Monday, December 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton Did Not Win the Popular Vote, She Lost It.






If Democrats are trying to prove they are not only out of touch with reality, but are stupid on top of everything else they've been doing a good job since election day when they got their heads handed to them for a variety of reasons one of which was predicted here back in June before Democrats did their final rigging of the nomination process and handed it to Hillary Clinton.

Democrats and many of their Tea Party Left support groups who have already proven to have no credibilty by both before and after the election resorting to outright lying, are now making an issue of Hillary Clinton having "won the popular vote by more than 2 million" and are using it to both lick their wounds and even try to overturn the Constitution itself  by pressuring electors to betray their voters and elect the Democrats version of Imelda Marcos and Eva Peron. So much for the Democrats idea of democracy.

What makes it even more pathetic if not comical is that Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote, she lost it. And so too it seems, have Democrats in making that argument.

This claim of Clinton having " won the popular vote"  is based on Clinton having a 2 million - 2 1/2 million vote lead over Trump in the raw vote.

But what eludes the more highly educated Clinton supporters is that regardless of a raw vote lead over Trump, Hillary Clinton won 48% of the popular vote. That means 52% of the country voted against her, 52% of the country didnt want her as president. That isnt winning the popular vote, thats losing it. 

What is true is that despite losing the popular vote she did win 2 million+ more raw votes than Donald Trump, which equals the same 2 million vote margin of Clinton's victory in New York state which was not enough to prevent Clinton from getting scorched in the Electoral College 306-232. And there are clear reasons for that none of which has to do with Clinton's big raw vote lead in New York or California, two states Clinton was expected to win and were also the two states with the most electoral votes in the country.It was not enough.

That Clinton won the two most populous states in the country by a combined 5 million votes, and the two states with the most electoral votes and lost the electoral vote in a landslide underscores how badly she was beaten in the rest of the country and at the same time  shows the genius of the Founders in creating the Electoral College, wanting specifically to prevent a situation where a large margin of victory in one or two high population states can skew the election results for the  rest of the country in deciding the presidency. 

What is also being ignored by what amounts to a collection of Hillary cry babies, sore losers and constitutional electoral idiots is that Trump never set foot in New York or California or Massachusetts to campaign, states that traditionally go Democratic and was a foregone conclusion Clinton would win. 

As everyone including Clinton and Democrats knew, it wouldnt have mattered if Clinton won New York by 20 votes or 2 million all 29 electoral votes would go to her. And the same for California and its 55 electoral votes. Which is why Clinton, like Trump was focused on 270 electoral votes. Which Clinton failed to get losing the electoral vote in landslide numbers 232-306. As well  as losing, not winning, the national popular vote, 48%-52%.

The claim of Clintons raw vote lead over Trump, a lead which equals her margin of victory in NY alone, as having some big meaning on a national scale, also exposes an almost comical hypocrisy by Clinton and her supporters by insisting on recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA where Trump's victories in those states by 1% is considered so close,so thin,so small, it justifies state-wide recounts but Clinton's 1.3-1.7% national lead (depending on what web site you read) is portrayed as being so big that Democrats want to dump the Electoral College or pressure electors to betray their voters in the states Trump won. That, at the moment, is the Democratic party's idea of democracy.

Which shows they still dont understand the election because even after losing both the electoral college in a landslide and the national popular vote, they are advocating the disenfranchisement of the very people they needed to win and instead want to do what the Founders specifically wanted to prevent in order to fraudulently get their way -- have  one, or two or three high population states deciding the presidency on a raw vote and denying the voices of anyone else.

Donald Trump was elected president because he won the popular vote and with it, the electoral votes of many, many, more states than Hillary Clinton which accounts for his landslide win in the Electoral College 306-232  Which is exactly what the Founders intended  by requiring a president to win 270 electoral votes. Not 232.

Democrats and everyone else always knew  it's NOT the total  national raw vote that matters but electoral votes based on number of states won. And both Clinton and Trump  knew the margin of victory in NY or California or any state wouldn't make a dimes bit of difference in who won a state's electoral votes and the presidency so there was no reason to waste time and resources in states that Trump knew he would lose. Or Clinton knew she'd win. Which is why Clinton didnt waste time or resources campaigning in New York or California either( other than to raise money to spend elsewhere.)

Clinton,like Trump concentrated her efforts and money in states that were not forgone conclusions and were needed to win the presidency,the so called "battleground"states and Clinton lost every one of them.Every one. Michigan,Wisconsin,Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Which included states that traditionally went Democratic.

Clinton lost despite raising and spending $1.1 billion in campaign fundraising compared to Trump having spent $100 million. Which as a sign might bode well for what Trump may do for the economy. Clinton spent $1 billion and lost, Trump spent $100 million and won. Clinton also had 500 campaign offices around the country  expressly to win the electoral vote that Democrats now want to invalidate, Trump had 200 campaign offices. 

But Democrats like Barabara Boxer and Elizabeth Warren and their in the tank ethically challenged journalists at CNN, MSNBC, New York Times or Washington Post,try to make the intellectually and politically bankrupt argument that for all intents and purposes Clinton's 2 million vote margin of victory in New York alone is supposed to mean something nationally. It doesn't. Or means Clinton deserves to be president. She doesn't. 

No one was trying for or cared about raw vote totals most of which was concentrated in New York and California. Only the electoral vote mattered by winning as many states as possible. Leave it to Democrats to try and make an issue out of something no one, including Hillary Clinton, was trying to do. As if Wikileaks didnt expose enough Democratic party corruption. And to add to the Democrats transparent hypocrisy and loss of credibility, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 with 43% of the vote but enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency. Democrats said nothing at the time about the popular vote vs the Electoral College.

