Featured Post

The New Mexican War

Much has been written, including in this blog, of the threat to America posed by radical Islamic terrorism. Not so much has been written abo...

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Russia Throws the Election to Trump?

The Democrats continue to seek the cause of their November 8, 2016 defeat.

It reminds me of when we have an attack by a self-avowed Islamist terrorist, screaming Islamist slogans, possessing a computer full of ISIS propaganda AND enjoying the endorsement of ISIS. Such attacks are inevitably followed by anguished PC law enforcement authorities telling us how they are seeking a motive for the attack . . . some times a cigar IS a cigar. So we now see that the Democrats live in a land with no mirrors and must busily search for the culprit of their otherwise inexplicable electoral loss.

We've heard a variety of explanations. Let's start with Hillary did not really lose since the majority of "Americans" voted for her. The first thing to note, of course, is that almost half of Americans did not vote. Second, we should note that the Dems obviously do not live where the US Constitution holds sway since the presidential election is won or lost in the electoral college not by racking up popular vote totals  . . . that same Constitution, by the way, does not mention separation of church and state nor the right to abortion, but does rather explicitly recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . Moving on from that, we have, of course, millions of fraudulent votes; one day I hope we have a thorough investigation of that and a revamping of our insanely lax voting laws so that we can stop counting votes by foreigners, deceased people, and those who cast multiple ballots. We saw a glimpse of the fraud in the "recount" launched in Michigan when many thousands of votes in Detroit could not be recounted. Ah, yes, Detroit that hub of Republicanism . . .

Then, of course, we have heard from Clinton campaign gurus that they lost because of the FBI, then because Trump played the race card by appealing to white voters. Yes, of course! How blind of me not to see that race was critical in determining whether white voters went for the Democratic 70-year-old white candidate or they went for the Republican 70-year-old white candidate . . . race explains it all.  Misogyny? Yes, that explains why no women voted for Trump. Oh, wait. They did. And on and on . . .

Now they have latched onto an ol' standby, Moscow did it! The party that spent decades telling us to chill it on the anti-Red posturing--the same party, after all, that put Stalinist tool, Henry Wallace into the vice-presidency--and telling us that the USSR posed no threat, that we should seek detente with the Kremlin, that, we should note, the USSR had free medical care and education . . . Well, those folks are now obsessed with Putin. Yes, Putin, who heads up a country some 1.6 million square miles smaller than the old USSR, with a population of less than half the size of the old USSR, and a GDP less than one-tenth that of the USA . . well, he is the threat. In fact, we now have a whole media chorus claiming that Putin threw the US election to Donald Trump, and citing vague unnamed CIA sources as evidence.

I have written before about Putin and made clear I don't like his style of rule--authoritarian gangster--and I don't think we should blindly trust Moscow. That said, I have noted that Putin is a much more effective leader than Obama and has played his much poorer hand masterfully and at a level far above that of Obama-Kerry-Clinton. Putin has re-established Moscow as a major world power thanks, in large part, to the ineptness of Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Ottawa, etc., in furthering and protecting Western interests. Obama has gutted our military, helped neuter NATO, opposed US energy independence, and prevented the USA from leading the fight against Islamist terror. Obama and company have made the world a much better place for Moscow and Beijing to pursue their interests at the expense of ours.

I have no doubt that Moscow and Beijing have no problem fiddling with our computer systems, stealing information, and trying to create as much havoc as possible. They've done that for decades and we need to be much more energetic in stopping them. But did Putin want Trump to win? Why? Not clear to me. Yes, Trump has made favorable nosies about seeking an alliance with Russia against Islamist terror, but he also has promised--and I believe he will keep that promise--to revitalize our military and industry and promote American energy independence, including, of course, fracking and other fossil fuel development in the USA--a devastating prospect for Russia's oil-based economy. The power balance will swing back to the US in a way it would not had Hillary and her cohorts taken power.

In conclusion, did Putin throw the election? I very much doubt it. I doubt those blue collar workers in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc., were marching to the beat laid down by Moscow. Hillary and her cohorts engaged in unethical and illegal activities which came to light and the people did not like those activities. Hillary was promising those voters a continuation of the Obama economy and of the Obama brand of soul-crushing progressivism. The Russians did not create the shady Clinton Foundation, although they gave generously to it and got access to US uranium in exchange, the Russians did not have Hillary put highly sensitive material on her private server, they did not have the DNC pass debate questions to Hillary, they did not . . . . well, you can fill in the blanks.


