They are not going to lose to a Trump candidate again- DHS declares elections critical infrastructure

And this is the end game. 

In a stunning last minute power grab by the Obama administration with just 14 days left in his Presidency, the Department of Homeland Security released a statement this evening officially declaring state election systems to be “critical infrastructure.”  The statement from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson defines “election infrastructure” as “storage facilities, polling places, centralized vote tabulations locations, voter registration databases, voting machines” and all “other systems” to manage the election process…so pretty much everything.

I have determined that election infrastructure in this country should be designated as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector. Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law.


I have reached this determination so that election infrastructure will, on a more formal and enduring basis, be a priority for cybersecurity assistance and protections that the Department of Homeland Security provides to a range of private and public sector entities. By “election infrastructure,” we mean storage facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulations locations used to support the election process, and information and communications technology to include voter registration databases, voting machines, and other systems to manage the election process and report and display results on behalf of state and local governments.

Of course, it’s likely not a coincidence that the DHS made this announcement just hours after the “intelligence community” declassified their “Russian Hacking” propaganda which basically noted that RT has a very effective social media distribution platform while once again providing absolutely no actual evidence.

My position on this is Trump, if he’s really a guy that gets it, throws this mess out with the trash ten seconds after he gets sworn in.

Federalizing elections is unconstitutional- and a guarantee that one party will always win.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The danger of the “government employee” syndrome in intelligence. The “why” no one should trust James Clapper.

Or John Brennan for that matter. There are people who make a career of staying inside the system. That choice forces them to decide what they are going to accept and what they are going to resist.  Often, they accept far more, justifying their accepting of the lies they are told and they are forced to tell by saying it is for the “greater good.”  The trouble with that theory is the greater good is defined by people with teir own questionable agendas.

Government employees like John Brennan have long ago agreed to sell out their ethical souls in  exchange for influence,  power and an opportunity to gain wealth.   We have examples of this throughout our history and the history of other nations. There will always be those guys and gals who simply choose being part of the system over telling the truth.

Image result for photo of james clapper and brennan

who do they serve…other than themselves?

Newt Gingrich was interviewed the other day and said Clapper was a friend of his.  When asked about Clapper’s obvious lies in the past, Newt uncomfortably attempted to avoid the subject my mumbling that people make bad choices.  Here’s the problem.  If he made the choice to lie to the American people in front of Congress, he’s freaking out of here.  Either don’t answer- and take the lick for that- or answer honestly.  Lying ruins your credibility, even if it gains you favor with your masters.

Here’s the key transcript:

Wyden: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

Clapper: No sir.

Wyden: It does not?

Clapper: Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly. This was a lie. Many people believed it was a lie at the time, but that was confirmed thanks to the documents leaked by Ed Snowden, who later claimed that seeing that bit of testimony helped convince him that he needed to go through with his plan to leak this information.

James Clapper, of course, is the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of the various intelligence agencies basically report in to him. He’s still in that job, which many people argue is a complete travesty. He flat out lied to Congress and got away with it.

What’s been really odd is that the story as to why Clapper lied seems to keep changing. When questioned about this, Clapper’s initial response was that he thought that Wyden was asking about collection of email information, which is clearly not the case if you just listen to the actual question. Wyden, pretty clearly, says “any type of data at all.” About a week later, Clapper changed his story, saying that he believed the question was an unfair “loaded question” (he compared it to the “when did you stop beating your wife” type of question — even though it’s not that at all) and then said that he gave “the least untruthful answer.”

This didn’t make much sense either — and it made even less sense when Senator Wyden revealed that he didn’t just spring this question on Clapper, but had sent it to Clapper’s office a day ahead so he could review the question and be aware of what he was to be asked. On top of that, Wyden revealed that after Clapper’s answer — which Wyden knew was false — Wyden staffers sent a letter to Clapper asking him if he wanted to amend his answer, and Clapper’s office refused to do so.

Finally, about a month later, Clapper finally admitted that he lied, now claiming that it was all a “mistake.”

“mistakes will happen, and when I make one, I correct it.” Except… he had been given the chance to correct it and he didn’t. It was only after it was publicly revealed (via Snowden and Glenn Greenwald) that Clapper was outright lying that he claimed he made “a mistake.” But, even then, it only came after pretending he misheard the question, then claiming that it was a loaded question (when it was not). And then, of course, months later, Clapper could pretend, with the benefit of hindsight, that he should have been more forthright about the program, but that’s difficult to believe. And none of it matters, because the DOJ refuses to investigate Clapper for lying.

I think the bigger question we should ask, rather than “When did you stop beating your wife” as Clapper laments, is “When are you going to stop lying to please your masters?”

Every government employee knows these guys. I know them.  Anyone in government who is reading this post will nod their heads and say “Yep, I know one.”  These guys who decide early to play the game  and then compromise a lot.  They will, without hesitation, also stab a good guy in the back, lie for their bosses, and stop people from doing their jobs  if told to do so.  When an ethical employee quits in protest, these guys stay on burying themselves deeper into to the bureaucracy like a tick.  The higher up they go, the more likely they trade their ethics for access.

