edwards-money pj mediaFor years whenever conservatives referred to the Clinton Foundation as a money mill we were derided by both Clinton’s defenders and the press that assured us that regardless of the number of flights, five star hotels, expensive meals and booze that the Clinton Foundation covered for Bill, Hillary & Company, it was all about good works and that’s all there is too it.

That being the case I find this news from Australia rather odd:

AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.

What that can’t be right

The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

But this doesn’t make any sense. We were assured that the Clinton Foundation was doing good works all over the world, are we to believe that the good works that Australia believed was worth an 88 Million dollar investment just ceased or that Australia has decided that their works are good enough any more?

Why anyone would think that the contributions from Australia over the last 10 years were all about currying favor with a Sitting Senator, Sitting Secretary of State, Democrat Nominee and expected president rather than helping others.

Anyone want to bet me a five spot that the Australians won’t be the last big donor to decide to without the greens that the Clinton cash Cow lived on for years?

Update: That didn’t take long:

As the Norwegian newspaper Hegnar points out, Norway is expected to slash their contributions to the Clinton Foundation by 87% now that Hillary has lost the presidency. After contributing roughly $5mm per year to the Clinton Foundation between 2007 – 2013, the Norwegian government decided to boost their donations to ~$15mm and ~$21mm in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Ironically, that boost in contributions corresponded with Hillary’s decision to run for President in 2016…but we’re sure it’s just a coincidence. That said, it is fairly interesting that, since Hillary’s loss, Norway has decided to scale back their contributions by 87% in 2017…hmmm.

I guess that’s better than Australia which went to zero but I’m wondering what Norway’s explanation is? Does the Clinton Foundation do 87% less good than it did before?

young-castroby baldilocks

Like a twisted version of Santa Claus, the late Fidel Castro had gifts of horror to dispense to the country over which he ruled.

  • He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.
  • He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.
  • He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.
  • He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.
  • He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.
  • He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.
  • He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
  • He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.
  • He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.

Many Leftist leaders have blown elegiac smoke up Raul Castro’s backside as they praise the great leadership of his dead brother. And I use the term “great leadership” without irony. We’ve seen them fawn over true dictators before and be silent when that type of leadership produces identical and inevitable outcomes. Every. Single. Time.

Fidel Castro was the epitome of a Great Leader, per the Left, because of the types of outcomes listed above, not despite them.

And even if you’re still giving the side-eye to the president-to-be—and, trust me, I am—get down on your knees and thank God that we dodged the bullet called Hillary Clinton–a true Leftist type of Great Leader.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

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

 

 

divided
From Frontpagemag.com

by baldilocks

In the Washington Post, William Wan, Tanya Sichynsky and Sandhya Somashekhar say that “There are Two Americas”—an assertion made famous by the infamous 2004 Democrat vice-presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. All are were correct and the Washington Post writers outline the many ways in which the partitioning has been made flesh.

To Kelcey Caulder, 22, the division is painfully real. The college student from Athens, Ga., feels its looming presence every time she thinks about her grandma, a Trump supporter and ardent opponent of abortion rights.

They haven’t talked much since Caulder’s grandma found out that Caulder was voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton and told her granddaughter bluntly, “You’re going to hell.”

Caulder tried to be understanding.

“I think, in her way, she was trying to be protective of me,” Caulder said. “She wasn’t saying ‘Kelcey, go to hell.’ It was more like she was saying, ‘Kelcey, don’t you know this could send you to hell?’ ”

But when her grandma unfriended her on Facebook, Caulder said, it was hard not to take it personally. Now, she is nervous about Thanksgiving, although she hopes the family dinner could be a chance to reconcile.

Korey, a student at the Georgetown University Law Center, said he is skipping Thanksgiving altogether because of lingering resentments in his family over the election. After he posted an anti-Trump message on Facebook, his father stopped talking to him, and his mother’s ex-husband threatened to write him out of his will.

Korey, who asked to be identified by only his first name to avoid further angering his relatives, said he’s not ready to reconcile. In fact, he said, he plans to confront his father over his willingness to overlook offensive statements by Trump about immigrants, minorities, disabled people and women just to beat the Democrats.

Edward and the authors of the WaPo piece point to several dividing lines, but I’d like to draw attention to another—one to which they seem oblivious.

There are two types of Americans: people who look to flawed human beings to be their Savior and people who do not. Very many Trump supporters and Clinton supporters fall on the same side of that particular delineation.

[W]e are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

–Barack Obama

Make America great again!

–Donald Trump

The implication is that both men will do these things and their followers will be fundamentally transformed and great if we choose them to be our leader. It’s not an accident that mockers have referred to the two as Chocolate Jesus and Orange Jesus, respectively. And it also explains the animosities, even among kin.

By the way, I don’t remember any great overarching slogan from Hillary Clinton. That may be emblematic of her presidential defeats against both men.  However, many of her supporters even imbued Messianism into her persona.

This proves that when God is absent, people will create their own gods. Don’t do that.

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

We’ll (hopefully) know who won the Presidential election late Tuesday. Regardless of who wins, the nation must learn some of the lessons that have come out in this election. Three of them are old items that were highlighted this year. Two aren’t exactly new, but they definitely hit peak importance as a result of this election.

Before we get into the elections, let’s make one important point. At the end of the day, we’re all still Americans (other than those who aren’t really Americans, but that’s another topic). As such, we need to do what we can to bring order. There will be no unity even within the parties themselves. This election has proven to be too contentious to expect any semblance of unity. However, we can all attempt to remain civil. The nation is going to be a powder keg for weeks at the very least. Cooler minds must prevail.

Now, about those lessons…

Early voting must go

Absentee ballots are necessary and righteous aspects of our voting system. Those who are unable to go to the polls on election day should be given an opportunity to vote. That doesn’t mean that early voting should be used to allow us to be lazy or avoid lines.

Early ballot applications should be frowned upon. I’m not suggesting any form of test, but the things that came out for both candidates from the time that early voting opened until election day were pieces of information Americans needed in order to cast an informed vote. Ill-informed voters are a problem without early voting. Add ignorance-encouraging early voting to the mix and the sanctity of the election is no longer beyond reproach.

Voter ID should be considered by every state

If you have to show identification to buy cigarettes, board a plane, enter a bar, or get a Costco card, you should show identification to help decide the leaders of this nation. Any arguments of racism or voter suppression are feeble and completely untenable. The risk of voter suppression is far lower than the risk of voter fraud. Every state should consider it (and no, it is not a federal issue even for national elections).

Third parties have no idea what they’re doing

Love them or hate them (or both), these two major party candidates are arguably the two weakest in modern history. If there was ever a time when third parties should have been able to make a significant impact, this was the year. The Libertarian Party decided to put up a leftist VP candidate to run with an uninformed Presidential candidate. The Green Party stayed true to their goals of having bark with no bite, a position in which they thrive. If they ever had actual power, they would trip all over themselves trying to give it to someone else.

The Constitution Party was unable to find 55 people in the state of California to fill out a form so they could at least be a write-in. On down the line, we see a combination of poor strategies and poor choices from every party, top to bottom. This is why I’m so invested in forming a Federalist Party, but that’s a whole other topic.

Issues must make a comeback

In 2012, there was a lot made of the fact that the press focused so much on Mitt Romney’s personal shortcomings. Oh, if we knew then what we know now about how low campaigns could go. The press and the voters paid so much attention to the character flaws of both candidates that most voters can only speculate about where they stand on actual issues.

We need to be talking about issues. We need to be talking about how to solve problems. We need more than a tidbit or a Tweet and until society is ready to go all-in on internet research, the media still has to deliver information on television and radio. They need to start doing that. The only question is the source of this gossip-mag journalism. Do the people guide the media about what interests them or does the media tell the people who they want to be interested in?

Change everything about the debates. Everything.

I’m not going to dwell on this lesson. You all say them. Moderators were generally awful. Questions were baiting and irrelevant. Time was too short for the answers. Many candidates in the primary had no opportunity to shine.

I’d love to see completely different debate format. Imagine questions (on the issues) asked of one candidate at the time without the other candidates present. They’re given ample time to answer it: 2-10 minutes, depending on the question. No audience. Not played live. After all of the answers are recorded, the candidates are brought together to hear all of the answers to the same question played to them for the first time. Then, they’re given 2 minutes to respond. They could attack one particular candidate. They could attack several. They could defend their own position or even change portions of their answer depending on what they heard from others. It’s far. It’s based around the issues. It’s informative. It would be fantastic.

There are other important lessons to learn from this election, but these give us plenty to work towards in 2018 and particularly in 2020.

One thing is certain: this campaign season got out of hand and it wasn’t entirely the candidates’ fault. The media played their standard leftist decoy role. The people obliged and rewarded them by tuning in 24/7. Twitter and its 140 characters became the venue for serious discussions. This election turned into a debacle. Thank the Lord it’s almost over. Hopefully.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – It is almost over. The voting part of this, anyway. The divisiveness and hostility we have developed for each other will probably linger, sadly. Some observations going into Election Day 2016:

In Louisiana over half a million voters turned out for early voting which surpasses the record set in 2012 which was 350,000 voters.  Make of it what you will.  Are the large numbers because of the presidential election or just because people want to go vote against David Duke?  No idea.

As we close in on election day the media still holds tremendous sway over public perception. I wonder how much attention people pay to all of these polls and then say, “Oh well, Candidate A is ahead three or four points in the polls so why should I go vote?”  I believe there are a great many people not being quite truthful with pollsters, but that’s just my opinion.  I don’t pay much attention to polls; I favor those that support my own point of view, which is, of course a completely useless practice.

Julian Assange says that “Trump would not be permitted to win” this election.  Take that with a grain of salt.

And Hillary says any Wikileaks bombshell coming out in the days before the election is likely to be false.  Does that mean that the other leaks were not false?

With Hillary Clinton still so highly favored (IF you believe polls), that indicates that the general American voting population does not care that she left men to die in Benghazi, that she was cavalier with classified material to the point that she let her maid print classified documents for her, and that she takes money from governments that fund ISIS.  They discount all the other baggage as well. If Bill was impeached over Monica Lewinsky, Hillary’s future impeachment will at least give them a matching set.  We will have the first impeached husband and wife presidential team in the history of the world. How proud we must be.

Oh and we also have new warnings for potential terror attacks.

Dandy.

Stay strong, America. Whichever candidate you favor, whichever way this election goes, we are almost through with this part of it.

Then we will have to live with our choice.

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

On Oct 28th at Hot Air Allahpundit reported this reaction by Rush concerning the Comey Letter #1

His idea of how this is going to go is that Comey will come back a week from now and announce that the new investigation is over, no wrongdoing was found, and Hillary Clinton is free and clear again. That’s possible, I guess, but if the feds were that close to resolving this, Comey could have simply waited until they’d reached a conclusion and then announced the whole thing in one shot

One week later the Drudge Headline

CONFUSED COMEY CLEARS HER AGAIN!

This dropped Sunday afternoon just in time so that every single newspaper can lead with it on Monday and the entire MSM can cruse with it on Tuesday

I guess I was right both about the last minute Hillary dump and Comey still being in the tank but wrong about his worry about the FBI ‘s reputation. Or it could be a case of pulling a Chief Justice Roberts in the face of liberal anger.

But either way Rush saw it and called it.  The question is did Comey wait to long for the pivot to re-save the day??

Update 3 thoughts:

  1. It’s amazing how fast a Federal government agency can go through a half million emails when the full force of the MSM and the left is attacking you isn’t it?
  2. And not just the MSM and the left, a lot of very rich and connected people gave millions to the Clinton foundation, you didn’t expect them to let their investments go to waste without a fight did you?
  3. This is all about depressing and Demoralizing trump voters and reassuring scared Hillary voters, while it might help with the first, I can’t think of anything that will get them more furious or more convinced the fix is in.

Update 2: Rush wasn’t the only one to see this coming

A solid argument can be made that FBI Director Comey is yet again helping the Clinton team by providing something that will soon evidence as a big nothing-burger. This helps to hide the real controversies within WikiLeaks and other scandals.

Republican politicians, and lesser skilled Machiavellian types are very easily baited into mountain building by strategic placement of molehills. Historically, no-one is more skilled at the shiny molehill placement than the Clinton family.

That was written last week before today’s bombshell

Update 3: This is what Rush Said if you don’t want to listen to the video


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



trump-for-america-bw-and-colorBy John Ruberry

I haven’t read all of the thousands of John Podesta emails hacked by Wikileaks–has anyone yet?–but what I have read they betray a Democratic Party obsessed with two things: Money and power.

