Special Opinion to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante.
In FEDERALIST No. 62 for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York circa 1788, although it sounds as if it could have been written today, either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, writing as Publius, stated as follows:
Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors.
But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation.
She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.
Here, of course, I am referring to the HUGE hacking scandal that White House officials are telling us was aimed at interfering with the US election which on Thursday, December 15th, had President Barack Obama vowing retaliatory action against Russia in the light of allegations that it meddled in the US presidential election campaign, although we may never know exactly what that retaliation might be, according to Obama himself in news reports:
“I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing,” Obama told National Public Radio.
“Some of it may be … explicit and publicized; some of it may not be. … Mr. Putin is well aware of my feelings about this, because I spoke to him directly about it,” Obama said.
This is the same Barack Obama who was quoted by Ben Wolfgang in The Washington Times on Monday, September 28, 2015 as saying, “I lead the strongest military the world has ever known,” and “I will never hesitate to protect my country and our allies unilaterally and by force when necessary,” and in a REUTERS article on Monday, October 26, 2009 as follows:
President Barack Obama had a message for his political friends and foes on Monday — “just because I’m skinny doesn’t mean I’m not tough.”
And that seems to me to be what is at the heart of this latest BROU-HA-HA from out of the drama queen city of Washington, D.C. – how tough Barack Obama really is.
Now, this Barack Obama vowing some kind of retaliation against his arch enemies Russia and Vladimer Putin for interfering with our recent election is the same Barack Obama whose administration was quoted in an article in THE HILL entitled “Obama admin defends vote integrity after hacking fears” by Mallory Shelbourne on 11/26/16, as follows:
The Obama administration has defended the integrity of the presidential election despite fears of Russia attempting to undermine the vote.
A statement of confidence in the election as “free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective” came Friday as some liberal opponents of President-elect Donald Trump pushed for recounts in three states.
In its statement, the administration blasted Russian-directed hacking and release of emails from Democratic groups over the summer, according to The New York Times.
“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” the statement added.
The administration said it was “confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure” and that the “elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”
So which is it, people?
If, as the Obama administration told us on 11/26/16, the “elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective,” then what exactly was the “interference” with our elections that has Obama’s tail feathers all a’flutter today?
Were the elections free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective, or weren’t they?
Does Obama even know?
In answer to those questions, let us go to the BBC article “White House supports claim Putin directed US election hack” on 15 December 2016, where we were told this:
The White House has suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the US election.
Are you kidding me?
Getting back to that BBC article, we have:
Ben Rhodes, adviser to President Barack Obama, said that Mr Putin maintains tight control on government operations, which suggests that he was aware.
Oh, really, Ben?
And chiming in, we have from that same BBC article as follows:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest added that it was “pretty obvious” that Mr Putin was involved.
There it is, people, case made!
When White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says that it was “pretty obvious” that Mr Putin was involved, well, that means exactly what it says, that, well, you know, it’s really pretty obvious.
Getting back to the BBC article and Ben Rhodes:
“Everything we know about how Russia operates and how Putin controls that government would suggest that, again, when you’re talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we’re talking about the highest levels of government,” Mr Rhodes said.
“And ultimately, Vladimir Putin is the official responsible for the actions of the Russian government.”
Now, that is saying something there, alright, people, which takes us to the REUTERS article “Putin turned Russia election hacks in Trump’s favor: U.S. officials” on Friday, December 16, 2016, where the same Ben Rhodes is again the center of attraction:
Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies’ hacking of the U.S. presidential election and turned it from a general attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday.
Separately, a senior White House official said on Thursday that Putin was likely to have been aware of the cyber attacks but he fell short of accusing the Russian president.
“I don’t think things happen in the Russian government of this consequence without Vladimir Putin knowing about it,” Ben Rhodes, the White House’s deputy national security adviser, told MSNBC.
So, is Ben Rhodes accusing Putin?
Or is he not accusing Putin by falling short of accusing Putin?
Getting back to the Reuters article, we have:
“This began merely as an effort to show that American democracy is no more credible than Putin’s version is,” one of the officials said.
“It gradually evolved from that to publicizing (Hillary) Clinton’s shortcomings and ignoring the products of hacking Republican institutions, which the Russians also did,” the official said.
Now, really, people, did we actually need the Russians to tell us about Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings?
Without Russian “interference,” here, as alleged, would we not have known about Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings?
Without Putin’s alleged efforts to open our eyes to Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings, would we have been blind to them?
What a crock of crap that is.
I have been aware of Hillary Clinton’s many shortcomings for years now, and I certainly didn’t need some Russian to tell me about them.
And with respect to that ridiculous assertion that we would not have known of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings but for Putin and the Russians, we now go to the CNN article “Russia challenges US to prove campaign hacking claims or shut up” by Laura Smith-Spark updated Friday, December 16, 2016, wherein drama queen Hillary herself is quoted as follows:
Clinton said Thursday night that Putin’s alleged involvement in the hacking of Democratic organizations during the 2016 election stemmed from a longtime grudge the Russian President has held against her.
Oooohhhhh, poor Hillary, everybody always picking on her because she is so perfect, and well, let’s face it, the rest of us, especially those in Hillary’s “Basket of Deplorables,” simply are not, and can never be, since perfection on this earth was reserved to Hillary alone.
To conclude with some more weirdness here, we have from that same CNN article as follows:
Meanwhile, her campaign chairman, Podesta, issued a scathing rebuke of the FBI.
He wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the bureau’s “seemingly lackadaisical response to the very real Russian plot to subvert a national election” by comparison with its overzealous investigation of Clinton’s emails “shows that something is deeply broken” there.
Yes, Mr. Podesta, there is something deeply broken here – it is called our federal government.