There are 5000 counties in the US. Clinton won 300,Trump 4700. Clinton was thumped in the Electoral College 232-306. A 1.3%-1.7% national lead of 2M+ votes over Trump in the raw vote which could be accounted for by a 2 million vote margin of victory in NY alone while getting thumped in the Electoral College has left Democrats grasping for straws instead of blaming themselves and Obama for his sell outs and failures which they went along with, and Clinton not only defended but promised to continue. Sell outs like the promised government run public option on health care which Obama sold out to the health insurance lobby and Pelosi and Reid went along with even though they had the votes for it to pass. That  betrayal to Democratic voters alone resulted in Democrats suffering the worst defeat of any political party in 80 years in 2010, only 2 years after winning the biggest congressional majority in 60 years.

 Proving again they are in the same denial they've been in for 8 years in defending possibly the most ineffective president the Democrats ever had and,celebrating their defeat by re-electing Pelosi as their leader in the House, the leader who has presided over Democrats losing 69 seats since 2010 and losing what was left of their majority in the senate in 2014 by urging Democratic senators to run on, not away from, Obamacare.

 So instead of facing reality and their own monumental failures, they try to lick their wounds by fraudulently claiming Clinton won the popular vote. When 52% of the country voted against her as the Democratic nominee for president. So they can't even get that right. And they wonder why they lost.

After lying,rigging,defrauding their primary and nomination process,after liars, cheaters and gutter politicians like Donna Brazile and Debby Wasserman-Schultz who were running the show were exposed by Wikileaks, after their own election fraud during the Democratic primaries and colluding with a dishonest banana republic news media like CNN, NY Times and Washington Post, some even admitting in exposed emails to being hacks, and then dirty politicking their way through the campaign, after all that proved not to be enough, now they try to resort to the fraud that 48% is "winning the popular vote".

The petty dishonesty and not so petty stupidity shown by Democrats shows they even are in denial about the old adage that when you are digging a hole for yourself the first thing you need to do to get out of it is to stop digging. So they keep digging. By re-electing Pelosi as their leader because of her fundraising ability while claiming they want to get money out of politics but in the meantime need to spend as much as possible in losing elections.

Clinton supporters insistence that winning the Electoral College alone somehow is fraudulent when its the Democrats who are being fraudulent are also motivating some of the other more highly educated Clinton voters to send death threats to electors in various states threatening to kill them if they abide by the Constitution and cast their vote according to the way their state voters intended.

Some Tea Party Left  groups like MoveOn, DFA PFAW and PCCC  with some Clinton fundraisers, instead of being honest with themselves, continue to  encourage this corrupt idea of pressuring electors to betray their state voters and use it for fundraising.  Maybe  it should have been expected since betraying a state's voters  is an idea the Democratic party used with super delegates betraying their states voters in handing Clinton the nomination. Maybe they hope electors will be just as corrupt. They wont.

What's also ironic is that even while encouraging electors to change their votes based on a dishonest popular vote claim, Clinton herself is supporting a recount in three states in the impossible hope that a recount would reverse the outcomes in those states and give her -- their electoral votes. While the popular vote crowd tries to argue that the will of the people in New York should be what decides the presidency in 2016.

With that kind of idea of democracy Democrats might consider changing their name. Either that or see if its possible to live up to the name they already have.





Saturday, November 19, 2016

Clinton,Democrats Flunk Out of the Electoral College





Ever since Trump won the election and Clinton was drubbed in the Electoral College 309-235 there's been a whiny thumb in mouth movement among the losers, circulating petitions and in the case of outgoing senator and fervent Clinton supporter Barbara Boxer, legislation that is going nowhere, to abolish the Electoral College and elect presidents by popular vote because they try to claim that if the popular vote was how presidents were elected Clinton would have won.


That argument is delusional,corrupt and dishonest the three big reasons Democrats actually lost the election and were demolished in congressional and state house elections as well.  What Democrats really need to abolish is not the Electoral College but Democratic Party corruption, failed leaders and their sewer politics of the kind we saw exposed by Wikileaks from the corrupt Donna Brazile and Debby Wasserman-Schultz to the distinctly un-democratic super delegate system, collusion with the news media, rigging Democratic primaries and election fraud. The election results gave Democrats a head start they don't seem to want to take.


Regarding the Electoral College versus the popular vote there are a number of facts and truths that expose the Democrats Big Three: dishonesty, hypocrisy and stupidity.

First,hypocrisy. When Hillary Clinton won the popular vote against Obama at the finish of the 2008 Democratic primaries though Obama had won more pledged delegates and only by a a very small margin of 65 out of 4000 delegates won, no one said a word when Obama was given the nomination. No one howled or tried to make a case for Clinton winning the popular vote against Obama or suggested changes in how Democrats nominate. Not in the Democratic party, not in the media. So the  selective whining by many Democrats now like Barbara  Boxer and Michael Moore over the popular vote when no one cared when Clinton won the popular vote over Obama in 2008 takes hypocrisy to a whole new level.

Second,they ignore that Clinton's popular vote lead is less than 1% out of 130 million votes which without the Electoral College would require a recount much of it  by hand that would go so far beyond the Constitutional requirement of when the election has to be certified it would be impossible to do,would take months and cause Constitutional chaos which would have a domino affect requiring even more wholesale changes to the Constitution like extending the presidential term beyond 4 years and January 20,changing the date of Election Day to months earlier and would change everything about the process of how we elect people for no good reason other than Democrats who rigged the nominating process to get Clinton, one of the most dishonest candidates they ever had, don't like that they lost.

