You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ tag.

Yesterday, I wrote about how wrong the Left, including the media, are about relief efforts by America’s FEMA and military in Puerto Rico.

The media are falling over themselves trying to make Maria Donald Trump’s Katrina.

Here is an update on media misinformation about what is currently happening on the devastated island.

USNS Comfort

Yesterday’s post had an item about the US Navy ship Comfort. Hillary Clinton stuck her oar in on Twitter complaining it hadn’t been sent yet.

Afterwards, the Comfort received permission to sail.

As one will discover below, that had nothing to do with Hillary, but the Washington Post made out as if her tweet persuaded President Donald Trump to send the ship.

This is what WaPo reporter Dan Lamothe tweeted:

In reality, because there wasn’t a Puerto Rican port able to receive the Comfort, she could not start her journey.

Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse explains more about Comfort and preparing her (emphases mine below):

The USNS Comfort is a 900′ (length) x 100′ (width) hospital. It was built by modifying a 1970’s era oil tanker (old hull design – non bulbous bow), and it weighs approximately 67,000 tons. It’s essentially still an old oil tanker in water placement design; meaning it needs a port to receive it on arrival.

Additionally, it takes approximately five days to activate Comfort into service. Fueling, supplying, and the engineering to prepare for ocean passage of a massive vessel is a lengthy process. She also needs personnel to arrive and stage etc. All said, the logistics and engineering takes five days prep time.

Sundance, whose Twitter account is The Last Refuge, rightly took on Dan Lamothe over this misinformation (emphases in the original below):

When CTH challenged the WaPo author, Dan Lamothe, about this factual “spin-up” time, and how Comfort was ordered to prepare PRIOR to Clinton’s tweeting about it, Lamothe admits Clinton didn’t have anything to do with Comfort’s activation.

Here is some of the exchange:

Which received this reply from others reading the thread:

It is sad: WaPo shamelessly peddling such a load of old cobblers (nonsense).

As Sundance explains (emphases mine):

USNS Comfort’s activation was put on hold (“stand down”) because: A) there was no port that survived the storm in a capacity able to receive her; and B) the governor of Puerto Rico requested she not be sent

Puerto Rico is an island. The first job is to get the ports open. Every single aspect of relief and recovery is dependent on getting all ports operational. Nothing matters more.

That is exactly what FEMA, Homeland Security (coast guard), and the U.S. Navy understood even before the hurricane hit the island. All assets were staged to ensure the first job was to get the ports open.

The relief lag, and any supply deficiency, is specifically related to the time it took (and takes) to open the ports.

FEMA

That conveniently brings me to FEMA.

Brock Long, the FEMA administrator, gave a brief interview to Fox News. The reporter challenges him about petrol distribution on the island. He explains all the efforts going on to make that possible. In some places, petrol is available, but Governor Rossello has rightly rationed it to 10 gallons per person. The reporter doesn’t seem to get it, thinking there is no petrol, so why not lift the Jones Act, which was done for Florida after Hurricane Irma. Brock Long tells her that the petrol is there, it just needs to get distributed once roads are clear — and electricity is restored in order to operate the pumps:

Sundance had a good column on this, excerpted below. He points out another issue, which is that drivers have not shown up to transport petrol and basic necessities:

The lifting of the “Jones Act” to allow any flagged ocean carrier to deliver supplies is not needed because the ports are backlogged with ample supplies and fuel while the Puerto Rican government does nothing to transport them.

Neither FEMA, nor the DoD, can be expected to take the place of municipal authorities; yet that is exactly what it appears the Puerto Rican government expects.

FUBAR.

If you want to see proof of this, CBS News correspondent David Begnaud shows full containers just waiting to be unloaded and transported. He also talks about the clear absence of lorries and drivers. No one knows if they cannot get to work or if, as Sundance says, they expect FEMA and the military to transport them. This is worth watching:

Thomas P Bossert, President Trump’s assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, gave this update yesterday:

Puerto Rico’s governor is going to have to see where his men are to help deliver fuel and supplies.

Geraldo Rivera

Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera has been sent to Puerto Rico to cover news there as well as find his family members.

Part of this video shows him finding his Aunt Ellie. A tree fell through her house. She is unharmed, fortunately, and Geraldo — as he has been known for decades — later helped clear the tree:

He says in the video that families are worried about their loved ones. With the phone masts down, there is no way they can contact them.

Rivera said elsewhere that he is pledging $10 million of his own money to the Maria relief and rebuilding efforts.

Although his video above is good, it should be noted that Geraldo gives a positive version of events when he appears on Fox and Friends and a negative one when he appears later in the day on Shepard Smith’s show.

Two different audiences, two different versions of events.

Looting

Looting started in some areas of Puerto Rico as soon as Maria left the island.

