RSS Feed

Category Archives: Clinton

Media? What Media?

Posted on

By what right or measure does “the media” claim its current self endowed titled of The Free Press? They are in no way free as they are well known to be employed by large corporations who support globalism and are in bed with the Democratic Party. Just to be clear, it would be equally as bad if they were controlled or manipulated by the Republican Party, especially if the Republicans were advocating anti-American policies and working to fundamentally change or make obsolete substantial portions of our Constitution. They have become so obvious about their prejudices that they are even selective about what news items they will actually report! When the media is driving the news and manipulating the dialogue for the entire nation, elevating gossip and hearsay over facts, policies and agendas then things have just gone too far!

Where was this “media” when Obama’s administration was caught up in “fast and furious”? Why were there no continuous interviews targeting the administration for gun running? Why was there no outrage from the press when a border agent was murdered and then later when those guns began surfacing in the US? Why was the press not shocked? Why was there no rumor of an independent prosecutor or an investigative committee?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430153/fast-furious-obama-first-scandal          http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Where was “the media” criticism when Obama started bringing in members of the Muslim Brotherhood to work in the White House? Why were there no questions when an enemy organization was allowed to rewrite and revise the procedures and training practices of the military, the FBI, the CIA and those are just the ones we know about! The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization and supports the jihad movement and its activities. Why was there no media coverage of this? Why wasn’t this critical and important information on every front page in America?             http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/            http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/expert-fbi-neutered-by-muslim-brotherhood/                                     https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/fbi-document-purge/

Why did “the media” cover up for Comey when he made his announcement about Hillary Clinton and the email investigation. He obviously, plainly and clearly deliberately lied about what the statute (18 USC section 793) required. Do you have to be a democrat to tell a bald faced lie on national TV and suffer no consequences? Where was “the media’s” reference to the actual statute? Why did not one reporter check to see if intent was a requirement at all? (Intent is not a requirement, it is deliberately not a requirement) Where were the talk show demands for accountability? How could the exposure of our nation’s secrets be disregarded and unpunished? Where was “the media”?

Why did Obama surveil so many Americans? How many did he collect information on? Why is “the media” talking about White House gossip and attacks on President Trump instead of this? Why did Obama sign that Executive Order right before he left office promoting more sharing of information between intelligence agencies when it allegedly only encourages leaks? Why has there been no editorial questioning this? Where is “the media” on such a topic of true concern, is our government spying on us? Are the intelligence services out of control? Without a decent investigative press we may never know.                                                                                                                                                http://planetfreewill.com/2017/05/28/new-revelations-shed-light-extent-nsa-spying-obama/   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-24/fisa-court-finds-very-serious-fourth-amendment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-search                                               http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/ask_james_rosen_and_angela_merkel_about_obama_spying.html

There are other issues that I think should have been brought into the light also. We never did find out the particulars about Benghazi and no one was held accountable. The shameful use of the IRS to handicap conservative organizations before an election was horrendous and once again, no one was held accountable. There are literally mountains of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation and the way they set the State Department up as a “pay for play” deal. That isn’t news? That isn’t important or shocking? It involved citizens, corporations and foreign governments, yet our press barely even gave it acknowledgement. Clinton’s Uranium deal should definitely be investigated. Yet there has been little coverage, not at the time it occurred and not now. Where is “the media”? If they are so afraid of every small interaction with Russia then Clinton’s facilitation of the sale of 20% of America’s uranium reserves to Russia should be the biggest story of the year!

So, we do not really have a legitimate mainstream media, we actually have a propaganda machine. As American citizens we can either be manipulated sheep or we can be intelligent consumers. I can not trust the networks or cable channels since they all push a liberal point of view. I have gone elsewhere…and, either way, I highly recommend fact checking!

Russia and Our Voters

I am including an article written by Logan Albright at Conservative Review. I have always believed that the politicians underestimate most voters. I know that the media does. Now the media is misrepresenting what Trump has said. I heard him say that he was absolutely behind an investigation into hacking as long as it covered all hacking. Chris Wallace didn’t emphasize that and the dems on his “panel” ignored it.

