From Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Alerts, 21 Feb 2020:
The big conspiracy theory of the 2016 national election was that it was hacked by Russia. Barack Obama first posited the notion that Russia might be trying to influence the election — and claimed to have told Vladimir Putin to stand down — as the summer of 2016 wound down and Donald Trump became the inevitable nominee.
Hillary Clinton picked up the idea and ran with it. Of course, Trump was supposedly soliciting Russia's help when he joked that maybe Russia could locate Hillary's missing emails. "Russia interference was proven by 17 intelligence agencies," Hillary lied during one of the debates, as if the spooks in the American intelligence agencies were known for telling the truth... ever.
When the intelligence agencies released their findings on the Russian interference we learned that it consisted of an ad spend of a couple hundred thousand dollars on Facebook by firms alleged to be Russian troll farms and some appearances by Trump operatives on RT, an internet Russia-owned news organization with ratings lower than Rachel Maddow reruns.
When the Democrat National Committee emails were released by Wikileaks we heard from the DNC and the lying American intelligence agencies (who at the time were working "Operation Crossfire Hurricane" to create the groundwork for an anti-Trump coup operation as "insurance" — according to FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — against the unlikely event that Trump defeated the "chosen one" in the election) that Russians had hacked the DNC servers. Lying FBI Director James Comey claimed the DNC had been hacked by Russia, and the trope became conventional wisdom for the propaganda media.
It was later that we learned that Comey had exactly zero evidence that Russia had hacked anything. The DNC's cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike had done all the investigating, and the FBI had been barred from even looking at the DNC's servers. Crowdstrike is owned by an anti-Putin Russian national with ties and sympathies with Ukraine. On top of that, WikiLeaks released a trove of information that showed the CIA had a bug it could place in any purloined digital file that would make it appear as if Russia had hacked it.
All the caterwauling from the Witch from Chappaqua, the DNC and the DNC's propaganda arm — the corporate legacy mainstream media — led us to the Robert Mueller witch hunt and the Inspector General's report, both of which proved there was no election interference by Russia, but the real interference was by the DNC and Clinton campaigns which employed a British national former? spook to solicit dirt on Trump from shady Russian (maybe) sources.
Crowdstrike's participation in the coverup of what actually happened (our theory is that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked them) to get the DNC's emails to WikiLeaks where they could be released to the public was shoved down the memory hole. It resurfaced for a time when news of Trump's call to Ukraine's president started making the rounds. Trump mentioned Crowdstrike and the server on the call. It disappeared back down the memory hole as the impeachment crowd focused on Trump's nonexistent "pressure" to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma.
I rehash the last three years of 2016 Russia meddling conspiracy nonsense in order to lay the groundwork for the 2020 version that is already beginning to take root. Last week the tech information website Wired.com planted the seed that the QAnon conspiracy movement was working to hack the election.
The boss wrote to you about QAnon last year. For a refresher, go here. Essentially, QAnon or Q is a web-based phenomenon that drops cryptic messages on dark web message boards and occasionally on social media like Twitter and Facebook that are said to interpret or explain Trump's actions as he works to "drain the swamp."
According to Wired, Q is going to try and influence the 2020 election, much like they did the 2019 elections for governor in Kentucky and Louisiana.
Wired claims Q and another amorphous group called EndChan "used Twitter to influence governors' races in Kentucky and Louisiana, posting tweets and memes in favor of Republican candidates and attacking their opponents. They analyzed social media conversations, including popular hashtags, to decide where and how to weigh in." They then used memes (photos or cartoons with messages on them) posted to Twitter to mock Democrats and their positions.
If Q and EndChan sought to influence the elections with memes and jokes, they were pretty miserable at it. Republicans lost in both races. But Wired is concerned that Q and EndChan are hard at work stealing the next election for Trump.
This is self-important nonsense and fake news.
While some analytics show that as much as 87 percent of the U.S. population has heard of Twitter, it is used by only about 7 percent of Americans. Users are overwhelmingly leftists. And about 25 percent of Twitter users are blacks.
Ninety-three percent of the electorate doesn't use Twitter. Those 7 percent that do are predominantly left and/or members of the media. That's not exactly a target-rich environment for swaying the election to Trump in this era of hyperpartisanship and divided electorate.
...MORE...
Equal Rights Amendment is back... sort of
The Equal Rights Amendment died in 1979 (thank Heavens) when its ratification deadline passed without the support of enough states. Even still, through shifty political shenanigans lefty politicians kept trying to bring it back past its ratification deadline. For three more years it was like a zombie that kept reanimating as the Feminazies and their enablers kept up their sleight of hand hoping beyond hope to get enough states on board. Meanwhile, several states that had voted for the amendment rescinded their ratification.
With the #MeToo movement and 4th wave feminism having picked up steam over the last several years, the ERA zombie is being prodded to life once more. It's like Dr. Frankenstein has raised the putrid corpse into the storm and is just waiting for the lightning bolt to strike.
Last month, Virginia's new leftist government found time between bills to steal the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens and voted to ratify the ERA, bringing to 38 the total number of states on board (if you ignore the five that rescinded their ratification).
Now that Nancy Pelosi and her Commiecrat minions in the U.S. House of Representatives have moved on from their first Trump impeachment effort and in light of Virginia's move, that stinking, rotting corpse is drawing the interest of the Feminazis in Congress. California Congressweasel Jackie Speier took to the House floor last week and called for the House to pass the ERA because "we need (it) now."
"Women are sick and tired of being second-class citizens in their own country. The absence of the ERA has meant that women can be paid less for their work, violated with impunity, and discriminated against simply for being who they are," she said.
None of that is true. That women are paid less for the same work is a canard. Rape and sexual assault are still against the law. There are myriad of laws that prevent sexual discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere.
That an ERA is needed is fake news.
The Barr exam
This week the fake news Washington Post broke with a story citing "people close to President Trump — both inside and outside the White House" who claim that (Attorney General William Barr) is considering quitting over Trump's tweets..."
Remember our mantra: Where the MSM are concerned, unnamed sources equals we're making it up.
The Department of Just(Us) quickly jumped to deny the story was true, announcing via Twitter that
"The Attorney General has no plans to resign."
There's really no need to believe anything WaPo publishes if it quotes anonymous or unnamed sources. For the last three years (at least), all of WaPo's scoops from anonymous or unnamed sources have been fake news.
I'm betting Trump and Barr are working together to discover who the leakers are who are still in the Administration by dropping items to certain individuals to see whether they get leaked.
Study proves most journalists are communists (but they're fair)
Three college professors studying whether there is bias in media coverage have concluded that although the overwhelming majority of journalists fall on the political spectrum to the left of grumpy commie Bernie Sanders, their coverage is fair and shows no bias.
It didn't take long for us to find problems in the study. The flaws make it fake news. You can read the study here.
The issue that jumped out at us first is that they set the midpoint for political ideology as the "Average Twitter User."
As we showed above, Twitter is dominated by leftists. On the chart the researchers used, the median senate Republican is only slightly to the right of the midpoint. To the right of that is Senator Mitt Romney. Any study that claims Mittens is to the right of most senate Republicans is fake news.
Recall that Mittens voted for one of the two phony articles of impeachment. Not even faux conservatives Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander voted for them. Mittens is a leftist phony conservative GOPe Northeastern liberal Republican Utah carpetbagger who supports gun control, government healthcare and abortion (or he did when he ran for governor of Massachusetts).
To the left of the chart's midpoint falls Barack Obama. Slightly left of that is the found the median senate Democrat. To the left of that is Bernie Sanders, and way to the left of Sanders is the comely but economically ignorant socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Most journalists fall on the chart between Sanders and AOC, according to the researchers.
Researchers determined that 78 percent of journalists consider themselves liberal and 22 percent consider themselves conservative.
But don't worry. Despite the fact that they lean so far left they'd be more comfortable working for Pravda in the good old days of the Soviet Union, journalists cover the news fairly, the researchers determined.
How did they come to that conclusion? They sent an email to thousands of journalists offering a sit-down interview to a nonexistent political candidate. All the journalists got the same email except that for some of the journalists the fake candidate was a Republican and for some it was a Democrat. Because they got an equal number of responses to the Republican and Democrat candidate, researchers determined that meant there was no bias.
Researchers got only 1,511 responses to the 13,500 emails they sent out, but the responses showed no statistical difference between responses to the conservative and liberal phony candidate, they said. But all they determined is that Democrat and Republican journalists are equally disinterested in interviewing political candidates (many have nonpolitical beats, after all) or they are all equally lazy.
Now maybe the researchers should read some real news and see if their study holds up.
-- Jay Baker
No comments:
Post a Comment