The Big Hack Attack

The Russians are hacking our computers; the sky is falling! Such hysteria over nothing.

I don’t know who actually hacked the DNC email server and sent John Podesta’s emails to Julian Assange  . . . and I doubt the best minds of our intelligence do either. Frankly, I doubt it even matters who did the hacking. What matters – and not much – is that Podesta and/or the DNC didn’t bother to place sufficient safeguards on their server to prevent hacking. It doesn’t matter much because most of the 20,000 emails were just run-of-the-mill day-to-day minutiae of a normal campaign. I tried going through those emails until I became bored out of my skull.

Voila! Someone actually did find some juicy tidbits, though. The BBC reported there were 18 interesting emails that cast light on some questionable dealings of the Clinton campaign. They must have had dozens of people poring over these emails on overtime to actually find these tidbits, but what they did find is moderately interesting.

Some of the emails did reveal a bit of infighting in the Clinton campaign. But those looking for a smoking gun on the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation weren’t going to find it here, although I did find many emails relating to the Clinton Foundation.

Podesta’s emails did show that Hillary did receive the CNN debate questions in advance from Donna Brazile. The emails also showed New York Mayor Bill De Blasio was having a hard time defending Hillary’s refusal to release the contents of her speeches to Wall Street bankers.

While these are not real scandal quality, they do give some insight into how Clinton and the DNC ran their campaign. I’m not saying Trump did any better, but we will never know because his emails didn’t make it to Wikileaks.

Did the Russians do it? Well, if they didn’t the Chinese would have. Here’s an excerpt from Politico of one of the leaked emails:

Chelsea Clinton confessed to John Podesta that her technology was "compromised" during a trip to China, according to a hacked email published Monday by WikiLeaks.

According to the message, Clinton in late 2011 wanted Podesta — formerly Bill Clinton's chief of staff and currently Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman — to meet with her mother's inner-circle the week of Thanksgiving.

After a couple of days corresponding, Podesta didn't respond to the former First Lady's daughter for about a week, according to an email chain released as part of the latest batch of purported messages from Podesta's Gmail account that WikiLeaks has been dumping each day.

"Sorry for the delay. I was in China and not accessing this account for security reason," Podesta replied on Nov. 20.

"That makes good sense to me," Clinton replied.

"Our technology was all compromised while we there (if we've time, I'll regale you with rather hilarious anecdotes of our tour guide cum spy). Hope you had a great trip."

The “technology” they were referring to is obviously email.

I’m not defending Wikileaks or Julian Assange. In fact, I believe Assange may be the devil incarnate. He has proven repeatedly to be highly anti-American in his dealings. What cannot be contested, though, is the accuracy of his leaked information. Even though neither Podesta nor anyone from the DNC will verify the contents of these leaked emails (surprise), they do not deny the accuracy.

So, someone hacked the DNC server and got John Podesta’s emails – 20,000 of them! We do know, because of these same emails that Podesta opened a Phishing attack email. Phishing is a fake email used to obtain your email password. Supposedly, he changed his password after this was revealed.

Did the Russians send the Phishing email; was it the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, or some 14-year-old in his mother’s basement with his laptop? Does it matter?

What should matter is the contents of those emails more than the fact that they were hacked. Did these emails have any effect on the Presidential campaign? Given the contents of these emails, it would be asinine to believe they might have.

Then too, this was not some super sensitive government server or our power grid. It was a private email account on a private server – exactly like the ones Hillary used as Secretary of State.

Calexit or not Calexit

Yes, I live in the “land of fruits and nuts”, or as former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calls it, “Caleefornia.” It is a place where Republicans are high on the endangered species list. And conservatives, well, have you ever seen a video of salmons jumping up a waterfall . . . only to be eaten by a bear at the top? Yep, that’s how it feels to be a conservative in this state at the far left of the US, geographically and politically.

If this state were a person, psychologists would declare it neurotic or maybe even schizophrenic. Well, maybe, but what is certain is that California is not like any other in the nation. Besides the climate, the state is, at present anyway, far more left politically than any other. It is a true one-Party state with Democrats being in the super-majority since 2013. I remember one Republican deciding not to run for re-election saying to the effect, why bother, the Democrats are going to do whatever they want.