Now Clapper is in front of Congress yapping about how the intel community concluded the Russians undermined our election in order to help Trump.   True?  Maybe.  Who cares?  Only the liberals.  Is this verified with fact and evidence and not opinion?  Well, that’s the rub. They refuse to give up their sources, once again saying “trust us.”

The problem with that is the intel community under Brennan and Clapper has become uber political and maybe a shadow government unto itself.  And both have been caught shading the truth more than once.  In fact, fifty intel analysts risked or destroyed their careers by signing a letter of complaint that senior intel people (read Clapper and Brennan) were forcing them to change their reports to reflect an opinion more in line with Obama’s, which is we were beating ISIS (when they were actually gaining ground and influence).  You can bet if fifty are willing to destroy themselves, thousands are quietly agreeing. (If this were Climate Change, the liberals would be saying “The science is settled because so many are in agreement!)

Worse, the Democrats are trying to set the narrative that Trump is illegitimate.  He’s isn’t but that won’t stop the drumbeat.  I hope in this case he fights and fights and fights.  One way to fight back is to ask the very simple question EVERYBODY should be screaming about.  How does the FBI know for a fact the Russians hacked the DNC server?  The answer is they do not.

Never? Not once? The FBI has consistently asserted that the hack of the Democratic National Committee was an operation linked to the Russian government, even if they were less convinced that the Russians wanted to elect Donald Trump as a result. Last night, however, BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins reported that the DNC has told her that the FBI never requested access to their servers, nor has any other government agency. Instead, they relied on a report from a private vendor:

The FBI did not examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee before issuing a report attributing the sweeping cyberintrusion to Russia-backed hackers, BuzzFeed News has learned.

Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

So who did check out the hacked servers? The DNC brought in a well-respected outfit called Crowdstrike to check out their systems, and it was Crowdstrike that concluded that the DNC was the victim of a Russian-government hack. “Crowdstrike is pretty good,” Watkins’ intel-community source told her, adding that they had no reason to believe that Crowdstrike got it wrong.

As pretty good as Crowdstrike might be, cyberattacks are federal crimes. Add to that the espionage implications involved with a hostile government intrusion, and this story doesn’t add up at all. This kind of crime should have had the FBI seizing the evidence and creating a chain of evidence in order to build a case should the opportunity for prosecution arise. The CIA and/or the NSA should have conducted their own probe of the servers to check for potential means to track back the attacks. Those are fairly obvious first steps to take under any circumstances, let alone the highly public circumstances of these hacks both then and over the last several weeks.

Let me break this down in a simple to understand case.  Let’s say the police respond to a murder. There is a victim dead on the floor. They are not allowed to examine the body or collect evidence. However, the owner of the home says to them “We hired a third party contractor to collect evidence, including fingerprints, which was matched to “X”.  So go arrest them.” And the FBI did just that. They took the word of the DNC that the Russians did it, based on the report generated by a private firm.

Now let’s go back to the murder case and now imagine it in court.  The first question would be to the arresting officer. “It says here that prints from the scene, on the bloody knife in fact, were lifted and matched to my client, is that correct?”  “Yes.”  “Can you tell me the name of your certified evidence tech in your department that did that?”  “Uhh….welll.. you see… we let Acme evidence collection and plumbing do the work, so we don’t have any actual…evidence…. . ”

At which point the judge would call a halt to the case, the officer and the prosecutor (who is now suffering a micro stroke!) would be called into chambers and be given the riot act, just before the judge threw the case out, held the officer in contempt and screamed at the prosecutor until the poor kid pissed himself.

And yet, the FBI concludes, after not concluding and getting hammered by the MSM, that the intel agencies were right.

The trouble with this is the agencies released a public version of the report and in it there is no proof.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the Russians are doing stuff as we do stuff to other nations- as pointed out by a senator in the hearings.  It’s business.  To use this as evidence that Russia worked to get Trump elected is wrong and very political.  In Israel, Obama’s State Department funded anti-Netanyahu efforts during their election.  We PAID people to undermine him!  All because Obama hated Netanyahu for standing up to Obama’s feckless and dangerous foreign policy efforts.  This we do know for a fact, so the question now is, where is the sanctions on Obama?

So either it is all fair in love and war, or we quit doing what we complain others are doing to us and see what happens. I’m betting the whining complaining government of the US will in fact continue to do their best to hack, undermine, confuse our enemies in order to promote our agenda, and we should expect and counter-strike any attempts by our enemies to do the same to us.  It’s the game.  Quit whining and lying to your own people for a change.

The Washington Examiner asks some serious questions about the report, much of which appears to be rehashed open sourced material dating back several years.  In essence, what the “spies” are telling us is Russia, under Putin, is working to undermine the last remaining superpower and through that advance its own agenda.  Well DUH!!!  The political aspect is the tying in of Trump, formed as an assumption and a personal opinion by the intel community.

Julia Ioffe, a writer for The Atlantic who watches Russia carefully, tweeted this about the intelligence community’s unclassified report on Russian hacking released Friday: “It’s hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is classified, or because the proof doesn’t exist.”*

“Thin” is right. The report is brief — the heart of it is just five broadly-spaced pages. It is all conclusions and no evidence. In the introduction, the IC — the collective voice of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA — explains that it cannot supply evidence to the public, because doing so “would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.”

