The following is a repost
of a discussion about
what the Russian hackers were really doing in 2016.
Robert Mueller and his staff may be covering up the biggest act of
espionage in the United States since the acquisition of atomic
secrets by the Russians at the start of the Cold War. Mueller
is supposed to be investigating what the Russian hackers called
"Fancy Bear" did during the 2016 election. However, he
continues to ignore an Associated Press expose
indicating Fancy Bear focused on non-partisan email users including
defense industry employees and those in the intelligence
community. According to the AP, Department of
Justice employees were aware of what Fancy Bear was doing, but
didn't warn those whose emails were being hacked. .
Fancy Bear used access to the Democrats national committee emails as
a cover story to hide what may have been the real reason for the
operation from the meatheads at the Department of Justice (DOJ)..
The popular myth is that Fancy Bear was accessing the Democratic
Party's emails to help Russia influence the 2016 presidential
election. Russia couldn't have used the Democratic national
committee emails to influence the presidential election because the
candidates' organizations run the presidential campaigns -- not the
national party organizations. It is unlikely Russia
needed hackers to get the Democratic emails. Russia almost
certainly had an agent planted in the Democratic national
organization who would have used a zip drive to copy emails along
with general information about party personnel and supporters.
An agent in the organization can use conversations to obtain
information that is never placed in the computer. China and
Israel also probably had agents in the Democrats organization.
It may come as a surprise to some politicians and journalists, but
Americans and Russians and their allies have been spying on each
other and attempting to influence political opinions in each other's
countries for 70 years.
It is time to recognize that Fancy Bear was conducting a major
espionage operation rather than attempting to play
politics. I don't know if the Justice Department's Fancy
Bear collaborators were just stupid or the
Russians paid them for their services. Nor, do I know if
Mueller and his staff are taking money from the Russians or they're
just trying to protect "dirty" DOJ employees and possibly former
President Barack Obama. Obama's cybersecurity
coordinator Michael
Daniel has indicated Obama told DOJ employees not to stop the
Russians.
It's time for President Donald Trump to replace Mueller and his band
of incompetents with investigators who have never worked for
the Department of Justice. Their mission should be to
identify and prosecute those who collaborated with the Russian
hackers and to determine if the Russians were able to use the
knowledge they obtained to access classified information or
infiltrate corporate or government computers.
Even if personal emails didn't contain classified information, they
could have helped identify people who could be black mailed or be
willing to accept bribes. Emails could have
identified disgruntled employees who might welcome help to get even
with an "unfair" employer. A covert agent could get
acquainted with the employee and then tell the employee how he
or someone he knew got even.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2020
Monday, May 11, 2020
Vladimir Putin's 2016 Election Mischief Continues to Disrupt American Politics
Vladimir Putin's 2016 Election Mischief
Continues to Disrupt American Politics
There is no evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a master at the board game called "chess", but he is a grand master at a real life version of the game.
In 2016. he began an operation to discredit the American system of elections. He took advantage of the basic stupidity of many American politicians and journalists to create the delusion that he had colluded with Donald Trump to affect the presidential election.
Putin was a Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB, the highly effective Soviet Secret Police. If the Russians had been trying to elect Trump, any Russian contact with the Trump campaign would have been done in secret to avoid detection. Putin is intelligent enough to know that some Americans would vote against a candidate favored by Russia.
Putin had Russians meet with Trump campaigners to set Trump up for a collusion charge in the event Trump won. I became suspicious of the real purpose of one meeting because a tv news story sounded like someone might have coordinated the meeting with the Department of Justice. The discovery of the meeting seemed too easy. I'm not a fan of Putin, but I respect his intelligence. He would not have used people so unprofessional that they would be caught while engaged in what should have been a secret operation.
Putting people in apparently compromising situations is an old KGB tactic that the KGB used to blackmail people into cooperating with the KGB such as by providing access to information. The Russian contact with Trump campaigners is a variation on this tactic with the goal simply being to frame people in Trump's campaign.
I doubt that Putin wanted either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be President of the United States. In 2016 Putin likely thought the best outcome would be a discredited American election especially if the winner would be forced out of office. . Putin had been criticized for his conduction of presidential elections. Creating a scandal about an American presidential election might prevent unfavorable comparison of Russian elections to American elections particularly if Putin could claim the "American Secret Police" rejected the candidate voters wanted.
Putin is certainly aware of how much the Soviet Union had benefited from the Watergate controversy. The fall of Richard Nixon was followed by the fall of U.S. backed governments in Vietnam and Iran. The Soviet Union was able to take advantage of the weakened American presidency to invade Afghanistan.
Putin obviously wasn't trying to help Trump win. If Putin had wanted to help Trump win Putin would have had actual or forged Clinton incriminating Libya emails.
If Putin has any derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, he will probably keep it secret unless she is elected president.
This farce has gone on long enough. Congress and President Trump need to concentrate on the real problems our nation faces.
There is no evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a master at the board game called "chess", but he is a grand master at a real life version of the game.
In 2016. he began an operation to discredit the American system of elections. He took advantage of the basic stupidity of many American politicians and journalists to create the delusion that he had colluded with Donald Trump to affect the presidential election.
Putin was a Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB, the highly effective Soviet Secret Police. If the Russians had been trying to elect Trump, any Russian contact with the Trump campaign would have been done in secret to avoid detection. Putin is intelligent enough to know that some Americans would vote against a candidate favored by Russia.
Putin had Russians meet with Trump campaigners to set Trump up for a collusion charge in the event Trump won. I became suspicious of the real purpose of one meeting because a tv news story sounded like someone might have coordinated the meeting with the Department of Justice. The discovery of the meeting seemed too easy. I'm not a fan of Putin, but I respect his intelligence. He would not have used people so unprofessional that they would be caught while engaged in what should have been a secret operation.
Putting people in apparently compromising situations is an old KGB tactic that the KGB used to blackmail people into cooperating with the KGB such as by providing access to information. The Russian contact with Trump campaigners is a variation on this tactic with the goal simply being to frame people in Trump's campaign.
I doubt that Putin wanted either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be President of the United States. In 2016 Putin likely thought the best outcome would be a discredited American election especially if the winner would be forced out of office. . Putin had been criticized for his conduction of presidential elections. Creating a scandal about an American presidential election might prevent unfavorable comparison of Russian elections to American elections particularly if Putin could claim the "American Secret Police" rejected the candidate voters wanted.
Putin is certainly aware of how much the Soviet Union had benefited from the Watergate controversy. The fall of Richard Nixon was followed by the fall of U.S. backed governments in Vietnam and Iran. The Soviet Union was able to take advantage of the weakened American presidency to invade Afghanistan.
Putin obviously wasn't trying to help Trump win. If Putin had wanted to help Trump win Putin would have had actual or forged Clinton incriminating Libya emails.
If Putin has any derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, he will probably keep it secret unless she is elected president.
This farce has gone on long enough. Congress and President Trump need to concentrate on the real problems our nation faces.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Did Barack Obama Help Donald Trump Defeat Hillary Clinton?
If the Russian hacking operation helped Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, as many Democrats believe, then President Barack Obama obviously helped Trump defeat Clinton by allowing the Russians to hack the Democrats' emails. Although I doubt that the Russian hacking had any impact on the election, I recognize that if Obama believed the Russians would help Trump win he obviously wanted Trump to defeat Clinton.
Why would Obama want fellow Democrat Clinton to lose to a Republican? I don't have any inside information, but there is a persistent rumor that Obama has been plotting to return to the White House. If Clinton had won he would not have been able to run again until 2024. With Republican Trump in the White House, Obama can run again in 2020. The media have blamed Trump for the hacking operation and ignored reports that Obama was aware of it and didn't stop it. Obviously, if Obama had wanted Clinton to win he would have tried to stop any Russian effort that could have kept her from winning.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Is Robert Mueller Covering Up Major Russian Espionage?
