Tuesday, August 28, 2018
The Truth About John McCain, American Traitor
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Secret trips in the night to secure fake dossiers. I helped Lois Lerner target Tea Party Conservatives while the deep state plotted. I played Arizona voters like fools in the shadow of Monument Valley.
All those moments will be lost in time, like… crocodile-RINO tears in rain. Time to die.
Monday, August 27, 2018
Blogs With Rule 5 Links
These Blogs Provide Links To Rule 5 Sites:
The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Mariya Takeuchi
Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around
The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style
The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama
The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup
Wall Street celebrates after the surrender of Germany in the Great War, marking the end of the conflict, 1918.
More Amazing Photos:
Vintage Photo: Greyhound in 1923...
Amazing Photos Collection #1
Amazing Photos Collection #2
Amazing Photos Collection #3
Amazing Photos Collection #4
Amazing Photos Collection #5
Amazing Photos Collection #6 -or- Surreal picture of a Zeppelin under construction, circa 1935
Canal Street, New Orleans, circa.1910 or Photo Collection #7
David Hogg, gun control advocates march on Smith & Wesson headquarters, demand $5 million donation
The group is gathering outside company headquarters Sunday in Springfield.
The marchers have condemned Smith & Wesson for making the rifle used in the February mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The group wants the company to donate $5 million to gun violence research.
The Boston Globe reported David Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor, called the march empowering and said Massachusetts shows how commonsense gun laws work.
Another group held signs across the street from Smith & Wesson supporting the gun-maker and the Second Amendment.
Smith & Wesson hasn’t responded to...
The Boston Globe reported David Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor, called the march empowering and said Massachusetts shows how commonsense gun laws work.
Another group held signs across the street from Smith & Wesson supporting the gun-maker and the Second Amendment.
Smith & Wesson hasn’t responded to...
96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets
Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump? It sure looks that way based on recent search results for news on the president.
Conservatives and Trump supporters have for the last several years questioned whether Google was deprioritizing conservative news sites, hiding them from users who utilize their search engine. Google has maintained that all outlets are treated fairly, but nevertheless, conservative sites have reported reduced search traffic and, in the case of Google-owned YouTube, content creators have been banned and demonetized. Google's high-profile firing of conservative James Damore, purportedly over his conservative political views, only reinforces the idea that Google is picking winners and losers.
To test the premise, I performed a Google search for "Trump" using the search engine's "News" tab and analyzed the results using Sharyl Attkisson's media bias chart.
I expected to see some skewing of the results based on my extensive experience with Google, but I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today (the last two outlets on this list could arguably be considered more centrist than the others).
Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results.
But it got much, much worse when I analyzed the first 100 items that Google returned in a search for news on "Trump."
CNN, by a wide margin, appeared most frequently, with nearly twice as many results returned as the second-place finisher, The Washington Post. Other left-leaning outlets also fared well, including NBC, CNBC, The Atlantic, and Politico. The only right-leaning sites to appear in the top 100 were The Wall Street Journal and Fox News with...
Why Did the Obama Administration ‘Stand Down’ During 2016 Russian Hacking?
The deeper story is this: The deliberate refusal to act by the Obama administration to Russian hacking and cyber-interference in the 2016 election. Its incredibly, irresponsibly weak response raises serious questions. But first, some history:
The “Stand-Down” Order is Given
The recently-published book: Russian Roulette, The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, contains the following damning paragraph:
At his morning staff meeting, Daniel [Michael Daniel – former White House Coordinator of Cybersecurity] matter-of-factly said to his team that it had to stop work on options to counter the Russian attack: “We’ve been told to stand down.” Daniel Prieto, one of Daniel’s top deputies, recalled, “I was incredulous and in disbelief. It took me a moment to process. In my head I was like, ‘Did I hear that correctly?’” Then Prieto spoke up, asking, “Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?” Daniel informed them that the orders came from both Rice and Monaco. They were concerned that if the options were to leak, it would force Obama to act. “They didn’t want to box the president in,” Prieto subsequently said.This passage was attacked by some as unproven, but Daniel corroborated it himself in his June 20, 2018 testimony before a Senate committee investigating the Russian interference. Russian Roulette co-author Michael Isikoff, chief investigative reporter for Yahoo News noted Daniel’s confirmation in a Yahoo News article in June.
The Stand-Down Order Raises Serious Questions
Question #1: Why would the Obama administration have told the cyber-security services to “stand down”?
Question #2: If the Obama people assumed that “the next administration” would take care of the problem (as they claimed in Senate testimony), was that partly because they assumed it would be a Clinton administration?
Question #3: Is there a chance they may have been led to believe that whatever Russian interference would come, it might be in Clinton’s favor?
Question #4: If the Obama group ordered the stand-down, and assumed it could be fixed in a later administration, why are Democrats switching the narrative to a collusion accusation, and attacking Trump instead?
Question #5: Is it possible the whole thing blew up in their face and part of their reaction is a classic denial maneuver — i.e., they might blame their inaction on political opponents to deflect blame from themselves and make the Trump campaign look bad?
How Do Former Obama Officials Explain This?
Daniel and former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland claimed in recorded testimony that even though Daniel’s cybersecurity team had prepared some strong cyber-responses, they could not implement them due to a lack of coordination and centralized information.
However, Anthony Ferrante, another team member who was coordinating the US response to the hacking, gave 60 Minutes a much different explanation.
The Obama administration did not want to appear to be biased. We had a presidential candidate who was — campaigning on the fact that the election was rigged and he wasn’t certain he was going to get a fair shot at the presidency. …It was a very sensitive issue.
A host of other factors surfaced during the Senate hearings in June. Daniels and Nuland both admitted they knew a weak response would only encourage Putin to do more. They both stated the consensus was that the Russians were trying to weaken American confidence in our electoral system and...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)