Spare a prayer for this man who manages a supermarket that got looted — and for his boss, the owner.

Don’t think that these are hungry young men. They were very energetic when breaking in — and destroying the whole store, which is now flooded. These young criminals stole alcohol, cigarettes and meat. They broke into cash registers. They broke the shop’s industrial lift. Everything will have to be replaced.

Even the CNN guy had to back off asking whether we shouldn’t have sympathy for these vandals. The manager politely stated that they looted for personal benefit:

While we pray for all of Puerto Rico, please pray especially for this store manager and the store’s owner as well as others whose livelihoods have been seriously harmed or destroyed by looting.

More tomorrow, specifically on the precarious state of Puerto Rico’s infrastructure.

Advertisements

When Hurricane Maria slammed into the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico on Wednesday, September 30, 2017, the Trump administration already had a relief plan in place.

To find out that the Left — Democrats, the media and their acolytes — are criticising President Donald Trump for doing nothing or not doing enough is maddening.

You’ll see Hillary Clinton’s criticism below. The media are hard at it, too: CNN, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Atlantic and many more outlets.

That people believe such rubbish because a) their minds are already made up or b) they are too lazy to search for the truth is equally infuriating.

President Trump was at the United Nations General Assembly last week. Regardless, the appropriate government agencies and departments were keeping him informed of Maria’s path and planned relief efforts.

On September 19, he tweeted:

The day Maria hit, everyone — including Trump — was watching:

I said in my post of September 21 that Puerto Rico’s dilapidated electricity grid collapsed. No one had power. Nor would they have power in the near future. Phone masts were — and continue to be — down, complicating communication.

Much of the island’s infrastructure — including ports and airfields — is ruined, making Maria’s strike catastrophic. This made rescue and relief efforts impossible in the immediate aftermath. It remains difficult today.

On Saturday, September 23, The Conservative Treehouse gave this update:

The U.S. military is the tip of the spear in attempting to get aid and supplies to the residents in coordination with FEMA and emergency officials. CTH had numerous conversations today with teams trying to get as much into the island as possible.

The leadership of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and Expeditionary Strike Group 2, met with key leaders with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Puerto Rico National Guard to plan and coordinate for Hurricane Maria response efforts in Puerto Rico. The Department of Defense (DoD) is supporting FEMA, the lead federal agency, in helping those affected by Hurricane Maria to minimize suffering and is one component of the overall whole-of-government response effort.

The day after the Marines and Navy landed, Hillary Clinton piped up:

That same day, The Conservative Treehouse detailed the efforts made thus far (emphases mine below):

The reality of Clinton’s disconnect is only exceeded by her jawdroppingly ridiculous undertones of division.  Obviously Hillary Clinton has no idea what is going on in Puerto RicoThe U.S. military have been leading FEMA rescue, relief and recovery efforts from the first moment the winds died down

Even before Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico the U.S. military, including the Navy, were mobilized in advanced preparation for what was predictedSEE HERE– …

The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard is working to open ports. There are hundreds of sunken vessels impeding navigation. The Navy and Coast Guard led recon missions to determine clear entry paths (rapid recon) and are RIGHT NOW guiding in relief ships through the waters surrounding the island.

The U.S. Marines are airlifting hundreds of tons of relief supplies via fixed wing and helicopter air missions. The U.S. response includes five warships, helicopters, cargo aircraft, National Guard troops and amphibious units as part of the relief operations …

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are the actual ground force opening the ports of destination and the airports. They reopened the major airport in San Juan to military relief flights on September 22nd and established the air-traffic command center.

The U.S. Coast Guard is dropping supplies and working from their base in Puerto Rico, and simultaneously coordinating with Dutch, British and French ships delivering relief supplies around St. Thomas and St. Croix

Puerto Rico’s governor, Ricardo Rossello, told PBS on Tuesday, September 26, that he is very satisfied with the response from the United States. President Trump has spoken to him several times and the FEMA director has visited him twice:

Here is the governor himself:

San Juan’s mayor is also satisfied with relief efforts:

This FEMA page is dedicated to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Here are two recent articles from the Department of Defense on their efforts in the Caribbean and Puerto Rico. The DoD also has a good set of pictures showing their work not only in the US Virgin Islands but also in Dominica.

In addition to government agencies, Florida’s governor, Rick Scott — a Republican — has placed the state’s National Guard and Wildlife Commission on standby to fly to Puerto Rico if Rossello formally requests their help.