Robert Mueller and his staff may be covering up the biggest act of
espionage in the United States since the acquisition of atomic
secrets by the Russians at the start of the Cold War. Mueller
is supposed to be investigating what the Russian hackers called
"Fancy Bear" did during the 2016 election. However, he
continues to ignore an Associated Press expose
indicating Fancy Bear focused on non-partisan email users including
defense industry employees and those in the intelligence
community. According to the AP, Department of
Justice employees were aware of what Fancy Bear was doing, but
didn't warn those whose emails were being hacked. .
Fancy Bear used access to the Democrats national committee emails as
a cover story to hide what may have been the real reason for the
operation from the meatheads at the Department of Justice (DOJ)..
The popular myth is that Fancy Bear was accessing the Democratic Party's emails to help Russia influence the 2016 presidential election. Russia couldn't have used the Democratic national committee emails to influence the presidential election because the candidates' organizations run the presidential campaigns -- not the national party organizations. It is unlikely Russia needed hackers to get the Democratic emails. Russia almost certainly had an agent planted in the Democratic national organization who would have used a zip drive to copy emails along with general information about party personnel and supporters. An agent in the organization can use conversations to obtain information that is never placed in the computer. China and Israel also probably had agents in the Democrats organization.
It may come as a surprise to some politicians and journalists, but Americans and Russians and their allies have been spying on each other and attempting to influence political opinions in each other's countries for 70 years.
It is time to recognize that Fancy Bear was conducting a major espionage operation rather than attempting to play politics. I don't know if the Justice Department's Fancy Bear collaborators were just stupid or the Russians paid them for their services. Nor, do I know if Mueller and his staff are taking money from the Russians or they're just trying to protect "dirty" DOJ employees and possibly former President Barack Obama. Obama's cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel has indicated Obama told DOJ employees not to stop the Russians.
It's time for President Donald Trump to replace Mueller and his band of incompetents with investigators who have never worked for the Department of Justice. Their mission should be to identify and prosecute those who collaborated with the Russian hackers and to determine if the Russians were able to use the knowledge they obtained to access classified information or infiltrate corporate or government computers.
Even if personal emails didn't contain classified information, they could have helped identify people who could be black mailed or be willing to accept bribes. Emails could have identified disgruntled employees who might welcome help to get even with an "unfair" employer. A covert agent could get acquainted with the employee and then tell the employee how he or someone he knew got even.
The popular myth is that Fancy Bear was accessing the Democratic Party's emails to help Russia influence the 2016 presidential election. Russia couldn't have used the Democratic national committee emails to influence the presidential election because the candidates' organizations run the presidential campaigns -- not the national party organizations. It is unlikely Russia needed hackers to get the Democratic emails. Russia almost certainly had an agent planted in the Democratic national organization who would have used a zip drive to copy emails along with general information about party personnel and supporters. An agent in the organization can use conversations to obtain information that is never placed in the computer. China and Israel also probably had agents in the Democrats organization.
It may come as a surprise to some politicians and journalists, but Americans and Russians and their allies have been spying on each other and attempting to influence political opinions in each other's countries for 70 years.
It is time to recognize that Fancy Bear was conducting a major espionage operation rather than attempting to play politics. I don't know if the Justice Department's Fancy Bear collaborators were just stupid or the Russians paid them for their services. Nor, do I know if Mueller and his staff are taking money from the Russians or they're just trying to protect "dirty" DOJ employees and possibly former President Barack Obama. Obama's cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel has indicated Obama told DOJ employees not to stop the Russians.
It's time for President Donald Trump to replace Mueller and his band of incompetents with investigators who have never worked for the Department of Justice. Their mission should be to identify and prosecute those who collaborated with the Russian hackers and to determine if the Russians were able to use the knowledge they obtained to access classified information or infiltrate corporate or government computers.
Even if personal emails didn't contain classified information, they could have helped identify people who could be black mailed or be willing to accept bribes. Emails could have identified disgruntled employees who might welcome help to get even with an "unfair" employer. A covert agent could get acquainted with the employee and then tell the employee how he or someone he knew got even.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Russia Sanctions Humiliate Hillary
I've been trying to find a logical reason for the Congressional vote
for the extreme action of imposing sanctions on Russia.
Sanction supporters talk about what they call "fake news",but the term is just another word for propaganda which governments produce all the time. We didn't impose sanctions on the British government for its "fake news" stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Russian spying on candidates cannot justify sanctions because spying on political figures is a common government activity. Besides the CIA had already infiltrated the Russian hackers who were the alleged spies.
The only significant difference in the situation is that the person Congress is concerned about is a woman, Hillary Clinton. I believe Congress is upset because members think the big old Russian bear was mean to poor little defenseless Goldilocks.
Does anyone believe Congress would have taken a similar action if Donald Trump had been the alleged victim? Or, for that matter the previous losing Democratic candidate John Kerry?
Congress didn't impose sanctions when Vietnam meddled in the 2004 election by producing story claiming that potential Democratic presidential aspirant Sen Bob Kerrey had participated in a war crime in Vietnam 50 years earlier.
Sanction supporters talk about what they call "fake news",but the term is just another word for propaganda which governments produce all the time. We didn't impose sanctions on the British government for its "fake news" stories about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Russian spying on candidates cannot justify sanctions because spying on political figures is a common government activity. Besides the CIA had already infiltrated the Russian hackers who were the alleged spies.
The only significant difference in the situation is that the person Congress is concerned about is a woman, Hillary Clinton. I believe Congress is upset because members think the big old Russian bear was mean to poor little defenseless Goldilocks.
Does anyone believe Congress would have taken a similar action if Donald Trump had been the alleged victim? Or, for that matter the previous losing Democratic candidate John Kerry?
Congress didn't impose sanctions when Vietnam meddled in the 2004 election by producing story claiming that potential Democratic presidential aspirant Sen Bob Kerrey had participated in a war crime in Vietnam 50 years earlier.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Was "Russian Hacking" a CIA Sting?
Until I found stories about FSB's
[Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation] arrest of
Col.Sergei Mikhailov, I thought the claims about Russian
hacking during last year's presidential
election were probably false. I know the FSB is unlikely to be as effective as the legendary KGB, but I wouldn't expect it to engage in the amateurish activities attributed to Russian hackers. The CIA's connection with Col. Mikhailov raises the possibility the CIA was operating a sting to discredit Donald Trump.
s
For example, the KGB wouldn't have been satisfied with using hacking to get some emails from the Democratic Party headquarters. The old KGB would have planted an agent in Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters. This agent would have occasionally downloaded documents, including summaries of meetings, onto a zip drive. Russians have been planting people in American organizations for 70 years. Why would the FSB switch to a less productive means of acquiring information? A human agent can overhear conversations that contain information that doesn't get into the computer.
The CIA could have used Col. Mikhailov for more than just a source of information about Russian activities. The association potentially allowed the CIA to use Russian hackers to spy on Americans or on "friendly" governments like Britain or Germany. Those detecting the hacking would blame the Russians rather than the Americans. European governments would complain if they caught the CIA spying on them. Using Russian hackers potentially allowed the CIA to gain information risk free.
CIA could also have had Mikhailov send Russian agents to try to compromise American politicians. Spy agencies sometimes have trouble resisting an urge to become power brokers. The CIA has a history of involvement in other countries, particularly in the Middle East. An agent of the World War II OSS [predecessor to the CIA] admitted before he died that he was responsible for killing American World War II General George Patton. Many Americans believe the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
The following statement is not intended to accuse the CIA of attempting to interfere in the process of determining who is the President of the United States. I merely want to point out its actions are consistent with that possibility. The CIA could have used the Russian hackers to keep Hillary Clinton from winning the election and then used other Russian agents to discredit her opponent Donald Trump and make him appear to be responsible for the Russian hackers.
election were probably false. I know the FSB is unlikely to be as effective as the legendary KGB, but I wouldn't expect it to engage in the amateurish activities attributed to Russian hackers. The CIA's connection with Col. Mikhailov raises the possibility the CIA was operating a sting to discredit Donald Trump.
s
For example, the KGB wouldn't have been satisfied with using hacking to get some emails from the Democratic Party headquarters. The old KGB would have planted an agent in Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters. This agent would have occasionally downloaded documents, including summaries of meetings, onto a zip drive. Russians have been planting people in American organizations for 70 years. Why would the FSB switch to a less productive means of acquiring information? A human agent can overhear conversations that contain information that doesn't get into the computer.
