Despite his pro-Sanders and all that goes with that disposition, H. A. Goodman is one of the most respected reporters going. His Youtube "Likes" frequently exceed 10% of viewers and sometimes approach 15%.
I wish I could spend my days reading Wikileaks.
HILLARY ROSENBERG?
Friday, March 3, 2017
Thursday, March 2, 2017
To Russia With Shrugs
I am tempted to dismiss the "PUTIN STOLE THE ELECTION FROM HILLARY" silly-ass conspiracy theory outright. In a way, we play into the hands of the opposition when we spend time refuting the ridiculous. And yes, this is one of the most ridiculous conspiracies ever advanced. The only differences between this fairy tale and the 9/11 Inside Job is that The Truthers were not government insiders and their nonsense was not parroted by the mainstream media.
Recognizing that many a reader will interact with a Putin Truther, I will try to destroy the conspiracy with a minimum of effort. If you really must refute a Putin Truther (not that they would pay attention to basic facts but you can point them in that direction) here is a step by step guide.
1. The Obama loyalists use the verb "hack" to describe Russia's involvement in the US elections. That word has a specific extant definition. It means to access a computer surreptitiously. No election machines were hacked by Putin during the election.
2. The Leftists in the entrenched government and the news media conflate the terms "hack" and "interfere" to describe Russian involvement. They have cited the influence--such as it is--of "RT America" in promoting misinformation. I read and view a lot of sources, including "RT America."
"RT America" is not popular in the US and their editorial viewpoint is largely pro-Sanders and anti-Trump. MSNBC rejects like David Shuster and Ed Schultz have gone to work for "RT" and have failed to generate an audience. Accusations of fake news aside, "RT" does not have the clout to influence an American election, large or small.
3. Russia did not have the means to influence the outcome of the presidential election. They also did not have the motive.
As I was writing this, I put the keyboard down and found the following at Small Dead Animals:
If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he'd be doing:
4. There is zero evidence that Putin or any Russian oligarch contributed to the Trump campaign. The same cannot be said of Hillary, The Clinton Global Initiative, John Podesta And the Democrats.
The tip of the iceberg here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#352f3ee13991
The Russians would probably have wanted to continue their ongoing relationship with their favorite lobbyists. As well, Trump is pro-frack and Hillary is anti-frack. Trump threatens the financial stability of Russia and dozens of other energy-producing countries by exporting American energy. In Hillary, OPEC, et al, have a friend.
Accusing others of the misdeeds you have committed or are committing is a tactic taken directly from the Saul Alinsky playbook. Hillary and the Democrats had direct financial ties to influential Russian nationals. Unlike the Trump accusations, there are well-documented paper and money trails connecting the Dems to Mother Russia.
5. US-Russia relationships took a turn for the worse in September 2011 when Russia pledged its support for the Assad Regime. The hostility escalated when Russia sent military assets to Syria in 2015.
For whatever reason, the Obama Administration had a soft spot for ISIS. One could look at this as a motive for Putin to prefer Trump over the Democrats. On the other hand, it might explain why Obama operatives might want to smear Putin as well as Trump. At any rate, the Obama Administration set in motion a lot of saber rattling.
From Larry C. Johnson at No Quarter (largely quoting NPR)
6. If it is scandalous for a foreign national to influence our elections, why is nothing said about the influence of George Soros and Carlos Slim?
George Soros has been influencing American elections for over twenty years. There is a boatload of evidence that he has actively promoted rioting, violence and civil disobedience to assist the Democratic Party. He has also purchased a stake in a company that produces voting machines and are used across the United States.
Soros avoided prosecution from a corrupt Obama DOJ but there is much that needs to be examined. So too, Carlos Slim. The Mexican billionaire purchased an influential, if not controlling, interest in "The New York Times" in 2015. Curious purchase considering the red ink that continues to drain from The Gray Lady. Given Slim's vehement Anti-Trumpism, one has to wonder if Slim did not purchase The Paper of Broken Record in an effort to "hack" our elections by flooding the zone with "fake news" and "misinformation"???