 Third if anyone thinks a recount would end up with the same results we have now it's a certainty it wouldn't. A recount could just as easily give Trump the popular vote if it increased his vote totals by less than 1% and if that happened then what? Democrats insisting on another recount? The more  an intelligent person looks at it the more the Electoral College looks like genius . Maybe because the Founders were just that and  complaining Democrats can't get out of their own way and were the Gang That Couldn't Campaign Straight.

Fourth abolishing the Electoral College would do nothing less than disenfranchise every voter Democrats and Michael Moore claim to care about in all the states between the east coast and west coast and  place the election of presidents only in those states with high populations and negate the votes of everyone in every state in between. New Hampshire wouldn't matter,Iowa wouldn't matter,none of the Midwest states would matter or have any say in electing a president. Candidates wouldnt even bother to campaign in those states because there are more raw votes in NY,California and Massachusettes than all the Midwest states combined.And the Founders foresaw that and didnt want a president to be elected purely by the votes in the high population centers of New York,Philadelphia and Boston.

Also,it's a fact that Trump never campaigned in NY,California or Massachussetts or other states that were certain to go Democratic because there was no reason to waste time money or resources campaiging there. Had the popular vote mattered and had Trump put significant resources in those states he would have surely gotten more votes even if Clinton still would have gotten the most. But Trump only would have needed 3/4 of 1% more votes in NY,Mass,NJ,or California combined, where  he never campaigned and he would've won the popular vote and presidency anyway. To think Clinton would've won if it was only by  popular vote is to ignore that both campaign strategies were meant to win the 270 electoral votes needed, something Clinton failed to do and Trump accomplished and by a wide margin.To think that campaign strategies would not have been any different in trying to win the popular vote and that the results would have been exactly the same is delusional. 

Five: Clintons hairbreadth less than 1% advantage in the popular vote out of 130 million votes cast also proves the wisdom of the Electoral College. In a high population state like NY Clinton beat Trump 65-35 though again Trump never campaigned there. Clinton beat Trump by similar margins in California.  Since her overall popular vote margin was only about 3/4 of 1%, Clinton winning NY and California by many millions shows how thoroughly she was trounced in other states and lost traditional Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan to go with North Carolina and Florida, states Obama won in 2012.

 Barbara Boxer and Michael Moore and mindless petition signers would have a system where New York alone could negate all five of those states and most of the rest of the country by using only the popular vote. That flirting with fascism. Clinton's minuscule lead in the popular vote does not reflect how badly she was crushed in the majority of other states and how many more states she lost, losing the Electoral  College 309-235.

Finally ,knowing full well that the Electoral College system elects the president Hillary Clinton's entire campaign strategy  and all her resources were geared to winning the Electoral College and the 270 needed which is why she,like Trump did virtually  no campaigning in NY,Mass., and California where she felt sure of winning. 

Instead the candidates spent their time wooing voters in states that wouldn't have mattered if there was no Electoral College but did matter because of the Electoral College.States like Michigan and Ohio both of which Trump won. Clinton had 500 campaign offices throughout the country intended to help her win the electoral votes necessary. Trump had 207 offices. Clinton's campaign was built to win the 270 needed. She failed 309-235. 

As an aside, in terms of what Trump has said he can do for the country, getting more done for less money and dramatically improving the economy and employment,  its worth noting that Hillary Clinton raised and spent more than $1.1 billion and lost even with a corrupt news media shilling and lying for her. By contrast Trump spent $100 million and won.

What we're hearing now from what might be called the "uneducated Clinton supporter", about abolishing the Electoral  College because of a less than 1% lead in the popular vote when it was the Electoral College Clinton put all her resources into trying to win and couldnt so now try to claim that a system that disenfranchises more than half the country would be more "democratic" ignoring that Trump would have most assuredly gotten at least 3/4 of 1%  more votes, enough to overcome Clinton's tiny lead, is not just vintage whine but uneducated sour grapes.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

How Clinton,Democrats and the News Media Became a Threat to Democracy.





This isn't about Trump. Its about a Democratic party and a mainstream news media who have become the worst collection of dishonest, fraudulent, gutter politicians and journalists in American history and have made themselves and their fraud a threat to democracy.

The above headline and everything that went before it wasn't about facts, or truth it was about rigging a nominating process. And the same kind of fraud, dishonesty, collusion and deceit to try and affect the outcome of a presidential election is still going on, this time not against Sanders but against Trump.

This isn't about defending Trump. Its about defending democracy which Democrats and the DNC supporting Clinton and as corrupt a news media as anyone has seen, from the New York  Times, to Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and the lesser Huffington Post has proved to be a threat, trying to manipulate an election with lies, smears, and rank dishonesty more in keeping with a banana republic news media shilling for a despot. Exactly what we saw during the primaries and the blatant deceit, dishonesty, lies and rigged Democratic primary process in collusion with the DNC,Clinton campaign we saw against Bernie Sanders.

What we are seeing now against Trump is the same dishonesty, the same collusion, the same political corruption and Democratic party/Clinton collusion with the media collusion and gutter politics we saw against Sanders just using different tools and vulnerabilities to achieve the same result -- to stop Trump the same way they were intent on stopping Sanders. Because the establishment wants Hillary Clinton.

It's become a pattern. And for the same reasons. And that pattern and those reasons are a direct threat to our democracy what George Orwell warned about with news media dishonesty in 1937 and what he called "the gramophone of the mind and the record they are playing at the moment".

So forget about policy for a moment and think bigger. Like democracy itself.

