Friday, September 30, 2016

"It smells like treason"

Uncola writes at the Burning Platform about the Obama legacy.

Flyoverlandians and the contemptuous bi-coastal ruling class

At Chicago Boyz Sgt. Mom writes about us Flyoverlandians and the contemptuous bi-coastal ruling class.

A list of scholars and writers who support Trump

Here is a list of scholars and writers of America who support Trump.

News media avoids showing Trump's large crowds

Actual journalist Sharyl Attkisson wonders if the media is avoiding showing Trump's crowds. Her finding:
The news media’s tendency during this particular campaign to avoid showing wide shots of either candidate’s audiences tends to work to Clinton’s advantage, since Trump’s enthusiastic, larger crowds would contrast with Clinton’s smaller groups.
Read more here.

"Trump supporters are not as ill-informed as so often caricatured. "

Victor Davis Hanson writes,
In truth, there are not one, but two quite different Californias, defined by both geography and mindset.

California’s Trump belt is the antithesis of Stanford or UCLA, Apple or Google, Malibu or DreamWorks, Wells Fargo or Uber.

There’s the affluent coastal corridor between San Diego and Berkeley, where major universities, corporations, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the financial industry and the largest government bureaucracies are located. And then there’s everything else — the northern third of the state, the mountainous eastern border, the interior Central Valley and portions of inland and eastern Southern California. These counties are poorer, with fewer college-educated residents.

During the week, I work in the coastal corridor — at Stanford University in Palo Alto. Almost everyone I meet there will vote for Clinton. On the weekends, I live in the other California, on a small farm in the poorest part of an indigent rural Fresno County, where a third of the population lives below the poverty line. Many of my neighbors have embraced Trump’s campaign.

California’s Trump belt is the antithesis of Stanford or UCLA, Apple or Google, Malibu or DreamWorks, Wells Fargo or Uber. It is an outland where practical people still depend on 19th century muscular jobs in grazing, farming, timber, mining and construction that both supply the state with its elemental needs, but from a distance and often without much credit or even recognition.

I see Trump signs in unincorporated areas throughout the state’s eastern counties. They belong to working-class folks, both white and from other ethnic groups, who service the agricultural pump and do spot welding on the farms in my vicinity. They believe that the state has left them behind, lacking the culture and money of the coastal elite, but without the victim status of the poor Californians who are entitled to race-based subsidies and advantages in hiring or admissions.

In my hometown of Selma I also know many Mexican Americans of the second and third generations who express support for Trump, at least if no one is listening in. Many do not speak Spanish well if at all, have never been to Mexico, may have married non-Latinos, do not work for the government and are not on public assistance. They often seethe about illegal immigration — because of crime in their neighborhoods and the danger to their children from gangs, as well as the connection between lax immigration enforcement and the California paradox: We have the highest basket of income, sales and gas taxes in the nation while providing schools and infrastructure among the worst.

In contrast, first-generation Mexican immigrants and those in the country illegally detest Trump. They often speak poor English, are poorly paid for hard physical labor or are out of work entirely. They fear deportation and rely on social services, sanctuary cities and non-enforcement of immigration and zoning laws. Government is not seen as too big, too costly or too incompetent, but a force for good that offers subsidies and employment as the first steps to entering the middle class. They nod to the Democratic coastal establishment in an unspoken bargain. In exchange for promotion of liberal immigration and social policies, they will support candidates whose politics, from abortion to costly environmentalism, are otherwise probably anathemas.

(It is an unspoken truth that yesterday’s California Republican party of the rich is today’s party of the populist middle classes, while the Democratic Party has become an odd alliance of the 1%, public employees and the very poor.)

...California’s Trump voters do not believe Clinton can answer why existing federal immigration law is not enforced, or why officials cannot utter the phrase Islamic terrorism after serial terrorist attacks, or why multimillionaires like Beyonc and Colin Kaepernick feign victimhood during prime-time sporting events.

...Trump supporters are not as ill-informed as so often caricatured. A Fresno Rotary Club member just reminded me that California’s billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, unsustainable entitlements, terrible schools, rising crime, astronomically priced coastal real estate, high taxes and schizophrenic laws will eventually hit even the rich in Santa Barbara and San Francisco.

If true, the multimillion-person Trump minority in California might not be a minority for much longer.
Read more here.

A good haul today

Yummy butternut squash!

A new ad

A mystery

One more piece by Ace on Alicia Machado, with a link to CBS News.
Alicia Machado Has Lived A, Err, Colorful Life.
Why Is the Media Deliberately Making Its Stories Less Interesting By Refusing to Mention That?

Questions that will never be answered, I'm afraid. It's a mystery.

As a rule, reporters like to keep their stories interesting, which is why the coverage we’ve seen of Alicia Machado is so curious.
This has been the week of Machado, who became famous literally overnight when Hillary Clinton brought her up at Monday's debate. The next day saw numerous outlets writing pieces on Machado, boosted along by a conference call held by the Clinton campaign for journalists.

The former Miss Universe, who says that Donald Trump fat-shamed her and alleges that he called her "Ms. Piggy" and "Ms. Housekeeping," and generally humiliated her after she put on weight, is now the star of a Clinton ad. An obscure figure in America less than a week ago, Machado is perhaps the biggest story in politics at the moment.

So it's almost inexplicable that, despite all this coverage, the publications discussing the extraordinary stories of her life are mostly right-wing ones.

The most interesting thing about the mainstream articles is what they leave out.

There is no discussion at CNN or The New York Times, for instance, about her post-pageant fame as the fiancee of Phillies outfielder Bobby Abreu, or how he reportedly called it off after a reality show she was on revealed video of her apparently having sex with a housemate.

Likewise, there is little mention of how a Venezuelan judge once alleged on live TV that Machado had threatened to kill him. Or how the Mexican attorney general's office later said she was the girlfriend of a major narco trafficker, and that she he had a child with him, according to Univision and other outlets. Or how a government witness who reportedly testified about their affair was later shot to death.


Machado has lived a full life, and a uniquely fascinating one. So why would any journalist avoid talking about it?

By the way, the writer says that even if these things about Machado are true, that wouldn't detract from Trump's "racism and sexism" in making those remarks about her.

But we only have her word for t hat. The "racist" one -- "Miss Housekeeping" -- in particular only comes from her mouth. There are no witnesses to this claim.

So if it is true that she has had this colorful life of cheating on a fiance (on a filmed Big Brother style reality show), and being involved with narco kingpins, and issuing threats on the life of a judge, and maybe being peripherally involved in a light murder -- that sort of bears on her credibility, doesn't it?

And that, of course, is precisely why it's not being talked about -- and why MeAgain Kelly refuses to talk about it.

Do not disturb!

I promise I won't disturb you, if you promise not to peck me!


No, girls. That cactus would not be a good place to lay an egg!


I don't blame you for hiding, little one. These chickens are kinda weird.


Yes, I know some of these might be yours, but there are lots of humans out there, like me, who are hungry in the mornings. Okay?


At the Ace of Spades blog Mis. Hun writes about Obama's fecklessness, with a link to Noah Rothman at Commentary.
Barack Obama came to the White House knowing nothing of substance. He will leave office without learning anything of substance. However he did hone his skills of rationalization.

Take for example Syria.

The man boy child who gave us Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. You remember her. The SoS who in 2011 uttered this brilliant remark.

“There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”
The Barack Obama who in 2012 would hold Assad to account for the use of chemical weapons; the famous "red line". Now he is backtracking with excuses layered upon excuse.

