Background and disclaimers:
1) I am a Trump supporter and will vote for him in November;
2) I am writing this without listening to any of the pundits, so I might miss some stuff they get;
3) I am home alone with my two dogs as the Diplowife, who always has lots of views, is in Spain with two of our kids to attend a wedding;
4) I have been texting her for the past 90 minutes giving her a running account of the debate as she sits on an overnight bus from Donosti (San Sebastian) to Madrid;
5) I have not requested the views of my dogs.
General impression: no KO punches by either Trump or Clinton; both will have survived the night relatively unscathed, and both camps will claim victory. I, however, think that the pundits will score it as a win for Hillary. I, myself, score it as a narrow win on points for her when scoring purely as a debate performance. That doesn't mean, as I note below, that Trump lost in the real world.
She came prepared, spoke well, did not get flustered, went on the offense on several occasions, and managed to get Trump off message and look defensive. Clinton spewed lies and a lot of Democrat/progressive nonsense but did it well, without too much effective challenge from Trump. Clinton also got an assist from the moderator, Lester Holt, who let her go on and on, while he repeatedly interrupted Trump to remind him of time limits; he also engaged Trump in debate re his "birther" stance, on the history of his opposition to the war in Iraq, and on "stop and frisk." In addition, Trump stumbled on the whole issue of "no fly" and "terror watch" lists, lamely agreeing with Clinton that an unconstitutional denial of second amendment rights could and should result from these extrajudicial lists (see what I wrote about this here.) Trump let her slide on cyber security, not hammering Clinton on her private server and "reckless" disregard for national security information, only mentioning in passing her 33,000 deleted emails; he, furthermore, never brought up the Clinton Foundation, "pay for play," Benghazi, and her own great wealth stealthily acquired over the past several years. He was too defensive on his tax returns, on the birther issue, and his bankruptcies. He did not hit her on the immigration and refugee vetting issue. Trump never mentioned the words "deplorable" or "irredeemable." He let Clinton off the hook--too much a gentleman?--on "bimbo eruptions," while she did not hesitate to blast him about a Latina beauty contestant who has some beef against Trump.
Trump did get off a few good shots about Clinton's disastrous political record, nil accomplishments as SecState, support for bad trade deals, and lack of realism in her tax-and-spend proposals. I thought Trump did very well on "law and order," and in demonstrating empathy for people stuck in the inner cities and suffering under Democrat rule for the last 60 to 100 years. He might have picked up some African-American votes without losing white ones. Hillary, on the other hand, was atrocious on the race issue and, I think, that will cost her some white votes. She basically said all of us are racially biased. She appeared to trash all the cops; Trump successfully contrasted that with the widespread support he has from police organizations.
In sum, Trump missed an opportunity to put the election away. I have no idea how this will play in the polls outside of the beltway, in the real America, over the next few days, but can't imagine they will move much either way. Trump, however, might pick up some support from those who like his "blue collar" manner of speaking. I don't know.
There are two more debates. My two-cents of advice for Trump? Go after her on the topics mentioned above. He also, frankly, needs to look better prepared. He can't just recycle campaign speeches. Hillary Clinton is a clever, tough old reptile who desperately wants power. She will say and do anything to achieve it. Do not underestimate her.
OK, off to listen to the great and wise ones.
Featured Post
The War on Joy
This post started off as a little discourse on the Christmas season and the sort of politically correct nonsense we see emerge at this time....
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Friday, September 23, 2016
Charlotte Riots & the Corrosive Effects of Toxic Progressivism
Here we go again.
Our television screens, newspapers, and social media are full of images and reports of "protestors" in Charlotte protesting "racism" in the wake of the shooting death of anunarmed armed black man by a white black policeman who works for a white black police chief and a male Republican female Democrat mayor. You don't need me to tell you that the "protestors," a mix of mostly black and some white thugs out for a big party, many from out of state, who "demonstrated" by throwing rocks at cops, threatening motorists, trashing hotels, and looting stores in beautiful Charlotte are products of the decades of toxic and corrosive progressive sludge that has poured into and out of our core institutions.
Do most of these "protestors" really give a damn about "justice"? "Racism"? "Inequality"? Or, even, about the dead man in this still unresolved incident? No. In fact, one of these partying "demonstrators" has now been arrested for murdering another partying "demonstrator." The riots and marches are hoaxes that the media and the other progressive forces in the country insist we take seriously as expressions of anger over all that is wrong in America. But look at the faces on most of these "protestors." They're having fun! They're laughing at everyone.
