RUTHFULLY YOURS

Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections, by Fred Lucas, Mount Vernon, WA: Stairway Press, 2016 (314 pages, $19.95, Paperback)

Who should read Fred Lucas’s book, Tainted by Suspicion? Folks whose knowledge of Aaron Burr comes primarily from a milk commercial, individuals who think Benjamin Harrison was one of the Beatles, and especially moderately informed voters who labor under the illusion that there once was a golden age of political decorum in the United States. Indeed, even history buffs are likely to discover a plethora of new facts and perspectives by perusing Lucas’s analysis of The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections — specifically the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, and 2000.

“Historiphobes” should be pleased to know that Lucas, a veteran White House correspondent, doesn’t overwhelm readers with unnecessary facts and generally focuses attention only on relevant details. Most folks will easily cover one or two elections in a single sitting — without the twin dangers of drowning in mind-numbing minutiae or being starved with cartoonish oversimplification.

For each contested election Lucas provides a succinct portrait of the primary candidates, issues, and campaigns — descriptions that belie any notion of a kinder, gentler era of political discourse. Indeed, on the whole, one could easily conclude that modern campaigns are less vicious than their 19th century predecessors. In 1876, for example, Democrats chanted “Tilden or blood” when it appeared the supporters of Rutherford B. Hayes were going to string together enough disputed electoral votes to overturn what appeared to be a Tilden victory — a victory achieved, one must add, with the help of KKK vote suppression in the South. Fortunately, Tilden was more politic than his most ardent supporters, especially since both he and Hayes (subsequently known as “Rutherfraud”) were ready to end Reconstruction.

Behold a perfect storm of federal incompetence and liberal media bias: Washington bureaucrats accidentally turned pending deportees into citizens, while the network news programs overlooked this outrage and gave ten times more coverage to Donald Trump, Jr.’s use of tainted Skittles to analogize ISIS members among Syrian refugees.

The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general revealed on Monday that 858 immigrants destined for deportation unwittingly were granted citizenship. These immigrants applied for citizenship using aliases and other false information. Their fraudulent applications flew beneath the radar and were approved, in part, because the paper fingerprint records that could have exposed them as imposters had not been digitized. (Some 315,000 aliens facing deportation orders lack fingerprint records.)

Worse, these 858 accidental citizens likely are not from Argentina, Botswana, Holland, or Singapore. Rather, they are from “countries of interest” that pose national-security threats or neighboring states that are rife with immigration fraud. Some of these deportees-turned-citizens received credentials that gave them access to secure areas at airports and other transit hubs. One of these devious-and-lucky 858 works as a law-enforcement officer.

This total fiasco gives the lie to the notion that America can screen the stampede of Syrian refugees that President Obama is waving into the USA, and Hillary Clinton wants to boost by more than sextuple — from Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 to hers for 2017: 65,000. Uncle Sam cannot vet deportees within this country’s borders. This dismal performance confirms GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s argument that Americans should have zero faith in Washington’s ability to discern peaceful refugees from ISIS agents.

Regardless, CBS Evening News spent exactly twelve seconds on this humiliation for Obama and Clinton. ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News ignored it altogether.

But the next night, all three networks pounced on Donald Trump, Jr. when the candidate’s son asked via Twitter: “If I had a bowl of Skittles, and I told you that just three would kill you, would you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.”

CBS discussed this for 27 seconds and ABC for 30. NBC aired 70 seconds on this matter after anchor Lester Holt lured viewers thus, as the broadcast opened: “Skittles outrage: Donald Trump’s son getting backlash after comparing refugees to poisoned candy.”

In a Sept. 21 memo to his department heads, President Obama instructed all federal departments and agencies to consider the impact of climate change on national security.

Obama states that it is the policy of the U.S. government to ensure that current and anticipated impacts of climate change be “identified and considered” in developing national security doctrine, policies and plans.

“Climate change poses a significant and growing threat to national security, both at home and abroad,” the memo says. Those threats, according to Obama, include flooding, drought, heat waves, intense precipitation, pest outbreaks, disease, and electricity problems, all of which can “affect economic prosperity, public health and safety, and international stability.”

Obama also says those anticipated climate change issues could adversely affect military readiness; negatively affect military facilities and training; increase demands for federal support to civil defense authorities,; and increase the need to maintain international stability and provide humanitarian assistance needs.

He has directed his national security and science/technology chiefs to chair an interagency working group to study climate-related impacts on national security and develop plans to deal with those impacts.