But is it a true one-Party state, or does it seem that way because Republicans mostly live outside of the two largest cities in the state, Los Angeles, and San Francisco (including the Silicon Valley).

Ever since 1859, when State Assemblyman Andres Pico introduced a bill to create the state of Colorado out of the counties of California south of Big Sur, there have been attempts to break up the state. Understandably, that bill was dropped when the Civil war broke out; it seemed that there were a few more pressing issues at the time. But that was not the end of discontent with the size and makeup of the state. There have been reportedly over 200 attempts to partition the state. The latest came in 2011, when then Riverside County Supervisor, Jeff Stone suggested a six-way split. Personally, I thought a six-way split would be a great start. Unfortunately, that idea too seemed to peter out.

Why is there this constant fragmentation drive? The answer is simple, politics. Those living outside of the three major metropolitan areas don’t like being driven by policies of San Francisco or Los Angeles politicians. The third metro area, San Diego, seems to mostly be in accord with the more rural areas, or maybe it’s just that they aren’t in lockstep with those in the other two metro areas.

The 2016 Presidential election, arguably the most contentious in US history, left the Democrats with mouths agape. How could Donald Trump have possibly won the election when Hillary Clinton got a whopping 61.7 percent of the votes in the state and even won 55 electoral votes? Trump only got 31.6 percent of the votes!

Never ones to be counted on as good losers, Democrats and “Progressives” have decided to just leave. “Trump isn’t my President”, is the saying on protest signs. Apparently, there are those who would take it even further and say the United States isn’t my country. A group calling itself “YesCalifornia” is circulation a petition to secede from the United States. Supposedly they have some 12,000 members and plan to get the initiative on the 2018 ballot. If passed, California would become an independent nation in 2019.

Just how this new country is to survive without the support of our federal government is not something YesCalifornia is saying. At one time, I read that if California were a separate country, it would have the 7^th largest economy in the world. Well, maybe, but all of that would depend on the free trade we now have between states. If the US imposes import and export fees on California goods, where would that leave this booming California economy?

Here’s another big factor. How can this new country survive under a socialist government? Oh, yes, that is very much what California government would be following secession. That is largely what our state government is today. Since Jerry Brown has driven out most manufacturing, what will be the economic basis for the new California? The major portion of the California state economy is based on shipping through the state ports. If Trump’s administration imposes import and export fees on goods to and from the new California, what will be left for the economy?

Of course, this state does have maybe more rich people than most other states. Maybe the new California government can confiscate, er  . . . tax, their wealth? Right, like that would ever happen. Even if it did, it would not likely produce enough revenue to maintain this new country.

Although, I am sure, most of the other more reddish colored states wouldn’t mind losing the far-left, whacked out, influence of this land of fruits and nuts. Good riddance Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris. By-bye Governor Moonbeam, Gavin Nuisance, San Fran Whacko, and Hollyweird. Asta Lavista, babies. Al least those Hollyweird celebs will be able to keep their promise to move from the US.

Me? Well, there are still 49 states that will maintain the American dream. I’m sure I won’t have trouble fitting into a nice red one.

Obama’s Parting Shot

Keeping true to his legacy of socialism and anti-American sentimentality to the very end, President Obama could not resist the opportunity to poke his fingers in the eyes of the legal system. And I think those were his middle fingers to boot.

Every President exercises their right to commute sentences and grant pardons. While they can and do exercise that right at any time during their tenure, it seems they often leave the most controversial ones to the end of their term.

Take for instance the highly controversial pardon by Bill Clinton on his very last day in office of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich was on the lamb in Switzerland at the time of his indictment for tax evasion and making controversial oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. He never returned and eventually died in Switzerland.

Oh, but that was merely the wound, Clinton then couldn’t resist rubbing salt in it by commuting the sentences of 16 members of the Puerto Rico terrorist organization FALN. Congress condemned this action by President Clinton, with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House. In all Clinton commuted sentences of 41 people and pardoned 151.

During the terms of both Bushes, daddy Bush granted 71 pardons and only 3 commutations. The son pardoned 190 people and commuted the sentences of only 11 people.