Liberal writer Thomas Frank, in his second great (gasp!) Guardian column in less than a week, accurately portrays the modern Democratic Party:

Let us start with the Democrats. Were you to draw a Venn diagram of the three groups whose interaction defines the modern-day Democratic party – liberals, meritocrats and plutocrats – the space where they intersect would be an island seven miles off the coast of Massachusetts called Martha’s Vineyard.

I’m going to drive the point home by reminding you that John F. Kennedy Jr, who was a liberal, meritocrat, and a plutocrat, was flying to Martha’s Vineyard to attend a cousin’s wedding when the airplane he was piloting crashed into the Atlantic. The Vineyard is Barack Obama’s favorite vacation spot–he’s been there seven times while president. Martha’s Vineyard the playground of the Democrat elitists. Bill and Hillary Clinton have vacationed there several times. In August her campaign held a $100,000-per-couple fundraiser on the island, just days after a devastating flood struck Louisiana.

In those Podesta emails, I haven’t so far found any mention of blacks, unless it’s about the black vote, the group that Democrats claim to champion more than anyone. But other than voting en masse for the Democrats and celebrity campaign appearances by people like Jay-Z, African-Americans otherwise aren’t much use for the Democrats.

Blue collar workers, a section of the electoral pie that has been shrinking for decades, appear to be missing from the Podesta emails too. They are also absent from Martha’s Vineyard, from what I hear, unless they are modern George Wilsons from The Great Gatsby, dutifully repairing plutocrats’ Teslas. The working class, once the biggest chunk of the FDR coalition, is heading towards the Republican Party. Perhaps a majority of them are inside the GOP tent already. And you won’t find what Michael Moore calls “the forgotten working stiff” on any vacation, because the leftist flamethrower pointed out last month his stiff hasn’t “had a real vacation in years.”

Some blacks besides the First Family “holiday” on the Vineyard, but in a 2009 article in New York magazine, Touré dismissed them as African-Americans who are “the only ones,” such as the only black in the room, neighborhood, or workplace.

“No man is an island entire of itself,” John Donne wrote nearly 400 years ago, “every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Unless of course you are a member of the Democrat elite. An island accessible only by boats and airplanes is a fitting hangout for them.

Which leaves “the leftover people” for the Republicans. Sure, the elitists will blame the decline in unionization of the blue collar work force as why the leftovers have fallen behind.

Maybe.

Also discovered in Podesta’s WikiLeaks cache was an email from Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who advised the Clinton campaign to choose a city outside of Washington for its headquarters because they would be better positioned to hire “low paid permanent employees.” And just what wage does Schmidt view as low paid? Is it less than the $15 minimum wage that Democrats call for?

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

Oh, if Schmidt really believes every verse in the Democratic mantra, then why isn’t Google unionized?

So, no, the Democratic Party isn’t the champion of “the little guy” anymore, just as Martha’s Vineyard isn’t a vacation destination for blacks living in Boston’s impoverished Dorchester neighborhood. Ironically it’s a billionaire from Manhattan who, at least this autumn, has made “the little guy” feel at home within the Republican Party.

John Ruberry, whose closest brush with Martha’s Vineyard has been South Boston, regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

The Wikileaks, the FBI investigation, the complicit politicians, the media. Many of us are paying attention to the news. Several are making The case against Hillary Clinton,

The record shows, again and again, lies, secrecy and duplicitousness deployed as means to the ends of amassing wealth and power.

Despite her well-padded resume and long proximity to power, Hillary Clinton’s illegal actions, abuse of office, secretive, undemocratic instincts and low character render her unfit to serve as President of the United States.

It is no hyperbole to say that the Clintonian corruption reaches Russian proportions,

As the New York Times reported, “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.” The seller, “Frank Giustra … a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation…”

And, speaking of ties to Russia, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech, part of which is thought to have come from the Russian government. Vladimir Putin showed his thanks by attending the speech.

As Peter Schweitzer, author of the expose “Clinton Cash,” noted, WikiLeaks e-mails provide proof that the “Clintons have a long and lucrative history of financial deals with the Russians, particularly with the Russian government.”

Breitbart has photos of Bill giving his speech at Renaissance Capital; On April, 2015, the New York Times, not exactly what one could call an arm of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™, reported on how Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (emphasis added),

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.

But never mind the Russians. As Roger Kimball points out,

at last count, there were five, count ’em five, FBI investigations into the machinations of the money factory known as the Clinton Foundation

Indeed,

what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.

No matter who wins the election, the fact remains that the culture that facilitated the Clinton’s corrupt doings will remain in place, a culture that will destroy the foundation of our country, unless we as a nation commit to fight against it.

That is the real challenge of our times.

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

Over the last few months, I’ve made no attempt to hide my willingness to criticize candidates. I don’t believe that being critical of Donald Trump will turn someone into a NeverTrump Clinton supporter, which is why I hope the following critique of current scandals holds more weight than if it came from a Trump-Does-No-Wrong blogger.

Hillary Clinton’s scandals are absolutely more important when weighed on the scale of Presidential fitness. Even if we put aside the conservative opinion that she’s ideologically wrong (I know it’s hard, but try), her actions over the last three decades in general and over the last 16 years in particular speak volumes about her inability to properly hold the office of President of the United States.

Let’s look at some of her actions in light of what Americans should view as Presidential skills.

Decision-making abilities: Benghazi is the easiest example of a string of poor decisions that can all be traced back to her. I’m not simply talking about the minute-by-minute indecision that prevented our boys from surviving the attack in Benghazi. The decisions that led up to the attack and the way that it was handled afterward were the epitome of incompetence. They shouldn’t have been left in such a vulnerable position before the attack. They should have been saved during the attack. The truth should have come out immediately after the attack. This is only the easy example. There are volumes that point to the fact that she has always and will always make poor decisions.

Honesty: Yoga schedules. Wedding planning. Early access to debate questions. YouTube videos causing Benghazi. Sniper fire. Need I go on? I could do this all day.

Holding America’s best interests above personal gain: Pay-to-play at the State Department and pretty much everything that has happened to her since leaving the White House dead broke speaks to her willingness to put her own self-interests ahead of America’s while she’s supposedly a servant of the people. If you’re going to throw out there that Trump has also always done what’s in his best interests, don’t. One does not have to be an objectivist to realize that private citizens have the right and even the duty to do what’s best to succeed personally in their lives. Public servants do not.

Avoiding the victim card: I have very few good things to say about Barack Obama, but one thing I can say is that he didn’t play the victim card nearly as much as I expected. Hillary, on the other hand, has played the card so often over the years that it’s a tattered and worn remnant with no credibility. A President cannot be allowed to be viewed as a victim. That’s not the American way.

I’m not going to apologize for Trump’s major character flaws. I’m not going to throw out talking points like “we’re not electing a Pope” or “he’s a changed man.” I do hold character as an extremely important attribute to weigh when deciding on the next President and Trump’s character is laughable. However, the left’s attempts to paint Hillary’s incomprehensible actions as big nothingburgers are reproachable. Her election would be untenable and her apologists are fraudulent in their attempts to make it happen. Shall we call them deplorables? If the basket fits…

In the 1988 movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Steve Martin and Michael Caine play two grifters who prey on very rich people as the corrupt local police turn a blind eye. Rumor has it that Michael Caine modeled his character Lawrence Jamieson after real-life Claus Von Bulow, who had been in legal hot water over his wife’s insulin coma.

Under Lawrence’s tutoring, Martin’s character Freddie learns how to become smoothly urbane and elegant, so he’ll be more suited for the sophisticated scams,

So it was with the Clintons. They transformed themselves from two rather unattractive characters into people who tie up traffic after getting $1,200 haircuts ($600 for cut, $600 for color) paid by the proceeds of their influence peddling.

Victor Davis Hanson describes their evolution,

Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation.

Unlike Laurence and Freddie, Bill and Hillary are not fictional characters. They are, however, part of a rot that is bigger than the Clintons or Trump, as Juliette said,

And here’s something I don’t see many people discussing: the reason that Clinton was allowed to set up a server in her home in the first place and pass classified information through it. That no one blew the whistle on that is much bigger than who we will have sitting in the Oval Office in January.

It is especially astonishing when you realize that the FBI was in charge of security.

Ed Klein’s book Guilty As Sin (which I highly recommend) describes how the cover-up took place; the book, by the way, precedes the Wikileaks releases, but the Wikileaks confirm everything Klein asserts in his book.

As a results, as The Diplomad explains,

one of the last institutions held in high regard, the FBI, has been dragged into the political swamp created by the progressives. Another victory for the Alinsky brigades.

No matter who wins the election, we, the American people, have our work cut out for us.

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

 

One thing that has been constant in this election cycle is that when the Election is a referendum on Hillary Trump surges and if the election is a referendum on Trump, Hillary Surges, so at all cost the Trump team needs to restrain their candidate for the next 10 days. If he can keep his mouth shut and keep the focus on Hillary I think he’s got this.

That being said it would be illogical to assume that the Hillary Team doesn’t have a last-minute drop of some type to play in case of an emergency. If so it would likely drop close enough to the election that it can’t be refuted but far enough before it so the MSM can hit Trump with it all at once for maximum impact.

It took about 24-36 hours for the MSM and the Clinton campaign to unite on a message concerning FBI/James Comey unfairness. It’s the wrong message because it highlights the problem but, at this time, they don’t have an alternative one. Such a conversation keeps the spotlight on Hillary who can’t handle it.

This has been a great few days for the Trump campaign and a horrible few days for the Hillary Clinton campaign, but I think the biggest shock has been to the NeverTrump movement. They know Hillary is a crook they don’t like her but do they pile on when it will help Trump?

There is a zero chance that Team Hillary (Democrats/MSM/Soros) will take this lying down. The quickest way to change the subject is an incident at a Trump rally. If I was Trump’s team I would be especially wary this week because the resignation of Crammer doesn’t mean there is nobody to pull a Crammeresque move if needed

The apparently united efforts of the various online services to keep the Hillary email story from trending is a huge risk that to my mind they are only taking because it’s already clear for a long time they are all in for Hillary and fear the consequences of a Trump administration remembering this post election.

It goes without saying that if this image
beatdown
was of a homeless black woman supporting Hillary beaten by Trump supporters instead of a Homeless black woman supporting Trump beaten by a mob of Hillary supporters there would be a national outcry lead by the media, the image of her on the ground and every single republican candidate for office would be asked to comment on this image and the clip of her being knocked down would be playing on a loop on every network.

It’s worth reminding Democrats that if they didn’t go all in and quite literally line up to support Bill Clinton en masse after impeachment

they wouldn’t be in his mess today

How many Democrat superdelegates are wishing they voted for Bernie at the convention today and wondering how many points they would be winning this race by if they ditched Hillary and had even nominated any moderately honest person? Surely if they wanted to break the glass ceiling in the White House the party must have had at least one qualified woman on their bench who wasn’t corrupt?

I’ve already said more than once that we are going to see media Bias so open that it will shock even the most jaded of us. I predict the re-opening of the Email story guarantees that the open bias we have seen lately will be completely dwarfed by what we will see in the next 7 days.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – We went to do early voting Saturday – along with hundreds of other Caddo Parish voters.

It was a warm, sunny day and perfect for getting in a long, long voter line and visiting with people while waiting to exercise your American right to vote. It’s really still summer here in Louisiana and once out of the shade it was actually almost too hot, but nobody seemed to mind.  Well, there was one elderly gentleman wearing a face mask behind us. He was very frail.  His wife had a look of concern on her face but they visited with us and with the people ahead of us until, after a few minutes, the man stepped aside to sit in one of the folding chairs placed sporadically along the line.

voting
Early voting in Caddo Parish

“He has to sit down,” she said. “Stage Four lymphoma.  He was supposed to have surgery Friday but his platelets were too low. That’s why he’s wearing that mask – risk of infection is so high.”

We told her to move to the front of the line. The elderly and the ill have priority.  We promised to hold her spot while she went to investigate; she came back and they moved up.

Bless that man’s heart!  Come hell or high water he was going to vote.  American spirit.

We were in line about forty-five minutes and made the acquaintance of a couple in line ahead of us. We discussed the proposed Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution – who can make sense of this gibberish:

Act 677 (2016 Regular Session) amends Article XI, Section 5. “Do you support an amendment to provide that the manner of appointment for the registrar of voters in each parish is as provided by law and to require the qualifications of the registrar to be provided by law?”

Translation: should there be standards for registrars and transparency in the hiring process?

blue-dog
Blue Dog: “I Voted”

We need a constitutional amendment for that?! I think there should be a law to make these propositions understandable; given that we’ve dumbed schools down to a fifth-grade reading level, how many people are going to make the effort to understand this legalese?

Anyway, as we were discussing the amendments with the nice folks in front of us we determined that both the gentleman and my husband had served in the military; that his wife grew up in our neighborhood, and that her mother had been my kindergarten teacher. Small world!  They invited us to a Veterans Day Concert at their church and we plan to go!