The CIA could have used Col. Mikhailov for more than just a source of information about Russian activities. The association potentially allowed the CIA to use Russian hackers to spy on Americans or on "friendly" governments like Britain or Germany. Those detecting the hacking would blame the Russians rather than the Americans. European governments would complain if they caught the CIA spying on them. Using Russian hackers potentially allowed the CIA to gain information risk free.
CIA could also have had Mikhailov send Russian agents to try to compromise American politicians. Spy agencies sometimes have trouble resisting an urge to become power brokers. The CIA has a history of involvement in other countries, particularly in the Middle East. An agent of the World War II OSS [predecessor to the CIA] admitted before he died that he was responsible for killing American World War II General George Patton. Many Americans believe the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
The following statement is not intended to accuse the CIA of attempting to interfere in the process of determining who is the President of the United States. I merely want to point out its actions are consistent with that possibility. The CIA could have used the Russian hackers to keep Hillary Clinton from winning the election and then used other Russian agents to discredit her opponent Donald Trump and make him appear to be responsible for the Russian hackers.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Russia Didn't "Hack" Election
Thoughts on the fake news claim that Russia "meddled" in or
"hacked" the presidential election.
Those who claim that Russia "meddled" in the recent presidential election have an even lower opinion of President Barack Obama than the Republicans who call him the worst president in American history.. Countries can only "meddle" in countries that are weaker than they are, including countries that are weak because of weak or inept leaders. For example, President Barack Obama frequently meddled in middle eastern countries. So far those alleging Russian meddling have not provided evidence that Russia tried to meddle by influencing election officials or providing financial assistance to candidates. Spying on government officials or would be government officials is normal governmental action that governments do year round so they can be prepared for actions that might adversely impact them. Attempting to influence public opinion in other countries is also normal action that is done year round and is not "meddling". Governments are likely to try to discredit opinion makers who portray their country, or its leaders, in a negative light to prevent the development of sentiment for war or other adverse actions against their country..
The media are misrepresenting the hacking issue. Russia, China, Israel and North Korea and possibly others along with the NSA probably did hack into insecure email systems, but that does not mean they altered election results as media stories falsely imply. Foreign nations have often made significant efforts to influence American public opinion since WWI, but there is nothing illegal about that. Seeking to influence public opinion isn't "hacking" What would be improper would be if CIA employees are deliberately misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to overturn the election of Donald Trump. Such actions would subject individuals to impeachment and would indicate Congress should turn the agency's functions over to other departments
If Russians helped us learn Hillary's dirty secrets we should thank them just like many Americans thanked Daniel Ellsberg for revealing the Pentagon's secrets about Vietnam During the Cold War the United States operated radio stations that broadcast news to communist countries that their governments didn't want them to know.
Why don't you media children grow up? If the Democrats, or Republicans, used insecure communications foreign governments would have spied on them. Russia, Israel, China and North Korea would certainly have led any "hacking", but others might also have participated. Governments have to spy on each other, and on political candidates, so they can prepare for actions that might negatively impact them. If the Russians informed us of Hillary's secrets the way Daniel Ellsberg did the Pentagon's secrets we should thank them rather than complain. Foreign governments have been making significant efforts to affect voters' opinions since at least WWI so any Russian effort to affect the 2016 election wouldn't be anything new.
Democrats need to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate. Party leaders had discouraged people from running against her for the nomination because they knew she was a lousy candidate.
Those who claim that Russia "meddled" in the recent presidential election have an even lower opinion of President Barack Obama than the Republicans who call him the worst president in American history.. Countries can only "meddle" in countries that are weaker than they are, including countries that are weak because of weak or inept leaders. For example, President Barack Obama frequently meddled in middle eastern countries. So far those alleging Russian meddling have not provided evidence that Russia tried to meddle by influencing election officials or providing financial assistance to candidates. Spying on government officials or would be government officials is normal governmental action that governments do year round so they can be prepared for actions that might adversely impact them. Attempting to influence public opinion in other countries is also normal action that is done year round and is not "meddling". Governments are likely to try to discredit opinion makers who portray their country, or its leaders, in a negative light to prevent the development of sentiment for war or other adverse actions against their country..
The media are misrepresenting the hacking issue. Russia, China, Israel and North Korea and possibly others along with the NSA probably did hack into insecure email systems, but that does not mean they altered election results as media stories falsely imply. Foreign nations have often made significant efforts to influence American public opinion since WWI, but there is nothing illegal about that. Seeking to influence public opinion isn't "hacking" What would be improper would be if CIA employees are deliberately misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to overturn the election of Donald Trump. Such actions would subject individuals to impeachment and would indicate Congress should turn the agency's functions over to other departments
If Russians helped us learn Hillary's dirty secrets we should thank them just like many Americans thanked Daniel Ellsberg for revealing the Pentagon's secrets about Vietnam During the Cold War the United States operated radio stations that broadcast news to communist countries that their governments didn't want them to know.
Why don't you media children grow up? If the Democrats, or Republicans, used insecure communications foreign governments would have spied on them. Russia, Israel, China and North Korea would certainly have led any "hacking", but others might also have participated. Governments have to spy on each other, and on political candidates, so they can prepare for actions that might negatively impact them. If the Russians informed us of Hillary's secrets the way Daniel Ellsberg did the Pentagon's secrets we should thank them rather than complain. Foreign governments have been making significant efforts to affect voters' opinions since at least WWI so any Russian effort to affect the 2016 election wouldn't be anything new.
Democrats need to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost because she was a lousy candidate. Party leaders had discouraged people from running against her for the nomination because they knew she was a lousy candidate.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
The Real Deplorables
The Media Sheep Morons are the real deplorables.
They blindly follow Hillary Clinton like sheep following a Judas Goat into
the slaughter house. The MSM Deplorables think Hillary
is an empress wearing a beautiful gown.
Many of today's journalists aren't fit to clean the soles of Walter Cronkite's shoes. If the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens had occurred on Cronkite's watch he wouldn't have rested until he found out why Secretary of State Clinton left the Ambassador to die in Benghazi on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack. The British withdrew their diplomats from Benghazi after a terrorist attack on the British
Ambassador's motorcade. Why didn't the United States? American law enforcement agencies recognized terrorist activity could occur on or near the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack. Why didn't Secretary of State Clinton?
Hillary Clinton's inability to remember information about this major event should raise a red flag. Maybe she let him die because she forgot he was in danger. Her stated inability to remember a major event could indicate Alzheimer's. What if Hillary happened to forget important information during a crisis?
Most of us are suspicious of people who become rich while working for government like the Clintons have done. How do the Media Sheep Morons explain how the Clintons gained a fortune without winning the lottery? How do they explain Secretary Clinton 's official meetings with her campaign contributors?
As a young woman Hillary Clinton got a job with a Senate Committee investigating dirty tricks in the 1972 presidential campaign. Apparently she decided such dirty tricks were such a good idea she used some of them to get the presidential nomination. The Washington Post worked hard to expose President Nixon's dirty tricks. If Hillary gets away with using dirty tricks to become president, she may make President Richard Nixon look honest when she runs for re-election.
The Media Sheep Morons see Hillary as an empress wearing a beautiful gown. Millions of Americans see her as the Wicked Witch of the East and the Media Sheep Morons as her flying monkeys.
According to Noah Webster “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."