President Trump will be visiting Puerto Rico and possibly the Virgin Islands on Tuesday, October 3. At his press briefing during the visit of Spain’s president Mariano Rajoy Brey on Tuesday, September 26, he said that he had spoken with Governor Rossello that morning. All federal agencies on Puerto Rico are doing their utmost in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria:

The Conservative Treehouse had an update that day on the US Coast Guard’s work and the tremendous uphill tasks they face in Puerto Rico. Critics should take note of this:

The majority of people who are providing media opinion on Puerto Rico recovery efforts really don’t have any understanding of the scale of the logistics involved when the impact zone is an island.

Hurricane Maria destroyed hundreds of vessels in and around the various PR ports making entry and exit into harbors a maze of submerged vessel and sunken debris avoidance. In addition, the ports’ infrastructure systems (power, utilities, docking equipment, pump stations, fuel depots, etc) were severely impacted, and in many ports 100% wiped out. Buoys, markers, harbor-lights, towers, all gone – completely destroyed.

Puerto Rico is an island, so bringing in relief supplies by cargo ship is the only way to deliver massive tonnage of supplies, heavy equipment and material needed to begin any restoration and recovery effort. Without ports those supplies cannot be offloaded. Especially think about fuel shipments. See the issue?

However, in a stunning feat of skill, ingenuity and determination the harbor entries have been mapped for navigable passage by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard while simultaneously the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been working on the land-based side of the port infrastructure

The U.S. Coast Guard has 13 cutters and 10 aircraft working on this mission and are working hand-in-hand with the U.S. Navy. Their ability to open these ports is a remarkable feat of logistics and speaks to the incredible coordination between the Dept. of Defense and FEMA.

That post also has a current update of the status of ports. A few are still closed. Some are open only during daylight hours. Others have restrictions.

Fox News reporter Chad Pergram reported on the dire situation Puerto Ricans are enduring:

Puerto Rico’s National Guard is responding. Their video shows the devastation:

In closing:

Everything that can be done is being done in Puerto Rico.

Hillary Clinton’s new book, What Happened, is one of those tomes that will appeal only to her fans.

I heard Boston’s Howie Carr discussing it this week on his radio show. He said she blames everyone but herself for her loss. He also suspects it was probably ghost-written.

Carr picked up heavily on her paternalistic accusations of male Trump supporters forcing women — daughters, employees, etc. — to vote for the Donald. Howie said he did not tell his daughters how to vote. They had already made up their minds to vote for Trump. He added that he did not tell his sidekick Grace Curley how to vote, either, which she duly confirmed. However, Grace did say that Howie put the frighteners on one of her female friends in the run-up to election day, predicting all sorts of terrible things with a Hillary victory.

Rob Crilly reviewed the book in The Telegraph on September 13. Excerpts follow (emphases mine below):

What happened, it turns out, was not that Mrs Clinton was a flawed candidate with an uninspiring campaign, but that she was the victim of a world that wasn’t ready for her. And fake news, Rupert Murdoch, Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, the New York Times and above all James Comey, the then FBI director, were “what happened”.

Mr Comey, you remember, was in charge of probing the homebrew email server that Mrs Clinton had used as Secretary of State. Just 11 days before the election, he announced he was reopening the investigation ensuring a slew of negative headlines at a crucial moment. “Even if Comey caused just 0.6 percent of Election Day voters to change their votes, and even if that swing only occurred in the Rust Belt, it would have been enough to shift the Electoral College from me to Trump,” writes Mrs Clinton.

We’ll never know the impact but I’m happy to imagine the intervention would have caused a 0 percent shift if she and her media team had got out ahead of the controversy, instead of going into a defensive crouch for months beforehand and avoiding legitimate questions.

It all smacks of the entitled status that so turned off voters. Throughout the book are reminders of the Clintons’ world: the hobnobbing in the Hamptons and the billionaire friends from the dotcom world.

Just so.

That is a big reason why a lot of Democrats turned to Trump.

Which reminds me:

And let’s not forget:

The Telegraph has resumed allowing comments on some of their articles. Greatly appreciated. The one dated 13 Sep 2017 1:03PM is excellent:

Bill and Hillary signed up as a double act years ago to fleece the world and hoover up whatever power, influence and money they could obtain together.

So Bill’s infidelities were just grist to the mill as long as the devious money making schemes from Whitewater to the Clinton Foundation continued to provide the lifestyle and influence which they felt was justly due to them AND they stayed together.

The only surprising aspect is that they both thought they could go on pulling the same strings and stunts for ever and the public would continue to be mesmerised by their ‘charm’ and political know how.

As they now know all good things must come to an end.

Exactly. Why it took so many decades for Americans to see that still mystifies me. And those who saw it during the 2008 election campaign — when she rolled over for Obama in order to get a place in his cabinet — dumped the Clintons for good. More realised how awful she was during the subsequent eight years.

This dissatisfaction with the Democrats is one of the reasons the US has had a significant increase in independent voters during the past few election cycles.