The problem is, without evidence, it’s hard for the public to determine just what happened in the hacking affair. So here are six questions the IC might consider answering in the days ahead:

1) When did the Russian hacking campaign begin? The report says Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016.” It also says Russia’s intelligence services gained access to the Democratic National Committee’s computer system in July 2015 as part of an effort targeting both Democrats and Republicans, as well as individual campaigns, think tanks, and lobbyists. The IC also notes that some of Russia’s “professional trolls…started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015.” This could be a simple writing problem, or it could be something more significant. Is the report saying Putin ordered the 2016 campaign in 2015? Is it saying Russian activities in 2015 were routine operations to mess with U.S. institutions and then became part of the Putin-ordered campaign in 2016? Is it saying something else?

Good point, read the rest.  The problem we have because of Wikileaks is we now know the MSM, federal agencies and the Obama admin/Dems are working together to LIE TO US!

Which naturally makes it hard to think this time, unlike Lucy with the football, they aren’t going to pull it away at the last minute.

To that I say- I’ll just not take the chance.






Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another out the door, finger in the eye by Obama, SSA denies rights to citizens.

This is something that will lose in court if it even gets that far. One of the first acts by Trump should be to shitcan this new rule, find the idiots in the SSA who thought of it and fire them (or transfer them to Fairbanks Alaska!).

The SSA says that if you need assistance handling the money given you by SSA you can be put on a list that is given to the background checkers for gun purchases and be disqualified.  Now of course the first thought most people have is how is one related to the other?  To the SSA, that isn’t an issue because the Constitution apparently doesn’t apply. These are the EXACT types of regulations and bureaucrats we talk about when we scream about government abuse. Who are they to decide and why did they think it was their business.  Find them, identify them, FIRE THEM!

On Monday, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued the final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding (and vulnerable) disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of re-characterizing them as “mental defectives.” The SSA, for the first time in its history, will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus, effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health problems.

Barack Obama’s political party and the presidential candidate he personally endorsed and campaigned for suffered perhaps the most dramatic rebuke in the history of American politics with the election of Donald J. Trump. Far from being humbled or chastened, however, Obama is spending the waning days of his presidency releasing duly convicted felons from prison, making low-level appointments, and pushing pet policy projects, all to do something, anything, to leave his stamp after a lackluster tenure.

The Social Security rule is the final version of a proposal that we reported on earlier this year. Public outcry against the proposed rule was fierce, and the comment period drew over 91,000 responses, the vast majority of them opposing the plan.

The NRA itself submitted detailed comments, taking the proposed rule to task for its many legal problems, its lack of empirical support, and the way it would politicize the SSA’s functions and stigmatize its beneficiaries.

The SSA, however, essentially ignored the NRA’s comments and the tens of thousands of others pointing out problems with the plan and issued a final rule that in most key respects tracks the original proposal.

For example, the SSA did not attempt to answer most of the legal questions raised about its authority, instead deferring to an overbroad and problematic ATF regulation defining who counts under the federal Gun Control Act as a “mental defective” and to Department of Justice guidance on reporting. The SSA did not explain why, some two decades after the federal background check system came online, it was reversing its earlier determination about its reporting responsibilities and only now asserting a mandate to do so.

Incredibly, the SSA also brushed aside empirical evidence the NRA submitted suggesting that the proposed rule would have no public safety benefit. “We are not attempting to imply a connection between mental illness and a propensity for violence, particularly gun violence,” the SSA wrote. “Rather, we are complying with our obligations under the NIAA, which require us to provide information from our records when an individual falls within one of the categories identified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g).” This would seem to be the very definition of the sort of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking prohibited by the Administrative Procedures Act.

The SSA also insisted that it was not stigmatizing those who receive disability insurance or SSI for mental health conditions, arguing that the names of the beneficiaries reported to NICS would not be made public. What the administration ignores is that it would stigmatize the entire category of beneficiaries subject to reporting.

It doesn’t stigmatize them?  Okay right.  Nobody believes that, but when did that matter to the Obama administration?  Further, the SSA takes the position that they are right and if you disagree it is up to you, and you must pay the cost, to prove them wrong.  That’s won’t stand up to any judicial review.

The administration further acknowledges that the rule would not provide those subject to its terms the ability to defend their suitability to possess firearms before the actual loss of rights took place. In other words, it offers no due process on the question of losing Second Amendment rights.

Instead, the rule forces affected beneficiaries to file a petition for “restoration” of rights and to somehow prove their possession of firearms would not harm public safety or the public interest, even though the government never established, or tried to establish, the contrary. Regarding the expense of the psychological and medical evaluations required for this purpose, the administration claims it should be “reasonable,” although it does not and cannot claim it will actually be affordable to those who are affected by the rule.

Now remember, the people who put you on the list have to be forced to change their mind BY you (which they already believe is mental insufficient).  So what do you think are you chances?






Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson vs the liberal PC world. He’s doing good.

In all the Tucker Carlson interviews of liberals with idiotic positions, only one he actually walked away impressed and maybe convinced the woman was right. That was over the ABN in New York. I even get why the liberal senator passed a law preventing it…in New York. They are a different breed with different expectations.  Which is fine. Local laws run by local politicians who can be booted out of office for any overreach.

