lemme see. hilary's campaign has been hacked. the dnc's computers have been hacked. and, hilary had a computer at home w/ homemade security "protections." (no doubt engineered by a russian contractor.)
any of you giant intellects out there who are still protecting hilary from her breach of security (it's not just another misdeed like money laundering) rules in having top secret documents at home on her home computer, with no security protection whatsoever, beginning to get the picture?
accusing trump of treason? why has not one person in this country accused hilary clinton of treason for having top secret, and ultra top secret documents on a home computer. she was, after all, secretary of state, and responsible for that information. by law, the u.s. code. by the agency rules of the state department. and surely, bureaucrats must still be governed by a modicum of good sense, i would think.
when she breached these rules, did she give no consideration that there might be some pretty good reasons for them?
have any of you idiots who protect her given any thought as to what the information in the documents she received on her home computer, and then distributed to others on her private mailing list from that home computer, meant, and any thought to the likelihood that her computers were capable of being hacked and were hacked by, ... , well, a short list of the countries reasonably likely to have wondered just what she was up to, to include, ... , china, russia, britain, israel, germany, france, india, pakistan, canada, and any number of other countries in the world who have considerable computer talent. mexico, brazil, argentian, ... , well, the list goes on.
julian assange, for instance.
she was, and is, in essence an intelligence sieve. and though donald trump may very well have been taking a little sport with her, it is abundantly clear that if you want to find out what hilary has been up to, legally and illegally, there is no one better to ask about it than the russians. or, the chinese. or, the israeli's.
the extent of her stupidity in all of this, and yes, her utter gall and arrogance, is almost beyond comprehension. as is the damage she has done to the american intelligence services.
treason? you talk of treason for trump making a clever remark? how about the treason of a public official who lent access to top secret document.
in an article posted on july 22, 2016 at time's web magazine, authored by maya rhodan (@ m_rhodan), president barack obama was at some pains to explain why he is the most cynical gun grabber in the history of the republic. he also explained at length why there is absolutely no underlying public health and safety reason to justify "gun control," leaving the only possible basis for it a rather cynical attempt to disarm his political opponents.
he may not have intended to do just that, as he was attacking donald trump's "doom and gloom" assessment of the nation at the republican national convention and trying to point out how successful his administration has been, but, he did just that. he proved that there is no basis in fact nor in our recent history to justify interfering with our rights to possess and use firearms.
said obama:
“this idea that america is somehow on the verge of collapse. this vision of violence and chaos everywhere doesn’t really jibe with the experience of most people,” obama said during a joint news conference with mexican president enrique pena nieto. “i think it is important just to be absolutely clear here that some of the fears that were expressed throughout the week just don’t jibe with the facts.”
from crime to immigration, obama said, trump and various other speakers at the republican convention embellished the facts in their depictions of widespread death and a flood of migrants coming across american borders. violent crime rates, obama said, have been lower during his presidency than at any point during the past four decades, despite an uptick in murders in some major cities. obama noted the recent violent tragedies americans have lived through—from orlando and minnesota to dallas and baton rogue—but said that as a whole, america is far less violent than it was a few decades ago."
.....
“but we’re not going to make good decisions [presumably on issues such as 'crime'] based on fears that don’t have a basis in fact. that is something i hope that all americans pay attention to.”
http://time.com/4419346/barack-obama-donald-trump-republican-convention/ . in the "politics/whitehouse" section.
there you have it. according to the great gun grabber himself, crime is lower than it has been at any time in the past four decades in the united states of america. amazingly enough, though obama is usually pretty fast and loose on most things, he has hit the nail squarely on its head: this is an accurate assessment, back by all relevant f.b.i. crime statistics. america is far less violent than in years past.
and, if you take away the statistics based on black and hispanic demographics in five or six of our most violent cities, all w/ majority black populations and all run by black politicians, the united states has one of the lowest crime rates in the whole world.