There are currently about 164.000 registered voters in Caddo Parish and I will be very interested to see how many voted early. Inside, the lady that set me up to vote told me it’s been this steady all week long. Saturday was the last day of early voting but the crowd had been there every, single day.  Maybe it was for the Blue Dog sticker or maybe they had plans for the 8th, or maybe they just want it all to be over.

As I’ve said before, I don’t have any concerns about Louisiana’s vote for the presidential race, but we do have some other important local races up, and a Senate race to replace David Vitter.

As for me, I have my Blue Dog sticker and my vote is cast.  I’m so done with this election.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Sometimes, something seems so obvious that I don’t even write about it. I assume that it will be covered by others, discussed on talk radio, or outright announced by the subjects. In the strange case of James Comey and the FBI’s renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, there are only two scenarios that make sense. For whatever reason, neither scenario is getting the national attention they deserve.

The first scenario we’ll discuss has been partially covered here, but for the sake of accuracy we’ll throw it out there again. It’s the scenario where Comey and the FBI come out a day or two before election day and announce that after further review, they once again see negligence without a recommendation to prosecute. This scenario would fit with multiple reasons behind it; saving the integrity of the FBI so they don’t get hit with claims that they intentionally withheld information for Hillary’s sake is the most likely.

The second scenario was the first one that came to mind when the news broke Friday. Perhaps it’s my history of reading and watching too many police procedurals, but I waited for this to pop up in mainstream media. I was foolish to expect it. Instead, they’ve spent their time trying to point fingers and diffuse the situation with pro-Hillary propaganda. Then, I waited for conservative media to reveal it, but most of us spent the last couple of days lamenting over the wickedness of mainstream media and discussing how Hillary is so corrupt.

What didn’t get discussed was what they found when they discovered the email trove a few weeks ago. It has to be something new; bringing up old news would not have prompted Comey to do what he did. Before we reveal what I believe they found, let’s talk about what new things they didn’t find.

They didn’t find even more revelations of stupidity with the email server itself. They’ve already acknowledged that the team and Hillary were idiotic for having it in the first place.

They didn’t find classified information beyond what is already known because their focus would have been on Huma Abedin rather than Hillary if that were the case. By “focus,” I mean they likely wouldn’t even have sent the letter to Congress if Abedin was their target.

Lastly, they didn’t find damaging communications about Benghazi or any other scandal associated with Hillary. Such things would not be pertinent to the case at hand and would have been given over as fodder for Congress, and then only after the election.

What the FBI most likely found is communication between campaign staffers with direct ties to Hillary expressing her wishes to have damaging emails deleted. If prior to the investigation they made a conscious decision to delete damaging emails in an effort to cover their tracks, that would be enough for Comey to reopen the case. You might think that they’ve already seen evidence of that based upon the deleted emails they’ve already discovered, but there’s a distinction that must be understood. Discovering missing emails shows that they were deleted. However, the real smoking gun would be emails that instructed people to deliberately delete them. That’s the scenario where the law was clearly broken. That’s the scenario that would prompt Comey to do what he did.

If we see scenario one happen, then this was an effort to cover up for the FBI and protect its reputation. I’m not ready to believe the FBI is intentionally helping the Clinton campaign by distracting from the Wikileaks releases until election day as some have insinuated, so the first scenario means self-protection and a likely Clinton win after they announce their findings. With scenario two, it won’t just mean that Clinton will lose. It means that she’ll finally be charged with a crime. The question is whether or not she’ll plead guilty quickly enough for President Obama to pardon her.

kahn

Capt. Spock: She can out-run us and out-gun us. But there is the Mutara Nebula at one five three mark four.
Admiral Kirk: Scotty, can we make it inside?
Mr. Scott: The energiser’s bypassed like a Christmas tree, …so don’t give me too many bumps.
Capt Kirk: No promises. On your way.
Mr. Saavik: Trouble with the nebula, sir, is all that static discharge and gas clouds our tactical display. Visual won’t function and shields will be useless.
Capt Spock: Sauce for the goose, Mister Saavik. The odds will be even.

Star Trek II the Wrath of Kahn 1982

There is a lot to say about the FBI bombshell that dropped yesterday on the 2016 campaign but what struck me the most about it was how it illustrated how helpless a Democrat campaign in general and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in particular is without their normal advantages.

Consider, for years we conservatives have been stating that the media are simply an extension of the Democratic party working to elect them. This is done in several ways

  • Promoting state & local stories to national ones that favor a Democrat meme
  • Ignoring state & local stories to national ones that favor a Democrat meme
  • Coordinating stories with Democrats so they are ready to exploit favorable ones and answer unfavorable ones when they are released.
  • Creating an United meme so a particular theme is pushed through out media.

And unlike the past when we could produce data supporting this, now we have Wikileaks actually demonstrating how this has been going on in their own words.

That brings us to the re-opening of the FBI investigation of the Clinton emails.

For only the 2nd time in the campaign the Democrats and media in general and the Hillary Clinton Campaign in particular were caught flat footed on a story.

  • It was a story released without their control thus they could not kill it
  • It was a story released through the national law enforcement agency so they could not ignore it.
  • Because they did not have control they were unable to answer or defend the story.
  • Because they were unable to coordinate they did not have a united meme ready to push to the public

They found themselves like a boxer who had been fed a steady diet of opponents taking dives suddenly facing an opponent who is not on the take or like Kahn once he entered the Mutara Nebula they found themselves having to fight on a level playing field.

The GOP will only have a few days of advantage, Hillary still owns the refs (read MSM) and by the time this piece goes up they might even now have settled on a coordinated message/meme to answer this stuff, but for at least two days you’ll be able to see how a Clinton Administration will deal with an unexpected crisis if in power.

It should be quite informative to voters.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



The first female candidate for President of the United States celebrated her 69th birthday by dancing salsa with a dwarf and getting a bottle of tequila,

On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate paid a visit to El Gordo y La Flaca, the popular variety chat show on Spanish-language channel Univisión – and it was one of the most unrestrained appearances of her campaign. Clinton was personable, relaxed and, thanks to the nature of the show, fully committed to having some fun. During the show, Clinton danced to Marc Anthony, practiced her Spanish and was even serenaded by Bronx-born singer Prince Royce and a mariachi band for her 69th birthday, on Wednesday

You can (if you must) watch her practice Spanish,

Since that is not enough,

After her interview with the hosts, Clinton revealed that Puerto Rican power duo Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony were joining forces, again, for a free concert in support of Clinton in Miami.

Puerto Rican Marc Anthony had already endorsed Clinton in a prior concert and he was booed, but never mind that; ‘Abuela’ Clinton panders for Latino votes on the tabloid TV show of Cubans Raúl De Molina, aka El Gordo, and Lili Estefan, aka La Flaca, as Dominican Prince Royce sang happy birthday, while she declares Mexican food her favorite.

Holy enchilada! Four countries pandered to in one show!

The South Americans must be pale with envy. Jaime Bayly, who has spent months praising Hillary in his MegaTV show, must be having the vapors.

Mercifully, no cigars were lit.

Where Hillary shows up, the Clinton Foundation must not be far: Indeed, La Flaca is a cousin of Emilio Estefan, who hosted with his wife Gloria a Clinton Foundation fundraiser in 2014,

A spokeswoman for the Estefans said the Clinton Foundation brings together businesses, governments, NGOs and individuals to improve wellness and global health, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.

Yes, money can buy you Clinton’s love: Univision‘s Executive Chairman and Clinton Foundation megadonor Haim Saban had emailed on April 12, 2015

both Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and Univision’s then-President of News and Fusion CEO Isaac Lee- a follow-up from prior phone conversations- and directs them to contact each other. Lee (set to deliver his infamous “Nazis” talk at UT-Austin the very next day) agrees to meet with Podesta “ASAP”, and the two ultimately agree on a breakfast meeting.

The purpose of this breakfast meeting is revealed in a later email from Fusion Senior VP and Chief Strategy Officer (now President) Boris Gartner, who joined Lee and Podesta for breakfast at the Four Seasons

As Newsbusters puts it, Univision is a liberal special interest group with a news division.

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

youngtrump-clinton
Your next president

by baldilocks

It will be over soon, this joke of an election. At that point, each American will be able to make specific plans for self and for family—assuming some folks have been waiting around to see who will be in the Oval Office for the next four years before make life plans. (Some of us have not been waiting for this “blessed” event.)

That brings me to this observation: the identity of the person who sits in the office of the presidency should not be as important as it has become. I’m not learned enough to determine whether the executive was always so crucial to the health of this country—some say that the pronounced authority (authoritarianism?) of the presidency began with Lincoln and was further fortified by Wilson and FDR. But, in whatever manner the strength of the executive branch developed beyond its reasonable boundaries, here we are with two candidates for president who…let’s just say that the proverbial dog-catcher role might be dangerous in either set of hands. Either way, we will have a megalomaniac driving the souped-up ship of this nation-state. Comforting, no?

What I am looking forward to: The Night of the Long Knives (digitally speaking only…hopefully) on the losing side. That should be at least as jaw-droppingly entertaining as the breaking apart of the Republican Party has been.

Oh by the way, now we’re going to pay for the wall and Mexico will reimburse us.  And, oh yes, Hillary Clinton and all of her associates and minions are crooked. No more questions.

We will see what becomes of us with either of these excessively-flawed humans at the helm. I say that we have more power than we think.

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

Blogger outside of Wrigley Field
Blogger outside of Wrigley Field

By John Ruberry

“Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.” Derek Hunter, Townhall, October 23, 2016.

“A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” Albert Camus.

Both men are right.

I’ve known for many years that the mainstream media, consisting mostly of leftists, is biased, but I’ve also long suspected that these leftists have been colluding with the Democrats. Thanks to WikiLeaks we know that to be true.

The 2016 World Series, an intriguing matchup between the Chicago Cubs–of whom Hillary Clinton used to be a fan of–and the Cleveland Indians, begins Tuesday.

Which got me thinking: What if the self-righteous media guardians, umpires you might say, were in charge of baseball’s fall classic?

When the Chicago Clintons come to bat, their batters will earn a walk after three balls, Cleveland, Donald Trump’s team, will need five balls to gain a base on balls, and they’ll strike out after two strikes.

The media umpires, when the Clintons are in trouble, will take out their smartphones during the games and pass on actionable advice to their manager, who will quickly reply and request more pointers. Player after player for the Trumps will be ejected because the umpires will reveal decades-old sexual assault allegations just as the Cleveland team takes the field. Another Cleveland Trumps player will be ejected because he may not have paid federal income taxes. The umpires will claim it was only just then that they learned about about this tax issue.

Meanwhile charges that the Clintons are taking large cash payments from outsiders that could destroy the integrity of Major League Baseball are for the most part ignored–and not acted upon. And even though the umpires know that the Clintons destroyed evidence of their improprieties, they’ll deem it “old news.” The umpires will overlook the lies from the Clintons about their crimes.

When the fans in the ballpark complain, they’ll be rudely dismissed by the umpires as morons who don’t know how the contest is played.

But the truth is the public knows all too well that the game is rigged.

As Walter Cronkrite used to end his CBS Evening News broadcast, “That’s the way it is.”

And the way it is stinks. We need a new media.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

cga_comey_podium
Director Comey speaking at the Coast Guard Academy.

As a sponsor family to a Coast Guard Academy Cadet, I have access to some unique opportunities. One such opportunity presented itself on Tuesday when my cadet texted me. “Director Comey is speaking at the Coast Guard Academy on Thursday. Would you like to come?”

Who wouldn’t! Despite a long day at work, I put on a service dress uniform, met my cadet on campus, and walked together up to Leamy Hall. Since the cadets were allowed to ask questions, I asked him what ground rules had been set by the Academy.

“They said the focus was race, and to not ask anything about Hillary Clinton.” I thought the race part was interesting, and no surprise about Clinton. I explained that even if a cadet was brash enough to ask, the Director would likely deliver one or two prepared sentences and move on, and you would have lost the opportunity to get a legitimate answer to a question.

cga_comey_upstairsThe view from my seat.

Director Comey started his hour talking about leadership, specifically that good leadership requires both kindness and toughness. He is a very good speaker, and obviously very comfortable getting in front of crowds. He’s also really tall, FYI.

Then he talked about race, specifically the issues surrounding African-Americans and police enforcement. His first big point was that we needed more accurate data to get an idea of how to tackle this problem. He brought up the Harvard study that showed lethal force was more likely against whites, but non-lethal force was more likely against blacks. He wants police officers out of their cars, because “It’s hard to hate up close.” He worried that if policing becomes viewed as an undesirable occupation, then he will struggle to attract good men and women to the force.

cga_comey_lineupCadets line up to ask Director Comey questions.