Now, of course, many of us do take this all seriously but not exactly in the way our progressive overlords meant. Gun sales have shot upward, yet again, with stores in the Charlotte area sold out. I, myself, sit in California, some 3,000 miles away, and have just put a hold deposit on a new S&W 44 Mag for pick up once the mandated thirty-day wait between gun purchases has lapsed. I am buying lots of ammo and practicing regularly.
Progressivism has condemned millions of poor black and hispanic citizens in America to crumbling and violent hellish inner cities. The progressive political machine makes them dependent on the welfare crumbs and the slogans thrown their way. To point this out, results in the unleashing of the progressive insult machine which demands politically correct speech and thought. The progressives need and use the poor; under progressivist rule, there is no hope for the poor to stop being poor. Just as planned.
In addition, of course, progressivism requires a constant effort to undermine joy and happiness. Nothing is safe from redefinition and manipulation in the pursuit of the always elusive "social justice." Progressives demand that everything be politicized 24/7. There are no safe spaces from politics. We see pampered, multimillionaire athletes, largely illiterate products of progressive educational institutions, "taking a knee" when the national anthem plays, and the fad spreads. The universities pour out a stream of essentially uneducated, self-entitled, joyless cry babies, so stupid that they have mortgaged their future in pursuit of worthless degrees that testify only to their worthless educations. Our universities are joyless places of no thought and of stifling intellectual repression. The attack on core values and institutions is ceaseless. We are to have no borders, no flag, no sports, no unifying ethos that makes us a nation. Our nation is not legitimate, apparently, because it is not perfect per, of course, those ever-elusive and flexible social justice standards.
As noted, the progressive assault on our traditions and institutions is ceaseless. Not only are major ones such as marriage and the military under assault, but even minor ones such as Boy Scouts and gender-differentiated restrooms. The language, itself, is being reshaped as thought and expression are censored. There is a push to do away with traditional "maleness," the "Band of Brothers" kind one saw on the beaches of Normandy, and replace it with pajama boys who seek to pee in the ladies restroom. Progressive Hollywood insists on filling our screens with "bad ass" women who can use both brains and fists to take on any obnoxious (white) man. In real life, of course, the progressives demand endless legislation, orders, regulations, and procedures to protect women. Even the most intimate interactions between male and female are now the province of lawyers and bureaucrats. Woe to the man who doesn't follow the rule book, especially on a campus . . .
Criminally inept or maybe better said just criminal policies by our "leaders" in the West, have eroded Western power and influence throughout the world. They have destroyed the already turbulent Middle East, unleashing unprecedented instability and violence, and loosing upon us an invasion of "refugees" who threaten to undermine our culture and rape and murder us in our own streets and homes. There is, as I have stated many times, a Molotov-Von Ribbentrop alliance between progressives and jihadis, united in their hatred of Western civilization and its values.
Our progressive leaders lecture us on past misdeeds by the West for which we must pay penance, and tell us, as has the idiotic mayor of New York, that we need more Muslims. The equally as idiotic mayor of London, himself a Muslim, tells us to get used to terror, that it's the "new normal." Great European cities are now blighted with violent "no go" zones; rape, murder, assault are spiking all over Europe.
Obama and Clinton want to replicate the German, French, Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavian migration disasters here in America. According to Hillary, everybody has the right to immigrate to the USA. We have no right, apparently, to say "No" to anybody. Only the West has no right to preserve itself, all else can defend their culture against "appropriation" and invasion. We must accept those who adhere to a creed that threatens us with destruction in order to make us stronger, safer, and, above all, "better." Bland word salads about "tough" vetting of these migrants are meant to assure us that all will be right. Move along. Nothing to see here.
That no such vetting is possible, is no secret. The migrants come bearing a totalitarian creed, Islam, that hates our civilization and vows to destroy it. Whether they currently belong to AQ or ISIS is irrelevant as we saw in the New York/New Jersey bombings. The shadow of "radicalization" looms over them all.
I am voting for Trump, in case you forgot. In fact, I suspect, that these "protests" will drive voters to the Trump camp. Will that make a difference? I hope it will, but I don't know. What I know is we face a genuinely dire situation in our country and throughout what's left of Western civilization. Perhaps November 8 in the voting booth is the last time and place we will have some sort of a chance for a peaceful counter-attack. I don't know. What I do know is that if we continue on the current path, my children and their children will live in a much changed, much poorer, much more dangerous and intellectually stifled world than the one we knew.
