U.S. Foreign Election Tampering: GUILTY!

Robert Mueller obtained indictments of Russians for interfering in American elections. Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian people and three Russian companies accuses them of conspiring to interfere with “US political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.” Later in the day, he also announced a California man named Richard Pinedo had pleaded guilty to an identity fraud charge and become a cooperator, apparently in connection with the Russian charges. The indictments’ main emphasis, however, is on the propaganda efforts of one Russian group in particular: the Internet Research Agency. That group’s operations — which included social media posts, online ads, and organization of rallies in the US — were, the indictment alleges, often (but not exclusively) aimed at denigrating Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, and at supporting Donald Trump’s.

Oddly enough, the Special Investigator’s indictments made it clear that NO Trump campaigners were involved in this Russian action against the American election process. Also important to note is that the Russian attempts occurred beginning in 2014 — long before there was even a Donald Trump Presidential candidate.

Government intrusion into other countries’ election processes is nothing new. It has been underway worldwide for many, many years. And it may surprise you, but the superior, moral, ethical, and better-than-any-other-country: the United States of America — has been pretty much the “Colluder in Chief” when it comes to attempted foreign election intrusion. I bet you didn’t know that.

U.S. Foreign Election Tampering History

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.”

These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid. In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

The U.S. hasn’t been the only one trying to interfere in other countries’ elections, according to Levin’s data. Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

Italy’s 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome. “We threw everything, including the kitchen sink” at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering “bags of money”  to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing “pork” projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected. Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said. This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin. The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism. “The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology. The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election. “We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time. In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidate Ehud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action. In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin. “If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention … Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.

Obama’s Foreign Election Tampering

The Obama State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a U.S. congressional investigation concluded. Some $350,000 was sent to OneVoice, ostensibly to support the group’s efforts to back Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement negotiations. But OneVoice used the money to build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign — all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a bipartisan staff report. In one stunning finding, the subcommittee said OneVoice even told the State Department’s top diplomat in Jerusalem of its plans in an email, but the official, Consul General Michael Ratney, claims never to have seen them. Netanhahu survived that election — regardless of Obama’s efforts to defeat him.


Here are my thoughts on all the hype in the U.S. for the last 18 months of “Collusion:”

  • When someone screams loudly about someone else doing something incorrigible, those screams are often to hide the fact that the screamer is actually guilty of exactly what they are blaming someone else for. Listening to the Left’s cries against Trump for Russian collusion, it now appears that Democrats (and probably the Obama Administration) where certainly involved with the Russians in their quest to prevent a Trump election and subsequent presidential administration;
  • American political hypocrisy is leaking from the very pores of the Nation as the Media continuously beat the “nothing-burger” drum of “Russian Collusion.” And America is becoming the laughing stock of the World because of it.
  • The nonstop barrage of Collusion attack is numbing the nation to the realities of American life under this President that, on the most part, are improving the lives of middle class Americans in demonstrative fashion;
  • The Left is clawing at the very fiber of America in desperation to somehow maintain some vestige of dignity and honor of what they feel is the superior philosophies they espouse. Their attempts are having less and less effect.

That great eagle called “America” is slowly awakening and appears to be readying itself to fly at its former lofty heights across the Globe once again. Leftists are gnashing their teeth at that probability. Their painstaking and deliberate attempts to thwart the current unprecedented return of the wealth and prosperity to the middle class that the Left stealthily stole over years have been exposed. Daily more and more of those in the American middle class are seeing the lies that they accepted from Democrats for years and that democracy and a free market really are the best thing for the American middle class.

It is beginning to look like for America “The Best is Yet to Come!”



Facts About Hillary’s Popular Vote Win

Hillary Clinton really DID win the 2016 Presidential election popular vote.

Are you like me tired of having that rubbed in our faces even now a year+ after the election? Those same people who constantly point that out are quick to cry for the dismantling of the electoral college. I too for a while thought that might be a good idea. But this past election shows just how smart our nation’s founders were with the establishment of the electoral college. Let me explain.

Even though there was NO California at the time, (which meant no Los Angeles and no San Francisco) and there was no Chicago, Illinois, those brilliant forefathers had looked into their political crystal ball and saw a potential trap ahead regarding national elections. They knew from watching other countries struggle for equality for all people just how easy it was for cities and states that were and would become large population centers to control elections by sheer number of votes. And they saw that in such a scenario it would be inevitable that the citizens of those dense populated urban cities would certainly vote for national legislators and presidents who would favor those urban areas in passing laws and in establishment and maintenance of everything necessary for this fledgling country to grow.

