So the other day I was reading a friend's FB post about Ben Carson when a woman claimed Carson was in over his head. My friend pointed out that having no experience in an area is not the same as being incompetent, especially when you want to change the paradigm, the dynamics of what's always been done. The woman replied that her opinion wasn't just based on that, but in listening to Carson's public appearances since running for President. Her opinion based on what she saw was that he seemed "incoherent" and wondered how he could have possibly been a brain surgeon.
Should my friend, then, give more weight to her position? Who knows? We are doused in such a crapfest of opinions, how do we tell what is justified anymore? That same friend had another woman on another post basically parrot the "thought process" of eminent expert Rosie O'Donnell, who wants MARTIAL LAW declared to prevent Trump's inauguration "until all criminal charges are cleared." This woman too mentioned criminal charges, and my friend asked the sole pertinent question of her: WHAT criminal charges? Did he use substandard security in handling government secrets and then lie to congress about it? Did he use his "legal skills" to prevent the incarceration or trial of a "loved one" accused of rape? Just what criminal act had Donald Trump committed?
So the woman, as many I have seen who step into a bigger FB argument than their knowledge and intellect (not to mention agenda) can handle have done, posted a long-winded copy-and-paste bashing of Trump- which at NO POINT had anything amounting to a criminal charge in it. When my friend pointed this out, she admitted, yes, it was a copy and paste, yes, it had no ACTUAL charges, but it CERTAINLY should make you see that he SHOULD be charged with something. And if he hadn't been, it was just because the right law hadn't been found, applied, or manufactured.
Point being, there are just a lot of people out there who, instead of seeking meaningful dialogue to make a better country, are out there running their mouths to cause trouble. Not because Trump has or will do something objectionable, but just because they don't want him to be President. Take for example, another failed Democrat Presidential candidate- Martin O'Malley. Remember him- the guy that got like 1% or so in a couple of primaries before he noticed no one was listening to him? Well, what better way to get stupid people to listen than this garbage he tweeted Saturday:
Now is not the time for reconciliation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't reconcile with the Nazis. MLK didn't reconcile with the KKK. Now we fight
I have recently been reading a book, Endgame, 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II
by David Stafford. Included are several pages about the liberation of Nazi death camps. And I am telling you now, I am at the point of wishing severe bodily harm to anyone else who compares ANYONE in the USA of being like these inhuman bastards. I didn't like it when it was used unintelligently against Obama, and I don't like it now. You want to know what the Nazis were like, read something about them. If you can compare anyone in this nation to that, you have an overactive, malignant imagination and really need to do some serious self examination before you inflict mankind with your opinion any further.
In just a few moments of reading various news sites, I have come up with more examples of stupidity. Another recent battle with a FB "opinionist" had me being told how much other countries laughed at us when GW Bush was President, and they are laughing now. Maybe if you only read the HIGHLY leftist BBC accounts, or perhaps the leftist "news" sites that she claimed she didn't use but then sited them over and over in her attack on me. But, let's look at how some other countries are ACTUALLY seeing things. From an article on Russia's love for the Obama administration:
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of foreign affairs committee in the upper house of parliament, described the White House's decision to expel Russian diplomats as an "agony of not even lame ducks, but political corpses."
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova went further.
"If 'Russian hackers' hacked anything in America, there were two things: Obama's brain, and, of course, the report about 'Russian hackers,'" she wrote on Facebook.
Zakharova charged that "Obama and his illiterate foreign policy team have dealt a crushing blow to America's prestige and leadership" and described his administration as "a bunch of geopolitical losers, enraged and shortsighted."
Obama's administration still has a few days left to "destroy the world," Zakharova wrote.
Not convinced? Here's another from al-Jazeera:
There has been much talk about US President-elect Donald Trump’s hardline stance on immigration.
But Trump will be inheriting a well-oiled deportation infrastructure from the Obama administration, which has deported 2.5 million people - more than every single US president of the 20th century combined.
OUCH. CNN and Politico don't report much on THAT, do they?
Or how about an article I found on Motherboard, in which scientists are rushing to archive data that they are terrified that Trump will erase? Because he is an "anti-science" President... really?
“When government takes an active hand in framing science—an incoming chief executive who called climate change a ‘Chinese hoax’ and suggested that maybe vaccines do cause autism, a new EPA head who is a climate change denier, a key advisor who thinks that a president of the United States shouldn't be held accountable for what he actually says—it’s troubling,” Chris Labash, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, told me.