Our television screens, newspapers, and social media are full of images and reports of "protestors" in Charlotte protesting "racism" in the wake of the shooting death of an
Do most of these "protestors" really give a damn about "justice"? "Racism"? "Inequality"? Or, even, about the dead man in this still unresolved incident? No. In fact, one of these partying "demonstrators" has now been arrested for murdering another partying "demonstrator." The riots and marches are hoaxes that the media and the other progressive forces in the country insist we take seriously as expressions of anger over all that is wrong in America. But look at the faces on most of these "protestors." They're having fun! They're laughing at everyone.
Now, of course, many of us do take this all seriously but not exactly in the way our progressive overlords meant. Gun sales have shot upward, yet again, with stores in the Charlotte area sold out. I, myself, sit in California, some 3,000 miles away, and have just put a hold deposit on a new S&W 44 Mag for pick up once the mandated thirty-day wait between gun purchases has lapsed. I am buying lots of ammo and practicing regularly.
Progressivism has condemned millions of poor black and hispanic citizens in America to crumbling and violent hellish inner cities. The progressive political machine makes them dependent on the welfare crumbs and the slogans thrown their way. To point this out, results in the unleashing of the progressive insult machine which demands politically correct speech and thought. The progressives need and use the poor; under progressivist rule, there is no hope for the poor to stop being poor. Just as planned.
In addition, of course, progressivism requires a constant effort to undermine joy and happiness. Nothing is safe from redefinition and manipulation in the pursuit of the always elusive "social justice." Progressives demand that everything be politicized 24/7. There are no safe spaces from politics. We see pampered, multimillionaire athletes, largely illiterate products of progressive educational institutions, "taking a knee" when the national anthem plays, and the fad spreads. The universities pour out a stream of essentially uneducated, self-entitled, joyless cry babies, so stupid that they have mortgaged their future in pursuit of worthless degrees that testify only to their worthless educations. Our universities are joyless places of no thought and of stifling intellectual repression. The attack on core values and institutions is ceaseless. We are to have no borders, no flag, no sports, no unifying ethos that makes us a nation. Our nation is not legitimate, apparently, because it is not perfect per, of course, those ever-elusive and flexible social justice standards.
As noted, the progressive assault on our traditions and institutions is ceaseless. Not only are major ones such as marriage and the military under assault, but even minor ones such as Boy Scouts and gender-differentiated restrooms. The language, itself, is being reshaped as thought and expression are censored. There is a push to do away with traditional "maleness," the "Band of Brothers" kind one saw on the beaches of Normandy, and replace it with pajama boys who seek to pee in the ladies restroom. Progressive Hollywood insists on filling our screens with "bad ass" women who can use both brains and fists to take on any obnoxious (white) man. In real life, of course, the progressives demand endless legislation, orders, regulations, and procedures to protect women. Even the most intimate interactions between male and female are now the province of lawyers and bureaucrats. Woe to the man who doesn't follow the rule book, especially on a campus . . .
Criminally inept or maybe better said just criminal policies by our "leaders" in the West, have eroded Western power and influence throughout the world. They have destroyed the already turbulent Middle East, unleashing unprecedented instability and violence, and loosing upon us an invasion of "refugees" who threaten to undermine our culture and rape and murder us in our own streets and homes. There is, as I have stated many times, a Molotov-Von Ribbentrop alliance between progressives and jihadis, united in their hatred of Western civilization and its values.
Our progressive leaders lecture us on past misdeeds by the West for which we must pay penance, and tell us, as has the idiotic mayor of New York, that we need more Muslims. The equally as idiotic mayor of London, himself a Muslim, tells us to get used to terror, that it's the "new normal." Great European cities are now blighted with violent "no go" zones; rape, murder, assault are spiking all over Europe.
Obama and Clinton want to replicate the German, French, Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavian migration disasters here in America. According to Hillary, everybody has the right to immigrate to the USA. We have no right, apparently, to say "No" to anybody. Only the West has no right to preserve itself, all else can defend their culture against "appropriation" and invasion. We must accept those who adhere to a creed that threatens us with destruction in order to make us stronger, safer, and, above all, "better." Bland word salads about "tough" vetting of these migrants are meant to assure us that all will be right. Move along. Nothing to see here.
That no such vetting is possible, is no secret. The migrants come bearing a totalitarian creed, Islam, that hates our civilization and vows to destroy it. Whether they currently belong to AQ or ISIS is irrelevant as we saw in the New York/New Jersey bombings. The shadow of "radicalization" looms over them all.