On the Trump side of the equation, the bright sparks at The_Donald are banding together to buy Trump’s Great Again (formerly Crippled America) in order to topple Hillary from the No. 1 spot on Amazon. Trump’s book was 16th on Tuesday, September 12 but No. 1 in the Movers and Shakers category.

One of The_Donald’s commenters is going to send a copy of Great Again to Hillary at the Hillary for America address in New York.

The Daily Caller picked up on this:

Their article provides the excerpt:

“It was like quicksand: the more you struggle, the deeper you sink. At times, I thought I must be going crazy. Other times I was sure it was the world that had gone nuts,” Clinton wrote. “Sometimes I snapped at my staff. I was tempted to make voodoo dolls of certain members of the press and Congress and stick them full of pins. Mostly, I was furious at myself.

And that was where the fury should have stayed. There should not have been a book, either, because Hillary has enough money.

And, in closing, to show how greedy she is, she is actually charging people to attend her book signings. Who does that? High-profile authors, it seems.

As if that weren’t bad enough, she’s charging in Canada as well.

On August 31, Fox News reported:

For $2,375.95 (or $3,000 in Canadian dollars), Clinton fans in Toronto can obtain a “VIP platinum ticket” for her Sept. 28 talk. That ticket includes two front-row seats, a photo with Clinton backstage and a signed book.

For the same price, VIP tickets are also available during Clinton’s upcoming appearances in Montreal and Vancouver.

The steep ticket prices have not gone unnoticed in the publishing industry.

“It is standard for high profile authors to do book tours that sell tickets to events, but Clinton’s tour takes it to a new level of greed,” an industry source told Fox News.

I hope we get an update in a few months’ time. It would be marvellous to discover that few people attended.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017, US Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) flew to London to meet with Julian Assange within the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.

Recall that, as far back as January, Assange has consistently maintained that there has been no Russian collusion. He even gave an interview to Fox News’s Sean Hannity to say so.

On August 16, the Daily Caller reported:

Charles Johnson, a conservative journalist, told TheDC that he arranged the meeting for Assange because the WikiLeaks chief wants to strike a deal with the U.S. so he can stop living in asylum.

Rohrabacher’s spokesman Ken Grubbs told TheDC, “I can confirm that the meeting happened” and said that Johnson was in the meeting.

Johnson said that he arranged for the meeting to happen and that Rohrabacher would be the envoy in charge of bringing back a deal to the Trump White House …

Rohrabacher issued a statement afterward to the effect that:

Assange “emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

The congressman, Johnson and Assange met for three hours:

A press release from the California congressman’s office stated that Rohrabacher “plans to divulge more of what he found directly to President Trump.”

The Hill reported:

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails” …

“Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,” he said.

Sean Hannity spoke with The Hill‘s executive vice president John Solomon, who wrote the above article. Hannity concluded the interview by saying that Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading this hacking investigation, and the Republican-majority Congress have ‘a duty’ to find out more about this.

Guess what happened in ten days’ time? Rohrabacher was connected with Russians, but, strangely enough, as Fox’s Tucker Carlson said, not with Assange. You can see the board with the congressman’s notional connections in the first few moments of the following video:

Rohrabacher found this laughable, since he was President Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter during a time when Russia was far from being America’s friend. However, he is Chairman of the Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, so will have met with Russians through his work. Seriously, if anyone has Russian connections it’s the Clintons and the Podestas. This post has more on wider Democrat connections.

Rohrabacher told Carlson that, while he does not approve of all WikiLeaks releases, he largely approves of their work in exposing governmental over-reach.

He told Carlson that Assange said the leaks were an inside job.

On August 30, Sean Hannity interviewed Rohrabacher. The congressman has not seen President Donald Trump yet but has been told that a meeting is being arranged:

Meanwhile, in possibly related news, the FBI says that Hillary Clinton’s emails are not in the public interest. The Washington Times reported:

Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.

Ty Clevenger has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal attorneys disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.

The next day, Assange sent this message:

Good.

In the meantime, I hope that a meeting between Trump and Rohrabacher is imminent.

On July 20, I wrote about Michael Caputo, one of Bill Clinton’s advisers during his presidency.

He explained one of his jobs to Tucker Carlson on Fox News:

You can see the full interview here:

Essentially, as I wrote on that post:

Caputo helped to ensure Yeltsin’s re-election.

As president, Hillary’s husband ordered — and got — interference in a Russian election.

I wanted to get that point across to anyone who thinks the Democrats are saintly.

However, Caputo made a second point to Tucker Carlson.

When Carlson asked him if he thought whom the Russians would have preferred as president of the United States, Caputo said Hillary Clinton.

Caputo said that the Russians consider Hillary Clinton ‘predictable’, and, therefore, easier to out-manoeuvre.