Then he brought up Hillary Clinton, which was a surprise. He hit a number of points:

  • That he assigned some of the best people to that case.
  • That they rendered their decision without political pressure.
  • That seven layers of managers agreed with it before he did as well.

He also brought up the most important point of the evening, that even if Hillary Clinton had been an FBI agent, while she would have been disciplined, she wouldn’t have been prosecuted, because we historically don’t prosecute people for those crimes.

He has a point. We’ve had a number of high level people mess up classified handling, and while they get fined, most never serve jail time.

“But this guy was fired from the military!” Yes, that is true in plenty of cases. But the difference is that the military is exercising Non-judicial punishment and Courts Martial authority. It’s NOT a trial. The removal from the military in most cases is done at an Administrative Separation board. While it’s not pretty for the person involved, it doesn’t result in jail time.

So I can see Director Comey’s point. But that brings up a bigger issue. We spend billions to generate classified information, then we fail to protect it because we let people off when they exercise poor judgement. It’s sad when you spend more efforts attacking law-abiding citizens then prosecuting chumps that hide classified in their socks.

If Congress is so enraged over Director Comey’s decision, then start by clamping down on our fickle laws over classified information. Add minimum sentences to mishandling, especially for politicians and other civilians. Start putting people in jail for gross mishandling.

What Hillary Clinton did was wrong. There is no denying that. Personally I find it terrible, and it sickens me that most people seem to shrug it off, not understanding the damage that was done. The fact that it’s happened in the past so many times, without Congressional action to fix it, makes it even worse. At some point, we as a nation need to decide how much we care about classified information and how it is handled.


The views expressed above are of the author and do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.


You should check out my blog here, and hit up Da Tip Jar!

An interesting thing happened Thursday afternoon.

Having woken up hungry just before 3 pm and finding the house empty I headed down to Happy Jacks restaurant to, after a 30 day fast from meat, reacquaint myself with the joys of their $5 after 3 pm menu.

I got there around 3:15 and the place was pretty empty, the lunch crowd was long gone and the normal Thursday dinner rush was hours away (thus the $5 menu 3-6 PM & 9-close menu). Seeing no servers handy and being alone for a change I sat myself at the bar sharing it with three woman, the bartender, who had worked there since it was the old Border restaurant at their previous location, one to my right and one across from me.

The bartender greeted me, and after taking my wings and diet coke order, she, knowing that I had been covering the race and who I was voting for asked: “How’s Trump doing?”

I said it would be a hard slog, with the media united against him and their willingness to bury Clinton’s corruption and the revelations from both Wikileaks and Project Veritas, I added that even if he managed to win beyond the margin of fraud, when you added the possibility of Evan McMullin taking Utah and an election thrown to the house (which doesn’t mean a Trump win, but that’s another post) it’s an uphill fight.

My mention of McMullin caught the interest of the lady to my right who asked who he was. She was drinking a beer while enjoying one of the excellent meal choices. She looked a few years older than me, had a pleasant face that seemed to have a bit of sadness behind it.

I told her both of the Never Trump people and their candidate, a worthy enough man, but I also argued that the reality is Jill Stein and Gary Johnson et/al notwithstanding we have a binary choice between two candidates that most americans find unacceptable and that if you want to make a choice rather than duck it, the options are Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

She sighed, she talked about her support for Bernie Sanders, how she absolutely loved the man, found him honest and was frustrated that her choice was, in her mind, to either write him in or vote for Hillary Clinton, who she neither liked nor trust, over Donald Trump who she also didn’t trust.

I took the liberty of acquainting her with the fraud in Florida broken by Fausta last week at the blog and then suggested that if she found both candidates untrustworthy then the obvious choice for her, even as a Sanders supporter was NOT Hillary Clinton but Donald Trump.

That got the attention of all three ladies in the place who had been listening to my story of democrat deceit in the spanish community and were generally curious as to my argument. She asked why she should vote Trump if she doesn’t trust either nominee.

“Consider” I said, “We have one major candidate who if elected will have his every move scrutinized by the press, scrutinized by law enforcement, scrutinized by political enemies…” As I put it if he so much as thought of putting a foot wrong the entire weight of all of them would come down on him. No presidency in history would be under a stronger microscope.

“Meanwhile we have a different candidate who we know is dishonest, who we’ve already established will be protected from the consequences of her actions by the FBI, the press, by pols etc…” and I repeated things the various Clinton scandals, the lies, the wikileaks revelations and noted that in every case the powers that be had either enabled her or shielded her from the consequences of her actions.

I could see that all of them were paying attention to what I was saying so I closed: “That being the case, if you don’t trust either major candidate the only choice is to vote for Donald Trump because if he tries to do something wrong, you KNOW he won’t be given a pass on it unlike Hillary Clinton who you know will.”

There was a pause, the bartender seemed impressed, the woman sitting opposite of me had said little as a talked but was staring intently as if processing my argument, but the Sanders fan was clearly struck by what I said. After a few moments she broke the silence that had followed my argument.

“I had never thought of that.”

You could see the faintest change in her, as if she had been bearing several weights on her shoulders and had just been relieved of one of them. She expressed admiration both for my argument and my oratory skills. I introduced myself, mentioned my blog and invited her to check out the writing here when she got a chance and we chatted briefly on non political matters before I had to excuse myself, I needed to get home.

I spoke to the woman across at the bar, hoping my political talk had not disturbed her meal, on the contrary, she said, she found it very interesting and didn’t disagree with anything I had said. The bartender said the same as she cashed me out.

As for the woman to my right she thanked me with a slight smile. She had been was frustrated by her electoral choice before, she wasn’t any more.

There are a lot of people who are unhappy with their choices this election season, I don’t know how many have been moved by the arguments on this blog or the podcast. But while in the grand scheme of things what was said in that nearly empty restaurant was a tiny insignificant thing, heading home I knew that at least one mind and one vote had been changed.

I submit and suggest that the last best card to play is not a pro-Trump or an anti Hillary argument, it’s the pro-accountability argument to people who have little trust in Washington, the government or the press.

Those of us who want a government accountable to the people and to the law over the next four years should go out, meet people in your community at your local bar, at the barber shop, and even on your facebook page. Make the case for accountability in your everyday encounters over the next few weeks.

If we each move just one disenchanted voter in our community we can make a difference.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



Guns. Supreme Court. Abortion. Immigration. Those were the first four topics in the first three questions from Wednesday night’s debate (2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court were squeezed into the first question). On these issues, which are arguably the four most divisive between the two candidates, Donald Trump was composed, informed, and surprisingly eloquent. He was able to portray his thoughts intelligently without sounding too rehearsed. With Chris Wallace at the helm asking questions about issues, the first 30 minutes of this debate were the best 30 minutes Trump has had in any debate, including the primaries.

He exuded the presence of a President more than he’s ever done in his life.

It went downhill from there, though not as badly as it will be portrayed. Mainstream media will condemn him for declaring that he won’t necessarily accept the results of the election. I’ll cover that more shortly, but let’s look at his other mistakes:

  • When she called him a puppet, his inner middle-schooler said, “No, you’re the puppet.” It’s already a viral Vine with hundreds of thousands of loops and rapidly rising.
  • When asked about entitlements, he talked about improving the economy and jobs which absolutely won’t fix entitlements without a major overhaul.
  • Lastly, he called her a nasty woman. She is, but that’s not going to help him score points with women, especially after drawing chuckles from the audience when he said nobody has more respect for women than he does.

There were other little mistakes, but all in all this was his best, most error-free debate. It also showed something to the conservatives in the #NeverTrump crowd: he might not be as far from their perspectives as they’ve been led to believe. His grasp of Heller far exceeded hers (no, Heller was not about toddlers, Hillary). His attack on partial birth abortion was spot-on and Hillary botched her response. Then, his vow and reiteration of appointing conservative pro-life Supreme Court justices was reassuring.

In those first 30 minutes, the all-important undecided Republicans and conservatives were given everything they would need to lean in his direction. Now, we’ll get to see the media playing up his unwillingness to definitively state that he’d accept the results of the election.

It will be an ineffective attack. To understand why, we have to look at the psychological effects that his stance will have on each type of voter.

Those firmly in the Clinton camp will take those words and move their chances of voting for him from 0% to -1%. Nothing lost there.

For those firmly in Trump’s camp, they’ll be cheering him on. Darn tootin’ they won’t accept the results if Trump doesn’t. It’s war!

Undecided Republicans will be a little affected by the notion, but the reiteration that election fraud is real combined with not accepting the results will push more towards him than away.

Undecided Democrats and Independents – here’s where it gets a little weird. Most of them won’t care enough to be swayed by the notion, but some will unconsciously lean towards him as a result. Why? Because it reinforces their feelings that the system is broken, that he’ll fight the system, and that they don’t want added chaos. Whether they realize it or not, the more that the media covers it, the more the undecided Democrats and Independents will consider Trump. Those who are undecided on the left are undecided because they really don’t like Hillary.  If they liked her, they’d already be supporting her. The fact that they’re considering Trump means that his defiance to the system and antagonism of Clinton will be a plus.

Does this mean Trump will win? Unlike many self-proclaimed pundits, I don’t see this election as one that can be determined until election day. Nate Silver puts Trump’s chances below 20%. I tend to see it as still a tossup because 2016 is insane but more importantly because Trump is outperforming her on the issues. Tonight, it wasn’t even close. The only times Clinton sounded half-decent at all was when she was attacking Trump and/or pandering to women and minorities. On the actual issues, she sounded like a 3rd semester political science major with average grades and a crush on her professor. Trump sounded like he knew the issues.

Today is the final Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Because of my work schedule I will be able to watch only the first hour of the debate while listening to the final hour as I drive into work.

Here are some pre-debate thoughts

This is likely the last chance that Donald Trump will be able to address the American people outside of the filter of the MSM before election day. That means he needs to point the debate to items the MSM wants to ignore from the Project Veritas tapes to the Wikileaks revelations.

This is the first time that there has been a debate with a moderator from FOX. Hillary Clinton is going to have to be prepared to be actually challenged on issues by a moderator for the first time in, well forever.

It is pretty safe to assume that regardless of what actually happens at the debate the MSM as a whole will state the election over and Trump doomed.

If by some chance Hillary underperforms greatly than I guarantee the media will be unified in blaming FOX and insisting they should be excluded from now on (Even if she does well this is a likely post debate meme).

One of the myths of this election cycle has been that “If only the GOP didn’t nominate Trump the MSM would be talking Wikileaks, Project Veritas etc” I guarantee that if the Trump tapes where not out there the media would find a different reason to ignore all of the above.

Based on the CNN reactions we can assume that if the veritas tapes come up in the debates you will see the words “convicted criminal” be repeated over and over with O’Keefe.

Very curious if the National Enquirer stuff will be brought up, I’m sure Trump is waiting for Clinton to dismiss them with a “That’s what John Edwards said” line.

The apparent decision to bring James O’Keefe to the debate is an excellent idea and put the MSM in a position where they are forced to comment on the “why” thus the “convicted criminal” business.

I’d bet real money that Hillary congratulates the Cleveland Indians in her opening statement before Trump gets a chance after all Hillary operatives aside there are no votes in Toronto.

Who wants to be that most of the post debate stories of the MSM have already been 60-707% written? The only real mystery left is what the MSM meme will be to spin the results, but within 30 minutes of the end of the debate I suspect every network will be using the same one.

This is exactly what happened:

Yesterday afternoon in sunny and hot Miami my friend answered the doorbell. I kept an eye from the window.

An average-sized man in his thirties, wearing a pink polo shirt and khakis, holding a clipboard, immediately said hello in Spanish, and asked her if she was [her name], registered at that address. She said yes.

At that point I moved closer to the entrance but he could not see me. I could hear the conversation very clearly. The entire conversation was in Spanish. He spoke very clear, native-speaker quality Spanish.

The man did not identify himself nor did he declare any affiliation with any political party or committee, polling organization, or business of any kind.

He handed her a cell phone with questions that he claimed were “on the issues affecting our community”, but the list of five questions in English were all negative statements about Donald Trump, “I do not like how he treats women,” “I do not like his stance of immigration,” among them. The statements were in large enough bold print she could read them without her reading glasses. He asked her to check the ones she agreed with.

Her reply was that she does not answer political questions, and gave him back the phone. She had to repeat this a couple of times, until the guy finally realized he was getting nowhere.

He then asked her if she would prefer that no further polls be conducted at her house. She said yes.

The man, still speaking Spanish, pulled a sheet of paper from his clipboard and asked her to fill in a form, telling her that, if she signed that form, she would not be approached again with any polls.

My friend was not wearing her reading glasses so she took the form indoors. I went to the door (this is the first time he saw me), excused myself and locked the door.