in short, there is no reason in the social history of america in the last 40 years to justify "gun control," .... , there is no uptick in homicide, and violent crime such as criminal assault is very low in this country, outside of certain demographics: to be specific about it, the only gun and crime problem in this country exists in the black community w/ black males aged 15 to 30 or so, and a smattering of younger boys. that's a fact, jack.
this exposes obama and minions for the cynical demagogue that he is, trying to exploit a problem largely the issue of america's black society and america's black cities, for his own political gain. and, to disarm his political opponents.
he sort of let the cat out of the bag on this one. and, i suspect that it will be amusing in one way to watch him try to disavow the plain import of what he said, and tragedy in another, as he renews his efforts to take our guns, and destroy our liberties and freedoms.
gun owners like long barreled weapons, so the derisive jibe from anti-gunners goes, in order to compensate for short penises. not capable of any cogent legal or ethical arguments against the inherent right to defend ones self, they resort to personal insult and derision to attack those who own firearms.
it is at once, both irritating and comical. i guess if that's all they've got, that's all they've got.
but, it has got me to thinking, and i have often wondered how it is that left anti-gunners are so familiar, so intimately knowledgeable, about the size of other male's cocks.
have you likewise ever wonder why some of these people seem so intimately familiar w/ the size of gun owner’s cocks?
my guess is that they are intimately familiar w/ the size of the male cock, specifically other male's cocks, because they are intimately familiar w/ cocks, having had a fair number of them right in their faces.
just my guess.
so, if anyone truly knows about these matters, it is probably those persons, male and female, who have a lot of direct experience in such things, and who have seen a lot of cocks up close and personally, as the saying goes. after all, as obama says and recommends, they've probably had their faces in the issue for a long time.
i suppose anti-gunners, democrats, leftists, liberal, "fellow travelers," and bolsheviks, mensheviks, trotsky-ites and syndicalists, and the editorial staff of the southern poverty law center ought to be expected to know about such matters, having studied such things, had their faces in it, personally, most of their lives.
john jay @ 07.18.2016
p.s. and, for those women who are somehow offended by "small cocks," (ignoring the statistical facts of the matter, e.g., that there isn't much significant deviation), i have a word of advice.
"squeeze." contract that commodious vagina, if you must. and, if you can.
the concern for "black lives matter" seems to be the number of gun homicides suffered by the black community, and the number of serious assaults inflicted upon blacks.
since 93% of the gun homicides suffered by the black community are inflicted upon them by their fellow blacks, and since serious assaults suffered by blacks follow a similar pattern, i have a modest proposal.
(it is made in the factual context that whites don't commit much gun crime by comparison, either by homicides or serious assault.) (you can look it up, it's all in the f.b.i. crime statistics.)
let's take all the guns away from blacks in the united states, since they commit most of the gun crime, and leave gun ownership in the white community intact, since whites, by statistical comparison, commit very little gun crime.
blacks don't like suffering gun crime, and gun homicides? fine, let us take the guns away from the black who are committing all the crime upon their fellow blacks, and leave the guns in the hands of whites who are in general law abiding.
as a matter of fact, take five or six of the cities in the united states that have majority black urban population and who suffer "political leadership" that is black controlled, and the united states ranks very low in gun crime in the world, especially homicide.
so, let's protect the blacks from those who prey on them, (that being other blacks), and take guns away from all blacks.
john jay @ 07.11.2016
p.s. as you might have guessed, i am white, gun owning, and law abiding. to this point, anyway. who knows what the future portends.
if you don't like what i have said, screw you and the horse you rode in on. but the facts i allege are true, and they are proved by statistical analysis compiled by government agencies. if you don't believe me, look it up, if you are able.
for me, it comes down to this, and it is just this simple.-- i will not suffer the loss of my guns because blacks cannot govern their criminal behavior. if you don't like that, to hell with you.
update. 07.17.2016. 6 more police officers shot in baton rogue, louisianan, 3 of whom are dead and a fourth in critical condition as i type this. one assailant is dead, and two others presumed involved are at large. sad to say, but in all likelihood, the shooters will have been/are to be black.
i will repeat. i will not surrender my weapons under any circumstance, and certainly not for the misconduct of black miscreants. end update.
