Why bother? The Media Cartel

"The ultimatum follows Trump’s announcement last week that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate change accord and his refusal to specifically pledge allegiance to European defense at a NATO summit last month."



Trump has never said the US would not defend Europe.  Never.  Ever.  Ever.

Obama did however - he stopped a missile defense shield to Poland, thus leaving it open to Russia ... and he did that as a capitulation to Russia.

Obama did do that ... multiple times to Eastern European allies, leaving them to their own devices, to find their own defense systems.

Obama did that many times.  He said one thing and did another and NEVER once did the WP question him.  Anne should pay more attention.

But when Trump tells the European allies they need to pay their legitimate and legally obligated portion as defined by the very treaty he isn't obliging, then he is apparently not pledging allegiance to the Euro cause.

We have defended Europe, even when Europe didn't want our protection - we liberated them -- we did so despite cost and the lives lost.  We will always do so, but they MUST pay their fair share.

We have always paid more than our share.  Always.
 

This is all a bit much ... Trump, the Swamp, and the domestic enemies of everyone ...

More than 5 months ago, I stated that if Trump screwed up, people would abandon him like rats from a sinking ship.  I thought it would be easier keeping track of his administration given a brand new start.

It wasn't.  It isn't.

So, I don't believe I can keep up with this tireless tirade of tyrannical leftists ... Trump is a bozo and I cringe when I hear or see him, but they are despicable.

The whole Russian thing - nothing.  There is nothing there.  What they have is ... the democratic party was hacked by Russians who released their emails, along with Hillarys emails.  So say the Democrats and Hillary.  But, Wikileaks says it wasn't, and Assange is quite certain.  As certain as he was when he went after Bush and the left rejoiced at his every release.  They salivated waiting his next release.  Today, not so much.  It wasn't the Russians.  Any high school hacker could access the emails.

Instead you blow it up.  The Russians did it and the fact Trump won't answer means they did, and they are still in control and when he denies it, it means they are controlling him.

And then Kushner did X, and that only proves the ties are deeper than previously known.  And because of that it proves the Russian connections, and that Russia did influence the election.

Yet, IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.  It is just mindless drivel spit out at a public either salivating with desire to know more dirt, or people sickened by the shit coming from the NYT and WP.


Another Washington Post anonymously sourced hit job dropped on the Trump White House — this one about Jared Kushner asking the Russian ambassador for a “secret channel.”

The story about Kushner is basic Poli Sci 101 - back channels are always set up (even with Obama), with countries you have so-so relationships with.  We have a back-channel with Iran, but the WP doesn't go on about that.  We use Switzerland.   We have a back-channel to North Korea - we use China.  I would also bet we have low level back channel, through individuals who met and know the North Korean leader.  There are multiple levels to back-channel relationships done for any number of reasons.  We had them in place during the Cold War - Armand Hammer was used by the Nixon and Carter administrations.  Democrats know this.  And legitimate and objective reporters know this.


Mindless drivel by petulant children and you wonder why Trump disregards you.  You are not worth paying attention to.  Honestly.



The below is taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/28/thanks-to-trump-germany-says-it-cant-rely-on-america-what-does-that-mean/?utm_term=.eae377d6d51c

Agence France-Presse reported Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has told a crowd in southern Germany that Europe can no longer rely on foreign partners.

The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added. While Germany and Europe would strive to remain on good terms with America and Britain, “we have to fight for our own destiny.”