How VERY unlike the report on the BBC (of all places) a good while ago that talked about how the climate change crew had threatened scientists that disagreed with their conclusions, and fudged numbers to make "global warming" seem more realistic? And having just looked at an article from the Salt Lake Tribune on the subject of autism and Trump, how do you make the leap from wanting to make sure of his facts to banning vaccines? You see, Trump is not guilty- he's "guilty by association", and third hand association at that. Kind of like how Jeff Sessions is a KKK supporter.
Or here, another article about that "dirty dossier" that John McCain ("the Annamese Candidate"?) supplied the FBI with on Trump from al-Jazeera that compares the "oh, that's okay" attitude for an MI6 agent who ran a personal attack on Trump to the "how dare they" Russian hacking of the ineptly run-and-secured DNC. If I were you I would look at the whole thing, but here are some highlights for the time challenged:
Imagine a hypothetical situation: A former FSB officer provides a "dirty dossier" about US presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. He has left the Russian intelligence services and now operates his own private intelligence firm, with the implicit approval of the FSB.
Once the dirty dossier is published, its accuracy and sourcing is widely questioned - and even whether the media should have reported on the allegations at all. That FSB officer is then outed in the US press... Once his name is made public, a range of anonymous Russian security sources brief the Russian press that the officer is a "highly regarded professional," and former colleagues rally around him, saying much the same. His reputation is bolstered in order to make the allegations made against Clinton seem more credible. How would the US press respond?
This is in fact exactly what has just happened during Trump's final approach to the White House, except it wasn't the FSB - it was the British Secret Intelligence Service, colloquially known as MI6, and it wasn't a former FSB officer turned private investigator, it was Chris Steele, a former MI6 agent...
At the time the dossier was going round, I understand from talking to those who know Steele well, that he was privately very concerned about civil unrest on the streets, and was also deeply worried, as many serving intelligence officers were, about Trump's stance on NATO, and his sympathies for Vladimir Putin.
These are not unusual views among serving Western defence officials, and they are very legitimate criticisms of the pending disaster that is the Trump administration. Steele was also a man who had run MI6 operations in Russia, had been working with the assassinated Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko shortly before his death, and who greatly feared that Trump would take the United States into an alliance with the Kremlin....
I am no fan of either Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin - in fact, I despise both, but we can at least recognise that in the case of Trump, the mechanics of the US election were fairly carried out, and Trump did win. To thwart such a victory would do far more damage to US democracy than even Trump may manage (hopefully).
I wish he hadn't won, of course, and it is obvious that many within the US and British intelligence community wish he had not either, but democracy is more important than the private political views of intelligence officers. Whether it is the FSB or MI6, the principle of serving or former spies not getting involved with foreign countries elections is sacrosanct. You cannot, on the one hand, denounce Putin for doing it, and then be doing it yourselves.
Alastair Sloan (the author) is a London-based journalist. He focuses on injustice and human rights in the UK.
And this is what I am sick to death of- the left going about screaming about obstruction and the end of the world, and doing the same things and worse that they accuse the right of. Let me wrap this rant up with an interesting piece from Philly.com on the 1917 Zimmerman Telegram (you know, the one whose skillful use led the US into WWI?) and the lessons it teaches on fake news:
"The greatest strategic threat the U.S. faces is the general ignorance of the past and how the past is with us every day," said David Kohnen, interim executive director at the U.S. Naval War College Museum.
Retired Rear Adm. Samuel Cox, current director of the Naval History and Heritage Command, said he sees parallels with Russia's recent actions, but stressed that England wasn't trying to diminish U.S. influence in the world by discrediting its values and democracy.
Cox focused on how many people refused to accept the telegram's authenticity because it didn't fit with their preconceived notion of reality, which he said is a reminder of the importance of driving misinformation and rumor out of political debate.
"If you have an environment where the truth becomes optional, like we're kind of facing today, once you're in that environment it becomes difficult to break out of it," he said. "People refuse to believe the truth because they can't tell the difference."
And so, those of you from the left that want to emulate Rosie O'Donnell running around like a fat, ugly Chicken Little, those of you that think that I am going to be humbled by your paste job from partisan hacks like Buzzfeed, and any losers out there that want to compare your enemies with the KKK or Nazis, let me tell you right now the only three responses your efforts will get from me:
1- I am only going to respond to you if I feel I can glean entertainment value from it. Otherwise, I'll do my best to scroll right on by.
2- Your own efforts are going to suffer because I'll be ignoring those of you who are willing to try and make legitimate points with the rest. Because that is the consequences of hate fueled stupidity.
3- You are only going to make me more resistant to working with your side, because these inane antics only destroy your credibility. People keep telling you, the way you're acting is why Trump got elected in the first place. At the rate you are going, it will be a landslide next time. But you are too busy throwing your hissy fit to care. So why should I?