No one but Obama is responsible for that “red line.” He drew in August 2012 it despite the fact that Damascus was an ally of Tehran and a client of Moscow at the time. When that line was repeatedly crossed, it was Obama who withdrew his threat. It was Obama who warned that non-intervention would lead to a future in which U.S. troops faced chemical weapons on the battlefield— a warning that has proven accurate. It was Obama who looked the other way as Iranian military and proxy forces flooded into Syria in his first term, and it was Obama who invited greater direct Russian involvement in that conflict in his second. It was Obama’s desire to partner with these nations for the sake of an Iranian nuclear agreement that stayed his hand.

As Commander in Chief he has an obligation and fiduciary duty to U.S. armed forces. A little mustard gas here. A little mustard gas there. No big deal and it's not my fault. Besides I have to give billions of dollars to Iran.

That region has been a mixed up tumultuous region for centuries. Between the various tribes, the differences between the Shiites and Sunnis you have one messed up region. The strongest democracy in the region is Israel and it is spat upon by this administration and the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

Is there a solution for peace? Probably not. But neither candidate who wins the presidency should go into their presidency uttering useless and thoughtless words. Because we all know words have meanings and actions have consequences.

MeAgain Kelly lists the rules of feminist privilege

Ace of Spades writes today about an example of
Only Girls are Protected By the Bizarre Rules of Feminist Privilege.

So MeAgain Kelly's rule is that Trump can't talk about a woman's weight, but MeAgain can snipe "Oh by the way, Trump's fat."

And of course then dissemble about why she didn't ask about highly relevant allegations about Machado's past (and therefore about her credibility).

By the way, at least as of this show, MeAgain still had not breathed a word about Machado's apparently checkered past.

She did take time, though, in the beginning of the segment to praise herself for having attacked Trump on Hillary's #WaronWomen meme at the first Republican debate.

So like, whatever, make sure you tune into MeAgain Kelly to get pissed on and then have her chippily report: "It seems to be raining. Oh, and girls are keen, boys are mean."

But MeAgain Kelly's long-running audition tape to be the first solo female anchor on a (left-wing) network continues rolling along nicely.
Read more here and watch MeAgain video.

She was a "paragon of virtue"

doing a lot of tweeting about the Venezuelan woman who won his Miss Universe contest, then gained a lot of weight. Here are some of his tweets:
Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an “angel” without checking her past, which is terrible!


Using Alicia M in the debate as a paragon of virtue just shows that Crooked Hillary suffers from BAD JUDGEMENT! Hillary was set up by a con.


Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?

Chateau Heartiste has more:
By the way, if anyone’s seen the old video of Trump holding a press conference with Machado, you can’t help but notice how gentlemanly Trump treats her. As an MPCer put it:

Let me explain this for anyone who still doesn’t understand

* Hogo Chavez (or whatever her name is) became Miss Universe.

* This basically means you have to sign a one year contract with the Miss Universe Organisation (a subsidiary of the Trump Organisation) doing PR and promo work in exchange for money.

* There are RULES, for example there’s a legally defined amount of weight you’re allowed to put on.

* Hogo Chavez far exceeded this limit, she was about 50 kilos and she became medically obese by gaining 20 kilos in a matter of months; I have no idea how people could get fat so quickly but it probably involved eating large amounts of raw sugar.

* Rather than terminate the contract and make the runner-up Miss Universe; Donald Trump gave Hogo Chavez an opportunity to work off the weight and make things right again, she seemed thankful for this opportunity.

* She squandered Trump’s generosity by gaining another ten kilos, he still didn’t fire her.

* Hogo Chavez returned to Venezuela and was “allegedly” the getaway driver in a murder, she threatened to murder a judge and she cheated on her husband with a drug lord; becoming pregnant in the process. She then flew to Spain and appeared on some reality TV show where she had sex with another contestant, a video of this sexual encounter is available on the internet. She also did topless nudes in a studio shoot if anyone wants them (PM me).

* She then gazed upon the radiant light of Hillary Clinton and announced I’M WITH HER!
Read more here.

Ashamed of things we can't help?

Ann Voskamp writes today,
...“Don’t you think the things people are most ashamed of are things they can’t help?”― C.S. Lewis

Sometimes — and there really are times — that you can’t help where you’re broken, you can’t help how the story turned out, you can’t help how things fell apart and you got banged and busted up. And shame about the things you can’t help — helps you the least.

I can trace the truth of it:

Shame of scars can scar worse than the original scars.

Shame of being broken can break us worse than being broken.

And I wish it hadn’t taken me so long to know, but I’ve felt it in the marrow of my bones:

We can live with the pain of brokenness… what can slay us is the shame of brokenness. We can live with the pain of brokenness… what can slay us is the shame of brokenness.

Maybe on the days we want out of our lives — it isn’t so much that we want to die from shame, but hide from shame.
Read more here.

I think he is wondering, "Who are you?"

Chuck is a keeper!

Thanks for moving us to a spot where there is grass to eat!

Big enough to eat?

The chickens, not the horses!

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Pakistan threatens to nuke India

Sara Kamouni reports at The Sun,
PAKISTAN’S Defence Minister has threatened to “destroy” India – after India said on Thursday it had carried out “surgical strikes” on suspected militants preparing to infiltrate from Pakistan-ruled Kashmir.

The strikes, which were a response to shots fired across the de facto border through the disputed Himalayan territory, could lead to a military escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours – risking a ceasefire agreed in 2003.

Responding to India’s latest strikes, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.

“Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India.

“We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase.

“If a such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India.”
Read more here.

Four states sue to stop transfer of oversight of the internet

Tony Romm reports at Politico,
Four Republican state attorneys general are suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body, arguing the transition would violate the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House’s top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet’s address system is set to take place.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

...“Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement. “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”
Read more here.

A lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.

Victor Davis Hanson writes,
...Over the last eight years, Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades.

Congress talks grandly of “comprehensive immigration reform,” but Obama, as he promised with his pen and phone, bypassed the House and Senate to virtually open the border with Mexico. He issued executive-order amnesties. And he allowed entire cities to be exempt from federal immigration law.

The press said nothing about this extraordinary overreach of presidential power, mainly because these largely illegal means were used to achieve the progressive ends favored by many journalists.

The Senate used to ratify treaties. In the past, a president could not unilaterally approve the Treaty of Versailles, enroll the United States in the League of Nations, fight in Vietnam or Iraq without congressional authorization, change existing laws by non-enforcement, or rewrite bankruptcy laws.

Not now. Obama set a precedent that he did not need Senate ratification to make a landmark treaty with Iran on nuclear enrichment.

He picked and chose which elements of the Affordable Care Act would be enforced — predicated on his 2012 re-election efforts.

Rebuffed by Congress, Obama is now slowly shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center by insidiously having inmates sent to other countries.

Respective opponents of both Trump and Clinton should be worried.

Either winner could follow the precedent of allowing any sanctuary city or state in the United States to be immune from any federal law found displeasing — from the liberal Endangered Species Act and federal gun registration laws to conservative abortion restrictions.

Obama established the precedent that a president should be given a pass on lying to the American people. Did Americans, as Obama repeatedly promised, really get to keep their doctors and health plans while enjoying lower premiums and deductibles, as the country saved billions through his Affordable Care Act?

More recently, did Obama mean to tell a lie when he swore that he sent cash to the Iranians only because he could not wire them the money — when in truth the administration had wired money to Iran in the past? Was cash to Iran really not a ransom for American hostages, as the president asserted? Did Obama really, as he insisted, never email Clinton at her private unsecured server?

Congress has proven woefully inept at asserting its constitutional right to check and balance Obama’s executive overreach. The courts have often abdicated their own oversight.

