Weiner, Hillary and the FBI

Ladies and gentlemen, this is just a sham.  While investigating Anthony Weiner, the FBI confiscated his laptop and his soon to be ex-wife’s laptop.  Trying to regain trust and save face, FBI Director Comey notified congress the email probe against Secretary Hillary Clinton has been reopened.

Why? Is there a connection between Weiner’s emails and Clinton’s emails?  Is there a connection between Weiner’s wife – Huma Abedin Secretary Clinton’s former Deputy Chief of Staff. No, well, nothing confirmed but…. Director Comey thought he should be prudent and notified congress.  However, at the time Comey’s memo was sent, there had not been a review of Weiner’s and Abedin’s emails.

Comey says….

“At the same time, however, given that we do not know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression,”.  Meaning although the FBI found emails on Weiner’s and Abedin’s laptops, Director Comey does not what to give the impression there is anything wrong with the email nor connected in any way, shape or formal to Secretary Clinton.  So why reopen the investigation into the Clinton email server and use at this point?  Director Comey is trying to save face.

No he does not want to “create a misleading impression” what he wants to create is an impression or illusion his handling of the original investigation of Secretary Clinton was not a pay to play, or a favor for a friend.

Director Comey is only worried about himself, not the public nor the truth.  He is only trying to appear nonpartisan and not under the Clinton Mafia.  It is well-known Comey IS a strong supporter of Secretary Clinton.

Today’s public announcement regarding Director Comey’s memo is nothing more than trying to appear he has no favoritism or alliance with Her Highness Secretary Clinton and her corrupt followers.

Folks, it’s just smoke and mirrors.

It is not just Secretary Clinton that is corrupt and “above the law”.  We are talking about heads of government departments including the FBI, DOJ, and congressional elected officials.

IF what Director Comey says is true, a concern there maybe emails containing classified documents, why not suspend Clinton’s security clearance?  As what should have been done during the original investigation.  Why?  Because this time it is too early to know if there is any breach of security in the subject emails.

Director Comey is trying to save his job.  It has been suggested Comey originally blind sided the first investigation to the benefit of Secretary Clinton which in turn would ensure his position as Director of the FBI.  Showing favoritism towards Clinton, who some believe was a shoe-in for President would guarantee his position however, the polls are to close to tell for sure who will be our next President.  So Comey is playing both sides, trying to show there is a chance of impropriety with some of Abedin’s emails, going public and out of normal protocols notified congress.  Comey is trying to save his job; by going public regarding reopening the Clinton investigation he hopes to gain a visible show of supporting the law not a candidate incase Trump wins the election.



The Worst of Two Evils

So here we are again, a nation readying ourselves for a presidential election.  Bantering back and forth, accusations flinging left and right, top to bottom, lies, half truths, misdirecting and insinuations; like many years of elections we are left to choose the worst of two evils.

A man who eleven years ago was recorded saying and admitting to sexist comments, disrespectful to women and actions towards women in most case any other man would have had legal charges brought against him.  Some call him a chauvinist, womanizer, sexist and/or racist.  A man’s arrogance, quick speaking before thought sometimes gets him in trouble and chances are it will in the future.  The man…. Donald Trump.

This same man says he will stand up for America, it’s people and the constitution. 

A woman who over the last few years has been riddled in controversy even as lately as a month ago, actions showing she believes she is above the law, doing this “her way” whether than following protocols and laws if her ideas went against her oath.  A woman who has bought her way through favors and a “pay for play” lifestyle to support her political ambitions.  A woman who has been caught in lie after lie, wrong doing after wrong doing, supported by not only big money but my media outlets twisting the lies verse truth even more than the woman herself.  The woman…. Hillary Clinton.

This woman says she will continue with current policies provided by our current administration which she so proudly reminds us, she was part of.

So here we are again, this should NOT be the norm.  The behavior and attitude should not be tolerated.  This is no longer just politics, it is laced with disrespect, holier than thou attitudes and actions, speeches only designed to give the people, us, the voters what we want to hear, words to convince us to vote for them, the elite, the powerful, hiding behind their money damned the laws we the people live by.

So there you have it, a choice as poor as it is, to choose between the lesser or more convincing of two evils.

R martin

Journalism, CNN No Bias

Journalism, unbiased reporting of news, events, incidents and note worthy topics. I am not including opinion pieces, as opinion and editorial pieces do not necessarily fall under the ethics of true journalism.

Opinions, well everyone has an opinion, everyone has the right to voice their opinion and opinions are not regulated by what use to be the teachings of journalistic ethics and standards.

