Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Ever bellicose US should apologize to Russia for breaking its promise not to move NATO “one inch closer” to Russia, then quickly doing so in 1990s. After breakup of Soviet Union, arrogant US elites said Russia was “ours to lose.” Russian people would be fools to trust US-Oct. 2015, Strategic Culture, Eric Zuesse

“In the years following the end of the Soviet Union, the idea that Russia was “ours to lose” gained wide currency in American foreign policy circles.”...May 2018, The Cold War Culture War,” James Carden, American Affairs Journal

7/15/1996 cover
U.S. elites, using tens of millions of US taxpayer dollars, plundered Russia, helped prevent democracy and economic reform, and destroyed its middle class: “The Harvard Boys Do Russia, The Nation, Janine R. Wedel, May 14, 1998. US even ran Russia’s 1996 presidential election (“Yanks to the Rescue,” Time, 7/15/1996)… US elite view of Russia: The Western agenda for Russia is that of “superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state,“ 3/20/2008, Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin,“ thehindu.com, Vladimir Radyuhin 

As to Ukraine, US spent $5 billion US taxpayer dollars interfering in Ukraine over two decades until it won the the prize” by engineering violent “regime change” in Ukraine in 2014. US neocon Gershman labeled Ukraine the prize,” 9/26/2013 Washington Post

10/9/2015, “How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed West, Strategic Culture Foundation, Eric Zuesse 

“The conditionality of the Soviet Union’s agreement to allow East Germany to be taken by West Germany and for the Cold War to end, was that NATO would not expand «one inch to the east». This was the agreement that was approved by the Russian President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, a great man and a subsequent hero to democrats around the world. 

He agreed then to end the Soviet Union and abandon communism and thus to end the entire Cold War; he agreed to this because he had been promised that NATO would expand not «one inch to the east,» or «one inch eastward,» depending upon how the promise was translated and understood — but it has the same meaning, no matter how it was translated. He trusted American President George Herbert Walker Bush, whose friend and Secretary of State James Baker made this promise to Gorbachev. With this promise, Gorbachev agreed to end the Soviet Union; end the communist mutual-defense pact which was their own equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact; and he believed that the remaining nation that he would then be leading, which was Russia, would be accepted as a Western democracy. 

He was even promised by the United States that «we were going to make them a member [of NATO], we were – observer first and then a member». In other words: the U.S. promised that NATO would not extend up to the borders of Russia and so become a mortal threat to the national security of the Russian people – now isolated and separated from its former military allies. Instead, Gorbachev was told, Russia would itself become welcomed into the Western Alliance, and ultimately become a NATO member. That was the deal, ending the 46-year Cold War. 

Russia kept its part of the bargain. The United States did not; the U.S. instead lied through its teeth and so has since expanded NATO to absorb former member-nations of the Warsaw Pact into NATO as being, now, an anti-Russian military alliance exactly what the U.S. had promised would never happen. U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush in private told West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (who had wanted to go along with what James Baker had arranged): «To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn’t». He didn’t want peace with Russia; he wanted to conquer it; he wanted to rub Russians’ noses in their inferiority to Americans. 

Russia’s continued (and continuing) desire to join NATO has simply been spurned. This is war by NATO in intent; it is the exact opposite of what the U.S. had promised to Russia, on the basis of which the Warsaw Pact ended. How can the Russian people then trust such a country as the United States? They would need to be fools to do so. 

But this deceit, this double-cross, isn’t merely America’s shame; it has also become the shame by the entirety of the nations that joined in that Western promise at the time. Because all of them accepted America’s leadership in this double-crossing war against Russia, America’s war to conquer Russia. They accept this merely by remaining as members of the now-nefarious military gang, which NATO has thus become. Worse yet, some of the other member-nations of NATO at the time were (like West Germany’s Kohl, the model for his protégé Angela Merkel, who now continues the crime) themselves key participants in the making, and now breaking, of that promise to Russia. 

