Fact Check: Durham Was a Coverup

The Durham Report dropped last week, conveniently AFTER the statute of limitations expired on any crimes committed by the Democrat perpetrators.  The perps include Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and just about every member of the IC in the Obama and Biden administrations.  None can be charged, indicted, or held accountable due to the 5 year statute.  This was the purpose of the Durham affair; to run out the clock and tie it all up in an "investigation".  

I wrote about this Coup d'Etat 6 years ago and tied it back to Perkins Coie, the preferred Democrat lawfare front.  Here's what I wrote in October of 2017.  (Note the last 3 items on the list.  The Russia/Ukraine war was part of the plan!):    

_____________________________________________________________________________________

11/25/17

Almost everything that has happened in the last two years to damage Donald Trump stemmed from the infamous "dossier".  You remember, the one that triggered the whole Trump/Russia/Collusion meme?  Now we know it was a Hillary Clinton / DNC concoction.  According to The Washington Post, Marc Elias, counsel to the Clinton's and the DNC, paid for the "dossier".  It was then used as the basis for the investigations of the Trump campaign and transition by Barack Obama and his entire intelligence apparatus.  Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al all used a phony concocted dossier as their basis for wiretapping, unmasking, investigating, and sabotaging the Trump campaign and administration.

It was a conspiracy and a full-blown coup d'etat led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Here's a partial list of the events that have stemmed from the dirty "dossier":

The whole Russia/Collusion/Trump meme
FISA warrants for Trump associates
Massive (illegal) unmasking of private citizens
Firing of Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and others
Recusal of Jeff Sessions
The firing of James Comey
Appointment of Independent Counsel Robert Mueller by Rod Rosenstein
Buy-in from Obama's entire Intelligence Community, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Ongoing Senate and House investigations
Stalling of the Trump agenda in Congress
Calls for Trump's impeachment
Calls for war on Russia
Expelling of Russian diplomats
U.S. Troops deployed near Russia by Obama

The other part of all this, of course, was the assessment that the DNC and John Podesta email hacks were the work of the Russians and Vladimir Putin himself.  This assessment came from none other than the Obama FBI under James Comey.  But the FBI famously didn't do their own assessment because the DNC refused them access to their servers.  The assessment came instead from a private company called Crowdstrike.  Crowdstrike is a Google funded company, and Google parent chairman Eric Schmidt was a key player on the Hillary Clinton campaign

Andrew McCarthy at National Review notes that the same law firm that funded the dossier also retained Crowdstrike.  And all of it was conveniently done behind a wall of attorney client privilege.  What are the odds this same firm is involved in Uranium One? 

This all looks like corruption and abuse of power unprecedented in our lifetimes.  Not funny. 

[UPDATE]  As suspected, Perkins Coie, the law firm involved in the dossier and Crowdstrike, is also involved in Uranium One.  At a minimum, Uranium One's trademark was handled by Perkins Coie. 

This is who is listed as "Correspondent" for the trademark:
PATCHEN M. HAGGERTY 
PERKINS COIE LLP 
1201 3RD AVE STE 4900 
SEATTLE WA 98101-3099

Indeed, all roads lead to Perkins Coie when it comes to Clinton/Obama/Democrat/Russia collusion.     

Why The Pipe Bombs Did Not Come From A Conservative: [UPDATED]

Several prominent Democrats and Liberals recently received pipe bombs in the mail.  It goes without saying that this is wrong regardless of who did it.  And while I have no idea who actually did this, I have a pretty good idea who did NOT do it:  this was not done by a Conservative!

That doesn't mean it's necessarily  a "false flag" act by a Liberal.  It could be a deranged Liberal who hates these people.  It could be a deranged Liberal with a single issue gripe.  But it most likely is not a Conservative.

How can I be so sure?       