Many of today's journalists aren't fit to clean the soles of Walter Cronkite's shoes. If the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens had occurred on Cronkite's watch he wouldn't have rested until he found out why Secretary of State Clinton left the Ambassador to die in Benghazi on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack. The British withdrew their diplomats from Benghazi after a terrorist attack on the British
Ambassador's motorcade. Why didn't the United States? American law enforcement agencies recognized terrorist activity could occur on or near the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack. Why didn't Secretary of State Clinton?
Hillary Clinton's inability to remember information about this major event should raise a red flag. Maybe she let him die because she forgot he was in danger. Her stated inability to remember a major event could indicate Alzheimer's. What if Hillary happened to forget important information during a crisis?
Most of us are suspicious of people who become rich while working for government like the Clintons have done. How do the Media Sheep Morons explain how the Clintons gained a fortune without winning the lottery? How do they explain Secretary Clinton 's official meetings with her campaign contributors?
As a young woman Hillary Clinton got a job with a Senate Committee investigating dirty tricks in the 1972 presidential campaign. Apparently she decided such dirty tricks were such a good idea she used some of them to get the presidential nomination. The Washington Post worked hard to expose President Nixon's dirty tricks. If Hillary gets away with using dirty tricks to become president, she may make President Richard Nixon look honest when she runs for re-election.
The Media Sheep Morons see Hillary as an empress wearing a beautiful gown. Millions of Americans see her as the Wicked Witch of the East and the Media Sheep Morons as her flying monkeys.
According to Noah Webster “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Tim Kaine Debates Like a Girl
I thought Hillary Clinton was one of the worst debate participants
until I watched her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine. I would
compare both of them unfavorably to President George H.W. Bush's
Vice President Dan Quayle, but most people wouldn't know what
I was talking about and I'm not ambitious enough to try to find a
transcript to refresh my memory.
I admit I'm basing my comparison discussion of how women argue on how television portrays arguments then on a scientific study of the subject. One of the most annoying practices used in arguments by female tv characters is bringing up some statement the man has made in the past and making it the center of discussion. This practice may serve some purpose in a personal conflict, but is often irrelevant in a discussion of political issues.
The impression I got about both candidates, with Kaine being the worst, is that they were trying to change the subject because they didn't understand the issues they were discussing. Kaine reminded me of a small child who keeps interrupting a discussion because he's not getting the attention he wants. His face reminded me of one of those little yappy dogs who should be muzzled.
If I had been considering voting for Hillary I would have changed my mind because I'm repelled by the thought of Tim Kaine being a heart beat from the presidency. I wonder if it's too late "to throw him under the bus" like George McGovern did to Thomas Eagleton. If Kaine is an example of the type of people Clinton plans to appoint to federal office we will be in big trouble if she is elected.
I'm not opposed to a woman president. I wish I had had an opportunity to vote for Shirley Chisholm or Elizabeth Dole, but neither could get her party's nomination. Condoleezza Rice was my preferred choice to succeed President George W. Bush. I would likely have voted for Kathleen Sebelius if she had run this year or the two previous elections.
Women who support Clinton need to consider that if she fails badly [as is likely considering her record as Secretary of State] it may be 50 year before another woman will have a chance to even be nominated. Jackie Robinson was able to bring about the integration of professional baseball because he was a great player. If he had been poor player other teams would probably have not signed black players
I admit I'm basing my comparison discussion of how women argue on how television portrays arguments then on a scientific study of the subject. One of the most annoying practices used in arguments by female tv characters is bringing up some statement the man has made in the past and making it the center of discussion. This practice may serve some purpose in a personal conflict, but is often irrelevant in a discussion of political issues.
The impression I got about both candidates, with Kaine being the worst, is that they were trying to change the subject because they didn't understand the issues they were discussing. Kaine reminded me of a small child who keeps interrupting a discussion because he's not getting the attention he wants. His face reminded me of one of those little yappy dogs who should be muzzled.
If I had been considering voting for Hillary I would have changed my mind because I'm repelled by the thought of Tim Kaine being a heart beat from the presidency. I wonder if it's too late "to throw him under the bus" like George McGovern did to Thomas Eagleton. If Kaine is an example of the type of people Clinton plans to appoint to federal office we will be in big trouble if she is elected.
I'm not opposed to a woman president. I wish I had had an opportunity to vote for Shirley Chisholm or Elizabeth Dole, but neither could get her party's nomination. Condoleezza Rice was my preferred choice to succeed President George W. Bush. I would likely have voted for Kathleen Sebelius if she had run this year or the two previous elections.
Women who support Clinton need to consider that if she fails badly [as is likely considering her record as Secretary of State] it may be 50 year before another woman will have a chance to even be nominated. Jackie Robinson was able to bring about the integration of professional baseball because he was a great player. If he had been poor player other teams would probably have not signed black players
Monday, October 3, 2016
Hillary Debates Like a Girl
During the first presidential debate I initially wondered about
Hillary Clinton's debating style which didn't seem very
presidential. She seemed to prefer personal attacks
unrelated to presidential matters over a discussion about policy
matters. After thinking about the debate for a few
days I realized that her behavior reminded me of the way women are
portrayed as arguing on television shows.
Clinton didn't take the debate seriously. Her red pant suit and perky demeanor are more appropriate for a party than a serious debate of the issues.
Donald Trump remained serious during the debate, but Clinton grinned whenever she found an opportunity to use one of her favorite catch phrases or made a personal attack on Trump. As I was writing this statement I realized what some of her facial expressions remind me of child who looks for approval when she thinks she has said something special.
Clinton's "perkiness" is disturbing because she appears perky even when discussing serious subjects as if she doesn't really understand the seriousness of the situation.
I'm a week older than Bill Clinton. Those in our age group are alert to indications that others are possibly deteriorating mentally. Hillary at times reminds me of those little old lady characters who are out of touch with reality.
Clinton didn't take the debate seriously. Her red pant suit and perky demeanor are more appropriate for a party than a serious debate of the issues.
Donald Trump remained serious during the debate, but Clinton grinned whenever she found an opportunity to use one of her favorite catch phrases or made a personal attack on Trump. As I was writing this statement I realized what some of her facial expressions remind me of child who looks for approval when she thinks she has said something special.
Clinton's "perkiness" is disturbing because she appears perky even when discussing serious subjects as if she doesn't really understand the seriousness of the situation.
I'm a week older than Bill Clinton. Those in our age group are alert to indications that others are possibly deteriorating mentally. Hillary at times reminds me of those little old lady characters who are out of touch with reality.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
How Could Hillary Be so Stupid?
I didn't really think too much about how Hillary Clinton was dressed
for the debate until a couple of hours ago. Like most
bachelors I don't think much about the significance of women's
clothing unless it's kind of revealing.
I thought Hillary's old lady type pantsuit looked vaguely inappropriate, but didn't recognize that red is not a good color for the wife of a sexual predator to wear to what is essentially a job interview. Red is a color long associated with prostitution dating back at least to the fall of Jericho when the prostitute Rahab hung a red cord on her house to let the Israelis know not to harm her or her family. Areas where prostitutes are sometimes called "red light districts" because railroad workers would leave their red lanterns outside while taking a break.
Many women, especially those of Hillary's age, seem to use the type of pantsuit Hillary wore like men use a t-shirt and jeans. I sometimes see women wearing such attire at Walmart. I call her a attire a "pantsuit" because that is how it was described by one of the women helping with the broadcast My first thought when I saw it was "why was Hillary wearing pajamas?" At the very least it looked like "comfort clothing" rather than something that indicated the person wearing it was serious about wanting a job.
Her clothing may be one reason I got the impression she was just there to have fun. The happy expression she showed when she got recite one of her favorite catch phrases was almost childlike. I previously published a post wondering if Hillary had Alzheimer's. This type of inappropriate behavior would be consistent with that hypothesis.
