Friday, November 25, 2016
Now why on earth does a small pizza parlor in Washington D.C. need to host 110 email addresses?
There is simply no rational explanation for this, except that there is something shady going on here.
I initially thought that #PizzaGate was mostly bullshit, but this recent revelation proves otherwise.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Apparently, that only applied if Trump lost.
According to NBC News, Jill Stein is sponsoring recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Green Party nominee Jill Stein appeared to have met her initial fundraising goal early Thursday for recounts of the vote in three key swing states that went to Donald Trump — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Stein did not cite any specific instances of alleged voter fraud, either. She only named "hacking", one of the Left's common boogeymen, as a concern.
Why is the Left not up in arms about this? Based on their earlier reasoning, this is questioning the democratic process, and extremely unpatriotic.The Green Party didn't single out any specific evidence of fraud, nor does it need proof of irregularities to call for a recount. Stein's party won only 1 percent of the vote."After a divisive and painful presidential race, reported hacks into voter and party databases and individual email accounts are causing many Americans to wonder if our election results are reliable," Stein said Wednesday. "These concerns need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust.
But they aren't. Most are ambivalent about it, and some are even supportive of it.
@AdamParkhomenko @DayJojo771980 @BostonGlobe Absolutely. We need a recount. It's not about Jill Stein. It's about integrity of the vote.— Lisa Glass (@LMplusG) November 24, 2016
This is blatant hypocrisy, and it shows that the Left knows no principles.Hot damn! Jill Stein recount effort just passed $2 million of THE PEOPLE's money. The American people. We want a #Recount2016— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) November 24, 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Trump continued on his pro-life stance, and said that during his presidency, abortion would be a state issue, and he brought forth several negative points in Hillary's position, one of which is that under her plan, all abortions, including late-term and partial birth abortions, are legal. Hillary continued to be on the defensive on this one.
In my opinion, Trump won this round because of his ability to appeal to morality, and to defend his position effectively.
Hillary continued her vague stance on gun control, claiming that she would create "common sense" gun laws that would, according to her, keep children safe and reduce firearm accidents.
In my opinion, Trump won this round because he had a clear stance on this issue, and did an excellent job presenting it.
This debate was no contest. Trump was on the offense for the entire debate, and he was hammering Hillary on all the issues. He was consistent on his positions, and he showed confidence that wasn't in previous debates. Trump handily won this debate.
Monday, October 17, 2016
As most of you have probably heard, Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, had his internet connection severed by a "state actor". In addition to this, John Kerry is threatening Ecuador with military action if they did not release Assange from their embassy into US custody.
Considering some of the blatant illegalities, acts of fraud, and moral debauchery documented in the Hillary Clinton and DNC leaks, it leads me to believe that Assange was sitting on something enormous, and of bombshell proportions.
What could be in these leaks that was so disturbing and damning, that Assange's internet connection was compromised, and his host nation threatened over them?
We'll see soon, after the Wikileaks contingency leaks are released, and more information comes out about the Assange situation.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
But I was wrong. Dead wrong. The reality of Beltway politics is much, much worse, and Hillary Clinton is the star of the show.
From threatening to "drone" Julian Assange to provoking Russia of the Ukraine and Syria, Hillary and her cabal of corruption have done many horrible things, and the John Podesta emails released by Wikileaks have shed new light onto them.
Many of these emails are mundane accounts of day-to-day operations, but a few have shown the unethical practices and outright cheating committed by the Clinton campaign, from joking about her commission of Federal felonies, to receiving primary debate questions ahead of time. She even facilitated the rigging of Democratic primaries over email.
How much media coverage did all of this get? None. All they're doing is running Donald Trump's garish (but perfectly acceptable) comments on loop, and clutching their collective pearls over it.
Combining this with the fact that Hillary lets the press fly with her on the Clinton campaign jet leads me to believe that there is collusion between Clinton and the press, and emails released by Wikileaks indicate there is. Here's a snippet from an email exchange over a WSJ article:
Ran the quote past HRC and she asked (with no prompting) that “average” come out. So here’s what I shipped off to Peter Nicholas at the Journal. AS for the NYT, looks like it won’t run for a few days if not next Sunday, so will circle back on that as it develops.And here's more from a discussion over a New York Times article in the same thread:
I think this piece turned out well. But when we define our goals, we have to be clear that we are concerned with helping people who are getting crushed by rising costs and stagnant incomes, not that we're worried about offending high income groups (our donors). My guess is that this sentence will cause us some problems on the left. One of Mrs. Clinton’s broader goals is to develop ways to address economic anxiety without sounding like a combative populist or demonizing high-income groups, said a person familiar with her thinking.This is unprecedented. This is why I don't trust the media anymore.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
For one thing, releasing this in a press conference with reporters from major news organizations doesn't really help with the clandestineness of an operation like this. If Russia KNOWS you're going to penetrate their networks, along with you accusing them of fiddling with the general election, they're going to respond in kind, and both sides will escalate to full-on war.The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership.
This leads one to conclude that you're actively provoking them into war, so the current administration can influence the outcome of the election. Since Joe Biden said that the function of this operation is to "send Vladimir Putin a message", it may be true.