Half the news that’s fit to print is an appropriate appellation to confer on all the newsies who qualify to be lumped into the category of ‘main-stream-media – lumped also in the sense of coal for their Christmas stockings. Recognizing that this is a potential infringement on the New York Times self-proclaimed goal, it shouldn’t bother anyone because they have been publishing only half the story for a very long time.
Since nasty names have not invalidated the unthinkable November 8 ‘cataclysm’, the purveyors of liberal fantasies have seized on the fruits of Russian hackmeisters as proof that Donald Trump was the favorite of Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Never mind that there has been no attempt to deny embarrassing facts of DNC revelations that forced the party chair to resign nor anything else that Wikileaks revealed.
The obvious goal is to discredit the President-Elect and convince enough electors to overturn the election results when they meet December 19 or, at least, delay ratification of the election until they hear an intelligence report on the hacking. The clear message is that we cannot install a president who is obligated to Russian President Vladimir Putin for his electoral success. Despite all these efforts to discredit the man, Trump’s approval polling continues to climb.
The Other Half of the Story
If the Russian government attempted to tamper with our elections, and that has not been publicly confirmed yet, the question is why.
- They did it just because they could.
- They think Trump would be a patsy to deal with because of his worldwide business connections.
- Vladimir Putin likes Trump.
- Vladimir Putin hates Hillary
From a July 27, 2016 piece on nbc.com, “For a Russian leader who is considered as vain as he is ruthless, Clinton’s criticism long ago crossed over from the political into the personal. He carries a grudge against a woman who has publicly compared him to Hitler and expressed doubts that he has a soul.” Later in the article, Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia from 2012 to2014, offered the opinion that Putin took the remarks personally.
Putin stepped down in 2008 after serving two terms as president as called for in the post-Soviet constitution. He served four years as prime minister, an office subservient to the president and in 2012 became a presidential candidate once again. His campaign was marred by wide spread protests from an electorate not satisfied with economic progress promised by Putin dominated governance since 2000.
In his Putin biography, “The New Tsar The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin”, author Steven Lee Myers reports, “Three days after the vote, speaking to organizers of his coming presidential campaign, he blamed the on-going protests on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had criticized the conduct of the election.” He went on to say that she had a hand in organizing the protests.
After a rocky campaign, Putin was successful in his re-election bid, but harbored deep personal resentments toward Clinton. During his rise from KSB apparatchik to president, he never let a challenge go unretaliated against. That would have been a fatal sign of weakness in Russian politics. If indeed the Russian government had a hand in hacking our 2016 election, the motive is quite obvious. It was revenge!
Whether Russian hackers helped Trump’s election efforts or if the information was leaked from inside the DNC, the main-stream-media is bent on presenting only their preferred version of the story. As always, their reporting supports their agenda which, in this case, is to substitute their preference for the election outcome. Most observers are dismissive of these efforts but it tells us a lot about liberal ‘ideology’ and their regard for U.S. democratic institutions. The election aftermath is a clue to Liberal love of country which is someplace between despising the military and flag burning.