39 comments:

  1. Please note: I am gradually rebuilding my deleted blog roll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And shaping up nicely. How 'bout D&N ?

      Delete
    2. Could we have your take on Trump's Secretary of State nominee?

      Delete
  2. It's true, Moscow runs the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Riiiight... and The Donald is a Russian Agent! Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Watching the liberals try to blame their own ineptitude on someone else -- anyone else -- everyone else -- is by turns stupefying and laughable. They believed their own lies so long they can not face the truth now that it's obvious. How long before their heads begin to explode? Or they realize their voters will be slipping away by the millions? We're watching a peaceful revolution in front of our very eyes. And it feels very good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not certain what the progressives hope to gain. At this point, I'm guessing the media is doing their "it's true because I say it is" thing in an attempt to undermine the power and influence of the incoming presidency.
    They really can't even hope that shady questions and murky intelligence like this is going to cause enough electors to switch and declare Hillary President, can they?
    Heck, the electoral college would have to *unanimously* appoint Hillary for the country to accept it without a civil war at this point.
    Maybe they're just trying to convince themselves that their efforts weren't in vain... that *really* the country wants their progressive poop, it's just that the 'forces of evil' deprived them of their 'rightful leadership role'.
    Nobody tell them, because the more out to lunch they go, the less relevant they'll be.
    Hillary lost: It's the FBI director's fault. It's the fault of 'fake news'. It's Russia's fault.
    It's anybody but Hillary's fault that she showed rampant disdain for the people she claimed she was going to *serve*.
    I have a buddy who swore that Trump was the worst presidential candidate in all of history, and yet he wrote in a candidate rather than vote for Hillary. I think that pretty much says all that can be said.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  6. If Putin's Russia did so well when Obummer was running things, why would they not want a continuation of same under Hellary? It makes not a lot of sense for them to opt for Trump when they could read about everything the US was up to by hacking the sieve-like Clinton Foundation's computers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think we can count on the media to be what they have been being for too many years. Hopefully Trump will continue with the assaults on the "integrity" of the media as well. It would also be helpful if the Rs in Congress would continue this assault too with every interview, quest appearance on their "news" programs etc. Media integrity is pretty much lost and this current generation can't get it back.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's all right to be anti-Russian now that Russia isn't communist? Aaaah!

    But wouldn't Clinton have suited Putin quite well? From Moscow's point of view it would probably have been quite handy to have the US ruled by a duffer and invalid; someone who can be bought and sold for pretty modest sums, someone who can be expected to involve the US in more moronic wars that she would lose.

    Trump is an unknown quantity: safer with the crook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you are making sense. Stop that !

      Delete
  9. Hmm, now if the Rs would just concentrate on the contents of the emails. Clinton campaign colluding with the DNC to obstruct primary challengers, media colluding with and actively working with the Clinton campaign. Stupid is as stupid does...

    ReplyDelete
  10. It looks like many have forgotten HRC's attack when she was SoS accusing Putin of rigging the Russian parliamentary election for his party. She went so far as to publicly request an investigation of his election win. Putin is not a man to forget such things and I suggest, that if indeed the Russians were responsible for the hacking, he did it to get even.
    Of course now we have a supposed CIA leak that says the RNC was hacked too (and the Russians wanted Trump elected) when the FBI has said the RNC wasn't hacked. As to the CIA leak, where is the evidence. More fake news the media runs with it, as usual.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/monitors-find-russian-elections-flawed/2011/12/05/gIQAzrhqXO_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4be3013f2851 & https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-accuses-clinton-us-of-stirring-election-protests/2011/12/08/gIQA0MUDfO_story.html?utm_term=.fba7cecbea09

    ReplyDelete
  11. Has to be a post on Tillerson coming given the proprietor's background, the fact that the Secretary of State is one of the most important cabinet picks, and Trump's opinion of how to handle relations with Russia (which strongly differs from the majority of foreign policy experts on both the left and the right).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those experts had their way for at least 8 years and what was done to contain Putin's ambitions, but under Obama Putin knew he was dealing with a wimp. Trump is an unknown, but somehow I don't think Putin thinks he is a wimp, but he WILL test Trump.