During the last eight years, Obama has been quietly undermining the sentencing prerogatives of the courts. He has granted 1,176 commutations – including 395 life sentences – and 148 pardons. Most individuals granted executive clemency by Obama had been convicted on drug charges, and had received lengthy and sometimes mandatory sentences at the height of the War on Drugs

Obama has said he has been motivated to exercise his clemency power by a belief that the sentencing system in the United States was used to lock up minor criminals — often minorities — for excessively long periods of time.

On this December 19, Obama granted 153 commutations and 78 pardons, making that a record for the largest single-day use of the clemency power. He still has until January 20 to go. I have to wonder what other pardons or commutations could come.

The big questing on many minds is whether he will pardon Hillary Clinton for her email indiscretions and outright lies. If he doesn’t will President Trump keep his pledge to jail her?

And what are the odds Obama’s final parting shot might be outright pardon for Black Panther and cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, or the deserter Bowe Bergdahl for whom he traded five high-level terrorists held at Gitmo to the Taliban? 

Makes you ask why we even bother having laws and sentencing.

Sour Grapes

To the complete dismay of a preponderance of California voters, Donald Trump won the Presidential election. With a solid 61.5 percent of the votes, Hillary took all 55 electoral votes for this winner-take-all state. It was not enough, though, to offset the Trump electoral votes of Middle America. Trump is our President Elect and will be sworn into office January 20 of next year.

Ah, but Californians – at least the left-leaning Californians – aren’t content with that outcome, after all, California does have a Democrat Super Majority in the statehouse, a Democrat Governor, and two Democrat Senators. How can they possibly cope with a Republican President, especially one with Donald Trump’s personality?

Problem solved, they say, we’ll simply secede from the Union. They call it CalExit after the now famous, or infamous, British fiasco of Brexit. Whoa, hold the train. Didn’t 13 states try that in 1860? And wasn’t there a bloody war fought to keep those states in the Union against their will? Maybe those CalExit people might want to rethink this whole idea.

So, Californians are a bunch of sour grapes. But I remember Texas threatening to secede if Clinton won the election. When I heard that, I actually thought about buying land in Texas. I might still look into Texas real estate if CalExit succeeds.

It has been said that if California were a nation it would have the 7^th largest economy in the world. Although, it would likely be far less of an economic powerhouse if Silicon Valley were carved out. The Democrats in this one-party state have consistently driven manufacturers and business out of the state. It has been at the bottom of the list of business-friendly states for many years and is likely to remain there much longer. It would be interesting to see just how they would cope with being a separate nation.

What would they call California following secession, the independent nation of California, the Peoples Republic of California, How about Mexifornia? Maybe California could remain a possession, like Guam or Puerto Rico. Or perhaps Mexico could annex it. After all, the Hispanics already make up a majority in the state, and nearly everything is labeled in Spanish. Would President Trump build a wall around California then?

And what about all those Hollyweird celebrities that threatened to move if Trump was elected? Just think, they could all cancel their moving vans and stay in their own left-wing country.

Here’s an idea, maybe those other “Blue” states could join California. Losing Illinois alone would decrease the murder rate in the US significantly. And who needs Washington and Oregon anyway. Wouldn’t that be “progressive?”

Alas, I am stuck in California and just have to accept the fact that I’m surrounded by, ugh, Democrats. Thanks to the snail-paced economic recovery in Southern California I can’t yet afford to move to, say, Texas. So here I will remain.

It is sad that the CalExit crowd and all those distraught college brats can’t cope with reality the way I have. I do take solace in the hope that perhaps some of those celebrities will stay true to their word and leave. Maybe that’s too much to hope for. I would be glad to help them pack.

Optimism v/s Pessimism

 I used to have a computer screen saver that floated a saying across it. You could write anything in the marquee so I put: Optimism is the Curse of the Uniformed. It seemed appropriate since the recession was killing businesses right and left and mine was sinking faster than most. There was not much to be optimistic about in those years.

Does that make me a glass-half-empty person? Actually, no, I am an engineer by profession. I don’t think the glass is half empty or half full. Engineers believe the glass needs to be re-engineered.