Ethics and standards of journalism

The basic teachings (and seem to be most forgotten of late) include fairness, integrity, truthfulness, accuracy, and objectivity.  Through in accountability and professionalism to round off how a journalist is suppose to act.


Apparently, some at CNN feels they have the right to put words in someone’s mouth, i.e., Donald Trump.  Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated there is a need for profiling, such as Israel profiles when there is suspicious behavior. At no time did Donald Trump say anything about race, religion or sexual orientation.

However, CNN reported not only in an article but also in headlines using the word “racial” in his comments. Trump did not at anytime use the word racial or any word hinting at race or anything particular type of profiling other than saying to do it like Israel.

So did CNN stick to the standard of journalistic ethics? Was CNN’s reporting truthful? Accurate? Fair? Objective? No to all of these questions.

Once again the media did not represent unbiased reporting.  Once again the media openly supporting Hillary Clinton for president, throws out the race card. Again, as with the “Make America Great Again”, media jumps on a band wagon promoting false statements in an attempt to make someone out as a racist or their statements promoting racism.

CNN showed poor journalistic skills, flat out lied. CNN needs to report the truth, not insinuate or make it appear a person’s comment needs to be taken a particular way when it is not what the person said.

CNN is intentionally making false statements, reporting them as truths in the attempt to rally people against Donald Trump.

Why can’t the  media just do their job the way they are suppose to? Just give us the truth, unbiased, accurate and objective. If it’s going to be an opinion piece, fine, but state it as an opinion piece, not as fact.

R martin

Has Political Correctness Endangered US?

Is it a bomb or not? Original reports stated there was an explosion in Chelsea, New York and a second “device” was found near the area of the explosion.


The definition of a bomb: an item filled with destructive material, explosive material, gas, smoke or incendiary material designed in such a way to explode on impact or setoff by a remote control device, time device, or fuse.

The Device

The device found close to the scene of the explosion was a “pressure cooker with wires connecting a cell phone…pressure cooker containing with explosive material, bearings and bb’s”.

The item – a pressure cooker, the remote control device – cell phone, contents – explosive material, bearings and bb’s.  Looks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck.  Looks like a bomb, acts like a bomb, it is a… BOMB!

Donald Trump

Presidential candidate came out publicly a bomb had exploded in Chelsea, New York.  Media has come out against presidential candidate Donald Trump for calling it a “bomb”; the media said there was no confirmation a bomb was involved despite the discover a second “device”.

Hillary Clinton

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton slammed Trump for calling it a bomb, yet within minutes she was calling it a bomb, before law enforcement (on live TV) said a “bomb exploded” in Chelsea, NY.

Media Bias

As Donald Trump was vocal about a bomb exploding and a second bomb being found, the media was quick to respond.  Not only providing news of the incident but the media also attempted to turn people against Trump by saying Trump had no evidence it was a bomb. In fact some media outlets reported the explosion might have been a gas leak even after law enforcement stated it was a bomb.  Media also chose the words “explosive device” instead of the word “bomb” while the media went on a rampage against Trump for using the word bomb.

Once Hillary Clinton used the word bomb (by mistake?), the media did not go after her for using the word bomb instead of the phrase “explosive device”.

To the media, to those wishing to be politically correct, and those thinking there is a difference, looking it up, “explosive device” and “bomb” are the same thing.

If you want to use the phrase “explosive device” or the word “bomb”, fine, great, it is what it is.  But don’t say an explosion with undetermined original is what it is even after law enforcement states it is a bomb or explosive device.

My Thought

Don’t go after any person political candidate or not when the person uses the word “bomb”.  Furthermore, if the media is going after one candidate for using the word bomb, then go after both.  If you don’t it is considered bias. And the some media, far, left liberal reporters say the media is treating Donald Trump with a soft touch.  Read the interviews, that is definitely not the case.

The Democrats Real Plan

Branding, front face, media exposure, popularity, well known, recognizable, are all part of a good media campaign. Is that why Hillary Clinton is the DNC party nomination for United States President?

Under normal circumstances, a person with a lot of bad publicity, and I mean a lot as with Hillary Clinton, this would not be an idea person to be the front face of a campaign. So why did the DNC really make her their nomination? Is it because she is a woman and that will bring in votes? Is it her history in politics (which is not the best according to both Dems and Reps)?

The candidate.

Hillary Clinton has the branding, well known, easily recognizable both by name and by picture, has had a lot of media exposure (good and bad) for over a decade. These reasons alone make her a good choice. Plus she has political experience, good and bad, but she has the experience at some of the highest levels of government offices. Again, these add up to a good reason for her to be a candidate.