If anyone thinks for one second there is an iota of civic responsibility or legitimate concerns for the country or a sliver of morality or nobility behind the leak of the 2005 video of Trump and nothing more than crude school boy adolescent braggadocio about what some women will let a celebrity do which dishonest Democrats and the news media lied into "bragging about sexual assault", or the sudden spate of women one literally coming out of the clouds to make unsubstantiated, in some cases preposterous and in other cases unprovable accusations against Trump two weeks before the election, accusations which, if true,  could have been made decades or even months ago when Trump first announced his candidacy,if anyone believes there is any real morality to any of it, stop reading and find something more useful for you to do like rake leaves.

Think its a coincidence that every day that Wikileaks dumps Clinton or DNC related emails that expose dishonesty, double dealing, duplicity and a political staff who doesnt believe her either, another woman comes from nowhere to make claims of  "sexual assault" for which there is no proof? Clinton and the news media have tried to use outright lies about "sexual assault" like Joe McCarthy used communism back in the 50's where it was hoped the allegations alone would cause enough damage.

Nothing Trump said in that 2005 video, adolescent as it was, suggested "assault". That was a political lie used for political purposes and makes the Clinton campaign and the news media and Democratic support groups like MoveOn, DFA and ThinkProgress as more a collection of predators than the person they accuse because in the case of the news media, the Clinton campaign and their support groups, their dishonesty can be proved.


In political science circles its called The Big Lie. The Big Lie is the well known political device used by dictatorial or fascist regimes around the world for decades especially the early 20th century to gain or maintain political power and tried to play into some popular belief, repeated over and over and hope enough people believe it.

When everyone connected with a campaign uses exactly the same language word for word you know its a product of political calculation and strategy and nothing else. And that was the case with "bragging about sexual assault".

Sexual assault allegations are to be taken seriously since they are a felony investigated  but not simply something to be accepted without proof. And that is what too many Democratic strategists in emails, articles and TV appearances want to promote hoping to get people to just accept the allegations. Three weeks before the election when they could have been made months or years ago reeks of tactics and political manipulation not morality.

These allegations also seem to coincide with and to distract from some of the more damaging Wikileaks email dumps which have shown Clinton and her campaign  and those in the media colluding with her as its own  kind of indecent exposure,whether about Clinton's closed door speeches,lies about her private email server and why she used it,her campaign against Bernie Sanders, media collusion or a hundred other things.

If this was about morality or someone's "unfitness" to be president based on past behavior, actual deeds not words, Clinton would be deemed the one who was unfit. Even given Trumps bull in a china shop rhetoric at times.

We've already seen proof of the Clinton campaign and the news media colluding to stop Bernie Sanders. It's not any less insidious or undermining of democracy that the Clinton campaign, Democrats and news media are trying to do to Trump what they did to Sanders.

So this isn't about Trump  its about subverting of the democratic process by Clinton, Democrats and the news media sinking to levels of dishonesty never before seen in the news media and therefore not to be trusted.Now or later. Like CNN using the word "horrific"to describe the 2005 Trump video. Thats CNN employing Orwell's "gramaphone of the mind" trying to tell you how your supposed to think and feel. Aleppo is horrific. Trumps language in the video is not that.

For the record one of JFK's aides disclosed in a book some time ago that JFK told Prime Minister Harold Macmillan at a dinner, " if I don't get some new pussy every 4 days I get a headache". Some versions of the quote use "piece of ass" and some sanitize  it completely by saying "woman".Decide for yourself what you think is true. 

And lest anyone forget during the 1992 Democratic primary campaign, an Arkansas woman named Jennifer Flowers claimed she had a regular affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor. Bill  denied it, said Flowers was lying. Flowers then made public a recorded phone conversation where Bill can be heard lauding her particular sexual prowess telling her she "could suck a golf ball through a garden hose".

 That led to the "60 Minutes" interview which was later called Hillary's "Stand by her man" interview in which Hillary defended Bill and said every marriage has its ups and downs. Bill finished 2nd in the New Hampshire primary and the news media dubbed him "the comeback kid".

And what about Hillary Clinton laughing at a rally when Madeline Albright said "there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton". Thats not horrific?

There is no doubt there has been clear backdoor collusion between the largest mainstream news outlets like CNN, the Times and Washington Post, first take to down Bernie Sanders and now Trump. The question is why?  What could both Sanders and Trump, two men so completely different have in common that would unite the mainstream media, most of them owned by conglomerates, to aid and abet a clearly well documented dishonest candidate in Hillary Clinton?

There is a reason. And it's about what Sanders and Trump have in common.

Sanders ran on a "rigged system and rigged economy" that resulted in the income inequality and doing something about it was the cornerstone of his campaign. Sanders campaigned on big changes in healthcare pushing for universal healthcare, the way American corporations did business, closing off shore tax loopholes and increasing corporate taxes to pay for things like free college and healthcare. Chuck Schumer the no. 2 Democrat in the senate announced Democrats are going to push for a big corporate tax cut.

Trump he wants to impose a 30% tariff on all goods made by American companies overseas for cheap labor. The idea is to keep jobs from leaving by making it more expensive to leave than to pay higher wages to American workers. Both men oppose the TPP which Clinton called "the gold standard" and we know from leaked excerpts from her speeches she believes in "open borders and open trade" meaning no trade restrictions and contrary to everything she says publicly has told Wall Street she thinks they should be allowed to police themselves. 

Both Sanders or Trump would shake the status quo to its core,turn it upside down and make big changes that would cost tens of billions in corporate profits by overhauling the "rigged system" and rigged economy both talked about. 

Hillary Clinton is all about the status quo and preserving it especially since she has benefitted  from the status quo and its where most of her political contributions come from.

