Posts Tagged ‘Russians’

LET’S AVOID RUSHING TO A FOOLISH CONCLUSION

May 19, 2017

For a week and a half we’ve heard a trickle of information and a flood of speculation regarding the dismissal of James Comey. The social media meme thread includes questions and accusations involving coercion, bribery, extortion and private threats.

First the Democrats began crying for Comey’s head because he caused Hillary’s presidential demise with his public announcements. Next they gloated and praised his performance for a while after he publicly announced the conclusion of an investigation into Email Gate. Then they turned on him like rabid and starving rats when he stood before another microphone to proclaim his investigators found new evidence and he was reopening the case.

James Comey was the Federal Bureau of Investigations Director from September 4, 2013 until his last day on May 9, 2017. Comey’s career includes government affiliation from 2002 when he became a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and a stint as United States Deputy Attorney General under George W. Bush. Thereafter, for eight years, he chose the private sector where he was employed as council for Lockheed Martin and Bridgewater Associates before returning to public service as Director of the FBI.

According to his bio, Comey was a registered Republican until 2016. At that time, he changed his party affiliation to Independent. Was this move made due to distrust for the Republican nominee at that time?

As of this publication, it has been eleven days since Comey’s discharge and there still is no definitive explanation for why it happened when it did, only conjecture and opinion. Yet, depending on viewpoint or political bent, there is angst and anger on behalf of both Trump supporters and “the Resistance”. Half want the president to be impeached (but that started about midnight EST on November 8, 2016) while the other side supportively praises his actions.

Neither side has sufficient information to know whether the move was warranted at that time, prior to then or not at all. There seems to be nary a fact available. All judgments at this point appear to be made on innuendo, speculation, allegations, wants and wishes. It is simply another opportunity for the resistance movement to call for resistance. News stations and print media claiming unbiased reporting are all knee deep in the hog pen mire that is national politics today. Social media offers highly charged opinions which become gospel as they twine their way through the web to hand-held electronic devices.

It is said that James Comey, like his predecessor, wrote down the important points of meetings with ranking political officials in case he needed them to testify before congress. Is the wording of those notes influenced by his emotions, fears or ambitions? Does he also have notes of meetings with President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Adam Schiff, Elija Cummings and others? Can/will they be subpoenaed? Will the notes become a tell-all memoir worth millions of dollars to a publisher as with most of the recent politicians upon leaving the political arena? We’ll have to wait to see.

Echoes for a special counsel resounded through the halls of congress and microphones of the media until one was appointed. Shouldn’t they also call for special prosecutors and independent investigators to look into such things as Eric Holder and his Fast and Furious scheme and the Clintons (both) including sexual assault, national security breaches, the Clinton foundation – fraud and influence peddling. Perhaps someone should take a serious look at President Obama and why he made public announcements of troop movements and assault planning days, weeks and months before they occurred. Do you remember Extortion 17? How about seeking more information regarding how it was that James Comey took it upon himself not to prosecute Hillary Clinton? This decision usurped the authority of his boss, Loretta Lynch, though she didn’t object.

I’m all for a special prosecutor and Robert Mueller has the potential to do the job. Let’s find out the whole story about Russian involvement into our election process. Let’s seek the truth about all aspects of government. Let’s quiet the whining. If there is need, censure or even impeach and remove the president. If nothing is found we can announce the idiocy of the call.

As we’re spending thousands of person hours (*note the PC reference), frittering resources and tens of millions of dollars with independent investigations and special prosecutors trying to prove negatives, why not look into the ties between Adam Schiff and organized crime? Perhaps there should be a special prosecutor investigating Eric Stalwell and his connection to child trafficking, enslavement, prostitution and surgical mutilation. There is currently nothing tying these men to the crimes indicated, but how do we know for sure no crimes were committed without a thorough investigation? You’ve now seen their names linked to crimes and both are bred from the corrupt politics of California.

If there’s truly an interest in election tampering or fraud or influencing an election, why isn’t there more attention given to illegal aliens and felons and dead people voting or computers changing votes? Where is the outrage about people voting two and three times in different districts under different names? Where is the concern about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC denying Bernie Sanders equal opportunity?

Who can assure, in this politically charged environment, that even Robert Mueller is unbiased and able to do the job without malice? After all, Director Comey was heralded as “as honest as they come” until he became known as corrupt.

Advertisements

OUR GOVERNMENT AND IT’S MINISTRY OF TRUTH

January 5, 2017

Fake news is one thing. Making real news fake is quite another thing.

Seventeen agencies say the Russians hacked into the DNC computer system” is an example of how we are expected to sheepishly welcome what is authoritatively presented as truth. Actually, it was the DDNI, James Clapper, who said the Russians hacked the DNC computer system.