But the rest of the victims of Tucker’s whit and observations were less lucky. Frankly why they come on is a mystery, unless their bubble like view of the world encourages their arrogance.  In other words, they can’t see how they don’t make sense.  The latest victim was a relatively smart woman who wrote about Ivanka Trump being harassed by the airline passenger, while she was with her kids.  (Here’s a spoiler- THAT is NEVER right!)  However, Laura Duca, a writer, (for Teen Vogue as pointed out) said Ivanka is responsible for cover up for her horrible dad, as she acted like a more professional surrogate to the misogynistic father.

After Ivanka was harassed, Duca said on Twitter that “Ivanka Trump is poised to become the most powerful woman in the world. Don’t let her off the hook because she looks like she smells good.”

“What are the venues where you shouldn’t scream your political views at people, would a funeral be out-of-bounds, church, her son’s bris, like what are the rules on that?” the “Tucker Carlson Tonight” host and Daily Caller founder asked.

“Yeah, well, what I think is a nonpartisan issue is that air travel is horrific and I don’t think anybody should be enduring confrontations in the air, be it Ivanka Trump with her children or any other human being in a tin can and feeling dehydrated,” Duca said, attempting to walk back her defense of the harassment.

Here is where Tucker jumps into the fray.  And I think it is also why he kind of lost his train of thought.  He kept trying to separate the issue of whether a daughter should defend a father and this is not just politics from the fact that liberals cannot see past the horror that is Trump. Duca could not accept that a daughter, who knows her father’s heart better than most, can see beyond his crudeness and try and make other understand his good intentions.  Frankly, that is what good daughters do.  As do good wives and good companions.  Duca could not see that argument and Tucker eventually gave up. To the comments;

“But wait a second, that’s not at all what your tweet suggested,” Carlson said, later noting another tweet in which Duca said that “Ivanka HAS IT ALL, [and] by that I mean, ‘a job, family [and] sinister complicity in aiding the most aggressively anti-woman candidate of our time.’”

“Sinister complicity, what does that mean? She’s his daughter,” Carlson asked.

“She was a surrogate frequently throughout, she did interviews, she did speeches on his behalf, where she represented a platform of women’s empowerment,” Duca answered, later adding that people shouldn’t be “blinded by the fact that she looks like she smells like vanilla.”

“She looks like she smells like vanilla?” Carlson asked. “I mean, who’s objectifying women here?”

I think the more obvious approach would have been to ask HOW a woman who has such a demeaning father ended up so accomplished? Somewhere in the calculation Duca has  missed a few zeros or something.  But instead of using critical thinking, she resorted to objectifying, as though Ivanka was some kind of magical formula.  “She smells like vanilla ergo she is successful.”

Now Duca was trying to be cute, but the problem is she can’t wrap her head around the fact she’s wrong in her perceptions.  And in a nutshell, that is the problem with liberals- lack of critical thinking and critical self examination. They are SO convinced they are right they literally warp reality in order to make it work for them, much like the climate model scientists of AGW change the facts they are receiving to fit their errant computer models.  As Michael Savage pointed out, it is a disease.

Now over at Hotair, they argue Tucker resorted to making comments about her actual job- writing for Teen Vogue- as a reason she should not be taken seriously. That is unfortunate.  Hotair has gone pretty middle of the road lately and their writing reflects their PC urges. Think “Never Trumpers” gang.  What they miss is Tucker was trying to get her to realize she is in a serious area- “can we harass family members of political people we don’t agree with?”  The answer is simple, if conservatives caught Michelle Obama out and about and started taunting her and screaming at her that her husband was some kind of Islamic loving, America hating moron, what would Duca’s response be? If she would be outraged, then her argument for the validity of chasing down Ivanka and “not letting her get away with it” becomes mute.  And in a sense, as Tucker points out, she should relegate herself to thigh high boot articles.  She can’t be a fluff writer, dive into serious and potentially dangerous politics and then jump out again unscathed.  Unless you live in reality warping liberalism.

Of course, Tucker takes his shot, and she responds like a typical liberal woman who thinks everything critical of her and her gender is generated not by their actions but by “sexists pigs.” A far more genuine reflection of Ms Duca’s real views.  As we all know in police work, if you put pressure on someone, you will often get them to pull back their professional masks.

Carlson also poked fun at Duca for an article she wrote about Ariana Grande’s “Most Epic Thigh-High Boots.” Duca did not appreciate the humor, later saying, “You’re a sexist pig” after Carlson told her to stick to writing about thigh-high boots.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Left covers for their crimes and Hillary by yelling “Fake News”

But what is fake news?  Is it fake news that the MSM refused to cover the lies discovered when Wikileaks hacked Podesta emails?  Or when they further discovered through recovered emails from HRC’s actual account she had lied to the American people about Benghazi?

The Germans had a saying back seventy years ago; “Tell a lie often enough to enough people it becomes the truth.”