This is an enormous change in political rhetoric. While the public is more familiar with the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States, the German-U.S. relationship has arguably been more important. One of the key purposes of NATO was to embed Germany in an international framework that would prevent it from becoming a threat to European peace as it had been in World War I and World War II. In the words of NATO’s first secretary general, NATO was supposed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Now, Merkel is suggesting that the Americans aren’t really in, and, by extension, Germany and Europe are likely to take on a much more substantial and independent role than they have in the past 70 years.
This is thanks to Trump
Merkel’s comment about what she has experienced in the past few days is a clear reference to President Trump’s disastrous European tour. Her belief that the United States is no longer a reliable partner is a direct result of Trump’s words and actions. The keystone of NATO is Article 5, which has typically been read as a commitment that in the event that one member of the alliance is attacked, all other members will come to its aid. When Trump visited NATO, he dedicated a plaque to the one time that Article 5 has been invoked — when all members of NATO promised to come to the United States’ support after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. However, Trump did not express his commitment to Article 5 in his speech to NATO, instead lambasting other NATO members for not spending enough money on their militaries. When Trump went on to the Group of Seven meeting in Italy, he declined to recommit to the Paris agreement on climate change, leaving the other six nations to issue a separate statement.
This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner. Trump has ostentatiously refused to express his commitment to an agreement that has been the bulwark of Europe-U.S. security relations over the past three generations. He also has declined to say that the United States will work within the previously agreed framework on global warming. While many authoritarian states are cheered by Trump’s election and actions, since he is unlikely to press them on human rights and other sore points, traditional U.S. allies are enormously disheartened.

Yet another bit of witless wonder from the WP -

But some former administration officials on Sunday criticized the use of such secret channels, especially during a presidential transition, saying they could send a confusing message and be manipulated by a foreign power.

I really need to go back to UCLA and request a refund from the courses taken in poli sci, because apparently people like Dukakis and Dallek, and other professors I took classes from were wrong compared with these 'experts'!




 BULLSHIT.

Facts?  Or just OPINION mixed with a few details that have no bearing on anything written above.

Henry Farrell is a poor example of a writer.  You should do creative writing, because that is what your article is.  Creative writing.  A poor example of, but still, far from serious news reporting.

This is an example of what has been tossed at Trump for the last 5 months.  Shit.  And his inability to restrain his fingers from tap tap tapping away, only makes it worse, and they play on it.  Sad stupid people.

I do recall a statement from Der Spiegel - in which Merkle stated that she did not TRUST Obama, and he was not trustworthy.  Poland didn't think we were either, they set up relationships because Obama didn't show respect for the security of Poland.  Ukraine - they were left on their own, and felt we had abandoned them - Hillary and Obama.  Latvia - they needed to create alliances because NATO made it clear they would not help.  Estonia same thing.  South Korea - as the US pulled troops out of Korea, we made it clear we could not be counted on to protect them from N Korea.  In fact, if you are that animated about all this - look into 1993-1998, Clinton White House and North Korea, as to who provided North Korea with what today is the basis of their most worrisome weapon system.

Given all that - and the fact that on DAY ONE, HOUR ONE, Obama called not the Canadian Prime Minister, nor the British ... he called Abbas in West Bank.  Abbas was also his last call.  THAT showed how the US would treat our ally Israel.  That showed how valuable we prized the relationship with Canada.  And then, Obama making it clear in his words, that our relationship with England was important and valuable ... but he did not use the words special.  He signaled a change.

The former French President Sarkozy turned away from the US, The English were not engaged.  The Australians were dictated to - Obama forced them to accept terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.  They did not want nor ask for them, but he made them take them, thus placing Australians at greater risk.

The French, Estonians, English, Latvians, Ukrainians, Polish, Hungarian, South Korean, Canadian, Israeli ... and Germans ... all saw the writing on the wall.  He worked with them, but they knew they had to build their own alliances because the US wasn't willing to continue our defensive efforts to protect those countries.  We would go so far, but not beyond.

THAT is a bloody disgrace.

Trump comes along and says - Euros, pay what the NATO Charter says you will pay.  We will always be here for you, but you need to be responsible and keep up your end of the treaty.  We will do our part.

And for that the WP says "This cements the impression of the United States as an unreliable partner"  Ha ha ha ha.  To whom.  Your readers.  You are a joke.  The writer of this trash is a disgrace.  You are pathetic - both as  a newspaper and the writer who most likely thinks of himself as a journalist.  Ha Ha.

It is too much though.  It is everyday, every article.  They never tire.  They have no conscience.


Do you want something to investigate besides North Korea and Bill Clinton?
Look at how much money Hillary and Bill received from Russian sources (government, or NGOs or personal parties who are Russian).
Look into how much money John Podesta made from Russian stocks and or received from Russian sources.