But the press is the most blameworthy. White House press conferences now resemble those in the Kremlin, with journalists tossing Putin softball questions about his latest fishing or hunting trip.

One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be.

In 2017, a President Trump or President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight — thanks to the precedent of Obama’s overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.

"You cannot attack the Clinton record without having a command of the details."

Stuart Schneiderman writes,
You cannot attack the Clinton record without having a command of the details. And you cannot have a command of the details by simply doing what the Donald recommended in The Art of the Deal: going with your gut.

...Hillary’s management of finances at State was also slipshod, according to inspector-general reports that point to a whopping $6 billion unaccounted for during her tenure. Clinton’s chaotic mismanagement created “conditions conducive to fraud,” the IG warned, and made it harder “to punish and deter criminal behavior.”

...Clinton’s manifest incompetence at State disqualifies her for the presidency. But, someone has to make the case against her, and Donald Trump does not seem to know enough to do so.

Schneiderman links to an article in the New York Post by Betsy McCaughey for an extensive examination of Hillary's record.

She stands by her men

Bookworm did us a favor and watched a two hour Frontline documentary last night on PBS. She titled her piece PBS savagely attacks Donald Trump, using a sober tone to hide its basic dishonesty
It was not, in fact, an honest documentary. It was a savage hit piece, using a patina of documentary sobriety to hide its core dishonesty.

To appreciate just how awful it was, you have to know a bit about Frontline. It’s a long-running show that always focuses on very serious subjects. Whether at home or abroad, it’s viewpoint is hard Left, although it will never acknowledge that it has a bias. Indeed, to prove that it is unbiased, it is, as I said, very, very serious. It always has grim music and the regular narrator, Will Lyman, has the deep, slow, serious, mostly uninflected voice of an aspiring funeral home director. How can something be biased if it’s both serious and sober?

Nor am I exaggerating the effect its serious, sober quality has on receptive (i.e., Progressive) audiences. CNN was impressed by the fact that “Frontline soberly profiles Clinton, Trump in ‘The Choice’"...

...Frontline did forget to note a couple of things in its tight little narrative about Hillary’s move from Watergate to Arkansas. First, they don’t mention that the DC bar is and was widely considered to be the easiest bar exam in the country. She must have taken it on a really bad day.

Second, and much more importantly, Hillary didn’t vanish from the Watergate committee just because it wrapped up. She was fired.

Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat, served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings. He was also Hillary’s boss. According to him (and much as the Left has tried to discredit this story, they haven’t been able to), he fired Hillary for rank dishonesty and refused even to give her a letter of recommendation, something that is a much more likely reason for high-tailing it off to Arkansas than merely having failed to pass the bar:

At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham—who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.

During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book, Without Honor, and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

After President Nixon’s resignation, a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel—as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics]. Labovitz said, ‘That came from Yale.’ I said, ‘You mean Burke Marshall’ [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, ‘Yes.’ His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.


After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff—where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with—or take depositions of—any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor.

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers.

That’s Hillary in all her glory: hard Left, an unethical lawyer, and a dishonest human being. And yet somehow this “sober” PBS documentary didn’t think any of that information about Hillary’s Watergate career was relevant. Instead, the show’s writers and producers put in just enough of her Watergate history to burnish her credentials as an individual yearning to change the world for the better, rather than the hard Left, corrupt party operative she already was in 1973.

Hillary’s Arkansas years get short shrift too. There’s no mention of Whitewater and the cover-up to remove her name from the Rose Law Firm’s work on that scandal nor do we hear about cattle futures. Instead, one day Bill is elected governor and the next day he’s running for the White House, with stalwart Hillary at his side.

The White House run, however, does force Frontline to mention Jennifer Flowers, who went public about her 12-year affair with Bill. Throughout 1992, Bill absolutely denied the affair. Frontline applauds Hillary for standing by his side as he destroyed Flowers’ reputation with his false denials.

Hillary’s support, of course, came about because Hillary had a burning desire to make the world a better place. It’s only some residual journalistic integrity that has Frontline acknowledging that Bill admitted under oath in 1998 that he, not Flowers, was the liar.

...It seems worthwhile mentioning just one more time at this point in the narrative that while the show interviews Hillary’s friends it only interviews Trump’s enemies. Also, at this point in the “documentary,” I’m actually thinking I’d rather have a fighter than a victim as my president, but maybe that’s just me.

...And then came that fatal January in 1998: Bill woke Hillary to warn her not to worry about the fact there were false news reports that he’d had an affair with a former White House intern. Hillary later insisted that Bill lied to her as he did to everyone else and that she naively, lovingly believed him. It was the blue dress that forced the truth on Hillary.

On the Today Show, she bravely stood by her man, repeating her lies — because she was a private individual with a burning desire to make the world a better place. Hillary was and is a fighter: It’s all the fault of the vast right-wing conspiracy. (While Trump is mean, Hillary knows how to deal with scandal.)

So, the truth finally came out — and, of course, Bill and Hillary never apologized to any of the women who Bill used and both of them abused. Hillary was “a brilliant person who was played for a fool.” Hillary hated and was angry at Bill but she stood by her man because she always been a very private individual with a burning desire to make the world a better place. I would feel sorry for Hillary’s public humiliation too but for the fact that she covered for Bill’s affairs for decades and savaged innocent women — something the show ignores entirely.

...In 2008, once again fate screwed Hillary Clinton. She was supposed to win but for that darn Obama. (No mention, of course, of Hillary starting the birther story.) During the campaign, she was the pragmatist. Her youthful Wellesley enthusiasm was burned away. But the damn fool public wanted “change,” not Hillary, so Hillary has to pledge fealty to Obama.

While Hillary is slaving away, Donald was asking “why shouldn’t Obama show his birth certificate?” He said he believed it existed and asked (as many Americans did), “Why not show it?” This is pure Roy Cohn sleaze according to Frontline. No mention, of course, about the fact that Obama for years shilled his writing by claiming Kenyan birth. No mention, either, about the fact that Obama refused to release any personal records whatsoever.

The designated Frontline talking head scathingly says that Trump is pandering to the “Archie Bunkers” who can’t tolerate a black president. It doesn’t occur to them that Americans aren’t troubled by Obama’s color; they’re troubled by his own lies about his background, by his un-American attitudes, by his barely concealed dislike for traditional white America, etc. Lt. Col. Allen West would never have been the subject of the suspicion surrounding Obama. But as I said, the show won’t mention this.

And just why is it so unreasonable that a candidate for president, or even a president, be asked to prove one of the few requirements for holding the office?

In any event, it was all for naught. That crazy intelligent Obama undercut Trump by doing exactly what Trump asked: releasing the birth certificate. Oh, except that he didn’t release the birth certificate. He released a layered PDF which, rightly or wrongly, aroused suspicions because a truly scanned historic document wouldn’t have layers. But whatever…. That Obama sure beat crazy Trump. Poor Trump. Now he should just go away.

Even as Trump is being weird, Hillary became Secretary of State. A talking head concedes that she saw it as a stepping stone to another run for the presidency. At this point, something interesting happens on the show: How does a pro-Hillary documentary get around the fact that Hillary had a singularly unsuccessful tenure as Secretary of State? Among other things, she presided over the rise of ISIS, the failure of the Green Revolution in Iran, the fall of Libya, the bloody death of an ambassador and three other Americans, the rise of the Syrian civil war, and the dreadful collapse in the “reset” American relationship with Russia.