Today, we are seeing the Left following that age old truism.  Their goal is twofold; 1. Undermine Trump’s win so no matter what he says or does, they can put in the first paragraph- “President Trump, who lost the popular vote and had a number of state wins clouded by voter fraud, AND was helped by the Russians faking bad news about Hillary, said today……” And they will do that by setting the false (can we say fake news?) narrative and repeating it over and over and over.  2. To “prove” to the people that Hillary did not lose, but her election was stolen, thus giving cover for those crazy sycophants who are seen crying in despair to this day! (Seriously folks, get a freaking grip and once again maybe one point as to why women, and girly men, shouldn’t vote! But then again, I’m crying tears of joy she lost! Soo…)

Image result for fake news cartoon

So what is fake news?  Glenn Greenwald, who has spent years uncovering government malfeasance, has a good take on what is really fake- and it appears to be the Left planting false stories…again.

Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming – with no basis whatsoever – that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored. That lie – and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth – was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic’s David Frum, and Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald.

That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked – and thus should be disregarded – was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, the Atlantic and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he – for some bizarre reason – labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “ are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & not even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”).

All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called “The Daily News Bin” with the headline: “MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton.” This classic fake news product – citing Nance and Reid among others – was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.

The problem is nothing in the Wikileaks is faked, or not at least that we can tell. Podesta made a point of not denying it, probably because they were blindsided by the revelations and because the emails were accurate. Their fear, as I see it, was if they made a fuss and claimed them to be lies, Wikileaks would have dumped another ten thousand emails proving that statement was false.  In effect, they would be playing prevent defense against a group that had all their game plans! So they bit the bullet and suffered.

But now, they will work hard to create the new false narrative, repeat it often and hope someone will write it down and give it to the young minds full of mush, so they will grow up thinking Hillary was a saint.

I know….but then again they love Castro and Chavez…so where’s that bar set actually??

Greenwald did the work and found out that one of the biggest “fake news” incidents was created by a Hillary supporter. Trust me, they are all coordinating this, just like the Podesta emails showed for the campaign.  (Once again people, thank God that she didn’t win. This would be our new reality- crazy followed by paranoid!)

From the start, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters – not the WikiLeaks documents – that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.

When Nance – MSNBC’s “intelligence analyst” – issued his “Official Warning,” he linked to a tweet that warned: “Please be skeptical of alleged . Trumpists are dirtying docs.” That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling itself “The Omnivore,” which had posted an obviously fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.

But the person who created that forged Goldman Sachs transcript was not a “Trumpist” at all; he was a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the Daily Beast, the person behind the anonymous “The Omnivore” account unmasks himself as “Marco Chacon,” a self-professed creator of “viral fake news” whose targets were Sanders and Trump supporters (he specialized in blatantly fake anti-Clinton frauds with the goal of tricking her opponents into citing them, so that they would be discredited). When he wasn’t posting fabricated news accounts designed to make Clintons’ opponents look bad, his account looked like any other standard pro-Clinton account: numerous negative items about Sanders and then Trump, with links to many Clinton-defending articles.

In his Daily Beast article, published on November 21, Chacon describes how he manufactured the forged Goldman Sachs speech transcript. He says he did it prior to learning that the WikiLeaks releases of Podesta emails contained actual Clinton speech excerpts to Wall Street banks. But once he realized WikiLeaks had published actual Clinton transcripts, Chacon began trying to lure people he disliked – Clinton critics – into believing that his forged speeches were real, so that he could prove they were gullible and dumb.

Sadly for Chacon, however, the people who ended up getting fooled by his Fake News items were the nation’s most prominent Clinton supporters, including supposed experts and journalists from MSNBC who used his obvious fakes to try to convince the world that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and thus should be ignored. That it was pro-Clinton journalists who spread his Fake News as real now horrifies even Chacon:

The tweet went super-viral. It started an almost trending—but still going today—hashtag #bucketoflosers. A tweet declaring it a bad forgery was picked up by Malcolm Nance, an intelligence analyst for MSNBC among others, who tweeted to be wary of the WikiLeaks release. . .

Beware of the now worldwide attempt by governments claiming “fake news” is the problem. (Germany is one such example.)  The question is who decides what is fake and if you are deemed such, what will they do to you?

Well, to answer that question, you could ask Geert Wilder from the Netherlands, who was convicted of “hate speech” by a judge who ruled he incited hate when he made a speech.  The speech consisted of him asking the crowd if there should be less of a certain type of immigrant, and the crowd agreed.

The case against Wilders, which took 20 months to come to a verdict, was built on 6,500 official complaints after he led a party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.” The Telegraph has details:

The crowd’s response of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organised, said a judge at the secure court at Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech.

“It doesn’t matter that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the judge. “The message that evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work…The group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”

Wilders said, in a statement in English posted on his YouTube channel, “I still cannot believe it, but I have been convicted because I asked a question about Moroccans. The Netherlands has become a sick country. The judge who convicted me [has] restricted the freedom of speech for millions of Dutch. I will never be silent. I am not a racist and neither are my voters.”

Michiel Pestman, lawyer for some of the complainants who helped bring the case, said: “This is the first time that a court has said that minorities need special protection and even a politician should be very careful about what he says.” [Emphasis added] In other words, we must make sure that free speech applies only to protected minorities, by which he means Muslims.