That is something real!

That is worth noting given her billion dollar funding source she calls a non-profit ... which was originally set up for ??? what reason???  And of the total $1 received in donation, how much was spent and where????

That is something real!

The LEFT is melting down! Just like a nuclear reactor.

It was the latest example of Haley, a former South Carolina governor with no prior foreign policy experience, acting as a tough-talking bellwether of President Trump’s foreign policy. 


 Samantha Power, the woman who called Hillary 'a monster' was the 28th Ambassador to the UN, under Obama.  One of her best writings, in my opinion, was 'A Problem from Hell' which I recommend to everyone.  She was a journalist, and then served on a Human Rights program at Harvard where she was a professor.  This far in our story, her total experience in foreign policy is living in Ireland and as a journalist.  She is probably par for Obama, given his abject lack of experience.  She went to work for Obama, then quit after her comment about Hillary, and then got back on and became a senior foreign policy expert, among the experts Obama had in the White House that served the US so well.  She said Obama would always "call a spade a spade, and speak the truth about it" when it came to genocide (reference to Armenian) - and that went well, I believe we have made it clear the US believes it was genocide, yes?

Prior to Power was Rice.  A woman who clearly was prepared for foreign policy matters -  I won't bother relating the resume but will link to wikipedia.  The point is, she began having no experience - she did research in graduate school on Zimbabwe and the UK peacekeeping.  THAT got her into Dukakis' campaign where she had no experience and that transitioned into a job with Clinton, again, that position was based upon Zimbabwe and whatever peacekeeping the UK did.  Then she went to "(NSC) from 1993 to 1997; as director for international organizations and peacekeeping from 1993 to 1995; and as special assistant to the president and senior director for African affairs from 1995 to 1997."  Again, by 97 I am sure she was more aware internationally but she is clearly an example of someone who began with no international experience and she just ... plopped into each position through luck.  And then during the Rwandan genocide, she was as active as a comatose patient - like the rest of the most experienced staff at State and the WH.

Now, she has no experience on the level Rice or Power did when they finally landed the job, but we saw how much of a mess their experience brought us - from N Africa to Rwanda to Syria and Iran ... chaos, death, destruction, and a significant lack of respect for the US in the world.

She also made a fool of herself and the office she held - she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction" and that he "wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

I think I will take someone with character and little experience to the 'experience' of Obama and his entourage.

Having values and character makes any job much easier.  Let Haley have a go.  And stop talking-down, condescending, speaking so poorly of her ... it is an ongoing effort to disparage everyone associated with Trump and this administration, no matter the cost, or how much of your soul you have to give up to attack the people with innuendo and lies.








  

Liar Liar: Fake News

NBC story -

"Once he assumed the highest office in the land, his first order of business was to close our borders to immigrants and refugees, particularly those from Muslim-majority countries," Langevin, said in a statement. "Diversity makes our nation stronger, and I believe it should be celebrated."


NBC is covering FAKE NEWS, and Democrat Langevin is a LIAR

Trump DID NOT close our border to immigrants and refugees.

Nor did he pick on particularly Muslim-majority countries.  Saudi Arabia wasn't on the list.  Neither was Afghanistan and the last time I checked they were pretty high up.  Indonesia - nope.  Not on the list.  Lies.

Immigrants are coming from Canada, Britain, South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Honduras .... clearly the door was NOT shut on all immigrants.

Lies.

And then the lies are covered by NBC and printed on their webpage and further spread ...

Liars covering lies.  Fake News.

 

1984: Doublespeak. Up is down, Yes is No.

So much is made of Donald Trump's unchecked facts.  And to be fair and honest, and transparent, I agree for the most part.  Yet what I have noticed over the last two months is lies, slander, and innuendo by academics, media, and liberals against anything and everything related to Donald Trump.  It is obsessive, hate-filled, and blind.  It is intolerant hate, and this is not news, real or fake to anyone.  It is very clear.  It is also not limited to liberals, for their are some conservatives in the Republican party who so loathe Trump, they now find themselves siding with the most loathe some of humans - people who preach intolerance, hate, violence, and an end to free speech - liberals.

