriah the Hittite assigned to a place in a battle where his death was virtually certain.

I don’t expect to prove who was responsible if Americans assigned Stevens to Benghazi to be killed. Such proof might require the investigative skills of a real life Sherlock Holmes.

Ian Fleming once observed: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Prior to the 2008 presidential primaries two known homosexuals who were acquainted with Barack Obama died violent deaths. In November, 2011, Larry Sinclair who wrote a book claiming to have had an affair with Obama, was killed by a hit and run driver. Chris Stevens who was murdered by terrorists at Benghazi was also a known homosexual.

[Correction: Larry Sinclair is alive. A rumor about his death was posted on the Free Republic possibly as part of a pattern of intimidation reported by Kevin Dujan who had scheduled a radio interview with Larry Sinclair to discuss Sinclair’s allegations about Obama being homosexual and using drugs.]

Stevens wouldn’t be the first high American official whose assassination was approved by someone in the United States government. Military historian Robert Wilcox in his book “Target Patton” claims that in December, 1945, OSS head “Wild Bill” Donovan ordered OSS marksman Douglas Bazata to kill Gen. George Patton because Patton was threatening to expose what Patton considered allied collusion with the Soviets that cost American lives. The World War II era OSS was the predecessor of the CIA.

Some believe Ambassador Stevens might have been killed because he was about to blow the whistle on a questionable “gun running” scheme to send old Libyan government weapons to Syrian “Contras” [or whatever Syrian rebels are called] or some other group. A problem with this explanation is that an attack on Stevens in Benghazi would draw attention to whatever the CIA was doing there. The fact the CIA facility was located so close to the consulate could indicate that the “intelligence” officials involved weren’t very intelligent. If the CIA had an operation going in Libya, locating it in the same city as a diplomatic facility would severely hamper keeping the operation secret. The attack on the CIA compound indicates the terrorists suspected what the CIA was up to. Their abuse of Stevens’ body indicates they knew he was homosexual.

Those who don’t understand government would likely say if the government wanted Stevens dead, President Barack Obama would have ordered the killing. However, unless the situation was similar to the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Obama probably wasn’t involved. Archbishop Thomas Becket was killed in 1170 by followers of King Henry II of England who believed the King wanted him killed. President Harry Truman probably did not know about the killing of General Patton.

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been responsible, but I doubt she’s intelligent enough to come up with such a plot. It would be more likely that she went along with a plan developed. by someone else. Her behavior before and after the incident implies she is guilty of something. Her use of a private email service implies she was doing something improper, if not illegal. Her attempt to avoid responsibility for the incident by inventing a easily disproved story about a riot caused by an anti-Muslim video implies she was covering up something, particularly considering that she came up with the story so soon after the incident.

Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed terrorists to monitor her email. If so they would have known the United States wouldn’t protect its diplomats in Benghazi. They might have also learned Stevens was homosexual which could have provided an added incentive to want to kill him.

If the murder of Stevens was part of a pattern that included the murders of Obama’s homosexual acquaintances, the person in charge was probably someone associated with Obama’s financial backers. They might have assigned someone to “protect their investment” by eliminating those who could pose a threat to Obama’s election chances by raising the homosexual issue.

Before I started this series I thought it was more likely that Stevens’ death was the result of incompetence. Now, I think it is more likely someone wanted him to be killed. I believe the test Sen. Saw Erwin used for President Richard Nixon and Watergate applies to Secretary of State Clinton and Benghazi. If she knew Stevens was likely to be killed she is a crook. If she didn’t she is incompetent.

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.