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



Mary Cooper: Don’t tell me prayer doesn’t work

The Big Bang Theory The Electric Can Opener Fluctuation 2009

Last week at the time of this post I was getting ready to visit the EWTN studios where I would be part of the audience of Fr. Mitch’s TV show (as opposed to heading to the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament when this post was originally written before the great blog crash totally destroyed it) things were very different.

While Donald Trump had narrowed the gap a bit Democrats were feeling pretty confident. Hillary Had a solid lead. The impenetrable wall the MSM had put around her and her record was holding, she had avoided major gaffes and despite the Labor day FBI release of data showing not only more Hillary lies but that she had actual medial episodes affecting her memory and video of coughing fits the MSM had definitely and in unison declared that any person saying there was an issue with Hillary Clinton’s health was a conspiracy theorist as Stacy McCain noted:

This was a question raised last month by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in an interview on Fox News Sunday with host Shannon Bream:

“She has an entire media empire that…fails to point out several signs of illness by her. All you got to do is go online.”
Bream countered that Clinton’s campaign has vehemently denied the unsubstantiated claims she is in poor health, releasing medical records last year to prove her fitness.
“Go online and put down, ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ and take a look at the videos yourself,” Giuliani responded. . . .
Giuliani’s comments on Sunday came after a week in which Trump himself questioned Clinton’s “physical and mental stamina.”
The Democratic nominee’s campaign has accused Trump and his team of “peddling deranged conspiracy theories in a desperate attempt to change the subject – this time with absurd and debunked claims about Hillary Clinton’s health.”

In response, Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times took to Twitter to advocate that search results for videos about Hillary’s health should be suppressed: “Google should fix this. It shouldn’t give quarter to conspiracy theorists.” Is it Farhad Manjoo’s job to help elect Democrats?

Well, yes — yes it is. This is why New York Times pays his salary, because electing Democrats is what the New York Times is about.

Seven days later how things have changed.

Hillary found herself on the defensive as Matt Lauer questioned her on her record (causing the left in unison to attack him) her bucket of deplorables line has energized and engaged her opponents (to the point where the media is looking to identify individual bad actors out of tens of millions of Trump supporters to justify it) and above all thanks to video of her in physical distress causing her to leave a 9/11 ceremony in NY her health issues that the MSM could not deny they have officially stated her health is a legit issue and are openly talking about replacing her in case of a health emergency while at the same time trying to spin Mrs. Clinton “Pneumonia” as a sign of strength.

While this has been a horrible week for Hillary it can be said that the it has been almost as bad a week for the MSM that protects her as Larry O’Connor put it in a piece titled How the media failed America with the #HillarysHealth story.

But, despite the appearance of mea culpas from the likes of Chris Cillizza who just last weekchastised his colleagues (all from right-leaning outlets) for daring to ask questions about the ongoing coughing fits of the nominee. After a video captured the harrowing moment when Clinton collapsed while prematurely leaving the 9/11 event, Cillizza wrote on the same pages of the Washington Post that now, in his determination, these questions were legitimate.

Only now, because Cillizza says so.

And there in lies the problem. What fact-based source was motivating journalists for the past several months to not only ignore the questions regarding Clinton’s health, but, to aggressively and publicly shame and humiliate any reporter writing about their observations that, perhaps, Clinton was not the picture of health?  The good word of the Clinton campaign and the candidate, herself.

That’s right, the candidate with the lowest trustworthy ranking of any modern presidential candidate. The person known to skirt the truth if not lie outright on any issue that might make her or her husband look bad gave her own personal assurance to reporters that her health was fine.

And that was enough for them.

The real question is the title of the piece, was he referencing the media’s failure to report facts or the media’s failure to despite their best efforts to hide or spin them when the public was exposed to them before a spin could be agreed on (thus the whole “power through” meme) and CNN deciding Jake Tapper discovering that team Hillary didn’t bother with a doctor until she left her daughter’s apartment and went back home.

all of this brings to mind the Second Book of Samuel and what the Lord through the prophet Nathan said about David’s sins.

You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’

2 Samuel 12:12

It appears the same thing is happening with the media’s sins of omission.

Closing thought: I had thought that God had decided to honor the request of our cultural leaders to leave America alone, but perhaps he has decided to wait to make a final decision until after this election. But either way I will continue to when I pray the 4th Sorrowful mystery to ask both Mother Angelica and Justice Scalia to pray that decade with me for our country.

I would recommend this devotion to any other catholic out there.


It’s been a tough 24 hours here. We had a serious crash and burn that kept the site down for 8 hours and we had lost 9 months of work reduced to three posts, this being the 2nd one re-created. It cost $150 bucks to get things back up and I’m still getting bills from the Alabama trip.

If you like what you see here and want to help cover these costs and others 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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

911-des-plainesBy John Ruberry

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

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

wallace-road
Henry Wallace was pushed aside for Truman

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

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

And how sick was Roosevelt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

I saw this at redstate via hotair earlier today.

 

Hillary Clinton apparently suffered from some kind of medical issue today at an event to commemorate the events of 9/11 on this, the 15th anniversary of the attacks. It includes her having to physically be helped into her van as she appeared to be fainting.

 

The piece included tweets from fox’s Rick Leventhal saying this:

I instantly started checking the tV but saw nothing on it, later Redstate updated their story with this tweet.

Finally I saw this report on Fox

I then turned to CNN to see how they would report this, Fareed Zakaria was on so I went back later during reliable sources wondering how Brian Stelter would handle it.

Now I’ve been doing this for nearly 8 years and I’d like to think I’ve reached the point where the bias of the media doesn’t surprise me anymore. But bless his heart Stelter and company did their best to do so.

I’ve just sat through a Mr. Seltzer and a panel of three discuss the story, the only person I knew off the top of my head was the ultra far left Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation. UPDATE: another was David Zurawik of the Baltimore sun and the other Tara Sotmayor) They had very little to say about Hillary Clinton but a lot to say about Fox news. They had no problem using words like “conspiracy”, “irresponsible” and were united in painting the Fox story as poorly soured, overblown and attacking the network for reporting it. Nowhere on the panel was any person defending the story, or providing any balance and let me remind you this is a show about taking an unbiased look at the media.

Oddly enough they had no problem repeating the Hillary campaign claim over her being overcome by the heat without question. In fact as I type this at 11:44 AM they have just done so again before pivoting to hit Fox news again on a different story.

As of now 2 hours after Hillary Clinton’s “episode” 11:42 it is 83 in NY according the weather.com I’ve seen reports that it was 78 degrees at the time of the episode but either way I’d be very interested in hearing if there was anyone else in the crowd overcome by heat.

Now you might think that a show called “Reliable sources” would be very interested in not looking partisan particularly in an election year.

But lately the polls have been looking pretty bad for the Clinton’s and the episode was reported before the left could agree on spin, so there wasn’t time to put on the mask.

Even as I type Brian Stelter just talked about Hillary’s health issues being reported by “conservative outlets” but some reporters too as if any reporter who is a conservative can’t be trusted.

Journalists my ***

Update: Instalanche Thanks Glenn, Just back from Alabama covering a pilgrimage to EWTN lot of videos at my Youtube channel and several posts coming, meanwhile in a disasterous devleopment for the Clinton Campaign Jake Tapper is now live on CNN meaning that the network will practice actual journalism for a while.

In fact he just played the video of her stumbling.

Chris Cillizza hardest hit.

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign

That will leave a mark.

Update 2: The video

Update 3: If Hillary continues her freefall (in more ways than one) these new words from Glenn will be prophetic:

I’m seeing enough Dem pundits running with this as suddenly being a big story that I wonder if they’re looking for an excuse to dump her for someone who might beat Trump easily.

Hey they could have had Bernie who would have been a disaster for the country but could have beaten Trump with the MSM help but I think Tim Kaine would be able to win this election and if the Democrats come to that conclusion then I think Hillary is gone.