You lost.  Get over it.  With illegal voting, although not millions probably, but still with that help, the help of people who said 'never trump', and the apathy of others all helping the vote count for Her, he still won.  He said he was going to do X, Y, Z, and surprise surprise, he is doing X Y and Z along with A, B, C, D, E, and F, with plans for G, H,I,J,K later.  I suspect L, M, N, O will be reserved until his next term if he were to run again.  This is what voters want.  Someone who says and does, not someone who blames and doesn't do.  And surprise, when he blames the media he isn't exaggerating - enemy of the people?  No, but certainly not working toward the sovereignty and independence of the American people.

The people who voted for Trump will do so again, and after he has demonstrated he is not the evil-doer the liberals say he is, some from the left side will vote for him/support him next time.  You can't win, because your message is one of division.  His message isn't one of division, his is one of unification.  Your message is divisive.  He says America is for Americans, for those people who want to be American, who come here to be part of this great experiment in human history.  For those who come legally, and follow our laws and seek to be Americans - all of this is for them.  That is NOT divisive.  Since when is supporting ones nation and the sovereignty and independence of ones nation and people divisive? 

Your message - which is entirely about division and hate, is exactly that - destructive and divisive.  Sad.

And voters see this.  They really do.  You think because 10,000 protest here and 1000 scream there, and 5,000 cry over there - that the nation is waking up.  You made that mistake in November.  The 40+ million who support him are not having fits, committing crimes en masse, or threatening an end to order by their intolerant attitudes toward government and policy.  They will vote.  AND others will also.  The only way you could pull off a coup is by getting illegals to vote, and I suspect in the next 4 years we will see voter reform to prevent much of that!  I know it hurts, but winning by fraud, by deception, by division, isn't winning - it's cheating!  And it kills truth. 

Oh, the Russians, I know.  But according to every poll/study done, NOTHING the Russians never did, helped Her.  And if it did, why hasn't SHE said it has.  Instead she has blamed everyone else BUT the Russians.  Simpletons who still believe the Russians hacked an email account are idiots, in the truest sense of the word.

What I have noticed in the last 3-4 weeks is that our country really does have a serious, serious, serious, very serious illegal immigration issue.  Throughout the country cities and states say they will 'protect' illegals.  But what about law.  They came here illegally, violating state and federal laws in doing so.  They are not fleeing (most) anything worse than what those miserably impoverished states they flee from have always been.  You don't protest the conditions in Mexico that force people to flee.  You instead fly the Mexican flag.  You offer sanctuary and protection flouting laws our government established long before Trump.  You want to hire illegals, and several companies have said they want to, to protect them.  OMG.

Honestly.  Spend your bloody energy saving their wretched countries from the inhuman conditions the people live in so they don't come here. Stop hurting the American taxpayer.

Americans haven't quite figured out all this tax stuff yet, but I promise.  That will come.

In the meantime, I will post some deets about that topic ignored by media in favor of depicting Trump as Satan or his aide.

However, not at this time.  I have things to do.  Later.

MSM and Trump: Part Deux

I simply do not have the time to contend with every piece of rubbish written, however much I would like to.

I do have a question - why do you (the liberal media or liberals in general) immediately assume -

that General Flynn, one of the most decorated generals, having served this country in war, unlike Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton ... would help or in any way serve the interests of anyone but the US?

And you do suggest that, very clearly so.

Yet, Obama, his first phone call as president was to the Palestinians.  Why didn't we get a transcript of that call?  And what did they talk about?  Not what Obama said they discussed, but what was actually said.  And the very last act as president was to release over 200 million to the Palestinians, including a phone call to the president of Fatah and the Palestinians.  I just wonder why the first and last actions Obama took dealt with the Palestinians.  What was said?  isn't it odd?  And what about the abstention in the voting at the UN ... all related to the Palestinians.  Isn't it odd?

Does the MSM investigate this?  Nope.  Not even a nod.

But, the fact the general had a conversation with an ambassador to set up a conversation between Trump and Putin, and during the conversation probably said something like, in response to the Russian prompting him - sure, Trump will discuss the sanctions with Putin at some point.