His statement was interpolated to include all the agencies under his jurisdiction. They include: Air Force Intelligence, Department of Treasury, Army Intelligence, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Coast Guard Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Department of Energy, National Reconnaissance Office, Department of Homeland Security, National Security Agency, Department of State, Navy Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

Director Clapper is responsible for the Department of National Intelligence (DNI) and the sixteen others listed above, but they did not all agree that the “Russians” were behind the breach. (Well, that is, perhaps until they were told to smile, nod and otherwise acquiesce or be disciplined.) Hell, neither the directors of some of the agencies nor their staff knew anything about the hacking until they read it in the New York Times. Why would the Department of Energy investigate a cyber transgression?

The truth is, to this date, not one of the directors nor any of their charges have defining proof as to what, which state, group or individual actually invaded the site. To be sure, it was October 7, 2016 when Secretary Jeh Johnson and Director Clapper issued a joint statement  that the intelligence community is confident the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations”. The statement went on to say that the disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks are consistent with the Russian-directed efforts. Nothing any more positive has yet been said.

I remember my marketing teacher saying, “There is an implied credibility with repetition”. This one joint statement took on a life of it’s own. It was repeated by virtually every news outlet, email thread and Twitter feed until it morphed into what we now hear as “seventeen agencies all agree that the Russians hacked the DNC computer system and influenced with our presidential election”.

This misdirection has no reason other than to set problems for the new administration.  Barack is doing everything possible to cause chaos from January 20, 2017 forward so that his failed eight years won’t look so bad.

Back in October of last year <link> I wrote, They (Russians) may even be complicit in the information Wikileaks is sharing regarding Hillary’s unlawful email interactions and information storage.  However, “What difference, at this point, does it make” if it is the Russians, Guccifer, the NSA, Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Dorothy and Toto who hacked the emails?  It’s about the content, not who obtained it, how it was obtained or who shares it.

What did you read or hear today and accept as truth without checking further?

 

“FAKE NEWS” AND THE NEED TO REINSTATE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

December 14, 2016

We have fairness in broadcasting today. Not all of it is to the liking of the left leaning outlets controlling about 85% of the news, and that seems to be the problem. There was little rebuff with the repeal of the original 1949 FCC mandate because by 1987 the majority of news outlets had a significant liberal influence. The few others were scoffed and marginalized by the many. Truly, the only controversy came when facts surfaced that did not coincide with the coveted stories of the day.

The Fairness Doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949, required that broadcast licensees present controversial issues of public importance with honesty, equity and balance. Federal oversight included reprimands and fines for noncompliance issued at the discretion of the FCC commissioner. The guidelines (typically acceptable for any government agency) were ill defined and arbitrary. Print publications were not included in the doctrine.

With the wider opportunity for voices other than those deemed “the only truth”, liberals now want to change our speech and the presentation of ideas. Political correctness, inclusiveness and gender fluidity all allow for pigeonholing today’s non-conformists or traditionalists as bias and bigoted. Liberals (socialists) want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine with tighter guidelines and more controls that align with their agenda. Ergo, fake news.

The latest seems to be Russians hacked the DNC to overturn the election outcome. It makes all Russians suspicious whether or not anyone of Russian descent or even anyone inside of Russia had anything to do with the information theft.  Where is the mention that the emails were true or that they were generated and distributed by a phony, lying, deceitful, conniving and unlikable Democrat candidate?

How better to take control of a population than to create a situation and amplify it to the point of crisis? Fake news is a perfect way of introducing a problem. Simply fabricate some “news”, The Russians Did It – The Russians Did It, post it on the World Wide Web, await the inevitable dispersal and declare it phony information pressed by the opposition. By making it appear as if it is coming from your opposition there is cause to declare and allege it’s false thereby proclaiming immediate credibility for your side. This practice has been around for decades and known as False Flag incidents or operations. The new twist is nothing more than progressive adaptation.

Journalism is no longer objective reporting of recent circumstance or events. It has become increasingly biased, opinionated and political whenever possible. By tweaking what is said or how a situation unfolds, the reporter can influence the thinking of those receiving the information. It need not be entirely false, misleading is generally sufficient. It’s all in the presentation.

A headline like “Cop Shoots Black Man” is all many will read or hear. It’s all many want to hear. It’s all they need to know. The underlying story might be that the black man was a terrorist who tried to assassinate the cop or tried to evade the cop and blow up a bank building or such. It may also be later revealed that it was not a black man, but a man in black clothing. The lack of information is as important to the story as that presented. None-the-less, the original story will incentivize some to riot.

With a new administration on the horizon, expect desperate cries of need for an Information Czar or Minister of Truth to oversee and direct our enlightenment. It will be nothing more than an attempt to further subjugate us under the ruling thumb of pro-socialists. It may well come in the form of another attempt to re-institute an updated Fairness Doctrine.