They are less sure about Trump because he is exactly the opposite. He is capable of outsmarting them.

That is important to know, especially as other world leaders are likely to have the same impression.

It has often been said that Trump plays 4-D chess. At least one world power thinks that is true.

Interestingly, Caputo ended up becoming Donald Trump’s communications advisor for the 2016 presidential campaign.

The other day I wrote about Seth Rich, a DNC employee who was murdered in mysterious circumstances on July 10, 2016 in Washington, DC.

Yesterday, I provided the source for the beginning of the Russian narrative used against President Donald Trump.

Both are WikiLeaks related.

Today, those who do not already know will find out what Hillary Clinton’s campaign had in store for leakers.

That, too, is related to WikiLeaks.

The Podesta WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary’s campaign team and advisers wanted to make ‘an example’ out of ‘leakers’, even if nothing could be proven.

WikiLeaks released this tweet on October 30, 2016:

The source is Podesta WikiLeaks email no. 36082 from February 21, 2015.

That day, the Washington Post printed a story about Hillary Clinton’s campaign branding. Two of the people interviewed were involved with her presidential campaign in 2015:

Ahead of her campaign launch, Clinton has tapped some of the Democratic Party’s star strategists as well as two of corporate America’s branding wizards: Wendy Clark, who specializes in marketing age-old brands such as Coca-Cola to younger and more diverse customers; and Roy Spence, a ­decades-long Clinton friend who dreamed up the “Don’t Mess With Texas” anti-littering slogan as well as flashy ad campaigns for Southwest Airlines and Wal-Mart.

Clark took an unpaid leave in January from Coca-Cola, where she is president of brands and strategic marketing for carbon­ated beverages in North America, to help Clinton in what Clark called “a passion project.” Spence is co-founder and chairman of GSD&M, an Austin-based corporate ad firm, and has experience in politics, including with Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and political operative Joel Benenson discussed their displeasure with the article and with those two people for talking to the press without consulting the campaign managers first.

Podesta wrote (emphases mine below):

we need a strategy on this that goes beyond internal discipline. This story could have been written without any of these big mouths blabbing …

Benenson agreed:

I think we have to make examples now of people who have violated the trust of HRC and the rest of the team. People going forward need to know there are stiff consequences for leaking, self-promotion, unauthorized talking with the press. No one – literally no one talked to the press in either Obama campaign without clearing it with campaign brass.

Podesta replied in a curious way:

I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.

Campaign manager Robby Mook, who was copied on the exchange, agreed:

I would love an example being made.

How far did this go in reality?

No one knows, but many suspect — rightly or wrongly — that Seth Rich’s alleged leak of 40,000+ emails to WikiLeaks — the DNC WikiLeaks — might well have led to his death in July 2016.

On Tuesday, May 16, the torchpaper was lit. As Fox News ran with the Rich story, bringing it to the attention of the general public, three new Twitter hastags were busy: #HisNameWasSethRich, #SethRichCoverUp and #SethRich.

Some leftists did take note, primarily those employed at David Brock‘s Media Matters, who now realise they’ve been paid to circulate ‘lies’ online and said so on 4chan.org/pol/. Let’s hope that they do resign now that they know the truth.

Other Americans also doubt the Russian narrative.

With all the law enforcement silence around Rich’s murder and little information to go on over the past ten months, people are naturally suspicious details are being covered up or that nothing is being done:

People following the case since last year do not believe that Rich had no involvement in the DNC WikiLeaks:

Equally, they are disappointed that so much wasted energy is being spent on the Russian narrative and James Comey:

This could be why:

Incidentally, Seth Rich was not the only man to die mysteriously in the summer of 2016:

Pray that the truth comes out about these four men, all of whom had a relationship with the Democrats.

My intention last year was to write about the WikiLeaks emails from the Democrats.

Because of all the hubbub surrounding the 2016 presidential campaign, I never got around to it. I still have all the bookmarks of the emails themselves and related analyses from The_Donald. They are a revelation.

I hope that some people will be wondering how and where the Russian narrative used against President Donald Trump started.

Look no further than Hillary Clinton’s campaign supremo John Podesta and a journalist, Brent Budowsky, who writes for The Hill.

Much of the Podesta WikiLeaks email no. 25651, dated December 21, 2015, concerns Hillary Clinton’s stance on ISIS and Syria. There is also a mention of campaign advertising and getting out the vote.

However, the key to this is the Democrats’ strategy against Trump, primarily this one from Brent Budowsky (emphases mine below):

Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin

Budowsky was also interested in finding and releasing incriminating tapes of Trump to help Hillary, whom they knew even then was not doing well in the polls:

I suspect her negative trust ratings are locked in through election day. If there is a Trump ISIS video the campaign release it. If not, her untrustworthy numbers will remain further locked at high levels. These trust problems are self-induced and keep occurring.

