He fought in World War II. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in Va.
The FBI and local police are investigating how at least 19 dead Virginians were recently re-registered to vote in this critical swing state.
The FBI and local police MUST BE LYING cause we are told repeatedly that voter fraud is a myth! We NEED to support same day registration, IDless voting, 30 day voting, "motor voter laws", honor system voting, etc. cause RACISM!
All of the forms had been submitted by a private group that was working to register voters on the campus of James Madison University, according to the Harrisonburg registrar’s office. The group was not identified. No charges have been filed.
Why was the "private group" not identified? Why have no charges been filed? Could it be that Democrats approve of and support this type of activity?
House Minority Leader David J. Toscano (D-Charlottesville) said the case was not proof of voter fraud because no one had actually managed to cast a vote in the names of the dead.
“First of all, there was no voter fraud — they caught him,” Toscano said. “Nobody cast a vote. . . . There’s still no evidence of that going on in the state. But there is evidence every time you turn around that the Republicans are trying to make it more difficult for citizens to vote in elections.”
They caught him? Him who? The dead guy?
So by dumb luck these 19 dead citizens were found out. That [in Toscano's mind] indicates that there is no voter fraud and no problem.
19 more dead people removed from voter rolls, Hillary Clinton hardest hit...
Friday, September 30, 2016
Logic bomb #2
a) Leonardo DiCaprio cares so much for the environment and believes that climate change "is real, it is happening right now".
b) Al Gore cares greatly about the environment. He has even said: "The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences."
c) At least 190 nations care so much for climate change that representatives from those countries traveled to Paris, France in 2015 for a climate summit and UN talks.
If climate change is such a pressing problem that something "must be done RIGHT NOW regardless of the costs", why do all of these dignitaries and famous people travel all over the world promoting their cause? Have they not heard of Skype or Facetime?
If they care so much for the climate, why don't they act like they do?
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that maybe all of these climate folks care more about seeming to care about the climate than actually caring, no? This could be the case so as to enable them to get invited to all the right parties, enable them to feel sufficiently smug about themselves (cause they care you know), and / or (in the case of the former VP) make tons and tons of money off of other gullible folks and governments. It sure seems that those that cry loudest about the climate actually behave like it is no big deal. Or am I being too cynical?
Update (via Instapundit):
b) Al Gore cares greatly about the environment. He has even said: "The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences."
c) At least 190 nations care so much for climate change that representatives from those countries traveled to Paris, France in 2015 for a climate summit and UN talks.
If climate change is such a pressing problem that something "must be done RIGHT NOW regardless of the costs", why do all of these dignitaries and famous people travel all over the world promoting their cause? Have they not heard of Skype or Facetime?
If they care so much for the climate, why don't they act like they do?
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that maybe all of these climate folks care more about seeming to care about the climate than actually caring, no? This could be the case so as to enable them to get invited to all the right parties, enable them to feel sufficiently smug about themselves (cause they care you know), and / or (in the case of the former VP) make tons and tons of money off of other gullible folks and governments. It sure seems that those that cry loudest about the climate actually behave like it is no big deal. Or am I being too cynical?
Update (via Instapundit):
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Voter fraud example #25
Washington Mall Terrorist Cetin Wasn’t U.S. Citizen, Still Voted Three Times
...Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary.
Impossible! Democrats and liberals tell us constantly that voter fraud DOES NOT HAPPEN, PERIOD.
The Government's voting records MUST BE LYING!
...Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system.
Another fraudulent voter stopped, Hillary Clinton hardest hit...
...Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary.
Impossible! Democrats and liberals tell us constantly that voter fraud DOES NOT HAPPEN, PERIOD.
The Government's voting records MUST BE LYING!
...Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system.
Another fraudulent voter stopped, Hillary Clinton hardest hit...
Monday, September 26, 2016
Voter fraud example #24
CBS4 Investigation Finds Dead Voters Casting Ballots In Colorado
How can this be? We are repeatedly told that voter fraud DOES NOT HAPPEN and anyone wishing to improve the integrity of the voting system is racist. Who would have thought that CBS4 in Colorado was so racist!
Following the CBS4 investigation, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office reviewed the CBS4 findings and confirmed at least 78 dead voters remained eligible to vote. Lynn Bartels, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office, said county clerks were notified and told to immediately remove those 78 names from voter rolls. Bartels said “It’s not clear why” those dead citizens were still being listed as eligible voters.
More dead people removed from voter rolls in Colorado ensuring they will no longer be able to vote, Hillary Clinton hardest hit...