Simple: you sacrifice Obama, who’s leaving the White House anyway and, even if it offends Obama, it’s more important to destroy Donald and save Hillary. So it is that Frontline assures us that Hillary was tremendously surprised (and I bet she was) to learn that she was just Obama’s puppet. It was Obama who made all State Department decisions — which means everything bad was Obama’s fault. Poor Hillary. Once again, the good little woman, she stood by her man — in this case, Obama.

Even after leaving the Secretary’s office, the political attacks on Hillary wouldn’t stop. She was now being hounded about a private email system she set up. Typical Hillary, says Frontline — secrecy and denial. And that’s all that Frontline says about the email system. The subtext is that’s all there is to see here. Ignore all the laws she broke and the fact that she exposed all of America’s State Department secrets to foreign countries and every hacker around. You all know she’s secretive, we’ve admitted she’s secretive, so you can just forget this. It’s not important.

A talking head acknowledges that Trump is authentic. He’s real. Somehow he’s connecting with people. He won the votes of millions of Americans and became the nominee. We’re told that this is the only thing that was left for Donald to do to fulfill his insatiable desire for attention. He’s not running to make the world, or even America, a better place; it’s about ego aggrandizement.

And that, my friends, is the whole documentary. I’ve watched it, so you don’t have to. I hope I’ve made clear that Hillary is a plaster saint in this documentary, which her myriad scandals ignored or mentioned only in passing. Thus, the show makes no mention of the crimes and corruption in which Hillary engaged before, during, and after her time in the White House. In shallow strokes, she is painted as a hard worker, loyal, forgiving — and, of course, something with a burning desire to make the world a better place.

And Donald? He’s a warped man who knows nothing about business, lusts after fame, and is using stupid, racist, credulous Americans to feed his ego.

Aren’t you glad you didn’t watch the documentary? Frankly, having watched it myself, I feel a good 20 IQ points more stupid than before, and that’s despite Frontlines’ serious, sober tone.
Read more here.

Coming at him like a shark

AWR Hawkins reports at Breitbart,
High School senior Frank Harvey says his school called police and ordered him to have a psychological exam after discovering an homework essay against gun control that he had saved on a thumb drive.

Harvey wrote his essay against gun control in 2015, for a teacher at Manville High School in New Jersey.

According to New, Harvey left a thumb drive containing the anti-gun control project in a computer in the school library. He said “a Manville High School teacher instructed him to create a video arguing against gun control for a junior college readiness class last year” and that “video,,,provided examples of people who used guns to defend themselves from home invaders.”

The thumb drive was discovered and turned over to the school administration, which then called police. The police “cleared Harvey” of any wrong doing, yet “district officials suspended him and said he’d have to undergo a five-hour evaluation before being allowed back in school.” The administration said the teacher who would have assigned the project does not remember doing so.

Harvey’s mother chose to pull him from the school rather than have her son subjected to the psychological exam. She said he will simply pursue a GED to wrap things up.

News 12 contacted the school district for comment but they declined, citing “confidential student information.”

Newborn baby found in gas station bathroom trash can

Katherine Rodriguez reports at Breitbart,
Police say they have found a newborn baby alive in a trash bin in a restroom at a Pennsylvania gas station.
Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck told the Associated Press that the baby was found at a BP gas station in North Belle Vernon on Saturday afternoon.

Police believe a woman gave birth in the woman’s restroom. Paramedics called to the scene to treat the mother found the baby, police say.

The baby girl appeared to be uninjured and is expected to survive, KDKA reports. She is being monitored at a local hospital.

Peck said the District Attorney’s Office is investigating, but no charges have been filed yet.

The future of online speech

Is this really who you want controlling the internet?

Obama rushing in Syrian "refugees"

Michael Patrick Leahy reports at Breitbart,
With two days remaining in Fiscal Year 2016, the Obama administration has brought in 12,571 Syrian refugees, far exceeding its original stated goal of 10,000 for the year.

The outgoing Obama administration is pressing ahead, despite polls that show a vast majority of voters oppose increasing the number of Syrian refugees, by rushing in 1,831 Syrian refugees during the month of September, according to the Department of State’s interactive website. If the Obama administration continues to bring Syrian refugees at that rate each month in Fiscal Year 2017, which begins on Saturday, the total number of arrivals from that war torn country would exceed 21,000.

More than 99 percent of these Syrian refugees (12,470 of 12,571) are Muslim. Less than 1 percent (101 of 12,571) are Christians or other faiths.

...Another official admitted to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at the same Senate hearing that there is no reliable security data base for vetting Syrian refugees, and that Obama administration officials have merely been relying upon the word of arriving refugees that they are not terrorists.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said that if she is elected she will increase the number of arriving Syrian refugees from 10,000 annually to 65,000 each year.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he wants to reduce the number of refugees arriving overall, and specifically pause the arrival of any Syrian refugees.
Read more here.

The "Clean Energy Roundtable"

Patrick Howley reports at Breitbart,
Chelsea Clinton traveled by private jet while campaigning for mother Hillary in the swing state of North Carolina Wednesday, flying from town to town rather than hitting the road in a car or a bus.
Chelsea was caught boarding a gas-guzzling private jet after the Clinton event in Greenville, North Carolina. Her next event, in Asheville, was called the “Clean Energy Roundtable.”
Go here to read more and see two videos.

Honor system?

From JWF:
Washington Mall Terrorist Cetin Wasn’t U.S. Citizen, Still Voted Three Times
Posted by Jammie on Sep 29, 2016 at 7:31 am
We’re going to go way out on a limb and guess that he’s been voting Democrat. Don’t worry, folks, this story won’t make national news, especially since the story about this Muslim terrorist has already been buried by the national media.

The Cascade Mall shooting suspect, Arcan Cetin, may face an additional investigation related to his voting record and citizenship status.

Federal sources confirm to KING 5 that Cetin was not a U.S. citizen, meaning legally he cannot vote. However, state records show Cetin registered to vote in 2014 and participated in three election cycles, including the May presidential primary.

Cetin, who immigrated to the United States from Turkey as a child, is considered a permanent resident or green card holder. While a permanent resident can apply for U.S. citizenship after a certain period of time, sources tell KING his status had not changed from green card holder to U.S. citizen.

While voters must attest to citizenship upon registering online or registering to vote at the Department of Licensing Office, Washington state doesn’t require proof of citizenship. Therefore elections officials say the state’s elections system operates, more or less, under an honor system.

Oh, so voting is now on the honor system. Well, we suppose that’s a good thing since requiring proof of citizenship and identification is racist, according to Democrats. On the upside, after Cetin faces murder charges he’s sure to be punished for violating voter laws.

The penalty for voting as a non U.S. citizen could result in five years of prison time or a $10,000, according to Secretary of State’s Office.

Clearly that’s a deterrent.

Update: By the way, the Secretary of State in Washington recently hosted the pro-terrorist group CAIR, just a week before the Muslim terror attack.
Read more here.

Always moving forward, like sharks

Ace, on what the #NeverTrumpers are bringing us:
So, for all the people dishonestly campaigning for Hillary without admitting it (in order to keep on track in their real first priority -- career advancement), here are some of the consequences that "Saving the Party by Giving the White House to Hillary for Four or Eight Years" will have on people whose salaries are not guaranteed by deep-pocketed donors.

1. The Supreme Court Shifts Unalterably to the Hard Left for a Generation.

Scalia's dead, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is ancient, Clarence Thomas is getting long in the tooth, Anthony Kennedy's old, Steven Breyer is old.

The only youthful justices are Roberts -- and you know, you can always count on him on a tough vote -- Alito, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

It's those last four who will be on the court in eight years -- everyone else is going to be replaced in the next four or eight years.

Keep this one in mind: it has a big impact on some of the points that follow.