Pre-emptive political violence is a phenomenon of Liberal behavior.  Take the example of Presidential assassinations; no President has ever been assassinated by a Conservative:

• Lincoln, a Republican, was killed by a Democrat actor. (the Robert DeNiro or Alec Baldwin of his day?)
• Garfield, a Republican, was killed by a deranged person ostensibly from the same party, but he was a lawyer who spent time on a "free sex" commune.  No Conservative, he. 
• McKinley, a Republican, was killed by an Anarchist.
• Kennedy, a Democrat, was killed by a Communist.

What are the odds this is a coincidence?

And take for example what's been going on recently:

• Senator Rand Paul has been shot at, physically attacked at his home, and had his family threatened by an ax.  Three separate incidents, all by violent Liberals.
• Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman, has had constant threats on his life, the most recent resulting in the arrest of a Liberal who specifically threatened to murder his kids.  
• EPA Chief Scott Pruitt was verbally assaulted by a Liberal while dining in a restaurant.

And these were just the names beginning with "P" on a single recent news day!  I could go on with every other letter of the alphabet based on recent events, all the way up to and including today.  Nothing approaching this happened during Obama's eight years when Conservatives routinely but peacefully opposed his policies.

What explains this phenomenon?  

At the root of the Liberal/Conservative divide on violence are four intertwined dichotomies: 

First, at the base level, Liberals and Conservatives make decisions through different pathways. Liberals decide emotionally, and Conservatives decide rationally.  That’s not to say anyone makes decisions entirely one way or the other.  It's a matter of degree.  Think of the Yin Yang Taoist symbol where each side has a piece of the other.  Violence is an emotional response to political differences.   

The second part has to do with limiting principles.  A rational mind understands the concept of limiting principles and operates within those constraints.  An emotional mind knows no limits. Everything is on the table.  That’s why artists, musicians,  entertainers, and entrepreneurs tend to fit in the Liberal category.  These are the people you want to party with, and whose concerts you want tickets for.  But it’s also why violence is an option; if everything is on the table, nothing is not.

Third, is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives on the importance they place on the individual vs the collective.  Conservatives believe that individual rights are supreme over any group or collective.  Liberals believe the opposite, putting group and collective rights at the top.  Therefore, an individual or several individuals can literally become sacrifices to aid a group or a larger collective. Millions have been killed under this Liberal assumption in socialist countries by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.  A Conservative respects the rights of individuals, including Liberals, to live in peace.  Liberals have no such qualms.   

Fourth has to do with an understanding of the nature of man.  Conservatives intuitively understand that any sustainable system must acknowledge the nature of man.  Liberals believe that they can control men, essentially denying their nature.  This cannot be done without totalitarian control, and totalitarian control can only be obtained through force and violence.     

A nominal Republican or Trump supporter could indeed go haywire and send bombs to Liberals and Democrats, but it won't be a Conservative one.    

That, I can tell you!


[SIDE NOTE ON RACIST VIOLENCE]
Racist violence is usually portrayed as coming from the "far right", the implication being that it is Conservative violence.  It is not.  For example, when the "Alt-Right" marched in Charlottesville and a  participant drove into protesters killing a woman, the media portrayed this as being the act of a Conservative.  Watch this Prager U video below to understand why this is not the case.  (Hint: the alternative to the Right is the...Left.  Hence, the Alt-Right is actually Left and has three core beliefs that are in direct opposition to what Conservatives believe.  Watch the whole video:)



[UPDATE]
Well, of course he's been caught, and while he IS an outspoken Trump supporter... he's NOT any kind of conservative.  This perp is a career criminal / male stripper who's been exhibiting deranged behavior for 30 years.  His long list of prior arrests includes bomb threats, domestic violence, theft, and drugs.  He was a whack-job long before Donald Trump ever came on the scene.  Behold Cesar Sayoc, the new face of "conservatism" according to the Pop Media:

              

Mutually Assured Destruction - Trump vs Anti-Trump

The raids on Michael Cohen's office, home, and hotel room were an unprecedented escalation in "lawfare" - the weaponization of the legal system for political purposes.  If you can find me an example of Republicans conducting a similar raid on a private attorney involved in a political case against a Democrat, I'll buy you a steak dinner.  Heck, I'll buy you several.