That is a non-issue.

And the media and the Democrats know it.  But they pretend.

Why?

I think the answer to that why is very important.

Why do they insist on dragging the Trump campaign connection to Russia out further.  Like what happened - did TC (Trump Campaign) call up Putin and discuss release of emails?

Really, Hillary has said the reason she lost was because: Comey was looking at her emails, Obama wouldn't do more for her, males without college degree voted against her, women with college degree voted against her, millenials didn't vote for her ... she never suggested at any time, nor has ANY POLL or STUDY EVER SUGGESTED hacked emails played ANY role.

And the fact that NO EVIDENCE exists to prove Russia did it, makes it easy to blame Russia.

So, again, why?  Why do they do it?

The answer to that question is more important than who knew what when or whether anyone talked to anyone else ... FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

The answer, I believe is - it's an attempt to sway the public.

However, I have to stop for a moment and think - NOTHING they say will change Trump supporters from supporting him.  His support is between 48-52% depending on if the polls are done with a live person or a recording.

So if all this rubbish isn't intended on changing Trump voters, then why?

Why?

Ahhhh perhaps because these hateful and divisive sorts are beginning to see a threat to their future - some of their people are beginning to look at Trump in a more positive light.  That bodes poorly for the Senate election and their very viability next time.  So they have to work doubly hard to keep their people from switching sides.

So the why is answered, and in doing all they are doing, they cause great damage to the United States.  Their political animus is harming the national security and integrity of the United States, and will not affect by much, the elections next year.

So they put their personal hatred and gain ahead of the nation, once more.

Sad.

MSM and Trump

After Likening Trump to Hitler, Journalists Upset They're Not Getting Called on for Questions

'The President of the United States is shutting down the part of the First Amendment'

February 15, 2017

https://news.grabien.com/story-after-likening-trump-hitler-journalists-upset-theyre-not-get

Members of the mainstream media were left fuming this afternoon after President Trump refused to call on any of their organizations for the third straight press conference.

Yet many of these same news organizations have likened Trump to the Taliban and Adolf Hitler, floated false rumors about his use of a Russian prostitute, and accused his administration of being pro-slavery. 

After Trump avoided calling on MSNBC during today's presser with Benjamin Netanyahu, MSNBC’s Peter Alexander complained that the conservative journalists he did call on didn’t ask “real questions” like he would have. 

“What was striking," Alexander said, was that "President Trump, again, called on a series of more conservative leaning news organizations which didn’t allow for any real questions, trying to zero in on this issue of Mike Flynn, the now former national security advisor."

We can't speak for Trump, but one reason he may not be in a rush to give MSNBC more airtime is that they seem intent on using it to liken him to Adolf Hitler.

On Trump's Inauguration Day, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow likened Trump's election to "Hitler's rise." Her colleague Chris Matthews described Trump's inaugural address as "Hitlerian." Matthews also mocked Trump's family, likening them to the Russian imperial family, the Romanovs. He's so fond of this metaphor he now uses it all the time.

CNN reporters were likewise angry at not being called on during today's Trump presser.

"In the last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to the American news media have been handled by conservative press, and I think, Wolf, there’s no other way to describe it but the fix is in," CNN's Jim Acosta vented during a post-press conference interview with Wolf Blitzer. "This White House, this president does not want to answer questions, critical questions, about his associates, his aides’ contacts with the Russians during the course of that campaign just as his national security advisor is being run out of this White House on a rail."

CNN's John King echoed his colleague, complaining that conservative journalists are not asking Trump “tough questions."

“Well, it would be nice — it would be nice if the conservative outlets the president is calling on would ask him tough questions," King lamented. "And instead of actually trying to curry favor with this president, they might do him a favor by letting him answer these questions because until he answers these questions this story is not going to go away." 

Why might Trump be ignoring CNN? 

Trump himself explained his frustration in an earlier press conference, when he noted that CNN ran a report about a rumor -- since discredited -- that he had used the services of a prostitute during a trip to Moscow. Trump even complimented The New York Times for passing on the story. CNN has since stuck by its decision to publish the uncorroborated report.  