2. Obamacare Will Be Patched Up by an Illegal, Unauthorized Executive-Action Slush Fund.

As you know, Obamacare is in its death spiral. As predicted, it is not taking in as much money as it is spending out.

There are only two solutions to this:

1. Raise the prices of Obamacare, but this is not a solution, as the prices are already too high and raising prices will only expedite the death spiral, or

2. Illegally divert general taxpayer funds to shore up Obamacare, by executive actions increasing and extending "risk corridors" and other such workarounds.

That's all illegal, you say. Well, Health and Human Services has already illegally diverted Three Billion Dollars to this illegal cause already, and no one's going to jail for that.

Now you say: That is so illegal the Supreme Court will knock down any executive orders spending money that Congress hasn't authorized.

Will they?

See point one and note that Elena Kagan was part of the team that designed and sold Obamacare to Congress.

Also note that the Court, whenever it likes, can read into an act's preamble -- something something "for the purpose of making health care available to all" something something -- an explicit (they will claim) authorization to use whatever means are necessary to keep the the law "working the way it was intended to."

Remember, the law plainly did not authorize subsidies for exchanges created by the federal government, but the Supreme Court, led by Roberts, said that they would read the law as authorizing such subsidies because without such a Judicial Edit, the purposes of the law would be thwarted.

You sure the Court isn't willing to do some more Judicial Editing?

Especially once it's stacked and jacked with Young Turk liberals who will be serving Democrat presidents for 40 years?

3. An Increase in the Tempo and Illegality of "Dear Colleague" Letters Issued by the Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights.

As you're no doubt aware, the Office of Civil Rights pressured colleges into instituting Rape Kangaroo Courts through a "Dear Colleague" letter that essentially threatened to cut off their federal funding if they did not strictly enforce the OCR's new reading of Title IX.

You may also be aware that the Office of Civil Rights imposed a new directive on colleges to read Title IX -- which formally speaks of protecting women and girls -- as also protecting Transgenders, including male-to-"female" transgenders, who are not women or girls.

What authority did they have to do this? None at all. But the courts did not stop them.

Increasingly, the federal government is enacting laws it could never actually enact through constitutional means by simply threatening to withdraw funds if targeted organizations do not obey the de facto law they are now illegally announcing, and then relying on the indulgence of the courts to make it all look street-legal.

This will not only continue under Hillary Clinton -- it will accelerate.

Again, see Point One.

Also note this: Every bizarre idea you see pushed by the left becomes the accepted law of the land within two to three years.

Before the left began demanding Christians bake them bake cakes, the idea of such a thing was insane, and anyone who argued that the gay marriage law would wind up compelling people to participate in gay marriages was ridiculed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Yet two years later, those paranoid conspiracy theories became the law of the land.

Right now we're seeing various localities make it a crime to "misgender" people.

You think Hillary's government is going to stay out of that racket? Or do you think it's likely that some more Dear Colleague letters will issue and that will become the law of the land in two or three years?

Never forget, the left must continue picking fights with the right in order to keep its voters voting. Even if everyone on the right accepts gay marriage, but adds "But you can't force churces to participate," what do you think the left's next move is?

The left must now begin agitating to force churches to perform gay marriage. For if they don't -- if they simply leave the policy as it is -- then what can they offer their supporters? How can they differentiate themselves from the right (who, in this hypothetical, accepts gay marriage except in the churches)?

The logic of the left -- to always be the aggressors in the culture wars and always spit venom and hatred at those who oppose their new social engineering initiatives -- demands they always move forward, like sharks.

I laugh when I see National Review or other "conservative" magazines still bothering to pretend they oppose this. Still getting clicks for the latest outrage they can point to from the left, from the wacky college campuses.

Meanwhile, they're actively campaigning for more of it, to empower this regime, to encourage it, to expand it.

You're signing up for four to eight more years of unending social aggression from the left, discarding your one chance to actually do a god-damn thing about it, so just spare me your make-pretend, this-should-get-us-easy-clicks ginned up outrage about it.

Apparently your preferred method of opposing unconstitutional government coercion is to just keep churning out clickbait snark about it. Because that's been working like gangbusters so far.

I will add the rest of the list later. I think one through three is enough for the first half of a post.
Read more here.

Are we all narcissists?

Ann Althouse:
I agree that people are gaga for animals and focus on them far more than on plants and (I would add) on the nonliving aspects of the natural world — rock formations, land, water, clouds. What's going on there? The animals are not more beautiful. It might have to do with an inborn instinct to hunt, and it might be that they have faces and eyes and we see ourselves in them, we narcissists.
Read more here.

Relegating the U.S. Constitution to history’s dustbin.

At CRB Angelo Codevilla writes,
On the Republican side, 17 hopefuls promised much, without dealing with the primordial fact that, in today’s America, those in power basically do what they please. Executive orders, phone calls, and the right judge mean a lot more than laws. They even trump state referenda. Over the past half-century, presidents have ruled not by enforcing laws but increasingly through agencies that write their own rules, interpret them, and punish unaccountably—the administrative state. As for the Supreme Court, the American people have seen it invent rights where there were none—e.g., abortion—while trammeling ones that had been the republic’s spine, such as the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

What goes by the name “constitutional law” has been eclipsing the U.S. Constitution for a long time. But when the 1964 Civil Rights Act substituted a wholly open-ended mandate to oppose “discrimination” for any and all fundamental rights, it became the little law that ate the Constitution.

This arbitrary power, whose rabid guard-dog growls and barks: “Racist! Sexist! Homophobic!” has transformed our lives by removing restraints on government. The American Bar Association’s new professional guidelines expose lawyers to penalties for insufficient political correctness. Performing abortions or at least training to perform them may be imposed as a requirement for licensing doctors, nurses, and hospitals that offer services to the general public.

No one running for the GOP nomination discussed the greatest violation of popular government’s norms—never mind the Constitution—to have occurred in two hundred years, namely, the practice, agreed upon by mainstream Republicans and Democrats, of rolling all of the government’s expenditures into a single bill. This eliminates elected officials’ responsibility for any of the government’s actions, and reduces them either to approving all that the government does without reservation, or the allegedly revolutionary, disloyal act of “shutting down the government.”

Rather than talk about how to restrain or shrink government, Republican candidates talked about how to do more with government. The Wall Street Journal called that “having a positive agenda.” Hence, Republicans by and large joined the Democrats in relegating the U.S. Constitution to history’s dustbin.

...Moreover, since the Kennedy reform of 1965, and with greater speed since 2009, the ruling class’s immigration policy has changed the regime by introducing some 60 million people—roughly a fifth of our population—from countries and traditions different from, if not hostile, to ours. Whereas earlier immigrants earned their way to prosperity, a disproportionate percentage of post-1965 arrivals have been encouraged to become dependents of the state. Equally important, the ruling class chose to reverse America’s historic practice of assimilating immigrants, emphasizing instead what divides them from other Americans. Whereas Lincoln spoke of binding immigrants by “the electric cord” of the founders’ principles, our ruling class treats these principles as hypocrisy. All this without votes or law; just power.

Fifty years ago, prayer in the schools was near universal, but no one was punished for not praying. Nowadays, countless people are arrested or fired for praying on school property. West Point’s commanding general reprimanded the football coach for his team’s thanksgiving prayer. Fifty years ago, bringing sexually explicit stuff into schools was treated as a crime, as was “procuring abortion.” Nowadays, schools contract with Planned Parenthood to teach sex, and will not tell parents when they take girls to PP facilities for abortions. Back then, many schools worked with the National Rifle Association to teach gun handling and marksmanship. Now students are arrested and expelled merely for pointing their finger and saying “bang.” In those benighted times, boys who ventured into the girls’ bathroom were expelled as perverts. Now, girls are suspended for objecting to boys coming into the girls’ room under pretense of transgenderism. The mainstreaming of pornography, the invention of abortion as the most inalienable of human rights and, most recently, the designation of opposition to homosexual marriage as a culpable psychosis—none of which is dictated by law enacted by elected officials—is enforced as if it had been. No surprise that America has experienced a drastic drop in the formation of families, with the rise of rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites equal to the rates among blacks that was recognized as disastrous a half-century ago, the near-disappearance of two-parent families among blacks, and the social dislocations attendant to all that.

... devotion to truth means not reporting on Donald Trump and people like him as if they or anything they say might be of value.

If trying to persuade irredeemable socio-political inferiors is no more appropriate than arguing with animals, why not just write them off by sticking dismissive names on them? Doing so is less challenging, and makes you feel superior. Why wrestle with the statistical questions implicit in Darwin when you can just dismiss Christians as Bible-thumpers? Why bother arguing for Progressivism’s superiority when you can construct “scientific” studies like Theodor Adorno’s, proving that your opponents suffer from degrees of “fascism” and other pathologies? This is a well-trod path. Why, to take an older example, should General Omar Bradley have bothered trying to refute Douglas MacArthur’s statement that in war there is no substitute for victory when calling MacArthur and his supporters “primitives” did the trick? Why wrestle with our climate’s complexities when you can make up your own “models,” being sure that your class will treat them as truth?

...Thus has come to pass what President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in his 1960 Farewell address: “A steadily increasing share [of science] is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.… [T]he free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution…a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” Hence, said Ike, “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.” The result has been that academics rise through government grants while the government exercises power by claiming to act on science’s behalf. If you don’t bow to the authority of the power that says what is and is not so, you are an obscurantist or worse.

Who, a generation ago, could have guessed that careers and social standing could be ruined by stating the fact that the paramount influence on the earth’s climate is the sun, that its output of energy varies and with it the climate? Who, a decade ago, could have predicted that stating that marriage is the union of a man and a woman would be treated as a culpable sociopathy, or just yesterday that refusing to let certifiably biological men into women’s bathrooms would disqualify you from mainstream society? Or that saying that the lives of white people “matter” as much as those of blacks is evidence of racism? These strictures came about quite simply because some sectors of the ruling class felt like inflicting them on the rest of America. Insulting presumed inferiors proved to be even more important to the ruling class than the inflictions’ substance.

...Hillary Clinton’s attack on Trump supporters merely matched the ruling class’s current common sense. Why should government workers and all who wield the administrative state’s unaccountable powers not follow their leaders’ judgment, backed by the prestige press, about who are to be treated as citizens and who is to be handled as deplorable refuse? Hillary Clinton underlined once again how the ruling class regards us, and about what it has in store for us.

...Trump’s propensity for treating pronouncements on policy as flags to be run up and down the flagpole as he measures the volume of the applause does not deprive them of all significance—especially the ones that confirm his anti-establishment bona fides. These few policy items happen to be the ones by which he gained his anti-establishment reputation in the first place: 1) opposition to illegal immigration, especially the importation of Muslims whom Americans reasonably perceive as hostile to us; 2) law and order: stop excusing rioters and coddling criminals; 3) build a wall, throw out the illegals, let in only people who are vetted and certified as supporters of our way of life (that’s the way it was when I got my immigrant visa in 1955), and keep out anybody we can’t be sure isn’t a terrorist. Trump’s tentative, partial retreat from a bit of the latter nearly caused his political standing to implode, prompting the observation that doing something similar regarding abortion would end his political career. That is noteworthy because, although Trump’s support of the pro-life cause is lukewarm at best, it is the defining commitment for much of his constituency. The point here is that, regardless of his own sentiments, Trump cannot wholly discount his constituencies’ demands for a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction.

We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.
Read more here.

Don't do it, Ace!

Ace of Spades is depressed and upset about #NeverTrumpers still refusing to support Trump:
pressed. Apparently, some in this party really do think they're going to hand the election to Hillary, and, bizarrely, they think this will bully the rest of us into knuckling under to their agenda in 2020.

Rather than simply getting payback and tanking their candidate in return.

This party is on the verge of self-destructing. The upper class of the party is upset that the lower class has finally had its say, and they're determined that should never be permitted to happen again.

Why then would anyone of the lower class ever vote for the GOP again? Are they required to sign a piece of paper confirming that they are Lessers who should know their place in order to have the privilege of voting against their own interests?

I'm personally probably defecting to the Democrats after this. All my life I've been animated by one idea in politics. Not about guns, not about abortion, not even about national security. (Okay, that last one is important.)

But what caused me to join the GOP is the very palpable idea emanating from the liberals that there was a group of people empowered due to their position and education to Lead Us, and the rest of us had no say in the affairs of the country. They were to make decisions for us, and we were to follow.

This idea saw flower in the media itself, where a group of people who had no particular expertise in history or political philosophy, and who weren't even terribly intelligent, used the simple happenstance of having jobs giving them control over information as a justification to deceive and manipulate people into supporting their agenda.

I see that currently happening in the "conservative" media, where we have a hundred people who claim to be #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary but, strangely enough, never talk about the downsides of a Hillary presidency. Oh, they'll talk up how much of an authoritarian Trump is, but not Hillary's sense of entitlement, grievance, vengeance, and her own history of authoritarianism and lawlessness in covering up her crimes.

They talk all day about "Principles," but discard the most basic principles -- such as keeping a proven lawbreaker out of the White House, or just honestly admitting which candidate they're actually supporting to their readers -- as convenience may recommend.

In fact, right now they're howling about Ted Cruz' "calculations" in endorsing Trump, while not admitting their own pose of "Being Against Both Equally" is in fact a completely contrived lie they've calculated will permit them to agitate for their candidate (Hillary) while not compromising their career prospects within Conservatism, Inc. too much.

I understand his frustration, but I don't get his willingness to become a Democrat. If you don't like what they write, don't read them!

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

How Bill Clinton caused the 2008 Great Recession

At The American Thinker Jack Cashill shows how Bill Clinton was responsible for the 2008 Great Recession.

She worked hard for her money

Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air,
The Clintons didn’t work hard for their wealth, even if their parents might have struggled to get by. They got their cash from trading on their connections to power, abusing their public trusts, and corrupting government. Do working-class people have that path to wealth?
Read more here.

Can Trump find new votes?

Ace of Spades writes,
Trump needs to stop playing to a base he's had since June 2015 and start playing for the votes he doesn't have, but absolutely needs, if he's to win.
Read more here.

Another cover up revealed

How our government covered up the fact that Omar Madeen was deeply following ISIS. Hot air's John Sexton reports here.

Who rooted for Nurse Ratched?

For whom did you root in the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Nurse Ratched (Hillary) or Jack Nicholson's character (Donald Trump)? It's safe to say that nobody rooted for Nurse Ratched. I remember rooting for the big Native American guy. Ann Althouse has more on the subject here.

another example of anti-Trump media purporting to champion women but in fact treating them as if they are weak, fragile, not responsible for their own choices, and in need of protection.

At the debate the other night Hillary brought up Trump's treatment of the beauty pagent winner who gained lots of weight after winning Trump's Miss Universe contest. Here is what Ann Althuse said about it last May:
What was Donald Trump supposed to do about that? He owned the business, and she had claimed — and beat out other women for — the job of acting as if she's the most beautiful woman in the universe, and then she radically changed her appearance....

Wasn't she obligated to control her weight according to the terms of employment? If you can't do the job, don't apply for it. No one has to enter a beauty pageant. I think it's a foolish business, but if you participate in foolishness, you owe something to those who gave you that platform. It takes some psychological grit. If you're sensitive about what people say about how you look, what are you doing there?

This is another example of anti-Trump media purporting to champion women but in fact treating them as if they are weak, fragile, not responsible for their own choices, and in need of protection. It seems to me that Trump was treating her the way he'd treat a man — holding her to her obligations and razzing her for her foibles.
Read more here.

The winding path to 270 electoral votes

From the Five Thirty Eight blog: look how important Colorado is in this election!

Click to enlarge.
The winding path to 270 electoral votes

A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to clinch the White House. Here's where the race stands, with the states ordered by the projected margin between the candidates — Clinton’s strongest states are farthest left, Trump’s farthest right — and sized by the number of electoral votes they will award.

As if middle school weren't already hard enough

Our daughter is in middle school. One of the girls who was in her class last year decided to change her name from a girl's name to a boy's name. She decideD she was a boy. Someone snitched on our daughter, telling a teacher that our daughter refused to call her by her new name. The principal called our daughter into her office. Our daughter told us about it last night. She had been told by one of her classmates that if she has to go to the principal's office three or more times, she would be kicked out of school. Her mother placed four phone calls to four prominent attorneys.

This morning her mother and I went to see the principal. We asked her why our daughter was brought into her office. She said someone told her our daughter had referred to the girl as "it." She said our daughter denied saying that. We told the principal that our daughter did not have our permission to call her "it" or any other derogatory name, but she did have our permission to call her by any female gender pronoun.

We asked the principal what the consequences might be if she used a female pronoun. The principal did not know, and also denied there was a three strike rule. The principal explained that the District policy requires that all students and staff comply with the wishes of any gender dysphoric student by referring to the student with the pronoun of the gender they identify with.

Bias of the mainstream media

Today at the gym someone left the morning newspaper on a bench. I sat down to read for the first time The Santa Fe New Mexican. There were several articles about Trump and Clinton. The main one was from Alexander Burns of the New York Times. It was as if he sat down to write all the disparaging words and phrases that he had learned in his life. There were 46 that I underlined. There were zero disparaging remarks about Hillary Clinton.

There were four other articles about the election. "Did Trump show too much testosterone?" (Associated Press reporter), Debate renews attention on Trump's tax returns (Associated Press reporter), "Miss Housekeeping" ready to vote against Trump (Washington Post reporter), and one that sounds positive for Trump, but if you read it, it is not: Poll: Voters more confident in Trump's health (AP). That last one ends with this sentence: "There's something of a bias about men versus women that sublty Trump has played to, that men are more fit, tough enough to do the job."

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Disparagement of the white working classes

Victor Davis Hanson asks,
What is behind the new disparagement of the white working classes?

What is behind the new disparagement of the white working classes?

White progressive elites also explain much of the disparagement. By focusing on the supposed racism of the working classes, they find exemption for their own often exclusionary lives. Paula Deen’s long ago insensitive racial epithet was nearly a career-ending gaffe, whereas the nation simply shrugged off the more recent and racist characterization of Barack Obama in 2008 by then senators Joe Biden and Harry Reid. Saturday Night Live, worried about the appearance of its nearly all-white cast, just hired a “Latina” comedian who in preemptory fashion deleted 2,000 tweets that had illustrated her own racial stereotyping of black men and Asians in general.
Read more here.

A skilled manipulator

I watched the debate last night on the couch with my sons. My 16-year-old wrote this in English class today:
September 27 16th
1st Debate Trump vs Clinton
I could hardly watch the debate last night. I agree with people that say that Hillary won. Trump got flustered and started saying all the wrong things. And I think that nobody can argue with the fact that Hillary is possibly the best person in politics in manipulating the truth.

In our society, it is not only common for people to criticize every, single statement that Donald Trump makes, it is EXPECTED. If you don’t, then you are a racist deplorable. You are a redneck that goes to sleep at night and dreams of the defenseless black teens that you can harass; you are immediately a terrible person.

But Hillary's advantage doesn’t stop there. You can watch as Hillary looks into the crowd in the exact way that you would look at an old friend, joking about the weird kid in class. At the end of the debate, Hillary had manipulated it into a group of people that are not listening to the words spoken by the other party, but laughing and watching the pathetic attempt of a 200 pound 6 foot 2 man getting torched by the frail, 4'11" grandmother. But the final conspicuous lead that Hillary had is exactly that. She is a four foot eleven WOMAN. Trump was thrown into a position where he had to pull his punches and act like a gentleman, without confirming the pre-assumed beliefs that the only people that are Trump supporters are rich billionaires and hillbillies that trample over the rights of minorities and women. And Clinton manipulated her advantage in such a way that explains the way that she dodges the repercussions of her self-promoting actions and still come off as the kind, loving grandma. And that is why, if this is going to be the recurring theme of these debates, Trump is destined to crash and burn.

No disciplinary action against Glenn Reynolds

No mention of what I imagine were hundreds of letters of support for Glenn.
Statement from Dean Melanie Wilson about Professor’s Tweet
Following Professor Glenn Reynolds’s tweet and my public response last week, I began an investigation that included an examination of the facts, policies in the university’s Faculty Handbook, and the law. I discussed the situation with Professor Reynolds, university leadership, and General Counsel. I also sought feedback from College of Law students, staff, faculty, the Alumni Council and Dean’s Circle, and other UT Law alumni. As a lawyer and a law school dean, I know that gathering information and upholding the principles of due process are absolutely necessary in a situation like this.

In short, no disciplinary action will be taken against Professor Reynolds. The tweet was an exercise of his First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, the tweet offended many members of our community and beyond, and I understand the hurt and frustration they feel.

Today, Professor Reynolds issued an apology to the law school community via email.

I appreciate Professor Reynolds’s statement. We will now move forward to rebuild our law school community and refocus on our primary purpose: educating future lawyers and leaders. Our students and their education should always be our primary concerns at the college. Only by coming together as a community in thoughtful and constructive dialogue can we ensure that UT Law—and the university overall—is a supportive, collegial community of scholars and lifelong learners.

Get-out-of-jail-free card

Andrew McCarthy explains,
Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

How is this not classified?” So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

I will end with what I said eight months ago: To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.
Read more here.

I wonder if he still hates all cops

Katharine Rodriguez writes at Breitbart,
An Ohio police officer went above and beyond his job description when he offered to drive a grieving man that he pulled over more than 100 miles to his sister’s funeral.
When Mark Ross heard the news that his 15-year-old sister was killed in a car accident, he wanted to find a way to be with his family as fast as he could.

Ross did not have a vehicle, so he asked a friend to drive him from Indiana to Detroit, Michigan, WJW reported.

Ross wrote in a Facebook post that police pulled them over as they were speeding through Ohio to get to Detroit.

“I knew I was going to jail due to a petty warrant,” Ross wrote in the post.

Ross was in the passenger seat when Trooper J. Davis pulled them over and arrested the driver for driving with a suspended license and on an outstanding warrant, Inside Edition reported.

The officer took the driver into custody and towed the vehicle, leaving Ross stranded in Ohio.

When Ohio State Highway Patrol Sergeant David Robison arrived, he offered to drive Ross more than 100 miles to his destination in Detroit.

“I broke down crying and he saw the sincerity in my cry. He REACHES OVER AND BEGAN PRAYING OVER ME AND MY FAMILY,” Ross wrote. “He offered to bring me 100 miles further to Detroit because they towed the vehicle. Everybody knows how much I dislike Cops but I am truly Greatful for this Guy. He gave me hope.”

Robison kept his word and drove Ross to a coffee shop in Detroit where he could meet his cousin.

“It was just so overwhelming,” Ross told Inside Edition. “They were trying to help us.”

Ross and his family were grateful for Robison’s generosity and invited him to the funeral.

“He’s actually going to attend the funeral,” Ross said.

Ross’s Facebook post has gone viral; it has been shared more than 100,000 times since Sunday.

Finding our way

h/t Bookworm

Wasting money?

h/t Bookworm

No one nearby to help

h/t Bookworm


h/t Bookworm


Depends on who is shooting whom

h/t Bookworm

"There just isn't time to dump it all at once"

Curt Dale gives us his thoughts about last night.
I watched the debate tonight and will give my quick reaction. I thought Trump did quite well against Hillary. I think he gave her a few pRetty tough blasts, but the pundits seem to think he was too easy on her. True, he didn't follow through with great details as he hit her on the 33,000 emails, but he let her know he was fully willing to go to the mat if necessary. Same for other points, just a quick jab to the gut, and then he danced away. Those pundits seem to think he should have dropped the whole load of manure on her in the first debate. That would have been a poor strategy in my opinion. He has two more debates to scatter the rest of the manure, and i rather expect he will. Her parting shot at the end was low and ill considered with which he turned the tables on her. I think in that final slam she just opened the barn door for him at the next debate. She went forward with her lies and dirt in that last minute. Now the whole raft of scandals is fair refuse for Trump to dump. She tried to be aloof, nice, feminine, likeable, and astute throughout, then she lost it all right at the last. I thought she looked like she was about to go to sleep each time the camera showed her when she wasn't talking, as if totally detached! Then she's rouse up and give some more of her canned comments which were somewaht biting at times, but too often ill timed. Trump showed he wasn't afraid to take her on when he interrupted her and said "wrong" each time she went into the HIL-LIAR-Y mode. And she did get caught with bad facts, while his facts were proving out by the end of the evening.

With the trend in the polls showing Trump pulling ahead in swing states, and the numbers of the many "unscientific polls" showing Trump the winner tonight, I'd say his first time in a one on one debate was amazing. I suspect he's a very quick study, and therefore feel he will have a full measure of her for the next two debates. I expect the rest of that wagonload of manure to be scattered with finesse and accuracy, right on her head. Benghazi, Syria, major dump on server, emails, treatment of women Bill raped or molested, lying to the FBI, ad infinitum. There just isn't time to dump it all at once unless Trump figures out how to dump each scandal with a one-liner.
Colonel Curtis D. Dale, PhD, USAF (Ret)
Visit on Facebook

Hillary's deplorables and supporters

h/t Bookworm

The best little girl in the classroom, and the framer (from a Leftist point of view),

Bookworm's debate analysis:
Hillary: Very prepared. Best little girl in the classroom. Teacher’s pet. Hectoring voice of an angry mother figure or your nagging ex-wife. Condescending. I found her debate performance offputting, but I’m biased.

Hillary announced that she had a plan about everything. No details, just plans. When I did listen to what Hillary was actually saying, I kept thinking, “This is just another four years of Obama.”

Hillary was greatly helped by Lester Holt, who asked Donald about the tax returns but quickly glossed over Hillary’s server and deleted emails (and asked no meaningful follow-up questions when Trump brought it up), and framed things from the Leftist point of view (income inequality, wages higher, etc.).

Hillary struck me as simultaneously incredibly prepared and completely empty. I thought she made a terrible mistake when she said everyone is racist. I don’t think of myself as racist and I bet you don’t think of yourself that way either. She’s one giant talking point.

Oh, and of course Hillary lied here and Hillary lied there. She obfuscated, exaggerated, misrepresented, and was generally . . . Hillary.

Government is the entity filling the prisons

Ann Althouse picks up on Hillary's tirade against private prisons.
From the transcript: I’m glad that we’re ending private prisons in the federal system; I want to see them ended in the state system. You shouldn’t have a profit motivation to fill prison cells with young Americans.
Ann writes,
Government prosecutes criminals and obtains convictions and prison sentences. If government uses privately run prisons, it must pay these private businesses to house its prisoners. The entity filling the prison therefore has an economic incentive against putting more people in prison. The private business — the one with the "profit motivation" — has no power to create more prisoners. I can see opposing private prisons for other reasons, but Hillary's justification made no sense to me other than a random expression of disgust for business.

...anyone who begins with economics and reasons from there will understand that private prisons are a way for government to save money.
Read more here.

Scott Adams scores the debate

Let's check in on Scott Adams' debate analysis.
...But the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.
Read more here.

The third debater

Heat Street staff write,
At tonight’s debate, Donald Trump faced off not just against Hillary Clinton, but against moderator Lester Holt.

The game of two-on-one saw Holt ask no questions about:

Hillary’s emails
The Clinton Foundation

While ignoring these issues, Holt grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.

Holt also repeatedly attempted to “fact check” on some of Trump’s positions, such as his claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Holt interrupted Trump several times to interject, but rarely succeeded (and may have come across as weak and impotent).
Read more here.

"You have to purge the Matrix from your brain."

Ace of Spades writes,
Andrew Breitbart used to say -- he said this the first time I met him -- that the left creates a "Matrix," as in the movie, a prison of illusion and reality distortion. When you are in the Matrix, he said excitedly, you can't see the Matrix itself.

Many commentators on the right -- I included -- are thoroughly colonized by leftist memes. How could we not be? We are constantly mesmerized by them, a thousand cult chants a day whispering at us from our electric soma boxes.

Many are looking at Hillary Clinton's answers and saying "She won on points."

Did she?

Because what did she really say? On national security and ISIS, she offered the novel thought that we must work more closely with our allies.

Really. You don't say? I'm glad someone had the guts to finally say it.

Now, those whose brains are colonized by leftist viral memes will call that a "good answer." It's the accepted Conventional Wisdom answer of the Davoisie and the Davoisie wannabes.

But is it a good answer?

Or is it just insect-talk? (Insect talk being my own word for something so trivial and brainless it doesn't even rise to the level of small-talk.)

Clinton said a lot of crap like this last night -- she said that to improve race relations, we needed to build more trust in the community in police, and more trust in police in the community.

Um, that is not an answer. That is simply a way of re-stating the problem. Her husband used to do this a lot. How do we improve education? Why I have a five-point plan. (Ticking off points on each finger.) One, improve the curriculum. Two, improve the administration. Three, improve teacher-school relations. Four, encourage children to learn. Five, improve education.

Um, you didn't say how we were going to improve education. You simply broke the problem into several sub-problems and said we have to solve each of the sub-problems.

Yet people were always impressed by this -- at least among the chattering classes -- and praised Clinton for being soooo detailed.

Hillary tried this last night with her various bubble-headed Unsweet Nothings responses.

She's not as good as it as her husband.

People have heard all these non-responsive no-answer evasions before, and I don't think they're more impressed with them on the umpteenth repetition.

I think that our current politics has been organized around the central concept of Emptiness for a long time, and I think maybe this year, a year of rejectionism, is the year when people begin to see through the Emptiness.

So I would just suggest to the Chattering Classes and the Twitterati:

Are you really judging what she said, or are you simply regurgitating the Conventional Wisdom as to what is credited as counting as an "informed answer" in these moronic affairs?

Because people less colonized by parasitic, invasive leftist memes might have seen this show differently than you did.

Just because you know the Matrix exists does not mean you can see the Matrix.

To see the Matrix, you actually have to escape the Matrix.

You have to purge the Matrix from your brain.

Continue reading