I am voting for Trump, in case you forgot. In fact, I suspect, that these "protests" will drive voters to the Trump camp. Will that make a difference? I hope it will, but I don't know. What I know is we face a genuinely dire situation in our country and throughout what's left of Western civilization. Perhaps November 8 in the voting booth is the last time and place we will have some sort of a chance for a peaceful counter-attack. I don't know. What I do know is that if we continue on the current path, my children and their children will live in a much changed, much poorer, much more dangerous and intellectually stifled world than the one we knew.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Internet "Radicalization" & Other Dangerous Progressive Fantasies
Muslim-executed bombings in New York and New Jersey. Muslim-executed stabbing sprees in New York and Minnesota.
Another round of Muslim terror, and yet another round of our "leaders" trying to define it away: "an intentional act but not necessarily terrorism," "no evidence of a wider conspiracy," and my favorite, "lone wolf." Right. I also love our Beloved Dear Leader giving one of his copyrighted "press conferences" in which he puts on the "I am so bored" attitude and lectures us on not jumping to conclusions about any of this. He never utters the words "Islam" or "terror."
Hillary, roused herself, maybe she got some vitamin injections, and gave a little "presser" in which she babbled about getting the cooperation of "Silicon Valley" to help fight "online radicalization." Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. Get ourselves an anti-jihadi app, or a new techno gizmo that will stop "hate speech" on the internet. OK. Sure thing.
The internet.
Yes, the internet is being blamed for "radicalization."
Sorry, folks, but the source of Muslim radicalization pre-dates the internet by almost fourteen centuries.
Muslim radicalization comes from awebsite book called the Koran. That's where you find the source material.
Sure, the jihadis use the internet to push their crap, and justify their attacks, but the radicalization does not come from emails, text messages, chat rooms, or Twitter. It comes from the Koran primarily via a local mosque running with the playbook laid out in, you guessed it, the Koran. These mosques, which the foolish West has allowed to pop up in every major and minor city, serve as centers for this "radicalization." Remember the Blind Sheik and his crimes in New York in the 1990s? He wasn't a product of the internet, nor were his followers who tried to blow up the World Trade Center well before 9/11/2001. Hell, how about the Mahdi in 19th century Sudan? Never mind that, how about the Moorish invasion of Iberia? How about . . . well, you get it. Hillary doesn't, but most of the rest of us do.
Nope, can't blame Muslim radicalization on Al Gore's invention.
The yammering about the internet is just another progressive ploy to destroy yet another portion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The same people who will tell us what is and is not terror, will tell us what is and is not permitted opinion on the internet. Just as the progressive darlings come up with all sorts of ploys to do away with our second amendment rights, now they want to use "radicalization" as an excuse to clamp down on the internet. Just as they want Star Chamber-drafted "lists" to determine if we can own guns, without any due process, of course, they want an alliance between big tech and big government to control expression on the wild and free internet.
The progs are having another one of their periodic head-exploding episodes because Donald Trump has said we need to start profiling as done, effectively, in Israel. To try to sabotage Trump, they inserted the word "racial" in front of "profiling," something Trump did not do, and went berserk--including Fox News which, except for "Hannity," is becoming increasingly anti-Trump. Next, of course, we see a deliberate effort to erase the history of successful uses of profiling in law enforcement and intelligence. When the FBI went after the Italian mafia, for example, they profiled a lot of Italians. When going after Jewish, Jamaican, Albanian, Russian, Mexican, Chinese, Irish, etc, criminals, well, you look at a lot of people from those ethnic groups. Not rocket science.
Instead of fiddling with internet apps, let's get the FBI and local police to infiltrate and monitor mosques. We used to it. We need to do it, again.
One last comment, and I will go off to play with my new Kimber--yes, bought another one. Please note that the stabbing spree in Minnesota was stopped by a citizen with a concealed carry permit. He is only a part-time cop and spends most of his time as a firearms instructor. That jihadi picked the wrong mall. The media is trying to suppress the story and increasingly I see media accounts which refer to the jihadi as shot by police.
Yep. Must maintain that narrative: In response to Muslim stabbings and bombings, we must import more Muslim migrants and take guns away from American citizens.
Kimber time . . .