Update 4:
From the Washington Post article whose headline I quoted above:

“Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just an hour and thirty minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen,” spokesman Nick Merrill said. “During the ceremony, she felt overheated, so departed to go to her daughter’s apartment and is feeling much better.”

What that statement leaves out is that a) it came 90 minutes after Clinton left the ceremony b) reporters — or even a reporter — were not allowed to follow her and c) the temperature in New York City at the time of Clinton’s overheating was in the low 80s. (A heat wave over the eastern United States broke last night/this morning.)

Powerline:

One wonders, too, what will happen if she is unable to continue as the Democrats’ nominee. Is there a federal statute governing withdrawal of a presidential candidate? Is it up to the party to determine how to select a substitute nominee? I don’t know, but it is time to start researching the issue.

and a different writer updates.

I have the same questions as John. It’s one thing to replace a senate candidate (Torricelli, New Jersey), quite another a presidential candidate when each state has different ballot access rules and different deadlines for finalizing the ballot.

Legal Insurrection:

Well if nothing else it takes the conversation away from the “deplorable”

Scott Adams: “unelectable

when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority.

Hillary Clinton just became unelectable.

but as Twitchy notes others “unexpectedly” disagree

Note the time stamp he’s saying this not before additional information was available.

Update 5: The Hill reports the same thing I did with a VERY different take

CNN’s Brian Stelter explained his network’s waiting game in the below clip. He led a panel of guests, all of whom slammed Fox News for what they deemed to be irresponsible coverage. Most prominently, the Baltimore Sun‘s David Zurawik denounced Fox News’ quick characterization of the event as a “medical episode.” Indeed, that term immediately started trending on social media following the Fox News report. Zurawik described his reaction to hearing the term used by a mainstream outlet like Fox News:

While the entire video of the report was included read the story and note how they legitimize the whole critique to make CNN seem “reasonable” as their panel cries “conspiracy”

I’ll let you judge deal reader whose interpretation of CNN’s actions is correct, the Hill’s or mine.


If you like what you see here and want to help cover the costs 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



donthinkYou know he’s right…

Confidential. Secret. Top Secret. We hear these terms thrown around concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails. But what do they really mean? If you don’t handle classified information (and most of you don’t), it’s hard to understand the impact of losing classified materials. Worse, most security people aren’t going to comment on it, and aren’t even allowed to visit sites like Wikileaks.

To attempt to demonstrate the damage disclosure can have, let’s use a football analogy. Imagine you’re a college football coach and play against other rival teams in your conference. You are trying to keep your plays and recruiting strategy hidden from the other teams, who are trying to figure these out in order to beat you. By the way, you’re doing your own spying on them as well.

fantasyfootball

Confidential information is classified information that if revealed would cause damage. In our analogy, imagine if a rival coach got ahold of your weekly schedule while you were recruiting. He could see where you were traveling and who you were meeting, which he could use to craft a better deal to try and steal those people away from you. But if he only had a one-week schedule, it might damage your recuriting, but only for a limited time.

weeklycalendar
Recruiting in the south huh….not a chance!

Secret information would cause serious damage if revealed. If one of your players used a hidden video camera to tape a rival teams practice and key plays, that would give you a massive advantage over them. Not only that, but it would take some time for the team to build new plays, practice them and roll them out, which allows your team to pummel them during the season.

footballpracticeTriple option? Nobody uses that!

Top Secret information causes grave damage if revealed, and is often used to protect “sources and means.” In our example, imagine if we had hidden a wireless video camera that was capturing our rival teams every practice. If the rival team discovers that we have a video of one practice, they might not know about the hidden camera, just that someone at some point took a video. They might spend time building higher fences or trying to conduct practice at night, even though none of those actions block our hidden camera, because they only had access to our Secret information.

hiddencamera
Yup, keep building those walls higher…

But, if they discovered the existence of the hidden video camera, that would be really bad. First, it probably took us a lot of time and money to hide the camera, which is now wasted. Worse, what if our rival team is really cagey? They could run a fake practice where their team uses lineups that they know will make it into our hands, only to use different ones during an actual game. Their knowledge of the source of the information makes it Top Secret and gravely damages our ability to win a football game.

There is one more type of classified information called a Special Access Program. SAP is so sensitive that there is a separate access list for who can access the information. In fact, SAP may be so protected that unless the program manager tells you about it, you won’t even know it exists, and not even know its cover name.

specialaccessNext thing you’ll tell me is that it costs millions of dollars…

A football SAP would be if you as coach had a rival player that you were paying off to pass information about that rival team. You wouldn’t risk telling your players about it. If your rival coach figured it out, the player could be banned and you could face expulsion from the conference and get fired. Disclosure would be catastrophic and cost you dearly.

So while the loss of any classified hurts, there is a scale for it. Confidential hurts in the short term, Secret a lot more, and Top Secret and SAP will almost definitely get people killed and cost millions of taxpayer dollars to fix. So when Snowden sells our Top Secret information to the Russians, he is not just a traitor, but he is costing you and every other taxpayer millions of dollars for the intelligence community to try and rebuild new access.

When the breach consists of multiple thousands of emails, containing information ranging all the way up to SAP and was caused by gross negligence, yes, you should be angry.


This post solely represents the view of the author and does not represent the official views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other branch of the US government. It also doesn’t contain any classified information, unlike some people’s emails floating around on the Internet.


If you liked this, you might like reading my thoughts on Darth Vader, and maybe even buy my Kids Book on the Navy.

Katherine McClintock: [after walking out of her bedroom to find G.W. and Mrs. Warren at the bottom of the stairs] What’s going on here?
George Washington McLintock: [Intoxicated, with Mrs. Warren sitting on his lap] Now Katherine, are you going to believe what you see, or what I tell you?

McLintock! 1963

While I was traveling to Alabama for the WQPH Pilgrimage retreat at St. Bernard Abbey & the EWTN Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament yesterday interviewing business owners and monks, Hillary Clinton was on the campaign trail and reminded everyone why her campaign doesn’t like questions about her health:

Now I give her full comic marks for the “Every time I think about Trump, I get allergic.” line, but this can’t be a good thing the weekend that an FBI report came out with Mrs. Clinton claimed her inability to remember briefings was due to a concussion and reports that Dr. Drew lost his CNN show for questioning her health.

Now of all the reasons why I object to Hillary Clinton as a potential president her health is the one I blame her the least for, it is what it is and that’s likely not in her control, but what I CAN do is call out NBC for this pathetic attempt to explain this coughing fit away:

Clinton’s conservative opponents have sought to raise questions about her health, though they have produced no evidence to indicate she is unwell.

That last line is pretty cute as it is Mrs. Clinton her own remarks to the FBI that has produced evidence that she is unwell not to mention that the article itself said the following two paragraphs previously

The former secretary of state has suffered from coughing fits at times throughout the Democratic presidential primary, but has not had a public coughing fit recently. However the frog in Clinton’s throat on Monday was one of the most aggressive she’s had during her 2016 run and left her almost unable to finish her remarks.

So I guess technically that line was true, her opponents have not produced evidence that she is unwell Mrs. Clinton has through her own testimony to the FBI & this public coughing fits.

But of all the lines in this story the most comical one was this:

After the event, campaign aides attributed it to allergies. Allergens were high in Northeast Ohio on Monday, according to pollen.com.

Well, if allergens were high in Northeast Ohio according to pollen.com and NBC is going to report this as the reason for her cough and then provide evidence to suggest it’s not odd that she’s coughing due to the pollen count there is one obvious question I have for them:

Where are all the other coughers?

It would seem to me that if a news organization is going to give credence “oh it’s just allergies” line and backs it up with a pollen count there should have been plenty of other people in the crowd coughing, or sneezing etc.   In fact given that allergies are pretty common and a large crowd at such an event (at least large by Clinton standards vs Trump standards) it’s inevitable that there should have been plenty of people in the crowd coughing up a storm just like Hillary and not only in the crowd but among the campaign staff and with the press corps.