Budowsky became more insistent:

Re the Trump ISIS video, if we don’t have the proof campaign should assign 100 people to look for it ASAP, there is probably something on tape somewhere.

With regard to campaign adverts, Budowsky already noted that Trump was not running them:

It is no coincidence that this year Trump runs no ads, while Jeb and Hillary run the most ads with little effect. Voter registration by contrast creates real voters and changes—and improves—the playing field itself. There is no ad on earth that will increase her trust ratings or the enthusiasm of her voters the way a mega-registration project will increase her support on election day.

They knew then that Hillary was scuppered. Based on the context, they also seemed to discern that Trump was going to be Hillary’s opponent in 2016.

In June 2016 — one month before the Republican National Convention declared Trump the GOP presidential candidate — Trump Derangement Syndrome was flying high in the Democrat camp. Obama’s campaign manager from 2008, later a senior adviser, tweeted:

On November 9, 2016 — the day after the election — Hillary’s campaign heads decided to run hard with the Russian narrative:

The quote in blue comes from an investigative book about the Clinton campaign, Shattered, which came out earlier this year.

On April 21, Breitbart included the quote in their report, which began:

The blistering behind-the-scenes book, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, illustrates how Hillary Clinton furiously blamed her defeat on the FBI investigation into her private emails, Russian interference, and Trump’s supposed support from “white nationalists” …

Also:

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.

And so the Russian narrative survives, alive and well, to this day.

The Democrats and the media have been displaying abject contempt for the people of the United States ever since.

Anyone who still thinks either camp cares about them is sorely mistaken.

Bruce Bawer — an American who has lived in Europe for nearly two decades — wrote an excellent essay for PJ Media, ‘What Happened in France?’

It offers a post-mortem of Emmanuel Macron’s victory on Sunday, May 7, 2017 and explains how it happened.

With an upcoming parliamentary election taking place in Britain on Thursday, June 8, it seems apposite to look at voting patterns in the two countries.

Before I excerpt Bawer’s editorial, I, too, have noticed a certain voting behaviour in France and the UK, two countries I know well. I live in the UK and see that voters are reluctant not so much to go to the polls as they are to actually vote in a way that reverses globalism. People in other parts of Europe, e.g. France, are similarly skittish.

The hive mind is a powerful thing in Europe. The globalists created it through politically correct thinking and make jolly good use of it via the media and pollsters.

Two recent British shockers were David Cameron’s victory in May 2015 and the referendum vote for Brexit in 2016. Both results surprised everyone. This is because we were under constant onslaught by print and broadcast media to vote against the Conservatives and Brexit.

Even now that Theresa May is the occupant of No. 10, politics remains a touchy subject. As I’ve said many times before, it’s not something I discuss much with people I know, even with fellow Conservatives, some of whom are quite wet — squishy, for my American readers — about Brexit. They think voters should have gone for Remain last June.

Howeverand this is something Bruce Bawer did not mention in his pieceEuropeans do not have a well developed online alternative media universe comprising independent journalists, citizen journalists and political fora. This, to me, is the principal difference between the UK and Europe.

Bawer’s article is well worth reading and passing along to friends. I’ll try to excerpt as little as possible, because it probably took him a long time to write.

Americans are probably still scratching their heads over 2017 election results, not only in France but in the Netherlands. Both resulted in preserving a self-destructive status quo, one that increases terror and diminishes national identity.

Bawer says that Europeans feel a collective guilt about their former colonies and political movements. Therefore, they feel the need for perpetual atonement (emphases mine below):

One way of trying to answer it is to look at countries one by one. For example, the Brits and French feel guilty about their imperial histories, and hence find it difficult to rein in the descendants of subject peoples. The Germans feel guilty about their Nazi past – and the Swedes feel guilty about cozying up to Nazis – and thus feel compelled to lay out the welcome mat for, well, just about anybody. The Dutch, similarly, are intensely aware that during the Nazi occupation they helped ship off a larger percentage of their Jews to the death camps than any other Western European country, and feel a deep need to atone.

Then there’s postmodernism:

According to postmodern thinking, no culture is better than any other – and it’s racist to say otherwise. No, scratch that – other cultures are, in fact, better than Western culture. Whites, by definition, are oppressors, imperialists, and colonialists, while “people of color” are victims.

We are in denial about terrorist attacks:

The plainer the truth got, in fact, the more fiercely they resisted it. And as skilled propagandists began to represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners were quick to buy into it all …

But – and this is a fact that some of us are thoroughly incapable of identifying with, and thus almost thoroughly incapable of graspingsome people don’t want to know the truth. And if they do know the truth, they want to un-know it.