Another round of Muslim terror, and yet another round of our "leaders" trying to define it away: "an intentional act but not necessarily terrorism," "no evidence of a wider conspiracy," and my favorite, "lone wolf." Right. I also love our Beloved Dear Leader giving one of his copyrighted "press conferences" in which he puts on the "I am so bored" attitude and lectures us on not jumping to conclusions about any of this. He never utters the words "Islam" or "terror."
Hillary, roused herself, maybe she got some vitamin injections, and gave a little "presser" in which she babbled about getting the cooperation of "Silicon Valley" to help fight "online radicalization." Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. Get ourselves an anti-jihadi app, or a new techno gizmo that will stop "hate speech" on the internet. OK. Sure thing.
The internet.
Yes, the internet is being blamed for "radicalization."
Sorry, folks, but the source of Muslim radicalization pre-dates the internet by almost fourteen centuries.
Muslim radicalization comes from a
Sure, the jihadis use the internet to push their crap, and justify their attacks, but the radicalization does not come from emails, text messages, chat rooms, or Twitter. It comes from the Koran primarily via a local mosque running with the playbook laid out in, you guessed it, the Koran. These mosques, which the foolish West has allowed to pop up in every major and minor city, serve as centers for this "radicalization." Remember the Blind Sheik and his crimes in New York in the 1990s? He wasn't a product of the internet, nor were his followers who tried to blow up the World Trade Center well before 9/11/2001. Hell, how about the Mahdi in 19th century Sudan? Never mind that, how about the Moorish invasion of Iberia? How about . . . well, you get it. Hillary doesn't, but most of the rest of us do.
Nope, can't blame Muslim radicalization on Al Gore's invention.
The yammering about the internet is just another progressive ploy to destroy yet another portion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The same people who will tell us what is and is not terror, will tell us what is and is not permitted opinion on the internet. Just as the progressive darlings come up with all sorts of ploys to do away with our second amendment rights, now they want to use "radicalization" as an excuse to clamp down on the internet. Just as they want Star Chamber-drafted "lists" to determine if we can own guns, without any due process, of course, they want an alliance between big tech and big government to control expression on the wild and free internet.
The progs are having another one of their periodic head-exploding episodes because Donald Trump has said we need to start profiling as done, effectively, in Israel. To try to sabotage Trump, they inserted the word "racial" in front of "profiling," something Trump did not do, and went berserk--including Fox News which, except for "Hannity," is becoming increasingly anti-Trump. Next, of course, we see a deliberate effort to erase the history of successful uses of profiling in law enforcement and intelligence. When the FBI went after the Italian mafia, for example, they profiled a lot of Italians. When going after Jewish, Jamaican, Albanian, Russian, Mexican, Chinese, Irish, etc, criminals, well, you look at a lot of people from those ethnic groups. Not rocket science.
Instead of fiddling with internet apps, let's get the FBI and local police to infiltrate and monitor mosques. We used to it. We need to do it, again.
One last comment, and I will go off to play with my new Kimber--yes, bought another one. Please note that the stabbing spree in Minnesota was stopped by a citizen with a concealed carry permit. He is only a part-time cop and spends most of his time as a firearms instructor. That jihadi picked the wrong mall. The media is trying to suppress the story and increasingly I see media accounts which refer to the jihadi as shot by police.
Yep. Must maintain that narrative: In response to Muslim stabbings and bombings, we must import more Muslim migrants and take guns away from American citizens.
Kimber time . . .
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Birth Panic: The Left Goes into Crisis Mode
For a political junkie such as I, this proved an amazing day. I was going to write about my day at the gun range as I continue my brave struggle to stop shooting high and left (10 o'clock) but the events of September 16, which saw the left shooting right and low, crowded out that boring saga.
Once again, my hat is off to Trump.
As he did with his trips to Mexico, Louisiana, and Flint where he caught the Clinton machine in mid oil change, he did it again with the press. He announced that he would hold a press conference to deal with the "birther" issue (Note: For those two readers from Mars, this is the issue of whether Obama was born in the USA and, even if he were, should he be considered a "natural born citizen" given that his father was not a US citizen.) Trump, clever on the "birther" issue, did his signature ploy of "Hey, many people are saying" without ever actually saying that Obama was not US born. For years, he kept up a drumbeat of demands for an oddly reluctant Obama to release his birth certificate. Once Obama issued a (sort of) birth certificate showing his place of birth as Hawaii, Trump claimed credit for forcing the president to do so.
