FISA report is not Final. Durham Gets the Final Say

The liberals and conservatives are bickering and taunting victory for their side from the recent FISA report that IG Horowitz presented to Congress. Everybody from both sides are claiming vindication. The media has down played it. They are getting vicious in their attack purporting lies to the public that the FISA report didn’t not produce the evidence that the Republicans claim; even though, it did. 

Bottom line, there are 17 errors and omissions that the FBI done to improperly get a approval to spy against and American citizen. In this case, it was a member of the Trump team. Horowitz won’t state it was intentional in his report. In fact, Horowitz can do so much. He can’t call on witness and his scope of authority is rather limited. However, he did find irregularities that shows an intent of spying on a America citizen. 

If you committed 17 errors and omissions at your workplace, I am confident that you are either incompetent or negligent. Either case, you are wrong and may lose your job. This is the same with the FISA report. There was gross negligence to commit 17 errors. I could understand 2 or 3, but not 17. To say it was an accident would be inexcusable. 

I’m glad US attorney who is doing his own investigation in conjunction with IG Horowitz and he finds criminal intent. Durhams report will be presented in due time. Before getting everybody’s panties in an uproar, he made this statement:

It is important for the liberals and the mainstream media not to get too excited for victory. There is more to this collusion. It is Attorney General Barr and US attorney John Durham to give a full and final report to the corruption during the 2016 presidential election. It will disclose those involved in the corruption. Like Trump said, it will be an eye opener. This is Trumps draining the swamp he promise the American people he would do. 

Elections Have Consequences

Elections Have Consequences

Ah, Democrats—and the mainstream media. Is that being redundant? They want members of the Electoral College to ignore their responsibility to cast ballots according to the provisions of their respective states and instead vote for Hillary Clinton for President. Unprecedented. Quasi-illegal.

They would have you up in arms because the Russians interfered in our American presidential election. How did they do that? You see, none of the voting machines in any state are connected to the internet (as far as I know—if they are, I would suggest the Democrats would be more likely to sabotage our elections than the Russians). No, you see, what the Russians did (and we have it on very good authority—Obama’s CIA) was hack the Democrat National Committee’s email account and—what else? Hillary’s private server?—to release emails, none of which, at this writing, have been denied as to their authenticity.

All this could have been prevented by the performance of one simple expediency: Had Hillary released all those emails in a timely fashion, when they were requested by Congress and by the FBI, the attendant consequences would have been faced and possibly overcome by the time of the election. She had a choice, and she chose to ignore subpoenas requesting ALL emails her office had sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. In essence, until Wikileaks started releasing emails pilfered from the Democrat National Committee’s “secure” server, all previous emails concerning Hillary’s conduct of affairs as Secretary of State should have already been in the public domain—released, publicized and vetted—according to the law.  Ah, but there’s the rub. You see, what we deplorables have not come to understand is that the law was never meant to be applied to the Clintons. Tell me who else—besides perhaps Barack Obama—would have the audacity to establish his own private server, rather than utilizing supposedly secure government equipment, in defiance of the law and presidential orders?

Who else would have so little regard for security as to relay classified information through her cleaning lady, who I think it is safe to say does not have a Top Secret security clearance? Who else might tell the Supreme Court, “I know what your subpoena says, but these are all the emails you are going to get from me.”?

Let’s go back to a point made earlier in this piece; the fact that this is Barack Obama’s CIA that has ostensibly obtained sufficient evidence to conclude that it was the Russians who hacked into Hillary’s private server and that of the DNC. An unintended consequence of using the IRS, ICE, FBI, CIA and any other government agency as water-carriers for the administration—to silence objections and deny equal access—is that it tends to make Americans doubtful of anything—ANYTHING—the government might say through any of its agencies. There are times, I am sure, when President Obama desperately NEEDS the American people to believe him. Some information coming from his office might be true; might even be critical for the American people to know. However, like the little boy in the fairy tale who cried wolf one too many times, he has sacrificed all believability. In fact, if you still believe what the President puts out, I have a friend who would like to talk to you about some oceanfront property he has for sale in Oklahoma.

Although he appears to have forgotten it, Obama famously told the Republicans in 2008 or 2012; maybe both: “There are consequences to losing elections”. Those consequences exist for both parties, Mr. President.

Truing the Vote

TRUING THE VOTE

It is a sad state of affairs when you read the results of an important meeting between your country’s leader(s) and the heads of state of a foreign government—and you are at a loss as to who to believe! For instance, our President informs us that it is spelled out clearly in an agreement with the nation of Iran that they will not refine weapons-grade plutonium for at least ten years. The Iranian leader then informs his people he made no such agreement with the American leader—that Iran will continue to enrich plutonium for nuclear warheads. Somebody is lying--but who?

I don’t trust the Iranians. Unless you are a little bit long in the tooth, you might not recall or have ever heard that America and Iran were once very close allies. American pilots trained Iranians to the point that their skill with jets that we sold them was approaching that of the Israeli pilots. We had many servicemen stationed in Iran in the early and mid seventies, and these men and women had close personal relationships with their Iranian counterparts. In the higher echelons of Iranian society at least, the men and women of Iran dressed in the same style as Americans, drove American cars—smoked and drank like Americans. For an American, being given an assignment in Iran was considered a positive move in the development of his/her career.  

  

Then - President Jimmy Carter decided that Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was not moving as quickly in adopting democratic reforms in the nation of Iran as he would like, and so Carter let those in opposition to the Shah know that he (Carter) would not be averse to their sending the Shah, very ill at that time, into exile from Iran. That move paved the way for the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then in exile himself in France, to return to Iran and assume control of that nation’s government. Overnight, the government was transformed from a secular underpinning to one whose real power is in the hands of Muslim religious leaders, who preach Sharia as the law of the land.

While some would attempt to persuade you that the government of Iran is kinder and gentler than that of the earlier Ayatollahs, evidence of any such softening is in short supply. Iran became, and continues to this day to be, an importer of the philosophy of hate and of weapons to help the faithful eliminate the infidel object of that hatred. Who is an infidel? Anyone who does not pledge fealty to Allah, the Muslim god, is an infidel. By the way, were you aware that there is a tenet of the Islam religion that removes any stigma from lying to an infidel?  

That is a somewhat circuitous route to bring us to the question as to whether you think that any information coming from a wretched government like that of Iran should not be instantly rejected, discounted, disbelieved?

You would—unless your own government was led by a person or persons who themselves seem to have difficulty with the truth.

You see, each of us is given the option to lie or to tell the truth any time we speak. Unfortunately, when we make a habit of the former, we lose believability exponentially with each successive lie we tell; to the point that anyone who believes what we say, without independent verification, must be considered a fool.

That brings us to the news story about a group of people, presumably of Russian extraction, who have allegedly hacked into the machines that will be used to count votes in upcoming elections. They have supposedly only penetrated the security of a couple of states, but the potential for much greater mischief cannot be discounted.

In order to make certain that American elections are fair and just, Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson has suggested that the federal government supervise the entire election process—“to ensure the sanctity of the vote.”

The question is—do you trust the leaders of your government, with its record of obfuscation, delay and outright lying to protect its own—do you trust them to fairly and equably monitor the presidential election?

Are you at all interested in knowing in which direction Russian intervention might tip the American elections? Who would they rather see head of the American ship of state? While you are contemplating that, consider whether you think the current administration has a vested interest in the outcome of the elections in November?

Do you trust EITHER the Russians or our own government to allow the American people to elect their leaders without any outside intervention?