Sunday, January 15, 2017

How the Democrats created The Big Lie



Like it or not, it doesn’t matter who hacked into Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails: Wikileaks, the Russians or the man on the moon.
The act was designed to exposed Clinton – not so much to win votes that weren’t going to be won anyway – but to show what a hypocrite she is.
This was largely in responses to the unrelenting attacks her campaign waged on Donald Trump, desperate to make him look like a racist, homophobic and sexist pig.
Her campaign was loaded with so many secret private deals designed to undermine her primary challengers and to paint Trump in the worst possible light in the general election, that is was wrought with hatred, bigotry and misinformation – largely reiterated by a main stream media bent on making sure Clinton would become the first woman president.
It should have worked.
Trump is the perfect foil for any Democrat to run again, any Democrat other than Hillary Clinton that is.
The hacking of her campaign emails, however, did nothing to convince Clinton voters to change their vote. They are so fanatical that she could have murdered someone and they would have found an excuse for it – much in the way they ignored the mass slaughter she ignited when secretary of state in calling for the overthrow of the Syrian government – a key Russian ally in the Middle East.
What the emails did is show just how ruthless Clinton was and convinced many of us Bernie Sanders voters how right we were to distrust her in the first place, showing just how the chair of the Democratic Party worked on Clinton’s behalf to undermine our choice for president, and how unethical Clinton was when one of her supporters handed her debate questions ahead of the debate.
We did not yet suspect how her campaign managed to create a stealth Green Party candidate in Jill Stein in order to siphon off disaffected Bernie voters and keep them from switching our vote to Trump. In public, Clinton had the audacity to believe that we had no place to go and would hold our noses and vote for her rather than see Trump ascend to the White House.
She arrogantly assumed that if she called Trump a racist, black voters would also come out in droves for her, and Latinos would rally to her flag because Trump proposed deporting illegal aliens and building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico (a wall ironically Clinton as U.S. Senator voted to pay for just as she voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq.)
Although President Obama never called for a federal investigation, a leaked tape to the Clinton campaign became the instrument that allowed her to depict Trump as a sexist (nobody is blaming the Russians for this leak, however.) This helped shore up Clinton credentials as a hard core feminist – something she had modified greatly after her husband, Bill, lost his reelection campaign a governor in the early 1980s. The feminists along with the gays perhaps made up Clinton’s most reliable base, who would fall on the sword for her regardless of emails or her failed foreign policy.
Clinton freely called Trump supporters “stupid thugs,” so angering a mostly white population that they came out against her in the general election. She said something similar to Sanders supporters, as well as Catholics, revelations that would not have come out without the hacking, but largely did nothing to alter her votes – since gays and feminists were already anti-Catholic.
With most major media slanted their coverage on her behalf, Clinton should have trounced Trump.
But blacks didn’t come out in the numbers her campaign expected, especially men, and her campaign failed to note the outrage some legal immigrants felt against illegal immigrants or the differences in Latino culture in which some Latinos didn’t like Mexican immigration any more than conservative whites did. Obama’s outreach to Communist Cuba further outraged Cuban refugees. But Clinton’s biggest mistake was her belief that she did not need rural whites to win the White House.
In a brilliant general election campaign very similar to the one Bill Clinton waged in 1992, Trump steered away from the liberal urban strong holds to embrace those very people Clinton ignored – and those small towns responded, more than making up for the massive (questionably legal) massive voter registration drives in the liberal states.
The results shocked Clinton and the Democratic Party.
While Democrats clung to the moral victory of a supposed popular vote victory, both sides knew going into the election that they had to win the Electoral College. CNN and other pro-Clinton media predicted she would have a landslide victory in the Electoral College vote, a stunning testimony to the inaccuracy and the lack of real influence major media has in a post internet society in steering real public opinion.
This “popular” vs. “college” vote was the first step in creating a lie that would questions the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. The lie would get worse as the months went on as it became clear Democrats had lost control of the Senate and would soon see a major shift in the Supreme and other federal courts as the GOP gets its chance to fill vacancies.
The magnitude of the loss for Democrats is incalculable, and will likely mean a shift in policy as dramatic as the one that resulted from the election of FDR in 1932. All the rich cats with ties to Democrats getting favors and contracts will be replaced by rich cats associated with the GOP instead.
In a panic, Democrats orchestrated five days of protests nationwide, a kind of temper tantrum we come to expect from spoiled children. But someone somewhere in the Democratic regime must have realized how asinine this must have look and then began to create a new lie, one so outrageous in scope that it has the potential to undermine the foundations of American democracy, making use of government intelligence agencies for political purposes, few honest people trust when it comes to truth, agencies that have a history of killing, torture and imprisonment, as well as a history of attempting to overthrow unfriendly governments such as Russia and its allies – now to be used to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the United States.