Sell the candidate to the voters.  Get the public/voters behind the candidate, rile them up, pump them up, get them to the point the candidate can do no wrong.  Then, because of health issues the candidate, Hillary Clinton, has to back out at the last minute.  The ideal and best democrat for the position of president is…. Mr. Kaine but because he is virtually unheard of through most of the United States, on his own, he would not stand a chance to win a DNC nomination for president. But if Hillary was to back out, the DNC has the option/responsibility to choose her replacement.

Mr. Kaine has already been endorsed as Hillary’s running mate, a good reason to pick him.  Now add an endorsement by Hillary herself, all of her voters would gladly follow her lead and vote for Mr. Kaine.


It’s to late, it’s to close to voting time because in some states absentee ballots are already mailed, in other cases ballots are already printed and about to be mailed. Now what? It’s to late to put Mr. Kaine’s name on the ballots and remove Mrs. Clinton’s. Electoral votes. That’s right, the voters themselves would not be able to vote because Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot. So the voting for president is done by the electoral college which would take all of the voting for our next president out of the public’s hands. What does this mean? Politicians would elect our next president.


Does this scare you? It should. Although the electoral votes are suppose to represent the people, if the people have not had a chance to “tell” – vote who they want, how is the electoral college suppose to know? They don’t. They vote as they please. Could they go by the last few public poles done by survey? Yes they could, but which one do they use? Not all the public poles offer the same results. As of now, depending on the pole you are quoted, Hillary Clinton is ahead or in others Donald Trump is ahead.

In essence, the politicians decide who they want for president. And we, have to live with the results. So where is the “people’s” choice? There isn’t a “we the people” choice, it would rely solely on the electoral college.

Is this the plan?

So is this the plan? Does the democrat party feel they would have a better chance of getting another democrat president into office in this manner?

By all rights, in my opinion, Mr. Kaine is a better choice for president than Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Kaine’s political views are not governed by the democrats “by laws” or rules. As a governor and senator, Mr. Kaine’s political career has show he does not follow all of the ideals laid out as a far left democrat. His ideals and past political record shows he falls somewhere in the middle and at times even agreeing with some republican views. Is he a democrat? Oh most definitely, but he tends to side with and fight for the people and what is right for the majority not for himself or for the powers above him.


Maybe it’s none of the above and Mrs. Clinton is not going to drop out of the race.  Maybe the idea behind this whole election is to position Mr. Kaine in the public’s eye for president in 2020.

R martin

Make America Great Again Now Racist

Just when you think it is safe to read an ex-president’s statement without bashing a current president or possible future president, former President Clinton proves us all wrong.

Apparently, the phrase “Make America Great Again” is a racist slogan according to former President Clinton. With the ideals of promoting business, to strengthen our economy, build character, strengthen our military and to build our nation to a strong, respected country one might use the slogan “Make American Great Again”.

Over the years, several presidential candidates have use a slogan just as this or similar to forge their ideals to win an election. Former President Bush did, former President Clinton did (almost the exact wording) for his election and re-election campaigns and again when speaking to elect his wife for president.

President Clinton

However, now, according to former President Clinton, it is a racist comment. Why? Because presidential candidate D. Trump is using it for his election campaign AGAINST President Clinton’s wife in her bid for the presidency.

D. Trump is using the slogan and backing with statements as to what he plans to do to make America great… again; as we once were, a respectable, strong country working to a betterment for it’s citizens.  A country to be feared by our enemies, a country leading the way to better human rights, equal rights for all it’s citizens and legal documented visitors.

Former President Clinton says (apparently what comes to his mind) the slogan is racist.  A slogan meaning things are to regress, an economy equal to decades ago, a social status structure of decades ago, stating if you are a white southerner, you know exactly how racist the slogan is.

Let’s think about that for a minute.  Isn’t former President Clinton from the south?  A slogan he himself used for his presidential bid and re-election bid. So what did he mean when he used the slogan?

What did he accomplish as president?  A regression in the economy? A further space and divide among lower, middle and upper class? A more prevalent social ladder to a plateau leading to the top where the corrupt, rich stand looking down at the general public with a “I am above the law” attitude?

Again the Clintons present themselves as better than all others, their actions and speeches are more of a “do what I say, not as I do” attitude.

In conclusion

The phrase “Make America Great Again” is NOT a racist slogan or statement. If an individual sees it as such, it is only perceived in their mind based on their attitudes, thoughts and life style.

To me, the statement “Make America Great Again” stands for making our nation strong again, making our economy strong again, continuing to rid our country of racism, socialism, corruption again, and re-instating our freedoms again.

R martin