Here is the evidence regarding this massive and ongoing historical international crime — the crime that’s now the source of so much misery and even death in not only Russia but the rest of Europe, and of millions of refugees fleeing from Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other former Russian-allied nations — the chaos that’s being led by America:

The Testimony 

«I was there when we told the Russians that we were going to make them a member, we were–observer first and then a member»: Lawrence Wilkerson, 3 October 2014, on The Real News Network, at 18:54 in the interview. 

«When I spoke with Baker, he agreed that he told Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union allowed German reunification and membership in NATO, the West would not expand NATO «one inch to the east»: Bill Bradley, 22 August 2009, in Foreign Policy. 

«Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory’ into East Germany»… Crucially, the Gorbachev-Kohl meeting ended with a deal, as opposed to the Gorbachev-Baker session the previous day… Mr. Kohl and his aides publicized this major concession immediately at a press conference. Then they returned home to begin merging the two Germanys under one currency and economic system: Mary Louise Sarotte, New York Times, 29 November 2009. 

«According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany. Kohl thus assured Gorbachev that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory to the current territory of [East Germany].’ In parallel talks, Genscher delivered the same message to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, saying, ‘for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.’… But Kohl’s phrasing would quickly become heresy among the key Western decision-makers. 

Once Baker got back to Washington, in mid-February 1990, he fell in line with the National Security Council’s view and adopted its position. From then on, members of Bush’s foreign policy team exercised strict message discipline, making no further remarks about NATO holding at the 1989 line. Kohl, too, brought his rhetoric in line with Bush’s, as both U.S. and West German transcripts from the two leaders’ February 24–25 summit at Camp David show. Bush made his feelings about compromising with Moscow clear to Kohl: ‘To hell with that!’ he said. ‘We prevailed, they didn’t.’ In April, Bush spelled out this thinking in a confidential telegram to French President François Mitterrand… Bush was making it clear to Mitterrand that the dominant security organization in a post–Cold War Europe had to remain NATO — not any kind of pan-European alliance. 

As it happened, the next month, Gorbachev proposed just such a pan-European arrangement, one in which a united Germany would join both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, thus creating one massive security institution. Gorbachev even raised the idea of having the Soviet Union join NATO. You say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is simply a security structure that is adapting to new realities,’ Gorbachev told Baker in May, according to Soviet records. 

‘Therefore, we propose to join NATO.’ Baker refused to consider such a notion, replying dismissively, Pan-European security is a dream.’ … By the time of the Camp David summit, … all members of Bush’s team, along with Kohl, had united behind an offer in which Gorbachev would receive financial assistance from West Germany — and little else — in exchange for allowing Germany to reunify and for allowing a united Germany to be part of NATO»: Mary Louise Sarotte, Foreign Affairs, October 2014. 

«A failure to appreciate how the Cold War ended has had a profound impact on Russian and Western attitudes — and helps explain what we are seeing now. The common assumption that the West forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus won the Cold War is wrong. The fact is that the Cold War ended by negotiation to the advantage of both sides. At the December 1989 Malta summit, Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush confirmed that the ideological basis for the war was gone, stating that the two nations no longer regarded each other as enemies. Over the next two years, we worked more closely with the Soviets than with even some of our allies. … ‘By the grace of God, America won the Cold War,’ Bush said during his 1992 State of the Union address. That rhetoric would not have been particularly damaging on its own. But it was reinforced by actions taken under the next three presidents. President Bill Clinton supported NATO’s bombing of Serbia without U.N. Security Council approval and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. Those moves seemed to violate the understanding that the United States would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. The effect on Russians’ trust in the United States was devastating»: Jack Matlock, Washington Post, 14 March 2014.

«Sir Rodric Braithwaite GCMG, former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Russia, informed us that assurances were given in 1990 by the US (James Baker, US Secretary of State) and Germany (Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor), and in 1991 on behalf of the UK (by the then Prime Minister, John Major, and the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd) and France (by French President Francois Mitterrand). Sir Rodric Braithwaite said that this ‘factual record has not been successfully challenged in the West’»: The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine, 20 February 2015, British House of Lords, paragraph 107. 


Gorbachev’s failure to demand these assurances in writing has been widely criticized, but handshake agreements in international affairs are common, and no treaty was to be signed at the end of the Cold War because it hadn’t been a hot war: there were no claims, no restitution or reparations to be paid by either side to the other. Gorbachev thought that the U.S. was honest and could be trusted that understandings reached in private and witnessed by numerous participants would be honored by the West, as they would be by Russia. 

Sadly, he was trusting mega-crooks who were led by a super-gangster, G.H.W. Bush, and the entire world is suffering from those crooks today, and every day. Instead of the West apologizing, and stopping, it insults Russia constantly. It’s digging in deeper, into G.H.W. Bush’s original sin, the West’s mega-crime, which produces increasing global chaos and bloodshed, in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere, and now a resulting refugee crisis throughout Europe. 

For example, Defense News, the trade journal for U.S. military contractors, headlined on 4 September 2015, «Ukraine’s New Military Doctrine Identifies Russia As Aggressor, Eyes Naval Acquisitions,» and reported that: 

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk [whom Victoria Nuland of the U.S. State Department had appointed on 4 February 2014, 18 days before the coup] said that the country’s new draft military doctrine is the first in Ukraine’s history to clearly identify Russia as an enemy and an aggressor. The announcement was made Sept. 1 during the prime minister’s visit to Odessa. … Yatsenyuk said that … the Ukrainian President «will sign the corresponding decree»… Vice Admiral James Foggo, commander of the US 6th Fleet, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt [who took instructions from Nuland and ran the coup for hertook part in the ceremony… «We feel as one force with our partners, NATO [member] states, with our American partners. Therefore, the American ships have entered and will [defeat the Russians in Crimea and expell from the naval base there the Russian navy which has been headquartered there since 1783, and so] enter the Ukrainian territorial waters in the future. We will continue our joint exercise,» Yatsenyuk said.”
“Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.”

Added: US agenda for Russia: “a superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state:“

3/20/2008, Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin, thehindu.com, Vladimir Radyuhin 

One reason why Yeltsin was the West’s darling — while Mr. Putin is the target of virulent attacks — was that his policies perfectly suited the Western agenda for Russia, a superpower-turned economic and military weakling, a subservient client state and a source of cheap energy and minerals. By contrast, Russia’s resurgence under Mr. Putin is seen as upsetting the global balance of power and threatening the U.S. unipolar model….

In Russia, Yeltsin is associated with plunging the country into chaos, reducing a majority of Russians to abject poverty and awarding the country’s oil, gas and other mineral riches to a handful of rapacious oligarchs, who plundered Russia and played Kremlin power brokers. The West lauded him as the “father of Russian democracy” who buried communism. Yeltsin remained “Friend Boris” to the West even after he sent tanks to blast his political opponents from Parliament in 1993. In Russia, he faced impeachment charges for this and other “crimes against the nation.”… 


Our media superiors seem to have no fear of being fired. Chuck Todd suggests Daily Caller is a troll farm-Mickey Kaus twitter

Above, 7/30/18, Mickey Kaus twitter, via Ann Coulter twitter

Monday, July 30, 2018

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte favors dialogue between US and Russia, says is fundamental for global stability-Washington Examiner, 7/30/18

7/30/18, Italian prime minister: Dialogue between US, Russia ‘fundamental’ for stability, security, Washington Examiner, Melissa Quinn 

“Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said Monday that Italy favors a dialogue between the United States and Russia, as it could have “positive results” for the world. 

“Italy is open to a relationship with Russia,” Conte said during a joint press conference with Trump at the White House. “But Italy also knows that the dialogue between the United States and Russia is fundamental so that we can have positive results in a more global perspective for stability and security purposes.”... 

The Italian prime minister also joined Trump is supporting Russia’s reinstatement to the G-7, saying on Twitter early last month “it is in everyone’s interest.””

Added: “The new Italian coalition parties have repudiated the official US-EU-NATO narrative accusing Russia of malfeasance. The M5S and League have decried the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and have both praised Russia’s role in helping to stabilize Syria from a covert war sponsored by NATO.”… 

6/8/18, Italy Holds Key to Restore EU-Russia Relations,Strategic Culture Foundation, Editorial Board

“The eclectic coalition was the main reason why it took the parties nearly three months to hammer out an agreed plan for governance. Nevertheless, two areas of strong common ground are a rejection of the EU’s economic austerity policies; and an explicit desire to reinstate normal relations with Russia. 

Both M5S and League have repeatedly stated that they want to promptly end the EU’s sanctions on Moscow, which have been enacted over the past four years. Those sanctions followed Washington’s lead based on dubious allegations that Russia interfered in Ukraine’s politics, as well as hollow claims of Moscow meddling in Western democracies. 

Significantly, and it’s a breath of fresh air in political thinking, the new Italian coalition parties have repudiated the official US-EU-NATO narrative accusing Russia of malfeasance. The M5S and League have decried the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and have both praised Russia’s role in helping to stabilize Syria from a covert war sponsored by NATO.”…


US intelligence agencies must be separated from cybersecurity. CIA and NSA priorities conflict with public safety as exemplified by their losing control of elite, US taxpayer funded hacking tools now available to the entire world including organized crime and state adversaries-Wired UK, Chathamhouse, Sept. 2017

9/14/2017, “Take cybersecurity away from spies…for everyone’s sake,” wired.co.uk,, Emily Taylor

Our online intelligence services need freedom from the state.”

GCHQ is UK version of US NSA

9/18/2017, Take Cybersecurity Away From Spies-For Everyone’s Sake, chathamhouse.org, Emily Taylor. (Article first published at Wired UK) 

Our online intelligence services need freedom from the state.”

 “Until 1994, GCHQ, the British signals intelligence agency, didn’t officially exist. Now, it has emerged out of the shadows to take a very public role at the heart of British cybersecurity.

Public accountability for intelligence services is crucial to any democracy but, as the recent WannaCry ransomware attack showed, there are inevitable conflicts of interest between the role of intelligence services and network safety. 

The past seven years have seen a dramatic change in profile for GCHQ. While the number of police officers has been cut by 14 per cent since 2010, GCHQ’s staff numbers – according to the Home Office – have grown by more than ten per cent in the same period.

At the same time, it has been loaded with additional responsibilities, including the fight against distribution of child-abuse images on the dark web, money laundering and financial fraud. 

This was made official when, in February 2017, it assumed responsibility for making the UK “the safest place to do business online” through the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

This rapid increase in power is the result of GCHQ’s own competence. A dearth of expertise in government has led to a reliance on the intelligence service to fill gaps.

However, one of the core roles of intelligence agencies is covert operations. Weaving public-safety responsibility into a secret and secretive operation is always likely to cause conflicts of interest. 

WannaCry was an example of a [US NSA] state-developed cyber weapon turned against its creators.

The core exploit, Eternal Blue, is believed to have been created by the US National Security Agency (NSA), who presumably intended to keep it secret. Then, in April 2017, it was leaked, along with a suite of hacking tools targeting Windows PCs. 

The same leak contains powerful exploits that could be weaponised by state adversaries, organised crime or by anyone possessing basic technical knowledge – as we saw with the Petya ransomware attack in Eastern Europe. 

Had the NSA chosen to inform Microsoft of the vulnerability, there would have been no Eternal Blue, and no WannaCry. But intelligence agencies have a different motivation: they want to keep such “zero-day” vulnerabilities secret for potential development into a cyber weapon. 

This is the challenge the [UK] National Cyber Security Centre faces. By its own description, the NCSC was set up “to help protect our critical services from cyber attacks, managing major incidents and improve the underlying security of the UK internet”. 

Even the best intelligence agencies are not invulnerable.

Part of that would include informing suppliers such as Microsoft of the discovery of major vulnerabilities. But the NCSC cannot do that if it’s also hoarding vulnerabilities for its boss, GCHQ. 

If security services could keep their secrets safe, perhaps none of this would be a problem. But the NSA’s leaks show that even the best intelligence agencies are not invulnerable to hacking.

Eternal Blue was published online by the mysterious group of hackers known as the Shadow Brokers, which began releasing secrets in 2015. Their drop followed a release by WikiLeaks of nearly 9,000 documents exposing hacks developed by the CIA.

We do not know how these details were released, but it’s easy to see how leaks could develop. Security professionals such as those at the NCSC believe strongly in their work combating threats to the safety of the network, so the practice of hoarding zero-day vulnerabilities would be troubling to them.

Within intelligence agencies such as GCHQ, it can be difficult to raise concerns internally, increasing the potential security threat from insiders. If an employee’s legitimate worries aren’t being heard, it could lead to whistle-blowing with a disastrous impact on national security. 

Loading responsibility for public cyber-safety on to the intelligence services is bad for both public safety and national security. It also risks diverting resources and energies away from national security and covert operations. 

The WannaCry attack should provide an opportunity to separate two key roles: clandestine signals intelligence and the cyber security of…critical national infrastructure.

The best way to start: make the National Cyber Security Centre (UK) independent from GCHQ (UK).”

“This article was originally published by Wired Magazine [UK]”

From article linked above: 

5/22/2017, “WannaCry ransomware: what is it and how to protect yourself,” wired.co.uk, Victoria Woollaston 

“Researchers from various security firms including Avast, Proofpoint and Symantec said WannaCry most likely spread via an exploit used by the Equation Group – a group widely suspected of being tied to the NSA. 

How is the NSA involved? 

For several months, the Shadow Brokers hacking group, which obtained files from the NSA, has been releasing parts of the agency’s hacking tools. 

As well as the WannaCry ransomware being seen in the UK, it has appeared in hundreds of countries around the world. CCN-CERT, the Spanish computer emergency response organisation, issued an alert saying it had seen a “massive attack of ransomware” from WannaCry. 

The vulnerability (MS17-010) is linked to Microsoft machines and can affect Windows Vista, 7, 8, 10, XP and versions of the Windows Server software. Microsoft initially announced the vulnerability on March 14 and recommended users patch their devices. 

Has Microsoft fixed the latest problem?

Microsoft fixed MS17-010 in its March release but it is likely organisations affected did not patch their devices before the spread of the malware…. 

In a statement, Microsoft’s president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said this attack “provides yet another example of why the stockpiling of vulnerabilities by governments is such a problem.”

“We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on WikiLeaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world, he continued.

“Repeatedly, exploits in the hands of governments have leaked into the public domain and caused widespread damage. This most recent attack represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today – nation-state action and organised criminal action.”… 

The safest way to protect yourself is to avoid clicking links from unknown sources. Security experts have strongly recommended all Windows users fully update their system with the latest available patches.”…5/22/2017


Author’s Biography 

“Emily Taylor is an associate fellow of Chatham House and is editor of the Journal of Cyber Policy. She is CEO of Oxford Information Labs. Emily’s research publications include The Internet in the Gulf (Chatham House); ‘ICANN: Bridging the Trust Gap’ and ‘Privatisation of Human Rights’ for the Global Commission; annual World Report on Internationalised Domain Names (lead author); and reports for the UK regulator, Ofcom, and a review of ICANN’s policy development process. 

She chaired the independent WHOIS Review Team for ICANN, and served on the Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group, and as part of the Global Commission on Internet Governance Research Network. From 2000-09, she was at Nominet as director of legal and policy. She has written for the Guardian, Ars Technica, and the New Statesman, and has appeared on the BBC Now Show.

Areas of expertise

  • Internet governance and ICANN
  • Internet protocol and domain names
  • Online multilingualism
  • Privacy, freedom of expression and internet law”

After Hillary lost, it became absolutely necessary to directly threaten our democracy by questioning election results


Above, 10/24/2016, Hillary Clinton twitter

Added: Remembered in July 2018:

Above, 7/29/18, via Reddit The Donald, “Never forget”

Added: Since Hillary lost, it has never again been “a direct threat to our democracy” to question election results.” 

11/28/2016,The Left’s Miraculous Change of Heart on Accepting Election Results,” Observer.com, Ashe Schow, opinion 

“Democrats were completely against questioning results when they assumed Clinton would win.”

Before the election on Nob. 8, Democrats chastised Donald Trump for saying he would “totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win.” 

CNN’s Jeremy Diamond, in an article posted in “politics” — not “opinion,” — called Trump’s words “a caveat that threatens to cast unprecedented doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process.” 

Diamond was not alone in his claim. Clinton herself repeatedly claimed Trump was “threatening our democracyby refusing to accept the results of the election. At her rallies after Trump’s remarks, Clinton said Trump’s refusal to say he’d instantaneously accept the results was a “direct threat to our democracy” and chastised him for claiming the system was “rigged.”

She also claimed at a rally in Philadelphia, Pa. just weeks before the election that the U.S. always had a “peaceful transfer of power,” which was “the difference between the rule of law and the rule of strong men.” 

This claim was also tweeted from her official Twitter account, again saying Trump “refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election” and that it was a “direct threat to our democracy.” 

But after the election—when Clinton lost—the media and Democrats completely changed their tune. Clinton had derided Trump for suggesting he wouldn’t concede, yet we later learned that Clinton herself didn’t want to concede, but was urged to do so by President Barack Obama.

On the night of the election, after Trump passed 270 electoral votes and secured the presidency, Clinton refused to address her supporters at her “victory” party. Her supporters, distraught and crying after waiting at the venue for hours, were instead subjected to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Podesta said there would be no comment until all the votes were counted.

Shortly after, Trump delivered his victory speech and Clinton had called him to concede.

That call was apparently at the behest of Obama, according to Hill senior White House correspondent Amie Parnes and Roll Call columnist Jonathan Allen.

After the dust had settled on election night, many on the Left began arguing that Clinton had truly won the election because she won the popular vote, and suggested the Electoral College be eliminated.

They failed to realize (or simply ignored) that Clinton’s popular vote lead came almost entirely from California, a populous state and Democratic stronghold.

Neither Trump nor Clinton campaigned for the popular vote, because that’s not how our elections work or should work. Fifty percent of the U.S. population resides in just a few major cities.

A popular vote would give those cities near total control over deciding the president and forcing their urban priorities onto suburban and rural voters. The Electoral College gives those outside of the big city a real voice. 

Also, Clinton and Trump campaigned in the states most likely to swing. Clinton only needed to go to California for celebrity and mega-donor fundraisers, not to ensure the state would vote for her.

If she were running for the popular vote, she could have campaigned there just to increase her vote total. As it stands now, she only needed enough votes in any given state to win that state, so essentially, a U.S. presidential election is made up of more than 50 elections (due to some states that split electoral votes). 

Trump could have campaigned more in Texas to secure more votes, but it was a waste of his time—just as campaigning more in California was a waste of Clinton’s time.

In reality, we don’t know who actually won the popular vote because the candidates didn’t campaign for it. 

This hasn’t stopped Democrats from attempting to overturn the election through recounts. Just as Al Gore wanted certain counties in Florida recounted in 2000 because he thought he should have won them, Democrats—led by Green Party candidate Jill Stein—now want three states that usually vote for Democrats but voted for Trump in 2016 to be recounted. 

Stein is attempting to raise millions to pay for recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, despite there being no evidence of any election “rigging.” 

Clinton has now joined in this effort. What was that about refusing to accept election results being a “threat to democracy?” 

Now the Left is claiming Russia interfered with the U.S. election and rigged the results. So, they rigged the election but didn’t give Trump the popular vote? Seems either incredibly specific or completely ridiculous. 

The Clinton campaign even admitted there was no “actionable evidence” of vote hacking, but are still going along with the recount because their supporters—the same ones who mocked Trump for suggesting the election was “rigged”—now believe Russia hacked the election….

I can only imagine what the Left and the media would be saying if Trump had lost and tried to orchestrate a recount. Remember, it’s only a problem when the Right does it."

“Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.


Sunday, July 29, 2018

Trump endorses re-election of Tennessee Rep. David Kustoff in Republican primary August 2, 2018


Above, 7/27/18, from Donald Trump twitter


Trump endorses Troy Balderson for Congress in Ohio’s 12th district, August 7, 2018 special election


Above, 7/27/18, Donald J. Trump twitter


Trump endorses John James for US Senate from Michigan in August 7 Republican primary


Below: John James and family:

Above, 7/28/18 from The Donald/Reddit


Above, 7/28/18, from Donald Trump twitter



That between 6.7 and 9.2 million Obama voters would bypass Mrs. Clinton and become Trump voters in 2016 should've surprised no one. 

"The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them."...

6/8/2017, "The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought," NY Times, Thomas B. Edsall, commentary  


Democrat logic: How do you stop people from defecating on the sidewalk? Have you tried outlawing straws?-Reddit, The Donald


7/28/18, Above from Reddit/The Donald


Ninth Circuit Court panel allows lawsuit against San Jose police who in June 2016 forced peaceful Trump rally attendees into an exit lined with violent thugs ready to attack them, then stood and watched the attacks-Lifson, American Thinker


June 8, 2016,Trump supporters were ‘running for their lives’ after San Jose rally, police report says,” San Jose Mercury News, Mark Gomez

7/28/18, Ninth Circuit panel unanimously back lawsuit against San Jose police who stood by and watched attacks on Trump supporters, American Thinker, Thomas Lifson

 “Normally, suing police for failing to prevent crime is not allowed by courts.  But a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just allowed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose and its police department to proceed, despite this general presumption (called “qualified immunity”) that police cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent crime. 

News media, both local and national, watched and recorded as San Jose police stood aside as people leaving a Trump rally in San Jose were heinously assaulted by anti-Trump thugs.

The Washington Post at the time (June 2016) reported: 

“Protests outside a Donald Trump rally in downtown San Jose spun out of control Thursday night when some demonstrators attacked the candidate’s supporters. 

Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning the hats and snapping selfies with the charred remains. 

Several people were caught on camera punching Trump supporters.  At least one attacker was arrested, according to CNN, although police did not release much information.” 

Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle explains the Ninth Circuit’s logic in allowing the lawsuit to proceed: 

“If the allegations are true, “the officers acted with deliberate indifference to a known and obvious danger and violated the Trump supporters’ constitutional rights,” said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. 

After the rally at the McEnery Convention Center, police directed those in attendance to leave from a single exit.

There, according to the lawsuit, they were ordered to head out onto a street where hundreds of anti-Trump protesters were waiting, even though a safer route and other exits were available.” 

They funneled the Trump-supporters into a space dominated by hostile demonstrators who already had been violent.  In my opinion, this constitutes collaboration in the violence. 

The court decision wrote: 

“[T]he attendees alleged sufficiently that the officers increased the danger to them by shepherding them into a crowd of violent protesters and that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to that danger. The district court therefore correctly denied the officers qualified immunity.” 

While San Jose may appeal to the Supreme Court, delaying the lawsuit from proceeding, once court proceedings begin, the extensive documentation of the violence with police watching will be powerful and persuasive evidence.  Here is a screen grab illustrating that point from a YouTube video (hat tip: Breitbart):

The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Harmeet Dhillon, a hero of mine.  In addition to being the Republican national committeeman from California, she represents James Damore in his lawsuit against Google for firing him over critical views expressed about diversity.  She richly deserves a large contingency fee if these lawsuits succeed and result in substantial judgments against wealthy defendants who discriminate on the basis of political preferences. 

I have to wonder: given two sensible decisions of late (this is the other one, affirming a Second Amendment right to open carry), has the Ninth Circuit been affected by the need to wade through poop and dirty drug needles getting to its courthouse in San Francisco and decided that leftist madness has gone too far?”

Added: San Jose policeofficers held back to avoid inciting more violence and having the crowd turn on officers.” 

June 8, 2016,Trump supporters were ‘running for their lives’ after San Jose rally, police report says,” San Jose Mercury News, Mark Gomez

6/2/2016, Running for his life amid parking garage ambush, photo Merc. News
Two undercover police officers at a Donald Trump rally last week said they saw Trump supporters “get punched, kicked and pushed” and “running for their lives,” according to a police report. 

The plainclothes officers said they did not intervene for fear their own safety would be jeopardized as the estimated 400 protesters developed a “mob mentality.” 

The officers’ observations were included in the arrest report of Antonio Moses Fernandez, 19, of San Jose, who is accused of throwing a metal barrier into a police skirmish line following the Trump rally June 2 outside the San Jose Convention Center. Fernandez made his first court appearance Tuesday and was charged with felony assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer, according to court documents…. 

“When there’s an assault on a police officer, we don’t have any tolerance for that,” prosecutor Chris Boscia said. 

So far Fernandez is the only person to be criminally charged stemming from the violence that erupted outside Trump’s rally last week. Three other people were also arrested the day of the rally, including Ahmed Abdirahman, 19, of Santa Clara, and Robert Trillo, 18, both on suspicion of felony assault with a deadly weapon, and Michael Kitaigorodsky, 19, of San Jose, on suspicion of refusal to disperse. 

Three juveniles were also arrested, police said Wednesday. A 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, both of San Jose, were arrested for felony assault with a deadly weapon. A 16-year-old Milpitas resident was arrested for misdemeanor battery. Their names were not released because they are minors. The attacks were seen in television reports…. 

One of the undercover officers wrote that he was “monitoring protesters from within the crowd” and estimated there were 250 protesters gathered behind barricades at 6 p.m., about one hour before Trump’s scheduled arrival. That number grew as the evening wore on. 

As the crowd grew, the officer noted that “it became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a T-shirt or hat in support of Trump. I observed Trump supporters being spit on, objects being thrown at them, punched, kicked and even robbed of their personal belongings.

In these instances, I observed victims running for their lives.

A second undercover officer reported seeingseveral individuals wearing Trump articles of clothing get punched, kicked and pushed. Due to the crowd size and volatility, officers (both uniform and plain clothes) were unable to help most victims.” 

Just after 8 p.m. police issued an order for the crown to disperse. At 9:10 p.m. the undercover officers witnessed Fernandez throw a metal barricade into officers dressed in full riot gear. One officer was injured after being hit by the barricade, according to the report. 

The undercover officers say they witnessed Fernandez pick up a second barrier and then put it down. One witnessed Fernandez remove his shirt and use it to cover his face. One of the undercover officers eventually tackled Fernandez and held him down until uniformed officers arrived to make the arrest. During a police interview, Fernandez denied throwing the barrier into the police line.

In the face of critics who charge police did little to protect Trump supporters, Police Chief Eddie Garcia has defended his officers’ handling of the protest. Garcia insisted that it was more important for police to hold their “skirmish line” formations than to stop individual attacks. 

“We are not an ‘occupying force’ and cannot reflect the chaotic tactics of the protesters,” Garcia told reporters. Unless a victim’s life was in peril or the violence was “spiraling out of control,” he said, officers held back to avoid inciting more violence and having the crowd turn on officers. 

He also said the 250 police weren’t enough to control about 400 protesters. 

Following the rally several videos appeared on various social media sites and captured some of the attacks. A police task force is reviewing video evidence of the assaults and other possible crimes from the protest. Monday the police department announced more arrests were “imminent,” but so far no additional arrests have been announced. 

San Jose police are asking anyone with information about physical assaults at the Trump rally or videos of the violence to contact their Assaults Unit at 408-277-4161 or leave a tip with Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers at 408-947-STOP (7867) or svcrimestoppers.org.” image from Mercury News