I am not certain who of those geniuses envisioned the concept of the electoral college and was able to explain its function to the other leaders, but whoever did so is responsible for keeping this nation from being “owned” by voters from New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and several other major U.S. cities.

If that had not happened, in election after election, Americans who had moved west from the first cities in the East would pretty much have been left out of the representative republic process established with the U.S. Constitution. They would have been able to vote, and would have certainly voted for candidates who best represented their thoughts and ideals. But seldom if ever would any of those candidates been elected because of the power of the urban votes.

The next time someone throws in your face the fact that Hillary won the popular vote which means more Americans wanted her as President than Americans who wanted a President Trump, remind them of the purpose for the establishment of the electoral college. And if they still argue about the need for the electoral college and claim it should be abolished, give them the following information:

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 every national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country

Candidate Trump WAS Wiretapped!

Or wasn’t he?  That all depends on who you want to believe, because there are people on both sides of the issue.  And anytime there’s a story with two sides, almost always the truth lies somewhere in between.  Want some analysis and explanation?

First, who do YOU believe?  Bipartisan Congressional Intelligence Committee leaders say there is no evidence of an Obama wiretap of Trump Tower;  Intelligence Agency heads say “there is no evidence of Trump Tower wiretapping;”  As of today EVERY national news agency says in print and electronically there was no wiretapping;  White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says there was wiretapping;  President Trump said “in several weeks we (the White House) will be showing the evidence of electronic surveillance during the campaign at Trump Tower.”  So which is it?

I’m pretty sure to get the truth today we must read between the lines, because — as usual — the truth lies somewhere in between.  I am pretty sure there WAS electronic surveillance of Trump Campaign Headquarters during the campaign.  And I am certain President Obama knew about it — maybe indirectly — but he knew about it.  After all, does anyone really think that something so serious as wiretapping (or surveillance) during a presidential campaign would occur without the sitting President’s approval — either directly or indirectly?  If not with his approval, at least with his knowledge?  That’s doubtful.  How in spite of such emphatic guarantees from so many reliable sources that President Trump’s wiretapping tweet was invalid could anyone still believe it actually happened? Follow this reasoning:

First, forget about President Obama or ANY President being required to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil someone.  After all, the President is the most powerful person not just in the U.S. but on the Planet.  Any U.S. President with just a tiny amount of prompting could with a “for national security reasons” explanation influence someone to wiretap.  And many think that a Presidential wiretap under such circumstances would not only be believable but would be legal as well.  Does anyone besides me think that President Obama would actually take such action?  There’s no doubt in MY mind he’d do it if he felt it was in HIS best interest.  After all, by his actions during two terms as President I am certain he feels anything  in HIS best interest would automatically mean it was in the United States best interest.

Secondly, Donald Trump is not a stupid person.  There is NO evidence in his life of stupidity — insolence, pride, insulting at times — but not stupidity.  In fact he is actually brilliant in many ways.  His life shows that over and over.  So why would a brilliant person such as President Trump double and triple down as recently as this morning on his claim that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower…..IF IT WAS NOT TRUE?  Remember:  two of Mr. Trump’s negative traits are his arrogance and pride.  Usually a person with those traits facing certain public humiliation for something he claimed would grasp at any chance to shortcut any embarrassment from exposure of his being wrong.  Still President Trump maintains the truth of his wiretapping allegations.  Let me offer some clarity to what I think is probably going on here.

Barack Obama is brilliant too.  I doubt he would personally take wiretapping action against anyone, yet alone a presidential candidate.  However, I am certain that he would (in desperation if necessary) find a way to obtain negative information through any means necessary IF he felt he needed that info.  Surrounded as he was with such an experienced group of intelligence veterans, it would not be far-fetched for Obama to call in a favor or two from foreign intelligence sources to obtain Trump Tower information.  In doing so he could say (even under oath if it came to it) “Your honor, I have no personal knowledge of nor did I initiate or participate in any illegal surveillance activities of any kind against Donald Trump, his presidential campaign, or any members of his campaign staff.”  So what could such a plan look like?  It’s actually pretty simple.  Let’s bring the Russians back into this game:

We know President Obama with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a longing to develop the U.S. relationship with Russia and Russian officials.  Knowing those two were so hungry to cut diplomatic deals with U.S. foreign opponents, it is easy to believe as a favor to Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton a Trump surveillance program during the campaign.  Russia?  Well, remember that during his Presidency and Hillary’s stint at the State Department,  the Obama Administration (with her department’s approval) allowed the sale of 20% of the U.S.’s uranium to a Canadian company who then sold it to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin.  There were millions of dollars given during that time by the Canadian company principals to the Clinton Foundation and subsequent speaking engagements by Bill Clinton (with big fees) to Russian companies.  There probably for this uranium deal would have been a little bit of “favor” still due the Obama Administration by Putin and Company.  In the words of Dr. Hannibal Lector to FBI agent Clarice Starling in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS: “Quid pro quo, Clarice….quid pro quo!”  In this case though it would be, “Quid pro quo, Mr. Putin….quid pro quo!”  Russian intelligence tapping Trump Towers phones and/or computers could easily be Putin’s “quid pro quo” to Obama for the uranium deal that will net Russia hundreds of millions.  And no one could ever “legally” pin any wrong on the former President.

Far Fetched?  Probably.  Believable?  Definitely!  Barack Obama with his utter disdain and contempt for Donald Trump was likely to be a part of such a “deal.”   To be honest, Donald Trump humiliated Barack Obama: first denigrating Obama during his campaign and then by humiliating him in the election by upsetting Obama’s handpicked successor — HRC.  It is NOT far fetched to believe Obama was not/is not looking for as many ways as possible to get back at Trump.  Also, the previous POTUS wants desperately to maintain the legacy of his 8 years in office that President Trump is hell-bent on exposing and exploding.

Don’t be surprised when in a couple of weeks the White House distributes evidence of the incident described above or of some similar attempted “political coup” devised to derail a Trump presidency.  Will if/when divulged it formally implicate Mr. Obama?  Probably not.  Will it be evidence to prove there WAS electronic surveillance at Trump Tower during the campaign?  Almost certainly so.  Will it change the minds of Americans about this President and/or the former President?  It will put Trump voters more at ease about their “Tweeter in Chief,” will embolden his supporters even more-so than now, and will cast an uneasy shadow over former President Obama if there is even a hint of his involvement in such a morally deplorable action.

Want some closing irony?  Friday at the White House where German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with President Trump, when the subject of the possibility of the Obama wiretap of Trump Tower, the Chancellor had this to say to Mr. Trump:  “Talking about your being wiretapped by the previous U.S. Presidential Administration — at least we have something in common.”  Remember:  Obama hacked/wiretapped HER phone!

              German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Voter Fraud: “It’s everywhere….it’s everywhere!”


Today’s BIG news is that Donald Trump feels that several million votes in the Presidential election were fraudulent. Well, that’s NOT big news today. Trump stated that was the case throughout the campaign maintaining there were fraudulent votes caste during the primary elections too. What IS new is that ALL the media — including Fox News — are making a huge deal out of it — not the potential voter fraud but that Trump still thinks it existed and that it should be investigated.

Why all the uproar about a voter fraud investigation? After all, the news gurus are saying over and over again when they report on it “there is absolutely no evidence to support that allegation.”

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about national politics and national media it’s that when they SAY there’s no there there, there ALWAYS is a “there there.”

What did they say when Barack Obama not only said there was voter fraud, he launched an investigation into voter fraud at the time? They said nothing. Why? It’s obvious: he’s Barack Obama. Why say something now then? It’s obvious: he’s Donald Trump.

Maybe they learned their lesson after President Obama: sometimes what’s being told to the media may not be accurate (or even truthful). And maybe, just maybe, news people should do what they say they’re here to do: to investigate reports of “things” to see if they’re true.

Does anyone but me think there just could possibly be a possibility that in California (for example) the state government passes out drivers licenses to illegals like cereal boxes — that’s to “illegals.” What’s the requirement in California to register to vote? A drivers license.

Maybe I’m being paranoid. Maybe there’s no there there. But maybe there IS. And if there is an IS there, it needs to outed for one purpose and one purpose only: only citizens are allowed to vote in the U.S. And anyone other than citizens who vote are doing so fraudulently.

So I suggest all those who are crying “foul” at Trump’s call for an investigation just sit down and do the same thing they did when Obama cried “foul” too: NOTHING. Let’s have an investigation and discover the truth. If it is determined there was voter fraud, let’s prosecute offenders. If there was no voter fraud, we are probably are going to be OK going forward. At least those who give serious thought to cheating in voting will think it through before doing so knowing they could get caught now. There’s a new Sheriff in town and he’s watching.