I did not stop long enough to see whether the man carried or wore any ID tags or anything showing any affiliation. None were apparent at first glance. I just wasn’t going to leave an unlocked door unattended.

I looked at the paper my friend was holding. It had three copies on one page of a form saying, in English,

I PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON,

followed by some more text in English, and three lines for the respondent to fill in their name and address.

Again, I repeat, the entire conversation was in Spanish.

But the form was in English. Only in English, with no Spanish translation anywhere.

I read it to her aloud, returned it to her and she opened the door, gave back the form to the man, and told him she did not appreciate being mislead. He asked her what she meant, and she told him that the form was a pledge to Hillary, not a do-not-call request.

He had the nerve to ask her why wouldn’t she pledge to Hillary, to which she curtly replied that she would not pledge for any political candidate since her vote is private. “Even for the best candidate?” he asked. She again said, “my vote is private.”

At this point, the guy thanked her, said good-bye and left.

I don’t know – and certainly I’m not about to ask – who she’s voting for, but Hillary did not make any friends there yesterday.

Parting questions: If there’s no intention to deceive, why no translation on the form? Why no disclosure of who he works for? Who is behind that survey?

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

UPDATE DTG: I just read this piece and I don’t think Fausta gets what’s going on here. The reason for the form is obvious and that reason is fraud.

  1. Step 1: Go door to door in the spanish community for the purpose of getting signatures on a form pledging the non english reading voters for Hillary Clinton with the name and address and an authentic signature
  2. Step 2: Submit absentee ballots in the name of the above person for Hillary Clinton.

If the voter doesn’t show at the polls, perfect, they’re absentee ballot is counted for Hillary no questions asked.

If they show up the vote and attempt to vote causing said ballot to be questioned for any reason the signature sheet is produced.

This is actual fraud straight up and every person in that neighborhood is being targeted, and you can bet if it’s done at your friends house it’s being done everywhere else.

Fausta your friend needs to call the Florida AG and the local media STAT.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



keeper

Dominic You: We need no friends, and fear no enemy!x
British Captain: I may have been misinformed. I understood Mr. LaFitte commanded at Barataria.
Jean LaFitte: If your offer is good it will stand up under fire

The Buccaneer 1958

The time to take over the GOP (state by state) or set up a real third party (let’s call it the conservative party, like NY state), is NOW, after a historic election that demonstrated the ineptness of the “Wizards of Smart”.

The time NOT to talk about and vote for a third part candidate, or stay home and pout about rules that work against you is DURING an historic election, when one of the evils is immeasurably worse than the guy you can’t quite warm to.

Mike Rogers of Granite Grok

To a person completely unfamiliar with the blog, yesterday’s post by JD Rucker might cause some confusion as his statement concerning the election contradicts my own from by Double Down Trump post. Let me begin by informing such people that my writers are informed up front that with these exceptions:

  1. They may NOT advocate or enable Abortion
  2. They may NOT advocate or enable Radical Islam
  3. They may NOT attack (Ie: The Catholic faith and church is evil and must be destroyed) although they may critique (Ie: Here is my problem with Bishop’s X or Pope x position or action or here is why I disagree with this Catholic doctrine) the Catholic Faith.
  4.  They may not violate the law & get me sued (It’s my prerogative not theirs to choose to take that risk)

When people are accepted as writers here, they may write what they wish on the subject that they wish and say what they think with no thought or fear that if I disagree with it I will censor it,  after all, this isn’t Twitter.

But while I agree with JD’s piece in many respects, particularly in terms of what we should do post election his argument against voting Trump in this election is not plausible because wild speculation not withstanding the truth is this:

 Baring sudden death either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States

For a conservative to come to the decision to either vote 3rd party or to leave the ballot blank under the theory:  “Donald Trump is unfit therefore I shall not support him even if it means a Hillary Clinton victory” strikes me as the argument of Code Pink vs fighting ISIS or a British Pacifist during World War 2.  “War is evil and I won’t aid it”.

And to that argument CS Lewis gave an excellent answer

for those who are unwilling to sit through the entire CS Lewis doodle (which I’ve been looking for an excuse to show you for weeks) let me get to the nitty gritty quote.

In the liberal society the number of pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent or not.  If not you have done nothing, if it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate pacifism over to its totalitarian neighbor who does not.  Pacifism of this kind is taking a straight road to a world where there is no pacifism.

Or put simply, all staying home or voting 3rd party does to a conservative is to enable someone who wants to destroy you and give them the weapons to do so.  Conservatism of this kind is taking a straight road to a country where conservatism is not allowed.

Now you might say, “But DaTechGuy, I believe Donald Trump is unfit and my personal honor does not allow such a vote?”

Well that answer comes from this exchange between the 4th Doctor and a man named Tremas in the episode the Keeper of Traken.   Let me set the scene.  A powerful device which gives a person literally power over a series of planets is about to be taken over by an evil malevolent force.  Having escaped temporarily from its clutches the Doctor and his party find their way to Tremas’ quarters where he is looking for a way to stop him.

4th Doctor: Well, the new regime seems to be making rather a mess of things. Tremas. Tremas.
Tremas: Huh?
4th Doctor: Blueprints. Master plans. Do you happen to keep them here?
Tremas: What plans in particular?
4th Doctor: Well, the master plans to the Source manipulator, of course.
Tremas: Yes, in the atmosphere safe. The secrecy of the Source manipulator is a sacred trust.
4th Doctor:  Tremas, we must stop Kassia becoming the Keeper, and for that we need the master plans.
Tremas: But I swore an oath, Doctor.
4th Doctor:  Well of course you swore an oath! Now you have to choose. Your personal honour against the safety of the whole of Traken.
Nyssa: Yes, father.
Tremas:   I can’t, Doctor.
4th Doctor: Well, that’s fine. That’s fine, Tremas. I mean, when this thing has taken over the entire Source you’ll have the consolation of knowing that you kept your honour intact.

As a vote for Trump is not aiding and abetting mortal sin (thus violating the primary duty of a Christian to God) the situation and the decision here is identical to the Doctor and Tremas.

I submit and suggest that when Hillary Clinton and those who enabled her flouting of federal law have been given power, when the IRS is again used as a tool to disable conservatives, when the full power of the federal government is used to either silence Christians, and/or force them to choose between their souls and their ability to function in public places or business, when the Muslim Brotherhood is enabled and America continues its retreat from the world and when the supreme court is packed to make sure that even if a Ted Cruz or a Scott Walker should be elected in 2020 their attempts to reverse these actions will be ruled unconstitutional,  those who have decided to stay home and allowed all this to happen will have the consolation of knowing that they kept their personal honor intact.

I’d say that price is too high.

FYI 1:  If you enjoyed the first part of that CS Lewis doodle on “Why I am not a pacifist I embed part 2 here for you.

FYI 2: In case you’re wondering the exchange between Tremas and the Doctor ends, like this.

[Tremas goes to a blank piece of wall, puts his hand through and removes a scroll.]
Tremas: The original design of the Source manipulator. The means that gave power to our Keepers.
4th Doctor: Good.

FYI 3: (minor Doctor Who spoiler alert) Some Doctor Who fans might wonder if my invoking of the episode of Traken means I’m comparing Hillary Clinton to the Master either in his emaciated decaying state from that episode or the current regeneration as Missy who is just as evil and murderous. That is certainly not the case.

The Master/Missy evil wholly fictional character while Hillary Clinton is an awful terrible fact.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



There are hardcore supporters who have been there from the beginning for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It was these supporters who helped propel each to their party’s nomination and nothing that comes out between now and election day will change their minds. Most of the rest of us have been forced to take a hardline approach as well. In this late hour, the accumulation of October surprises will not change our voting preference. The surprises are THAT bad; Trump’s locker room talk is countered by Hillary’s Wikileaks corruptions which counter accusations made against Trump which counter Hillary’s attacks on the pro-life movement which counter… you get the point.

In other words, a large percentage (I’d put the number north of 50%) of the electorate will vote for a candidate that they only support because they believe the other major candidate would be worse. Never has any living generation of Americans seen a full-fledged race to the bottom like this one. This election won’t be won. The next President will be the candidate that loses less. We’re stuck having to fake enthusiasm for one candidate because we can’t imagine America with the other candidate in charge. I know many of the readers are full-blown supporters of Trump and that’s your prerogative. I will never support, endorse, or vote for Hillary, so at least we have that in common.

Regardless of who wins on November 8th, it’s imperative that on November 9th we evaluate what brought us here and make the choice to never let it happen like this again. I’m not talking about figuring out how Hillary evaded jail or why the best batch of conservative candidates the GOP has ever seen were summarily dispatched by a liberal and his wall. It’s time to take a look at the fundamental problems in Washington DC and across the country that prevent the obvious solution of Constitutional conservatism from having its day leading in the halls of government. As Bobby Johns pointed out in his passionate attack on liberalism in Congress, only three Senators and fourteen Congressman score an “A” on Conservative Review’s scorecard. Most GOP Senators and Congressmen score an “F” which means that they are slightly right-leaning at best.

This is why President Obama has never had a problem getting every single thing he’s ever wanted in the last eight years budgeted, including over the two years that Republicans have held a majority in both chambers.

This is why Planned Parenthood always gets funded.

This is why the internet is no longer under U.S. control.

This is why the one time Congress was able to reverse a Presidential veto, it was on a bill that affects less than 1% of 1% of Americans. The only reason it succeeded was because retiring Harry Reid was the only Senator willing to side with Saudi Arabia over families of 9/11 victims. In an election year, the President never had a chance. His veto was symbolic.

The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough Republicans in office. The problem is that we don’t have enough principles in the people holding those offices. We need a party that holds conservative principles at the highest level, that throws political expediency out the window. We need voters to learn the principles that propelled this nation to its pinnacle. Most of those principles are found in the words of the Constitution. Others can be found in the examples of the men and women who defend them. Any politician who refuses to wholeheartedly keep the oath of defending the Constitution does not deserve our vote.

This year, it’s too late. Principles have been abandoned by both major parties. This is why it’s important to build a new one. If the party of Lincoln, Coolidge, and Reagan has moved so far to the middle that conservatism has become a co-opted punchline used during campaign season, then examining our course through the lens of principles is our best course of action after the election.

Update (DTG): As you know I don’t censor my writers and respect their opinions but tomorrow morning I’ll give a short answer as to what he’s missing here.

I’ve been reading Ed Klein’s new book, Guilty as Sin: Uncovering New Evidence of Corruption and How Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Derailed the FBI Investigation, which I highly recommend, but this is not a book review.

Klein, who previously wrote The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President, knows his subject well. This title is almost ironic, since “truth” and Hillary parted ways a long time ago.

When you read either book, you get to the point where reading page after page of all of the Clintons’ crimes reaches critical mass and you are struck by the venality, perfidy and corruption of the so-called journalists, prosecutors and investigators that for decades have turned a blind eye, because it is their enabling that allows Hillary to be where she is now.

What Klein reports on Guilty As Sin, namely the complicity of the U.S. Attorney General, the head of the FBI, and the White House, defies any conspiracy theory a fevered mind could cook up.

Wikileaks has been releasing hacked, i.e., stolen, emails confirming the information Klein reports in his books. This adds to my revulsion, since – and it’s worth repeating – the Wikileaks are by definition stolen information.

Never mind the wreckage Hillary left as Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, there’s much pearl-clutching and gnashing of teeth over Trump’s character, a character (or lack thereof) that has been in public view since Trump first started appearing in Howard Stern’s show in the 1980s. Where were the Republicans during the primaries that they didn’t bring this up last year?

So for all of us who would prefer a campaign discussing issues such as national security, the economy, and foreign policy, we better get used to this fact: The first postmodern election may become a map to future ones.

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

Every pundit will have an opinion based upon their own biases and their news agency’s preferences. Some will highlight the move Donald Trump made to threaten Hillary Clinton directly. What they probably won’t mention is that from a purely strategic perspective, his charge that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to “look into” Clinton’s “situation” was absolutely brilliant.

A large percentage of American voters generally do not like nor trust Hillary Clinton. The same could be said about Trump, but there’s a difference. They don’t like Trump for his personality, privilege, and/or policies. They don’t like Hillary because she should almost certainly be in jail. For three decades, she has evaded the law. The accusations against her are numerous and many of them are extremely serious even if you discount conspiracy theories about her alleged “hits” on political liabilities. She has been demonstrated to be a liar and a cheat, but it’s worse. She’s gotten away with things that others could not and that makes her scorned even by people who want to vote for her.

Undecided voters now have something to weigh against Trump’s damaging recordings from last week. Do they want to harm Trump for his misogyny or do they want to empower him to take out Clinton? Whether undecided voters realize it or not, the notion of seeing someone in power held accountable is extremely appealing to them from a psychological perspective. They don’t like it when the powerful get special treatment. They don’t like it when the powerful get away with things that average Americans could not.