Well, as the Clinton campaign sputters and the poll numbers circle the drain, Queen Hillary and her media drones decided to resurrect this issue and cast it as a racial insult to Obama: Trump began again to be asked whether he thought Obama was born in the US. While some of his surrogates tried answering for him in the affirmative, Trump took the risky move of refusing to answer, saying that he would speak at the aforementioned press conference held, purely coincidentally, at his beautiful new hotel in Washington DC.
The conference was supposed to start at 10 am EST, but did not do so until around 1045. He had the press there, absorbing their attention while Clinton held an almost ignored event elsewhere in DC. The stage filled up with what turned out to be "deplorable" veterans, many of them with purple hearts, two bearing the Medal of Honor, some with silver and bronze stars, and others holding flag rank. They were, as one vet said, "the deplorable deployables." Eventually Trump spoke, saying that Hillary's 2008 campaign had started the birther controversy and that he, Trump, had finished it: Obama is born in the USA, time to focus on making America safe and great again. Applause! Exit stage left.
The media, including FOX News, exploded. They had been conned! No press conference! Fact-checkers went into overdrive, claiming that Trump lied about Hillary's campaign kicking off the birther controversy. Since I started writing this, the irreplaceable and irrepressible Drudge has linked to stories from 2008 showing how the story did, indeed, come from the Hillary campaign. I was living in DC at the time, and remember those stories, the outrage from the Obama camp, as well as hearing a work colleague, a strong supporter of Hillary, arguing that Obama was Constitutionally ineligible to run as president since his citizenship was in doubt. Ah, 1984, once again serves as the progressive instruction manual . . . rewrite, rewrite, rewrite . . . Did Trump seize on the birther controversy and milk it for his own ends? Sure, but the Clinton campaign served as the biological parents of the issue. Was it racist? I don't know; I mean Cruz had a similar issue, and was that racist? I guess everything is racist when convenient . . .
Will Hillary continue to push this issue? I don't know, but probably; she ain't got much else. Interestingly Obama himself did not get the memo; at a TPP photo op in the White House (with dopey Gov. Kasich present!) Obama told journalists that he was "surprised" people were raising this issue, again. He might want to have a word with the Clintons, but they apparently are at a massive Clinton Foundation birthday bash for Bill where the rich and famous attend if they fork over tens-of-thousands of dollars. The Clinton crime family just doesn't stop . . .
Once again, my hat is off to Trump.
As he did with his trips to Mexico, Louisiana, and Flint where he caught the Clinton machine in mid oil change, he did it again with the press. He announced that he would hold a press conference to deal with the "birther" issue (Note: For those two readers from Mars, this is the issue of whether Obama was born in the USA and, even if he were, should he be considered a "natural born citizen" given that his father was not a US citizen.) Trump, clever on the "birther" issue, did his signature ploy of "Hey, many people are saying" without ever actually saying that Obama was not US born. For years, he kept up a drumbeat of demands for an oddly reluctant Obama to release his birth certificate. Once Obama issued a (sort of) birth certificate showing his place of birth as Hawaii, Trump claimed credit for forcing the president to do so.
Well, as the Clinton campaign sputters and the poll numbers circle the drain, Queen Hillary and her media drones decided to resurrect this issue and cast it as a racial insult to Obama: Trump began again to be asked whether he thought Obama was born in the US. While some of his surrogates tried answering for him in the affirmative, Trump took the risky move of refusing to answer, saying that he would speak at the aforementioned press conference held, purely coincidentally, at his beautiful new hotel in Washington DC.
The conference was supposed to start at 10 am EST, but did not do so until around 1045. He had the press there, absorbing their attention while Clinton held an almost ignored event elsewhere in DC. The stage filled up with what turned out to be "deplorable" veterans, many of them with purple hearts, two bearing the Medal of Honor, some with silver and bronze stars, and others holding flag rank. They were, as one vet said, "the deplorable deployables." Eventually Trump spoke, saying that Hillary's 2008 campaign had started the birther controversy and that he, Trump, had finished it: Obama is born in the USA, time to focus on making America safe and great again. Applause! Exit stage left.
The media, including FOX News, exploded. They had been conned! No press conference! Fact-checkers went into overdrive, claiming that Trump lied about Hillary's campaign kicking off the birther controversy. Since I started writing this, the irreplaceable and irrepressible Drudge has linked to stories from 2008 showing how the story did, indeed, come from the Hillary campaign. I was living in DC at the time, and remember those stories, the outrage from the Obama camp, as well as hearing a work colleague, a strong supporter of Hillary, arguing that Obama was Constitutionally ineligible to run as president since his citizenship was in doubt. Ah, 1984, once again serves as the progressive instruction manual . . . rewrite, rewrite, rewrite . . . Did Trump seize on the birther controversy and milk it for his own ends? Sure, but the Clinton campaign served as the biological parents of the issue. Was it racist? I don't know; I mean Cruz had a similar issue, and was that racist? I guess everything is racist when convenient . . .