      Delete
    2. And it's not just the last 8... Putin took the opportunity of America's focus on Iraq to take much of Georgia as well.
      Considering that Russia is heavily out-gunned by America, it's probably mostly Putin's pretty intelligent calculations of 'what he can get, and when', that differentiates him & his country from the rest of the world.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  12. I am sure, however, that Russians saw Shrillary Shroooooooooo's carelessness about classified material as proof that the Black Virgin of Kiev (Ah, when will she be RUSSIAN instead of UKRAINIAN again?) was smiling on them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Are the CIA analysts saying the Russians threw the election to Trump by revealing Hillary's hacked emails the same ones who assured us some years ago that the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 2003?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couple of new points:
      1) If Trump wins then what does Russia do with all that material that they got from Cinton's e-mail server that they could blackmail her with as Prexy?
      2) The CIA is run by Brenner who I just discovered converted to the religion of peace about ten years ago ... as did his number two (pun intended).

      Delete
    2. That's Brennan (John) ... not Brenner ...

      Delete
  14. About islamist attacks. Obama has always declared that such terror attacks against the US are not a worry. He has pursued cooperation with Saudi Arabia and other Middle East powers, especially Iran. This opened him to the risk that another big attack or many small attacks would turn the public against him.

    Another big 9-11 attack is unlikely. So, how could he neutralize criticism for smaller attacks. Simply deny that smaller attacks were or are organized by established terrorist groups. Another goal is to claim that no terror attacks against the US happened on his watch, unlike any attacks which may happen during the administrations of nasty Republicans to follow. Obama has already claimed this.

    The classic Dem/Communist approach is to define away problems to support hair-splitting claims of success. For example, Bill Clinton changed the definition of the Unemployment Rate to exclude people who had given up looking for work. So, we have an increasing absolute number and percentage of able people out of work, yet a claimed unemployment rate of around 5%. Success, by definition wrangling.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This sort of thing usually makes me think of Chicken Run, a claymation movie about, well, you got it, chickens, hens, actually. Almost anything sends them into a panic, and they run in all directions at once, until it is over, and most of them are back to being stupid hens. This weeks's panic attack is about the Ruskies somehow influencing our election. There's no substance to it, of course, although, when the present panic is forgotten, the actual facts will be forgotten, too. How many times will people fall into this trap? "Bush knew!" "Nine eleven was an inside job."The Supremes awarded the election to Bush" and on and on and on. Allegedly serious people discuss it all as if it were something other than an intended stampede. And now the lying sack of shit, women's division, is complaining about fake news?

    I must to my bed, not being a rich Democrat who doesn't need to get up and go to work tomorrow.

    Michael Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yep. Shazzam! There it is, a report on Drudge that upper mgmt CIA do not believe the "Russians hacked us" story. That did not last long at all. Now, hens, back to laying them eggs. Replying to my own comment.

      Delete
  16. Something strange I noted. Normally when you have an international incident like this is claimed to be, you have comments from third party governments on the events in order to shape world perceptions if nothing else. I'm talking about the Brit, French, Germany and other talking heads and anonymous sources from various foreign government agencies. Now maybe it's my google-fu failing me amongst the flood of US commentary, but on a recent search, I've not found any commentary from 3rd party countries confirming or denying that was the Russians. There was nothing out there.

    Think about it, you've got Russia of all places accused of interfering with the elections of the world's largest power. That should be be sending a panic through elected officials everywhere. The Poles and the Ukrainians should be becoming the world's largest exporter of bricks from the output of their bathrooms. And yet there is nothing out there that I found. Either every country is keeping silent for their own reasons or they're not willing to hang their credibility on this story.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Putin prevented Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin. Who knew?

    We all know what happened. The Dems cheated like they always do (witness the recount results in Detroit.) This time, the Repubs knew they would have to have a massive turnout to counter the cheating. They delivered.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can we call this what it is? Feminist Hysteria-the candidate with the withered ovaries lost fair-and-square but her feminazi supporters cannot abide such a result, cue wailing, crying, and ridiculous statements.

    In former times it was understood that a lot (not all) of women had a loose grip on reality, the psychiatric description follows:
    PSYCHIATRY
    a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women.