The NYT/foreign national/election hack effort might explain The Has Been Rag's baseless attacks on Donald Trump and his allies. "Forbes" questioned the motives of Slim's stock purchase a year before the US Presidential elections.
Indeed, "The Times" continues to distinguish itself as a creator, as in the fabrication sense of the term, of content. The puppet vehicle of a foreign oligarch who tried in vain to influence our presidential election has established itself as a fake news conduit for "Russian Election Hacking." All hail Alinsky.
To summarize:
1. The news media have been deceptive if not downright duplicitous in their coverage of the "Russian Hacking" fable.
2. The alleged Russian propaganda efforts are laughable. "RT America?" Come on!
3. Russia has no motive to assist Donald Trump. Russia has several motives for aiding and abetting the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton.
4. The Democrats, Hillary and the Clinton Global Initiative have extensive records of financial deals conducted with the Russians.
5. The Obama Administration has acted as an aggressor towards Russia. The Obama Wing of the Democratic Party remains hostile to both Russia and Donald Trump.
6. The Democrats are guilty of EVERYTHING for which they have falsely accused the Trump Administration.
I put this post together because truth means something to us. Here is a one-stop refutation of the silliest fake news campaign ever concocted. Do keep in mind that facts mean nothing to Leftists. Nothing at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#519d4fb73991
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79597/russia-really-aggressor/
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79594/media-pundits-jumping-shark-russia-trump/
http://www.youngcons.com/congress-looking-into-u-s-money-going-to-george-soros-to-allegedly-disrupt-countries-in-europe/
following http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-echo-chamber-strikes-back/article/2006879
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/02/whos-russian-wh.html
Recognizing that many a reader will interact with a Putin Truther, I will try to destroy the conspiracy with a minimum of effort. If you really must refute a Putin Truther (not that they would pay attention to basic facts but you can point them in that direction) here is a step by step guide.
1. The Obama loyalists use the verb "hack" to describe Russia's involvement in the US elections. That word has a specific extant definition. It means to access a computer surreptitiously. No election machines were hacked by Putin during the election.
2. The Leftists in the entrenched government and the news media conflate the terms "hack" and "interfere" to describe Russian involvement. They have cited the influence--such as it is--of "RT America" in promoting misinformation. I read and view a lot of sources, including "RT America."
"RT America" is not popular in the US and their editorial viewpoint is largely pro-Sanders and anti-Trump. MSNBC rejects like David Shuster and Ed Schultz have gone to work for "RT" and have failed to generate an audience. Accusations of fake news aside, "RT" does not have the clout to influence an American election, large or small.
3. Russia did not have the means to influence the outcome of the presidential election. They also did not have the motive.
As I was writing this, I put the keyboard down and found the following at Small Dead Animals:
If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he'd be doing:
- Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could
- Blocking oil and gas pipelines
- Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
- Cutting U.S. military spending
- Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia's ally Iran
- Blocking oil and gas pipelines
- Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
- Cutting U.S. military spending
- Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia's ally Iran
4. There is zero evidence that Putin or any Russian oligarch contributed to the Trump campaign. The same cannot be said of Hillary, The Clinton Global Initiative, John Podesta And the Democrats.
The tip of the iceberg here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#352f3ee13991
The Russians would probably have wanted to continue their ongoing relationship with their favorite lobbyists. As well, Trump is pro-frack and Hillary is anti-frack. Trump threatens the financial stability of Russia and dozens of other energy-producing countries by exporting American energy. In Hillary, OPEC, et al, have a friend.
Accusing others of the misdeeds you have committed or are committing is a tactic taken directly from the Saul Alinsky playbook. Hillary and the Democrats had direct financial ties to influential Russian nationals. Unlike the Trump accusations, there are well-documented paper and money trails connecting the Dems to Mother Russia.
5. US-Russia relationships took a turn for the worse in September 2011 when Russia pledged its support for the Assad Regime. The hostility escalated when Russia sent military assets to Syria in 2015.
For whatever reason, the Obama Administration had a soft spot for ISIS. One could look at this as a motive for Putin to prefer Trump over the Democrats. On the other hand, it might explain why Obama operatives might want to smear Putin as well as Trump. At any rate, the Obama Administration set in motion a lot of saber rattling.