And so it is with government. Many viewed the Obama years optimistically, perhaps an equal number view them pessimistically. Apparently, enough people viewed Obama’s legacy with pessimism and voted for Donald Trump. Trump vowed to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC, and that note struck a resounding chord with voters who were fed up with politicians and government intrusion into their lives.

While Trump goes about filling key positions, we see a lot of criticism from the left and some praise from conservatives --yep, pessimism v/s optimism. But this time it is reversed. The left and far-left leaning cities are perhaps beyond pessimistic, while those in Middle America finally have something to be optimistic about.

If the stock market is any indication, optimism for the new administration is well in order. After all, The Donald did vow to bring manufacturing back to this country, cut the red tape for startups, and remove the onerous taxes and regulations imposed on businesses. That means more opportunity for new business and more private sector jobs.

What a breath of fresh air! Had Clinton won, there would undoubtedly have been a continuation of Obama policies that saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. There would have been more regulations, restrictions, and taxes on businesses, thereby resulting in more manufacturers leaving the country in an effort to be competitive and fewer private sector jobs. The traditional big-government response would have been to pour more tax dollars into make-work projects to artificially reduce the unemployment numbers. Since we are pretty much maxed out on our borrowing, the only way to pay for those make-work projects would be increased taxes.

Well, there you have it, optimism versus pessimism. Donald Trump has given us the hope and optimism that the glass will be filled, while Hillary Clinton gave us the doubt and pessimism that the glass was being drained much faster than it would ever be filled.

So now, Mr. President-elect, it’s time to show your hand.

So far, most of the Trump selections for key government positions have been Washington insiders and politicians, and a few of the better Generals also made the cut. The big question could well be, how does this drain the swamp?

Frankly, I had expected Trump to tap the managerial dynamic of the private sector more than he has. I do applaud his addition of proven military men for some key positions, though. It is high time for our military to be represented by people who know the trade.

I am optimistic, though. I fully expect to soon see lobbyists circling the drain as the swamp begins to dry up. We already hear the cries of professional politicians and lobbyists in Washington as they scramble to remain afloat in the swamp. Maybe the glass is only half full after all.

Thank God for Middle Americ

By now, I’m sure most of you have seen the map of counties that went to Donald Trump. It looks like a map of America in red with blue brackets at both sides. Okay, in all fairness there are splashes of blue throughout the map as well – very small splashes.

Those red counties are the places Obama referred to as “clinging to guns and religion.” The people of those counties are the ones Hillary Clinton called a “basket of deplorables.” And taken by sheer acreage, it is the vast majority of our country. It is home to the hard-working people who have been hit the hardest by the recession and those who have failed to see the “recovery” touted by the Obama administration.

In this election, as in that of 2000, we see that wonderful constitutional instrument called the Electoral College come under attack. Well, of course, I would expect no less of a losing party. Had Trump lost he would have used the same excuse.

But is it fair? After all, every other elected post is determined by a popular vote, why not the highest position in the land?

Well, it is exactly because it is the highest and most important position in our government that the founding fathers decided not to entrust it to a popular vote. At the time the constitution was created, less populous states like Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia would have been easily out-voted by those more populous states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. To those founders, that smacked of tyranny and needed a better solution than popular vote.

Interestingly, a similar problem existed with congressional representation. Many of the voting populous were located in states that had few slaves. The solution of the time was to allow 5/9 of the slave population to add to the voting population for apportionment of representatives. History is mute on why this method was not used for Presidential election, but as things stand today, we are most fortunate it was not.

Why not simply use the apportioned and elected congressional representatives to select the President? Well, at that time, there was not much in the way of political parties, but there was still sufficient wrangling among cliques within congress to foresee the problems that would cause.

How the President would be selected was such a contentious problem that it was one of the very last additions to the Constitution, and once it was added, the actual duties of the President were entirely left out.

In the end, a suggestion that had been discarded early in the convention was resurrected and flushed out to everyone’s, albeit reluctant, acceptance. The college of Electors was born and inserted in the final Constitution. While based on the same apportionment as Congressional Representatives, it stripped any connection to those representatives and shielded the President from the politics of Congress.

It was basically a good idea. Unfortunately, like much in the Constitution, it was an incomplete solution. And since anything not specifically called out in the Constitution is left up to the States, the implementation of the Electoral College became inconsistent.