ABC's Matthew Dowd went so far as to claim today that Trump is "shutting down" the First Amendment by not calling on liberal media outlets during these press conferences.

“Well, I was struck by — when you look at this, this is two democracies, two important democracies in the world and basically the President of the United States is shutting down the part of the First Amendment by not taking questions that are going to be any way antagonistic in this," Dowd said. 

What might Trump have against ABC? Well, Dowd himself has accused Trump of pushing legislation that plays to the racial “fears” of his base. On ABC's political show, "The View," hosts have likened Trump to the Taliban, claimed his administration wants to bring back slavery, and said his approach to the media mirrors a dictatorship.

So who did Trump call on today? The Christian Broadcast Network and Townhall.com. Both of these news organizations have run plenty of negative Trump stories. Townhall's two most well known pundits -- Katie Pavlich and Guy Benson -- were both outwardly opposed to Trump during the Republican primary.

One thing they haven't done? Publish anti-Trump fake news and/or compare him to history's most infamous mass murderers.

Obama v Trump on Press Freedom

Why It'll Be Hard for Trump to Surpass Obama's Record of Chilling Press Freedom

 

‘Folks like Rush Limbaugh, some commentators on Fox News, that hot house ... has been harmful to the country’

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

 After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponent," insisting, "we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

The Obama administration made good on that threat. Soon thereafter, the administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shopping" until he found one willing to grant such a warrant without telling Rosen himself. Holder even told Google to not notify Rosen that the government was monitoring his email.

"To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based," the Washington Post wrote at the time.

And it wasn't just Fox News. The New York Times's James Risen was targeted for almost the entirety of Obama's two terms. His crime? Reporting accurate information the Obama Administration didn't want reported. "Along the way, we found out that the government had spied on virtually every aspect of James Risen’s digital life from phone calls, to emails, to credit card statements, bank records and more," the Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.
With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.

The WaPo and Cybersecurity

The Washington Post writer Mike DeBonis had a very interesting article on Trump and cyber security.  The problem was, it wasn't ... If the WaPo was in a hole during the election, why are you digging a deeper hole?  Do you believe by digging a deeper hole it will seem like you're not in a hole?  That if you repeat something enough it will be a fact??

Fact:  IT IS NOT conclusive that the Russians government hacked anything.  There is absolutely NO consensus on this statement.  0.  None.  Nope.  Nada.  And for Democrats to rally around this, shows just how political they have made our national security.  They are less interested in security and more interested in politics.  Sad.  They cannot be trusted with anything more than the keys to the local animal control office.  Even that is too political. 

Fact:  Someone hacked into the DNC.  Wikileaks says it was NOT a Russian.  The person who gave them the information may have actually been a Democrat.

Fact:  What other hacking has occurred, maybe have been done by a Russian, but trying to connect a hacker to Putin .... is a step you should be very careful of.  Do I think Putin a thoughtful and respectful man ... no.  He has ordered the assassination of a number of people or been involved in their murders.  But he is not a hacker.

So, the WaPo political piece starts off ....


"President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned whether critical computer networks can ever be protected from intruders, alarming cybersecurity experts who say his comments could upend more than a decade of national cybersecurity policy and put both government and private data at risk."


Nope.  Nada.  Not at all.

If I was president, I would provide a couple hundred million more for cyber security/hacking/spying, from my own private secret presidential account on top of everything else the cyber spying department already get.  I would support an increase in their budget of 10%, and hire anyone from anonymous and for that matter any other computer criminals in prison, to teach our intel people how to be the best.

But, I would also question whether critical computer networks can ever be protected from intruders ... AND I WOULD NOT BE UPENDING DECADES OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY AT ALL!

Wanker

Why?  Because it's true.  They can't.  For all the money we have spent, they can't ensure.  That's a FACT!

The writing and journalistic ability of at least three writers at the WaPo ... are no better than a college newspaper 'journalist'.  In fact, the student journalist has an excuse.

NY Times OP Ed: Sorry Libs ....

Sorry, Liberals. Bigotry Didn’t Elect Donald Trump.