So I’d like to know where NBC has the video of all the other people so overcome by the pollen count in the crowd coughing, wheezing etc due to the pollen count?  I’d be delighted to see it and I’m sure everyone else would too, unless of course you are going to argue that the members of the general pubic, the press corps and the Hillary Clinton staff has access to anti-allergy drugs that are either unavailable or more effective than those available to a former first lady.

Closing thought:  How much to you want to bet that the next time this happens a member of staff starts coughing for the sake of the “pollen count” meme?

Update: A great question on twitter as I announced this post as upcoming

Hey it’s not like we have 30 years of Hillary clinton video to look for this stuff do we?


My Trip to Alabama involves missing a week of work (and pay) not to mention the actual cost of the trip if you would like to help mitigate said costs please consider hitting DaTipJar below.




Olimometer 2.52

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

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



Sheldon:  Hello Penny. I realize you are currently in the mercy of your primitive biological urges. But, as you have an entire lifetime of poor decisions ahead of you, may I interrupt this one?

The Big Bang Theory:  The Electric Can Opener Fluctuation 2009

As a general rule one tends to give young people some slack. Young inexperienced people make foolish decisions and hopefully said decision don’t destroy their lives.

But I draw the line at celebrating bad decisions that give one a social disease for the rest of one’s life:

A Google search for “Ella Dawson herpes” produces more than 50,000 results. Why would parents pay nearly $50,000 a year for their daughter to attend college when the result of her “education” is that she becomes notorious for having an incurable sexually transmitted virus?

Also one would think the editor of a campus sex magazine gender/feminist/sexuality studies major : ” Planned Parenthood volunteer, a sexuality studies major, and everyone’s go-to friend when they had questions about losing their virginity.”  would know that the only type of “careful” that prevents genital herpes is to not have sex with infected people.

Of course I tend not to give a pass for one who considers aiding and abetting  the deaths of children for profit as a virtue but be that as it may.

The decision to try and comfort people who have made the same bad decision you have and are paying for it, is in fact a good thing (although I think encouraging folks to publicly inform the world of their disease is only good in the sense of warning a potential sexual partner) since self-hatred leads to horrible things.

But all other things aside (including the censorship of those who don’t agree with her) I’m certainly not going to give her a pass on this:

I’ve been a Hillary Clinton supporter for years now, but the importance of her campaign for President didn’t hit home with me until I watched her speech last week in Reno. I know so many writers who are terrified to even mention Breitbart by name online because we so often pay for it. There Hillary was, literally reading Breitbart headlines from the podium as the audience gasped. She was unafraid of the Alt-Right’s vulgar, distorted conspiracy theories, their character assassinations, their sexist photoshopped memes. And despite her fearlessness, she was able to recognize their danger without validating their ideology.

Think for a second what that paragraph means:

 It suggests that liberals are afraid to talk about Breitbart.com because they are unwilling to defend their opinions in the public square.

 It suggests that the critiques of Hillary Clinton are a bunch of conspiracy theories

 It suggests that speaking to a friendly crowd attacking one of the few outlets not in the tank for her is courage.

This is ignorance and idiocy on a grand scale and deserves an answer more detailed than the standard Stacy McCain putdown since many young people will read it and unfortunately buy it.

First of all the market place of ideas is where we decide what things are worthwhile and what are not.  If your ideas.  If your opinions which are constantly validated by major media all over the nation can’t stand critique by the readers of a single web site without you collapsing in terror than the problem is with you and your ideas which apparently have never been challenged.

Life is full of challenges, and the sooner one realises the thing to do is to face them the better, even more important one learns the most by defending one’s opinions, by critique.  If you never have those opinions challenged than when decisions based on said opinions fail you can’t cope and an inability to cope leads to an unhappy life.

And seriously you want to talk being silenced or harassed over speaking up talk to my youngest son who is your age about being a conservative on facebook.


Second when it comes to “conspiracies” concerning Hillary Clinton, I’m almost tempted to give her a pass as she was barely born when Bill Clinton was playing with Monica and wasn’t born when Hillary was helping him enable his assaults on Juanita Broaddrick.  Odds are she’s been spoon fed the “conspiracy” stuff since she entered school so I will live her and her readers with these questions:

Are the parents of the Americans left to die at Benghazi pushers of conspiracy theories?

When the FBI part of a conspiracy theory when they said your choice for president, Hillary Clinton was “careless” with classified data?

Is the act of aids to the secretary of state smashing one’s cell phones and ipads with hammers, per the FBI report, consistent with the idea that suggesting she had something to hide is a “conspiracy”

As Mrs. Clinton’s asserted to the FBI that her inability to remember key information was due to her concussion, does that make her part of the “conspiracy” concerning her health?

And that’s not even comparing the video of what she was claiming a year ago to what is now known to be true per the FBI.


Finally the idea that Hillary is showing courage by critiquing her critics in front of a friendly crowd.

Seriously?

You have a woman who has not held a press conference in 2016 because she is afraid of facing questions from a press corps that overwhelmingly favors her election and you think she’s courageous for telling a group of people who love her that a group of people they mutually hate are bad?

Yeah that takes a lot of courage.

You want a brave woman try  Pam Geller.  She is constantly challenged, harassed and even deals with attempts to murder her, yet she doesn’t falter, doesn’t whine or even try to censor her foes.  No she stands up in the marketplace of ideas and fights.  She stands up to people trying to kill her even as the majority of the media blast her for it.

That is a strong woman.  Not a wealthy protected pol who has spent the last 20 years being affirmed by everyone in sight.


Now again Ms. Dawson is only 23 or 24 years old and I thought I knew a lot more than I actually did at her age so perhaps we can chalk it down to the ignorance of youth.

But if you are a young person may I submit and suggest that taking the advice of one displaying said ignorance, particularly one who is not able to handle being challenged on it, is a very bad idea.

Closing thought, feel free to disagree loudly both here and on twitter, I promise not to try to have you silenced for it although I reserve the right to edit any vulgarities you choose to leave on my site.



If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipjar




Olimometer 2.52

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

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



Do people with nothing to hide destroy their electronic devices with hammers?

And remember it’s not me saying this, it’s the FBI.

When Clinton supporters deny wrongdoing or even the intent of wrongdoing they insult my intelligence for the sake of the narrative, like these guys.

I’m asking this question now because by this time next year It might be illegal to do so.

FYI for those Pro-Hillary folks who with righteous offense answer with “Well what about Trump?”  The difference between us is plain. I don’t pretend Trump is anything other than what he is nor insist on anyone believing convenient fictions to justify a vote for him .

 

 

 

 

disillusionedby baldilocks

It’s an odd feeling to begin to believe that you wasted your youth. It’s what I’m beginning to believe about my own.

Back when I was a skinny little critter, I wasn’t popping out illegitimate babies or selling/smoking weed or selling/shooting heroin or streetwalking or being a groupie to sports/pop music icons. I spent my youth as an enlisted woman in the USAF, and held a compartmented security clearance during the last “battles” of the Cold War.

We won, they tell me.

My DD Form 214—Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty—states that I had these two specialties (jobs): 1) Germanic Crypto Linguist, and 2) Slavic Crypto Linguist, Russian. Long-term training is required for the languages alone; that part comes first. Then there’s the second part of the training, the classified part–the part which one doesn’t even get to experience if something icky is uncovered in the background check. (When that happens, the person is pulled out of training altogether and, if they are lucky, they’re assigned another specialty. Unluckiness gets one kicked out.)

In this other part of the training, we learned all about our security clearances, how to handle classified information, the penalties for mishandling classified information, and what to do when mistakes are made. This very pertinent information is instilled and measured–tested–before any sensitive information is revealed to us.

It isn’t rocket science and, if I recall correctly, it takes only a few days. Most of us had high school diplomas only or a bit of “higher” education and very few of us were over 25 years old. It’s true, however, that we qualified for the specialty because of our measured high ability to remember when to breathe and remember when not to.

After that, there was the job itself. Stressful at times, but the great thing about it was that we knew why we were doing it and we knew who our enemies were–or so it seemed at the time. And after the victory was won, it was comforting to have been a tiny part of that.

Again, so it seemed at the time.