The working group will include high-ranking officials from the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, Agency for International Development, NASA, Director of National Intelligence, U.S. Mission to the U.N., Office of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, Millennium Change Corporation, and “any other agencies or offices as designated by the co-chairs.”

Among other things, this bureaucratic working group will “develop recommendations for climate and social science data…that support or should be considered in the development of national security doctrine, policy, and plans.”

The working group will create data repositories, climate modeling, and simulation and projection capabilities.

A top Hillary Clinton aide and two other staff members were granted immunity deals in exchange for their cooperation in the now-closed FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) told the Associated Press on Friday.

Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that Clinton’s former chief of staff and counselor Cheryl Mills gave federal investigators access to her laptop only on the condition that the findings couldn’t be used against her.

“This is beyond explanation,” the exasperated congressman said in a statement. “The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy. I’ve lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI.”

This arrangement brings the total number of publicly known immunity deals given in the Clinton case to five. With no prosecutions.

Chaffetz told the AP, “No wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case.”

Via Politico:

Chaffetz says the two others granted immunity were John Bentel, then-director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management, and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson. Two other people were previously identified as receiving immunity deals.

President Obama’s State Department finally admitted the obvious regarding ISIS terrorists embedding themselves in the refugee flow from the Middle East. “I wouldn’t debate the fact that there’s the potential for ISIS terrorists to try to insert themselves, and we see that in some of the refugee camps in Jordan and in Turkey, where they try to insert themselves into the population,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on “Fox and Friends” on September 21st. Then Kirby tried to assure Americans that the “vetting process, while not perfect, is a very, very stringent.”

The Obama administration cannot even properly handle immigrants due for deportation who are already in the country. How can we possibly believe that it can reliably vet individuals from Syria and other terrorist infested countries where comprehensive accurate data regarding such individuals are sorely lacking?

For example, according to a report released on September 19th by the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general, hundreds of immigrants were improperly granted citizenship despite missing fingerprint records. They were from “special interest countries” – countries of particular concern for national security reasons.

Nevertheless, President Obama is making the admission of more refugees and migrants his going away gift to the American people. He has announced that the United States will welcome even more refugees from around the world, increasing the number of people the U.S. receives by 40 percent over the next two years, to 100,000 in 2017. He also wants to admit more Syrian refugees in particular, which Hillary Clinton has already announced she would do if elected president.

Keith Lamont Scott was scum.

He had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in two different states and convicted of assault in three states. He had been hit with “assault with intent to kill” charges in the 90s. His record of virtue included “assault on a child under 12” and “assault on a female.”

The media spin; “Family and neighbors call Scott a quiet ‘family man.’”

Nothing says “quiet” like “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill” and nothing says “family man” like assaulting women and children.

Keith Lamont Scott, the latest martyr of Black Lives Matter and its media propaganda corps, was shot while waving a gun around. He had spent 7 years in jail for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”

This vicious monster’s career of crime ended when he was shot by Brentley Vinson, an African-American police officer, protecting himself from the latest rampage by this “quiet family man.”

Brentley Vinson is everything that Scott isn’t. The son of a police officer, Brentley dreamed of following in his father’s footsteps. He used to organize his football team’s bible studies and mentored younger players. Former teammates describe him as a “great guy” with “good morals.” His former coach calls him a “natural leader” and says that, “We need more Brent Vinsons… in our communities.”

Except that Obama, Black Lives Matter, the media, the NAACP and everyone else going after this bright and decent African-American officer has decided that what we really need are more Keith Lamont Scotts. And the streets of Charlotte are full of “Scotts” throwing rocks at police, assaulting reporters and wrecking everything in sight in marches that are as “peaceful” as Scott was a “quiet family man.”

That’s what Hillary Clinton wanted when she tweeted that, “We have two names to add to a long list of African-Americans killed by police officers. It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable.”

While visiting New York City on 9/21, London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan evidenced mild chagrin in saying terrorist attacks should be seen as “part and parcel of living in a big city.” He added, “It is a reality, I’m afraid, that London, New York, and other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.”

Mayor Khan makes it clear that preparing for the sort of thing that causes streets to run with the blood of dozens of innocents should not involve a military response. He advocates police staying “in touch with communities” and “exchanging ideas and best practices.”

Two aspects of conditioned helplessness are being inflicted on the citizens of Europe and the USA, numbing and incapacitating them enough to surrender their national sovereignty and traditional ways of life to the deepening darkness of globalism. One aspect is the increasingly laughable harangue by left-wing politicians that patriotic people are racio/phobio/blah-blah-blahists suffering cases of blah-blah-blahism. Americans receive a new mental diagnosis every week, and they all indicate something very, very bad about us. President Obama doesn’t pass up a chance to insult the American people, preferably in front of an international audience. Hillary brought a bit of literary flair to her insults with the “basket of deplorables” remark. Shoulder to shoulder with the other prominent destroyers of great nation-states and proud developers of lawless tribal territories, Mayor Khan didn’t miss the chance to denigrate the tens of millions of Americans who support Donald Trump. Khan’s racist-shmacist in-your-face-ist shot was that the Trump movement is “driven by scapegoating.”

But there is a deeper, more psychologically crippling aspect to the mass psychology of globalist takeover then the vilification of patriots, and Khan has chosen to spearhead it. In his original learned helplessness experiments (now widely considered unethical), psychologist Martin Seligman electrically shocked dogs, which were divided into groups that could or could not do something to stop the shocks. The dogs for whom the shocks were inescapable developed what Seligman called learned helplessness. The most helpless dogs simply gave up, lay down, and whimpered.

It was no surprise that in the first hours after the New York and New Jersey bombing attacks, the culprit was widely suggested to be a “lone wolf.” The term, used to describe an individual inspired by others but acting on his or her own, has become the counterterrorism metaphor-of-choice in the age of the Islamic State.

It’s time, however, to put the lone-wolf metaphor, and its associated counterterrorism analysis, out to pasture.

It’s time, however, to put the lone-wolf metaphor, and its associated counterterrorism analysis, out to pasture. According to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, we now live in a world where terrorism is “carried out by those who live among us in the homeland and self-radicalize, inspired by terrorist propaganda on the internet.”

But if that diagnosis isn’t wrong, it is incomplete. The New York bomber may have been “self-radicalized,” but it’s very unlikely he was merely “inspired” by terrorist groups.

There’s no doubt the Islamic State has been exceedingly explicit, and calculating, in its calls for lone-wolf attacks. In an online e-book titled How to Survive in the West: A Mujahid Guide (2015) the group argued: “With less attacks in the West being group (networked) attacks and an increasing amount of lone-wolf attacks, it will be more difficult for intelligence agencies to stop an increasing amount of violence and chaos from spreading in the West.” The group’s call to action has been amplified, first, by its talent at promoting it through social media (the Mujahid guide was distributed widely on Twitter); and second, the authority lent to the group by virtue of its participation in the Syrian war and its purported re-establishment of the caliphate.

Clearly, this has had some effect. In recent years, the pool of potential homegrown terrorists has expanded: Today there are open investigations on about 1,000 potential homegrown violent extremists in all 50 states. And yet, not all of America’s radicalized individuals have been motivated by the Islamic State’s appeals for lone wolves. Ahmad Khan Rahani, the suspect believed to have been behind the bombings in New York and New Jersey, reportedly was inspired by the U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — who was killed in 2011 by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, but whose radical preaching lives on in online videos. He traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, areas where al Qaeda and the Taliban are more prevalent than the Islamic State. A note apparently left by the bomber referred to Awlaki and the Boston Marathon bombers, who were also inspired by Awlaki.

‘I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election,” a particularly hopped-up-looking President Obama shouted to the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday night. “You wanna gimme a good sendoff? Go vote!”

First, just imagine the national burning and looting that would erupt, starting inside America’s newsrooms, if Donald J. Trump said he would consider it a “personal insult” if white people did not vote for him.

Second, how insulting!

Obama speaks about black people as if we were his servants, and he our master.

Black people owe Obama nothing. Au contraire, he owes black people plenty. Black voters turned out and backed him by 95 percent in 2008, according to the Roper Center. And then, in 2012, black support plunged — all the way down to 93 percent.

And in exchange for this blind loyalty, black folks got what from Obama? Very little. The promised land that many expected never arrived. In most cities, black neighborhoods still tend to be the go-to places for economic hardship, educational disadvantage, and crime.

Obama’s economic performance among black Americans has been highly mixed, at best, with recent bright spots overshadowed by years of abundant bad news. Since he became president, according to the latest-available data, here is how black Americans have fared on selected economic indicators:

Unemployment rate: Down 36.2 percent

Labor-force-participation rate: Down 2.1 percent

Proportion below the poverty line: Down 6.6 percent

Real median household income: Up 2.5 percent

Food Stamp participants: Up 58.2 percent

Home ownership: Down 9.5 percent

(For further details, please click here.)