Friday, October 28, 2016

Barack Obama's Plan B is in operation

Well our illustrious Potus had to resort to Plan "B" 11 days prior to the November 2016 election. Why...? Well, it was looking like Donald J Trump might actually have a chance to win and since President Obama wanted to leave nothing to chance, he changed from Plan "A" to Plan "B".

What was Plan "A" you might ask? That was to wait until the election had finished and having Kill...err...Hillary Clinton win and prior to being sworn in, Loretta Lynch (via commands from above)  would order James Comey of the FBI to recommend indictment on the Clinton Foundation investigation. Mr. Obama did not want to be implicated in the email scandal but he did want to leave the woman unable to perform duties as President of the US thereby giving him the opportunity to serve a third term in spite of the Constitutional ban on such a situation.

Mr. Trump was seen tightening the race. With Wikileaks adding negative reporting on the Clintons thereby weakening her attempt to win while simultaneously increasing his odds for presidential election. Enter Plan "B"...which was timed to occur too close to the election date for the Democrats to be able offer an alternative candidate (Perhaps Pocahontas, I mean Lizzie Warren?). Additionally, early votes had already been cast for Ms. Clinton leaving those votes lost to the Democratic Party. The election would proceed as scheduled and before the winner, no matter who that may be, could be sworn in; The president would declare martial law (if needed) and void the election results stating, if Hillary wins, she would not be able serve due to her indictment. Therefore. being the active Potus, he'd have to serve her term or the country would be left without a leader ignoring the Constitutional Progression which would leave a Republican as Potus (the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan). If The Donald won he would still proclaim the election results null and void due to an unfair election edge that was provided to the GOP candidate by the FBI reopening her email investigation so close the Election Date. He would have his lawyers pronounce this action, caused by Congressional Republican pressure on the FBI director, an Unconstitutional effort to influence the election outcome. The result would be the same as Plan "A". To be able to save himself from testifying in the email scandal, he would probably cite Executive privilege.

The only loser in this election will be the American People.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Analyzing Hillary Clinton's Acceptance Speech and continuing falsehoods

Before we can discuss  Hillary Clinton's
DNC acceptance speech, here's a YouTube video that contains her entire oration if you need to jog your memory or if, like Bill Clinton, you may have nodded off and missed some of it. If you don't need to refresh your memory or if you are finished brushing up on it, let's start with a fact checking of Hillary's speech
   Next up is an excerpt of the House query of FBI Director James Comey on the Clinton email investigation. This clip contains questioning by Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

Now judge for yourself, in the answers supplied by Mrs. Clinton, if she was truthful in her interview Sunday July 31st by Chris Wallace on his FOX News Sunday show:  
Let's change gears now and talk about the Lame Stream Media. When Donald Trump says something about a Gold Star Family, it is reported on and talked about ad Nauseum, but you never hear about Hillary Clinton basically calling Sean Smith's mother and the families of the rest of the Benghazi four liars. Listen to more from FOX News Sunday:
   This is where I need to point out the differences between Hillary's lies to Gold Star family members and Trump's response to Khizr Khan's speech at the Democratic convention. First we need to look Khan's speech featured below:

Here's a summary video of  Mr. Trump's response and further condemnation from Democrats and Clinton.

Before I go on it might help people to better understand the man, Khizr Khan. Checking out this website should provide some clarity. I might add that although Mr. Khan suffered tremendously by his courageous son's death, a father does not necessarily share views with his offspring (a prime example is Benjamin Franklin and his son William).

Now, let's see how Hillary Clinton treats Gold Star families. Keep in mind she voted for the Iraq war that killed Capt. Humayun Khan,

Then you need to see Hillary Clinton's sparring with  the Benghazi families:
Now we need to point out a few differences between Donald Trump's views and Hillary Clinton's actual record:
  1.  Donald Trump has only talked about restricting refugees from entering the US, so I fail to see the relevance of Mr. Khan's Constitutional question. The Constitution does cover all legal residents, not just citizens, living in America; but it does NOT provide coverage for persons seeking entry into the USA.
  2. Mr. Trump had NOTHING to do with the Iraq war so why was he singled out by Khan?
  3. Hillary Clinton did vote for the Iraq war, so shouldn't Mr. Khan take exception to  her rather than with Donald Trump?
  4. Hillary Clinton had EVERTHING to do with the Libyan war that left the country in shambles allowing Al-Qaeda, and subsequently ISIS, to control their government.
  5. Hillary Clinton also had the diplomatic staff at he CIA annex in Benghazi...Why? The US embassy is in Tripoli NOT Benghazi.
  6. The following probably outlines why the Benghazi location was used, keeping the embassy out of proceedings, and why all security requests were denied lest attention be drawn to Hillary's gun running operation.
  7. Donald J Trump has been mercilessly attacked, by both sides of the aisle, for his comments about stopping Muslim refugees from entering our nation until a proper vetting procedure can be established.
  8. Barack Obama's administration has already allowed over 2000 Syrian refugees into our county, without any vetting at all, with 2500 more to join them. DHS director Jeh Johnson has declared all Syrians, no matter their legality of entry, Sanctuary under the 2012 TPS (Temporary Protected Status). As an aside, no one has ever lost their "temporary" status. This protection means anyone covered can obtain a green card and permanent residency...even though they may be Jihadists. The application of this status must be changed to include approval of congress and Potus. The DHS Secretary should not have unfettered access.
  9. Not satisfied with Obama's number of un-vetted Syrians 5800 plus 2500 new arrivals), Hillary proposes to cover 65,000 a year additional Syrians under TPS
I was almost ready to post this rant when I found this little goodie that illustrates the zombie-like morons, including Warren Buffet (seated on her right; screen left), who support Hillary Clinton...

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Are voters really that stupid?

I can understand why the Bernie Sanders'  supporters are so incensed over the Wikileaks email scandal but there were slights to more than just Sanders. What about the rest of the nation, regardless of party, not demonstrating against the "Lame Stream Media" for colluding with the Clinton campaign to shut out Bernie Sanders? Why are Latinos not rebelling against the DNC for hypocritically refering to them as "Taco Bowls"? No wonder Debbie Wassermann Schultz was booed by her own states' (Florida) delegates. Now to distract the Democratic Zombie-like voters, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is
pushing a wildly,  laughable theory that Russian hackers (this maybe true) were responsible for the leaked emails to help enable a Donald Trump victory (this is doo-doo)! What the F**k are they smoking over there in Obama La-La-Land...Tijuana Gold? Why on God's earth would the Russians want Donald J Trump President of the United States?  Wouldn't a Socialist like Sanders be easier to work with than the "Bellicose" Trump,  as the media have dubbed him? Wasn't it the gullible, easy to mold Hillary Clinton the one who proposed the Russian Reset Button?  I can't imagine anyone easier for Vladimir Putin to be able to handle than  "Crooked", living by her own rules, Hillary Clinton? Hasn't she already "Enriched" the Russians by supplying them with American Uranium while she was Secretary of State? (Notice that the link I provided is from the New York Times. Not exactly a staunch bastion of Conservatism.)  The Clinton campaign should be worried if indeed it were the Russians who hacked the DNC because if that were the case, Moscow had been reading the Democrats' emails for a few years (at least as far back as Clinton's stint in the Obama cabinet).

When Donald J. Trump jokingly suggested, if it was Russia, maybe they could supply us with the 30,000 emails of Hillary Clinton the FBI couldn't find. The Far Left Liberal News Media tried to bury Trump under a pile of caca saying he was "Asking Russia" to hack the DNC. Obviously the Lame Stream media has no sense of humor when it comes to Republicans. These Obama Lap Dogs must really underestimate the intelligence of the American voter (I would have said American Citizen since Constitutionally, only citizens can vote, but that would leave out all the Illegal Aliens in our country who do vote because Progressives, like the Clintons and Obamas, won't permit voter ID check...Even when FREELY provided.) If Russia or China or Iran or North Korea et al. had hacked the DNC, they could only provide the Deleted emails if they performed this hacking while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Obviously, if our enemies had the ability to hack the DNC, they would have preferred to obtain data from the easier to access private server of Hillary Clinton. After all, Secretary of State email would be more valuable data for them than the lame-brained DNC documents. Which leads us to another pitfall facing the DNC, as well as Hillary. That problem is if the DNC server, which employs a more powerful, robust anti-hacking software, can be breached, how more easily could a home email server, like Hillary used, be plundered?

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Why Donald Trump need to be our next Potus

Why should America elect Donald J Trump President of our country this November? There are many reasons but first let me shed light  on one of the most important one for Conservatives, regardless of their party affiliation. That is the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. Many have said they are not sure of Mr. Trump's conservative credentials. To these critics I say maybe that's true, although I take him at his word that he's looking for conservatives to replace the late Justice Scalia, but just contemplate the choices Hillary Clinton would be considering. Not only should we be concerned with the Scalia replacement, but also the possible openings due to the ages of Ruth Bader Ginsberg (83), Anthony Kennedy (79) and Stephen Breyer (77).
Coupled with Clinton's  Lies, corruption and incompetence (especially her handling of classified information) her Supreme Court Nomination(s) would lead to the complete destruction of the USA as a democratic Republic. We already possess an Executive branch of government that treats itself empirically and a congress that is totally ineffective and useless. The ruination of the Supreme Court would leave Americans with no branch of government representing them. As an aside, to the Trump detractors, I'd like to point out the depleted condition of our Armed Forces under Barack Obama. A Clinton administration would only be a third term for him. I shudder to think of the possibility of Hillary Clinton, President of the United States, working claw in claw with Barack Obama, Secretary-General  of the United Nations...Agenda 21 on steroids.

My next reason for explaining why Mr. Trump should become President Trump fits within the realm of National Security. This is an area that progressives, like Hillary, don't care about the results of their actions if the "ends justify the means". That end is to acquire more voters to swell the rolls of the "Democratic" Party. With such power gained by their bloated, zombie like voting blocs, no Conservative would ever hold sway in the USA again. No Republican or Independent could ever aspire to the country's lowest political position let alone its highest. Donald Trump is the only presidential candidate to ever earn the endorsement of the Border Patrol Agents Union. Not just for building walls and encouraging immigration law enforcement, but also for common sense practices such as restricting admission from enemy countries and by non-vetted asylum seekers. Donald J Trump has also pledged to strengthen our military and stop the insane attacks on our Police forces.  My biggest hope, in this area, is that we would return to, what Liberals have dubbed our old "Draconian", Immigration policies including quotas, restrictions on certain countries and the restoration of Ellis Island(s) for immigration points of access. We used to deny entry access based on a person's health as my maternal Grandmother, who entered via Ellis Island, told me. This may be over the top, but we should at least agree that if we cannot properly vet immigrants they should not be allowed to enter our country.

My final reason for needing The Donald for Potus is my desire to remove money as the primary tool in use for gaining an election win. Mr. Trump has proved that the most money spent is not the deciding factor for winning, but rather the opinion I have long held, and the Clinton campaign only reinforces my belief  that not only do Presidential Elections have strings attached to them, due to money donated, but also gives the impression that the position of Potus is bought, not elected. Of course, Hillary Clinton has no choice but to spend vast sums of money on negative ads condemning Donald Trump in order to win. That's because she has no "Good" record of her own to promote by advertising. What I really don't understand are the rabid supporters she seems to command. Getting away with crimes, bad judgment and lies is nothing compared to her hypocrisy in telling these zombies she'll "make the wealthy pay"  really? In her mind "wealthy" doesn't apply to her $100 million dollars. You can hardly blame her for feeling that way since everyone seems to give her a pass on everything. After all, she is part of the select, elitist company of the ruling class. What's this woman's next  atrocious, egotistical plan? If she has her way, it would be rewriting the Christian Religion.

Friday, July 15, 2016

I Smell a Rat

Something is rotten in Washington, DC and it's not a case decaying fish. I truly believe FBI Director James Comey when he asserted the FBI Investigation was not politically conducted. However, can someone please tell me why Comey did not see fit to investigate Hillary Clinton's testimony, under oath, given to Congress October, 2015 when his findings directly contradict parts of that sworn testimony? Why were GOP Representatives forced to formally request a perjury investigation of Clinton's testimony when it fell under the purview of the FBI email investigation? And what about this gag order placed upon FBI agents to not disclose any information about her case?

Lest anyone think I'm only picking on the Democrats, let us also examine what some Republican "Trump Haters" are attempting to promote. They want to "Unbind" delegates, so I guess this is another case of "government knows best" or maybe just another case of attempting to retain a political "Status Quo". If these empirical reasons for a single digit approval rating succeed, we will no longer live in a true "Democratic Republic" , but rather an oligarchy comprised of the privileged and powerful few (aka Bill and Hillary Clinton, Judges of the Supreme Court, Labor Union Officials, Democratic People's Republic of Korea etc.) Seems like the GOP is trying to activate a system to crown their choice just like all the Barack Hussein Obama bootlickers have been asking to establish.