It was good for my personal self-respect to know that I was capable of loyalty and able to keep a secret—and not just because I would go to jail if I didn’t, but because I had given my word. These days, this is called adulting.

There are a few who held the linguist specialty who broke their word; the one referenced in the link defected to East Germany, had to spend some time in prison and, poetically just, is stateless. (Allegedly, he’s here in the USA and is, I guess, just another illegal alien.)

The rest of us are proud of what we achieved…but, as I look at the Labor Day weekend sub rosa news, I wonder whether we really achieved anything.

Hillary Clinton, wife of a former US President, a former US Senator, a former US Secretary of State, and the 2016 Democrat Party nominee for US President herself, has blatantly and openly violated everything for which I and many of my oldest, dearest friends stood.

But she hasn’t been charged with any of the TENS OF THOUSANDS security clearance breaches which she knowingly and willfully committed. She says that she can’t remember anything about it.

My black ass.

And the worst thing is that the investigative arm of this government admits it and will do nothing. She won’t serve time for treason or spend any time stateless. And she knew that long ago, knew before the first server was planted in her house. And now, so do we.

I should have spent the 1980s smoking weed.

BTW: Day 25 of not smoking anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother Teresa will be canonized on September 4, giving formal acknowledgment of the obvious: she led a life of heroic virtue in service to others. She’s worth emulating. Her work took her around the world, and she spent time with all kinds of world leaders. In 1994, she was the main speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. President and Mrs. Clinton were there. Mother Teresa’s words moved nearly everyone in the room to give her a standing ovation at one point. Remaining seated were the Clintons, who couldn’t quite work up the same enthusiasm for what they were hearing.

One wonders what will go through Hillary Clinton’s head as the canonization nudges her off the “trending” list for an hour or so. Will the event rate a remark from the presidential candidate?

Mother Teresa started out mildly enough at the prayer breakfast, with the prayer of St. Francis. “Make me an instrument of your peace…” Then she spoke about human dignity, service to the poor, aid to the dying, support for families. Who could object? But then she just had to get to the topic everyone knew she would, however much it might make her listeners squirm.

“…I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child…I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption – by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: ‘Please don’t destroy the child; we will take the child.’ So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: ‘Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.’ And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child – but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said. ‘Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me.’ By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.” [Find the full transcript at priestsforlife.org.]

Boom. That’s when the ovation began. It went on without Hillary Clinton’s participation. That much made the evening news.

Last January, Sean Fitzpatrick writing at Crisis magazine offered a postscript about the encounter between Mother Teresa and the First Lady.

“The address concluded, Mrs. Clinton noted the pointed nature of the nun’s words. ‘Mother Teresa was unerringly direct,’ the First Lady recounted. ‘She disagreed with my views on a woman’s right to choose and told me so.’ Tell her so she did; but though she was direct in her disagreement, she also offered something that Mrs. Clinton could applaud. Although Hillary Clinton was, and remains, a supporter of legalized abortion, she agreed with Mother Teresa that adoption was a preferable alternative. Speaking to her afterwards, Mother Teresa told Mrs. Clinton of her desire to continue her mission to find homes and families for orphaned, abandoned, and unwanted children by founding an adoption center in Washington, DC. She invited the First Lady to assist her in this endeavor, and brought Mrs. Clinton to India with her to witness her work firsthand.

“Mother Teresa’s motions were not wasted. When Hillary Clinton returned to Washington, she took up Mother Teresa’s request with a will. Keeping in contact with the saint who called her regularly to receive updates on her ‘center for babies,’ Hillary Clinton did the necessary legwork and succeeded in opening The Mother Teresa Home for Infant Children in 1995 in an affluent section of Washington, DC. Mother Teresa joined her for the opening, and two years later passed into the arms of her Lord. But she left a bright mark on the career of Hillary Clinton, who saw something remarkable in the tiny nun, and chose to do her bidding to help save lives. Mother Teresa inspired Mrs. Clinton to do a truly good work in spite of her dedicated promotion of Planned Parenthood’s agenda for ‘safe and legal’ abortions.

The center was quietly and unfortunately closed in 2002.”

The canonization will give Hillary Clinton an opportunity to point out Mother Teresa’s opposition to abortion, which she can contrast with her own reproductive-rights song and dance. Or, Hillary Clinton can take the high road, recall the work she and Mother Teresa did together, and say something like “let’s be more like her.”

Of course, if she doesn’t want to see more people like Mother Teresa, she could say that, too.

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

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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



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

Donald Trump heads to Mexico today to meet with president Enrique Peña Nieto. The ninety minute meeting is scheduled for 3pm Mexico time (2pm Eastern), after which Trump flies to Phoenix for his immigration speech.

Whether you like Trump or not, you must admit Trump has guts.

This week Mexican media have been obsessing over the sudden death of singer Juan Gabriel. Normally Spanish-language media in the U.S. dedicate most of their air time taking out the sledge-o-matic and going full Gallagher on Trump, but they are pikers compared to Mexican politicians and Peña Nieto himself, who has compared Trump to both Hitler and Mussolini.

By going to Mexico before today’s speech on immigration, Trump has everything to gain.

Larry O’Connor explains (emphasis added):

This is a chance for Trump to show that he can play the role of statesman and diplomat.

A fearless one at that,

After all, if he’s willing to meet with the Mexican President after all of the rhetoric from his campaign and the vitriol from critics of his order security policy, he could do business with anyone. The meeting cuts directly across one of the more effective memes of the Clinton campaign in which the former Secretary of State has been able to capitalize on the perception that Trump is an inexperienced loose cannon who would embarrass the United States on the international stage.

If Pena Nieto decides to grandstand and trash Trump after the meeting by suggesting that he is unqualified to deal with international issues, he could actually help Trump by making the GOP candidate look like “the bigger man” and allow the billionaire real estate magnet to proclaim that it’s the Mexican government that is intransigent and this is why the US needs to take a hard line.

And, to top it off, Trump can claim in his immigration speech that he pressured Peña Nieto into listening to him.

Never mind that Peña Nieto invited both candidates; “The world is run by those who show up”, and Trump is the one who showed up for the meeting.

The Hillary campaign is having conniptions. Trump went to Louisiana to bring flood aid, while Obama played golf. Trump’s now in Mexico while Hillary seethes.

While Hillary is trying to run the clock to the November election, don’t forget there’s the “days since she gave a press conference clock,” too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is why

nbc copywright

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

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

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

Go to the Morning Joe site

Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine

Search for Donald Trump

Narrow the field to Morning Joe

Narrow the field to May 16th 2016

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

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

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

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

already saw the clip

remembered what show it was on

knew what day it was broadcast

And knew what time segment to look for 

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


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipjar




Olimometer 2.52

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

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



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

Reg:  All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Monty Python  Life of Brian 1979

Helen Ramirez: You want to know why I’m leaving?  Then listen.   Kane will be dead in half an hour.   And nobody’s going to do anything about it. And when he dies, this town dies too.   I can feel it.

High Noon 1952

Wednesday I wrote about how the situation in Louisiana doesn’t help the MSM’s cause and how it’s affects their coverage but there is another aspect that I’ve talked about before in these web pages that Rod Dreher mentioned in the piece I quoted that, that is worthy of its own post:

you would be hard-pressed to find a single church or Christian organization (like the school community of which I’m a part) that isn’t in some way helping flood victims. I’m not talking about simply giving money. I’m talking about doing sacrificial work to help those who are helpless.

This of course is no surprise to any Christian of any denomination as it echoes the words of St. James in his letter:

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?

James 2:15-16

Christians are not just called to be believers, we are called to be doers.  If you look at the Ten Commandments they are divided between the things we do based on our duty to God as his children and our duties to each other as brothers and sisters or as Christ put it.  

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?”

Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’  The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:28-31

This is the reason why as Matthew Kelly said:

Every single day the Catholic Church feeds more people, houses more people , clothes more people, visits more imprisoned people and educates more people than any other institution on the planet earth can ever hope to.