Lucien Nix, a solicitor for the council of Moroccan mosques in Holland said, “The Netherlands can take a deep breath of relief. Moroccan Dutch people have felt robbed of their dignity and a heightened sense of discrimination. We have waited for this for a long time.”

Abdou Menebhi, one of the complainants, told The Telegraph, “Half a million people feel the threat of Wilders every day. This gives us trust in the legal process.”

What about the millions of Dutch, for whom Wilders speaks, who feel the threat of their society being Islamized?

That’s a good question.  So we have the elites invoking “fake news” as a reason to take more control over what you hear, and the same elites finding a politician guilty for speaking out.

Anyone else see a pattern? Get ready, this will not go away. Liberals are endlessly energetic when plotting mischief, and they have a President to destroy.

Image result for fake news cartoon

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump sends a message to foreign nations, it’s okay to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

And that’s a twist for sure.

Foreign governments will be encouraged to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s finances, as many are already turning off money spigots to the scandal-scarred group, The Post has learned.

A source close to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team told The Post that the new administration plans to pressure the US ambassadors it will name to bring up the foundation with foreign governments — and suggest they probe its ­financial dealings.

Trump said last week that he would not order an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server or her role in the foundation.

But Trump’s statement didn’t preclude the backroom moves to investigate the group.

“Haiti and Colombia will be key diplomatic posts for this ­because of all the money ­involved,” said the source.

In Haiti, recently leaked ­e-mails indicate “Friends of Bill” Clinton may have been given priority from the State Department as it prepared to spend some
$10 billion in aid after a devastating earthquake hit the country in 2010. The State Department has denied any special treatment.

In Colombia, Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra pledged $100 million to the foundation in 2005 and later benefited from the foundation’s philanthropic work in the country, where he acquired large parcels of land and set up an oil business, ­according to watchdog groups.

For those who still don’t get why the Clinton Foundation should be looked at, here is another video from a man who did just that and found it to be phenomenally illegal and improper.  Take the time to watch. His major takeaway after analyzing the books?

Wall Street investment analyst Charles Ortel called the Clinton Foundation “the largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted” before all the newly-exposed emails from campaign chairman John Podesta’s account were released from WikiLeaks.

The leaks have fortified his findings. The Wall Street investment analyst, who retired at 46 and prides himself on researching complex problems like General Electric and the credit crisis, has been fly-specking the Clinton Foundation since the spring of 2015.

Ortel explains why he believes the Clinton Foundation is a “crooked charity cooking the books” with over $2 billion dollars in revenue, in this exclusive video interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Now the fly in this particular ointment is that Columbia and Haiti have their own corrupt governments to work with, which means they may not be interested in chasing the CF.  Heck, I’m betting more than a few bureaucrats within those governments took a bribe to look the other way. That’s how the Clintons roll!

But what is important here, the people of Haiti have a right to have the world hear just how badly they were treated by the Clinton Foundation, with the full knowledge of both Clintons.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The best line to explain liberals today? Crazy people are dangerous.

Over at American Thinker, Lloyd Marcus– a long time conservative- points out the decaying mental fitness of many people on the Left. He also points out how this war will NEVER end with them, as they feel justified cheating, lying and stealing.  To them, it is “the ends justify the means” philosophy through and through.

The left has already begun doubling down on its efforts to demonize conservatism and block every attempt to reverse Obama’s illegal far-left radical transformation of our once great nation.

Heads up, folks.  Step one in the left’s War Room playbook is to discourage us, to convince us that Trump is a fraud who will betray his voters.  This is why we are seeing so many leftist talking heads, the N.Y. Times, and other Democrat operatives disguised as media claiming that Trump is backing away from his campaign promises.  Don’t fall for it, folks.

These people on the left are relentless and evil.  Yes, I said evil.  Most of what they stand for and desire to do is consistently anti-God, anti-America, and anti-traditional family and values.  They always send the message that God’s original plan and purposes are stupid.  They have a much better, more sophisticated idea for the way things ought to be.

Even as I speak, Hillary’s camp is still insidiously scheming to steal the presidential election from We the People in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

In an unprecedented sleazy attack, Hillary’s thugs sent threatening letters to electors to bully them into breaking tradition and the law by voting against the will of voters in their states.  Hillary’s thugs are trying to strong-arm electors to vote for Hillary on December 19 rather than Trump, the people’s choice.

The Clintons are like Jason and Michael Myers in those Friday the 13th and Halloween movies.  No matter what was done to kill Jason and Michael – hit them with a train, cut them up into little pieces – somehow they came back to life.  Thus, I am holding my breath until after December 19.  Then I can rest assured that Hillary is truly politically dead, and Trump can begin fixing Obama’s mess, making America great again.

There is no doubt Jill Stein is fronting for Hillary.  Not to steal the election but to further de-legitimize Trump as a President.  They claim the popular vote, then throw enough “doubt” on the electoral college results and you get a situation that every time Trump says or acts as a President, there will be people screaming “he’s not MY President” and pulling up all this garbage as “facts”.  Same playbook, different event. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Hillary is a functioning sociopath.  She fits into the new democrat party because it represents what is found in the drain at the bottom of a public pool.  There is no honor, humility, honesty or grace in many of their core.  You can add mental stability to the list now.  As Marcus points out so clearly.