How can this be? We are repeatedly told that voter fraud DOES NOT HAPPEN and anyone wishing to improve the integrity of the voting system is racist. Who would have thought that CBS4 in Colorado was so racist!
Following the CBS4 investigation, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office reviewed the CBS4 findings and confirmed at least 78 dead voters remained eligible to vote. Lynn Bartels, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office, said county clerks were notified and told to immediately remove those 78 names from voter rolls. Bartels said “It’s not clear why” those dead citizens were still being listed as eligible voters.
More dead people removed from voter rolls in Colorado ensuring they will no longer be able to vote, Hillary Clinton hardest hit...
MacGyver reboot
So the "media" has decided that they are all out of decent original show ideas, all out of crappy original show ideas, all out of reasonable relaunches/reboots of old successful shows and have started picking at the corpses of old, bad show ideas.
In this case, they are planning a relaunch of MacGyver. I will admit that I used to watch MacGyver in the late 80s and found it enjoyable, until it wasn't. It was [generally] about a fellow that used his imagination and innovative skills to "make do" with whatever was laying round, to fix stuff, break stuff, solve problems, save lives, etc.
Maybe I was naive about the show's under-currents either due to my youth or my "innocence". At the time it never struck me as overly political. I stopped watching the series before it ended and I stopped watching rather abruptly. I still remember "the" episode that caused me to stop. As was typical for each episode in that MacGyver found himself and a couple of others "in harms way" and having to protect themselves from "bad guys".
One of the key elements of that show, for me, at the time was how he used the "stuff" he found in efficient ways to accomplish goals. Use the best tools you have to do the best you can and think outside of the box.
Well in this particular episode, MacGyver, some man and [I believe] a woman were being chased by bad guys with guns. The three or four "bad guys" had automatic weapons. They were in an industrial area. MacGyver confronts one of the "thugs" and manages to subdue him. The other two or three are "right around the corner" and closing fast. So what does the savvy and skilled MacGyer do? He picks up the unconscious thug's fully functional and loaded automatic weapon which is good and expected. Does MaGyver then take up a defensive position with his associates in order to engage the on-coming attackers? No. Does he try to make a controlled escape using suppressive fire? No. MacGyver, the MacGyver of "make efficient use of your tools" fame takes a perfectly fine, perfectly functional self-defense weapon and uses it as a fire-hydrant wench in order to pressurize a fire hose with which to attach two or three heavily armed assailants.
Are you FRIGGEN KIDDING ME! I actually yelled something similar to that at the television when he did that.
Pause for a moment...
Let us explore the feasibility of this action, shall we? I do not recall the make/model of the weapons that the thugs were using but they were smallish automatic weapons. AK-47s or Uzis or some such. Typical Hollywood automatic-weapons. With all the general knowledge that MacGyver demonstrated in every episode, he should have been familiar with the operation and characteristics [in general] of automatic weapons, even if only from a theoretical perspective. He should have known that the receiver of an automatic weapon is not so much of a high strength area such that the receiver could actually be used as a hydrant wrench. The main purpose of the receiver is to serve as control surfaces for and containment of the carrier/bolt group. The pressure from firing bullets is absorbed by the bolt face and the breach of the barrel. The bolt face has some number of "lugs" that lock into the breach face creating a high pressure container with only one [forward] exit. As a round is fired, hot gases propel the bullet down the barrel where some of the gas is vented rearward through a gas tube, providing thrust used to push the bolt rearward, causing the bolt-face to unlock from the breach, travel rearward, pull out the empty brass shell, and eject it, pick up a new round [if available], load it into the breach, and lock-up the bolt face into the breach so that the next round can be fired. Truth be told not all automatic weapons work this exact way but the general process is the same. The bolt face takes the brunt of the rearward pressure of fired rounds and the receiver helps hold it all together. Point being the receiver is a hollow metal box with at least one opening on the side (for spent shells to exit). It is generally not very thick or heavy. Not made of the "best" materials and it is laughable that an AK-47 or Usi or any other generally available automatic weapon receiver could be used as a hydrant wrench. To even suggest doing such a thing to anyone that is at all familiar with these items would result in ridicule. Typical wrenches are solid metal claws that securely fit the nuts they are sized for. Hydrant nuts are big, solid items that snugly fit on top of hydrants and are used to control valves for releasing high pressure water.
For a moment, let us ignore all of that and assume that these are "special" automatic weapons with especially strong and hard receivers that could, in a pinch be used as a hydrant wrench. To do that to a fully functional weapon as the first option, no hesitation, is simply ludicrous. As a fall-back option, after all of the bullets have been used, maybe. As your initial go to? Insane.