From Larry C. Johnson at No Quarter (largely quoting NPR)
So what are we doing in Romania? We have dramatically expanded our military involvement in that country over the last year. Most importantly, we have installed a missile system whose sole purpose is to attack Russian military assets. We are now doing joint military exercises with Romania, in other words, practicing military scenarios where we would use these weapons systems:
The most tangible sign of a growing American military presence in Eastern Europe, behind the former Iron Curtain, is tucked inside a former military base in rural Romania.
Hidden from view is a U.S. naval facility, where sailors use high-tech radar day and night to watch for incoming ballistic missiles fired at NATO countries. If any are spotted, the Americans would fire back with SM-3 Block IIA missiles.
A second such American site will also be built in Eastern Europe over the next two years, this one near Poland’s Baltic coast. It’s inside a base that once belonged to the Nazis and later the Soviets.
Once this site is finished, the entire $800 million ballistic missile defense shield for NATO countries in Europe, more than a decade in the making, will be complete.
The Russians are not amused nor comforted by our claims that this is merely defensive:
But Moscow considers the American bases on NATO’s eastern flank to be a provocation, a position Russia has maintained ever since the alliance began moving into Eastern Europe in the 1990s, following the Soviet breakup.
George Soros has been influencing American elections for over twenty years. There is a boatload of evidence that he has actively promoted rioting, violence and civil disobedience to assist the Democratic Party. He has also purchased a stake in a company that produces voting machines and are used across the United States.
Soros avoided prosecution from a corrupt Obama DOJ but there is much that needs to be examined. So too, Carlos Slim. The Mexican billionaire purchased an influential, if not controlling, interest in "The New York Times" in 2015. Curious purchase considering the red ink that continues to drain from The Gray Lady. Given Slim's vehement Anti-Trumpism, one has to wonder if Slim did not purchase The Paper of Broken Record in an effort to "hack" our elections by flooding the zone with "fake news" and "misinformation"???
The NYT/foreign national/election hack effort might explain The Has Been Rag's baseless attacks on Donald Trump and his allies. "Forbes" questioned the motives of Slim's stock purchase a year before the US Presidential elections.
Slim, a business tycoon with a telecom empire that expands to 18 Latin American countries, paid $101.1 million to exercise warrants to acquire nearly 16 million shares of the company’s Class A stock at a price of over $6.36 a share, the company said, increasing his stake from 7 % to 16.8 %. Slim now owns nearly 28 million shares in total.
Is it pure business or does the world's third-richest man have other plans?
Arturo Elías Ayub, Slim's spokesperson and son-in-law, told me by e-mail that exercising the option to buy is "100% a financial investment." Elías said that there is no intention of selling the shares or playing any role in The New York Times management, which Slim "continues to have confidence in and believes to be not only a valuable brand, but a creator of content."
To summarize:
1. The news media have been deceptive if not downright duplicitous in their coverage of the "Russian Hacking" fable.
2. The alleged Russian propaganda efforts are laughable. "RT America?" Come on!
3. Russia has no motive to assist Donald Trump. Russia has several motives for aiding and abetting the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton.
4. The Democrats, Hillary and the Clinton Global Initiative have extensive records of financial deals conducted with the Russians.
5. The Obama Administration has acted as an aggressor towards Russia. The Obama Wing of the Democratic Party remains hostile to both Russia and Donald Trump.
6. The Democrats are guilty of EVERYTHING for which they have falsely accused the Trump Administration.
I put this post together because truth means something to us. Here is a one-stop refutation of the silliest fake news campaign ever concocted. Do keep in mind that facts mean nothing to Leftists. Nothing at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#519d4fb73991
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79597/russia-really-aggressor/
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79594/media-pundits-jumping-shark-russia-trump/
http://www.youngcons.com/congress-looking-into-u-s-money-going-to-george-soros-to-allegedly-disrupt-countries-in-europe/
following http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-echo-chamber-strikes-back/article/2006879
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/02/whos-russian-wh.html
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Congratulations Kurt Busch And Tony Gibson
And who gives a damn about the pompous, prissy peacocks at the Oscars?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)