Like The Carpenters’ song, “We’ve Only Just Begun,” is the monumental politically bloody battle to reverse Obama’s evil transformation of our country.  Crazy people are dangerous.  Thus, be prepared for the crazy left to come at Trump and normal thinking Americans with every evil scheme and attack their perverted brains can conceive.

Three leftist black thugs beat up an elderly white man, including kicks to his face, for voting for Trump.  A group of leftist blacks beat up a black female Trump supporter and told spectators not to call an ambulance for her.  Black Lives Matter have doubled down on assassinating police.  Unprecedented, there have been 60 police officers fatally shot this year, 20 in ambushes.  This is pure evil from the pits of Hell, folks.

We must be ready to legally push back.  Quoting English military and political leader Oliver Cromwell, “Trust in God, and keep your powder dry.”

I will add- and make sure you have enough  powder…because they simply will not go away!  As one friend put it, “I thought we saw her melt!”

So I might also add- “bigger fire hoses?!”




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

George Soros spends millions on “small ball”

Soros is a bad, bad guy.

He is also committed to undermining nations, including this one and the democrats, the far left one like Ellison and Pelosi, are more than willing to help.  They all met and planned ways to thwart Trump and continue the chaos- with the funding by Soros as the source.

George Soros and other rich liberals who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to elect Hillary Clinton are gathering in Washington for a three-day, closed door meeting to retool the big-money left to fight back against Donald Trump.

The conference, which kicked off Sunday night at Washington’s pricey Mandarin Oriental hotel, is sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance donor club, and will include appearances by leaders of most leading unions and liberal groups, as well as darlings of the left such as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison, according to an agenda and other documents obtained by POLITICO.

The meeting is the first major gathering of the institutional left since Trump’s shocking victory over Hillary Clinton in last week’s presidential election, and, if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One. Some sessions deal with gearing up for 2017 and 2018 elections, while others focus on thwarting President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan, which the agenda calls “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”

Yet the meeting also comes as many liberals are reassessing their approach to politics — and the role of the Democracy Alliance, or DA, as the club is known in Democratic finance circles. The DA, its donors and beneficiary groups over the last decade have had a major hand in shaping the institutions of the left, including by orienting some of its key organizations around Clinton, and by basing their strategy around the idea that minorities and women constituted a so-called “rising American electorate” that could tip elections to Democrats.

That didn’t happen in the presidential election, where Trump won largely on the strength of his support from working-class whites. Additionally, exit polls suggested that issues like fighting climate change and the role of money in politics — which the DA’s beneficiary groups have used to try to turn out voters — didn’t resonate as much with the voters who carried Trump to victory.

True, so what does this look like in real life? A very disturbing picture.

Republican Matthew McCord was feeling pretty good about the $12,000 he had raised for his campaign for Henry County district attorney when he was blindsided by a September surprise.

New York billionaire George Soros dumped $147,000 into Georgia Safety & Justice, an independent-expenditure committee registered on Aug. 26, aimed at defeating Mr. McCord and electing his opponent, Democrat Darius Pattillo.

After recovering from the shock, Mr. McCord, a former prosecutor in Clayton and Newton counties, did what he thought was best for himself and the party: He dropped out of the race, allowing Mr. Pattillo to run unopposed.

“It was horrible,” said Mr. McCord, a lawyer in private practice in McDonough. “They rented space, they had a staff, they were using a Washington, D.C.-based PR firm. So what I knew was they could say whatever they wanted to say about me. It didn’t matter if it was true, and I would have no way to respond.”

He had already received a taste of things to come. “I’ve always been fairly centrist. I have a foundation that I started that has paid to send minority kids to school. And they [Soros campaigners] were already trying to paint me as a white racist,” he said. “It’s deplorable.”

Mr. McCord wasn’t alone. In 2015 and 2016 Mr. Soros, a leading Black Lives Matter funder, sunk more than $7 million into at least 11 local prosecutorial races in 10 states in an effort to implement criminal justice reform from the inside.

In addition to Henry County, the races took place in Bernalillo County, New Mexico; St. Louis; Harris County, Texas; Maricopa County, Arizona; Cook County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Colorado; Orange/Osceola counties, Florida; Hinds County, Mississippi; Lowndes County, Mississippi, and Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

Most of the time it paid off: Of the 11 races for county district attorney examined by The Washington Times, the Soros-backed candidate won nine. In two of those contests, Republicans took themselves out of the running before the election.

For Mr. McCord, the decision to exit came after he spoke with Republican Dhu Thompson, who lost his bid for district attorney a year ago in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, after Mr. Soros’s Louisiana Safety & Justice PAC spent $800,000 on behalf of his opponent.

“He [Thompson] said to me, ‘The get-out-the-vote effort is massive. When Soros comes in, he’s going to bring his own people, and they’re going to bus everyone he can to the polls, and it’s going to affect other races,’” said Mr. McCord.

“Every Republican who won here won by a pretty thin margin,” he said. “If I had stayed in it, I was pretty sure it would inure to the detriment of people who were my friends, who were also running for office.”