Now, Rudy Giuliani has joined the President's legal team.  While this could mean any number of things, I'd like to focus on "Occam's Razor" - the principle that the simplest explanation often works best.  

First, Rudy is a friend of Trump's.  He's trusted.  Second, he used to run the Southern District of NY, which ostensibly did the raid on Cohen.  Finally, Giuliani just said he believes he can wrap up the Mueller investigation in a week or two!  How can he possibly think this, much less say it?  

I believe Rudy is not joining Trump's team to defend him.  He was never a defense attorney.  But he was a prosecutor.  And as a friend of Trump's, he's got some sense of "the art of the deal".    

By now it's apparent there is much to fret about in Democrat-land.  The DOJ IG, Michael Horowitz, is looming with multiple upcoming reports.  He just dropped a criminal referral on Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey's deputy director of the FBI.  The noose is tightening.  And among those feeling its pull are the entire upper echelon of the Obama administration, including Barack Obama himself.  

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, Samantha Power, Robert Mueller, top White House staff, Democrat party leadership, CIA, FBI, and DOJ leadership are all in jeopardy of being exposed for running what was apparently a coup d'etat against a duly elected President of the United States. They weaponized the federal government and used it illegally for political purposes. This is serious stuff.    

Meanwhile, Trump is in serious danger because his lawyer's records are now open to the very people running the coup!  

So, in comes Giuliani to make the case against mutually assured destruction.  In chess terms it goes something like this:  "Leave my King untouched and we won't take down your entire side of the board - King, Queen, Knights, Bishops, Rooks, and Pawns."

I'm not so sure this is going to work, but I think that's why Rudy is there.  

                    

EXCLUSIVE - The Democrat's Dirty Law Firm [UPDATED- TWICE]

There are three big scandals percolating right now involving Obama, Clinton, the DNC, and Russia. And all three trace back to a single law firm, Perkins Coie.

The Washington Post reported on 10/24 that the infamous dossier which was the basis for the entire Trump/Russia/collusion meme, was in fact funded by Hillary Clinton and the DNC through payments made to Marc Elias, a lawyer at Perkins Coie.

Then on 10/25, Andrew McCarthy reported that another Perkins Coie lawyer, Michael Sussman, was the person who hired Crowdstrike, the private company on whose word the FBI and 16 other intel agencies relied to determine that Russia hacked the DNC email accounts.

Now, there is evidence that the Uranium One scandal also traces back to Perkins Coie.

Uranium One is a uranium mining company that the Russians now own along with about 20% of all uranium in the U.S. thanks to the efforts of Barack Obama and the Clintons. The reason this is a scandal is that, aside from giving Russia control of our strategic nuclear material, hundreds of millions of dollars went to the Clintons as kickbacks despite Barack Obama having evidence of all kinds of criminal activity on the part the Russians in this transaction. A massive coverup kept congress and the public from learning anything about the criminal activity lest it damage Hillary's presidential aspirations. Now the whole affair has come to light and a gag order has been lifted on a key witness.

And again, Perkins Coie is at the center. This is significant because Obama and the Clintons claim they had little to do with Uranium One, yet of all the thousands of law firms in the U.S., it was their go-to law firm that handled the deal.

As a private firm it is impossible to know the full extent of their involvement, but at a minimum Uranium One's trademark application was handled by Perkins Coie:

This is who is listed as "Correspondent" for the trademark:

PATCHEN M. HAGGERTY
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
SEATTLE WA 98101-3099

What are the odds Perkins Coie handled the trademark and another firm did everything else?

Indeed, all roads lead to Perkins Coie when it comes to Clinton/Obama/Democrat/Russia scandals. It is often said, "Follow the money", and in this case all the money goes through Perkins Coie.