I thought Hillary's old lady type pantsuit looked vaguely inappropriate, but didn't recognize that red is not a good color for the wife of a sexual predator to wear to what is essentially a job interview. Red is a color long associated with prostitution dating back at least to the fall of Jericho when the prostitute Rahab hung a red cord on her house to let the Israelis know not to harm her or her family. Areas where prostitutes are sometimes called "red light districts" because railroad workers would leave their red lanterns outside while taking a break.
Many women, especially those of Hillary's age, seem to use the type of pantsuit Hillary wore like men use a t-shirt and jeans. I sometimes see women wearing such attire at Walmart. I call her a attire a "pantsuit" because that is how it was described by one of the women helping with the broadcast My first thought when I saw it was "why was Hillary wearing pajamas?" At the very least it looked like "comfort clothing" rather than something that indicated the person wearing it was serious about wanting a job.
Her clothing may be one reason I got the impression she was just there to have fun. The happy expression she showed when she got recite one of her favorite catch phrases was almost childlike. I previously published a post wondering if Hillary had Alzheimer's. This type of inappropriate behavior would be consistent with that hypothesis.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Is Hillary Taking "Happy Pills"?
The biggest difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate is that Trump took the debate seriously and Clinton was on a lark. I vaguely remember her having an occasional serious expression on her face, but my primary impression was of someone having a fun time at a party. I have tried to convince myself that she was overjoyed at being able to repeat one of her favorite cliches, but at times it seemed like she was almost about to giggle
I'm not a party animal, so the closest thing I have to observing someone who is "having a good time" is watching characters on television. If I saw a tv character behaving like Hillary it would be because she was high on something.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
How Severe Is Hillary's Health Problem?
The request from New York Times technology columnist Farhad
Manjoo that Google censor searches for information about
Hillary Clinton's health strongly implies that Manjoo knows
she suffers from some type of severe health problem. So
does the Huffington Post's banning of David
Seaman because of an article about Clinton's health.
There would be no reason to censor health related searches about Clinton if her problem is something like Parkinson's as rumors attributed to Secret Service agents suggest. Rev. Billy Graham has Parkinson's as did Pope John Paul II and various American political leaders and other celebrities. Medication allows people with Parkinson's to continue to function.
There would be no reason to censor health searches if Clinton has heart trouble. President Dwight Eisenhower was reelected in 1956 even though he had had a heart attack in 1955.
Censorship would make sense if Hillary is in the early stages of Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia. Alzheimer's can be difficult to diagnose because the individual symptoms can also occur normally. Hillary's desire to spend a large sum on Alzheimer's research could be for personal reasons.
For example, Alzheimer's could have played a role in some of Hillary's controversies. Some of her actions such as the ones listed below, are consistent with symptoms of Alheimer's.
Poor judgement: Her decision to leave American diplomats in Benghazi after an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade involved poor judgement. Alzheimer's could also explain the poor judgeent shown in using a private email server.
Memory loss is the symptom most of us think of as being associated with Alzheimer's: Thus, Hillary's inability to remember important facts about Benghazi and other events could be a symptom of Alzheimer's.
Misplacing things: Those lost emails could indicate Alzheimer's.
Withdrawal from social situations: Hillary's unwillingness to hold press conferences could indicate Alzheimer's.
Alzheimer's can be difficult to diagnose in its early stages. The above examples of Hillary's behavior could indicate Alzheimer's or could indicate normal conditions. For example, her poor decisions could just indicate limited intelligence.
There would be no reason to censor health related searches about Clinton if her problem is something like Parkinson's as rumors attributed to Secret Service agents suggest. Rev. Billy Graham has Parkinson's as did Pope John Paul II and various American political leaders and other celebrities. Medication allows people with Parkinson's to continue to function.
There would be no reason to censor health searches if Clinton has heart trouble. President Dwight Eisenhower was reelected in 1956 even though he had had a heart attack in 1955.
Censorship would make sense if Hillary is in the early stages of Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia. Alzheimer's can be difficult to diagnose because the individual symptoms can also occur normally. Hillary's desire to spend a large sum on Alzheimer's research could be for personal reasons.
For example, Alzheimer's could have played a role in some of Hillary's controversies. Some of her actions such as the ones listed below, are consistent with symptoms of Alheimer's.
Poor judgement: Her decision to leave American diplomats in Benghazi after an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade involved poor judgement. Alzheimer's could also explain the poor judgeent shown in using a private email server.
Memory loss is the symptom most of us think of as being associated with Alzheimer's: Thus, Hillary's inability to remember important facts about Benghazi and other events could be a symptom of Alzheimer's.
Misplacing things: Those lost emails could indicate Alzheimer's.
Withdrawal from social situations: Hillary's unwillingness to hold press conferences could indicate Alzheimer's.
Alzheimer's can be difficult to diagnose in its early stages. The above examples of Hillary's behavior could indicate Alzheimer's or could indicate normal conditions. For example, her poor decisions could just indicate limited intelligence.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Russia Isn't America's Enemy
Hillery Clinton claims that Donald Trump cannot be trusted with
nuclear weapons. Actually, it's Hillary Clinton and her
supporters I don't trust with nuclear weapons. Based on
comments made at the Democratic convention they still think Russia
is our enemy.
Hillary's preoccupation with nuclear weapons implies she thinks there is a possibility of a new cold war with Russia even though there would be no reason for such a war.unless she created one
We need a president who recognizes that Russia is not our enemy. The Cold War ended decades ago.
Russia is not our enemy. Neither is the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or the People's Republic of China. There is no international communist conspiracy to take over the world. The United States is even normalizing relations with Cuba.
Anti-Russian groups misrepresent Russia as the villain in the Ukraine civil war instead of recognizing that the real villain is the European Union and/or President Barack Obama.
The fact is that when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a demand to turn control of Ukraine over to the European Union, a Nazi Germany like "fifth column" overthrew the legitimate government and replaced it with an EU puppet government. There is disagreement about whether the EU or President Barack Obama directed the coup. The West Europeans and the United States both have a history of such behavior. The quick recognition of the rebel's control by the EU means the EU was aware of the plot even if it didn't order it.
The illegal change in government broke any contract between Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The people of Crimea were free to become independent or seek an association with Russia. Thus there is nothing wrong with Russia working with Crimea.
The anti-Russian attitudes expressed by some of the rebels created an understandable fear of a Balkan type "ethnic cleansing" campaign against ethnic Russians. Ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine recognized they were not wanted and sought to separate from Ukraine. Russia has been far more restrained in responding to this situation then the United States has been in the past.
The United States has invaded other countries for far less significant reasons. The U.S. invasion of Libya could be used as justification for Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.
Hillary's preoccupation with nuclear weapons implies she thinks there is a possibility of a new cold war with Russia even though there would be no reason for such a war.unless she created one
We need a president who recognizes that Russia is not our enemy. The Cold War ended decades ago.
Russia is not our enemy. Neither is the Democratic Republic of Vietnam or the People's Republic of China. There is no international communist conspiracy to take over the world. The United States is even normalizing relations with Cuba.
Anti-Russian groups misrepresent Russia as the villain in the Ukraine civil war instead of recognizing that the real villain is the European Union and/or President Barack Obama.
The fact is that when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a demand to turn control of Ukraine over to the European Union, a Nazi Germany like "fifth column" overthrew the legitimate government and replaced it with an EU puppet government. There is disagreement about whether the EU or President Barack Obama directed the coup. The West Europeans and the United States both have a history of such behavior. The quick recognition of the rebel's control by the EU means the EU was aware of the plot even if it didn't order it.
The illegal change in government broke any contract between Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The people of Crimea were free to become independent or seek an association with Russia. Thus there is nothing wrong with Russia working with Crimea.
The anti-Russian attitudes expressed by some of the rebels created an understandable fear of a Balkan type "ethnic cleansing" campaign against ethnic Russians. Ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine recognized they were not wanted and sought to separate from Ukraine. Russia has been far more restrained in responding to this situation then the United States has been in the past.
The United States has invaded other countries for far less significant reasons. The U.S. invasion of Libya could be used as justification for Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Were Benghazi Deaths Result of Incompetence or Murder One?