As expected, the misuse of the automatic weapon worked out for MacGyver and the fire hose subdued the remaining thugs. He "saved the day" and lost another viewer permanently due to his blatant political pandering.
I suspect that the reboot will be even more anti-gun with a great big extra helping of global warming clap-trap thrown in for good measure. I make this assessment based on the evolution of Hollywood since the late 80s to today. Thank you but no. I think I will pass...
P.S. As one of the commentators here at this actual (sort of) review of one of the initial episodes, mentions another show called Burn Notice, I really, really liked that show. For an industry that can produce Burn Notice or Elementary or even FireFly, why or why do you end those shows and produce crap like this?
In this case, they are planning a relaunch of MacGyver. I will admit that I used to watch MacGyver in the late 80s and found it enjoyable, until it wasn't. It was [generally] about a fellow that used his imagination and innovative skills to "make do" with whatever was laying round, to fix stuff, break stuff, solve problems, save lives, etc.
Maybe I was naive about the show's under-currents either due to my youth or my "innocence". At the time it never struck me as overly political. I stopped watching the series before it ended and I stopped watching rather abruptly. I still remember "the" episode that caused me to stop. As was typical for each episode in that MacGyver found himself and a couple of others "in harms way" and having to protect themselves from "bad guys".
One of the key elements of that show, for me, at the time was how he used the "stuff" he found in efficient ways to accomplish goals. Use the best tools you have to do the best you can and think outside of the box.
Well in this particular episode, MacGyver, some man and [I believe] a woman were being chased by bad guys with guns. The three or four "bad guys" had automatic weapons. They were in an industrial area. MacGyver confronts one of the "thugs" and manages to subdue him. The other two or three are "right around the corner" and closing fast. So what does the savvy and skilled MacGyer do? He picks up the unconscious thug's fully functional and loaded automatic weapon which is good and expected. Does MaGyver then take up a defensive position with his associates in order to engage the on-coming attackers? No. Does he try to make a controlled escape using suppressive fire? No. MacGyver, the MacGyver of "make efficient use of your tools" fame takes a perfectly fine, perfectly functional self-defense weapon and uses it as a fire-hydrant wench in order to pressurize a fire hose with which to attach two or three heavily armed assailants.
Are you FRIGGEN KIDDING ME! I actually yelled something similar to that at the television when he did that.
Pause for a moment...
Let us explore the feasibility of this action, shall we? I do not recall the make/model of the weapons that the thugs were using but they were smallish automatic weapons. AK-47s or Uzis or some such. Typical Hollywood automatic-weapons. With all the general knowledge that MacGyver demonstrated in every episode, he should have been familiar with the operation and characteristics [in general] of automatic weapons, even if only from a theoretical perspective. He should have known that the receiver of an automatic weapon is not so much of a high strength area such that the receiver could actually be used as a hydrant wrench. The main purpose of the receiver is to serve as control surfaces for and containment of the carrier/bolt group. The pressure from firing bullets is absorbed by the bolt face and the breach of the barrel. The bolt face has some number of "lugs" that lock into the breach face creating a high pressure container with only one [forward] exit. As a round is fired, hot gases propel the bullet down the barrel where some of the gas is vented rearward through a gas tube, providing thrust used to push the bolt rearward, causing the bolt-face to unlock from the breach, travel rearward, pull out the empty brass shell, and eject it, pick up a new round [if available], load it into the breach, and lock-up the bolt face into the breach so that the next round can be fired. Truth be told not all automatic weapons work this exact way but the general process is the same. The bolt face takes the brunt of the rearward pressure of fired rounds and the receiver helps hold it all together. Point being the receiver is a hollow metal box with at least one opening on the side (for spent shells to exit). It is generally not very thick or heavy. Not made of the "best" materials and it is laughable that an AK-47 or Usi or any other generally available automatic weapon receiver could be used as a hydrant wrench. To even suggest doing such a thing to anyone that is at all familiar with these items would result in ridicule. Typical wrenches are solid metal claws that securely fit the nuts they are sized for. Hydrant nuts are big, solid items that snugly fit on top of hydrants and are used to control valves for releasing high pressure water.
For a moment, let us ignore all of that and assume that these are "special" automatic weapons with especially strong and hard receivers that could, in a pinch be used as a hydrant wrench. To do that to a fully functional weapon as the first option, no hesitation, is simply ludicrous. As a fall-back option, after all of the bullets have been used, maybe. As your initial go to? Insane.