But the most important common denominator with Sanders and Trump, the one that would be the biggest threat to preserving the status quo and the one that those supporting Clinton financially and the news media is this: Sanders and Trump can't be bought. Sanders because of his integrity, Trump because of his money. .Clinton can, has and will be bought and there is little doubt that is behind ,her destruction of 33,000 emails under subpoena because she was clearly willing to deal with the consequences of that rather than the consequences of what those emails would have exposed. You dont use Bleachbit to eradicate 33,000 emails about wedding plans and yoga.

For corporate America the candidate who plays the game, someone they can control  in return for political power, the candidate against whom they know they could blow the whistle at any time if she didn't play ball, Clinton is the only choice. The choice of the very people Bernie Sanders and Trump have said rigged the system. And Clinton is the candidate they can count on to keep the system the way it is. In other countries it's called a puppet government.

In 2008 David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager wrote in an intra-campaign memo that was never intended to be made public:

"Clinton is driven by political calculation not conviction regularly shifting positions for political expediency". 

"Clinton's prescription is old politics and political power ahead of principle".

More by Axelrod:

"Clinton has never embraced reforms and opposes many that would scale back the powers of powerful special interests".

"Hillary is the problem not the answer".

"Clinton's submission to powerful interests shuts out the voices of average Americans".

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck its a duck. Unless its a decoy which has also been used by Clinton, establishment Democrats and and the news media for their own purposes. And it's a duck that will keep on quacking until or unless the American people see through it and decide they've had enough which will defeat Clinton and force a corrupt mainstream news media and the politicians they collude with to finally shut the duck up.

ADDENDUM: On November 8, three weeks after the above was written, enough people went to the polls and told a corrupt Clinton campaign, Democrats in the DNC, their supporters and a thoroughly corrupt colluding news media to shut the duck up.



Saturday, September 17, 2016

Penn State Honoring Joe Paterno Is a Reminder of the Dishonor of Everyone Else.




Penn State is going to honor Joe Paterno on Sept 17  commemorating the first game Paterno ever won as Penn State head coach and his career as the winningest coach in the history of college football. He is also scheduled, in October, to be inducted into the Pennsylvania sports Hall of Fame.


But after all the lies told about Paterno, all the media dishonesty,the cowardice and deceit of the Penn State Board of Trustees who fired him because they didn't have the guts or integrity to stand up to a corrupt and dishonest news media, highlighted by Penn State Trustee and former governor of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett who when running for re-election made a too little too late admission that Paterno never should have been fired in the first place, after all the blatant lies and smears designed to appeal to the double digit IQ mob, that Penn State is now going to honor Joe Paterno without first calling a press conference to publicly apologize for all their own cowardice, dishonesty, hypocrisy, incompetence and behavior and act like it never happened is one more disgrace.

They didn't call that press conference or issue a statement apologizing for their crass dishonesty and cowardice at the time because they didn't want to face the cameras or the music. They didn't want to stand there and admit they made a horrendous mistake and discarded every principle of idealism and integrity a university is supposed to stand for,instead caving in to smear merchants like Louis Freeh, hired by certain members of the Board of Trustees to do just what he did --  smear Paterno with a report so absurd, inaccurate and full of intentional untruths only a journalist could believe them.And the remaining idiots in this country who still believe anything journalists write.

The Freeh Report was so corrupt it was anonymously disowned by one of Freeh's own investigators but typically the news media virtually ignored it knowing how badly it would damage their already damaged credibility. Either that or expose their reading comprehension as something on the level of a 3rd grader.

In many ways its as if Penn State is still doing PR wanting to pretend the whole dishonest sordid mud slinging witch hunting smear tactic mess committed by people with no integrity themselves against a man whose integrity was and still is unquestioned, never happened. Except that it did. As was reported here from the beginning.

The NCAA and Mark Emmert have already been exposed as a fraud,some of their internal emails made public as a result of discovery in a law suit filed by the Paterno family that proved it was all about bandwagon jumping PR for the NCAA, as it was for all of the hack journalists trying to pretend they were being noble. The emails showed the NCAA themselves knew  they had no jurisdiction to impose any of the sanctions they did and didn't even believe the allegations against Paterno themselves but saw it as an opportunity to look good and felt they could get away with it.

So before any more of the emails could be made public the NCAA caved in and settled out of court restoring the 111 wins to Paterno's record they tried to steal and made a series of other agreements rescinding almost all their sanctions though there is no undoing the damage they did to the football program, though that is the least of it.

It was also an admission that the NCAA along with most of the mass media were more interested in grandstanding and their own self serving interests at Paterno's expense, than anything resembling the truth.Which is exactly how a mob behaves.

Like Sean Gregory at Time magazine who outright lied in his first article about Paterno and the McQueary suspicions because he was too lazy, too dishonest too lacking in integrity or competence to find out the truth first so instead made things up out of his own head, falsehoods that were so outrageous and blatant that within days of it being written here that he had opened himself and Time Warner up to an open and shut case of libel by Paterno the  blatant falsehoods were scrubbed from the story no doubt at the insistence of Time Warner lawyers because at that point it was about money and millions in an out of court settlement, not a man's reputation. So it was the lawyers who scrubbed it rather than Time editors who allowed the story to be published without vetting or any corroboration.

 Gregory had written that Joe Paterno sat in his office and did nothing while he knew a 10 year old boy was being raped in the Penn State showers by Sandusky only a few feet away. That was Time magazine. Obviously not a word was true. Gregory made it up out of his own head and incompetent surmising without lifting a finger to find out what was true. And neither Sean Gregory nor his editors cared. Only the lawyers did when it became a matter of money. That was the level of journalism being practiced by a major media outlet (and still is by most of them).  But it was enough to get the self righteous bandwagon rolling. And that was just the beginning.