My last smelly item concerns the myriad of shootings being touted by the progressive gun grabbers in our government (Progressivism is wide spread in the Democratic party but Republicans have their fair share as well). Of course we know that they, and the lame stream media, habitually emphasize only those shootings which would perpetuate their particular ideologues (the previous link references Obama's gun laws by executive fiat). One of the Emperor's "decrees" states a ban on Military style firearms. If the Liberals definition is applied by the gun control fanatics, a Ruger model 10/22 (a .22 rim fire cartridge) would be banned. To understand the significance of this, in Florida's Everglades, where deer hunting is permitted,  no one is allowed to shoot deer with this weapon (check out the fourth bullet point under Prohibited methods and equipment for taking resident game in the previous link) due to the lack of killing power in a ,22 rim fire cartridge. In late 1944, the M2 carbine (a select fire version of the M1 carbine) was produced and, in some circles, was considered an assault weapon while the M1 carbine could not do to the lack of a selective fire switch and a smaller capacity magazine (15 rounds vs 30 rounds). Worthy to note that even the M1 carbine would be banned under Obama's edicts since the magazine capacity is more than 10 rounds. Why all this gun talk under I smell a rat? Because the abhorrent Dallas Police shootings were performed by a US Army veteran (remember; the DHS warring concerning veterans ) of non-Muslim affiliation with an "assault weapon" performed this dastardly deed while the Black Lives Matter group were peacefully demonstrating. What did our storied Potus dwell upon? Gun  laws and the perfectly understandable motives of Black Lives Matter. Even if all the preceding were based in fact, does Mr. Obama not remember the insightful rhetoric of this "Peaceful organization"? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I know the mantra of progressivism is "the ends justify the means"; and considering the use of explosives to rid Texas streets of this vermin, nothing was left to question the Progressive's assertions..

I'll stop my rant here before I truly piss off those wielding the power, but I can only hope you, the reader, will get my drift and fill in the blanks for yourself. After all, this RACIST black man (Not the contradiction of terms our government wants you to believe) had no intention of killing himself like a good terrorist would. Nuff said.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Bill & Hillary's Blackmail Scheme

OK, here's how I see it. Bill Clinton's meeting with AG Loretta Lynch was just a gentle reminder from the Clinton's that if indicted, Hillary will implicate Barack Obama and all in his Administration by calling them as witnesses and asking, under oath, if they knew her servers were unsecure. In other words Blackmail. Then,  when Lynch answered questions about said meeting, claiming all she and Bill talked about was golf and grandchildren, she said she fully expected to follow the FBI's recommendation. Of course that would leave her wiggle room to not follow their recommendation in case FBI Director James Comey (who has a

 history where the Clinton's are concerned) double-crossed her and would recommend an indictment. Make no mistake, Comey did not lie about telling his bosses of his determination, they told him. Do you honestly believe our President would stump for Hillary Clinton if he even thought there might be an indictment? If you do, you are more gullible than the Hilarious...err...I mean "Hillary" supporters. But chin up all you truth seekers, the Clintons  

still have an indictment to elude. The FBI is still investigating their Clinton Foundation "Charity" and if James Comey is upset with all the crap surrounding the e-mail scandal handling, he can rectify the situation with an indictment of the Clintons that they cannot blackmail their way around. If this man is the stalwart apolitical investigator everyone claims, he would leap at the chance. 

Monday, July 4, 2016

Hillary Clinton and the FBI

OK, says the Lame Stream Media, so what if Bill Clinton waited on an airport tarmac for half an hour to speak privately aboard a public jet whose only occupant was
Loretta Lynch for thirty minutes. According to both, all that was discussed was G&G (Golf & Grandchildren). Let's forgot for now that Mrs.
Hargrove (nee Lynch) was appointed as a Federal Judge In 1999; she was nominated by then President, Bill Clinton , to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Forget for the moment that we are supposed to take the word of a man who had his license to practice law suspended (and brother does he ever need the practice) because of admitted wrong practices and giving a false statement in a deposition (Perjury) during the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial?. Was his answer dependent on the definition of "what" "were" and the phrase "talking about" like he said what the "meaning of 'is' is" when asked about his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky? Are we also supposed to ignore the fact that the FBI is also investigating the Clinton Foundation, and both Bill and Hillary's roles in any "quid pro quo" (or if you prefer "pay for play") process attached to donations?

So both Bill and Loretta knowingly violated prosecutorial ethics by said meeting, even if by chance or accident. If you don't believe it, you only have to go to  the American Bar Association's Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations Standard 2.2 Selective Investigative Tecnique (f) and Bill Clinton is a witness in the Clinton Foundation investigation. Not only should Loretta Lynch have recused herself after such contact, she actually should have done it when the Clinton's were first under investigation due to her history with Bill. If she is going to accept the FBI's decision to indict, why did she not recuse? Her laughing admission (I didn't get the joke; did you?) that the "chance" meeting took place and her Clintonesk response that fully expects to take the FBI recommendation. Wiggle room if ever there was.

Lastly, I'd like to discuss all the talk about Hillary didn't know about this "chance" meeting and that she would be mad at Bill. What a crock of rotten Turkey dung. Do you honestly think Bill and Hillary don't know what each other are doing (politically speaking that is)? Do you honestly believe her Obama-like retort that she found out about it in the News? If you do, I have 60 acres of swampland in Florida that should interest you; no, it's not mine, but I've only sold it six or seven times.