Maybe Jeff Sessions' DOJ should raid this law firm and get some hard answers about Obama and the Clintons colluding with the Russians and receiving millions of dollars in kickbacks. Attorney client privilege has limits when it comes to national security, abuse of power, and criminal activity.

[UPDATE] In September, John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz denied any involvement and knowledge of funding the Russian dossier in front of congressional investigators. We now know they were lying. And guess who was at their sides while they lied?

Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm [Perkins Coie] that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta's attorney and not as a witness. (Source: CNN)

[2nd UPDATE] Barack Obama, through his tax-free political fund, also gave about a million dollars to Perkins Coie, starting exactly when Perkins Coie began funding the Russian dossier.

An Actual Conspiracy and Coup d'Etat

(At the risk of being repetitious, I had to repost this clip.)

Almost everything that has happened in the last two years to damage Donald Trump stemmed from the infamous "dossier".  You remember, the one that triggered the whole Trump/Russia/Collusion meme?  Now we know it was a Hillary Clinton / DNC concoction.  According to The Washington Post, Marc Elias, counsel to the Clinton's and the DNC, paid for the "dossier".  It was then used as the basis for the investigations of the Trump campaign and transition by Barack Obama and his entire intelligence apparatus.  Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al all used a phony concocted dossier as their basis for wiretapping, unmasking, investigating, and sabotaging the Trump campaign and administration.

It was a conspiracy and a full-blown coup d'etat led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Here's a partial list of the events that have stemmed from the dirty "dossier":

The whole Russia/Collusion/Trump meme
FISA warrants for Trump associates
Massive (illegal) unmasking of private citizens
Firing of Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and others
Recusal of Jeff Sessions
The firing of James Comey
Appointment of Independent Counsel Robert Mueller by Rod Rosenstein
Buy-in from Obama's entire Intelligence Community, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Ongoing Senate and House investigations
Stalling of the Trump agenda in Congress
Calls for Trump's impeachment
Calls for war on Russia
Expelling of Russian diplomats
U.S. Troops deployed near Russia by Obama

The other part of all this, of course, was the assessment that the DNC and John Podesta email hacks were the work of the Russians and Vladimir Putin himself.  This assessment came from none other than the Obama FBI under James Comey.  But the FBI famously didn't do their own assessment because the DNC refused them access to their servers.  The assessment came instead from a private company called Crowdstrike.  Crowdstrike is a Google funded company, and Google parent chairman Eric Schmidt was a key player on the Hillary Clinton campaign

Andrew McCarthy at National Review notes that the same law firm that funded the dossier also retained Crowdstrike.  And all of it was conveniently done behind a wall of attorney client privilege.  What are the odds this same firm is involved in Uranium One? 

This all looks like corruption and abuse of power unprecedented in our lifetimes.  Not funny. 

[UPDATE]  As suspected, Perkins Coie, the law firm involved in the dossier and Crowdstrike, is also involved in Uranium One.  At a minimum, Uranium One's trademark was handled by Perkins Coie. 

This is who is listed as "Correspondent" for the trademark:
PATCHEN M. HAGGERTY 
PERKINS COIE LLP 
1201 3RD AVE STE 4900 
SEATTLE WA 98101-3099

Indeed, all roads lead to Perkins Coie when it comes to Clinton/Obama/Democrat/Russia collusion.     

Weinstein and the Clintons

In the wake of the deafening silence from the Clinton's now that their bestie Harvey Weinstein has been outed as a serial rapist and abuser of women, I thought it would be a good time to remind everyone who the Clinton's are.  (Also, a good reminder of who the NFL is too!)

    

Who Killed Seth Rich? (Revisited)

The news today is that according to an unconfirmed report, DNC staffer and murder victim Seth Rich may have contacted WikiLeaks shortly before his murder.  Immediately after his murder, Julian Assange suggested Rich was his source and offered a reward for information leading to his killer.