Joining the mindless media mob was almost everyone at ESPN, like Keith Olbermann, Jay Bilas, Jonette Howard and Jemele Hill, and almost every other sports and mainstream media outlet who in their own way were and are no better than Jerry Sandusky himself,  a group of  opportunistic journalistic  predators who without any conscience molested and abused the truth and a man's reputation for their own self serving grandstanding purposes not caring who they hurt in the process as long as they got what they wanted. Just like Sandusky himself.

And of course there was Louis Freeh who as FBI director smeared Richard Jewel as the  1996 Atlanta Olympic bomber without a shred of evidence to get the heat off himself because they had no leads in the highest profile criminal case in the world at the time. The Freeh Report was, to anyone with a high school reading level nothing but trash without a shred of evidence -- not a shred -- to support the conclusions designed to indict Paterno and the idiots in the news media ate it up. Even after former Attorney General Dick Thornberg and a former FBI agent tried to do a "see Dick run" with the media tearing the report to pieces factually, the media ignored it because to admit it would be to admit things about themselves not Paterno, none of them wanted to face. And still don't. 

But it was the throughly and easily discredited Freeh Report,so obviously an intended hatchet job that Freeh refused requests by Paterno himself to be interviewed for the report, that the media used to justify their attacks. 

That Freeh did an "investigation" and refused to interview or even take a statement from those at the center of it all, Paterno, Curly, Schultz and Spanier, should have in the minds of any rational human being, discredited the report before it was even released. But notfor our intrepid, crusading pillars of nobility and truth known as journalists. 

Why did Freeh refuse to interview Paterno for his report? Because every prosecutor or defense lawyer knows you never call a witness who is liable to say things or present facts or evidence you dont want public and that would scuttle your case. And Freeh at the direction of those members of the Board of Trustees who hired him, acted like a corrupt prosecutor (which is what Bloomberg Businessweek accused him of being in 2000 as FBI Director demanding his resignation) not an objective investigator. And that's why Freeh never interviewed Paterno, McQueary, Curly or Schultz. The last thing he wanted was the truth. Just like the news media.

Also ignored by the media to this day is that the much publicized indictments at the time of Gary Schultz, former overseer of Penn State Campus police to whom Paterno first reported McQueary's suspicion which as it turned out, was unfounded,Tim Curley former Penn State AD, and Graham Spanier, Penn State president have all been dropped. The Pennsylvania Attorney General who started the cases which were all PR and no truth to begin with  is long gone and the AG who replaced her has just resigned before she was to be impeached for corruption. There was no trial against Spanier, Curley and Schultz because there was no case to begin with. That fact is being buried by the same media that tried at one time to bury them along with Paterno and Penn State over an abuse that never took place. 

It remains a fact that given  a specious, vague and unproven suspicion of possible child abuse in a Penn State shower which, for all that Jerry Sandusky was eventually convicted of through his charity Second Mile, was the one thing proved to have never happened, Joe Paterno did more within 24 hours of being told about an unfounded vague suspicion of child abuse by reporting it to his superiors including Penn State police than every priest, bishop, cardinal, or Pope in the Catholic church has in the last 1700 years. 

A topic our crusading news media would still rather ignore and do, like the admission by the archbishop of Australia in his recent testimony before their Parliament investigating church abuse, that child sexual abuse at the hands of the church has been going on worldwide for centuries (his word) and the number of children molested and abused by priests and others in the church is in the millions. That testimony never made it to any news outlet in the U.S. though widely reported by the BBC and other outlets in Europe and Australia.

Its called U.S. media cowardice and fear because for them it's about what they think will sell and what won't. Paterno sold. So they sold out.

By contrast, the news media never reported on the documents made public by court order from both the Milwaukee and Los Angeles archdioceses detailing specific (and horrific) incidents of church sexual abuse of children in great details that numbered in the tens of thousands over the last 6 decades and covered up by the church (approximately 8,000 in Milwaukee and 40,000 in Los Angeles). Yet for 3 straight weeks in November of 2011, Joe Paterno (not even Sandusky) was the biggest media story in the country. A media group that tracks these things reported that Paterno's name and picture were used at a ratio of 20-1 compared to Sandusky. And it was Sandusky who was the abuser. 

For the media it was all about self-serving grandstanding and increased revenue in attracting a larger audience and that meant Paterno's name, stature and accomplishment, not Sandusky's.

Joe Paterno deserves his day of recognition. What he didn't deserve was the self serving cash register ringing unfounded attacks by an unprincipled dishonest news media looking to cash in on his accomplishments and reputation and equally dishonest collection of pandering Penn State officials and politicians, some of the pariahs gone and some still with us as is apparent during this election season. 

Honoring Paterno at Penn State and the restoring of his 111 wins dishonestly taken in the first place is the beginning of an attempt to start to return to Paterno some of his due including his reputation smeared by a media mob without a shred of integrity. But while Paterno is starting to get back some of his due,it's still worth remembering there are a lot of devils out there who still need to get theirs.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Why Bush and Rice Were Never Held Accountable for the 911 Attack.




What the 911 Commission hearings revealed was that the September 11, 2001 attacks was nothing less than a result of the worst case of gross,even criminal negligence,ineptitude and incompetence by a president and his national security advisor regarding national security in the history of the United States.


But unless you watched every minute of the 9/11 commission hearings or read the report you'd never know it. You also wouldn't know that the September 11 attacks which changed the course of history could have easily been prevented. You wouldn't know it because to this day neither the mainstream news media nor our politicians have the courage or integrity to admit it and say so,each for their own reasons.