These are not intellectuals or socio-political elites, but ordinary people of various income groups and educational levels:

I’m talking about people who, in everyday life, come across as thoroughly good and decent – but who, when push comes to shove, just don’t want to rock the boat. That’s a lot of people. Maybe most. People who are nice so long as it’s easy to be nice

There are kind people who, the minute there’s any hint of trouble – which means, way before the death-camp round-up begins – prefer to lie low. Their highest value isn’t truth or virtue or beauty or even long-term security for them and their families but the ability to buy another day without major trouble.

You’d think they’d be able to look forward at least some distance into the future and dwell on that grim prospect. Able to see their children, their grandchildren, and so forth, living under sharia law. If, indeed, lucky to be living at all.

But I think it needs to be recognized that for some people, seeing that far into the future is just beyond their intellectual grasp. Or beyond what they dare to envision

Bawer posits that a lot of these people can see what is actually happening to Europe but they are ‘terrified’ to do anything about it, even at the ballot box.

This is why a Conservative victory in 2015 and Brexit victory in 2016 were so significant for Britain. I had hoped our continental neighbours would follow suit this year, but, alas, it was not meant to be. The Germans are likely to see Angela Merkel continue her chancellorship later this year.

Bawer says that Europeans are now so cowed into submission, even a private vote can’t help:

You might think that, once in the voting booth, these people would be able – and not just able but eager, desperate even – to stand up against the powers above them that have turned their countries upside down and assert their power as citizens. But everything around them has conspired all their lives to render them incapable of feeling that power – or, perhaps, has rendered them incapable of feeling that they have the moral right to exercise that power in the way that their gut is begging them to.

That still, quiet voice in their heads, which I would describe as a voice of plain reason and common sense, is up against the resounding voices of all the higher-ups shouting in unison – the leading voices of politics, business, the academia, the media, and so on – that they’ve been bred from infancy to respect and take seriously. To, indeed, obey

So it is that even in a secret ballot, it takes European voters a remarkable amount of nerve to resist the thunderous chorus of voices from above urging them to vote against their own interests; it feels like nothing less than an act of treason to heed the meek little voices in their own heads begging them to do the opposite – to do what’s actually best for themselves and their loved ones.

Bawer nails it perfectly in his next sentence:

They’ve been psychologically manipulated to the point where they truly believe, on some level, at least in some Orwellian doublethink kind of way, that acting in clear defense of their own existence, their own culture, their own values, and their own posterity, is an act of ugly prejudice.

Yes — that’s it in a nutshell.

I see it here in the elderly — people old enough to know better — and I see it in the middle-aged and the young.

Europeans must wake up and vote for what is right and good.

I sincerely hope that Britain will do so again on June 8.

Congratulations to everyone in the United States who got involved online in discussing and analysing France’s presidential election, the second round of which was held on Sunday, May 7, 2017.

It was refreshing to see Americans engage so well with this historic election an ocean away.

As predicted, Emmanuel Macron is the new resident of the Elysée Palace in Paris. He won with 66% — two-thirds — of the vote. Turnout was around 74% — high, compared with other Western countries — but was the lowest for France since 1969.

Now he and his En Marche! — formerly a movement, now a political party — must work with the Socialists (PS) and others on the left for les législatives (parliamentary) elections on June 18.

It’s interesting that the supposedly independent, free-thinking Marianne newsweekly put Macron on its cover for the second week in a row. Earlier this year, they criticised other news magazines for multiple Macron covers. Sadly, they have fallen in step with the other sheeplike outlets:

Marine Le Pen

Marine Le Pen (FN, Front National) was upbeat in her concession speech. For the next few weeks, the FN are now the party of opposition.

That said, I expect Les Républicains (LR, conservatives) to regain that position on June 18.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who hid herself away crying when she lost, Le Pen got on the dance floor with her campaign workers:

Discussions on RMC (French talk radio) this morning centred around her renaming her father’s party to Les Patriotes. No one really thought a new name would give the FN better traction among the French electorate.

Emmanuel Macron

On Sunday evening, Macron supporters waited at the Louvre for him to speak in front of the museum’s glass pyramid:

Hillary Clinton concurred:

She referred to the 48-hour media blackout prior to a French election. This is so that voters are not unduly swayed one way or the other. We have the same thing in the UK.

I watched BFMTV’s coverage and tuned in as the presidential entourage was making its way along part of the Tour de France route to a secret location where he, his family and main supporters had drinks and dinner. Everyone entered by the back in a narrow side street, heavy with security. No one was allowed in the road unless they were going to his victory dinner.

How France voted

Matthieu Gallard of the French division of the polling company IPSOS, has a lot of excellent statistics of which parts of the French population voted for Macron and Le Pen:

Voter profiles

If you click on his tweet, you can see that Gallard also has IPSOS charts which show that Macron did better across the board with executives (cadres), professionals (prof. intermédiaires) and the retired (retraités). The only group where Le Pen dominated was the working class (ouvriers).

Even education levels did not make a difference overall. Macron won every demographic there, from those who had not completed high school to those with post-graduate degrees.

Tactical voting

Forty-three per cent voted Macron only to stop Le Pen (the historical toxicity of the FN).

However, that is not necessarily positive. This will become clearer in June, because IPSOS also has another chart (see Gallard’s other tweets) showing that 61% of the French do not want Macron’s En Marche! to have a majority in parliament (l’Assemblée Nationale).

Regions

The New York Times has a good map of regions where Le Pen dominated:

Someone from an English-speaking country surmises that this has to do with ancient linguistics:

No. It has to do with immigration patterns. The North and Bordeaux (west) have had enough. The voters along the southern coast have the same issue.

Paris also has a big problem, but, like all other Western capitals and major cities, votes for the Left — regardless.

You can see more charts and statistics here.

Francophone reaction to foreign opinion

French-speaking media people were most unhappy with alt-media journalist Mike Cernovich‘s reaction to the outcome.

Cernovich tweeted that America should accept Le Pen voters as political refugees.

Oddly, the responses I’ve seen came from countries other than France.

A Belgian journalist who works at the European Parliament picked up on it, calling Cernovich a ‘little protege’ of President Trump. Frankly, I’m not sure they’ve even met each other:

A Genevan journalist from Le Temps dismissed Cernovich as a ‘conspiracy writer’:

Visit to Germany

Macron’s first trip will be to Germany to visit Angela Merkel.

I have seen several journalists jump on this as being Macron-specific.

However, a trip to Germany is normal for incoming French presidents. François Hollande also went to see Merkel within 48 hours of his election in 2012.

Conclusion

Ultimately, only the parliamentary elections in June can end the debate that is currently going on in France. The first statistic, incidentally, was the result of the Brexit referendum in 2016:

Coming soon: why the election result was not rigged

Tomorrow: Alternative media and Macron’s financial situation

Millions of Fox News viewers were delighted when Judge Andrew Napolitano returned to the network on Thursday, March 30, 2017.

Napolitano has great insight into the inner workings of Washington, DC, particularly with regard to recent claims of surveillance of President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

On March 13, he said:

Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.

The Conservative Treehouse goes into the timeline thought to be behind the judge’s allegation.

On March 17, Media Matters, founded by the highly powerful Democrat operative David Brock, currently recovering from a heart attack, accused the judge of obtaining his ‘conspiracy theory’ from ‘Russian media’.

Napolitano repeated the claim on his Fox News show Napolitano’s Chambers, after which, many in the media thought the network fired him:

That story began with the Los Angeles Times on March 20:

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is being kept off the air indefinitely amid the controversy over his unverified claims that British intelligence wiretapped Trump Tower at the behest of former President Obama.

Fox News did not respond to inquiries about Napolitano’s status Monday. Napolitano was conspicuously missing from the network’s coverage of the confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch — an event in which he typically would have played a significant role. He has not been on the air since Thursday.

People familiar with the situation who could speak only on the condition of anonymity said Napolitano is not expected to be on Fox News Channel any time in the near future. Napolitano was not available for comment.

A Twitter user picked up more detail about Napolitano’s allegations:

Note that the penultimate paragraph begins (emphases mine):

I hope the investigation of Trump’s allegation discover and reveal the truth — whatever it is.

And, in the first video above, he did say that we do not know for sure.

However, did Fox News actually suspend him? Roger Stone, a longtime friend of Trump, thought they did and said on his April 19 segment on the Alex Jones Show that the network should pay him for the week or so when he was off the air and issue him a formal apology.

Others ask if Fox News gave him a few days off when the issue got heated enough.

Or did Napolitano enjoy a scheduled holiday on his farm in New Jersey? The farm produces maple syrup. Tapping season closes between the end of March through the beginning of April.

Whatever happened, on Wednesday, March 29, Napolitano returned to the network, still standing by his controversial story. PJ Media reported the judge told host Bill Hemmer:

“And the American public needs to know more about this rather than less because a lot of the government surveillance authority will expire in the fall and there will be a great debate about how much authority we want the government to have to surveil us, and the more the American public knows about this the more informed their and the Congress’ decision will be.”

Napolitano later said that “a lot more is going to come” on the issue.

The_Donald has more on the judge’s comments (start halfway down the page).

More posts on surveillance will follow.

In the meantime, you can read Napolitano’s views on Hillary Clinton’s emails (2016), who hacked them (2016) and the timing of these intermittent email drops by the FBI (January 2017).

The case continues.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post -- not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 -- resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,025 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

October 2017
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,163,243 hits