Progressives have praised Mr. Soros’ commitment to helping elect prosecutors who share his commitment to goals such as “reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of trials,” said the Reverb Press’ Megan Hamilton.

“While other mega-donors pour money into the presidential and congressional campaigns, Soros is changing the American justice system for the better,” she said in a Sept. 1 post.

This is not good, and Trump should put his DOJ on it to make sure everything is up and up.  Soros is a bad guy who admittedly loves to create chaos in order to profit.  And he doesn’t care how many people get hurt.

As the U.S. economy continues to deteriorate, anger will grow and rioting in the streets is sure to follow. “It’s already started,” he says. “Yes, yes, yes,” Soros adds; “almost gleefully,” Newsweek writer John Arlidge editorializes.

For years Soros has longed for an opportunity to transform America into a socialist state. Will he finally get his chance in 2012? “The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it,” he said in 2009 as he created the Institute for New Economic Thinking with a $50 million endowment.

The purpose of INET, in his own words, is to develop “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.”

This Marxist sympathizer co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that funds leftist political infrastructure. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and favors American decline. Soros praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation has “a better-functioning government than the United States.” (National Post, Nov. 16, 2010)

In one sense, he’s right. If he pulled one of his economy-collapsing stunts in China, the authorities would waste no time putting him in front of a firing squad. But in America Soros’s economic troublemaking earns him invitations to the Obama White House.

Soros now counts on the armies of street thugs that comprise the “Occupy” movement to ramp up the anarchy. He praises Occupy Wall Street as “an inchoate, leaderless manifestation of protest,” disingenuously distancing himself from the supposedly spontaneous uprising.

Like I said, a bad guy.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary goes full Dreyfus after seeing this.

Imagine being HRC and watching the news or skimming the internet and you are constantly being barraged with the phrase “President-elect Donald Trump”!  I know, even I scratch my head and expect Rod Serling from the Twilight Zone TV show step out with a cigarette in his hand and say ” This cannot happen can it? Unless we are all in the Twilight Zone.” (Cue the music – Tada dada, tada dada Daa!”)

Every time she clicks on the the TV she sees this.

And hopes this guy steps out and says;

Image result for Image of rod serling twilight zone

Just screwing with you President elect Clinton, you can wake up now!

But we know that’s not how it turned out. Instead, Hillary can now see this website logo on the Web and TV.






And does this to the nearest person!








Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A police recruiting video. Or why you don’t want to be one!

From Iowa City, where a crazy lady harassing the police face times her interaction.  This is a 65yr old white woman using urban verbiage like “popo”.  You can’t make it up, but this is the LEFT in America.  You can bet she’s not a conservative!  Listen to the video and ask yourself why in the world would want to have the job as a police officer.

A 65-year-old Iowa woman has gone viral for a video she filmed of herself tearing down a group of police officers who were mourning a fallen comrade.

The bizarre rant occurred at the Brewhemia cafe in Cedar Rapids on November 6.  The woman, Melyssa Jo Kelly, started filming herself inside the coffee shop, as she took issue with three officers who had black bands over their badges.

The band is worn by officers who have lost a colleague in the line of duty.

However Kelly slammed the cops for caring about one of their own, and not a black man, Jerime Mitchell, 37, who was shot by police in a traffic stop in Cedar Springs a few days earlier.

‘We got the popo wearing the black thing on her badge. Guess she’s sorry a couple of cops got whacked in Des Moines,’ Kelly says.

Pointing at a female officer in the cafe, Kelly continued: ‘But she doesn’t give a s— about the man who is in critical care at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics with a bullet in his neck from one of the wonderful and vicious thug brothers in blue.’

‘Of course we know that the pig does whatever it wants, whether its streaming live or whatever. The only thing that ain’t live about the popo (sic) is they way they kill people and get away with it,’ Kelly said.

The police try and get Kelly to move on after the owners of the cafe asked her to leave and she refused. The cops threatened to arrest her for trespassing, but eventually gave her a warning.

When the female officer said Kelly’s behavior is comical, she says to her: ‘Then why don’t you go and die laughing.’

Now you know she’s taunting the police, thinking her live streaming will somehow convince others to rally to her “cause”.  (Whatever crazy dumbassed thing her twisted brain that is the cause anyway.)

What she really managed to do is show America just who inhabits the “Left” in the country. and why to protect a civil society we need to tamp this stupid shit down. Heck dress her up and she could be Hillary or Nancy.  Who know, maybe Hillary will join her once Hillary gets out of the house!

It took a great deal of restraint to handle her.  She had certainly passed the “I’m crazy and need to be taken in for evaluation” threshold a while back, but sometimes it is easier to just let them go and hope they get hit in traffic…so…

One wonders how she eats? Is she on disability? Have a job? Retired?  She’s nuts and nobody in their right mind would hire her as she is one rant away from a lawsuit because they “offended” her, so?

And as a learning lesson for citizens who have to interact with officer and wonder why they have an attitude toward them, just remember this could have been their last call, and they are only human after all.

On her Facebook page, where she posted the video, Kelly is vocal in her political views, especially of her hate of Donald Trump and her support of the Black Lives Matter campaign

That b**ch be crazy!

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment