Saturday, December 24, 2016


Back on November 1st, I posted an article about the electoral college when a nefarious outfit was posting an ad around the internet on dissolving the EC and going with the straight national popular vote.

Since then, I've found this gem of an explanation from a disqus commenter on a site, (which I don't recall, but copied it):

Justice17 hours ago
"There are 3,141 counties in the United States. ➽ Trump won 3,084 of them. ➽ Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country."

When you look at the county-wide results of this election, it's not hard to understand that 1) the people of this nation spoke clearly about who they wanted as their President for the next four years, and 2), it was a united effort, and not the "divided nation" narrative the Media, and our dear liberal friends would like you to believe.

Any questions?

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Anonymous, Hilarious, Political Joke

How do you resolve a presidential election when the vote is too close to call? With a fishing contest in northern Wisconsin in the winter, of course!

After the first round of votes were counted, Hillary and Donald were deadlocked. Instead of going through a recount, they agreed to a week-long ice fishing contest to settle the election. Whoever caught the most fish at the end of the week would be the President-elect. They decided that a remote frozen lake in northern Wisconsin would be the ideal place. No observers on the fishing grounds, but both would need to have their catches verified and counted each day at 5 pm.

After Day 1, Trump returned with a total of 10 fish, Hillary came back with nothing.

Day 2 finished, and Trump caught 20 fish, but Hillary once again came back with nothing.

That night, Hillary and her cronies got together and accused Trump of being a low-life, cheating son-of-a-bitch. Instead of fishing on Day 3, they were going to follow and to spy on him and figure out how he was cheating.

Day 3 finished up and Trump had an incredible day, adding 50 fish to his total.

That night, Hillary and her Democratic cohorts got together for the full report on how Donald was cheating. Hillary stood up to give the results and said, 'You are not going to believe this, he's cutting holes in the ice!'

And this story,...tells you the difference between a successful businessman and a career government politician.

(I'd love to credit the creator of this gem).

Tuesday, December 13, 2016


In a Reuters Exclusive, the overseers of the "17 Intel agencies", (which the main stream media loves to quote as the main body of U.S. intelligence), is not endorsing the CIA's assessment that the Russians hacking operations were committed to put Trump in the White House.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, (ODNI), does not dispute the CIA's assessment that the hacking operation exist and was employed during the election process, they found a "lack of conclusive evidence" to prove the Russians' intent was to promote Mr. Trump:

"The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."" (link)

Editor's note: all bolds are mine.

The CIA had concluded that the Russians had hacked both Democrats and Republicans, and since only DNC information had been released, (leaked), they took the "leap" that Russians must have favored Trump.

An ODNI official called it, [the CIA’s assessment] “a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment”.

The FBI, (an investigative entity that relies on, and collects evidence that will stand up in court), also rejected/declined to accept the CIA's assessment based on the same conclusions at the ODNI.  To date, the RNC, (and its former head, Reince Priebus) have insisted their computers have not been hacked.

On November 8th, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly in the electoral college, the 200 + year old system, (designed by Hamilton, and other founding fathers of our Constitution), which determines the winner of U.S. Presidential Elections, not the nation-wide count of the popular vote, a favorite meme liberal democrats embrace because Mrs. Clinton won this tally.

Final electoral college election results gave Trump a 306-232 advantage, despite pollster's predictions that had Mrs. Clinton up by 6-8 points "nationally", and an "impenetrable blue wall" that would insure the Coronation of another Clinton possessed White House.

They were wrong.

Since the devastating defeat of the Democrats, (Clinton's run and their attempt to regain a Senate Majority), the liberal progressives have yet to accept the outcome.  Green Party candidate Jill Stein mounted a futile recount campaign, (in three blue states Clinton lost, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania), but that "campaign" ended on Monday, when Stein's assertions that voting machines were hacked, were rejected by state and federal courts.  To add insult to the recount campaign, final results in Wisconsin increased Trump's margin of victory in the state by 162 votes.

In Hillary Clinton's concession speech, (and Obama's shortly after), both of them expressed the importance of a peaceful transition of power in our election process.

“Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.  Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don't just respect that, we cherish it”, said Mrs. Clinton.

Given the rioting, protest, recounts, and now this "Russian interference", it appears the Democrats are not heeding Clinton's advice.  Whether the CIA is now politically inserting themselves into this denial stage, remains to be seen.  

Stand by.

Update: This post is linked to Sparta.

Update 2: TruePundit reporting Washington Post Story is "an outright lie".

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Tucker Carlson vs. Washington Post over "angry white racist" Trump voters

"They were just wrong" ~ Jennifer Rubin describing Trump voters.

I've followed this "republican journalist" on twitter throughout this election cycle. Rubin writes for the Washington Post and in the link at Wapo that shows her recent work, (and her profile on the right), it's not too difficult to see how "offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective" is about as phony as a three-dollar bill.

In this interview with Tucker Carlson, Rubin is found to have no evidence to produce her "written opinion" that much of Trump's followers/voter were "angry white racist:

While Mz. Rubin suggest there's polling to back up her opinion, (which she doesn't cite), it appears to me, (and Tucker), that she's just another Trump-Hater that spreads the baseless accusations of racism we can find on any left-leaning website, or the daily screeds at CNN.

(for the record, I've replied to Rubin on twitter numerous times rebutting some of her anti-Trump diatribes.  Although she's never responded to my civil criticism of her tweets, she's never blocked me, unlike a few other cowards in the news media, like Joey Scarborough and Jakey Tapper.)

Wednesday, December 7, 2016


Only Time Magazine got their petty caption wrong---We are a UNITED NATION!