Worcester Mass. March 20th 2010

And you will find that if you go to your local church of any denomination, Catholic or Protestant you will find people either quietly or loudly doing all the good works that a lot of you.

The media has not talked about this, any more than they bothered to talk about Miravia or the Kolping Society or visitation house or the open arms society.

Why do I bring all this up, because Rod mentions something of interest concerning the upcoming election and the election of Hillary:

Some people say that loss of tax-exempt status, which is what many progressives would like to see happen to dissident churches, will be no big deal. Why should their tax dollars go to subsidize bigotry? they reason.

It will be a very big deal. All contributions to churches and Christian organizations doing relief work are tax-deductible at the present time. This will likely go away, dramatically hampering the resources available to conservative churches like Istrouma to help the suffering in instances like this. Far as I know, nobody has seen crews from the Human Rights Campaign mucking out houses or feeding refugees.

Of course if they lose their tax exemption, churches will still do these things. But they will have many fewer resources with which to do so. Progressives either have not thought about this, or, as I suspect, they just don’t care.

I guarantee you won’t see Jim Carville saying “this is saving people lives” in arguing against this.  Our liberal “friends” have embraced a different faith and that faith’s primary enemy is Christianity.

One of the worst things about all this, is many Christians don’t see it coming

I find that even at this late date, it is difficult to get ordinary Christians, including pastors, to understand the reality of what’s coming. You should believe David Gushee. He has done us all a favor here. He and his allies — that is, the entire American establishment — are going to do everything they possibly can to eliminate any place of retreat. When people say that if the Left has its way, there will be no Benedict Option places left to retreat to, I agree. That does not mean they will succeed, at least not at first, but it’s just a matter of time. This means that we will need the Benedict Option more than ever. The Ben Op is not about escapism; it’s about building the institutions and adopting the practices required for the church to be resilient, and even to thrive, under harsh conditions. The church will be under unprecedented pressure, legally and socially, to capitulate. But it will be possible to resist, though not without paying a high cost.

But the people who won’t see it coming are the poor, the indigent the destitute and those caught in disaster who will discover very quickly the difference between the church coming to help without question or condition in your time of trouble and relying on the state.

That’s how a culture dies and when it does it will be through our own actions and inactions.


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You asked for it.


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

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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



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

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

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

Here’s what I think:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s me.


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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



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

By John Ruberry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

I’m not sure why, since I don’t subscribe, but this NYT piece popped up in my news alerts on August 10:

Stress Over Family Finances Propelled Hillary Clinton Into Corporate World

Indeed, stress over family finances is what propels people into the ‘corporate world’; it’s what’s known as getting a job.

What follows should have the World’s Smallest Violin (WSV™) playing the world’s saddest song as background music:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Losing the governor’s race here in 1980 so shattered a young Bill Clinton that he could not face his supporters, so he sent his wife around to thank campaign workers instead. He later gathered with close friends for dinner but quietly sulked, playing the country song “I Don’t Know Whether to Kill Myself or Go Bowling” on the jukebox.

I don’t know whether to laugh or barf, but Bill should have torn himself away from the jukebox and personally thanked every supporter present. They had spent time and shed sweat and tears on his campaign.

But his wife had a more pressing concern: money. The ousted governor needed a job,

It just never crossed his mind that he could lose? And he had plenty of prospects – he had been a Rhodes Scholar and had a law degree from Yale; it’s not like the IHOP was the only choice. And guess what? There are people happily working at the IHOP!

the family needed a place to live,

There were no rental vacancies in the entire state of Arkansas?

and moving out of the governor’s mansion meant losing the help they had as they raised their 9-month-old daughter, Chelsea.

Because offering “the help” more money and better hours was out of the question?

The morning after the election, Hillary Clinton worked the phones from the mansion, calling wealthy friends and asking for help.

My wealthy friends know me as a responsible, self-reliant person that would not be “asking for help” under such circumstances.

Which is probably why we’re still friends.

Continuing,

Mr. Clinton was of little use as he fixated on voters’ rejection.

Useless putz. Or so are we led to believe, since it favors Future POTUS Hillary to be shown as wearing the pants in the family.

And for the first time, friends said, Mrs. Clinton glimpsed fragility in the future she had moved to Arkansas to pursue. She worried about saving for Chelsea’s college, caring for her aging parents,

You can hear a focus group being asked, “what are your financial concerns for the future, little people?”, and the writer incorporating that answer (“my kid’s college bills, my aging parents”) into her article, but here comes the punch line (wait for it)

and even possibly supporting herself

Again, she had prospects (see also Yale Law, Arkansas Bar Association). Punch line (emphasis added):

should the marriage or their political dreams dissolve.

Hmmm . . . is that the object of their marriage?

The article wouldn’t be half as ridiculous if it weren’t for this other August 10 story:

Judicial Watch today released 10 pages of new State Department records that include an email sent by State Department spokesman Brock Johnson alerting Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then Chief of Staff, that a “significant” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request had been made for records showing the number of email accounts used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Over at The Atlantic (not exactly an arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, or VRWC™), David A. Graham actually engages in journalism and offers From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer. Newly released emails show the complicated nature of ties between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton-led State Department—and the high risk of conflicts of interest.

Graham looks at the private email server, Hillary’s State Department emails, Benghazi, the conflicts of interest, Huma, the speaking fees, the Clinton Foundation, and even the Bad Old Days,

What is it? Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Travelgate.Vince Foster’s suicide. Juanita Broaddrick.

While the NYT plays the WSV™, The Atlantic is hitting with the anvil chorus.

There’s a good reason why Andrew Klavan calls the NYT “the former newspaper.”

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

At the NY Post today there is a story concerning Hillary Clinton and Pay for Play

Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.

As you might guess the 44 newly released emails with this information generated a quick response from Donald Trump:

The revelations drew a quick rebuke from Donald Trump’s campaign, which said: “This is yet more evidence that Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, character, stability and temperament to be within 1,000 miles of public power. She views public office as nothing more than a means to personal enrichment.”

The piece is titled Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme and it’s written by Daniel Halper and Bob Fredericks. It’s a good piece but I do have one quibble concerning it.

The title.

There are a lot of words you can use to accurately describe the history of Bill & Hillary Clinton when it comes to “pay for play” in Arkansas, the white house, the state department and the Clinton administration.

“Shocking” isn’t one of them.

It’s great being Hillary.

On consecutive days you read that she may need help clambering up the steps; that she can discuss Iranian scientists (who are later executed) on her unsecured emails while she was Secretary of State – while she allegedly overlapped her Clinton Foundation with her SoS job for fun and profit; that she can sit the father of the Orlando assassin in pride of place at her rally; and these stories parade like Olympians at the Rio opener, day after day.

Oh, I almost forgot,

And, absurdly, she can get away with all of this by virtue of her staying married to a chronic womanizer and alleged rapist, because electing a woman President would be “historic.”

Heck, Spanish-language TV’s Jaime Bayly, who has a long history of marital scandal himself, even praised her “lady-like reaction” to the Lewinsky scandal.

Ah, the irony.

Even Hillary’s TV ads are absurd: I was waiting for Michael Phelps to swim when they played a Hilary ad berating Trump for having his clothes made in China. Yes, Trump asked for that one, but in the greater scheme of things, outsourcing neckties is trivial compared to inviting the father of the perpetrator of the largest killing in Florida’s history to a rally in Kissimmee, and colluding to enrich yourself as Secretary of State while endangering untold number of lives, indeed, endangering the country.

That is, if you assume you are semi-rational.

The thing is, this is not a rational election cycle.

Not even semi-rational.

The GOP establishment ignored Trump’s ascendance, and after it became clear that the primary was down to a two-man race, did its outmost to discredit Ted Cruz while hoping for a brokered convention or some other miracle. Now they are tripping over themselves: Some talk outright capitulation, Ed Morrissey and Andrew Malcolm yesterday were discussing the virtue(s) of third-party candidate(s), while Bret Stephens

does not hide the fact that his plan is to help Hillary into the presidency with a “blow out” against Trump. Then, he figures, the rebellious Untermenschen of the Lumpenproletariat will come grovelling [sic] to the Establishment for its super-successful and popular policy mix of unchastened neocon foreign adventurism, favors for corporate cronies, and official, explicit Open Borders policy.