Electors are chosen by the political parties, and the winning party gets to have all the electoral votes for that state. Can you see the problem here? This is exactly what the founders tried to avoid. Some states, however, proportion the electors by the vote within that state. In addition, electors are not legally bound to vote as dictated by their party!

What a mess! Still, it has allowed the people of mid-America and those states with small populations from being dictated to by the likes of New York, California, and Illinois.

Do away with the Electoral College? First, that would require a constitutional amendment – try to get 2/3 ratification for that. Second, it can be fixed. But any attempt to change it would likely end up looking like election by popular vote.

Personally, I like the Electoral College and believe it was an enlightened solution to a very sticky problem. It is too bad it was not fully defined in the original Constitution. It could use a better implementation but works pretty well as it is.

More Campaign Fray

Yes, I watched both the Vice Presidential debate and this last Presidential debate. Talk about day and night, the two “debates” could not be different. Tim Kaine and Mike Pence were, for the most part, civil, even though Kaine merely parroted the Clinton campaign dialog. On the other hand, civility could never describe the “debate” between Clinton and Trump. A better description might be “brawl.”

I have to wonder if somehow, Jerry Springer might responsible for orchestrating these Presidential debates. Probably not, though, since there were no chairs thrown. Maybe next time.

So, how will I vote in this election? The fact is I am still in a quandary. One thing I do know is that my vote will not be for either candidate. It will merely be against one of them, and right now, that will be against Hillary Clinton.

On my score sheet for this last Presidential “debate”, Trump won on points. The first debate may have gone to Clinton merely because Trump failed to ignore the misdirection and softballs thrown to Clinton. None of her failings, scandals, and lapses of judgment came up in the first debate. This time, Trump was prepared. He ignored the “moderators’” efforts to push the tone in a more favorable direction for Clinton and hit her where it hurts.

The woman, by her own admission, has been involved in politics and government for more than thirty years. During that time what exactly have been her accomplishments? Has she worked for the betterment of the ghettos or any part of the Black community (e.g. jobs, education, or even infrastructure)? Has she done anything about illegal immigration or even worked to make life better for any immigrants? Did she help change the tax code to prevent billionaires from paying no taxes? Did she try to rein in Wall Street influence?

The answer is no, and these are the issues she is running on! As Trump managed to point out, several times, they are merely words for Clinton. Like most politicians, she talks the talk on the campaign trail but when it comes to walking the walk, she is absent. Wikileaks even revealed that Clinton believes in a public face and a private policy when it comes to the issues. Do the math, that’s two faces!

We also learned just before the televised debate that Donald Trump is no angel. Surprise! In fact, he is more like most men when the women aren’t within earshot; he talks trash. No, it’s not pretty. It’s not meant to be. It’s just how we men are.

So, is this an issue? Because I kind of think that things like ISIS chopping off heads and burning people alive in cages might be more of an issue. I also think the Clinton foundation pay-for-play and foreign contributions might be an issue. Or how about our shrinking military and shrinking prestige on the world stage due to the Obama policies that Clinton wants to continue? There is also that issue of Chinese man made islands in international waters and the increased Russian aggression. Or maybe Nuclear North Korea in the hands of a madman should be an issue. And let’s not leave out Iran, who now has 1.5 billion dollars more -- thanks to Obama -- to proliferate their terrorism.

Somehow, I find the issue of Trump’s potty mouth very small, in fact, minuscule, potatoes compared to these larger issues. Yet, this is what Clinton and the mainstream media bring to the forefront as to why Donald Trump should not be President.

Well, folks, Donald Trump is running for President, not trying to date your daughter. Frankly, I could not care less what language he uses. I care more about what his plans are for bringing our economy out of the toilet. I care about his plans for bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country. I care very much who the next President will appoint to the Supreme Court. I also care about restoring our military might and prestige on the world stage – you can bet there will be no apology tours in a Trump Presidency. There are also immigration – both legal and illegal – issues that I care very much about. I don’t trust Clinton to be on the right side of those issues either.

No, I don’t think Donald Trump is the best choice for President. Unfortunately, I don’t see an alternative.