I understand that 17 intelligence agencies determined that Russia hacked the DNC as well as Podesta. They further concluded that the motivation for this was to get Trump elected. I believe they can accurately determine concrete facts but I have a problem with the politically appointed head of The CIA stating that they all agree on something as subjective as motive. For all we know, Russia would have supported anyone over Clinton. Maybe they didn’t want to pay millions into the Clinton Foundation. They knew her well from her four years as Secretary of State. I don’t think they thought much of her. But maybe it wasn’t about who was elected at all.

Mr. Albright has a beautiful point of view on this:

People are freaking out over the persistent allegations that Russian hackers “fixed” the election by leaking private emails to the public. While the extent of Russia’s involvement is not clear, and there are a number of conflicting accounts, the accusation itself gives a fairly clear insight into the Left’s view of the democratic process. Note that no one is accusing Russia of altering vote counts, of rigging voting machines to give the wrong result, or of publishing false information about Hillary Clinton. The accusation is that voters were exposed to true information about Clinton, and that this knowledge caused them not to vote for her.

This position is so fundamentally insulting I’m surprised it isn’t talked about more often.
Right there, the implication is that truth is bad, and that democracy would be better if it were easier to conceal facts from voters. We have to lie to people for their own good, because otherwise they might make bad decisions (like voting for Trump.) And here I thought a well-informed electorate was a necessary ingredient to a healthy democracy. But liberal outrage runs deeper than a simple condemnation of truth.

There is a belief among progressives — rarely made explicit but implied in many of their policy positions — that voters are not rational actors who decide the president based on their preferences, but are instead pawns who can pushed this way or that by political chess masters. From this perspective, the problem is not that people decided against voting for Clinton based on the information available, but rather that Russia made them vote for Clinton via its alleged actions. Choice never seems to be a concern.

This prevailing attitude among the Left is clear from their positions on campaign finance. If corporations are allowed to spend money on political advertisements, leftists argue, they will be able to “buy” elections. How does this work? Have you ever changed your mind about who to vote for because you saw a yard sign? I haven’t. No amount of advertising, phone calls, or search engine optimization can convince me to vote for someone who doesn’t share my principles and values. I suspect most of the critics of SuperPAC spending feel the same way. They could never be swayed by corporate money, but all the lowly peons — the average voters — apparently lack the same sort of insight, conviction, and indeed, free will.

This position is so fundamentally insulting I’m surprised it isn’t talked about more often. We are all human beings, with the freedom to select whichever candidate we choose. We can’t be bought, and we can’t be forced to vote for someone we dislike, certainly not by leaked emails or corporate-funded yard signs. To suggest otherwise is to deny our agency and our humanity.
People howling about the Russian hackers with claims that democracy has been compromised assume that voters had no choice to ignore the leaks and vote for Clinton anyway. But if your view of people is that they are mindless automata who can be manipulated into voting a particular way by ad buys and leaked truth, then democracy is beyond saving.
* See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/if-russia-gave-voters-more-information-is-that-not-a-good-thing#sthash.QBJxxTQL.dpuf

Rules or Manipulation for Radicals

Sol Alinsky wrote his famous Rules for Radicals in the early 1970’s trying to help those who would disrupt society. His well known rules are restated here for the edification and enjoyment of all who might need a quick reference:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule.)

These people are thieves and monsters. Why Clintons Must Be Prosecuted

Dec 5, 2016 by Douglas J. Hagmann | The Hagmann & Hagmann Report   The nation of Haiti could easily serve as the most visibly damning evidence of the most despicable type of self-enrichmen…

Source: These people are thieves and monsters. Why Clintons Must Be Prosecuted

 

This is a repost from one of my favorite blogs, RECLAIM OUR REPUBLIC. Justice should be equal for all and as we all believe, no one should be above the law!

Vicious Worrying Rumor

In the midst of all of this political back and forth, there is one particular item that I read today which actually frightened me and made me more afraid than ever of what will happen should Clinton become president.

There are levels of National Security classifications. Being a layman I am ignorant of all of the layers, I know there is Confidential (which is evidently a fairly low level), there is a Secret level and we all know about the Top Secret designation.