My reaction to the latter, as Ace puts it, is “Are you effing insane?” (well, maybe Ace used a different word).

Donald Trump, on his part – as Juliette points out – time and time again, has

failed to capitalized on some startling revelation about Hillary Clinton and, instead, overshadowed the revelation by saying something jaw-dropping of his own.

So we have two options: elect an unimpeachable President who will name four or five young liberal justices who will rule the country for 40 years, or Trump.

Yes, it’s that bad.

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

by baldilocks

I’ve been away from the Internet most of this morning and in the afternoon up to around 3PM PST. Earlier this morning, all the political talk was about the fact that Seddique Mateen, father of the Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen, appeared in privileged seats at a Hillary Clinton rally in Kissimmee, Florida—not far from Orlando. Mateen was interviewed by WPTV. The conversation is surreal (autoplay).

When I returned home, I figured this would still be the talk, but it isn’t. This is.

Donald Trump on Tuesday said “the Second Amendment people” may be the only way to stop Hillary Clinton from getting to appoint federal judges if she wins the presidential election in November.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” he said as an aside while smiling. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”

hillary-clinton-seddique-mateen
Clinton and her red-hatted special guest. Wouldn’t it be fun if it were a “Make America Great Again” cap?

Now, what he’s said is true, but I question the timing. Why? Because it isn’t the first time that Donald Trump failed to capitalized on some startling revelation about Hillary Clinton and, instead, overshadowed the revelation by saying something jaw-dropping of his own. Mr. Trump knows that most Big Media entities would prefer Clinton as president and are always looking to cast him in a bad light…or at least he should know that. (By the way, the Mateen appearance is the second unfavorable revelation about Clinton in as many days—though the one about her health is about six months old.)

It seems to me that Mr. Trump seems to have trouble going for Mrs. Clinton’s political jugular. And with his 2nd Amendment comments, he seems to make her a sympathetic figure and to demonize himself and proponents of the 2nd Amendment just in time to obscure the Mateen incident. One wonders why.

More at my blog after I get up to speed.

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

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

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

 

 

 

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – My thoughts are disjointed this week so this post probably will be as well, so bear with me.  My friend Smitty at The Other McCain sized up exactly how I’m feeling these days:

Regret that my 2016 Election Primal Scream Therapy has curtailed my blogging to the point of non-existence. Keep in mind that it’s all fun and games until junk gets real, states secede and armies march.

Yeah, so political blogging is so far from my radar right now.  This election is too important to not fight for, but I’m absolutely exhausted from arguing about it – it was bad enough in previous elections when I had to debate and fight the opposing side, but now we are debating and fighting against not just the opposing side, but half of our own.

I’m absolutely befuddled by the rationale of the “I can’t vote from Trump” people.  If that’s you, maybe you can explain it to me.

To illustrate my point, I was part of a conversation last week in which a conservative voter that I know stated that she could not vote for Trump and would probably vote for Gary Johnson because basically there is no difference between Trump and Hillary.  Putting aside the fact that Johnson doesn’t have a bleeding chance, it’s important to remember that at least to my knowledge, Trump hasn’t abandoned any of our Ambassadors in foreign countries to be killed, or our servicemen, for starters.  If he has a string of suspicious deaths, oh say like that of Vince Foster, behind him, I am unaware of it.

My conservative friend then said she would rather have McCain or Romney over our current president (but remember, she also advocated voting third party, aka throwing your vote away).  So…now I’m beginning to lose interest in this debate.

What is important to remember is that the next president will likely have the opportunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices.  We know who Hillary would appoint; can we say that for certain about Trump?  I’m not willing to give Hillary Clinton that power.

I’m so tired of irrational arguments like this.  Again, I know this election is too important for us to falter, but I’m sick to death of the so-called Conservatives pulling for Hillary now.

This is why I now just share pictures of rescue dogs on Facebook and spend my spare time playing PokemonGo.  In fact, I might just stay off of social media until November.

Sign me “Disillusioned” this week.

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

By John Ruberry

I overheard someone saying yesterday, “Did you you hear that Donald Trump hates babies? Yes, a baby was crying at one of his rallies and Trump said, ‘Get that baby out of here.'”

This person is a member of America’s largest voting bloc, the uninformed voter. He gets his news from his Facebook feed–FB’s trending topic page was recently exposed as biased against conservatives–and I suspect he doesn’t know who is state representative is or his member of Congress is. But presidential elections bring out uninformed voters at a higher rate than in off-year elections, which explains Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s wins in 2008 and 2012 and the Republican successes in 2010 and 2014.

Oh, about that baby. While there was some harmless banter between Trump and the baby’s mother, the media lied, particularly its headline writers. Low-information voters read headlines but are less willing to read articles because sometimes they contain ideas and words they may not understand. Or maybe the uninformed are lazy, which of course explains how they got that way.

Here’s an honest headline: Donald Trump did not tell the baby’s mother to leave his rally.

Who says so? The infant’s mom, that’s who.

The media created a firestorm over Trump’s feuding with Khizr Khan, the father of a US Army officer whose son was killed in a terror attack in Iraq. While the political newcomer would have been better off avoiding the dispute altogether, the dishonest mainstream media avoided mentioning Khan’s suspected ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood and his history of supporting sharia law.

John "Lee' Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Of more importance to the ordinary American is that Hillary Clinton flat-out lied to Fox News’ Chris Wallace about her email scandal last week. Specifically she lied about her lying–FBI director James Comey did not say Clinton was truthful about her explanations of her use of an unsecured email server while she served as Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

In an attempt to talk her way out of her self-inflicted mess, on Friday Clinton, in her first press conference of 2016, uttered a top-level gaffe, claiming that she “may have short-circuited” during the Wallace interview.

Is America ready for a president who short-circuits? Or one who is a serial liar?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Rather than a long essay lets cut to the chase on the difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama act 3.

Our friends in the press and in culture say we should judge Donald Trump unacceptable by his words. They don’t like what he’s said about the border, about Rosie O’Donnell, about Kahn, about Islamic Terror etc etc etc. By these words in their eyes Donald Trump is unacceptable as president of the united states

These same people however do not want us to Judge Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama by their deeds. From paying ransoms that finance terror to Iran for hostages (It’s not really ransom), for exposing classified data to the russians and lying directly about it repeatedly, Hillary Clinton actually left people to die in Benghazi, actually blamed a video for it, actually imprisoned the person who made said video.

Clinton’s actual policies turned victory in Iraq into defeat, Syria into a mess, created ISIS, destabilized Libya, enabled Russia in the Ukraine and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

And that’s not even going into using the Clinton foundation for payola or protecting Bill Clinton from the consequences of his actions when it comes to sexually abusing women.

And of course there are the policies that have set race relations back decades and have led to the targeted murder of police.

And the kicker, none of this has been done in secret, it’s been done in our full view and we’ve seen the consequences of these actions.

But the media tells us we have to vote for an incompetent corrupt failure like Hillary because Donald Trump is a loud mouth who goes off the reservation sometimes.

Seriously?

If we do this to ourselves and put this corrupt incompetent woman in charge we will deserve all the hell that comes from it and like actual Hell the worst part of it will be the knowledge that we choose to put ourselves there.

Update: Great Minds and all that

Ultimate Media Privilege: Hillary’s Crimes Versus Trump’s Mouth
Trump only ‘talks awful’—Hillary actually ‘does awful’

That’s about it.

Kazran:   Are you really a babysitter?
11th Doctor: (shows psychic paper) I think you’ll find I’m universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Kazran: It’s just a lot of wavy lines.
11th Doctor (looking at the paper)  Yeah, it’s shorted out. Finally, a lie too big.

Doctor Who A Christmas Carol 2010

My first thought when I saw this 5-3 ruling from the Supreme Court to Temporarily Block and order forcing transgender bathrooms on public school kids and reading that for the first time in my memory a liberal voted with conservatives put the stay on, was “Finally a lie too big for a liberal justice to go along with”.

But when I read these details:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to say that he concurred in the decision in part because granting the stay would “preserve the status quo” until the court has a chance to consider a petition for cert. “I vote to grant the application as a courtesy,”

and got a days sleep (working overnights you know) it hit me.

This isn’t about keeping the status quo before cert, this is about keeping the status quo concerning the perceived momentum in this election.

Right now the perception is (Regardless of the reality) that Trump is reeling yet in politics it doesn’t take much to change the conversation which is why the MSM didn’t bother to report much on the bus bombing in Paris or touch Mr. Kahn’s deleting, in classic Clinton style, his law firms’ web site.
However the transgender bathroom issue in public schools is an issue that can change that paradigm.

While the left has managed to push the culture to the brink of insanity & even some would say past it, we have not yet reached the point where anything near a majority of Americans believe that a person with a penis is a woman.

If Justice Breyer had voted with the left this would become a debate issue and then Hillary might find herself having to answer the one question that nobody in the MSM wants raised before the election:

At what age should a young girl be compelled, against her will by law to share a bathroom with a person who has fully developed male genitalia?

This question reveals the Transgender nonsense for what it is which is why it is not asked. The left can not let this question be asked and Hillary must not be made to answer.

Even worse the idea that Hillary would appoint justices who would answer that question with the age of five or under must NOT under any circumstance get into the heads of any voters in swing states, particularly not voters of color who might find this a bridge too far.

Justice Breyer wasn’t doing a courtesy to the state of Virginia, it was a courtesy to the Hillary Clinton campaign to keep things quiet till she is safely elected and this can be done to the American people by fiat in the classic liberal way.

Closing thought, if you are #nevertrump and this doesn’t convince you of the stakes we’re playing for here nothing will.


Don’t forget this is the 2nd week of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospect, You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



Mary Cooper: If you recall when you were little, we sat right here at this very spot and we talked about some of the problems you had getting along with the neighbor kids.
Sheldon Cooper: That was different. They were threatened by my intelligence and too stupid to know that’s why they hated me.
Mary Cooper: Oh, baby, they knew very well why they hated you.

The Big Bang Theory: The Electric Can Opener Fluctuation 2009

George Weigel the great Catholic public intellectual has put out a screed the talked of the path that lead him out of the Democrat party (via canon212.com)

Declaring myself a Democrat, however, became impossible in principle after the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

and into the GOP and suggest the nomination might lead to a 2nd exodus from a national party.

As a person who felt ethically compelled to publicly leave the GOP four years ago I can certainly sympathize but when I saw his argument or doing so

The Democratic Party once left me. Now, the Republican Party has left me by embracing Donald Trump, a man utterly unfit by experience, intellect, or character to be President of the United States (a trifecta of disqualifiers, I hasten to add, that I would also apply to Mrs. Clinton).

I had to not only disagree with Mr Weigel but submit and suggest that at least two of the qualities that by which he disqualifies Mr. Trump (experience & intellect) are at the very best misapplied and at worst stated with an assumed superiority reminiscent of Alexander Stevens’ Cornerstone speech.

First of all let’s deal with his first disqualification:  Experience.

The President of the United states is a person in an executive position whose primary duty is to set and manage the direction of the country. He has a vast amount of people below him whose job is to execute his vision of that direction and must deal with external forces both internal (Congress, the judiciary and the states) and external (foreign powers and business) that might interfere with said direction. To this he uses allies both internal (his party faithful) and external (friendly countries) his own power of personality and his ability to move public opinion to get things where he wants to go.

Is this not what Donald Trump has been doing for decades?

He has managed multiple businesses with vast international holdings into the directions he wishes to go. He employs a vast number of people to execute this vision and has deal with both the practical day to day operation of the business and external forces in terms of regulation and law not to mention both domestic and foreign pols looking for a handout to allow him to proceed toward his goals. He uses his own influence, wealth and personality both private and public to get things done.

Far from being unfit I think his experience is very much qualifies him for the position he is looking to fill, it’s just not the experience Mr. Weigel is accustomed to seeing applied to it. It’s analogous to Ty Cobb’s opinion of Babe Ruth. Cobb did not approve of Ruth power game yet he conceded that in the end it won ballgames. Moreover it is an experience mostly of success.

Furthermore I submit that it is in keeping with the principles of the founding fathers that a political leader be drawn from the non-political class.

Now lets look at Weigel’s next argument:  Intellect.

The “anti-intellect” argument is a familiar one, it was applied to Ronald Reagan by the Media and Democrats , it was applied to Lyndon Johnson who was derided as Rufus Cornpone within the Kennedy administration and it was applied to Lincoln by both Democrats outside his administration and republicans within it.

And like the foes of all of these men before him, they mistake his style for ignorance.

Donald Trump is a well educated man, he went to excellent schools and did well, he furthermore has, thanks to his wealth had access to and patronized some of the finest minds on the planet. The primary difference is that instead of applying said intellect to political theory he applied it to his business both in the form of reading the business climate and more importantly in reading people.  Moreover he has had to do this not only all over the country dealing with states and cities along the entire American political & cultural spectrum, but he has had to do so internationally, in Russia, China, Europe and the Middle East dealing with cultures as diverse as the entire human race.

Merriam Webster defines intellect as: the ability to think in a logical way

I would submit and suggest that Donald Trump entire career is the very definition of intellect, thinking in a logical way to achieve success. I would further suggest that his success this election cycle confirms this analysis, he saw the logical path to the nomination that everyone else missed because his logic, his intellect allowed him to think outside of the box that the professionals who have been pronouncing his doom for a year do.

Just like Forest, Lincoln, LBJ and Reagan did.

So much for lack of intellect.

Now Weigel’s third argument is Character and it’s an argument that may or may not be valid. There have been some things that Mr. Trump has done in this cycle, tactical or no, that I strongly disapprove of. In fact one of my own misgivings about Mr. Trump despite my eventual endorsement is I don’t have a sense of his core values and must trust others who know him for that assessment (they have been uniformly positive). I don’t know if Mr Weigel has had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Trump socially or of having a discussion with him so I can’t judge if his concerns are from personal experience or reputation. I would submit and suggest that lack of knowledge of a person’s character is not the same as having a bad character and presuming such on Mr. Trump part would do him an injustice but again not knowing Mr. Weigel’s source of his assessment and being confidence in Mr. Weigel’s good character I’m certainly not going to pass judgement on this assessment.

So that leaves Mr Weigel 1 out of three and while that’s good enough to lead the majors in batting many years I don’t think it’s enough to aid and abet the election of Hillary Clinton (whose lack of Character is not in doubt) by denying Mr. Trump his vote.

But in the end that’s Mr. Weigel’s decision and I respect his right to make the one he has, but I reserve the right to publicly disagree with it and urge others by this argument to avoid the same mistake.

Closing thought: By an odd irony Mr. Weigel application of lack of experience & intellect fails on the part of Mrs. Clinton too. Generically the positions she had held, Senator & Sec of State would suggest the experience to be president unfortunately her record in those position, unlike Donald Trump’s is one of continual and epic failure. I would also maintain that Mrs. Clinton has intellect, but it’s an intellect put in the service of aiding and abetting her corruption and defending it from discovery and punishment rather than an intellect put to use for the public good. Put simply Mrs. Clinton’s experience & intellect has been used Mr. Trump experience and intellect has been used to create while Mrs Clinton’s has been used to destroy.


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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



Pseudolus: [to Hysterium] Calm yourself down! I’ll tell you when it’s time to panic!
Miles Gloriosus: I smell mischief here!
Pseudolus:  It’s time.

A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum 1966

 

If Don Surber smokes he’s lighting a cigar right now because here is Nate silver site this morning

time to panic

It’s one thing for a guy like me or Glenn or Don Surber or Even Rush Limbaugh to tell Democrats that they are in trouble it’s another thing to be told this by Nate silver the day after the Democrat convention and a week of the MSM lionizing all they did and said.

If you thought you saw some low tactics before given the combination of Clinton & Obama Panic you ain’t seen nothing yet. How Donald Trump handles will make all the difference.

Closing thought, Fyi to Dr. Jill Stein be aware that as a clear and present threat to their power the same anvil aimed at Trump by Clinton/Obama/DNC is heading for you too.

Update: Instalanche thanks Glenn, I see Nate is already revising and viola Hillary is up 51.7 – 48.2 but consider that not only has Nate underreported Trump in the past this still means that Hillary’s post election bump, isn’t.

BTW we have a series of six new writers who will be trying out here over the next six weeks. They are Tech Knight, Christopher Harper, Rh/NG36B , Ellen Kolb, JD Rucker Jon Fournier Each will be writing a piece a week here for six weeks and the ones who draw the most hits (both in views and via DaTipJar) will be staying so give them a peek and help decide who joins our existing Magnificent seven writers.

Update 2: Meet the MSM’s New favorite Rookie poll

Unexpectedly that is.


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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



There is a lot of fuss about the “Historic” nature of Hillary Clinton’s nomination by the Democrats but I’ve not been one of them for a couple of reasons.

Either years ago when everyone saw “history” being made, I saw the raising of a corrupt chicago machine pol to the highest office in the land as was the recipe for disaster.

Likewise where people again see “history” I see the raising of a corrupt political insider whose basis for power was hitching herself to a man with great political skills which he used to feed his even more voracious sexual appetites by any means necessary, and sticking with him come hell or high water till she can ride his coattails to power. I don’t see something to celebrate.

However for those looking for an actual sign of history in the nomination of Hillary Clinton and proof that it was important for the cause of equal treatment for the sexes (as opposed to the Andrea Dworkin version of it) in this subheadline at the Wall Street Journal

Hillary Clinton’s Historic Moment Divides Generations of Women
Presidential candidacy reflects hard-fought gains in gender equality so widespread that some women see little urgency in crashing another barrier

and this quote repeated by the Daily Caller

“It never occurred to me that a woman couldn’t be president. I don’t feel like I have to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman,” Susan Willes, a 53-year-old Democrat who is undecided, told The WSJ.

While people may not realize it, that is the sign of incredible progress.

The greatest sign of inequality before within culture is urgency.  The whole idea that “We can never be a part of the culture until X happens to prove we belong.”

But the concept of the equality of the value of women and men in the workforce has so become the norm that women do not see the urgency of electing Hillary Clinton to change the culture and instead can judge her on her own merits.

And while that last paragraph strikes unmitigated fear in the hearts of Democrats it’s a sign that women have actually reached cultural equality in the workforce.

And hopefully they’ll prove it by rejecting Hillary Clinton as the abysmal failure she is.

Tangeltal musing:  This incidentally is why Christianity was so radical when it appeared on the scene.  The idea that all regardless of sex or position were equal before God was paradigm shifting, which is why is was and still is, so violently opposed.  And it was that concept that lead to the ideal of equality before the law.


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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



While the media touts the entitled one (you can watch her speech here), there were a number of things going on:

Signs of protest were made on the spot,

The California delegation walked out,

Hillary speaks loudly, slowly, enunciating c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y, and can’t let go of

her patented da-DA da-DA ta-TA cadence, which makes every sentence sound like every other.

And Bill dozed off.

At least Bill managed to wake up in time for the fireworks,

As I write this post, cable news channels are asking if Hillary got a convention bump in the ratings, and one of her people was essentially saying that Hillary will give a press conference when she’s good and ready. Her last press conference was on December 4, 2015, when she answered a measly seven questions from one reporter. Trump’s out there giving press conferences and talking to the media every waking moment, or so it seems.

Without a doubt, no matter how lackluster the candidate, the Democrats can put together a more slick convention than the Republicans, and count on the media’s complicity to minimize the above images of dissent, even as the ratings dropped on day 3.

The media hoped to declare this race over this morning. It isn’t.

But the real issue for conservatives and Republicans alike is (h/t Jim Geraghty) is that Dems understand incrementalism:

Democrats understand incrementalism and the long game in a way conservatives don’t seem to. They pass Obamacare. They wait out the storm. They contend that fixing Obamacare’s variety of problems can only be accomplished with more liberal policy. Move forward; push for more whenever the nation’s climate allows it. If not, they’ll be happy to appropriate whatever political vernacular allows them to retain their gains. Conservatives act like every stalemate is a bitter defeat and every small victory is useless. And here they are.

That is a long-term problem with the GOP.

The election is still months away. Pray for the U.S.A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



Don Surber has been nailing in on Trump a lot lately but he’s never nailed it as well has he has when talking the Bloomberg Hillary endorsement:

Mike Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, will endorse Hillary at the DNC convention.

That is great news for Trump…

…Rudy Giuliani endorsed Trump. He’s America’s Mayor.

Bloomberg is America’s Nanny. He tried to ban 7-Eleven Big Gulps. Outside of Manhattan, he is a joke.

This really sums it up well but there are two more points that are even better news for the Trump campaign.

While the NYC/DC centric media will be going on about how big this is will be interesting to see how the Black Lives Matter crowd at the DNC will react to a mayor who stood behind “stop and frisk” which they now consider an abomination.

And with the Bernie crowd already up in arms how will they react with yet another billionaire in the Hillary camp.

Don’t any of these people know how to play this game?

Frankly if Bloomberg’s goal was to hurt Trump I think this is a tactical error. He would have hurt Trump more by going Johnson/Weld.


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




Olimometer 2.52

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

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


Choose a Subscription level



By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — As we roll into the Democratic National Convention this week, I’d like to make a few simple observations.  Mind you, they are only my opinion, but here we go:

  • Hillary Clinton has no soul. The list of people who did not survive her evil machinations is legend.
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz got booed offstage in Philadelphia this morning for her part in the collusion against Bernie Sanders. Hello, Karma.
  • The DNC has built a four-mile, eight-foot fence around the convention site. Hello, Irony.
  • As expected, Donald Trump received a nice bounce in the polls after the RNC convention; you can probably expect Hillary to do the same. It happens every four years.
  • Clinton-Kaine says they won’t sling mud on Trump. What’s the over/under on how long that lasts?  Anyone?
  • How long before we start pricing Hillary’s wardrobe this week? Will she wear the $12,000 Armani jacket, or was that a one-time deal?
  • The RNC has released a new ad today about Hillary’s heavy baggage. This is a point I find interesting; I recently had a conversation with a twenty-something voter whom I know to have pretty good sense as a rule, but who is planning to vote for Hillary.  This voter had no clue about Whitewater or who Vince Foster was, and admitted to not really following the Benghazi tragedy. There are a lot of people like that; you might call them single-issue voters.  In this case, the person likes Hillary because he believes in gay rights and he thinks Trump is going to load all the illegals onto buses and ship them back to wherever they came from.  So, he likes Hillary.  It’s voters like this that concern me – they need to do more research and they need it presented to them in case they won’t do it themselves.  Benghazi is a big deal to me and I’m going to do all I can to be sure these younger voters and uninformed voters know about it.

The next week is going to be interesting; I don’t think I’ll be able to watch Hillary’s shrill nomination acceptance or her speech later.  Her voice makes my skin crawl.  I’ll read it, or read about it.  The convention will be filled with Hollywood star power and typical speeches about how wonderful the candidate is.  You know all this.

As for the Republicans and Trump, well, he wasn’t my first choice but he’s my candidate now.  He’s got faults and issues, but I do have confidence that he’s the right person now.  I’ve talked to a lot of people who say that they just aren’t going to vote – they can’t make themselves vote for either Trump or Hillary because they hate them both.  It’s the “I’ll sit this one out” folks that will hand this election to Hillary.

If you’re one of them, shame on you.

If you’re not one of them, you know people who are.  Talk to them.  It’s important.

And with that, let’s get this convention behind us so we can concentrate on November.

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.