Will Hillary continue to push this issue? I don't know, but probably; she ain't got much else. Interestingly Obama himself did not get the memo; at a TPP photo op in the White House (with dopey Gov. Kasich present!) Obama told journalists that he was "surprised" people were raising this issue, again. He might want to have a word with the Clintons, but they apparently are at a massive Clinton Foundation birthday bash for Bill where the rich and famous attend if they fork over tens-of-thousands of dollars. The Clinton crime family just doesn't stop . . .
Thursday, September 15, 2016
The Year of the Hack
Hack. What a wonderful word. One that's both a noun and a verb--I love transgender words--and one which can mean such disparate things.
Google "hack" and you will see what I mean about meanings: cut; cough; chop; manage; enter somebody's computer; a dull writer; a terrible politician; a drudge; a horse; a taxicab; lower half of a divided door; able to do a job; and something or other to do with bricks, falconry, and cheese. What a word!
Anyhow, this is the year of the hack, and almost all of the definitions apply. We have a hack politician, with a hacking cough, supported by hack journalists, hacking away at our institutional credibility and national security, dogged by hacked emails, showing that she can't hack the job . . . and for all I know involved with falconry, bricks, and cheese-making.
OK, now let's get to the point.
I am very uncomfortable with all this email hacking. But first: I think that Snowden is a treasonous SOB who has done great damage to our national security and that of our closest allies. He is not a hero campaigning for your civil rights. He was a spy for Russia and perhaps China, and was willing to give away the baby with the bathwater. He should get the Rosenberg chair treatment as far as I am concerned. Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly.
This breaking into the DNC's and Powell's emails makes me very uneasy. It's a violation of all rules of privacy and has a very powerful chilling effect on frank discussion.
OK, the hacking into the DNC showed what we all know: the DNC was rigging the process for Hillary and selling ambassadorships and other key positions for contributions. Powell had some choice words to say about both Trump and Clinton, which he would have certainly preferred remain private. But, no. While those of us who want Hillary to lose and Donald to win might enjoy this go-round of "hacks," the great wheel will turn, my friends, and those who laugh now, well, they might not be laughing tomorrow. The hacker cometh for us all . . .
I have said before (here, for example) that were I an election observer I could not certify US elections as free and fair. I have written a lot about this and won't repeat it except to say that our system is ripe for abuse. Illegal and legal aliens vote, lots of people vote more than once and often in different locations, etc. Now we have the prospect of Russian or other hackers getting into the electronic machines that count our votes and monkeying with the results. Just great.
We need common sense in our voting process. Voter ids that establish voters as citizens and paper ballots with number 2 pencils would be great starts to re-establishing confidence in that voting process. Too much to ask?
Until then, I will be reading up on and chortling over the latest hacker leaks from the DNC . . .
Google "hack" and you will see what I mean about meanings: cut; cough; chop; manage; enter somebody's computer; a dull writer; a terrible politician; a drudge; a horse; a taxicab; lower half of a divided door; able to do a job; and something or other to do with bricks, falconry, and cheese. What a word!
Anyhow, this is the year of the hack, and almost all of the definitions apply. We have a hack politician, with a hacking cough, supported by hack journalists, hacking away at our institutional credibility and national security, dogged by hacked emails, showing that she can't hack the job . . . and for all I know involved with falconry, bricks, and cheese-making.
OK, now let's get to the point.
I am very uncomfortable with all this email hacking. But first: I think that Snowden is a treasonous SOB who has done great damage to our national security and that of our closest allies. He is not a hero campaigning for your civil rights. He was a spy for Russia and perhaps China, and was willing to give away the baby with the bathwater. He should get the Rosenberg chair treatment as far as I am concerned. Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly.
This breaking into the DNC's and Powell's emails makes me very uneasy. It's a violation of all rules of privacy and has a very powerful chilling effect on frank discussion.
OK, the hacking into the DNC showed what we all know: the DNC was rigging the process for Hillary and selling ambassadorships and other key positions for contributions. Powell had some choice words to say about both Trump and Clinton, which he would have certainly preferred remain private. But, no. While those of us who want Hillary to lose and Donald to win might enjoy this go-round of "hacks," the great wheel will turn, my friends, and those who laugh now, well, they might not be laughing tomorrow. The hacker cometh for us all . . .