    The same hysteria that now engulfs the media with phony Russian "interference" of the election. Before the election there were many rumours that Hillarys criminal ignorance of even basic security had put the contents of her discussions into the hands of anybody (not just foreign spy agencies) with basic knowledge of how email systems work and could guess some very insecure passwords. Eventually this was exploited by Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

    If there is to be a witch-hunt for responsibility let us hear from the FBI in the form of Weasel Comey laying charges against Hillary for exposing secrets unnecessarily to potential hostile states. Following that lead will explain all the problems that have emanated from her criminal actions.

    This should not be president elect Trump's call.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are a number of things I don't understand:

    1. What exactly is Russia accused of?
    a) Hacking? What computers/systems?

    b) "influencing" the election? Define the term. Explain how.

    c) "Interfering"? Define the term. Explain how.

    3. Which Russians? Government employed?

    4. When?
    If this went on during the campaign season(s) i.e., primary & presidential, where were the government intelligence agencies?

    5. Last but most important: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

    Bueller?

    Bueller?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Remember this email? After looking it over, then tell me how Clinton supporters have a leg to stand on in this manufactured media storm of theirs....

    March 30, 2011

    For: Hillary
    From: Sid
    Re: Win This War


    1. Quinnipiac poll this morning shows Obama at his lowest approval and defeated for reelection 50-41 because of
    Libya. (See below.) No time for panic. Time to prevent panic.
    2. Pat Lang argues for intensified bombing. I understand the bombing continues. Whatever it is, it is not enough.
    3. Of course, victory cannot be achieved without the rebels gaining ground, getting to the gates of Tripoli, an
    uprising, and marching in. They must have training and armor piercing weapons. If US, UK and France can't

    provide this, then the rebels should secure it elsewhere. Sotto voce.

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/5651

    ReplyDelete
  21. When exactly did Russia stop trying to spook and bug its way through the USG? That's what flummoxes me about this whole outrage. It isn't that Russia may have tried something, it's that they are always trying something or trying to make it look like they are. So too are the Chinese. And all of this is but one of the reasons why HRC's flouting basic security protocols as SECSTATE is so anger making! Oh no, there is no hacking or bugging at all! Whoops, oh yes there is! Eye roll.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The charge is of course preposterous and fake, just right for the fake news networks (FNN?).

    However, I did warn to expect the chicanery at the electoral college. I personally find that quite frightening. Are we actually going to see a coup attempt?And if that fails, an assassination attempt?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Its hard for me to accept the fact that the party elite truly believe the manure they are throwing against the wall. So, I asked myself, "what's their strategy with all this horsesh!t?" Well, here's what I think. The party is concerned that their most faithful and hardcore supporters, (donors) will be so disappointed and frustrated with the defeat, that they may be reluctant to hand over their cash in the future. They have to be convinced that the Trump win was not real, but rather, it was stolen. Those bastard Republicans hoodwinked America again. They want their hardcore sheep to believe that with their continued support (money), they will take back control from the evil right. If they believe this will be effective, they clearly don't understand why they just lost this election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. precisely... and Pelosi's successful cling to running the democrats is further evidence of your conjecture... because why change course if you know you are going the right direction, but were only diverted by chicanery?
      They've got to keep the wool over the eyes.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  24. If they really did find hacking or vote fraud they would find that 99% of it was in favor of Hillary and would quickly bury it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So, this explains why, throughout October, I was continually hearing a voice coming from my computer saying in a thick, Slavic accent, "Vott Tromp...vott tromp...vott tromp..."

    If it worked on a guy like me, who passed the Foreign Service Exam, think how susceptible all those blue collar types in the Rust Belt must have been! [facetious]

    ReplyDelete
  26. Assange (and a Brit Ambassador) said they knew the source of the hack...and it wasn't the Russians.
    It will be interesting to see what revelations start coming out of the Intel Community once their Political Masters change on Jan 20th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed the leaker is described as a DEMOCRAT, (probably a disgruntled Bernie supporter).
      The Hysterical Feminists cannot even get their rumours straight.
      The promised land of their "I'm withered" candidate recedes daily, recounts fail, crazy stories of Foreign interference, all dissolve in their tears within 48 hours.
      As entertainment, it is first class.

      Delete