There is also a higher classification which is so secret that except for very few in the absolute highest echelons of government, the only people who know about each segment or unit of information are those with a proven need to know. This information relates to the most important of our national secrets, the most necessary, dangerous and risky of our spy projects where numerous lives are at stake, defense technology, etc. This highest classification is known as a special access program or SAP. Each SAP has an administrator who has the responsibility to administer that program. Just because you have been read into one SAP does not mean you will ever have access or even knowledge of any other SAP. Those who have been read into a SAP have to abide by rigid protocols including taking a polygraph yearly no matter who you are. The subject matter Is. That. Important.

So today when I read that the FBI was 99% certain that Hillary Clinton’s server, which was not as well protected as an ordinary gmail account, was hacked by five to seven foreign governments AND that she had information on not one but SEVEN SAPS on her server. This is no foolish mistake, this is no minor breach. This is skating alarmingly close to treason. How could a responsible adult in her position neglect to take every required precaution when lives are at stake and our national security is at risk? 

Hillary Clinton cannot be President. She does not take enough care with the secrets of our military or our government. Even worse, she cannot be president because she is loyal to self first, party second and maybe the American people last. We cannot have such a careless person as president. 

A Special Prosecutor should be appointed immediately. Government Corruption has never been more obvious!

On Principle

I have more than a few friends who believe that I am throwing out my principles because I will be voting for Donald Trump in November. I’ve also heard more along this line from some talk radio hosts and opinion columnists. I cannot even comprehend this line of reasoning (if that is what it is).  Throwing your vote away on your own personal perfect candidate does not accomplish anything positive for the country. Furthermore, if you are a principled individual you are obligated to confront the reality of circumstances as they exist and not as you would either pretend they should be or as some bizarre strange path through the congress triggered by a third party vote which would result in a third party president. I have never been a gambler. I do not want to gamble with the future of my country. Any action that allows Hillary Clinton to increase her chances of winning the presidency is insane and irresponsible and no argument can convince me otherwise.

My principles are not so soft and weak that they fall when the obviously biased mainstream media tries to influence my thinking. It is true that I have been on this earth long enough to have lived through more than a few Clinton scandals, but if one does just a little standard investigation on her government “service” record, the mishandling of CLASSIFIED MATERIAL (including overseas posts, counter terrorism activities and at least one reference to a SAP!!!) it is so very obvious, even before considering anything else, that she is not even qualified to handle classified documents. 

A person of principle asks what our Supreme Court would look like under Hillary Clinton. The eight member court currently is awaiting the new president’s pick to fill out the bench of nine justices. We now basically have 4 liberals and 4 conservatives. Naturally I have boiled it down a bit for simplicity and space, individual votes on different issues vary, but as a generalization it holds fairly well. Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 the Supreme Court has gradually taken on more power than the Constitution grants to it. Now it has become an arbiter of social justice, an interventionist in legislative acts and the ultimate authority on what is constitutional. There are only two members on the highest court who strictly construe and apply the Constitution of the United States as it was intended and written. So, if Clinton is elected there will be an immediate appointment of a radically liberal justice. This will tip the balance of the court for a generation since justices serve for life. In addition, it is expected that our next president will appoint as many as 3 or even 4 justices as those we have now are getting older and may leave during the next four years. Obviously, the more liberal justices we have sitting on our Supreme Court the more likely it is that the Bill of Rights will be seriously infringed. I know that the Second Amendment will not survive, neither will what remains of the Tenth (States Rights). Most have not even noticed, but even the First Amendment has eroded over the last eight years. If Hillary Clinton is elected, few realize how badly it will impact the crumbling framework that remains after Obama’s last eight years of illegal executive orders, the burdensome expansion of executive bureaucracy and its associated explosion of rules and onerous regulations, the clear squashing of state’s rights and the frightening rise in power of the centralized Federal Government. 

It is against my principles to allow any politician or party who uses the IRS to target political opponents any access to power in Washington. I will add here that any political party that is using the media for propaganda purposes is manipulating the voting public and greedy for power. When the media turns away from the issues and covers or manufactures lies attacking the republican candidate it is beyond shocking and alarming. The media has virtually ignored the leaked emails and the problems with Clinton’s honesty, integrity, character and professional judgement. Most of the mainstream media are no longer journalists at all, they are either government, Democratic Party or Republican establishment mouthpieces.