Instead they created the journalistic legacy that exists to this day of burying the truth along with their heads,turning their backs, looking the other way and promoting lies and propaganda to avoid conflict with people in power and  some in the public unless they think it's safe to do otherwise. And so with 911 they constantly repeated as if it were fact the White House myth and cover story that it was an intelligence failure on the part of the intelligence agencies that resulted in 911 and that there was nothing Bush or Rice could've done. 

The intelligence failure took place in the Oval Office not with the intelligence agencies who could not have done more or better. The lie that it was a failure of the intelligence agencies that resulted in the 911 attacks was also used by the NSA and its defenders in congress as an excuse  to justify the illegal collecting of information exposed by Snowden claiming that if they had those capabilities in 2001 it would've prevented the attacks. It was a lie.

George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice had so much actionable intelligence given to them which would have prevented 911 there was not a cabdriver in New York City who, with the same intelligence could not have stopped the 911 attack in its tracks. It wasn't just preventable. It was easily preventable.And Bush and Rice had all the intelligence information they needed. They just ignored it.

For eight months leading up to the attack George W Bush and Condoleezza Rice were told repeatedly by Richard Clarke the White House anti-terrorism czar for four presidents and CIA director George Tenant that intercepts of Al-Qaeda chatter indicated the United States was going to be hit with a "spectacular" terrorist attack within the United States. And in July and August of 2001 were told that the intercepts indicated the attack was "imminent".Bush,Rice and others in his administration as per Bush administration policy,ignored it.

Many months before as president elect George W. Bush, at his intelligence briefings at Blair house before taking office was told by the FBI and CIA that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were the single biggest threats to US national security in the world. In private meetings during the transition with both Bill Clinton and his national security adviser Sandy Berger, Bush and Rice were told again that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were the biggest threat to US national security in the world. And to make the point even further Berger told Bush and Rice that the threat of Al Qaeda was so great he predicted the Bush administration would be dealing with Al Qaeda and terrorism more than any other issue throughout his entire presidency.

Bush and Rice dismissed the warnings. They were convinced they were overblown. Al Qaeda specifically and terrorism in general were dismissed as a major threat.

Instead Bush made the number one national security priority getting out of the ABM treaty with Russia and considered the biggest threat to national security to be China. Terrorism was a minor issue. As a result Richard Clarke who had been the anti-terrorism chief for four presidents and held a cabinet level position in the Clinton administration was demoted by Bush to a  subcabinet level position with no direct access to the president. 

Bush also did away with the Meeting of the Principals, a meeting that took place daily during the Clinton administration in which Clark chaired a meeting with the heads of every government agency that had anything to do with terrorism including the Attorney General,CIA director,FBI Director, head of ATF, Immigration and any other government agency related to terrorism. The purpose of the meeting was for the head of each agency to share any intelligence related to terrorism they had recieved within the previous 24 hours with the other  agencies. One of the major failings of the Bush administration according to the 911 Commission was the lack of sharing of terrorist information between agencies.

Unfortunately as the commission uncovered, even if there had been intelligence sharing it wouldn't have mattered. Because that failure was nothing compared to what was going to happen in the summer of 2001 right up to one month before the 911 attacks. 

In July 2001 CIA intercepts of Al-Queda chatter were so alarming that George Tenant felt he had to have an emergency meeting with Condoleezza Rice and showed up at the White House virtually unannounced such was the urgency Tenant felt. The purpose of his visit was to discuss a possible imminent terrorist attack against the United States. Rice refused to see him. She not only refused to see him but took the threat of terrorism so lightly that she testified to the 911 Commission that she didn't even remember Tenant requesting a meeting. The White House logs prove otherwise.

In August 2001 CIA intercepts grew more frequent and more alarming. One of the CIA intercepts of an Al Qaeda message translated to "the match has been lit". Other intercepts indicated that the United States was about to be hit with a massive terrorist attack in the United States that in the words of the CIA translator was going to be "spectacular".

Richard Clark testified that in August of 2001 he and George Tenant were "running around the White House like men with their hair on fire" trying to get Rice to do something. George W. Bush had gone on vacation to Crawford and refused to see them. Rice refused to intercede or do anything on her own. 

This was the result of official Bush administration policy that terrorism was not a major threat overblown and exaggerated by the Clinton administration. This dismissal was so complete that the assistant director of the FBI testified to the 911 Commission that when he went to see attorney general John Ashcroft in July to inform him about intelligence regarding a terrorist attack within the United States Ashcroft told him "don't ever come into my office with anything related to terrorism again".

In the summer of 2001 the suspicious owner of an Arizona flying school called the FBI office in Phoenix. He was suspicious because two Middle Eastern men had shown up at the school wanting to learn how to fly jumbo jets. What made the owner suspicious was that neither one of them wanted to learn how to take off or land. Only to fly. The owner called the Phoenix office of the FBI who forwarded a report to FBI headquarters. Louis Freeh then director of the FBI did nothing. In keeping with Bush administration policy that relegated terrorism to a low priority the information provided by the flight school owner in Arizona was relegated to "routine".One of those men at the Phoenix flying school was Mohammed Atta.

Some months before Minneapolis FBI agent Colleen Rowley had arrested Zaccariah Moussai who would come to be known as the 12th hijacker. Except he never got on a plane because he had been arrested by Rowley and her agents.

Like Phoenix, Rowley had been alerted by the owner of a Minneapolis flight school who called the FBI when Moussaui showed up wanting to learn how to fly jumbo jets but didn't want to learn how to take off or land. Rowley acted on her own, arrested Moussaui and confiscated his computer.

It was information gleaned from Moussaui's computer that was included in the now infamous August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing given to both president Bush and Condoleezza Rice.