I have said before (here, for example) that were I an election observer I could not certify US elections as free and fair. I have written a lot about this and won't repeat it except to say that our system is ripe for abuse. Illegal and legal aliens vote, lots of people vote more than once and often in different locations, etc. Now we have the prospect of Russian or other hackers getting into the electronic machines that count our votes and monkeying with the results. Just great.
We need common sense in our voting process. Voter ids that establish voters as citizens and paper ballots with number 2 pencils would be great starts to re-establishing confidence in that voting process. Too much to ask?
Until then, I will be reading up on and chortling over the latest hacker leaks from the DNC . . .
Monday, September 12, 2016
Hill's Ill
A slightly incoherent rant . . .
By now I am sure all five readers have seen the video of Hillary staggering her way into her Scooby van at the 9/11 ceremony in New York. It is cringe-worthy to watch. Look, I am no doctor, and I don't play one on the internet, but something is seriously wrong with this woman and her campaign.
Understatement of the year?
Yes, I know I deserve the Captain Obvious Award for that remark, but the fact remains that this health issue is yet another example of how Hillary Clinton and her staff find it impossible to tell the truth. Given the choice of "truth" or "lie," they will go for "lie." One cannot believe anything coming out of that campaign.
I see the internet is rife with speculation that, in fact, Hillary is using a "body double," that the person we saw come out of Chelsea's apartment was not the "real" Hillary. Normally I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, or to speculation about Illuminati plots, but the behavior of the HRC campaign makes such theories and speculation more and more respectable. It is yet another example of how this toxic Clinton crime family has corroded and undermined our faith in our most basic institutions and our way of politics. No law applies to her, her husband and cronies; no accepted standards of behavior apply to her, her husband and cronies; no accountability, nothing that the rest of us must abide applies.
In true 1984, neo-Stalinist fashion, they make up the narrative as they go along and rely on the echo chamber media to make us forget the previous now inoperative narrative.
I have no idea about the true state of her health, and whether she has something more serious than pneumonia. I suspect she does, but that's just me speculating. But why must we put up with this sort of cover-up and falsehoods? I guess maybe the answer is that this is nothing new; that this is in line with the cover-up of Woodrow Wilson's stroke, of FDR's polio, of JFK's addiction to pain killers and to sex, of Obama's background, and well, fill in the blanks. But, but, in this age where everything gets leaked and put out for public discussion, it's difficult to understand how the Clintons continue to defy that age.
Anyhow, I hope she gets well, and she loses the election.
By now I am sure all five readers have seen the video of Hillary staggering her way into her Scooby van at the 9/11 ceremony in New York. It is cringe-worthy to watch. Look, I am no doctor, and I don't play one on the internet, but something is seriously wrong with this woman and her campaign.
Understatement of the year?
Yes, I know I deserve the Captain Obvious Award for that remark, but the fact remains that this health issue is yet another example of how Hillary Clinton and her staff find it impossible to tell the truth. Given the choice of "truth" or "lie," they will go for "lie." One cannot believe anything coming out of that campaign.
I see the internet is rife with speculation that, in fact, Hillary is using a "body double," that the person we saw come out of Chelsea's apartment was not the "real" Hillary. Normally I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, or to speculation about Illuminati plots, but the behavior of the HRC campaign makes such theories and speculation more and more respectable. It is yet another example of how this toxic Clinton crime family has corroded and undermined our faith in our most basic institutions and our way of politics. No law applies to her, her husband and cronies; no accepted standards of behavior apply to her, her husband and cronies; no accountability, nothing that the rest of us must abide applies.
In true 1984, neo-Stalinist fashion, they make up the narrative as they go along and rely on the echo chamber media to make us forget the previous now inoperative narrative.
I have no idea about the true state of her health, and whether she has something more serious than pneumonia. I suspect she does, but that's just me speculating. But why must we put up with this sort of cover-up and falsehoods? I guess maybe the answer is that this is nothing new; that this is in line with the cover-up of Woodrow Wilson's stroke, of FDR's polio, of JFK's addiction to pain killers and to sex, of Obama's background, and well, fill in the blanks. But, but, in this age where everything gets leaked and put out for public discussion, it's difficult to understand how the Clintons continue to defy that age.
Anyhow, I hope she gets well, and she loses the election.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)