After I published the previous post suggesting the Benghazi massacre
demonstrated Hillary Clinton's incompetence I received an email
asking about the possibility that Clinton or someone intended for
Ambassador Chris Stevens or another American to be murdered.
I'm still inclined to believe the best explanation is incompetence,
but I recognize the incident could have involved premeditated
murder.
The death resembles an ancient murder from Israeli history. King David of Israel had gotten Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers named Uriah the Hittite, pregnant. When an attempt to cover up the situation failed, David sent orders for Uriah to be placed in the hottest part of the battle and have the army pull back so he would be killed. David then married Bathsheba so that most people would think her baby was the result of the marriage. Ambassador Stevens was also placed in a situation in which death was virtually certain.
A potential problem with this scenario is that Clinton had no apparent motive for killing Stevens. However, President Barack Obama could have had a motive if claims about his and Stevens personal lives are accurate. I'm not sure whether or not the claims are true, but believe that those who read this blog deserve the opportunity to make up their own minds.
There are claims that both Barack Obama and Chris Stevens. The claim that Stevens was homosexual seems to be more accepted than claims that Obama is even though the claims that he is homosexual have been made by those who describe themselves homosexuals. Larry Sinclair wrote a tell all book claiming to have had an affair with Obama. Homosexual blogger Kevin Dujan claims that Obama is homosexual.
The mother of Trinity Church choir director Donald Young believes his murder was to protect Obama from Young claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with Obama. There also has been a claim that Trinity Church had a program to help homosexual men avoid exposure. The killing of accuser Larry Sinclair by a hit and run driver is a disturbing coincidence that could support a claim that Chris Stevens was sent to Benghazi to die.
I'm a commentator rather than an investigative reporter. The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens certainly needs further investigation. I still believe the Benghazi incident indicates Hillary Clinton is incompetent, possibly in more ways than one. A competent politician certainly wouldn't have gotten involved in a situation in which she could be accused of murder.
Conservative organizations have been claiming that Obama is blocking an indictment of Clinton for her violation of security regulations by using a private email service. Perhaps Obama is worried she might expose his involvement in the death of Stevens.
The death resembles an ancient murder from Israeli history. King David of Israel had gotten Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers named Uriah the Hittite, pregnant. When an attempt to cover up the situation failed, David sent orders for Uriah to be placed in the hottest part of the battle and have the army pull back so he would be killed. David then married Bathsheba so that most people would think her baby was the result of the marriage. Ambassador Stevens was also placed in a situation in which death was virtually certain.
A potential problem with this scenario is that Clinton had no apparent motive for killing Stevens. However, President Barack Obama could have had a motive if claims about his and Stevens personal lives are accurate. I'm not sure whether or not the claims are true, but believe that those who read this blog deserve the opportunity to make up their own minds.
There are claims that both Barack Obama and Chris Stevens. The claim that Stevens was homosexual seems to be more accepted than claims that Obama is even though the claims that he is homosexual have been made by those who describe themselves homosexuals. Larry Sinclair wrote a tell all book claiming to have had an affair with Obama. Homosexual blogger Kevin Dujan claims that Obama is homosexual.
The mother of Trinity Church choir director Donald Young believes his murder was to protect Obama from Young claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with Obama. There also has been a claim that Trinity Church had a program to help homosexual men avoid exposure. The killing of accuser Larry Sinclair by a hit and run driver is a disturbing coincidence that could support a claim that Chris Stevens was sent to Benghazi to die.
I'm a commentator rather than an investigative reporter. The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens certainly needs further investigation. I still believe the Benghazi incident indicates Hillary Clinton is incompetent, possibly in more ways than one. A competent politician certainly wouldn't have gotten involved in a situation in which she could be accused of murder.
Conservative organizations have been claiming that Obama is blocking an indictment of Clinton for her violation of security regulations by using a private email service. Perhaps Obama is worried she might expose his involvement in the death of Stevens.
Can Old Lady Clinton Understand Benghazi Significance?
The thing that most bothers me about Hillary Clinton's comments
about Benghazi is that she doesn't seem to understand why people are
concerned about her mishandling of the Benghazi situation.
She doesn't seem to understand that her mishandling of the situation
allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory at Benghazi by killing the
top U.S. official in Libya. Clinton doesn't seem to
understand why her use of a private email server threatened national
security.
The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time it killed an al Qaeda leader including killing Osama bin Laden . An intelligent Secretary of State would have wanted to prevent the enemy from being able to kill any American ambassador. Clinton foolishly decided to make it as easy as possible for al Qaeda to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens. Her handling of the situation would have made more sense if she had wanted him to die.
Clinton's attempt to make a diplomatic facility at Benghazi permanent was the biggest American battlefield mistake since the Battle of Hamburger Hill in the Vietnam War. The war on terror has made much of the world a potential battle field. The enemy can attack any where, at any time even in San Bernardino California.
In May, 1969, the commanding general of the 101st Airborne made a foolish decision to try to take a well defended but worthless piece of real estate that became known as Hamburger Hill. The Americans suffered heavy casualties and failed to take the hill which the enemy then abandoned.
Clinton had ample warning that the ambassador would be in eminent danger in Benghazi. The consulate had already suffered two minor attacks. There had been attacks on the Tunisian consulate and the U.N. Special Envoy's convoy. The International Red Cross closed its office after it was attacked. The British government withdrew its diplomats from Benghazi after an attack on its ambassador's convoy.
Clinton's critics have focused on the inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate and ignored the fact that the facility shouldn't have been defended in the first place. A competent Secretary of State would have followed the example of the International Red Cross and the British government and abandoned a building that wasn't worth the loss of American lives.
Clinton's use of a less secure private email server may have made it possible for al Qaeda leaders to learn the United States wouldn't defend the consulate
The advice of the old gambler in the Kenny Rogers song "The Gambler" applies to war as well as poker
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run."
The United States should have walked away from Benghazi. There is no shame in walking a way from a battle that cannot be won. In the early years of World War II the British army walked away from France and the United States army walked away from the Philippines because the locations couldn't be defended at that time.
The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time it killed an al Qaeda leader including killing Osama bin Laden . An intelligent Secretary of State would have wanted to prevent the enemy from being able to kill any American ambassador. Clinton foolishly decided to make it as easy as possible for al Qaeda to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens. Her handling of the situation would have made more sense if she had wanted him to die.
Clinton's attempt to make a diplomatic facility at Benghazi permanent was the biggest American battlefield mistake since the Battle of Hamburger Hill in the Vietnam War. The war on terror has made much of the world a potential battle field. The enemy can attack any where, at any time even in San Bernardino California.
In May, 1969, the commanding general of the 101st Airborne made a foolish decision to try to take a well defended but worthless piece of real estate that became known as Hamburger Hill. The Americans suffered heavy casualties and failed to take the hill which the enemy then abandoned.
Clinton had ample warning that the ambassador would be in eminent danger in Benghazi. The consulate had already suffered two minor attacks. There had been attacks on the Tunisian consulate and the U.N. Special Envoy's convoy. The International Red Cross closed its office after it was attacked. The British government withdrew its diplomats from Benghazi after an attack on its ambassador's convoy.
Clinton's critics have focused on the inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate and ignored the fact that the facility shouldn't have been defended in the first place. A competent Secretary of State would have followed the example of the International Red Cross and the British government and abandoned a building that wasn't worth the loss of American lives.
Clinton's use of a less secure private email server may have made it possible for al Qaeda leaders to learn the United States wouldn't defend the consulate
The advice of the old gambler in the Kenny Rogers song "The Gambler" applies to war as well as poker
"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run."
The United States should have walked away from Benghazi. There is no shame in walking a way from a battle that cannot be won. In the early years of World War II the British army walked away from France and the United States army walked away from the Philippines because the locations couldn't be defended at that time.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Apprentice and the Presidential Island
I've never been interested in the survivor type programs,
including Donald Trump's sophisticated program "The
Apprentice", but am familiar with the basic way they
work.