after inciting the violence by blacks, the obama administration now piously opines "that violence is not the answer." this of course, after leftists "critics," journalists and the obama administration telling blacks that violence directed to the black community is institutionally inspired and endemic among white police officers, and after abetting and supporting the "black lives matter" movement.
so, again, we have loretta lynch and others saying "violence is not the answer" after supplying the rhetoric that supports it.
all of this oil being cast upon troubled waters is, in essence, asking that the procedures and structures of the law be respected, and that the institutional responses to such acts must be allowed to play out, in their search for truth and resolution.
let me ask respectfully. how can citizens wait for the processes of the law to find and impose justice, in the wake of the f.b.i. and depart of "justice" white washing of the crimes of hilary clinton? we have seen in the f.b.i. and justice department the most venal & corrupt cooperation with power brokers and the influential in a long time. an f.b.i. report that establishes, in fact, beyond peradventure that hilary clinto violated the law, and then the most craven "interpretation" of those facts to posture that "under the law" no misconduct can be proved.
we have seen, in my home state of oregon, that the criminal homicide of lavoy finicum by the joint action of the f.b.i. and oregon state police swat teams is "justified" by the opinion of the oregon state governor, in effect honoring a federal program of land grabbing in and around the malheur national wildlife refuge.
the fact is, the law is corruptly enforced, and "adherence" to the "law" is as corrupt and self serving as it has ever been in this country. the fact is, simply put, that officers of the law and bureaucrats and administers of government programs cannot be trusted to enforce it honestly and with integrity.
i don't trust the law.
and, this after being a lawyer for 25 years, a good deal of it as a prosecuting attorney. the law, is "honored" as much in its breach as its observance, in this day and age.
so, if i do not trust the law to be fairly administered, and its processes followed to obtain just and equitable results, then how can i demand that others follow it, and wait patiently for wrongs, real or imagined, to be fairly and impartially addressed.
i suppose the short answer is, i cannot. and, i am preciously & precariously close to saying that i will not. so, i will be the last to categorically condemn the shooting of police by a "black lives matter" zealot.
the fact is, "black lives matter" is a movement cynically advanced by the left for political reasons, and absolutely for no concern over "black lives." obama, jessie jackson, obama, the leftist media, university communists and radicals, all are behind "black lives matter," and all use it to manipulate the black community and support black community activists, with a partisan political agenda in mind.
let me be so bold as to say that most "black lives matter" proponents don't give a shit about black lives. if they did, they would be acting within their own communities to stop black homicides, which are inflicted almost 90% by blacks against blacks.
but, individuals like the man who shot the dallas police officers do not understand that they are being cynically manipulated by the race baiters, and believe that blacks are being unfairly treated by whites, and the white establishment.
and, they do not believe that the laws and institutions in the united states treat blacks fairly, and they believe that they are being "exterminated" by the police and by whites. and, they do not trust the law. nor do they trust that it will be advanced and administered fairly and to their advantage when such is fair & equitable.
so, there you have it.
a lot of blacks do not believe that the law can be fairly administered in their interests.
a lot of whites do not believe that the law can be fairly administered in their interests, and that it is being administered to the advantage of minorities, and the leftist loonies of the environmental and climate religions, and that government cops kill whites to advance these policies.
just who stands for the government of this country, and who believes that the government is fair, and honest, and free from corrupt and violent tendencies?
beats the hell out of me.
i see no good coming from this situation, and only continuing and escalating violence.
and, as for myself, if my rights and privileges continue to be trampled upon, and i see violence as the only way to address this and protect my heritage, then, ... , who knows. if i were the privileged elite that "governs" this country, i would be extremely careful about all of this.
the russians are pushing in the balkans, given the absence of an actual president of the united states. and, blacks are ambushing cops and pressing for race war, given the absence of an actual president of the united states.
old chinese curse. "may you live in interesting times." all this interesting enough for you? just asking.
my friend carolyn sent me a very thoughtful letter about the mess w/ hilary. she thinks that hilary and the devil made a hash out of this thing w/ the emails, and the fbi, and loretta lynch by letting hilary walk free. "c," as i call her, notes that by so doing they really have done nothing more than emphasizing that the fix is in, and they should have arranged for hilary to do a "mia culpa" on an easy ride, and let her apologize all over herself in contriteness and genuine sorrow.
i don't take credit for this, the first time i saw this suggested by anyone is by "c."
and, i agree with her. hilary had a real chance to demonstrate with the appropriate histrionics that she is, after all, a human being. and, a human being with a conscience, and a sense of right and wrong.
and, then, "c's" letter got me to thinking. (a dangerous thing.) i got to wondering, just how did hilary manage to skate out of all this (in a legal sense), when she is guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty (in a legal sense.) i mean, the fbi investigation confirmed that, and demonstrated it, and said so in effect when they decided to announce that they were letting her skate.
the only thing i can think of, is that hilary has the 8x10 glossies on people in high places, she's got the pics, and the only person i can think of who could let her walk is obama.
this is my reply to "c."
"c:
i don't think you are too far from the center of things. (hilary making a major blunder by not accepting some responsibility and culpability, and feigning some humility and contrition.) (yeah, right!!)
emerging from this without so much as a dented fender, when it looked to be a major train wreck, is very telling. and, it should reveal something to us when we analyze it, and think about it a bit.
now, the demos didn't want to damage her. so much is clear. but, it doesn't explain why she was able to exert so much pressure on the white house and lynch, that she compelled them to lie about & mischaracterize a very make-able criminal case.
this suggests to me very strongly that she had a couple aces in the hole. aces so powerful that she said, o.k., you can destroy me, but, i am taking a bunch of you with me. i go down the toilet, i've got a got hold and you, and you are going with me.
i can think of only one person she can hurt that badly, and that is obama. and, i can think of only one person who could protect her, and shield her from prosecution, and twist the nuts of the f.b.i., and that is obama.
the inferences are in.
so, she's got some major shit on obama. my guess is, "fast and furious," and benghazi. they have been standing ankle deep in shit (together, hand in hand) for so long on benghazi that we forget about it. she's got him by the balls on it, and if he takes her down, she's taking him down with it, and she's made it perfectly clear that such is the case.
the same w/ "fast & furious," in which federal agents were killed by guns trafficked by obama and minions.
and, i am thinking the crap about ferguson, missouri is right in there. that town has been groomed by obama/the left's organizers for so long, .... , and she knows the dirt on that, too.
so, that's why she was able to get this investigation/prosecution, which went on for a year, quashed.
so, yes, "c," i think you hilary made a major blunder. and, i think she has just delayed things a bit, instead of putting an end to it as she might have, had she done as you have observed.
it's never too late to impeach the runt.
john"
so, that's what i think. and, that's what i think "c" thinks. i am gonna invite her to write a guest post, and set forth what she thinks in full. it should make for interesting reading, if i can talk her into it.
what was the quid pro quo exchanged when bill clinton met loretta lynch and discussed grand children for 3 hours on the tarmac at phoenix airport?
my guess is that if hilary clinton is elected president of the united states then loretta lynch is her first appointment to the united states supreme court. any takers?
i am thinking that the meeting between lynch and clinton took so long because lynch wanted to make sure that clinton could not back out of the deal if elected. she wants the deal locked in. simple as that.
as i read the f.b.i. statement on hilary and the email case, it parses something like this.--
"she is guilty as hell, but she is not guilty as hell. (because she is hilary.)"
they found classified documents on hilary's home computer, and they found stuff mark "top secret," and they noted that her communications with regard to same were outside channels and not protected by adequate security measures. they noted it was likely that her "security" could have been easily breached by foreign agencies.
in short, they found her in violation of applicable statutes, and liable to prosecution.
and, then they opined that she is not. because she didn't mean it.
my question is, how did the stuff get to her home computer, and why did she reply to such missives, if she didn't mean to? curious, except within the confines of george orwell's "animal farm."