By itself, his call for a special prosecutor was a strong statement, but it was his mic drop moment a couple of minutes later that really punctuated it in the minds of undecided voters:

 

It won’t matter who pundits say “won” this debate. In reality, it was a debacle from start to finish thanks to poor moderators and mostly terrible questions. Nevertheless, the winner when it comes to putting sway on undecided voters was, through the subtle effects of his promise, Donald Trump.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion 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



roy-beanJudge Roy Bean:  I understand you have taken exception to my calling you whores. I’m sorry. I apologize. I ask you to note that I did not call you callous-ass strumpets, fornicatresses, or low-born gutter sluts. But I did say “whores.” No escaping that. And for that slip of the tongue, I apologize.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean 1972

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Saul Alinsky

Patton: Hell, I know I’m a prima donna — I admit it. What I can’t stand about Monty is he won’t admit it.

Patton 1970

Yesterday while so many in the GOP are cutting and running I re endorsed Donald Trump for president of the United States.

But while I’m sure at the moment the Trump campaign appreciates even the smallest bit of support at this time, the more important question given the debate is:  How do you handle this when the media will want to talk about nothing else?

The first clue to the answer of this question came  from Jazz Shaw at HotAir both in terms of the tape itself

Where did the tape come from? There are already long, scholarly pieces being written on the subject. The phrases I’ve heard repeated most often this morning on both CNN and MSNBC are variations of, a tape stored on a dusty old shelf at NBC. Give me a break. This is part of an oppo file which has been out there since last year and held in reserve until the timing was right to inflict maximum damage and distract from any other bad news about Clinton. And given the decades that Donald Trump spent in the limelight giving interviews such as this one, going on the Howard Stern show and dealing with everyone from Hollywood, New York and Washington glitterati circles there are probably enough such pieces to drop one every three days from now through the election. You can expect to see plenty more.

And in terms of its timing

Going back to the whole convenient timing thing, we should also note that a new batch of Wikileaks documents dropped last night which contain all sorts of goodies about Hillary Clinton, including outtakes from some of her paid speeches to Wall Street. (We’ll have more on that later today.) Is anyone leading their cable news broadcasts with it this morning? Nope. There’s barely a peep. You can write all that off to coincidence if you like, but this sort of “accident” is a rare beast in American politics. All we can really say to the Clinton team at this point is… well played.

The second clue comes in two parts, part one from a piece I wrote a bit ago about Bill Clinton appearing on Morning Joe the day that Herman Cain (remember him) was dealing with accusations of sexual harassment:

Today there is a big press conference with Herman Cain addressing the now specific accusations against him. By an odd coincidence MSNBC’s Morning Joe had President Bill Clinton Scheduled for the 8:15 tine slot.

They had him on for 30 minutes and they talked economy, trade etc, yet not a person on that set asked him a question about the issue leading the news today, how he would suggest Cain deal with it and what lessons he learned from it.

That really says it all, Morning Joe and MSNBC have Bill Clinton, the single most famous political sexual harasser, a man who is still 15 years later the butt of jokes on the subject.

And part two from January of this year when everyone in the MSM was saying talking about Bill Clinton’s misdeeds was “Beyond the pale”

This reaction is of course completely understandable because if one does not have this reaction it begs the question that nobody in the MSM wants to ask or be asked:

If what Bill Clinton did to women was “disgraceful” and “unacceptable” then why did the media elites and Democrat pols not only defend him at the time but spend that last 15 years treating the ex president as if he had never done a wrong thing?

I submit and suggest that people from Podesta, to Andrea Mitchell to Harold Ford and many others all know the answer to that question, which is why they can’t bear to have it asked.

The third clue comes from item 10 in Scott Adams response to Erick Erickson’s snarky tweet concerning Trump:

10. Most male Hollywood actors support Clinton. Those acting skills will come in handy because starting today they have to play the roles of people who do not talk and act exactly like Trump in private.

And the fourth from the same piece item 13:

13. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same. Clinton just took the fight to Trump’s home field. None of this was a case of clever strategy or persuasion on Trump’s part. But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump’s chances.

The fifth clue comes from last night’s post of Democrats lining up behind Bill Clinton after he was impeached on Dec 18, 1998.
And the final clue come from the movie quote that leads this post.

The Clinton’s are expecting some kind of direct attack from this move, I think Mr. Trump would be better off being subtle.

The first step is to, if she or any of the others are willing, make sure that Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and especially Juanita Broaddrick are at the debate.

The 2nd is to be ready when the question of his remarks come up and deliver the following two answers.

When (not if) asked to again apologize for these remarks, either by the moderator or by Secretary Clinton, he needs to give the following answer:

“I am happy to apologize here before the American people and to America’s women for my intemperate private remarks on that tape and in that same spirit I invite Mrs. Clinton here and now before the American people to apologize to them, to america’s women and to the woman concerned, some of whom are in the audience tonight,  for her and her surrogates intemperate private and public actions to defame these women for political gain.”

The rehearsed outrage response from the Clinton camp and the media should bring a response from Donald Trump reminding them that in her own speeches Mrs. Clinton has stated that woman who claim sexual harassment should be believed, if she and the media no longer believe this then perhaps you should say so now to the American people who are watching.

When the media presses on this issue, asking Trump and his surrogates if his words were appropriate he and or his surrogates answer should be in the mold of Judge Roy Bean’s quote above:

I understand that many have taken exception to my/Donald Trump’s private remarks on that tape a decade ago.  I ask you to note that I/he did not leave Americans calling for help to die in Libya, Nor did I/he enable the rise of ISIS.  Nor did I/he lie to the American people about a private server an leave national security secrets open to be hacked by my enemies, nor did I/he help enable those who have come to this country illegally and have killed innocent americans like Katie Steinle .  But I/he did speak vulgar remarks privately concerning women on that tape No escaping that. And for that, I/he apologize/apologized.

and when the media attempts to call this a dodge the stock response should be this.

I understand that the Clinton team and their media allies believe the words of Donald Trump are more relevant than the Actions of Hillary and Bill Clinton when deciding on who to choose for president, I think I trust the American people to decide if a poor choice of words are going to make them less safe at home and abroad and less financially secure than a slew of bad actions and decisions.

Or as Juanita Broaddrick put it:

Furthermore Trump’s team should immediately target Hillary surrogates, particularly those in media, politics and entertainment and ask them if they have ever used such language in private.

Make every single one of them make that denial in public on camera or make them give their “no comment”.  Make sure they function under the standard that they are holding Trump  and them in this age of camera phones and instant recording wonder if any Trump like recordings exist before and after they give that answer.

Finally I would identify each Democrat in this video, many of who are still in office

and have them answer this question: Do you regret lining up behind Bill Clinton after impeachment and would you like to apologize to the american people for doing so?

If I was on Trump’s team, that is how I would suggest he deal with this problem.

Of course Don Surber has a simpler more concise soundbite read answer :

surber

“I certainly regret that remark but you must remember I was a Democrat back then & a friend of Bill Clinton”  That’s the type of sound bite that gets a lot of airtime and fits in a tweet.

Now some of you might say:  But DaTechGuy, we shouldn’t have to even be dealing with this type of thing, let alone defending it.

I quite agree and if GOP voters had followed my advice and chosen Ted Cruz during the primaries or even my 2nd 3rd or 4th choices Rick Santorum, Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal we would not have to. Furthermore if the Democrats had nominated a person of character and honor who was not hostile to people of faith, unborn children or the defense of this county I would not have to do so.

But the GOP voters did not choose Cruz, Walker, Jindal or Santorum, and the Democrat party that produced candidates of character who were not hostile to faithful Christians, unborn children or national defense has not existed since the days of my youth.

So instead I’m faced with a binary choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and right now Mr. Donald Trump is the only thing standing between us and the economic, social and military disaster for the nation in general and conservatives in particular that a Hillary Clinton administration will bring and it’s our duty as responsible citizens do all we can to avert that Clinton disaster for the sake of ourselves and our children.

You have to deal with reality as it is, not as you would like it to be.

And to those who missed my update to yesterday’s post, let me repeat verbatim why trying to get Trump to pull out or distancing oneself from Donald trump is a recipe for disaster.

  1. No matter how much you dislike what Trump said on that tape, he won the primaries.  He was legally and legitimately chosen as the nominee of the GOP.  Unless he drops dead or has a stroke or something it would be an illegitimate act to replace him on the ticket, particularly with someone, however qualified, who did not draw a single vote in the primaries.
  2. No matter how much you dislike the Trump voters, if you are a GOP incumbent or candidate in any state or country but the most red, you will need their votes to win an election.  Going after Trump is not going to win you any liberal leaning voters and is going to cost you conservative ones, you would be much better off saying something like this

    “I am happy to accept Donald Trump’s apology to America’s women for his intemperate private remarks on that tape and in that same spirit I invite [insert opponent’s name here] to demand that Secretary Clinton apologize to American people, to america’s women to the woman abused by her Husband and defamed by the Clintons and their surrogates for political gain.”

  3. Finally do you really think the Democrats are going to allow Trump to be replaced on the ballot at this stage?  There will be lawsuits in 50 states challenging any attempt to pull him and the Bob Torricelli precedent notwithstanding you aren’t going to see a judiciary upholding such a move.

Things are what they are and we have to deal with them as such, the best move is to accept Trump’s apology and move on.


If you would like to support journalism that is not driven by the MSM template 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



The Clinton campaign has aimed an ad right at Trump’s underbelly: assorted negative comments made by him about women. Clinton’s kicker: “is this the President we want for our daughters?”

Careful of that glass house you’re living in, Mrs. C.

This from the campaign of a woman who likes to say that women’s rights are human rights. At the same time, she promotes abortion, which effectively makes human rights conditional on whether an individual is “wanted.” My daughters know better. Does hers?

She touts the “Affordable” Care Act every chance she gets, which is not the same thing as supporting health care. Ask the women with high deductibles who are about to hear from their insurance companies how much more they have to pay for health insurance next year. I doubt that I’m the only woman who is avoiding urgent-care medical attention because it’s unaffordable. I haven’t heard Trump applaud that.

She’s determined to keep the “Affordable” Care Act’s HHS/contraceptive mandate in place. Remember that the ACA considers contraception for women to be “preventive” care, which implies that women are broken and need to be fixed. The same mandate is what’s keeping the Little Sisters of the Poor (among others) in court. Prosecuting nuns for exercising their right to choose not to subsidize employees’ contraceptive use? So much for standing by women. I don’t see Trump taking aim at nuns.

Clinton wants to eliminate the Hyde Amendment. The more public funding of abortion, the better, in Hillaryland. Don’t like that? Prepare to pay up and shut up during a Clinton Administration. Conscience rights be damned. Trump takes a different view of Hyde.

And then there’s Clinton’s recent gleeful question about Trump: “what kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a single year?” I guess that’s the shiny object that’s supposed to divert me from a more substantive question: what kind of Secretary of State “loses” tens of thousands of emails and gets away with it? Do we want our daughters governed by a politician who thinks she’s above the law and will not come clean about her actions?

As for remarks about women, it wasn’t Trump who called Gennifer Flowers “trailer trash”  or Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony tune.” In this campaign, Clinton has said that women who have endured sexual assault have the right to be believed. Tell it to Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.

Is this the President we want for our daughters?

It’s a fair question to ask about Trump. It’s an urgent question to ask about Clinton.

Anyone who reads this site knows what I think of Hillary Clinton. Her election would enable and reward some of the most vile and corrupt behavior that we’ve ever seen from a potential president.

That being said I don’t see anything wrong with this:

The Clinton campaign has gotten a lot of flack for it:

Politico first reported that the Clinton campaign had planned to spend $63,000 on Weather Channel ads in Florida over a five-day stretch starting Thursday, just as the storm nears the coast.

Politico noted that Donald Trump and other candidates have advertised on the same channel this year. But the bid to capture support from anxious Florida residents in the path of a deadly storm that has triggered mass evacuation orders and is expected to strengthen soon into a destructive Category 4 created a bit of an optics problem.

“If they’re out being too political at a time when the country has its prayers with the people affected, I think it could backfire,” Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Fox News earlier Thursday, before the delay was announced.

And has cut and run on:

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said Thursday that it is asking cable systems in Florida not to run its advertisements on the Weather Channel with Hurricane Matthew bearing down on the state — after Republicans seized on the planned ads as opportunistic.

And many of my fellow conservatives are crowing:

Just a few nights ago VP candidate Tim Kaine made the pitch that Hillary Clinton was defined by a lifetime of public service. Kaine said, “As a civil rights lawyer in the South, with the Children’s Defense Fund, first lady of Arkansas and this country, senator, secretary of state, it’s always been about putting others first.”