The lie started out small, oozing out of the snake-like lips of Clinton’s Manchurian candidate, Jill Stein. First Stein said someone – most likely the Russians – had hacked into the election machines in those states where Clinton has lost by a narrow margin. Stein demanded a recount, not in closely contested states overall, but only those states where Clinton lost. The logic was so ludicrous that even Clinton was hesitant to put her name to it (I’m sure there are emails someone might hack to find out how much more of a role she played in the recount effort.)
But Stein may have stumbled on a thread Democrats might be able to use to discredit what was clearly an honest election: blaming the Russians.
Historically, we have always blamed the Russians. Red scares have accounted for more personal misery than nearly any other American purge since the introduction of Prohibition (which is why Hollywood is so hypocritical in shaming any performer associated with Trump. You would think they would remember the black list of the 1950s orchestrated by then film union representative Ronald Reagan and the movie honchos.)
The problem is: no one up to that point had actually proven the Russians were behind the hacking (something that is still not proven as fact). Providing evidence would take the intervention of a higher power, someone whose ties were uncomfortably close to the intelligence community and to whom the intelligence community owed many favors.
President Obama called for an investigation that came back with mixed results. His close friends on the CIA gave the Democrats fuel they needed to manufacture doubt about the election. But the FBI was convinced.
The FBI had become a political enemy of the Democrats when its director noted a week before the election that the FBI was again looking into other unsecured Clinton emails that were put at risk of hacking while she served as secretary of state (emails that mysteriously were not hacked by the Russians, even though they contained information considered classified.
The arm-twisting of the FBI must have been very powerful as to convince them to go along with the game plan – even though the state department has called for an investigation of the FBI director while ignoring the Attorney General who had private conversations with Clinton during the original email investigation, suggesting collusion.
From here the lie gets bolder. Intel said that there may be some link to the hacking that could extend all the way into the Kremlin.
Based on this somewhat vague evidence, Democrats took the next step and claim the Russians interfered and influenced the election, where there is no evidence to suggest that the hacked emails – even if the Russians were responsible – had any impact at all on the final vote.
You also have to understand the international backdrop behind all this. Trump and some of those who he has nominated for his cabinet and other key positions have business and other ties to Russia. The NSA informed Obama that during the investigation of the hacking, Trump’s appointment as ambassador to Russia actually had numerous communications with the Russians.
This all sounds suspicious until you realize that part of the presidential campaign involved what nations the United States would favor in its business dealings. The loss by the Democrats killed a NAFTA like agreement with China and other nations in the area, an area of the world Clinton also has significant interests in.
The Democrats are also concerned with Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. Must of Europe is gravitating towards Russia, and Trump has begun to reach out to the English, creating a whole new international business network that may not fit in with the Democratic agenda.
So in notching up their campaign against the Russians, Democrats are claiming the Russians went far beyond hacking, but that the scandalous information leaked caused Trump to win the election – as if any true Clinton supporter would actually switch from Clinton to Trump just because emails showed she was ruthless and power hungry.
This is such a ludicrous claim that no reasonable person could believe it. But media, desperate to regain its influential status (and perhaps undermine a new administration that does not need media or trust media) hopped on the Democratic bandwagon, pumping up this new conspiracy as to make its claims seem legitimate, and so Democrats as well as some cold war Republicans fell into lockstep and treated it all as truth.
Even if it is true that the Russians hacked into Clinton’s embarrassing emails, there is no proof that it affected the outcome of the election. It is merely cover for Democrats and medial bent on steering the ship of state for its own nefarious purposes.
Of course, to give a lie this big legitimacy, you can’t just have a known liar such as Bill Clinton mouth it, you need someone so universally respected that no one could possible doubt what comes out of his mouth must be truth. So the Democrats march out John Lewis, a true icon and hero of the Civil Rights movement, to give lip service to their lie. Perhaps he is even deluded enough to believe it something he would not have done in the days as a reformer when we all knew neither party could be trusted and the world liberal was considered as much a four letter word as the KKK.
So the Democrats humiliate Lewis’ legacy in order to undermine an election that was not only fair, but the logical outcome of the mass failings of the Democratic Party which assumed that poor people, blacks, Latinos would follow their twisted lead when the Democratic Party has become more like the GOP than the party of diversity, filled with arrogant liars, hungry power, willing to throw down the American government to further than own ambitions.
For shame!