As expected, the misuse of the automatic weapon worked out for MacGyver and the fire hose subdued the remaining thugs. He "saved the day" and lost another viewer permanently due to his blatant political pandering.
I suspect that the reboot will be even more anti-gun with a great big extra helping of global warming clap-trap thrown in for good measure. I make this assessment based on the evolution of Hollywood since the late 80s to today. Thank you but no. I think I will pass...
P.S. As one of the commentators here at this actual (sort of) review of one of the initial episodes, mentions another show called Burn Notice, I really, really liked that show. For an industry that can produce Burn Notice or Elementary or even FireFly, why or why do you end those shows and produce crap like this?
Bad network show ideas, #1
Here is a bad network show idea, a Courtship of Eddie's Father reboot/relaunch except in this version Eddie's father is gay and as a result every episode is Eddie trying to setup his father with an available guy. Hijinks and hilarity ensue, cue laugh-track.
An alternate (for the more modern age) would have Eddie's father actually be his mother and [of course] she is gay. Same premise as above. Working title "Eddie's mom needs a wife".
P.S. This idea is copyright protected and may not be used in whole or part without my expressed written permission...
An alternate (for the more modern age) would have Eddie's father actually be his mother and [of course] she is gay. Same premise as above. Working title "Eddie's mom needs a wife".
P.S. This idea is copyright protected and may not be used in whole or part without my expressed written permission...
Monday, September 19, 2016
Hillary campaign steals from "poor little old ladies"
Wells Fargo fraud department inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charge
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.
...
One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.
...
“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.”
...
The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.”
...
Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made.
Apparently this is not a new "trick" for Hillary...
The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.
...
A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.
And it is not just campaign money...
In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office. There was $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their then new estate in Chappaqua, New York. Multiple donors said that they had understood that the items they had donated during Clinton’s presidency were to stay in the White House as part of the 1993 White House redecoration project. Initially, the Clintons claimed that the items in question were given to them prior to President Clinton taking office; however, government records proved otherwise. Facing strong criticism, the Clintons decided to return several items including $28,500 in furnishings and they paid $86,000 for other gifts.
This is the person that President Three-Putt said was the most qualified person ever to be President. "There has never been a man or woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America," He said "Hillary was in the room" when global crisis occur". What was she doing? Stealing pens?
I would not hold my breath to see any of this on the nightly MSM, would you?
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.
...
One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.
...
“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.”
...
The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.”
...
Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, is one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made.
Apparently this is not a new "trick" for Hillary...
The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign refunded.
...
A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.
And it is not just campaign money...
In 2001, the Clintons were accused of attempting to steal items donated to the White House during Bill’s presidency as he exited office. There was $190,000 worth of gifts in question that the Clintons shipped to their then new estate in Chappaqua, New York. Multiple donors said that they had understood that the items they had donated during Clinton’s presidency were to stay in the White House as part of the 1993 White House redecoration project. Initially, the Clintons claimed that the items in question were given to them prior to President Clinton taking office; however, government records proved otherwise. Facing strong criticism, the Clintons decided to return several items including $28,500 in furnishings and they paid $86,000 for other gifts.
This is the person that President Three-Putt said was the most qualified person ever to be President. "There has never been a man or woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America," He said "Hillary was in the room" when global crisis occur". What was she doing? Stealing pens?
I would not hold my breath to see any of this on the nightly MSM, would you?
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
DNC has ID-10-T problem
DNC finds out / realizes that their email server was hacked and has been penetrated so they change the access password (good) and email it to everyone using the very email system that was hacked (very bad).
You can't make up stuff like this. If you tried, you would be told it was too absurd to be true.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Hillary: over 47% of Trump supporters are "Basket of deplorables"
The other day, Hillary made the mistake of actually being honest...
you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.
If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race either before she takes office or just after (due to health or scandal) and Tim Kaine (her VP pick) takes over, it would not be much better:
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Saturday his running mate Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to apologize for her “basket of deplorables” comment about supporters of Donald Trump.
and
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign defended the Democratic presidential nominee on Monday, following criticism of her comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are in a “basket of deplorables.”
So, that is what Hillary, Tim, and the DNC think of 25% of the country.
Because you are worried about taxes and the economy, unlike Hillary who became a multi-millionaire while working in civil service drawing a salary of just a couple hundred thousand a year, that means you need to "check your privilege".
Because you are worried about gangs and crime and don't have the luxury of an armed escort and guards with guns everywhere you go, you are racist.
Because you think that it would be a mistake to bring in thousands and thousands of foreigners that don't believe in the American values of freedom and our bill of rights, want to impose Shari law on the land, and can't be properly vetted to ensure that they are not terrorists, you are Islamophobic.
Because you feel that only women (i.e. no male genitalia) should be allowed in women's locker rooms and bathrooms, you are sexist.
Though I am still not a fan of Trump, his reply to Hillary was spot on and he should build the rest of his campaign on it:
I was . . . deeply shocked and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear and demean these wonderful, amazing people who are supporting our campaign.
Our support comes from every part of America, and every walk of life. We have the support of cops and soldiers, carpenters and welders, the young and the old, and millions of working class families who just want a better future.
These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. These were among the countless Americans that Hillary Clinton called deplorable, irredeemable and un-American. She called these patriotic men and women every vile name in the book – she called them racist, sexist, xenophobic, and Islamaphobic.
She called them a “basket of deplorables” in both a speech and an interview. She divides people into baskets as though they were objects, not human beings.
...
While Hillary Clinton lives a sequestered life behind gates and walls and guards, she mocks and demeans hardworking Americans who only want their own families to enjoy a fraction of the security enjoyed by our politicians.
...
To this day, she still won’t take accountability for her role in unleashing ISIS across the Middle East – or for putting Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon.
Hillary Clinton believes she is above the law, that she is above accountability, and that she is above each and every one of you.
Read the whole thing. This ad is a good start, he needs to continue.
I don't feel that there is a "great" option for President this year (and have felt that way for a good number of recent elections) and the argument could be made that Trump is not the "right man at the right time" but for all of his faults and flaws, he has one really great thing going for him, he is NOT Hillary Clinton and we already know what she has done to this country as First Lady and as SOS. I am not sure if we can afford to see what she would do as POTUS.
you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.
If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race either before she takes office or just after (due to health or scandal) and Tim Kaine (her VP pick) takes over, it would not be much better:
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Saturday his running mate Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to apologize for her “basket of deplorables” comment about supporters of Donald Trump.
and
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign defended the Democratic presidential nominee on Monday, following criticism of her comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are in a “basket of deplorables.”
So, that is what Hillary, Tim, and the DNC think of 25% of the country.
Because you are worried about taxes and the economy, unlike Hillary who became a multi-millionaire while working in civil service drawing a salary of just a couple hundred thousand a year, that means you need to "check your privilege".
Because you are worried about gangs and crime and don't have the luxury of an armed escort and guards with guns everywhere you go, you are racist.
Because you think that it would be a mistake to bring in thousands and thousands of foreigners that don't believe in the American values of freedom and our bill of rights, want to impose Shari law on the land, and can't be properly vetted to ensure that they are not terrorists, you are Islamophobic.
Because you feel that only women (i.e. no male genitalia) should be allowed in women's locker rooms and bathrooms, you are sexist.
Though I am still not a fan of Trump, his reply to Hillary was spot on and he should build the rest of his campaign on it:
I was . . . deeply shocked and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear and demean these wonderful, amazing people who are supporting our campaign.
Our support comes from every part of America, and every walk of life. We have the support of cops and soldiers, carpenters and welders, the young and the old, and millions of working class families who just want a better future.
These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. These were among the countless Americans that Hillary Clinton called deplorable, irredeemable and un-American. She called these patriotic men and women every vile name in the book – she called them racist, sexist, xenophobic, and Islamaphobic.
She called them a “basket of deplorables” in both a speech and an interview. She divides people into baskets as though they were objects, not human beings.
...
While Hillary Clinton lives a sequestered life behind gates and walls and guards, she mocks and demeans hardworking Americans who only want their own families to enjoy a fraction of the security enjoyed by our politicians.
...
To this day, she still won’t take accountability for her role in unleashing ISIS across the Middle East – or for putting Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon.
Hillary Clinton believes she is above the law, that she is above accountability, and that she is above each and every one of you.
Read the whole thing. This ad is a good start, he needs to continue.
I don't feel that there is a "great" option for President this year (and have felt that way for a good number of recent elections) and the argument could be made that Trump is not the "right man at the right time" but for all of his faults and flaws, he has one really great thing going for him, he is NOT Hillary Clinton and we already know what she has done to this country as First Lady and as SOS. I am not sure if we can afford to see what she would do as POTUS.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Why the news sucks, example #60183
Seriously, what sort of moron do news agencies hire these days that can manage to do their jobs so poorly but still hold on to their job? Is the pool of applicants so shallow that anyone will do?
This example comes from USAToday. The headline is: Teen who impregnates teacher gets $6M from district
The story is credited to Micheal Harthorne, Newser Staff. I believe that after reading this story (what there is of it) you will agree that the headline and initial paragraph are a "miscarriage of justice".
If you don't have time to read it, the gist is "a former student who impregnated a California high-school teacher received a $6 million settlement from the school district". The male student was 17 at the time that he was raped by his teacher and she wound up getting pregnant. A more appropriate heading might have been "Known child rapist get pregnant by latest victim, school district settles with victim for $6M".
Why is it in these types of stories (female teacher/student sex) the news tries to mitigate what the teacher has done? Does anyone think that they would be so "understanding" if the sexes of those involved were reversed?
Though they did not draw attention to it, at least they include enough information for the reader to understand that this teacher is a repeat offender. Story doesn't say if she will lose her teaching license.
This example comes from USAToday. The headline is: Teen who impregnates teacher gets $6M from district
The story is credited to Micheal Harthorne, Newser Staff. I believe that after reading this story (what there is of it) you will agree that the headline and initial paragraph are a "miscarriage of justice".
If you don't have time to read it, the gist is "a former student who impregnated a California high-school teacher received a $6 million settlement from the school district". The male student was 17 at the time that he was raped by his teacher and she wound up getting pregnant. A more appropriate heading might have been "Known child rapist get pregnant by latest victim, school district settles with victim for $6M".
Why is it in these types of stories (female teacher/student sex) the news tries to mitigate what the teacher has done? Does anyone think that they would be so "understanding" if the sexes of those involved were reversed?
Though they did not draw attention to it, at least they include enough information for the reader to understand that this teacher is a repeat offender. Story doesn't say if she will lose her teaching license.
Won't you please just leave her alone?
Why oh why won't the DNC and Pres. Bill Clinton leave Hillary alone? Why must they continue to push her into running this long, exhausting campaign for the presidency? It has been clear to anyone that looks at the situation objectively that this is all become too much for Hillary.
Between trying to answer/address historic issues (emails, email server, Benghazi, the foundation, etc.) and trying to maintain a hectic campaign schedule, Hillary is simply exhausted. She is even too tired to hold regular press conferences.
She is still overcoming recent health issues; the concussion / brain injury she suffered a couple of years ago, that recent coughing incident while she was on stage, her passing out at the 9/11 ceremony and having to be carried into her van, and now we hear she might even have pneumonia.
It is all just too much. Hillary is clearly trying to be a real trooper here and not let the DNC or her family down but at some point, you have giving all you can and those around her should understand that she just doesn't have any more to give.
Can't we as a nation agree to just let her retire in peace?
And lets be honest, don't you think she looks tired?
Between trying to answer/address historic issues (emails, email server, Benghazi, the foundation, etc.) and trying to maintain a hectic campaign schedule, Hillary is simply exhausted. She is even too tired to hold regular press conferences.
She is still overcoming recent health issues; the concussion / brain injury she suffered a couple of years ago, that recent coughing incident while she was on stage, her passing out at the 9/11 ceremony and having to be carried into her van, and now we hear she might even have pneumonia.
It is all just too much. Hillary is clearly trying to be a real trooper here and not let the DNC or her family down but at some point, you have giving all you can and those around her should understand that she just doesn't have any more to give.
Can't we as a nation agree to just let her retire in peace?
And lets be honest, don't you think she looks tired?
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Benghazi hearing emails
So, those worthless, no-story-here, move along Benghazi hearing were actually pre-arranged/coordinated some between Hillary's people and the Democratic chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to give that impression.
"We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11 and these emails from Chris Stevens about moving locations)," Reines wrote on the email, which was obtained by Citizens United.
The new email is significant because Clinton repeatedly pointed to previous congressional inquiries into Benghazi — including the foreign relations committee hearing — in her attempts to delegitimize the House Select Committee on Benghazi's findings earlier this year.
So, like nearly everything Clinton, the fix was in before it even got started.
I guess for some that have no care for the rule of law, as a famous politician once said: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?
"We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11 and these emails from Chris Stevens about moving locations)," Reines wrote on the email, which was obtained by Citizens United.
The new email is significant because Clinton repeatedly pointed to previous congressional inquiries into Benghazi — including the foreign relations committee hearing — in her attempts to delegitimize the House Select Committee on Benghazi's findings earlier this year.
So, like nearly everything Clinton, the fix was in before it even got started.
I guess for some that have no care for the rule of law, as a famous politician once said: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?
Friday, September 2, 2016
Why is she not in prison (part 2)?
This post is a continuation of the previous (part 1 post)...
A May 25, 2016 report issued by the State Office of Inspector general (OIG) stated that, during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) required day-to-day operations at State be conducted using an authorized information system. The OIG stated it found "no evidence" that Clinton sought approval to conduct State business via her personal e-mail account or private servers, despite her obligation to do so. (page 10)
So, it was "in writing" that Hillary needed to obtain approval to use her make-shift system which she did not do but [we are told] it was "just like" what Powell did. BS!
Investigation determined Clinton did not have a computer in her state office, which was located in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on the seventh floor of State headquarters, in an area often referred to as "Mahogany Row". State Diplomatic Security Service (DS) instructed Clinton that because her office was in a SCIF, the use of mobile devices in her office was prohibited. Interviews of three former DS agents revealed Clinton stored her personal BlackBerry in a desk drawer in DS "Post 1", which was located within the SCIF. According to Abedin, Clinton primarily used her personal blackberry or personal iPad for checking e-mails, and she left the SCIF to do so, often visiting State's eighth floor balcony. (page 12)
So Hillary took her personal devices (with an 'S' but she had to use her own BlackBerry cause she could not figure out how to use more than one device) into a secure area, didn't have a computer in her office, and would go out onto the balcony to check her email cause it was on a private server that she accessed using her private BlackBerry.
Clinton stated to the FBI that she requested a secure BlackBerry while at State after hearing President Obama had one, but she could not recall the reasons why State was unable to fulfill this request. (page 12-13)
I can answer that one! It was not fulfilled because State would not hook it up to Hillary's private e-mail server! And sorry but I really doubt she requested one because that would have also meant that she would have had to use the State email system instead of her private e-mail server.
The rest of that section discussed issues she was having because she could not check her e-mail from within SCIF and alternates were discussed but none were ever implemented. This also shows she knew she was operating outside of the lines. If the SCIF won't let her access her e-mail but everyone else can access theirs, she (Hillary) must have realized she was not the norm. If she didn't realize she was not doing e-mail in the normal way after all of that, she is too stupid to be President. If she did know then she is too crooked. Which is it? Dumb or criminal?
Investigation determined Clinton had access to a number of State-authorized secure means of telephonic communications in her residence and in her office at State. At the start of Clinton's tenure, State installed a SCIF and secure communications equipment, {redacted} in her residences in Washington, D.C. (Whitehaven residence) and Chappaqua. (page 13)
Again, State went through all of the trouble to provide her with proper equipment but she preferred to use her own devices and e-mail system [I think] to avoid FOIA exposure.
In addition to sending Clinton messages they wrote, Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan reviewed e-mails they received from other State employees, USG contacts, and foreign government contacts, and if deemed appropriate they then forwarded the information to Clinton. (page 13/14)
Still reading but this might be part of the answer to a question that has been bothering me about this entire thing. The State system is supposed to be "air gapped" such that you can't get there from here. If so, how did Clinton send and receive sensitive e-mails? Who moved them from the secure State network to the internet to send to Clinton? Was it these three? If so, why are they not in jail?
Why is Hillary not in jail?
More coming...
A May 25, 2016 report issued by the State Office of Inspector general (OIG) stated that, during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) required day-to-day operations at State be conducted using an authorized information system. The OIG stated it found "no evidence" that Clinton sought approval to conduct State business via her personal e-mail account or private servers, despite her obligation to do so. (page 10)
So, it was "in writing" that Hillary needed to obtain approval to use her make-shift system which she did not do but [we are told] it was "just like" what Powell did. BS!
Investigation determined Clinton did not have a computer in her state office, which was located in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on the seventh floor of State headquarters, in an area often referred to as "Mahogany Row". State Diplomatic Security Service (DS) instructed Clinton that because her office was in a SCIF, the use of mobile devices in her office was prohibited. Interviews of three former DS agents revealed Clinton stored her personal BlackBerry in a desk drawer in DS "Post 1", which was located within the SCIF. According to Abedin, Clinton primarily used her personal blackberry or personal iPad for checking e-mails, and she left the SCIF to do so, often visiting State's eighth floor balcony. (page 12)
So Hillary took her personal devices (with an 'S' but she had to use her own BlackBerry cause she could not figure out how to use more than one device) into a secure area, didn't have a computer in her office, and would go out onto the balcony to check her email cause it was on a private server that she accessed using her private BlackBerry.
Clinton stated to the FBI that she requested a secure BlackBerry while at State after hearing President Obama had one, but she could not recall the reasons why State was unable to fulfill this request. (page 12-13)
I can answer that one! It was not fulfilled because State would not hook it up to Hillary's private e-mail server! And sorry but I really doubt she requested one because that would have also meant that she would have had to use the State email system instead of her private e-mail server.
The rest of that section discussed issues she was having because she could not check her e-mail from within SCIF and alternates were discussed but none were ever implemented. This also shows she knew she was operating outside of the lines. If the SCIF won't let her access her e-mail but everyone else can access theirs, she (Hillary) must have realized she was not the norm. If she didn't realize she was not doing e-mail in the normal way after all of that, she is too stupid to be President. If she did know then she is too crooked. Which is it? Dumb or criminal?
Investigation determined Clinton had access to a number of State-authorized secure means of telephonic communications in her residence and in her office at State. At the start of Clinton's tenure, State installed a SCIF and secure communications equipment, {redacted} in her residences in Washington, D.C. (Whitehaven residence) and Chappaqua. (page 13)
Again, State went through all of the trouble to provide her with proper equipment but she preferred to use her own devices and e-mail system [I think] to avoid FOIA exposure.
In addition to sending Clinton messages they wrote, Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan reviewed e-mails they received from other State employees, USG contacts, and foreign government contacts, and if deemed appropriate they then forwarded the information to Clinton. (page 13/14)
Still reading but this might be part of the answer to a question that has been bothering me about this entire thing. The State system is supposed to be "air gapped" such that you can't get there from here. If so, how did Clinton send and receive sensitive e-mails? Who moved them from the secure State network to the internet to send to Clinton? Was it these three? If so, why are they not in jail?
Why is Hillary not in jail?
More coming...
Why is she not in prison (part 1)?
In response to FBI requests for classification determinations in support of this investigation, US Intelligence Community (USIC) agencies determined that 81 e-mail chains, which FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on Clinton's UNCLASSIFIED personal server systems, contained classified information ranging from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM levels at the time they were sent between 2009-2013.
USIC agencies determined that 68 of these e-mail chains remain classified.
In addition, the classification determination process administered by the US Department of State (State) in connection with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation identified approximately 2,000 additional e-mails currently classified CONFIDENTIAL and 1 e-mail classified SECRET, which FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on at least two of Clinton's personal server systems.
From page 2 of the just released FBI report.
So, not only did Hillary Clinton have confidential through top secret/special access program information on her PRIVATE, unsecured email system but that system was made up of at least three different servers over time.
Additionally, because the FBI was not given (granted?) access to all of the mobile devices and computer components associated with Clinton's personal e-mail system, the FBI can not say whether or not those systems were hacked.
There is this (also from page 2):
The FBI did find that hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal e-mail accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and, in doing so, obtained e-mails sent to or received by Clinton on her personal account.
Also, it appears that Hillary used at least three different systems (over time) as her "e-mail server".
Apparently the last of the servers used was not encrypted to make it easier to trouble-shoot.
Out of the 8 (yes 8, not one as she said) different mobile devices that Clinton used during her tenure as Secretary of State, she and her lawyers were unable to locate ANY of them to turn over to the FBI per their request (pages 8 and 9 of the report). My guess is that (like the Whitewater billing records) they will turn up shortly after the statute of limitations.
I am just getting into this report so there are likely more "gems" to be found. Based on the above information, why is Hillary not in jail?
USIC agencies determined that 68 of these e-mail chains remain classified.
In addition, the classification determination process administered by the US Department of State (State) in connection with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation identified approximately 2,000 additional e-mails currently classified CONFIDENTIAL and 1 e-mail classified SECRET, which FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on at least two of Clinton's personal server systems.
From page 2 of the just released FBI report.
So, not only did Hillary Clinton have confidential through top secret/special access program information on her PRIVATE, unsecured email system but that system was made up of at least three different servers over time.
Additionally, because the FBI was not given (granted?) access to all of the mobile devices and computer components associated with Clinton's personal e-mail system, the FBI can not say whether or not those systems were hacked.
There is this (also from page 2):
The FBI did find that hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal e-mail accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and, in doing so, obtained e-mails sent to or received by Clinton on her personal account.
Also, it appears that Hillary used at least three different systems (over time) as her "e-mail server".
Apparently the last of the servers used was not encrypted to make it easier to trouble-shoot.
Out of the 8 (yes 8, not one as she said) different mobile devices that Clinton used during her tenure as Secretary of State, she and her lawyers were unable to locate ANY of them to turn over to the FBI per their request (pages 8 and 9 of the report). My guess is that (like the Whitewater billing records) they will turn up shortly after the statute of limitations.
I am just getting into this report so there are likely more "gems" to be found. Based on the above information, why is Hillary not in jail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