It doesn’t look like that’s what her team was doing in Florida. It looks like they were advancing her politically by any means necessary. I’m sure we’ll soon hear how she knew nothing about this. Some junior staffer did it without consulting anyone. If pressed perhaps her team will blame it on Colin Powell.

Now politics isn’t beanbag and we’ve seen plenty of spin by the left to turn nothing burgers into scandal and you never know what is going to move voters.

But it seems to me that unless the Weather Channel is going completely without ads I see no reason why a Hillary Clinton ad is any more offensive than an ad for dog food, viagra or  NiQuil.

Hillary Clinton is a vile person who has made herself rich off of her public “service”, left Americans to die when they called for help and been a dismal failure as secretary of state, there are plenty of reasons do despise and critique her.

But in my opinion running ads on a channel because people are watching it isn’t one of them.

Closing thought:  What does it say about the voting public that the Clinton Campaign figures that the things I’ve listed aren’t moving voters to reject her but they’re afraid this ad buy will?


Repairs to my car cost $526. If you’d like to help me defray that cost 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



By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – I simply cannot talk politics this week; of course as I say this, I will of course gloss over politics because while I have read Gail Collins’s most recent column in the New York Times, I truly hate to draw attention to it by addressing it, but I can’t let it go.

Disclaimer: I loathe both candidates.  I’m voting for Trump because I can’t stand to vote for Hillary.  I believe the Clinton machine is dangerous and I believe she is inept (see Benghazi). My personal belief is that she has no soul.

Both candidates are terrible.

I think what bothers me about the Gail Collins column, and so many other liberals, is that so many have a devoted commitment to convincing not just me, but also themselves, that Hillary is a competent and deserving candidate.  There are others who truly believe in her; I’m related to some of those people and we simply don’t discuss politics. I know there are readers of this blog who will be Clinton voters and that is, of course, your right.  I personally think she is a terrible candidate and unqualified for office.

(I know, Trump isn’t a good candidate either.  Acknowledged.)

Collins writes:

Hillary Clinton is an imperfect candidate who is, nevertheless, extremely well qualified to lead the country. Every day, dozens of prominent Republicans say they’re going to suck it up and vote for her because they think she can, if nothing else, at least keep the country safe.

That is stunning to me, given Benghazi and given the Clinton body count.  (If you Google “Clinton Body Count” you get 9,750,000 results.  Of course most of it is hokum and wild conspiracy theory by tin foil hat people, but in some of those cases, where there is smoke…).

And as far as Ms. Collins’s reference to “prominent Republicans” who are voting for Hillary – I’m sick of them, too.  “Prominent Republicans” are primarily to blame for the fact that Trump is now our nominee.

Ms. Collins also suggests that a vote for Trump means you are just like Ted Cruz and only interested in the repeal of Obamacare.  I’m no fan of Obamacare or socialized medicine but that is so far down my list right now that it is insignificant to me, and for Ms. Collins to dismiss my position so flippantly is borderline offensive.

Like I said – I hate politics right now.  I loathe both candidates, I am disgusted with the ill-informed, apathetic people who got us to this point, I am sick of party leaders who manipulate primaries, sick of Republican leaders who don’t endorse conservative candidates, and disgusted with a leadership that has led to a near indistinguishable difference between our two parties, and now, perhaps for the first time in my life, I understand why people stick their heads in the sand and dream of England.

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By John Ruberry

Last night the New York Times, using an illegally obtained copy of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax return, speculated that because of a $916 million loss listed on that return, the Republican nominee may have, yes, may have, avoided paying federal income taxes for 18 years.

With help from his wealthy father, not the government, Trump, a real estate developer, built an international business empire. And because of his Apprentice television franchise, even before his presidential run Trump was likely the most recognized business person in the United States.

Hillary Clinton is also rich. Her business–make that racket–is influence peddling. While her husband was attorney general, and then governor of Arkansas, Clinton was an attorney at the Rose Law Firm in that state’s capital city. The Clintons, aided by the Rose Law Firm, used its clout to protect themselves and Jim and Susan McDougal, their investment partners. While they didn’t make money in Whitewater, Arkansas’ first couple did their best to cover up the Whitewater scandal, which led to the convictions the McDougals, Bill’s successor as governor, and Webster Hubbell, a partner at the Rose Law Firm and a close friend of the Clintons.arkansas-sign

The McDougals ran Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan in Little Rock, which failed in the 1980s. They chose, of course, the Rose Law Firm to defend their thrift.

After emerging from the White House “dead broke,” the Clintons were still able to purchase a mansion in Westchester County, New York, one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation. In 2001 the Clinton Foundation was formed, by this time of course Hillary was a US Senator from New York. The foundation traded off of Bill’s status as an ex-president–six-figure public speaking fees to him went to this “charity,” which offered high-priced salaries to Clinton family cronies and served as a lucrative waiting room for those Clintonistas between government jobs.

The former first couple learned that influence peddling, not property investments, was their pathway to wealth.

While Hillary was serving as Barack Obama’s secretary of state, foreign donors poured money into the “charity,” probably using their cash as down payments for favors from Madame Secretary. It worked. A majority of the non-governmental meetings Hillary had at State were with Clinton Foundation donors, which is why the foundation is commonly referred to as a slush fund.

In Illinois, where Hillary grew up, that’s called pay-to-play.

John ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

There’s nothing like this type of sordidness in Trump’s background.

After leaving State, it was Hillary’s turn to collect the big-money speeches, with Wall Street firms being some of her most lucrative clients. Without having been a major government figure–or the spouse of one–Clinton’s speech income just might have matched that of a Times Square busker, such as the Naked Cowboy.

In 2014 just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation budget was spent on charitable grants.

Where is that story, New York Times?

Oh, do you know anyone who doesn’t try to pay as little income tax as possible?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

 

Took the wife to breakfast this morning after church and work and tried to sleep with no luck but eventually crashed in the afternoon and woke up to find that Donald Trump complaints about his microphone during the debate, that everyone derided him for making, were valid:

On Friday afternoon, the Commission on Presidential Debates confirmed that Trump did indeed have a microphone that was at least somewhat defective.

“Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump’s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall,” the commission said in an unfortunately brief one-sentence statement.

John Sexton at hotair says this:

I’m not going to engage in any conspiracy theories about why Trump’s mic went out but I do wonder why it took the Debate Commission until Friday afternoon to put out this brief statement admitting it happened. Clearly they knew this was a problem Monday. They also must have known it became an issue once the media began reporting Hillary’s dig about complaining about the microphone. That would have been the appropriate time for the organization responsible to come forward and admit there was in fact a problem.

Given that the debate commission’s silence for a week was a defacto in kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton campaign and their release of their statement on a Friday afternoon admitting Trump was right seemed to me in the tradition of news dumps meant for minimum exposure, I take offense at the use of the words “conspiracy theory” in that paragraph, but in all the crow eating and told ya so’s there’s an important point everyone is missing here that perfectly illustrates the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump has decades of experience in broadcasting and because of that experience he was able to recognize a defective microphone in front of him and had no problem saying it was so in the face of the derision of everyone else around him.

Hillary Clinton has decades of experience in government at the highest possible levels yet was not only unable to recognize her handling of classified material as defective, but kept insisting it was proper even anyone who had any experience in handling such info knew it wasn’t.


If you want to support conservative writers 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



by baldilocks

I did not watch last night’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. For the record, I didn’t watch Monday Night Football either; I had a third option.  The specifics of my option do not matter, but that I had more than two options with respect to how I chose to occupy my time is glancing commentary on the election itself.

And here is some commentary that does more than merely glance: “we” managed to pick two candidates—one from each party who are willing to violate the Second Amendment.

I won’t even bother quoting Mrs. Clinton’s stance on the right to bear arms, but here’s an example of Mr. Trump’s position with respect to the topic. From the debate:

The back-and-forth between Trump and debate moderator Lester Holt about the legality of New York City’s now-defunct stop-and-frisk policy is irrelevant. That Trump wants to take guns away from “bad people” is what matters.

Who are the “bad people” and how does a law enforcement agency determine the alleged badness of “bad people?” By how they look? That sounds like the evil, dreaded profiling to me.stopanfrisk_590_356

What about probable cause and the fourth amendment? I know that it’s likely that I’m speaking a language that is foreign to Mr. Trump.

What was that bon mot about liberty versus security? Oh, yes…

They who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There’s some doubt about whether this is an actual Benjamin Franklin quote, but that doesn’t matter. And, in reality, whether a given set of people deserve liberty and safety or not is also irrelevant. (‘Deserve’ is one of my least favorite words.)

What needs to be faced is that we have no major candidate for president who is a true proponent of the freedom of self-defense. Whether we deserve freedom or security or we don’t, both are in grave danger.

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

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-9-04-05-amFor all of the true debaters out there, let’s face it: this was not an actual debate.

The American Debate Association describes how a debate is supposed to work. The debate focuses on a statement, such as “The United States needs a new tax system to create jobs.”

For example, Donald Trump gets first crack in the affirmative, followed by Hillary Clinton in the negative. Each has nine minutes to discuss the question rather than the two-minute soundbites of last night’s debate. Then each one gets to question the other. Then the two debaters get to rebut the other’s argument.

The argument is between the two parties rather than through a moderator. In fact, in an actual debate, there is no moderator. The judges are supposed to stay out of the way.

Since I was in high school, these rules have been the standard. I have no idea why presidential debates don’t use this approach.

It’s probably because the longstanding rules for debate would probably bring more substance without the useless presence of some media darling who has virtually no expertise in the area of domestic and foreign policies.

Despite my misgivings about the format and substance of last night’s debate, I generally think it was a draw, which probably works in Donald Trump’s favor. The MSM gives the nod to Hillary, but that’s not unexpected.

Trump did a relatively good job of explaining his policies on trade and policing, but he fumbled through his response on the birther issue. He rambled as he often does. But he had the best line: Hillary has a lot of experience, but it’s bad experience.

Clinton failed to move the needle on what to do about the self-proclaimed Islamic State and race relations. At times, she seemed robotic.

On more “substantive” matters that usually decide who won and who lost the debate, Trump’s audio was bad at many times during the discussion; both had terrible makeup jobs; the split screen clearly favored Clinton.

What’s amazes me is that the moderator, Lester Holt, failed to ask any substantive questions about emails, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation. If anything underlines how unnecessary a star moderator is, Holt’s avoidance of certain issues demonstrates why actual debates don’t have moderators.

Howard Kurtz of Fox News provided a relatively good analysis of the debate at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/26/clinton-scores-by-staying-on-offense-trump-by-sticking-to-serious-issues.html

Kurtz argued that Clinton stayed on the offensive while Trump countered with serious issues.

As CBS’s Bob Schieffer put it: Trump didn’t lose any voters; Clinton didn’t gain any.

That seems about right to me.


Christoper Harper, a recovering journalist from The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times, teaches media law.

I’m not going to get a chance to see the entire debate tonight because of work but here is what things are going to come down to one thing: Will the caricatures of the two candidates be confirmed or refuted.

1. Trump: Is he crazy, is he presidential?

These two questions are what the American people want the answer to. Hillary Clinton the media and the left (but I repeat myself) has been trying to sell Donald Trump as an uncontrolled loon for the last year or so, completely unprecedented and unable to deal lead. That caricature took a huge hit thanks to his mexican trip whose live feed completely disappointed the left has the Donald not only sounded strong but competent. While this was no surprise to me as a person who is running business on an international scale has to know how to deal with foreign leaders this is totally contrary to what the MSM has said.

The goal for Donald Trump therefore is to appear presidential enough on TV to make a lie of this. I predict that he will have very little trouble doing so due to his massive TV experience.

2. Clinton: Is she corrupt, is she well?

There have been two memes with Hillary Clinton that has been out there, the first is corruption, while the email scandal has not had legs with the MSM it HAS with voters. Clinton needs to give answers that suggest there is no there there. This should actually not be a hard thing to do as she has decades of experience dissembling before reporters, however it is the viewing audience and not the press that she has to sell this too. My gut says she should be able to do this but the real question is, have her consultants prepped her for the press or the people? That will be the determining factor.

The second factor can’t be wargamed. Clinton’s health. I’m sure that Hillary has rested herself to the max and her medical and makeup team will have put out full effort to make sure that she is in the best physical shape possible or tonight.

All that being said if she starts coughing, if she starts to fall, if anything happens that says “unwell” that will be the final nail in the coffin for her. This is the overriding factor above all else. Can she manage to stand there for 90 minutes without seeming ill?

I predict she will manage to do so but the reality is we have no idea on this. It is the wild card in this debate.

The Clinton advantage MSM: The biggest advantage for Hillary Clinton is the MSM. As long as Hillary Clinton doesn’t cough up a lung, start drooling on the stage or physically collapse, the media will pronounce her well and declare her the victor in tonight’s debate. It doesn’t matter what she says or how she says it this is going to be the media narrative that the press will be selling.

The Trump Advantage the audience: It appears this is going to be one of the most watched debates in the history of history. A large amount of people who would not normally bother will politics will be drawn to it. Furthermore I suspect most of those people will not be bothering with much of the pre-debate or post-debate coverage. This means that Trump will have an excellent change to make his case directly to the people, particularly those who will not be bothering with the post-debate spin. If he doesn’t commit an obvious gaffe, and by gaffe I mean something that normal people, not the media, not the media, consider a gaffe. He will be fine.

My prediction. Barring a physical collapse by Hillary, this debate is going to be pretty much a wash by normal debate standards. However a wash in the debate is a win for Trump because the main question in the mind of people who don’t like Hillary is: Is Trump Qualified. If he passed that bar, he win…

…it should be pointed out that the MSM is going to declare Hillary the victor in this debate (again barring a physical collapse) I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those stories have already been written and just need the odd bit of space filled in. Howie Carr has nailed it:

Whatever happens on Long Island, Hillary will immediately be declared the winner by 98 percent of the press. The headlines are already written, the phony-baloney polls and focus groups are ready to roll.

Hillary has to accomplish only two feats in Hempstead. The first one is to get off a couple of canned zingers for her adoring fans in social media to run with Tuesday morning.

What’s the over/under on how many minutes it will take her to say, “I’m a grandmother”? Comrade Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell will lap it up with a spoon. Oh, she so humanized herself, blah blah blah.

Hillary’s second task may prove more daunting: She has to remain vertical for 90 long minutes, with no oxygen mask or iron lung up there on the stage.

Alas for the Clintons we live in an age where people will have already formed their opinions and shared them online long before the pundits are able to push these stories.

Update: PowerLine reports they are getting panicked fundraising requests and says

with a hundred million people set to tune in to tonight’s debate, the Democrats have even more to worry about: what if millions of those viewers don’t find Trump scary or dangerous, and they see no reason to consider him a “racist, sexist bigot”? If I were a Democrat, I’d be worried too.

I’m enjoying this much too much.


If you want to support conservative writers 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



trump-for-america-bw-and-color

By John Ruberry

“I’m not an actor, I’m a movie star!”
Peter O’Toole’s Alan Swann character in My Favorite Year.

A couple of writers I usually agree with, the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass and Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, the latter unsuccessfully  ran for Congress six years ago in the Illinois district where I live, are predicting a Hillary Clinton win in Monday’s presidential debate at Hofstra University.

Kass and Pollak acknowledge Clinton’s extensive debate skills, she was a victorious US Senate candidate in 2000 and 2006 and Clinton came very close to winning the Democratic nomination in 2008. The latter contest had numerous debates, including some one-on-one contests between Hillary and Barack Obama. Donald Trump has never participated in a one-on-one debate.

But Americans have heard this song before. While Kass acknowledges the 1960 John F. Kennedy–Richard M. Nixon debates set the standard for future matchups being about style over substance; Nixon was the more experienced debater, but Kennedy, still the most telegenic president in American history, emerged the victor. Nixon won the substance battle–the comparatively few radio listeners to the debate agreed–but the Age of Television began over a decade earlier.

joel-pollak-marathon-pundit
Blogger Ruberry with Joel Pollak in 2012

And what is largely overlooked from the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, which coincidentally was held 56 years to the day ahead of Monday’s faceoff, is that Nixon had some minor health issues on debate day–a knee injury suffered on the campaign trail and a subsequent infection earlier that month led to the Republican being hospitalized. Then Nixon contracted the flu. His rotten luck continued when the GOPer banged that same knee on a car door as he was entering the debate studio. Even in black-and-white, Kennedy looked tan and fit during that first debate, although his bronze skin tone, rare among those of Irish descent, was probably because he was suffering from Addison’s disease. Nixon looked pale. He was sweating, and it appeared that he needed a shave.

The better debater–and ironically the healthier man, lost the initial and of course most important of the 1960 debates. Nixon had to wait eight more years to win the presidency.

Trump, at age 70, is the Energizer bunny of the 2016 presidential campaign. The brash teetotaler clearly has the stamina to last 90 minutes standing on the debate stage.  But three times this month Clinton, age 68, had public bouts of unhealthiness that were captured on video–a four-minute long coughing fit, a collapse as her legs uncontrollably wobbled, and a Marty Feldman-wild eyes moment.

Can Clinton endure 90 minutes on her feet with no commercial breaks? Or bathroom or coughing breaks? While waiting for an opposing quarterback to throw an interception is generally not the best tactic of a successful NFL game plan, it certainly works well for the opponents of the Chicago Bears since Jay Cutler became their QB.

As for the Age of Television, and its cousin internet video, Trump is the master here. The billionaire real estate businessman hosted his popular Apprentice franchise for 11 years on NBC. Clinton, after nearly 40 years in public life, even on her increasingly few good days, still seems uncomfortable in front of TV cameras. Just as Nixon was, ironically. I mean this as a compliment: Trump is not a politician, he’s a TV star.  A skilled negotiator, Trump knows that if you get inside an opponents head, you’ve hobbled that person. Can Clinton debate the Trump on stage and the one in her head simultaneously?

Yes, Hillary can talk about details of police better than Trump. Will that matter?

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

Sure Trump can blow it for himself by meandering into an insult rant during the debate, or worse, he could offer a cruel quip if (or when?) Clinton shows another sign of ill health, which would probably result in voters sympathizing with the Democratic nominee.

Moving beyond Kennedy-Nixon, in 1980, Ronald Reagan–an actor by the way–appeared far more presidential than the policy wonk incumbent, Jimmy Carter. In 2000,  Al Gore’s imperiousness mixed with too much wonkishness gave voters the impression that he had been running for president since 1969.

Come to think of it, Hillary Clinton has been positioning herself for a presidential run since then too. You could not say that about George W. Bush in 2000. And of course you can’t say that about Donald Trump either.

Not that Trump is dumb, he isn’t. But people don’t like smartass know-it-alls.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

It’s been a couple of days since riots hit Charlotte over a black police officer shooting a black man.

There has been violence there has been looting but for a moment lets note one other thing.

One of the biggest worries for the Hillary Clinton campaign has been the indifference of black voters to her as a candidate. This has been a constant worry for national Democrats as they fear a drop in black turnout will hurt candidates all the way down the line. If they are to retain their power and influence and the money that comes from it, it is VITAL that the black vote be energized.

That’s why the facts in Charlotte don’t matter.

No amount of physical evidence concerning the suspect being shot will matter, no amount of looting caught on camera matters, no amount of violence by protesters matter, all that matters is advancing a narrative that energizes the black voter and prompts them to turn out to vote for Hillary clinton.

Now my newest writer JD Rucker things that this is a bad idea rather than a good one for the Clinton campaign:

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.

and his opinion is supported by this fact:

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton condemned the police shooting of Charlotte resident Keith Lamont Scott, but has yet to comment on the rioting which spread violence throughout the North Carolina city on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Rioting she dare not condemn.

But in the end I suspect the reality is that Clinton is in a lot more trouble than the MSM will admit and the big swing to Trump represented a lot of people who are no longer afraid to say they’re with him. Thus turning out the Black vote becomes even more vital, not only for Clinton but the Democrats as a whole and as they can’t point to actual progress for Black America in the Obama years the only way to do so is to create a racial incident in the hopes of generating anger.

For this reason I suspect national Democrats consider Charlotte a godsend, a risky one to be sure, but as their panic in the party increases any methods however risky will be considered legit.

Fyi: If you wondered why the left has embraced the idea of relative truth, now you know.


If you want to support conservative writers 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



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.

I’ve been a regular visitor at Real Clear Politics for many years. It’s a very interesting website, especially when you look at the trends in headlines.

One emerging trend is the combination of the words fail (or failure) and Clinton. You find it three times today:
Will Democratic Success Breed Clinton’s Failure?
Clinton Air War Fails to Sink Trump
Hillary Clinton Is a Failure at Fighting Terrorism

In the first article, Michael Barone asks,

The Obama 2012 campaign showed that organization and data-mongering are most useful when messages are conveyed not by TV spots or robocalls but by actual volunteers concerned about similar issues. How many of these can Hillary Clinton inspire?

In the second article, Niail Stanage points out that Clinton’s campaign is outspending Trump’s 5:1, to little effect,

When outside groups supporting Clinton’s candidacy were included, the total spend on her side reached $156.6 million. The comparable figure for all pro-Trump advertising was $33.6 million.

Clinton is a slight favorite in the race, but the huge disparity in spending has failed to break the contest open. Data website FiveThirtyEight gave Clinton a 56 percent chance of winning as of Tuesday afternoon, while the RealClearPolitics average of national polls showed her with an edge of about 1 percentage point.

In the third, Charles Hurt describes Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State as

a woman who has been a cornerstone of the current administration’s foreign policy who failed to develop even the slightest strategy for fighting terrorism or, at the very least, keeping it off of America’s shores.

But wait, didn’t the media and the Dems (but I repeat myself) assure us that Hillary was unstoppable?

Could it be that a larger segment of the American public finds her dishonest, untrustworthy, a liar, and gasp! unlikeable enough they won’t vote for her?

I don’t know about the polls. I do know that last Friday Donald Trump managed to convince 8,000 people to attend his Miami rally. Now, let me point out a number of things:
Friday night is a big night in Miami – lots and lots of clubs and restaurants attract thousands of regulars.
Last Friday night there were two big concerts, Kanye West and Meghan Trainor. Traffic was expected to be so bad the Miami Herald ran an article telling people to stay away from downtown.

Eight thousand people showed up on short notice anyway; many were turned away at the door. Trump took Hillary’s Deplorables theme and ran away with it. Before the rally he visited Little Haiti.

The last time Hillary held a rally in Miami, 1,500 people turned up. This week Hillary is canceling events, no reason given.

We’ll see if she shows up at the debates.

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

Crashed like a rock this afternoon and so instead of FINALLY getting back to the story of my trip to alabama (whose story was partially destroyed in the great website crash of this week.) let’s take a look at three stories dripping with Irony this election season.

BLM matter leader mugged by reality:

There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal mugged by reality. I guess this applies to Black Lives Matter members too:

A University of Houston grad student active in the local Black Lives Matter movement is suddenly all for police patrols in his neighborhood — after he was robbed at gunpoint outside his apartment.

That can’t be right, we all know that the primary danger to young black men are evil police aren’t they?

Jerry Ford Jr., described as one the leaders of the BLM movement on campus, tells KTRK that he spotted the young man loitering outside his apartment one evening last week but thought little of it. But when he went to unlock the door, the man pulled a gun and stole Ford’s wallet and cell phone.

Ford lives at an apartment complex just a few blocks from the UH campus in an area that has seen a spate of robberies and thefts in recent weeks, including the burglary of dozens of vehicles. Because the housing is off-campus, it is not patrolled by University of Houston police officers. Ford says that needs to change.

Of course even being robbed doesn’t change some things

“I would’ve gave him money,” he said. “I would’ve talked to him because the real crime is why is he in that position that he feels the need to come and hang out at a college campus and rob people of stuff they worked for.”

But this doesn’t make things any less ironic

Ford, who is running for Texas State Representative, is one of the leaders of the Houston chapter of Black Lives Matter. The group has, among other things, supported the divestment of police forces around the country

and And the ultimate Irony:

Houston police say the suspect is a black man around 30 years old, 5’6 to 5’7, around 150 pounds with medium dreadlocks. He was wearing dark shorts and a camouflage shirt. If you have any information on this robbery, you’re asked to call Crime stoppers at 713-222-TIPS(8477).

this explains why CNN et/all doesn’t consider this a national story. I suspect this young man will go all Jessie Jackson when walking the streets in the future

Even Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.”

Meanwhile it seems that it’s not just Black lives matter folks being mugged by reality as some Hillary Clinton donors have discovered that just because Hillary spends so much time with wealthy fund raisers that she’s not an elitist. She treats the poor the same as the rich, as a permanent source of revenue:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

And these small donors are giving us a preview of what a Clinton administration will look like

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”
The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,”

Shades of Bill in that last line.

I’m reminded of Mel Brooks old 2000 year old man bit with Carl Reiner when he said that Robin Hood rep for giving to the poor was only due to his PR man Marty that Robin in fact: “Stole from everyone and kept everything.” (see 17:05

That’s our Hillary an Equal Opportunity money grabber.


If you like what you see here and want to help cover these costs and others please consider hitting DaTipjar. I promise not to pull a Hillary and keep charging you without your consent.




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