By DAVID PAUL KUHN
NY Times

DEC. 26, 2016

Donald J. Trump won the white working-class vote over Hillary Clinton by a larger margin than any major-party nominee since World War II. Instead of this considerable achievement inspiring introspection, figures from the heights of journalism, entertainment, literature and the Clinton campaign continue to suggest that Mr. Trump won the presidency by appealing to the bigotry of his supporters. As Bill Clinton recently said, the one thing Mr. Trump knows “is how to get angry white men to vote for him.”

This stereotyping of Trump voters is not only illiberal, it falsely presumes Mr. Trump won because of his worst comments about women and minorities rather than despite them.

In fact, had those people who agreed that Mr. Trump lacked “a sense of decency” voted for Mrs. Clinton, she would have been elected the next president.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump equally won over party loyalists. Yet about one in five voters did not have a favorable view of either candidate. These voters overwhelmingly backed Mr. Trump. Exit polls demonstrated that if voters who disapproved of both candidates had divided evenly between them, Mrs. Clinton would have won.

Several weeks before the election, a Quinnipiac University poll found that 51 percent of white working-class voters did not believe that Mr. Trump had a “sense of decency” and ranked Mrs. Clinton slightly higher on that quality.

But they were not voting on decency. Indeed, one-fifth of voters — more than 25 million Americans — said they “somewhat” disapproved of Mr. Trump’s treatment of women. Mr. Trump won three-quarters of these voters, despite their disapprobation.

Bluntly put, much of the white working class decided that Mr. Trump could be a jerk. Absent any other champion, they supported the jerk they thought was more on their side — that is, on the issues that most concerned them.

And anti-immigrant blowback, for instance, was not what unified them. Mr. Trump proposed expelling illegal immigrants yet more of his voters, by a 50 percent to 45 percent margin, said illegal immigrants working here should be offered a chance to apply for legal status rather than be deported.

In the Obama era, we also saw that race was not a critical driver of white swing votes. Barack Obama won more support among white men in 2008, including the working class, than any Democrat since 1980.

Mr. Obama’s support among these whites was at its peak in 2008 after the stock market crash. At the depths of the Great Recession that followed, blue-collar white men experienced the most job losses.

Their support began hemorrhaging after Mr. Obama chose early in his presidency — when congressional Democrats could have overcome Republican obstruction — to fight for health care reform instead of a “new New Deal.”

By 2016, Mr. Trump personified the vote against the status quo, one still not working out for them. A post-campaign study comparing the George W. Bush coalition in 2000 to the Trump coalition in 2016 found that Mr. Trump particularly improved in areas hurt most by competition from Chinese imports, from the bygone brick and tile industry of Mason City, Iowa, to the flagging furniture plants of Hickory, N.C. The study concluded that, had the import competition from China been half as large, Mrs. Clinton would have won key swing states and the presidency with them.

This argument does not ignore bigotry. Racism appeared more concentrated among Trump voters. One poll found that four in 10 Trump supporters said blacks were more “lazy” than whites, compared with one-quarter of Clinton or John Kasich supporters.

But traits are not motives and don’t necessarily decide votes. Consider that four in 10 liberal Democrats, the largest share of any group, said in 2011 that they would hold a Mormon candidate’s faith against him or her. It would be silly to argue that, therefore, liberals voted for Mr. Obama because Mitt Romney was Mormon.

Yet the Trump coalition continues to be branded as white backlash. The stereotyping forgets that many Trump supporters held a progressive outlook. Mr. Trump won nearly one in four voters who wanted the next president to follow more liberal policies.

Democrats need only recall Mr. Clinton to understand how voters can support someone in spite of his faults. Mr. Clinton won re-election in 1996 despite a majority, including about a third of liberal voters, saying he was not honest. His approval rating reached the highest point of his presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It wasn’t that Democrats and independents endorsed Mr. Clinton’s behavior. They opposed Republicans more.

Two decades later, we are reminded again that a vote for a presidential candidate is not a vote for every aspect of him. We can look for the worst in our opponents, but that doesn’t always explain how they got the best of us.