"The Apprentice" provides the best model for choosing a president, but the political parties should also consider the process of "voting people off the island". On the basic "Survivor" programs contestants are divided into tribes and work together to survive in a wilderness setting. They conduct periodic votes in which individuals are gradually "voted off the island" until only one remains. On "The Apprentice" contestants are assigned business related tasks. Donald Trump, or comparable people in other countries, gradually eliminates the least productive individuals by telling them "you're fired."
Trump based his decisions on how well the individual contestants "walked the walk" rather than how well they "talked the talk." Those who want to be the U.S. CEO [i.e., president] should have to first demonstrate they can run an organization such as a major corporation or state first. Those candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio who have never run an organization should be fired or kicked off the island in the first round. Any candidate can mumble the appropriate political cliches and promise to do this, that and the other thing. Would be presidents need to demonstrate that they actually can do this, that and the other thing.
Governors should be the easiest to evaluate because their duties are similar to the president's particularly in the area of working with the legislative branch of government. Both corporate CEO's and governors can be evaluated on how well they select subordinates. For example, the New Jersey "bridgegate" scandal raises questions about how well Gov. Chris Christie selects subordinates . Voters would want to how well governors delivered on the promises that got them elected. Investors are usually interested in the profitability of a business which can depend on economic conditions. Voters should be more interested in the type of risks a CEO took while running the business. For example, did the CEO take calculated risks or take reckless chances, or perhaps just continue doing things they had always been done. Governors can also be evaluated on whether continued doing things the way they had always been done or found more effective ways to providing government services.
Democrats should have voted "Calamity" Clinton off their island long ago. Calamity has been an ongoing disaster for the Democrats since her husband began running for President. She has a history of bad decisions. Her foolish decision to represent a corrupt savings and loan before a board appointed by her husband caused the appointment of a special prosecutor who eventually charged Bill with perjury. Opposition to the health care plan she developed early in his administration helped the Republicans take control of Congress.
She had our ambassador stay in Benghazi in spite of an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade in that city in June. She seems unable to understand that she could have prevented his assassination by withdrawing him from Benghazi prior to 9/11/2012. Many American cities recognize the possibility to terrorist activity on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack. Why didn't Clinton? Her foolish decision to use a private e-mail server while Secretary of State may have compromised national security.
"The Apprentice" provides the best model for choosing a president, but the political parties should also consider the process of "voting people off the island". On the basic "Survivor" programs contestants are divided into tribes and work together to survive in a wilderness setting. They conduct periodic votes in which individuals are gradually "voted off the island" until only one remains. On "The Apprentice" contestants are assigned business related tasks. Donald Trump, or comparable people in other countries, gradually eliminates the least productive individuals by telling them "you're fired."
Trump based his decisions on how well the individual contestants "walked the walk" rather than how well they "talked the talk." Those who want to be the U.S. CEO [i.e., president] should have to first demonstrate they can run an organization such as a major corporation or state first. Those candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio who have never run an organization should be fired or kicked off the island in the first round. Any candidate can mumble the appropriate political cliches and promise to do this, that and the other thing. Would be presidents need to demonstrate that they actually can do this, that and the other thing.
Governors should be the easiest to evaluate because their duties are similar to the president's particularly in the area of working with the legislative branch of government. Both corporate CEO's and governors can be evaluated on how well they select subordinates. For example, the New Jersey "bridgegate" scandal raises questions about how well Gov. Chris Christie selects subordinates . Voters would want to how well governors delivered on the promises that got them elected. Investors are usually interested in the profitability of a business which can depend on economic conditions. Voters should be more interested in the type of risks a CEO took while running the business. For example, did the CEO take calculated risks or take reckless chances, or perhaps just continue doing things they had always been done. Governors can also be evaluated on whether continued doing things the way they had always been done or found more effective ways to providing government services.
Democrats should have voted "Calamity" Clinton off their island long ago. Calamity has been an ongoing disaster for the Democrats since her husband began running for President. She has a history of bad decisions. Her foolish decision to represent a corrupt savings and loan before a board appointed by her husband caused the appointment of a special prosecutor who eventually charged Bill with perjury. Opposition to the health care plan she developed early in his administration helped the Republicans take control of Congress.
She had our ambassador stay in Benghazi in spite of an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade in that city in June. She seems unable to understand that she could have prevented his assassination by withdrawing him from Benghazi prior to 9/11/2012. Many American cities recognize the possibility to terrorist activity on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack. Why didn't Clinton? Her foolish decision to use a private e-mail server while Secretary of State may have compromised national security.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Democrats Should Draft Sebelius for President
Democrats should encourage former Kansas Governor Kathleen
Sebelius to run for president. She would be
a far better choice for president than Hillary Clinton who would
never have gotten any place in politics if her husband Bill hadn't
served as President of the United States;
Will the race for the Democratic presidential candidate be a repeat of 1968? In 1968 Democrats entered the primary season expecting to nominate President Lyndon Johnson for reelection. After Johnson's poor showing in New Hampshire, he withdrew from the race and Democrats had to find a new candidate. Democrats may have more time to recover this year than they did in 1968. Hillary is already slipping behind an unknown candidate, Democrats need to recognize she has no chance even with the Clinton Broadcast System running a show designed to con people into thinking that Hillary was a capable Secretary of State.
Democrats who support Hillary Clinton ignore her past association with disasters including her decision before the 1992 election to represent the corrupt Whitewater Savings and Loan before a board appointed by her husband Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. That decision caused the appointment of a special prosecutor which eventually resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton on an unrelated matter. The health care proposal she developed was so unpopular it helped Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.
Hillary's service as Secretary of State was a disaster. Her incompetence allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory in Libya when the terrorist organization used a mob to kill the American Ambassador to Libya. Those familiar with al Qaeda knew it was likely to try something on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack during an American presidential year. Clinton shouldn't have needed CIA torture to figure out that the instability in Libya made it an ideal target. A competent Secretary of State would have reduced the potential for a successful attack in Libya by having the Ambassador and his staff attend some type of conference at NATO headquarters or some other European country. At the very least she should have ordered the Ambassador to stay in the capital so the Libyan government could help protect him.
The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time Americans killed an al Qaeda leader in some Middle Eastern country. Thus the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya was a major al Qaeda victory.
Kathleen Sebelius made her own way in politics. Her father had been a governor, but in Indiana rather than Kansas. Her father-in-law was a popular member of the Kansas Congressional delegation, but he was a Republican and Sebelius is a Democrat. Sebelius was elected governor as a Democrat twice in heavily Republican Kansas. Clinton won election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in heavily Democratic New York.
Sebelius had to deal with controversy during her tenure in the Obama cabinet because Obama assigned her the near impossible task of implementing Obama's overly complicated health care system. As I had expected there were some significant problems, particularly with the computer software, but she handled them effectively.
I don't agree with some of her political views, particularly the global warming nonsense. However, I would consider voting for her for president because she is a competent executive which is what we need in the White House. If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton I will have to vote for the Republican to keep her out of the White House.
Hillary Clinton has handicapped the Democratic Party in the coming presidential election. She has preempted the publicity for the Democratic Party allowing the Republican candidates to be better known than other potential Democratic candidates. Democrats need to encourage Sebelius, Vice President Joe Biden, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and other potential candidates to get in the race now so they won't have to start from scratch if Hillary's campaign crashes during the primary season.
Will the race for the Democratic presidential candidate be a repeat of 1968? In 1968 Democrats entered the primary season expecting to nominate President Lyndon Johnson for reelection. After Johnson's poor showing in New Hampshire, he withdrew from the race and Democrats had to find a new candidate. Democrats may have more time to recover this year than they did in 1968. Hillary is already slipping behind an unknown candidate, Democrats need to recognize she has no chance even with the Clinton Broadcast System running a show designed to con people into thinking that Hillary was a capable Secretary of State.