Our government is properly by and for the people, not over and oppressing the people. We should control the government, the government should not control us by planning our neighborhoods, determining what the schools teach our children, placing any limits on our religious liberty, taking land away from the states or their citizens or doing anything to threaten the gun ownership of honest law abiding Americans, and that includes collecting names for a registry. The president has no right or power under the Constitution to make any treaty or agreement which takes effect without approval from Congress. Obama certainly has no power to give up any sovereignty to the UN for any purpose whatsoever. I have only listed a few things that the current administration has begun but which Clinton has promised to continue and expand. My principles will not allow me to ignore the precarious position we are in because so many of the basic bedrock fundamentals of our Constitution are being attacked and ignored. Our Federal Government has grown and evolved into the very thing that our founding fathers were so afraid of and tried so hard to protect us from with the separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment as well as the Bill of Rights.

I am, therefore, holding on to my principles and voting for Donald Trump. I freely admit I like his tax plan, I approve of most of the people he surrounds himself with, I am relieved that many of the women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior are being debunked, but make no mistake. He would have to be much much worse. He would have to sell out his country, he would have to make millions from Haiti after a natural disaster when he had gone to give aid, he would have to leave 4 Americans to die in Benghazi and lie to their families, he would have to steal furniture from the White House, he would have to arrange for approval so PUTIN CONTROLS 20% OF U.S. URANIUM! 

Under Obama the DOJ is no longer above reproach and has been shown to be in collusion with the Clinton campaign. The FBI is corrupt for the first time in U.S. history. The State Department also has been exposed for covering up for Hillary Clinton. An honest person does not debase and corrupt everything she comes in contact with. The democratic hold on the White House must be broken and we must get back to basics, transparency, patriotism and honesty.

Laughing at the Media

I think it is becoming highly entertaining to watch the liberal media, who knows absolutely not one solitary thing about how Donald Trump thinks or what he intends or plans, analyze his every statement and comment. These liberal media commentators speak as if they are Donald Trump’s closest friends and have tea with him at five every afternoon!

I have forgotten the exact quote, but he said that the “Second Ammendment people” would take care of Hillary. We all say we will take care of things every day. We do not go out and kill them. Trump is not the candidate who has mysterious deaths littering his past life! Furthermore, I am a “Second Ammendment person” and fit right within his class definition of citizens who would get out and do everything possible to defeat such a move. However, I no longer have a CC license, I do not open carry and have no intentions of killing anyone and I did not interpret Trump’s remark that way, nor do I know any reasonable normal person who did. Most “Second Amendment people” do not shoot their guns at people and do not want to. 

Trump defines the problems of the inner city. Naturally, the media claims that his intent is to be racist and demeaning to an entire segment of the population. What self-respecting candidate would ever say something with intentions like that?Everyone who listened to those speeches knew he was being honest and that he does want to remedy the problems, not ignore them. The Trump-hating media, who sifts each word out of the candidate’s mouth for negative implications, attempts to convince the American public that it is still fair and relatively objective. As such, they are certainly (not) capable and qualified to judge his meaning and intent. It does get pretty funny, though, watching how far they twist and turn to attribute evil intent to a man who is not evil at all.

Then there is the comment about Clinton’s bodyguards dropping their weapons. Well of course he meant that he wanted some crazy to get through her protection (Rediculous)! The media so totally missed the point on this one that it makes you wonder if they were even listening to the context in which it was made. After all, if Hillary gets protected by guns why shouldn’t every other citizen have the ability to protect themselves in the same way? Likewise, if hardworking American citizens have to give up their guns and their Second Ammendment rights, then Clinton’s bodyguards should give up their guns too! I agree!!

Yes, the media has evidently studied Trump so very carefully but are so incompetent and/or dishonest that they still manage to misinterpret, attribute false narratives, ignore positive stories, blow up mistakes, minimize policy advances and generally claim that they are the definitive source on what occurs in Donald Trump’s brain. If the whole world does not fall apart in laughter just thinking about that, then we have all just lost our senses of humor to politics!

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world

larrysmusings

This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and comments on random issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Rouser

Wake up. Ask Why?

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

SMALLGOVREPORT

Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: