Those of us who view Hillary Clinton as an existential threat to the United State of America can list dozens of reasons she is unfit for President without breaking an intellectual sweat. The question of whether or not she is better than Donald Trump is something that undecided Independents will answer to determine who wins in November. For many, it will come down to who they dislike or mistrust the least. Depending on what happens between now and then, the out-of-control Black Lives Matter movement may be the one factor that drives Independents to lean towards Trump.

For the sake of her party and base, Hillary has allowed herself to be attached to Black Lives Matter. As hard as this is for many Republicans to accept, I do not believe that she’s actually sympathetic at all to the cause (even a liberal is capable of seeing the indefensible damage they’re doing), but she wouldn’t dare to condemn them in any form or fashion. She needs them to not hate her, to not bring the message to the masses that they prefer one of the third party candidates.

Her problem is quickly manifesting in Charlotte. If reports of a dashcam video showing Keith Scott brandishing a firearm before being shot turns out to be true, then the violence and rioting will be another example of unrighteous anger, destruction of property, and unwarranted violence stemming from the reactionary lack of reason demonstrated by the group.

Hillary can neither distance herself nor embrace them. She’s walking the tightrope of appearing to be sympathetic without sounding as if she approves of their activities. Her Twitter account the last couple of days has had reactions designed to appease every side, followed by a flurry of unrelated Tweets to bury her perspectives away from scrutiny. She’s trying to address the issue with a wave, then change the conversation as quickly as possible. It takes a lot of scrolling to get down to this Tweet:

All of this brings us back to the choice facing Independents. They have a wildcard in Trump and an untrustworthy liar in Hillary. Their cores negate each other in the eyes of many of these voters, which leaves them with a choice based upon emotion. Every time there’s a riot that draws lines between race rather than justice, it’s a reminder that she’s going to perpetuate the problems and magnify the hatred. Just as Trump needs a portion of minority voters to support him, so too does Hillary need Independent white voters to not see her as a threat to their safety.

Riots like the ones in Ferguson, Baltimore, and now Charlotte are reminders to voters that Black Lives Matter can strike them in their own cities. Hillary will be perceived as a supporter of Black Lives Matter no matter how deep in her profile she buries her Tweets. These truly undecided voters will make their final decision based not upon Trump’s rhetoric or Hillary’s scandals. Everyone is well aware of those. They’ll make their final decision based upon how each candidate will directly affect their lives. Every BLM incident, terrorist attack, and crack in Obama’s economy will push them closer to holding their noses and voting for Trump even if they don’t like him.

After all, they really don’t like Hillary, either.

As a business owner, I rely on people to enter into a covenant of sorts. I need them to be there for me and I need to be there for them. As such, it has always been important for me to know them, to have a clear understanding of their capabilities and dedication to the job. The hiring process has always been more than just an interview and a resume; I want to know certain things about people.

Even entry-level positions have certain basic requirements, but when we’re looking for executives, we have to take it up a notch. Three years ago, when I was searching for a partner who could be the chief executive in my current company, it was important to know as much as possible ahead of time. The person I finally chose to partner with went through dozens of meetings. It had to be mutual; we learned more about each other over several months than I would ever share with a close relative. Success is easiest when there are no surprises and after three years, nothing has popped up that I didn’t know about before we started.

The application for President of the United States seems to require much less vetting than my search for the CEO of my business. It shouldn’t be that way. We as a nation are going to enter into a covenant with this person. We have to know them intimately. The way things are today, we are only allowed to know what we’re granted in privilege and we must make this extremely important decision based upon information that others often provide. It shouldn’t be like that. Would we even know that Hillary Clinton had an illness if she hadn’t been caught on camera? No.

Requirements to be President are intentionally vague in the Constitution and I wouldn’t recommend trying to change anything through an amendment, but it would certainly be nice if we could had three basic requirements, even if they were informal but accepted and fulfilled by those seeking the grandest job in the world.

  1. Full Medical Background and Independent Exam: For the sake of keyholder-status, I know more about my partner’s health than I know about my best friend. The likelihood that we are being fed lies by at least one major candidate pertaining to her health is utterly ridiculous. It would be nice if a complete medical history and independent medical examination were required and either made public or given to a Congressional committee for review.
  2. Confidential Background Check, Including Financial Ties: The argument from most Trump supporters who do not call to see his tax returns is that it’s not a requirement and none of our business. Both are true. However, I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if a Congressional committee or, better yet, a selected group of governors were granted access to a complete background check. That includes tax returns. We don’t need everything spilled onto the table for the world to see, but I’d like to know if there are concerns. A confidential financial and historical investigation of candidates is not too much to ask.
  3. Constitutional Scorecard: The President is sworn to defend the Constitution. There should be no doubt in the minds of the people that the person most responsible for defending the Constitution actually knows the Constitution. They should be required to take a test to at least let us know they have a working knowledge. How can they defend what they don’t understand?

It’s obviously too late this election year to make any changes like these, but we should learn the lessons that have come from it. Are we about to elect a President with major pre-existing medical conditions? Are we about to elect a President who is financially beholden to foreign interests? Are we about to elect a President who doesn’t know the difference between Article II and Article XII of the Constitution? It’s sad that we have to ask these questions.

Be careful what you wish for, Republicans. Hillary Clinton’s medical episode today, officially diagnosed as a result of a three-days of pneumonia, has raised serious questions about her future as the Democratic nominee for President. Pundits are speculating. Some conservative publications are saying, “told you so!” Even some of her most ardent defenders in the press have to admit that it’s worth reporting.

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/775018102971072512

https://twitter.com/ross_rlz/status/775019655920488448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The last thing the GOP should want is for Hillary to drop out. She’s the best possible candidate for Donald Trump to to compete with and possibly the only one who is hated enough for him to defeat. If she’s replaced, the repercussions could be devastating up and down the ticket.

There have been a handful of reports discussing the possible ramifications, most of which are either false or ill-conceived so I won’t link to them from here. Instead, let’s look at this logically and read what the rules say about such things. First, the DNC does not have the same type of established rules that the RNC has in the event of their candidate dropping out. Their bylaws grant the Democratic National Committee broad powers between conventions, including the responsibility to “fill vacancies,” though the nature of those vacancies are not discussed. This is uncharted territory for them. While they do not have the power to replace a candidate that has been nominated at the convention, they have all the power they need if she vacates.

Bernie Sanders supporters are pushing. Speculation about Elizabeth Warren is strong. Tim Kaine’s name has been floated as being pushed to the top of the ticket. At least one publication even considered 36-year-old Chelsea Clinton as an option. Clearly, the most likely replacement, the one that the DNC and power brokers in the Democratic Party would want, is Vice President Joe Biden. Uncle Joe has said that he “regrets every day” that he decided not to run. With under two months to go, his regrets may be reversed as a Biden-Kaine ticket is the most plug-and-play option the Democrats have.

It’s pretty obvious that something is being considered. It would put them in a position that they crave: being the victims of circumstance.

https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/775093724363784192

Trump has been compared, erroneously so, as another Barry Goldwater waiting to happen. While that particular debacle of an election has not been possible before, these circumstances change things. Many historians are wrong when they claim that Goldwater lost so horribly because he was too radical which is why most comparisons between Goldwater and Trump are incorrect. Goldwater lost in a landslide because we’ve always been a sentimental nation. John F. Kennedy’s death less than a year before election day guaranteed a huge victory for Lyndon B. Johnson. If Hillary drops out and is replaced by Biden, we might not see the same level of a defeat that Goldwater experienced, but the odds will definitely shift in the Democrats’ favor.

Hillary has lost all momentum and Trump is picking up steam. While it’s futile to speculate what will happen in this topsy-turvy election cycle in the final two months, Trump should be considered the favorite at this point as long as he’s facing Hillary. If a switch is made, we could be seeing Trump TV on the horizon.

911-des-plainesBy John Ruberry

This morning Hillary Clinton suffered what is being called a medical episode in lower Manhattan where she may have fainted, but she certainly had to be helped into a van by campaign aides as her knees wobbled, as you’ll see in a video. She’s was in New York to attend a Ground Zero 9/11 memorial service.

The Clinton campaign claims that the Democratic nominee was “overheated,” but so far there are no reports of anyone else among the thousands in attendance at the somber event being overcome by heat. Temperatures were in the late 70s in New York this morning. Today’s incident comes just six days after a four-minute long coughing spell during a Labor Day speech in Cleveland by Clinton, followed by a shorter one on her campaign jet, which the campaign blithely brushed off as related to allergies. Even hardened liberal Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post says that questions about Hillary’s health are legitimate ones, not just fodder for conservative conspiracy theorists.

wallace-road
Henry Wallace was pushed aside for Truman

It’s been said that Clinton is the most dishonest person to be a major party nominee since Richard M. Nixon. It’s now fair to say that she’s the unhealthiest one to run as a major party choice since another New York state Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, won his his unprecedented fourth-straight presidential election in 1944.

Party bosses knew that FDR was sick in ’44, and fears that Russia-loving leftist Henry A. Wallace, his vice president, could succeed FDR as president was the primary reason Democratic leaders convinced him to dump Wallace as his running mate for Harry S. Truman. The press was rabidly pro-Democrat–sound familiar?–and it had for years covered up that Roosevelt was unable to walk, so it of course assisted in obscuring the president’s newer health concerns. But the what we now call the media didn’t convince everyone. So FDR was compelled to strenuously campaign in the autumn of that year–while of course America was at war–which likely further weakened him.

And how sick was Roosevelt?

In World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis, and the West, Lawrence Rees wrote in 2009 about Roosevelt’s health at the Yalta Conference in 1945:

Much has been written about Roosevelt’s physical state at the conference. Those who worked closely with him, like George Elsey, had noticed a profound deterioration of the president’s health over the previous months, and Churchill had remarked on how sick Roosevelt looked at the Quebec meeting in September. At Yalta, Lord Moran, Churchill’s doctor, recorded: “Everyone seemed to agree that the president had gone to bits physically…I doubt, from what I have seen, whether he is fit for his job here.”

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Roosevelt was clearly duped by Joseph Stalin at Yalta, where he handed eastern Europe to the communists, including Poland, for whom Great Britain and France went to war after the weaker nation was invaded by the Nazis, which of course is how World War II began.

Do we want another ill–or yes, I’m going to say it–dying president to be swindled by another Russian leader? Or by Iran? (Of course, that is what happened with a presumably much healthier Barack Obama.) Or by anyone?

Roosevelt, as we all know, died three months after being sworn-in as president for the fourth time.

Oh, yes, I’m aware the John F. Kennedy had Addison’s disease, which was hidden from the public, but he had suffered from the ailment since the 1940s. His sister, Eunice, also had Addision’s, she died at 88. JFK’s health problems were partially attributed to his abuse of prescription drugs.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

We have a unique opportunity as conservatives. Donald Trump is new to politics. He’s malleable or, as he puts it, capable of changing his mind whenever he wants. This is the chance we haven’t had in our lifetimes – to mold Presidential policy by using our voices to let him know what we expect.

Trump supporters may argue that doing so is a sign of disunity and therefore any opposition to his policies is going to help Hillary Clinton win. There are two flaws to this argument. First, no Presidential candidate should be given a free pass to implement their whims without hearing the voice of the people even if such criticism may be viewed poorly by others who are still considering the options. Second, if criticism from the right is enough to make him lose to Hillary, he wasn’t cut out for the nomination in the first place.

Hillary Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate in decades. Even Walter Mondale was better; Ronald Reagan would have won Minnesota and completed the 50 state sweep had he been running against Clinton, though DC would have still probably gone to the Democrats. She has been clearly demonstrated to be a liar, corrupt, and unexceptional in every way. Any GOP candidate with a pulse and conservative policies would be pulverizing her in the polls. Trump needs to step up (and lately, it seems that he’s been doing just that).

Trump is a new to political campaigning. He’s new to conservatism. He’s a “baby Christian” as some have called him. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and that can be viewed as either a weakness or an opportunity. I choose to see it as a grand opportunity to point him in the right direction… to the right.

We’ve already seen examples of this. When attempting his leftward lurch on immigration, better known as “the softening,” he received push back from some of his supporters. Frankly, I didn’t think he received enough push back, but it worked. Within a week, he abandoned his toe-dipping into the realm of amnesty-that-shall-not-be-called-amnesty and returned to his original stance. Lately, he’s been hinting at a return to the left on the issue, for which we must continue to apply the pressure.

One does not have to join the #NeverTrump camp in order to oppose some of his policies, nor does one have to support all of his policies if they want him to win. It is imperative that we agree when he’s right and disagree when he’s wrong. He will be wrong on many issues; at heart, he’s still left-leaning and it shows in his proposed policies. If he is to be President, he cannot go down the road of big government and dramatically increased spending. If we say nothing, who will? The left? The Establishment? Only the grassroots and truly conservative politicians will be able to sway him away from any lingering liberal tendencies that are tugging at his heart.

Another major concern is the Supreme Court. Many who are reluctant supporters attribute the SCOTUS as their primary reason for supporting him over Clinton. There’s a problem that is so drastically under-reported that one might consider it to be a conspiracy. Shortly after releasing his amazing list of conservative judges he’d consider for the Supreme Court, he declared that it was just a starting point. Then, during the Republican National Convention in a closed-door meeting, he declared that he had many other names, “fabulous people,” as he put it, who were now on his list. Currently, there is one spot open. There’s a chance that as many as three more will come open in span of his Presidency. Why does he need more than the original 11? Why won’t he release those names? Why won’t he commit to appointing only conservative justices? Is he hedging his bets in case the Democrats take control of the Senate? Is he preparing to use SCOTUS nominations as bargaining chips? We don’t know and currently nobody is willing to ask.

Mark Levin might be the prototype for the type of conservative voice that can support Trump while still holding his feet to the conservative fire. He’s denounced Trump’s $7 trillion retreat on tax cuts. He’s called out his plans to expand government and dramatically increase the national debt. He’s highlighted nearly every liberal policy that Trump has proposed, a large list which seems to be getting bigger. However, he praised him on immigration. He praised the wall. He praised his willingness to act against terrorism and confront the Islamic State. He was #NeverTrump. Now, he’s voting for Trump. In lieu of the example set by so many Trump supporters from average voters to television pundits, Levin has chosen to endorse him with his vote while keeping his leftist policies in view.

Trump’s supporters have a dual-purpose this election year. They need to get him elected and they need to keep pushing him to the right against his leftward lurches. To do one and not the other is inviting the worst-case scenario: a “Republican” President who, in the name of bipartisanship and without the dissent of his constituents, pushes a liberal agenda without opposition.

Flyover country may not be the battleground for the presidential election, but there are many lessons the candidates could learn from the Midwest.

Over Labor Day weekend, I traveled through South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. I found almost everyone I talked to held conservative viewpoints.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise, but I only speak in whispers about my viewpoints in my home of Philadelphia, a city dominated by leftists.

At a party, I met someone whose business card proudly displays his email address from reagan.com. At the same soiree, I talked with two old friends from high school. One of them is a prominent businessman in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The other is a pediatrician in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Neither one embraces the candidacy of Donald Trump but will likely vote for him given the alternative.

The businessman complained about the government’s heavy hand in regulating his huge enterprise, which started as a string of pharmacies and now has dozens of retail stores throughout the Midwest. He’s amazed at how ineffectively the government performs its duties and how it spends money without much planning. If his operation were so inefficient and costly, he said he’d be out of business.

The physician noted that his practice saw fewer patients because the doctors spent so much time meeting government regulations. He has to prescribe numerous unnecessary tests just to protect himself from lawsuits.

Both of them asked me why colleges cost so much to attend. The problem at my school and others, I told them, was similar to their complaints: excessive government regulation. The administrative structure has almost doubled in the time I started teaching because of government oversight and rules. Because of their inefficiency, some colleges may be pricing themselves out of existence.

The presidential candidates would be well served if they actually listened to the issues on the minds of people in flyover country. Whatever the case, I certainly felt energized by my visit.


Christopher Harper, a longtime journalist with The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times, teaches media law. Read more at www.mediamashup.org

*****************************************

Southwest Detroit
Abandoned home in Southwest Detroit

By John Ruberry

Yesterday Donald Trump continued his outreach to black and inner city voters by speaking at Great Faith Ministries in Detroit’s Barton-McFarland neighborhood. Even on the Motor City’s low standards this is an especially depressed part of the city, three years ago the area just east of Barton-McFarland was named the most dangerous neighborhood in the United States.

Rather than focusing on over fifty years of Democratic failure in the Motor City–Detroit has not had a Republican mayor since 1963, Trump uncharacteristically took a modest tone at Great Faith.

“But today I just want to let you know that I am here to listen to you, and I’ve been doing that and we had a fantastic interview with Bishop [Wayne T.] Jackson.” Trump said from the pulpit. “It was really an amazing interview. He’s better than the people who do that professionally. It’s true, it’s true. He’s better.”

“Our nation is divided. We talk past each other and not to each other.” Trump continued. “And those who seek office do not do enough to step into the community and learn what is going on. They don’t know — they have no clue. I’m here today to learn, so that we can together remedy injustice in any form, and so that we can also remedy economics so that the African-American community can benefit economically through jobs and income and so many other different ways.”

When is the last time Hillary Clinton, in one of her increasingly infrequently public campaign appearances, said she was there to learn?

Trump decried the sidelining so many African America youths with “unfulfilled potential…tremendous potential,” adding, “Our whole country loses out when we’re unable to harness the brilliance and the energy of these folks.”

When Trump was finished speaking he received a standing ovation.Trump Pence

Donald Trump will not win a majority of the black vote in 2016. He won’t even come close. But unlike recent Republican nominees, the political newcomer is campaigning outside of his party’s comfort zone. As a political newcomer, Trump doesn’t reflexively subdivide Americans into different voting blocs. There is too much this-is-a-black-problem-in-the-ghetto type of thinking in this country. What’s wrong in the inner city is an American problem.

Trump gets it.

Related post:

I walked its streets–the tragedy of Detroit

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

As a husband and father who works far too many hours during the week, I’m a huge fan of making holiday weekends special for the family. These half-dozen or so big holiday weekends should be spent recharging our batteries and reconnecting with those aspects of life that often get lost in our productivity-focused and digitally distracted society. These are the times to let the world be the world so we can focus on the things that are closer to home.

For Labor Day 2016, I’m asking everyone to make an exception.

Yesterday’s big release by the FBI of Hillary Clinton’s email interviews was timed to allow the weight of her deceit and incompetence to fade away with everything else over the long weekend. When the government wants something swept under the rug away from our collective conscience, they do so in a very particular manner. Standard operating procedure is to release it midday on Friday, preferably before a long holiday weekend, so it gets the attention of the press but is pushed aside by a good chunk of the population that has their minds set on hot dogs, family, fireworks, and beer. The story gets coverage when nobody’s looking and then gets tossed in favor of holiday stories. A new week starts on Tuesday when the press has mostly moved on.

Hillary’s email story is one of corruption, lies, and mental breakdowns unbecoming of a President. It must not be swept under the rug. Here are some of the highlights that too few people will see because of the precise timing of the release:

This is all part of a bigger problem in the relationship between mainstream media and the U.S. government, particularly the Democrats. We’ve already seen reporters canned while asking taboo questions about her health. We’ve watched Bill Clinton’s liabilities filtered by mainstream media. We have to dig deep into the realm of obscure conservative media before seeing the reality of Obamacare’s failures.

On this issue of Hillary’s utter failures as a politician and a human being manifested in the way she’s handled and subsequently lied about her emails, we can’t let the media and the government get their wish. As much as it pains me to say so, this weekend is a time to discuss politics even if only in passing. Between the hamburgers and ice cream cones, make sure your cousin knows she lied when she said she set up the server so she could use one device; she had 13 mobile devices attached to her emails. While you’re on your way to see one of the terrible movies Hollywood is offering this weekend, ask your buddies if it’s okay that she wiped her email servers only after the NY Times reported about it. When you get back to work on Tuesday, tell a coworker that you can’t trust someone to be President of the United States if they claim they had no idea how classified intelligence actually worked while Secretary of State.

As some of you know, I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. That fact should compel you to share this story and keep the pressure up on Hillary despite the attempt to turn this scandal into a nothingburger. It’s not just Trump’s biggest fans who are gloating about her failures. Even those of us who aren’t sold on him are utterly aghast at his incompetent competitor.

I woke up unusually early this morning, so I naturally (ehem!) looked up my Twitter feed, and came across this from Juliette,

Indeed.

While I prepared breakfast (huevos rancheros with bacon, in keeping with the tex-mex theme), I pondered the delicious benefits of having a taco truck stop by near my house every day at noon:

  1. A choice of freshly-prepared, tasty food.
  2. It would encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses.
  3. It would probably mean that local governments reduced the red tape associated with such an enterprise – a woman can dream!
  4. Last, but not least, it may put Taco Bell out of business. (Disclosure: I got food poisoning at a Taco Bell years ago.)

Win-win.

It wasn’t until after I finished eating the huevos and bacon and putting away the dishes that I wondered why #TacoTrucksOnEveryCorner trended.

Sooper Mexican explains,

In an absolutely bizarre segment on MSNBC, the Latinos for Trump founder says that if we don’t elect Trump, you’re going to have taco trucks everywhere!!! I’m not sure why he’s against deliciousness, but there you have it.

Say whut?

Sooper Mexican gets to the core issue much better than the guy on TV,

Having been raised in California, I think I get what he’s trying to say, but he’s using the worst example ever because taco trucks are AWESOME. It is true, however, that we’ve been far too lax with illegal aliens in America, and it’s allowed a secondary culture to thrive – one that isn’t assimilating. And that’s a problem. We need to preserve American culture and our principles, and when we don’t even do that among our own native-born kids, we shouldn’t be surprised when immigrants, legal or otherwise, don’t assimilate into that culture either.

But c’mon dude, lay off the taco trucks, they’re amaaazing. That’s the worst argument everrrr!!!

In the interest of culinary diversity, I would not only love a nearby taco truck, but also a gyro truck, a pastrami on rye truck (complete with egg cream, of course), an empanadas truck, and a cubano sandwich truck. On a rotating basis, they would round up the work week nicely.

Speaking of cubano sandwich trucks, if you haven’t seen it yet, watch Chef. Funny and delicious.

Now if you will excuse me, I think I’ll make nachos for lunch.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S, and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

CJ Pearson says he supports Donald Trump.
CJ Pearson says he supports Donald Trump.

He’s young, black and says he supports Donald Trump.

If you haven’t heard about him, he’s 14-year-old CJ Pearson, a ninth-grader from Georgia who has criticized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Not surprisingly, he’s faced an onslaught of vitriol from Democrats and other leftists. But some conservatives, such as RedState’s Erick Erickson, see Pearson as a social media wannabe who should sit on the sidelines until he grows up.

In a column this week in Time, Pearson offered his view of the presidential race.

“I believe that the future of America is post-party politics. I hope that in 10 to 20 years, the near constant issue of partisanship will be a distant memory,” he wrote.

That sounds about right to me.

“As a young black male, I’ve seen my community flailing and struggling due to the disastrous impacts of the Obama political agenda, and I refuse to allow the possibility of a Clinton presidency to extend that suffering,” he added.

I can’t say I disagree with him there.

“Trump’s message to young people of color is simple: what do you have to lose?

“In my young optimistic eyes, after the last eight years of the Obama presidency, there is little left to lose. There is only room to do better, and there is only one goal: to make America great for every American.”

Check.

The entire column can be found at http://time.com/4470565/teens-for-trump/

Erickson criticized Pearson when he announced that he was leaving behind the failed campaigns of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, where he served as head of “Teens for Ted,” and joining the ranks of Bernie Sanders’ supporters.

“[S]top embarrassing yourself, shut up, and go live life. Pay attention to politics, but also pay attention to movies, sports, girls, your parents, your preacher and your surroundings. Come back when you are eighteen, your voice has deepened, and you’ve passed your final growth spurt,” Erickson wrote last December. See the entire column at http://www.redstate.com/erick/2015/12/09/dear-cj-pearson-shut-up/ 

Erickson has a point that Pearson’s conservative bent may blow with the wind, but I see the underpinning of Trump and Sanders’ campaigns as quite similar. The two presidential candidates demonstrated the disdain Americans have for the political status quo.

What’s important to me about Pearson is that he asks a critical question about the lives of black Americans: Are they truly better off under Democrats?

Pearson realizes he and his fellow black Americans are not better off. I couldn’t agree more.


Christopher Harper, a longtime journalist with The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times, teaches media law. Read more at www.mediamashup.org

*****************************************
A note from DaTechGugy:
I hope you enjoyed Christopher Harper’s piece. This is the last week for DaMagnificent Prospects so if you like Chris check out & share his stuff. In case you missed his other pieces, here they are:

Budding reporters and politics
Give terrorists what they deserve: anonymity
The ‘BS’ factor
A Godless Olympics
A true American ally




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



and if you want to fight the MSM company store join the Have Fedora Will Travel pledge drive to send me to cover Donald Trump on the road

If there has been a worse afternoon for the Hillary Clinton Campaign I haven’t seen it.

First you have both have Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both invited to Mexico by the president…

..and only Trump accepts making Trump look presidential and Hillary look like she’s ducking.

Then you have the Press gathered to see the joint statement after the meeting anticipating fireworks after Trump’s meeting with Mexico’s president with the MSM covering it live hoping for fireworks…

…and the Mexican president not only shows respect for Donald Trump, says he can work with Donald Trump but explicitly states and affirms the right of the US to control its border.  

But even so you have Donald Trump speaking next and the MSM was ready for him to put his foot in his mouth, insult his host in his own country in public or make some rowdy statement…

…and instead you get calm measured words that don’t back off one bit from his positions.  He looked presidential and diplomatic. totally destroying the carefully crafted media image the media has advanced.

Then you have the press conference if Trump didn’t make himself a fool during his statements the media asking him questions would manage to do so…

and Trump answers them cleaning and directly without a misstep.

It was in every way a disaster for the left.  Instead of a blithering bombastic racist idiot that they pretend Trump is, the American people saw live a diplomatic, determined and debonair leader with a history of making big deals with important people all over the world. And that doesn’t even take into account that Hillary hasn’t held a press conference since forever.

It caught the entire media by surprise.  So much so that the meme being advanced on every network was “Trump didn’t discuss Mexico paying for the wall.”  The fact  Mexico agreed to the right of securing the border or acknowledged the advantages to Mexico for securing said border wasn’t news only that Trump did not force this issue in his very first meeting with the Pres (an action that he would have been condemned for as being “undiplomatic if he had btw).

In short for the next several days the entire media will be dedicating themselves to making sure that they advance not the actual words said by Trump & the President of Mexico but their spin of it because the actual video is devastating to Hillary Clinton and her palace guard of Press.

If Donald Trump wins this election this is the day he does it.

I’ll share the last word with Jorge Ramos

Update: While the MSM will object Let’s go to the video

Update 2: Hmmm

Update 3: More commentary Roger Simon

Donald Trump’s perfomance at his dual statement cum brief press conference with Mexican President Enrique Nieto on Wednesday should put shivers in the Hillary Clinton camp even more than the new L.A. Times poll numbers showing a sudden bounce for Trump.

Trump was a hundred percent presidential in his performance, showing that he was not about to put his foot in his mouth on the global stage as easily as Hillary’s supporters are hoping. All this is occurring with her email/foundation metastasizing. This election is not over.

And he knows who to blame for this

Ever since Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon have joined the campaign, Trump has performed nearly flawlessly. This can’t be entirely accidental.

and Byron York who gets it completely

Many polls have shown that large numbers of voters do not believe Trump is qualified to be president. After the session, the Trump campaign was quick to tout the trip as evidence that he is ready for the Oval Office.

“Mr. Trump’s trip to Mexico is an impressive display of his ability to serve as our nation’s president on day one,” said deputy communications director Bryan Lanza in a statement. “This shows Mr. Trump’s commitment to strengthening our economy as well as our relationship with our neighbor, Mexico.”

Pena Nieto invited Clinton to visit, too. If she does, she will of course receive the kind of respectful, official treatment that she deserves. But Clinton, as a former secretary of state, has videos of zillions of photo ops showing her as a major player on the world stage. Trump had none. Until today.

As far as the MSM is concerned, this is bad very bad!

Update 4: The Wall Street Journal sees an angle I missed:

There is, quite simply, no good time for Mrs. Clinton to face the campaign press corps. Except now.

Had the long-awaited news conference been held Wednesday, the questions would be overwhelmingly negative…Yet this was her best opportunity–because any bad news would be largely overshadowed.

Why, because it would have been Trumped!

By scheduling a last-minute trip to Mexico City to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto ahead of what his campaign is billing as a major immigration speech in Arizona, Mr. Trump has guaranteed the media focus will remain on him.

Advantage Trump again!


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipjar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



and if you want to fight the MSM company store join the Have Fedora Will Travel pledge drive to send me to cover Donald Trump on the road

You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’ But the plans were on display…’ o n display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’ `That’s the display department.’ `With a torch.’ `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’ `So had the stairs.’ `But look you found the notice didn’t you?’ `Yes,’ said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.’

Douglas Adams The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 1979 — Douglas Adams.

On Tuesday I led with a piece concerning the hilarity of crying “security” with Anthony Weiner and Huma when Bill Clinton is about to be let back into the white house. In that piece I had a quote from Donny Deutsch

Panelist Donny Deutsch guessed that Trump would have no problem counter-punching with the Epstein connection whenever he was hit for his own behavior with women, as he was last weekend in a piece in the New York Times.

“Here’s the tennis game,” Deutsch said. “Donald Trump kissed a woman in a bathing suit. Trump hits back: Tell me about the president’s relationship with a guy named Jeffrey Epstein. That’s your tennis match.”

In my original piece I had video from the Washington Free Beacon story containing that entire exchange. You might wonder why I didn’t include said video of Deutsch mentioning Jeffery Epstein and see the reaction of the people at the table.

Here is why

nbc copywright

If you look at the view count you will see that seven minute clip had over 100,000 views before NBC decided to play copyright police game.

Maybe it’s just me but given how often we see stuff at mediaite et al it seems rather unusual for a news network to make a copyright claim over a clip from a news story that used as “fair use” by another news organization. Could this suggest that NBC wants to keep this clip out of the public view because it might hurt Hillary?

I can see the NBC reaction now: Nonsense, we’re not censoring the clip at all. The seven minute clip IS available IF you

Go to the Morning Joe site

Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine

Search for Donald Trump

Narrow the field to Morning Joe

Narrow the field to May 16th 2016

and sit through all the videos till you find the right one.

And skip ahead to the 12 minute mark on that video.

If you do so you CAN find the clip and watch the Morning Joe panel’s reaction to what Donny Deutsch says

So,  You’ll have absolutely no problem sharing this clip with people far and wide and giving them a hint about the relationship between Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton and how the media views it…provided you are someone like me who

already saw the clip

remembered what show it was on

knew what day it was broadcast

And knew what time segment to look for 

As for everyone else NBC says to you: Beware of the Leopard!


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipjar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



and if you want to fight the MSM company store join the Have Fedora Will Travel pledge drive to send me to cover Donald Trump on the road

This election has been one of confusion.

We see the MSM spinning and editing Donald Trump for electoral purposes

We see polls showing results all across the spectrum

We see huge crowds at Trump events & diddly for Clinton yet we’re told she’s a shoe in

We see talking heads saying a lot of things but not actually reporting a lot of things.

I’ve reached the point where I have no idea what’s actually going on. I hate that and I suspect you do too.

Rather than just bitching about it I propose a solution.

DaTechGuy’s 20 (or 30) days of Trump

 

My proposal is that I follow the campaign for 20 (or 30) days.  Report at each stop , do my patented interviews with those who attend Trump events, get credentialed at pressers interview campaign people (& Mr. Trump himself if he is willing) and basically report first hand on what I see and what is going on rather than counting on the MSM or anyone else doing so.

I submit that I am an excellent choice for this because:

My biases are out there, I endorsed Ted Cruz Sept of 2015 and then Trump July of this year. I have been both willing to praise and critique Trump.

I have interviewed Trump fans all over you can directly see my work and how I approach it.

I have questioned Trump at press conferences and have covered such events live in the past so you’ve seen my work and what I do.

It’s been shown that I don’t edit my videos so you will see what is actually shot

And while many have disagreed with me over the years I’d like to think I have a rep of saying things as I see them and not being for sale to anyone except you the reader.

 

What it would involve:

I would be thinking of either a 20 day period from October 18th to November 6th  or a 30 day period from Sept 13 to Oct 12th  (I have a commitment to cook at a Knights of Columbus Charity dinner Oct 16th so I have to be home for that).

Basically I would travel by air, living out of my suitcase flying to the various cities where Trump is appearing, renting cars to head for and hit Trump events, Shooting videos and writing stories and then back to the airport for the next leg all the while finding time to eat, sleep and get laundry done in between so people are willing to approach me to be interviewed.

This would not be cheap.  I would not only have to spring for hotels, rented cars, meals, cleaning, gas and internet but I’d also have to replace my pay from my overnight job that I would have to get a leave of absence from.

It will also be tiring but I can’t see it being more tiring than working overnight 5 days a week.

 

What it will take:

There is no way I can even think of doing this unless I have the cash on hand in place to pay for it, particularly as I can’t guarantee that I’d have a job to come back to if I do this.

So I’m leaving it up to you dear readers.

If I can get $20,000 in pledges by Sept 7th and have them redeemed by Sept 10th I figure I can afford to do the 30 days of Trump coverage listed above, being able to pay expenses while still being covered if I have to risk my night job to do it.

If I can get $15,000 in pledges by October 10 and have them redeemed by October 15 I can do the shorter 20 days of Trump.

(If I raise the full $35 K I’ll do both adjusting the schedule slightly to allow myself to make it home for my son’s birthday)

Now I know this is not an insignificant amount of cash but it’s also going to be a significant amount of work and travel not to mention a lot of time spent away from my wife and family including my son’s birthday depending on which way this goes.  Furthermore you will know that you’ll be seeing things as they are from a person you presumably trust.

So here is how it will work, if you are willing to pledge an amount toward this project contact me by filling out this form  

Once I get the required pledges I’ll contact you for payment and then contact my employer to get a leave of absence (or give notice if necessary).

If I don’t get the required pledges or if people don’t come through with the dough in time to do this, then I’ll stay put and keep doing what I’m doing.

We often hear people say they want honest reporting on the campaign as opposed to what the MSM offers well if you’re willing to support me in doing it, I’m willing to provide you with it.

One of the great problems with the #nevertrump movement among conservatives is a basic fact of life noted in his post The 2016 conundrum for the Right: Truth-telling or cheerleading? by Ed Morrissey:

In the interests of telling the truth, I’ll disclose now that I plan to vote for Donald Trump. Perhaps I’ll write a separate post explaining how I made that decision, but the short version is that Hillary Clinton must be stopped and he’s the only way to make that happen.

That’s a much shorter version of my Donald Trump or Civil War I Choose Trump post detailing why Hillary Clinton must be stopped.

However thanks to various missteps, a united front by not only the MSM but the primary social media outlets such as Facebook and twitter who have, as expected in an election year dropped any pretense of being unbiased, and the efforts of the #NeverTrump Crowd the odds of us living under a Hillary Clinton presidency are increasing by the day.

And while the MSM and liberal owners of social media giants will rejoice I’ve been flummoxed by the lack of worry by #nevertrump over the consequences of a Hillary presidency, particularly since I see no reason why they should assume that they would be immune to any of the consequences that a newly empowered Hillary Clinton and “justice” department will vent on conservatives in general and Christians in particular.

At least I was until I saw yesterday’s headlines concerning the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s time at State:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

This being the case, the plan for conservatives in a Hillary administration is obvious.

Rather than spending money on think tanks, electing officials, grass roots organizing or educating the American people on the reasons why fiscal and social conservatism produces positive results for both society as a whole and for individuals in particular, conservatives can instead choose to take advantage of a fact noted by Reince Priebus on CNN:

Since it’s clear that Hillary Clinton can be bought all conservatives have to do is make sure we aren’t outbid.

Worried about taxes? $10 Million in the right hands will keep them low. Upset about gay marriage or the transgender stuff from the feds. Satisfaction is just $25 million away. Concerned about the Supreme Court? $100 million is the difference between Hillary appointing justice Warren or Justice Sessions. Want immigration laws enforced? $250 million will get it done and if you double it you might even get a wall.

And with the drop in oil prices making things difficult for the gulf states it might even be possible to outbid the Muslim Brotherhood’s supporters to make sure help actually gets sent in the next Benghazi situation, bid high enough and she might even denounce islamic terror.

I must commend the #nevertrump crowd for figuring this out before I did.

And to the Bernie Sanders supporters who sent those $10-$50 contributions have decided to Support Hillary Clinton over either Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or even Donald Trump.

You asked for it.


The Clock is ticking for Da Magnificent Prospects You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.

(If you can’t see DaTipJar button below on their posts use the one on the 2nd column on the right)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Winning a Presidential election normally requires a strong face of unity from the party and its voters. The all-important Independent vote is often swayed by the level of consolidated and consistent support from the Republican or Democratic bases. The candidate backed by the strongest unified front will be the one that gets more Independents as well as crossovers from the other party.

This year is different. For both candidates, the opposition is at unprecedented levels of strength and numbers; they’re the two least popular candidates in modern history. This presents a dangerous scenario for both parties because it allows for the “general election pivot” to be more pronounced. They don’t have to stick to their guns. They simply have to pander to as many undecided voters as possible. That means that they must eliminate hardcore stances that would normally preclude Independents from voting for them. For example, Hillary has barely discussed her disastrous $15 minimum wage proposal for months. Her voters know she’s doing it and she doesn’t need to highlight it now that she has the nomination.

For Trump, one precluding issue is illegal immigration. He is very aware that it’s the one issue for which he’s been considered far-right from the beginning. He’s also aware that a slight majority of Americans, including moderate Republicans, are in favor of some form of legalization or amnesty. This is why he’s cracking the door open ever so slightly on the possibility of softening his stance. It’s why he’s gone from “we’re going to build the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it” to being “almost 100%” on building it at all. It’s also why he’s insinuating to Hispanic leaders that there may be a better way than the “harsh” deportations he’s proposed in the past.

In reality, this isn’t the flip-flop that mainstream media is painting it to be. He’s said that he’s trying to “come up with something fair” but he hasn’t quite flipped or flopped. Until he offers a proposal that says he’ll look at legalization options for illegal immigrants or that he won’t deport millions of people who have broken our laws, we have to go with the idea that he’ll take a strong stance on the issue as President. However, we cannot give him a sliver of a doubt about our position on the issue. The question has been asked, “Should Trump supporters call him out?” The answer is absolutely yes.

In any other recent Presidential election, the unified voice of a candidate’s supporters should avoid saying anything harsh. They should support the candidate on issues they agree with and avoid the others. This year is the exception. If Trump is allowed to backtrack on his initial position, the position that earned him the instant support of millions of Americans and that has grown his base for over a year, then he will continue to crack the door open further. Once he does that, there’s no going back, even for Trump. It would be a huge mistake to open discussions on legalization or amnesty and then to go back to his initial promotion of a “deportation force.”

His campaign believes that he needs to pull in a larger percentage of Hispanic voters. They believe that the only way to do this is to soften on illegal immigration. That cannot be allowed to happen. It’s the responsibility of every Trump supporter to make it known through email, Twitter, or whatever method you choose that we want a wall, we want illegal immigrants deported, and we want the rule of law to be re-established in this country after eight years of lawlessness. This isn’t negotiable. There’s no room for softness on this issue because once a little weakness is shown, that sliver of a doubt will become a giant fissure that will result in no wall, limited deportations, and a continuation of lawlessness.

Instead of pivoting to the current populist view, he should stand by his marquee policy proposal and give everyone a reasoned argument about why it’s necessary. He should appeal to the Hispanic population, the majority of which are here legally, and demonstrate to them why illegal immigration hurts them directly. In this one issue, Trump has the truth squarely on his side. There’s no need to bend on it.

Now is the time for his supporters to let him know. currently, he hasn’t officially softened his position. It’s the perfect moment for him to come out and say unequivocally that he will do what he said he was going to do from the beginning. If we don’t let him know that we disapprove of a position shift, there will be plenty of people whispering in his ear that he needs to back it down a few notches.

If the Republican Party is to unify behind Trump, he cannot back off on his most conservative policy perspective. For many, it’s all we have left. He’s abandoned free trade. He’s promoted affirmative action. He’s suggested a $10 minimum wage. He’s offered to go after portions of the 1st Amendment. With all this, he’s remained conservative on immigration. Don’t let him take that away from us as well.

Image courtesy of Gage Skidmore.

A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed JD Rucker’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Mr. Rucker’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Mr. Rucker’s post is the reason you did so. If you missed his previous pieces they are: The one word to associate with Hillary that would doom her camapign and Trump is Exactly Where He Wants to Be Despite GOP ‘Chaos’


Today starts the last two weeks of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospects You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.

(If you can’t see DaTipJar button below on their posts use the one on the 2nd column on the right)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Thorin Oakenshield:Do not speak to me as if I were some lowly dwarf… as if I were still Thorin Oakenshield. I AM YOUR KING!
Dwalin:You were always my king. You used to know that once. But you cannot see what you have become.

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies (2014)

There have been many things about this election season that have been troubling, the MSM incredible bias (even worse than normal), the Hacking (which while to the GOP’s advantage and revealing many relevant facts still a bad precedent), the dirty deals in government to protect Hillary Clinton from the consequences of her actions (consequences that the government had no trouble bringing down on an enlisted sailor not named Clinton.)  The coarseness of the campaign and some of the horrible lies told about Ted Cruz (oddly enough for a “liar” the list of his “lies” seems oddly absent and the cheating of Bernie Sanders by the Democrats (Sanders would be as bad if not worse than Clinton but cheating him is still wrong).

But for my money the worst things I’ve seen is watching conservative activist, activists who have worked on key issue together for years at each other’s throats over Donald Trump.

Full disclosure, I’m a Ted Cruz guy, I’m still a Ted Cruz guy, I endorsed him last year and supported him through the entire primary process.  When the GOP establishment, when faced with the reality of a choice between Trump & Cruz, as predicted choose Trump in the hope of getting rid of the gadfly who had held them to their promise, I called them out on it and fought.  When there was still the slightest chance that Donald Trump might not get the needed delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention I stuck with Cruz and if he runs in 2020 I’ll still vote for him.

But in the end regardless of my opinion, the GOP voters, those folks that we conservatives claim to be carrying the banners for, decided they liked Donald Trump.  They gave him overwhelming wins in a crowded field and even when the field narrowed he won over and over again.  I talked to the Trump voters, interviewed them and in Trump they saw a can do attitude, a get things done attitude.  A person more interested in progress than political correctness and willing to say aloud truths that others ignored.

So as I did with Mitt Romney, I threw my support to Donald Trump and before the convention endorsed him.  It was not the most flattering endorsement but from that point I was with Trump and that was it, but even though I disagreed with those who thought otherwise, just as I did with those who stayed home vs voting Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008, and consider the potential result disastrous for the country I presumed that they came to this decision in good faith, just as I assumed they believed that my decision to support the GOP nominee was reached in the same honorable way.

Alas it seems this attitude is the exception, not the norm.

For as much as both the online #nevertrump and #evertrump sides dislike Hillary Clinton and her media enablers their real hatred seems to be for each other.

For one side the the never trumpers are traitors, who are simply enabling the left, betraying the cause and are acting like sore losers unwilling to accept the will of the voters.

For the other side, the #ever trumpers are not only traitors who have abandoned conservatism by back a NY with a long liberal record but fools who are willing to overlook Trump record and faults and basically follow a demagogue for the sake of a GOP win.

Seeing both sides so willing to abandon allies that they fought beside for years over this I can’t help but think of the Hobbit, both the book and the movie Thorin Oakenshield’s obsession with the Arkenstone  and willingness to think the worst of family and friends:

Thorin Oakenshield:I have been blind… but now I begin to see. I am betrayed!
Bilbo Baggins: Betrayed?
Thorin Oakenshield: The Arkenstone.  One of them has taken it.  One of them is false.
Bilbo Baggins:Thorin… the quest is fulfilled. You’ve won the mountain. Is that not enough?
Thorin Oakenshield:Betrayed by my own kin…
Bilbo Baggins:N-no, uh. You made a promise to the people of Laketown. I-is this treasure truly worth more than your honor? Our honor, Thorin, I was also there. I gave my word.
Thorin Oakenshield:For that, I am grateful. It was nobly done.  But the treasure in this mountain does not belong to the people of Laketown.  This gold is ours. And ours alone. On my life, I will not part with a single coin. Not one piece of it.

This is the obsession that I perceive.  Both sides see the GOP as the Arkenstone, theirs by right.  The Never Trump by their years of conservative activism to advance their cause and struggle to put a conservative on the ballot, the Ever trump by their primary victory driven by voter turnout above and beyond the numbers of the past.  They see the other and usurpers and disrupters, their years of fighting side by side meaning nothing and like Thorin they are blind to an important fact.

Come November 9th no matter the result they are going to need each other, either to advance the conservative cause in a Trump administration or to stop a Hillary administration from destroying what Obama has not had the chance to (although no amount of unity will stop her from reshaping the courts and turning them into a place where conservatives are guilty by reason of their existence).

The failure to recognize this and to believe the worst of each other and act accordingly is unworthy of us. It’s a perfect manifestation of the sin of pride going before a fall, and unless this changes fast we are going to create a divide that can only aid our enemies both domestic and foreign in their attempt to make the decline of America irreversible.

I’ll give the last word to a different movie and character.  Benjamin Franklin from 1776

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: How DARE you jeopardize our cause, when we’ve come so far? These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about – they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home!

The choice, dear conservative friends is ours, may we make the right one, for our sakes and that of our country.

Update: I’m with Glenn, A spouse willing to ditch you over a vote for Trump is no true spouse.


Today starts the last two weeks of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospects You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.

(If you can’t see DaTipJar button below on their posts use the one on the 2nd column on the right)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Donald Trump delivered a rather compelling speech on Monday about terrorism and protecting our country from those who would do us harm. As usual, the media, who praised Trump during the primary as an iconoclast who refused to play by the traditional rules, are now casting him as a lunatic who refuses to play by the traditional rules. So, typically, they have ignored the substance of the speech, which is that Hillary Clinton and President Obama have objectively made our country less safe by their mishandling of international relations, especially in the Middle East, and tried to make Trump sound at the very least unhinged when he spoke about establishing criteria to decide who gets to immigrate here.
Here’s what he said:

We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country. Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas. (via politico)

In other words, the government’s purpose for “establish[ing] a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (the Constitution, Article I, Section 8) is to improve the safety, security and general welfare of its citizens. Let’s be clear: non-citizens do not have a right to become U.S. citizens, nor do they even have a right to enter our country unless we decide to let them.
As I mentioned in my first article, I am a Catholic and a Constitutionalist. I try my best to be a good Catholic and try to make sure that my Constitutionalist instincts fit within that framework. Fortunately, in the case of immigration, this is not that difficult. The Catholic position is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (clause 2241):

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Thus, according to the Church, the government has the right to establish conditions “for the sake of the common good” under which someone may immigrate. Of course, the immigrant also has the duty to “respect the heritage” of the U.S. when they come here. (One could argue that the reason we now have to press 1 for English is that immigrants since the passing of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act have failed to live up to this obligation, but that’s a separate discussion.) In short, they should be coming here to become American. So what’s the problem with vetting people who want to come here from regions of the world where Islamic terrorism is rampant and excluding those found unacceptable?
Putting aside for the moment the practicality and logistics of such an effort, is there really a problem with establishing an immigration policy like what Trump described? It is certainly Constitutional, and it appears to be Catholic as well. There’s just one little wrinkle. The first part of the clause I quoted from the Catechism states:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.

Thus, the Catholic position would be that a blanket ban on immigration from certain countries or regions would be unacceptable because we must allow the truly persecuted refugee to come to our shores out of compassion. So where do we draw the line? All I can say is that by calling for “extreme vetting” – which would allow for admitting the truly persecuted – and temporary holds, Trump appears to be closer to the Catholic position than Clinton who seems to be ignoring her Catholic responsibility of focusing on the common good of American citizens, by whom she is hoping to be elected.

A note to readers: It’s getting down to “crunch time” for Da Magnificent Prospects, so I’d really appreciate it if you could share this article and my others with your social media friends. My other articles are:
The “Final Five” Show Us How It’s Done
The Left is Wrong About Rights
Ends, Means and Democrats
Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar, and thanks for your support!


A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed Tech Knight’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Tech Knight’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Tech Knight’s post as the reason you did so.

Normally i’d link to his previous pieces but he’s already taken care of that.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



NeoNeocon has made an excellent point:

if I were a liberal in tune with her policy positions, I would actually consider her quite trustworthy in terms of her politics, on which she is consistently liberal/leftist.

Liberals are ends and means people. The fact that Hillary is a lying person who has made her fortune off of the wealth of powerful people seeking favors, has been slipshod with American security and left Americans to die is completely irrelevant to them.

The problem for many with Trump, including many I spoke to at Redstate, is not only do people have trouble with some of his actions (the whole Cruz father/wife thing) but they aren’t sure of him on policy. Neo again:

I’ve decided I cannot trust a great deal of what he says. I cannot state strongly enough how little I trust him to keep his political word, or to have any fidelity to the issues he seems to be promoting at the moment. If he did become president, he certainly might turn out to be trustworthy on some of them, but I cannot tell ahead of time which ones they might be or whether there even are any such issues.

In other words as I’ve said, we don’t know his core values.

Now I’ve already endorsed Trump and have absolutely no doubt that it’s important to elect him vs Hillary. But this is a problem that needs to be address if Mr. Trump is going to win the votes of activists that has declined to support him.

That is the job of Steve Bannon to convince those folks that Trump means what he says, alternatively his job is to bring in enough non activists to compensate for this. Either way I wish him the best of luck on it.

Via instapundit.

It’s not always fun being a conservative in California. When election day comes around, I’m used to casting my symbolic vote knowing that none of my candidates for national races have a chance of winning. It was the opposite when I lived in Oklahoma. I couldn’t lose. Oh, what fun it would be to live in a swing state. Then again, I would probably be out knocking on doors and making phone calls rather than spending my time reaching an online audience.

There’s a solution that makes total sense, at least for the Presidential vote. Nebraska and Maine have adopted electoral college vote distribution systems that make for a much more interesting scenario. The way the system currently works in the rest of the states, only a handful can have an impact on the election. All of the others are considered safely in the pocket of one party or the other. Only in swing states do the people get the full attention of Presidential candidates. You won’t see Hillary Clinton spending too much time in Texas between now and election day.

In Nebraska and Maine, the winner of the statewide vote gets two electoral votes while the winner in each individual congressional district gets one. This would change the dynamic from having swing states to swing districts. Candidates would be forced to hit nearly every state. It wouldn’t be prudent to ignore entire blocks of the population as it is today.

The Constitution allows states to determine their method of distribution. This is as it should be and I am not an advocate for abolishing the electoral college in favor of using the popular vote. Madison and Hamilton were right in believing that the nation needed to be essentially protected from the potential tyranny of the majority by adopting the tenets of a republic over a pure democracy. If it ever comes down to it, we may have to call on people to change their electoral vote to prevent the wrong move by the majority.

What Nebraska and Maine do is allow for better distribution of attention by the candidates. A Republican would need to come to California for more than fundraising because he or she would have a chance of winning votes in Orange County and a few other congressional districts. President Obama won the only electoral vote from Nebraska cast for a Democrat in the last five decades by picking up the Omaha congressional district. By getting all of the states to adopt this measure, it would be necessary for candidates to spread their message and campaign spending to the whole nation rather than putting all of their focus on the handful of states that could swing in their direction.

Today, my vote for President is absolutely worthless while my friend’s vote in Ohio is crucial. That’s not the way that the founding fathers envisioned it. They never intended for 17% of the population to have all of the power in deciding a Presidential election. They simply wanted to protect against the potential pitfalls of a true democracy. That’s why they put it in the Constitution. That’s also why they left it up to the states to decide how to distribute those electoral college votes.

I won’t say that there are no pitfalls, but the positives clearly outweigh the negatives in my humble opinion. No vote should be worthless and no vote should be crucial. It’s impossible to make them all equal without switching to a democratic system, but a more sensible approach would change the dynamic for the better while staying within the original boundaries laid out in the Constitution.

Some may say that it’s impossible and they are probably right. Others might say that it would disproportionately favor Democrats. We tend to believe that when it comes to Congressional districts, but here’s the reality: if every state and DC had Nebraska’s and Maine’s system in 2012, the electoral college vote would have swung in favor of Mitt Romney. He would have had 274 electoral votes and we wouldn’t be discussing how bad Obama’s second term has been for the country.

A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed JD Rucker’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Mr. Rucker’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Mr. Rucker’s post is the reason you did so. If you missed his previous pieces they are: The one word to associate with Hillary that would doom her camapign and Trump is Exactly Where He Wants to Be Despite GOP ‘Chaos’




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



I suspect that those of us who find Trump & Hillary equally unacceptable are going to be voted off the conservative island before this election’s over. I’m being harangued by perfectly nice people saying “butbutbut HILLARY!!”, along with what’s supposed to be the clincher: “Supreme Court!” An awful prospect, to be sure. The thing is, I don’t see that Trump offers any more hope in that department. Neither candidate appears to have the constitutional moorings, never mind the pro-life moorings (since the right to life precedes any written constitution), to be sensibly guided in the choice of Justices.

That leaves the Senate as the firewall against any mischievous molding of the court that a President Clinton or President Trump might want to try.

To likeminded voters who won’t support either of the major Presidential nominees, I say go to the polls anyway. Don’t stay home in a snit on November 8. All those downballot races are going to affect how the next Chief Executive does business. And of all the downballot races, those for U.S. Senate are most critical.

Thirty-four Senate seats are up for grabs. It’s not enough for a candidate to point to the top of the ticket and say “I’m with him” or “I’m with her.” What I want to know is, are you for religious liberty? Do you recognize the right to life? How about respecting First Amendment free-speech rights for peaceful protesters with whom you disagree? Are you ready to defend and expand the Hyde Amendment?

No moot points there. The Little Sisters of the Poor are still waiting to hear if the Court will respect their religious beliefs regarding helping to procure contraception for their employees. The Hobby Lobby decision is still under fire, and so is McCullen – the former a religious liberty case,  the latter a victory for peaceful pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities. The recent Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision has accommodated abortion providers while making substandard health care for women a constitutional right (and wasn’t that a neat trick?).

Democratic candidates for Senate seem to be consistent in praising Hellerstedt and condemning the other decisions, though I would be pleased to hear of an exception. Republicans are all over the place, to the extent that I can make no assumptions whatsoever about what an “R” means when it comes to judicial matters.

Does a candidate squirm or stand tall under questions about the Court decisions I’ve mentioned?  That’ll tell me a lot about whether I want a particular candidate in the Senate. If Trump gets elected with a bunch of Republican senators who are OK with Hellerstedt and not OK with the Little Sisters, or who are meek about either, Hillary will get the Court she seeks, even if she’s not President.

My own state is in play, with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) being challenged by Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan. I’d much rather have Ayotte voting on judicial nominees. But will she campaign on the threat of a dangerous shift in the Supreme Court or a loss of the Hyde Amendment if Hassan gets the seat? Don’t I wish.

Frankly, in the year of Trump, Republican Senate candidates can’t trust either party’s standardbearer when it comes to the Court. It’s time to lead. Visualize a bloc of Senators telling the new President, Your nominees will have a history of respecting the right to life and the First Amendment, or they don’t stand a chance of confirmation. Better yet, visualize GOP Senate candidates saying that now, putting Dems on the defensive for once. Litmus test? You betcha.

Think about that if you’re tempted to stay home in November.

Ellen Kolb writes about the life issues at LeavenForTheLoaf.com. When she’s not writing, she’s hiking in New Hampshire. See her earlier posts for DaTechGuyBlog: Ethics and PP’s Campaign Cash, Putting a Know-Nothing in His Place, and Ads Say the Darnedest Things

A note to readers: I’m still one of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Prospects, striving to earn your thumbs-up. DTG will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent Tryouts by hits-per-post and hits to DaTipJar. If you hit DaTipJar after reading one of my posts, please mention my name so Da Boss knows I’m earning my keep – and thank you! (Look for a tip jar link at the right side of the page if it’s not visible below.)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



During the 4 pm hour on Sunday while as I scrambled to upload the last of my videos from Denver I turned on CNN in time to see Wisconsin State Senator Democrat Lena Taylor dismiss the looting and violence in Milwaukee saying “I don’t care about the buildings” She went on talking about the pain and hopelessness of those who committed the looting and rioting, talking about their lack of employment among other things.

Before we lament the fact that seeing an elected official running for re-election defend riots and violence is no longer a shock in America and forgetting for a moment that in living memory we had this thing called the “Great Depression” where unemployment pain and hopelessness abounded nationwide, yet still didn’t lead to the riots, looting and burning that have now become practically a norm for Democrat dominated cities in the Obama years, let’s play a thought game.

Even though the last time a republican was mayor of Milwaukee construction of the RMS Titanic had not yet started and the Cubs were world series champions let’s pretend, just for a moment, that State Senator Lena Taylor was not a black Democrat but a Republican of any color or race and ask: “How would the media react to those statements?”

Here’s what I think:

If Senator Lena Taylor was a republican then her statements defending the rioters would be the lead on every single networks. We would see panels of “experts” speak with astonishment deploring such a sentiment.

We would see newspapers print headlines in bold type and huge fonts screaming GOP defends rioters, and editorial pages from Boston to LA would talk about how the low the party has gone.

On panel shows we would see Paul Begala, Chris Cuomo, Donna Brazile David Axelrod talk about how Donald Trump needs to disavow Senator Lena Taylor. We would see Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos and John Dickerson challenge Donald Trump and his surrogates to do so repeatedly and press them repeatedly until those words came.

Furthermore it would not stop with Trump, we would see Harry Reid, Claire McCaskill and Nancy Pelosi demand that every Republican running for the US Senate or the House denounce Senator Taylor, reporters from CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times and the Washington Post would hound candidates from Kelly Ayotte to Marco Rubio to denounce the remarks of State Senator Taylor and until and unless they did promptly they would run story after story about their fecklessness in the face of a pol defending riots and lawlessness.

And when the presidential debates rolled along Hillary Clinton would challenge Donald Trump to once again denounce Senator Taylor on the stage and the unbiased moderators from the media would join in that demand, and no matter what his answer or actions the story on every major network would be how Donald Trump addressed GOP support for rioters and looters.

That would be the case if State Senator Lena Taylor was a republican and said what she said on CNN sunday afternoon.

But Lena Taylor is not a republican, so none of the networks will find her statements worthy of the front page. No new broadcast will lead with her words. If the subject of her words even came up in newspapers or on cable news panels of “experts” would decry the hopelessness of the black community and cite slavery (even though Wisconsin was admitted to the union in 1848 as a “free state”) and discrimination as the underlying causes of the riots.

No member of the media will link Senator Taylor’s remarks to Hillary Clinton, Begala, Cuomo, Brazile and Axelrod will not demand that Hillary Clinton disavow them and if a Trump surrogate or Trump himself demands it Chuck Todd and George Stephanopoulos will dismiss it as a ploy to divert attention from the polls..

If Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or Reince Priebus demand that every Democrat running for the US Senate or House candidate denounce Senator Taylor’s remarks, it will be at best dismissed as not having anything to do with elections in NH or Florida or Colorado or at worst be denounced instead as an attempt by the GOP to spread racial division.

And when the presidential debates roll along if Donald Trump brings up these remarks challenging Hillary Clinton to denounce them Hillary Clinton will play the race card and the moderators will scold Donald Trump for being divisive and the story on every major network will be about Donald Trump playing the “Willie Horton” card.

And that my friends is the difference between an unbiased media and one that consists of Democrats with bylines.

Closing Thought. If I was running the Donald Trump campaign I would have Mr. Trump mention Senator Taylor’s remarks in every speech in every state he’s in. I’d demand democrats across the board denounce them and ask loudly why the MSM is not doing so. And if challenged I would ask the same question that this post is titled: Imagine If Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor was a Republican. I’d make every Democrat and member of the media defend Senator Taylor’s remarks so every voter watching could see them do so.

But that’s me.


Back from Denver and over the next 30 days the bills will be coming in. While the Franklin Center covered most of the Trip there were incidentals that add up. So if you like what we do here and would like to help it continue please consider hitting DaTipJar below




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



John "Lee' Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

By John Ruberry

I try not to cover the same subject in successive weeks in my weekly posts here, but these are not ordinary times. Media bias in regards to the presidential campaign is my topic, as it was last Sunday.

Fox News’ Howard Kurtz brought my attention to a New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg, a media columnist, who views a Donald Trump presidency as “potentially dangerous” and he essentially encourages reporters to “move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.”

In other words, it’s okay for liberal journalists–an oxymoron–to work against the Republican nominee and support Hilary Clinton.

An oxymoron? A 2014 Indiana University poll found that just seven percent of journalists identify as Republican. My guess is that once you remove Fox News and Wall Street Journal reporters from the sample then that percentage would be quite close to zero percent.

Yes, Donald Trump and other Republicans are right. The media is biased. Yet, many voters, perhaps most, don’t understand, possibly because teachers and professors, themselves mostly comprised of leftists, tell students that journalists are simply collectors and conveyors of facts.

But the liberal guardians control that conveyor. Last week the Taliban-loving father of the Orlando terrorist who murdered 49 gay night club patrons sat directly behind Hillary Clinton as she spoke in that Florida city. Did the mainstream media cover that? Kinda sorta. But when white supremacist David Duke endorsed Trump’s candidacy in February, that incident received six times the coverage that the assassin’s dad story.

Last week’s Time cover showed a cartoonish image of Trump and his famous blonde hair pile with drips, with this headline, “Meltdown.” Sure, Trump–disclosure time, I voted for him in the Illinois Republican Primary and I will vote for in November–has engaged in many self-inflicted wounds.

But where is the Time cover story with Hillary Clinton with a Pinocchio nose? The Democratic nominee has repeatedly lied–wait, make that purposefully lied–about turning over emails from her private email server while serving as Obama’s secretary of state, about sending and receiving classified emails over that server, about Benghazi, and about ties to the so-called Clinton Foundation charity and the US State Department.

Donald Trump is right. The system is rigged. Clinton deserves to be under indictment. She isn’t because the Obama Justice Department is protecting her. And the corrupt media is shielding her by distracting the populace and preventing widespread rightful indignation.

The presidential race is being subverted by a media coup d’état.

Oh, if you are one of the increasingly fewer people who still subscribes to Time and the New York Times–and you are a conservative, I suggest that you kill the beast. Unsubscribe.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

This just in from The New York Times: Journalists are having trouble being objective about Donald Trump.

Seriously?

Here’s what the red, old lady had to say recently:

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

The author, media columnist Jim Rutenberg, apparently isn’t much of a reporter or has ignored significant evidence of media bias when he served as the lead reporter on the 2012 campaign and a White House correspondent.

Note: I am not an ardent supporter of Trump. Also, I realize that the readers of DaTechGuy are not surprised by The New York Times’s arrogance and ignorance. But it is noteworthy that Rutenberg actually puts his analysis in writing at http://ow.ly/IOQg3034Bsk

NewYorkerNoted plagiarist Fareed Zakaria made no bones about his attitude about Trump. He simply called the GOP presidential candidate a “bull****” artist on CNN and in The Washington Post.

In the neck-snapping underpinning for his “astute” analysis, Zakaria quoted a Princeton University professor who actually wrote an academic paper entitled, “On Bull****.”

In case you need a definition, a BS-er, “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all . . . except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.”

It seems to me that the definition applies to Zakaria and many of his fellow travelers in the media.

Christopher Harper, a longtime journalist with The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times, teaches media law. Read more at www.mediamashup.org


A note from DaTechGugy: I hope you enjoyed Christopher Harper’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Christopher Harper’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Chris’ post is the reason you did so. In case you missed it, his first piece was Budding reporters and politics. His second was Give terrorists what they deserve: anonymity.

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month, we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus, of course, all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level
Beanie : $2.00 USD – weekly
Cap : $10.00 USD – monthly
Hat : $20.00 USD – monthly
Fedora : $25.00 USD – monthly
Grand Fedora : $100.00 USD – monthly

You’ve heard about the media in general and twitter in particularly giveing Hillary Clinton “media privilege” well I think this visual of this tweet says it all

twitter clinton guard

I spotted this on instapundit and noticed the warning about sensitive material. Such a label of course automatically implies that what is beyond it is so terrible, so horrible, so beyond the pale that one risks crossing the bounds of propriety if one see it and it goes without saying such an image shouldn’t be shown to kids.

But we are an adult blog here so brace yourselves here is the actual image that is SO sensitive that twitter wanted it censored click MORE if you dare….

Continue reading “How Twitter Uses “Media Privilege” to Play Palace Guard for Hillary in One Image”

If the 2016 Presidential election has taught us anything, it’s that conventional wisdom no longer has a place in the thought process of anyone trying to figure out Donald Trump’s path to the White House. Conventional wisdom said that he shouldn’t have made it into the primaries at all. It says he definitely shouldn’t have won the nomination. It says that he’s imploding before our eyes and taking the Republican party with him.

There is nothing conventional about Trump, but there may be some wisdom in his actions, at least from the perspective of winning the Presidency. Let’s look at the most recent things that Trump is doing so we can understand why at this point he’s probably going to win.

  • Attacking Khizr Khan: Trump is attacking the family of an American soldier who gave his life fighting for his country. This would be political suicide in any other circumstance and with any other candidate, but with Trump, it’s the smart move. He has three months to make the negatives go away, but in the meantime he’s putting the focus on radical Islamic terrorism. More importantly, he’s demonstrating again that political correctness is not something that guides him. Both of these things will keep his base juiced up while leaving him enough time to repair any damage he’s done with members of the military.
  • Promoting Paul Ryan’s Primary Opponent: One thing you never do as a candidate is to go after the most powerful Republican politician in the country if you want to win the Presidency. That’s the conventional wisdom. The Trump wisdom is that Ryan has proven to be an easy person for conservatives to attack. If Trump is going to win, he’ll need conservatives to either accept him as the non-Hillary or embrace him as someone who will fight the Establishment. Whether Ryan wins or loses his primary is irrelevant to Trump. The fact that he’s going after him now and not bowing down to party etiquette will endear him to Republicans who don’t like Ryan as well as Democrats and Independence who want someone not beholden to decorum within the party itself.
  • Embracing Vladimir Putin: Like it or not, Vladimir Putin is respected by millions of Americans. Trump’s bear hug is getting him some heat in the press and among party leaders, but it’s signalling to voters that he’s willing to work with the country that could very easily become our biggest enemy once again. He’s offering hope to the idea that his penchant for deal-making is going to keep America safe from anyone who wants to do us harm. As the election season hits its climax, most negatives associated with Trump’s willingness to endear himself to Putin will be erased.

If Trump had done any of these things (or any of those faux pas he made in the past) in mid- to late-October when many undecided voters were making up their minds, it would be bad for him. Instead, these are all things that he has time to fix while still gaining the benefits they give him to certain parts of the electorate. It’s like he’s hitting rock bottom now so he can vault himself to the top when the time is right.

It should be noted that I am not a Trump supporter, nor am I a Hillary supporter. I’ve accepted that there will not be a conservative in the White House in 2017 which is why we’re in the process of forming a third party to help pick up the pieces after this election. This is why these perspectives should be taken seriously. I’m not promoting Trump. I’m declaring that against all of the things the press is saying, he’s very likely going to win this election.

A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed JD Rucker’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Mr. Rucker’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Mr. Rucker’s post is the reason you did so. If you missed his piece last week it’s here.




Olimometer 2.52

We’d be happy to have you as a subscriber. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



YouGovPoll
The real question is…why don’t the numbers add to 100%?

Turkey’s response to the recent coup attempt has been particularly brutal.  Over 200 are dead and 45,000 in jail, and many will likely be executed and buried in traitor cemeteries.  A YouGov poll indicated that a surprising number of people would see themselves supporting a military coup in the United States, due to more trust in military officers than government officials.  With a large professional military and similar government setup, Turkey isn’t unlike the United States.

But a coup is unlikely.  Sorry YouGov pollers.

First, our military doesn’t have the strong sense of personal loyalty to its admirals and generals.  After World War Two, we separated military branches and eventually split our forces into Combatant Commands, which meant the President had multiple four-star generals and admirals reporting to him.  Fragmenting the military means it is unlikely that any particular general will have sway over a majority of forces.

Unified_Combatant_Commands_mapMy Turkish Naval Officer friends don’t understand this setup. Frankly, neither do I.

Plus, our elected officials in Congress keep our officer corps apolitical, first by banning military members from running for office or actively campaigning.  Congress also owns the overwhelming number of nominations to service academies, which ensures that the President cannot build an officer corps loyal only to him.

Most importantly, we lack a domestic distraction.  Turkey can easily blame problems on the Kurds, which you will see more of post-coup attempt.  We don’t have a version of Kurdistan in the United States (although the southern border may feel like that at times).

No matter who wins in November, don’t expect a coup.


The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.


NG36B is a military blogger. If you liked this post, and you like Star Wars, you should check out why Darth Vader is an Operational Genius.

UPDATE DTG: amusing Irony via Instapundit:

When asked whom they would vote for during the 2016 campaign, 78% of servicemembers picked “other.” Nearly all then chose “military coup” from a list of options that also included Joe Biden, Ted Cruz, Jill Stein and “a massive earthquake that wipes out life in North America.”

Yeah parody is fun.

A note from DaTechGugy: I hope you enjoyed RH/NG36B’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like his work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention RH/NG36B’s post as the reason you did so. His piece from last week, in case you missed it is here.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



In the worlds of marketing and politics, the most powerful weapon is word association. It works both ways. Associating a campaign with a positive word or phrase can build a rabid following; “hope and change” worked wonders for President Obama. Associating an opponent with a negative word or phrase can be even more devastating. Nobody knows this better than “Low Energy Jeb” or “Lyin’ Ted.”

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. If the narrative can be sold, it can kill a campaign.

Donald Trump has chosen to go with “Crocked Hillary” and on the surface this seems like it falls in line with his other nicknames, but it doesn’t. It’s missing something very important: new messaging. Republicans believed that Hillary was crooked before Trump assigned her the moniker. Many Independents and even a good chunk of Democrats have known it for a while. Trump’s nickname for Hillary isn’t hurting her the way nicknames hurt Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, or the others who’ve fallen prey to Trump’s negative word association.

In essence, we already knew on the surface that she’s crooked. He didn’t introduce a new message.

There’s a word that would work wonders to take down Hillary. It’s ideal because it’s a word that hasn’t manifested very often throughout the campaign but when people hear it, they can make the connection in a way that cannot be disconnected.

The word to associate with Hillary Clinton that would doom her campaign is “entitled.”

Through the primaries, she’s held the air of someone who felt entitled to the nomination. The recent revelations from the Wikileaks email release verify that the DNC felt the same way about her.

Her campaign portrays her as entitled to the White House for the sake of history. They don’t come out and say it, but the subtle messaging they’re using is that she should win because she’s a woman, she has political experience, and she’s been there before. More importantly, they are painting Trump as the type of person who should not be entitled. He can use this against her.

She acted like she was entitled to not be “flat broke” when they left the White House in 2001. The way she treats the media exudes a sense of entitlement; they only get to talk to her when she deems it. Even her famous speaking fees put on display a level of entitlement. After all, she’s Hillary Clinton. She’s entitled to every penny she earns when talking to room full of Wall Street bankers.

It wouldn’t be hard to get voters from any party to associate her with feeling a sense of entitlement. Trump doesn’t have to call her “Entitled Hillary” to make it happen. He simply needs to talk about it and make sure his surrogates are placing the proper level of emphasis on using “entitled” or “entitlement” when discussing her.

If there’s one thing that can draw the universal ire of the electorate, it’s when a candidate seems to think he or she is better than everyone else. By getting the world to see her as entitled, it’ll be much harder for voters to mark her name on election day.

A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed JD Rucker’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Mr. Rucker’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Mr. Rucker’s post is the reason you did so.




Olimometer 2.52

We’d be happy to have you as a subscriber. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Young journalists covering the Democrat convention listened to a point of view they are unlikely to hear this week in Philadelphia—a conservative one.

As a journalism professor at Temple University, I was invited to speak to a group of 25 students at the School District of Philadelphia, spending about two hours answering questions and talking about the upcoming presidential race.

We calmly discussed many issues, including race relations, immigration and Donald Trump.

You realize that almost no one agreed with you, one student told me later, adding that a teacher did describe the meeting as a turning point in the students’ journalistic training. Of course, I replied, that’s because you’ve almost never heard a conservative point of view.

Harper meets with Philadelphia students reporting on the convention.
Philadelphia students meet a conservative.

These students are among the best and the brightest from Philadelphia’s troubled schools. But their beliefs seem mired in years of leftist education and peer pressure.

One student stated matter-of-factly that Trayvon Martin was murdered. He was killed, I responded, and a jury found George Zimmerman innocent of murder. Accuracy is critical in journalism, I added.

One asked this question: Why can’t everyone come to the United States like we can go to other countries? We can visit, but we can’t live in China, Europe or much of the world, I replied, because Americans, like U.S. immigrants, need residence visas.

Another posed this question: Isn’t it possible Donald Trump would declare martial law? If he did, many conservatives would exercise their rights under the Second Amendment, I said.

I’m not sure I convinced many of them to come around to a conservative viewpoint, but one of the newly minted reporters asked me for an interview after the session. One step at a time, I thought.

Longtime journalist Christopher Harper teaches media law.
Longtime journalist Christopher Harper teaches media law and writes at www.mediamashup.org

A note from DaTechGugy: I hope you enjoyed Christopher Harper’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Christopher Harper’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Chris’ post is the reason you did so.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



A government of laws, and not of men.

– John Adams, Novanglus Essays, No. 7

The Constitution is a pretty straightforward document. It explains how the government is to be organized and lays out the rights and responsibilities of each branch, as well as specifying those things the government may not do so as to protect our God-given rights. It really defines a relatively simple set of rules, and establishes our country on principles that are pretty much the opposite of “the ends justify the means.” This is why I have such a problem with the Democrat party being about to nominate someone whose entire life is a testament to skirting the law, obstructing justice and pursuing any means necessary to achieve her desired ends. I am shocked that “We the People” could have let ourselves be put in this position.

Let’s apply Occam’s razor to the two big email-related scandals plaguing the presumptive (for another day) Democrat nominee, shall we? Without even speculating on what information might be in them, is there really any doubt that she hid all her email traffic (not to mention her daily calendar) from government servers so that it wouldn’t be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access? Regardless of whether the emails were classified, she broke the law by hiding them. The simplest explanation is that she hid them because they contain information that she thinks would anger the public and/or congress and make it more difficult for her to become president. And the Democrats think that this law-breaking failed Secretary of State is the most qualified person ever to run for president? Seriously?

Then there’s the DNC email leak, showing that the DNC rigged the nomination process to sabotage the Sanders campaign and nominate Hillary. This was obvious from the moment they announced the limited number of debates and did their best to hide them on holiday weekends when no one would be watching, but the emails reveal much more chicanery. The fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is going immediately from disgraced DNC chair to honorary chair of Hillary’s campaign simply illustrates the quid pro quo – another example of breaking the rules to achieve the desired result.

I guess the party of “the ends justify the means” really has found the person they believe is the most qualified person ever to run for president. It’s too bad that their definition of “qualified” is “having no qualms about violating every principle on which and for which this country once stood.”

Who is Tech Knight? I am a Catholic conservative married (20+ years) father of two. My logical mind comes from my engineering background, but I am also a bit of a history buff, particularly our nation’s founding. I have been very active in my parish as a lector and serving on our Parish Council, and have volunteered for a number of community organizations, especially the Boy Scouts and local youth theaters, to be able to spend time with my kids. My wife is my compass, my best friend and the love of my life.

I’d like to thank Pete DaTechGuy for this opportunity. If you appreciate the work done here as much as I do, please help us keep it going by hitting DaTipJar:


A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed Tech Knight’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Tech Knight’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Tech Knight’s post as the reason you did so.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



clock1
The Fourth Dimension

by baldilocks

At Roger Kimball’s blog, Paula Bolyard outlines the reason(s) I will wait until election day to make my presidential election choice.

Like many (but by no means all) conservatives, ever since Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, I have been scanning the horizon for reasons to support him.

I have found a few. But candor requires that at the end of the day, when all is said and done, I acknowledge that the most compelling reason I’ve found so far is a familiar dactyl-trochee combination: Hillary Clinton. As I argued after the first day of the convention in Cleveland, The Wall Street Journal‘s Bill McGurn is right: the best case for Donald Trump is still this: that the alternative is the dowager empress of Chappaqua.

I’ve had flickers of hope that, post-primary, Trump would turn out to be something other than what he appeared to be throughout the primary season and what, by most accounts, he has been throughout his very public, very fraught business career.

So far, alas, I’ve found those hopes dashed, one after the next. After a tentative access of reasonable behavior on Trump’s part, bang, he blows it all by (for example) telling us what a great guy Saddam Hussein was at killing terrorists.

Just this morning, I found a link on Twitter which pushed me toward Trump: he called Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams to thank the chief’s department for its service during the RNC in that city. Not minutes later, however, I found out that Trump “joked” about starting an anti-Cruz, anti-Kasich PAC should he become president. (Memo to Mr. Trump: you’ve already beaten those two candidates.)

I can at least tell you this: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. And, please spare me the no-Trump=yes-Clinton argument for this reason: it will not push me into making my decision any earlier than stated.

People keep telling me that beating Clinton is the only important factor in 2016 presidential election decision-making. That assertion reminds me of an observation I made: that many people have no concept of time and, therefore, the implications about the passage of it. One of those implications: allowing the evidence–events and revelations–to build up until the point when the time is up.

It’s July. Therefore, time is not up.

Another memo to Mr. Trump: seal the deal instead of pooping in and on it!

Of course, we’re still pretending that winning the election is his true goal, are we not?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game (click on left sidebar image), was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks

Well the 2016 GOP convention has passed into history and Donald Trump has pretty much accomplished all he wanted from it.

1. He put down the Never Trump forces

2. He exposed the large audience to speakers and ideas that the MSM has kept from them

3. He marginalized (at least for this cycle) his most significant GOP critic (Ted Cruz)

4. He provided Drama every night so non political people had a reason to watch

5. He generated buzz and effectively counted the MSM spin when needed (with one exception his wife)

6. And in the final speech showed off his serious/straight side vs the reality TV side he’s been displaying

And he did this all with every network but one doing their best to marginalize him

Even better for Mr. Trump the transition is now to a Democrat convention that in contrast will not only have no drama but will be stage managed even tighter than this one and unlike Hillary he will be much more effective at stepping on it.

Furthermore by going first it means the anti-trump forces will now get a week of reasons to unite and I guarantee you Hillary & Company will provide a ton of them.

Now comes the tough part where the MSM has no incentive other than ratings to cover him so he has to keep said rating high enough to force them to do so when they will be doing all they can to support Hillary & advance Johnson/Weld while hiding Jill Stein. If he can do this he will win.

I think he’s smart enough to pull it off.

Do you remember back in May when Sarah Palin said this:

“I think Paul Ryan is soon to be ‘Cantored,’ as in Eric Cantor,” Palin said, referring to the former Republican House majority leader who was ousted in a shocking upset in 2014 when challenger Dave Brat ran to his right in a Virginia primary.

“His political career is over but for a miracle because he has so disrespected the will of the people, and as the leader of the GOP, the convention, certainly he is to remain neutral, and for him to already come out and say who he will not support is not a wise decision of his,” Palin continued.

You could hear the howls of laughter from Washington DC to Washington state. That reality star has been is going to oust the speaking of the House? What a joke. This reaction was typical.

It is no surprise that Palin, who has become something of a Trump lap dog since endorsing him in January would jump all over Ryan for failing to obsequiously bow to Trump fast enough. As for the challenge to Ryan, it’s worth noting that Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump by nearly 30,000 votes in Ryan’s First Congressional District when voters there had the chance to voice their opinion. Given that, one doubts that attacks on Ryan that are centered on his refusal to immediately jump on the “Trump Train” as it is being called are going to have much of an impact on what is likely to be a very easy August 9th primary for Ryan’s seat. In any case, one seriously doubts that voters in Wisconsin are going to care much about what Palin thinks about the matter in any case.

And at Hotair this headline:

Poll: Ryan barely hanging onto a 64-point lead in his district

brought a lot of chuckles to the “Palin is a joke” crowd.

Well two months later nobody is laughing anymore:

Following a new primary election poll showing that House Speaker Paul Ryan has plummeted to well below 50 percent in his home district, Ryan is out with new mailers assuring Wisconsin voters of his desire to secure the border, and urging them to support him in his contentious August 9th primary election.


The new mailers touting Ryan’s support for border security is interesting given that just last year, Ryan championed a spending bill that fully funded President Obama’s open borders agenda– including funding sanctuary cities, executive amnesty, and the release of criminal aliens. The mailers also come amid new reports indicating that, one month after his election, Ryan plans to bring up “criminal sentencing” measures that could release thousands of criminal illegal aliens from prison onto the streets.

Hmm isn’t this the same thing that happened to Cantor, why I do believe it is and like Cantor apparently Ryan has been working with extreme pro amnesty forces like Luis Gutierrez,  on the sly of course

“Paul Ryan and I talk,” Gutierrez told the filmmakers in 2014. “What we do with Ryan,” Gutierrez explained, “is he puts together a bunch of bills, one of which is legalization, and that’s the one we join him on. The legalization is good enough that I can go and say we need to get in bed.”

Gutierrez told filmmakers that their collaboration had to be conducted in secret, so as not to tip off Republican voters. “You feel like you have to kind of sneak around to have dinner with these guys,” Gutierrez’s communications director, Douglas Rivlin, said, referring to his secret meetings with House Republicans to push amnesty. “Unlike some of you [expletive deleted], I don’t mess around with my wife, so–but let me tell you–right? I feel like I’m sneaking around right on my Party … when I have dinner with you guys,” he said.

And let me remind you that this is the #1 issue that Donald Trump, who Sarah Palin endorsed early, also to a lot of laughter, is running on.

Now if Paul Ryan ended up winning his primary I won’t be all that upset, he’s generally on the side of the angels and he knows fiscal matters better than most, but if he wins by a hair or goes down to defeat, let me make one suggestion to our friends on both the right and the left:

You underestimate Sarah Palin at your own risk.

Update: Welcome to readers from the new Canon212.com. We do a lot of Catholic stuff here (although I’m missing the Catholic Marketing Trade show this year as I’m broke last year’s interviews here, so do look around. Some you’ll agree with, some you might disagree with, but either way I’ll always be delighted to have you.

Also feel free to leave prayer requests in comments on any Catholic posts or request for earned indulgences. I have a holy door in my home town and am not afraid to use it.

Update: Scott Walker: Ryan in the toughest fight of his career
Unexpectedly!


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Employment Counsellor: …your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon.

Monty Python’s Flying Circus 1969

There are a lot of considerations to be made when picking a vice president, does the candidate bring a state or a constituency? Can the candidate do the heavy lifting of attack? Would that candidate make a good president and does it placate a group that might not like the top of the ticket.

Donald Trump’s selection of Mike Pence fits some of those bills, He is strong on social issues and on faith (although he did fold like a cheap blanket on religious liberty) issues that Trump is weak on with. He has experience on both the state and federal level which is a plus, but the most interesting thing about Mike Pence that I think makes him a wise pick is this.

He’s dull.

Dull, dull my GOD he’s dull. You couldn’t have found a more white bread candidate if you went to a wonder bread bakery.

Now under normal circumstance such a characteristic would be a liability but for several reasons it’s a positive plus.

There is a 0% chance that a fellow like Pence is going to overshadow the Trump

There is only a tiny chance that Pence is going to make a critical mistake to hurt the ticket.

Pence can deal with the traditional fundraising wing of the party in a way that Trump can’t.

All of these attributes are good but there is one thing that he has already managed to do that bodes well.

He drives the left absolutely nuts!

Because Pence is a social conservative and an unapologetic Christian in an age where the media and the left culture believe abortion, gay marriage, transgenderism etc are sacraments he is the type of man who they absolutely loathe and this prompts attacks of incredible silliness.  Such as this from John Podesta:

“Pence is the most extreme pick in a generation and was one of the earliest advocates for the Tea Party.

Now the left calling a republican “extreme” is about as rare as me turning down a piece of Kentucky Derby Pie and in most election years they would get away with it, no trouble.

But can you, after a year of Donald Trump’s candidacy and after the um colorful adjectives thrown at him by the press the reaction of the general public to that same press pointing to Mike “Whitebread” Pence and shouting “extremist!”

Every single time they go after him I can see Trump on stage saying something like:  Have you heard the media talking about my VP pick?  They’re calling him an “extremist” I mean seriously, have you looked at this guy?

They’d be laughed out of the room.

Our friends in the media are already dealing with serious credibility issues that Mr. Trump has managed to highlight.  The attacks on Pence that the media  are sure to bring won’t help matters for them.

Do you remember when Jeb Bush won the 2016 GOP nomination due to his massive cash advantage and the massive amounts of money his superpacs spent on Ads?

Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to outspend Donald Trump and his backers over the airwaves by a 15-to-1 margin, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta.

Team Clinton has spent $57 million on ads so far in the general election — $25 million coming from the campaign and another $32 million from pro-Clinton Super PACs.

By comparison, Team Trump has aired $3.6 million in ads, with all of the spending from two outside groups, the National Rifle Association ($2.3 million) and Rebuilding America Now ($1.3 million). The Trump campaign has yet to spend a single cent on ads so far in the general election

Well apparently according to Quinnipiac the voters in swing states don’t remember it either:

The presidential matchups show:

Florida – Trump at 42 percent to Clinton’s 39, compared to a 47 – 39 percent Clinton lead June 21;
Ohio – Clinton and Trump tied 41 – 41 percent, compared to a 40 – 40 percent tie June 21;
Pennsylvania – Trump at 43 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent, compared to June 21, when Clinton had 42 percent to Trump’s 41 percent. With third party candidates in the race, results are:
Florida – Trump leads Clinton 41 – 36 percent, with 7 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 4 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein;
Ohio – Trump at 37 percent to Clinton’s 36 percent, with Johnson at 7 percent and Stein at 6 percent;
Pennsylvania – Trump over Clinton 40 – 34 percent with 9 percent for Johnson and 3 percent for Stein.

“Donald Trump enters the Republican Convention on a small roll in the three most important swing states in the country. He has wiped out Hillary Clinton’s lead in Florida; is on the upside of too-close to call races in Florida and Pennsylvania and is locked in a dead heat in Ohio,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

The PDF of the poll is here and just for fun this is the chart of the comparative spending in swing states from that NBC piece:

money

Two thoughts:

If Hillary is having this much trouble when she’s outspending trump 10-1 or more and with the media turning on him bigtime, what will happen once Trump actually starts to spend?

This chart and poll results are the single biggest threat to the consultant class that has come down the pike in decades.

Update: How bad is it for Hillary? Last night she Called into the O’Reilly Factor and took questions from Bill without restriction talking tough on terror.

If I was Jill Stein I’d be tweeting out that fact to the feel the bern crowd every hour on the hour from now till election day.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



 

Just because you expect something, it doesn’t mean it won’t hit you hard between the eyes.

Look, I knew Hillary Clinton was not going to be charged. I knew this, not because of my extraordinary powers of deduction a la Sherlock Holmes, nor because of my unique psychic abilities, both of which I completely lack. I knew it because a) there’s a long history of the Clintons getting away with stuff, b) anyone receiving/sending emails during Hillary’s years at the State Department could see her email address and apparently pleaded ignorance and indifference.

And then two things happened: Loretta meet Bill at the tarmac, and Obama took Hillary campaigning on Air Force One. The AF1 trip took place a couple of hours after FBI Director James Comey‘s press conference, but was obviously scheduled well in advance because presidential trips on AF1 are not improvised at the last moment.

The fix was in.

So, yes, it was reasonable to expect that Comey would not be sending out a posse to grab Hillary off the podium during Obama’s speech on her campaign stop.

Comey‘s statement would have you believe that,

in the view of the FBI, Hillary Clinton is a blundering fool who compromised national security but not a provable arch-criminal.

Reason’s supercut of Comey vis a vis Hillary has the abbreviated version.

What got me reeling was Comey’s point (which Pete brought up this morning – emphasis added),

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

This is the moment the FBI kissed the rule of law good-bye.

Juliette, by the way, is not too far out by looking at conspiracies; a couple of months ago, I received the book Conspiracies of the Ruling Class: How to Break Their Grip Forever, by Lawrence B. Lindsey, which posits,

A Ruling Class have emerged in America against the hopes and designs of our Founding Fathers. Over the last hundred years, they have rejected the Constitution and expanded their own power, slowly at first and now rapidly. These people believe their actions are justified because they think they are smarter than the rest of us—so smart they can run our lives better than we can.

I recommend you read Mr. Linsdsey’s book.

We can speculate all we want on whether

Comey possibly has slipped Hillary a poison political pill mixed in with the heady “no prosecution” bourbon. In the first 12 or 13 minutes of his presser, Comey described a factual situation and a pattern of behavior by Clinton far, far worse than most of us had imagined. Everything, absolutely everything Hillary said about this matter is a demonstrable lie. Comey called her on it. He provided a picture of a senior official totally unqualified for the serious position she held, and surrounded by equally as unqualified and incompetent staff. He made the case that she is not qualified for high office. Perhaps this was Comey’s Machiavellian maneuver: avoid the legal process but cripple Hillary politically. Maybe he was like a mad Solomon, to wit, actually splitting the baby.

The fact remains that Comey rewrote federal law to let Hillary off the hook.  Let’s spell it out:

If there was any doubt, James Comey made it abundantly clear today that henceforth — indeed, for some little while now — the laws of this country only apply to certain parts of the population.

Again: the law officially will be applied to some, but not to all, which means we’re in full banana republic mode.

Oh, and before I forget, the State Department Refuses to Answer As to Whether Hillary and Her Minions Retain Their Security Clearances.

Any questions?

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S, and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

USA-UK flagsBy John Ruberry

“This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing, 1964.

If you substitute “Great Britain” for “American revolution,” this could have been something UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said during his victory speech early Wednesday morning after United Kingdom voters voted to leave the European Union.

Great Britain is having a Reagan moment–and to be fair to the UK you can argue it had a Reagan moment before we did nationally. After all, Margaret Thatcher became prime minister a year before the Gipper’s election.

Is Britain having a Trump moment before America does?

In his victory speech, Farage called his Brexit win, “A victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people.”

That sounds like Trump.

“We have fought against multinationals,” Farage added, “we have fought against the big merchant banks, we have fought against big politics, we fought against the big merchant banks, we fought against lies, corruption, and deceit.”

That sounds like Trump too.

The driving force in Brexit referendum of course was unfettered immigration of Syrian migrants, refugees some say are fleeing war. Yes, some are. But curiously, many of these refugees are males of military age.

John "Lee" Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Few of these migrants show any desire in assimilating into Western Civilization. But no one dares call the migrants “nativists.” That would be racist.

Other EU nations, such as France, Italy, the Netherlands, are considering their own vote to bail out. Mrs. Marathon Pundit, who grew up in tiny Latvia, tells me that there was even talk of a “LatExit” last year when Brussels bureaucrats, yes that “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital,” told them they had to accept some of these unskilled migrants, even though Latvia, one of the poorer EU nations, has benefited greatly since joining.

When the bureaucrats don’t listen, “the decent people” do the expected thing and throw the bums out.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Abe Lincoln

Yesterday I talked about the math that explains the Democrat Party’s decision to ignore the driver for the Orlando attack, that is Islamic Terror

The question then becomes: Why is the media treating this as a “too many guns issue”.

One might think the logical conclusion is the MSM is an extension of the Democrat party and reports news accordingly as explained by RS McCain noting another recent crime targeting gays that’s been underreported:

Do you think CNN or the New York Times will notice a crime like this? No, of course not, because the perpetrators are black and the lesbian who got assaulted is white, and therefore it’s strictly local news.
The same principle explains why, when a bloodthirsty Muslim fanatic kills 49 people in Orlando, it’s not a story about the danger posed by bloodthirsty Muslim fanatic. Instead it’s an excuse to lecture Americans about how much we hate gay people. The principle that determines how the media covers such stories is always the same: “How can we report this in a way that helps the Democrat Party?”

It is the last sentence of his argument that is most relevant and the proof of this comes via a Rasmussen poll linked by Ann Althouse

“Among voters who consider the mass murders in Orlando, Florida this past weekend primarily a terrorist attack, Trump leads Clinton 64% to 16%.”
“Clinton posts an 83% to four percent (4%) lead among those who see the killings as chiefly a gun control issue….”

If these numbers are correct then for the MSM to be successful in their attempt to aid and abet a Democrat victory in the fall it not only becomes necessary for the MSM to make the Jihadist attack by a registered gay democrat a gun control issue but it becomes vital that any indication that this was indeed a terror strike against America in general and the gay community in particular be quashed.

Remember the paramount object for the media is to elect democrat and not to report on islamic terror or anti-gay violence.  If they could elect democrats by reporting on islamic terror & anti-gay violence, they would do so.  If they can election democrats by ignoring anti-gay violence and islamic terror they will do that, an if they can elect democrats by reporting on some anti-gay violence and islamic terror attacks while ignoring others they will do that too.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Alfred Hofstadter: So, after your husband passed, you never remarried?
Mary Cooper: No, just focused on work and the church.
Alfred Hofstadter: Ah. And what do you do?
Mary Cooper: I work at the church.
Alfred Hofstadter: Well, they’re lucky to have you.
Mary Cooper: Well, thank you.
Alfred Hofstadter: You’re welcome.
Amy: [To Sheldon] Do you realize what’s happening here?
Sheldon Cooper: Yeah, I do. They’re filling up on bread and ruining their meal.

The Big Bang Theory The Convergence Convergence 2016

I’ve been watching in disbelief as Barack Obama goes whole hog defending Islam on TV and watching CNN & the entire MSM not only highlighting those words and attacks on Donald Trump while being completely stunned that Mr. Trump is not backing down from his previous statements.

It’s as if the entire MSM has become Sheldon Cooper (without the genius) completely oblivious to what his happening in front of their faces.

Consider just yesterday the Media was all abuzz concerning Donald Trump’s words on the administration’s response to Islamic Terror.

And some like Jake Tapper were a bit shocked:

The gist is post Orlando Donald Trump suggests Barack Obama might not be all that down on defeating Radical Islam and gets the MSM to repeat that charge.

So how does the White House react? Do they ignore it and pursue the investigation of the terror attack? Does the president maintain a dignified silence while allowing surrogates in government to play the “have you no decency” card?

Nope, he respond in person and he doesn’t just respond in person he both defends Islam and defends not talking about radical Islam.

Yes you read that right. Less that 2 days after the most successful Islamic Terror attack on the US since 9/11 Donald Trump manages to get Barack Obama to defend Islam while the blood is still on the floor at Pulse.

But that’s not all, As soon as President Obama was done speaking MSM was covering his words, agreeing with his words, and contrasting his approach to the attacks in Orlando to Mr. Trump. They go all in spending the entire rest of the day repeating this again and again.

So let’s summarize:

After Islamic Terror attack Trump suggests Obama might be weak on Islamic terror

Obama responds by attacking Trump and defending Islam…two days after Islamic Terror attack.

Media repeats and amplifies Obama’s response defending Islam and repeating Trump’s attack. All of this Two days after an successful Islamic Terror attack.

The end result? Within a few days after the single most successful Islamic Terror attack since 9/11 by a man who Obama’s FBI decided was not a threat, Barack Obama is associated with Defending Islam from Trump, while Trump is associated with defending America from radical Islam.

Tuesday was Trump’s birthday, I don’t think the MSM or Barack Obama could have given him a better present.

Donald Trump has completely punked them, The country hasn’t seen such incompetence since the 1962 Mets. If Casey Stengel was a media guy he would be screaming: “Can’t anyone play this game?”

The answer to that question is apparently: Donald Trump.

Exit Question: How much would Donald Trump have paid to get such an image on CMM:


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



by baldilocks

Right, duty, whatever one wants to call it, I voted today in the California Primary Election. No Party Preference, crossover ballot—Republican. Who did I vote for? Ted Cruz. I figured that readers would want to know.

I first registered as a Republican immediately after the 2000 General Election in which I voted for a Republican picardelectionmemecandidate for president for the first time. This was after a decade-long exploration of the two major political parties and paying closer attention to current events than I had done before that period. Back then, I remained a registered as a Democrat on purpose until after I voted in order to send a tiny message to the party whose principles bore no resemblance to my own. Sixteen years later, the circumstances are similar: this was my first vote as an independent. We’ll see what happens next.


One of my real-life friends tells me that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in town, holding a rally a quick bus ride from my apartment, among other places in LA.

Hillary Clinton is holding multiple campaign events across Southern California on Monday, the eve of the California presidential primary.

Clinton attended a “Get out the Vote” rally at La Fachada Plaza Mexico in Lynwood. Then, she headed to Leimert Park Village Plaza for another rally, followed by an event at Long Beach Community College. The former secretary of state will then head to the Greek Theatre for a concert later in the evening.

The concert will feature singers Christina Aguilera, John Legend and Stevie Wonder.

Clinton has reached the number of delegates and superdelegates needed to win the Democratic nomination, according to an Associated Press survey of delegates.

I get my hair trimmed at a shop about two blocks from Leimert Park and was considering going for a clean-up cut today. Glad I found out about the Clinton event beforehand. Traffic makes me nuts—even when I’m not driving. So do Leftists.

Oh, have I mentioned that my hair is about an inch long? Not so baldilocks anymore. A lot grayer, though.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks

Back in 2013 I got into a Twitter exchange with Doug Mataconis which started when I pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s record as secretary of state is an argument against her presidency:

Doug instantly came to her defense and over the course of our exchange I finally asked the following

45 minutes laters during which time he declared it’s not relevant as Hillary wasn’t a candidate, declared Americans didn’t care about Benghazi , attacked Rick Perry & the GOP he finally left my question unanswered saying:

Well it’s three years later. Hillary Clinton is now the likely nominee for the Democrat nomination and Donald Trump is the likely GOP nominee (I say likely in both cases because media reports notwithstanding neither has actually hit the magic number in pledged non-super delegates although Trump is likely to by June 7th) and our friend Doug Tweeted out the following about Donald Trump

Now looking at the assertions in this tweet as a person who didn’t support Trump in the primaries and has yet to decide if he will support him in the general election I’d say of the three attacks on Trump big government is certainly accurate and not in dispute. The 2nd attack of Xenophobia I would declare incorrect as he’s talking about enforcing existing law, but Doug could make a case for it and the left could make an argument for it, As for Ignorance I took it as a hit on Trump’s supporters although if Doug was making a point about Trump’s lack of political experience is by definition ignorance of the internal workings of government it would be a valid one but one that would have applied to every military man from Grant to Ike who ever ran.

All in all nothing all that unusual for an attack on Trump, but I thought something was missing from the conversation so I replied thus:

Now you’ll note there is nothing all the remarkable in that reply. Nobody can dispute Hillary Clinton is for big government, The donor scandals, the Clinton foundation are only the latest examples of her corruption that go back to whitewater, and given the current state of Libya, Syria, egypt and the email scandal an assertion of incompetence would not seem out of line.

It’s also worth nothing that nothing in this tweet disputed any of Doug’s assertions concerning Donald Trump. There was absolutely no reason that these two tweets could not have stood on their own and have it left at that.

Except that I dared attack Hillary Clinton and just as it was in 2013 that can’t be allowed to stand.

Now nothing in my previous tweet indicted that I was voting or Trump or even referenced him. I simply made an assertion concerning Hillary so given that reply I asked the natural follow up question:

Doug Didn’t take that kindly to that and after some back and forth and brought up a phrase that was once a favorite of the MSM:

Hmmm my statements were an example of “Clinton derangement syndrome?” The use of that phrase carried implications at least it did to me.

He thought the implications were different

I believe Ace of Spades referred to this as “virtue signaling”

Now Doug is a lawyer, I’m a former Tech who now works overnight in a warehouse but I felt pretty good about my public arguments and as we obviously weren’t going to convince each other for the 2nd time in the thread invited public comment.

Doug didn’t take kindly to this claiming that Glenn Reynolds and Jazz Shaw were my “attack dogs” and despite having triple my followers took exception to my inviting comment using the word “douchecanoe” and followed with what I thought was one of the most amusing tweets I have seen a person make:

This is what we baseball fans refer to as a hanging curve ball over the plate

Remember Doug is a Lawyer, he makes public arguments for a living yet when the subject of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence, dishonesty and commitment to big government is asserted publicly he felt compelled to attack Trump, throw insults at anyone who would support him (in a rather Trump like way actually) assert critique of Clinton implies “derangement” and then objects to my inviting public comment in a public forum that any member of the public and see.

Even more interestingly in the various bits of that thread, which I invite you dear reader to examine, as of this writing this is the only defense of Clinton i’ve seen

It speaks volumes that the best defense of someone with a quarter century politically in the public eye in politics is the assertion that while she is bad her opponent is worse.

No wonder they want to talk about Trump, it’s sure easier than defending Hillary.

What does all of this prove? It proves that a tweet I sent out just before this conversation began was spot on:

I think there are going to be plenty of people who, for good or ill, will decide to vote for Trump just to watch the heads of the anti-trump people explode.

Update: I can’t believe I spelt Doug’s name “Dong” in the title, I know it looks bad but it was totally unintentional. It’s now fixed and I offer a VERY pubic apology. No wonder he was so pissed this morning.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level