Democrats who support Hillary Clinton ignore her past association with disasters including her decision before the 1992 election to represent the corrupt Whitewater Savings and Loan before a board appointed by her husband Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. That decision caused the appointment of a special prosecutor which eventually resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton on an unrelated matter. The health care proposal she developed was so unpopular it helped Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.
Hillary's service as Secretary of State was a disaster. Her incompetence allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory in Libya when the terrorist organization used a mob to kill the American Ambassador to Libya. Those familiar with al Qaeda knew it was likely to try something on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack during an American presidential year. Clinton shouldn't have needed CIA torture to figure out that the instability in Libya made it an ideal target. A competent Secretary of State would have reduced the potential for a successful attack in Libya by having the Ambassador and his staff attend some type of conference at NATO headquarters or some other European country. At the very least she should have ordered the Ambassador to stay in the capital so the Libyan government could help protect him.
The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time Americans killed an al Qaeda leader in some Middle Eastern country. Thus the killing of the American Ambassador to Libya was a major al Qaeda victory.
Kathleen Sebelius made her own way in politics. Her father had been a governor, but in Indiana rather than Kansas. Her father-in-law was a popular member of the Kansas Congressional delegation, but he was a Republican and Sebelius is a Democrat. Sebelius was elected governor as a Democrat twice in heavily Republican Kansas. Clinton won election to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in heavily Democratic New York.
Sebelius had to deal with controversy during her tenure in the Obama cabinet because Obama assigned her the near impossible task of implementing Obama's overly complicated health care system. As I had expected there were some significant problems, particularly with the computer software, but she handled them effectively.
I don't agree with some of her political views, particularly the global warming nonsense. However, I would consider voting for her for president because she is a competent executive which is what we need in the White House. If Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton I will have to vote for the Republican to keep her out of the White House.
Hillary Clinton has handicapped the Democratic Party in the coming presidential election. She has preempted the publicity for the Democratic Party allowing the Republican candidates to be better known than other potential Democratic candidates. Democrats need to encourage Sebelius, Vice President Joe Biden, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and other potential candidates to get in the race now so they won't have to start from scratch if Hillary's campaign crashes during the primary season.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Is Princess Hillary too Thin-Skinned for Presidency?
The American media's heir apparent to the presidency, Princess
Hillary Clinton, has had a hissy
fit because that cad Donald Trump slipped a pea
under her mattress. She's all a flutter because he used
a sexually oriented word
that 99% of Americans have never heard of. Princess
Hillary seems to believe that women should be protected from such
language like they were in the 1950's. Or,maybe she's
been so protected she doesn't know some women use more well known
words with a similar meaning. I've even heard teenage girls
use such terms in church.
I started writing when the incident happened but decided I didn't want to disrupt my Christmas mood by writing about politics. I forgot about the subject until a few days ago when I saw a commercial that used a comparable term that more Americans are familiar with. I don't want to risk offending anyone, or upsetting the text editor, so I won't use it. I'll only say it involves the type of activity that got Bill Clinton in trouble. I also belatedly watched Blake Shelton's "Christmas" special which featured other sexually related words that have become acceptable.
When I first heard the bleeped version of Trump's comment on television, I thought maybe he was suggesting Princess Hillary was what many people believe Trump is the son of. That prompted an unsuccessful search for a quote from the 1972 Democrat race for the presidential nomination. I don't remember which candidate's wife said it about the wife of another candidate, but here it is: "she's an I can't say it but it rhymes with rich."
I was surprised to find out it had been used again during the 1984 general election race. Barbara Bush, whose husband George H.W. Bush was the incumbent Vice President, used the phrase to describe the Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. Some sources suggest she said "rhymes with witch."
Trump also has been criticized for retweeting a message from Texas cowgirl Sawyer Burmeister: "If Hillary can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" Burmeister later retracted the tweet. Burmeister's tweet raises the question of what Princess Hillary meant when she said that Trump's word was humiliating to women. Did Princess Hillary mean that talking about sex was humiliating to women or that sex was humiliating to women?
While looking for a link for this post I was reminded of Princess Hillary's bathroom break during a debate. I know what my mom would have said: "she should have gone before the debate." My mom always had us kids use the bathroom before we went any place.
I started writing when the incident happened but decided I didn't want to disrupt my Christmas mood by writing about politics. I forgot about the subject until a few days ago when I saw a commercial that used a comparable term that more Americans are familiar with. I don't want to risk offending anyone, or upsetting the text editor, so I won't use it. I'll only say it involves the type of activity that got Bill Clinton in trouble. I also belatedly watched Blake Shelton's "Christmas" special which featured other sexually related words that have become acceptable.
When I first heard the bleeped version of Trump's comment on television, I thought maybe he was suggesting Princess Hillary was what many people believe Trump is the son of. That prompted an unsuccessful search for a quote from the 1972 Democrat race for the presidential nomination. I don't remember which candidate's wife said it about the wife of another candidate, but here it is: "she's an I can't say it but it rhymes with rich."
I was surprised to find out it had been used again during the 1984 general election race. Barbara Bush, whose husband George H.W. Bush was the incumbent Vice President, used the phrase to describe the Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro. Some sources suggest she said "rhymes with witch."
Trump also has been criticized for retweeting a message from Texas cowgirl Sawyer Burmeister: "If Hillary can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" Burmeister later retracted the tweet. Burmeister's tweet raises the question of what Princess Hillary meant when she said that Trump's word was humiliating to women. Did Princess Hillary mean that talking about sex was humiliating to women or that sex was humiliating to women?
While looking for a link for this post I was reminded of Princess Hillary's bathroom break during a debate. I know what my mom would have said: "she should have gone before the debate." My mom always had us kids use the bathroom before we went any place.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
"Madam" Clinton for President
As I was looking at the Sunday evening tv schedule, it suddenly hit
me that the one title Hillary Clinton should want to avoid is
"Madam". When I noticed the title of the show "Madam
Secretary" I remembered something drill sergeants warned us
about during basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in 1968. At
that time women in the army were in the Women's Army Corps.
We had already been told that male officers should be called "sir". We were then told to call a WAC officer "ma'am", but never, ever under any circumstances were we to call a WAC officer "madam" unless we didn't want to go on living. Calling a WAC officer "madam" implied she was in charge of a bunch of prostitutes because "madam" was the title given to a woman who ran a brothel.
Considering Bill Clinton's record, many of us wonder if Hillary would earn the title of Madam by letting Bill turn the White House into the "Chicken Ranch" east. For those of you who have never heard of the Chicken Ranch, it's a place in Nevada where men like Bill Clinton go to have fun.
Hopefully, voters will be smart enough to ignore the efforts of mainstream media to force Hillary down our throats and we will never find out if Hillary would have become the White House's Madam.
I haven't wanted to waste my time watching the show "Madam Secretary", but judging from the promos, The Clinton Broadcasting System has cast a Hillary clone as Secretary of State in an attempt to con voter into ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State since WWII.
We had already been told that male officers should be called "sir". We were then told to call a WAC officer "ma'am", but never, ever under any circumstances were we to call a WAC officer "madam" unless we didn't want to go on living. Calling a WAC officer "madam" implied she was in charge of a bunch of prostitutes because "madam" was the title given to a woman who ran a brothel.
Considering Bill Clinton's record, many of us wonder if Hillary would earn the title of Madam by letting Bill turn the White House into the "Chicken Ranch" east. For those of you who have never heard of the Chicken Ranch, it's a place in Nevada where men like Bill Clinton go to have fun.
Hopefully, voters will be smart enough to ignore the efforts of mainstream media to force Hillary down our throats and we will never find out if Hillary would have become the White House's Madam.
I haven't wanted to waste my time watching the show "Madam Secretary", but judging from the promos, The Clinton Broadcasting System has cast a Hillary clone as Secretary of State in an attempt to con voter into ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State since WWII.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