That intelligence briefing had enough information to have stopped 9/11 in its tracks had Bush acted . It told him not only was bin Laden determined to attack within the United States,which re-enforced what Bush and Rice had already been told by Tenant and Clarke, it also told them Al-Qaeda cells were already in the U.S., and that they had been seen putting buildings in New York City under surveillance. But the most stunning revelation was that Bush and Rice were told on Aug 6 2001 that the means of the terrorist attack was going to involve the hijacking of US airliners.

Bush and Rice did nothing.Nothing.

The hijackers who showed up at each airport were all Middle Eastern men in their 20s and 30s, all bought one way tickets to the West Coast, none had reservations so had to pay top dollar for a first class ticket which was $2500, all paid cash and none had any luggage. What do you think would've happened had Bush did nothing more than order the FAA to put out a top priority security bulletin to all US airlines and airports warning of the possibility of hijacking by Middle Eastern men and to report any suspicious activity? None of those hijackers would've ever gotten on those planes. They would've been reported by the ticket agents alone.  Middle eastern men buying one way tickets to LA and San Francisco? No one with reservations? All buying first class tickets that cost $2500 each? All paying in cash? No one with any luggage?  The attack would have been stopped right then and there.

Agent Rowley's scathing 13 page post 911 letter to then new FBI Director Robert Mueller is one of the most devastating indictments of the Bush administration and its policies of lackadaisical disinterest and gross negligence and incompetence regarding terrorism and their gross failures of policy which affected FBI investigations ever written. Agent Rowley also accused Mueller of covering up for Bush for "political reasons" in supporting Bush's false assertions that nothing could have stopped the attack.

When Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 commission and was asked by commission council incredulously how she and Bush could have possibly ignored intelligence reports of an imminent terrorist attack that would specifically involve the hijacking of US airliners and still do nothing her answer was so incredulous that it was in itself an indictment of her, the entire Bush administration,it's gross failures and the cowardice of the news media and politicians,both Democrat and Republican in not demanding the resignations of both Bush and Rice. Or at the very least holding them accountable for the attack.

Rice's explanation for why they didn't act was, "we had no idea they were going to use the planes as missiles". 

Meaning that hijacking US airliners and holding possibly 1000 or more American passengers hostage would've been OK?

Ironically the only news organization that was stunned by the revelation and considered it the bombshell and smoking gun that it was and gave it the significance it deserved was the Rupert Murdoch owned,Republican and conservative leaning NY Post that blasted it on their front page with white type against a black background. 

Rice's bizarre,damning and incriminating testimony ended with her most memorable and what should have been her most damning and incriminating statement: when asked by an even more incredulous commission council how it was possible that with all of the actionable intelligence she and President Bush had been given which would have prevented the 9/11 attacks they didn't act, Rice replied: "we couldn't connect the dots".

No statement could have been more revealing of the gross incompetence and negligence of both Rice and Bush. Which might explain why the news media and politicians adopted it as their own phrase of choice using it to this day but still not comprehending it's meaning 

Rice is an extremely intelligent woman, an ivory tower academic from Stanford with a sophisticated vocabulary. She could have chosen any number of words or ways to answer the question. The words she chose were illustrative, true, telling and definitive. Connecting the dots is a child's game. There are a number of dots on a page each numbered consecutively and all you have to do is draw line from one to the other in consecutive order and you get to see the whole picture. Rice admitted neither she nor Bush were able to do what a child could do.Because they never cared enough or took it seriously.

It is still fitting that one of the most revealing and definitive statements defining ineptitude and incompetence was adopted by journalists and politicians as their own and phrase of choice becoming a media and political cliché to excuse or justify almost any kind of failure without understanding what it really meant: inexcusable negligence and incompetence.

Which is why Bush and Rice to this day have never been held accountable for their gross failures that allowed the 9/11 attack happen. They were never held accountable because of the sheer cowardice of the news media and Democrats who were afraid of Republican attacks on their patriotism for attacking a sitting president in time of war, and Republicans themselves who wanted to duck responsibility for what happened because of a Republican administration and what the consequences could be in the voting booth. They were prepared to attack Democrats for "politicizing" the attacks to defend themselves as if Bush's monumental failure and its consequences wasn't a legitimate target. Had it been a Democratic president there is little doubt that with the same set of facts Republicans would've been screaming "impeachment". At the very least holding Bush accountable would've been used to defeat the president in 2004.

But this isn't just about assigning blame where it belongs or finger pointing. It's about pointing out that the gross failures of the news media and politicians to tell the truth has serious consequences. One of those consequences post 911 was Iraq.

Had Bush and Rice and the Bush administration been held accountable for their massive failures of judgment and negligence with regards to 9/11 instead of blaming it on the intelligence agencies as the facts and Rowley's letter revealed, Bush never would've had the political capitol to invade Iraq. And even if Bush had not been forced to resign in 2002 he surely would have lost the 2004 election instead of the incredulous political incompetence of John Kerry and the Democrats in being afraid to even bring up the failures of Bush and Rice which had been by exposed by then.

Telling the truth would have changed history. But as the axiom goes the first casualty of war is truth and that was just as true for the war on terrorism.

The legacy of that day is not just the war on terror or remembering those who lost their lives. It's also a legacy of  cowardice and lack of integrity by journalists and politicians afraid to tell the truth whatever the truth is instead of the journalistic desire to curry favor with those in power and their fear of backlash in standing up to it or fear of public opinion.Or deciding what people should or should not know.That legacy includes aiding politicians who duck or make excuses rather than be honest depending on what journalists feel safe doing. And as we have seen this election year, and in all previous years since 9/11, like terrorism, that still exists.