Additionally, the source of the new unconfirmed report said the DC police had been instructed to "stand down" in their investigation of Rich's murder.   Remember,  Rich was murdered two weeks before the DNC emails were released by WikiLeaks.

Here's my post from 8/22/16 regarding those events:

An intruder was spotted today, August 22nd, trying to scale the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Julian Assange has lived for the last four years.  The intruder successfully escaped capture.

This is significant because four people with access to information potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton have assumed room temperature in the last four months.  All under mysterious circumstances.

John Jones (upper left), lawyer for WikiLeak's Julian Assange, was mysteriously struck and killed by a train on April 21st in London.

John Ashe (upper right), an ex- UN official, was about to testify in a case that involved the DNC and certain Arkansas connections of the Clintons when he was found dead in his home gym on June 22nd.  His throat was reportedly crushed by a barbell.

Seth Rich (lower left),  a DNC staffer with Clinton ties, was mysteriously beaten and gunned down in Washington, DC. on July 10th.  Mr. Rich's death occurred about two weeks before WikiLeaks released their first batch of DNC email.   WikiLeak's Julian Assange recently suggested Mr. Rich was his source.  

Shawn Lucas (lower right) was found dead on August 2nd.  Mr. Lucas made a video that went viral showing him serving a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There are no reports yet of how he died.

Some have suggested I am engaging in "conspiracy theories" by listing these four mysterious deaths and noting their Clinton connections.  I am doing no such thing.  I am proposing no theories. Everything stated above is fact.  If you see a conspiracy here, that's on you.

If I was engaged in conspiracy theories, at a minimum I'd have mentioned the mysterious 1993 death of Clinton lawyer Vince Foster.  I purposely did not.  Nevertheless, there are conspiracy theorists out there who suggest the Clinton body-count numbers about fifty.  Here is a short list.

Here's the bottom line:  To this date there are no credible murder allegations against the Clintons, after almost four decades of public life.  There are, however, several credible rape allegations.   Oh, and also: abuse of power, perjury, witness tampering, felony mishandling of classified information, felony government records destruction, intimidation... (I'm sure I"m forgetting some).  Other than that, the Clintons are squeaky clean.

Cliff's Notes for Today's Headlines

Some shortcuts to understanding today’s headlines:

• Obamacare was passed on lies ("Premiums will go down by $2500", "If you like your ____, you can keep your ____", "It's not a tax", etc.) 
• The AHCA failed on truths ("It's not a repeal", "It keeps the Feds in-charge", "It's not what the people wanted", etc.) 
• Bill Clinton also failed to bring healthcare to a vote, and his presidency moved on (his impeachment was unrelated)
• Bill Clinton cut taxes AFTER losing on healthcare
• Barack Obama had much bigger majorities to pass Obamacare
• Obamacare took 15 months to get to a vote
• Barack Obama’s first priority was closing Guantanamo Bay, and it is still open
• No entitlement has ever been repealed without a Civil War
• Legislation begins in the House, then goes to the Senate, and ends on the President’s desk
• The AHCA was conceived and largely written by House leadership before Donald Trump’s election
• The GOP is NOT a monolith, unlike the DEMs, so when they run things it's a coalition type government (in other words, "This is what Democracy looks like!")

• The entire federal government and opposition media has been investigating Russia/Trump collusion for almost a year and yielded nothing
• The Clinton team had far more involvement with Russia than Trump
• No agency has publicly announced they are investigating whether or not Trump was improperly surveilled by the Obama administration
• We already know the Obama administration improperly used several federal agencies to prosecute, harass, and impede his opponents (IRS, DOJ, FBI, NHTSA, FDA, NLRB, and Fish and Wildlife, to name a few) 
• How can anyone doubt Obama could improperly handle surveillance on Team Trump?

-->

Dear Trump Haters...

Dear Trump Haters,

Hatred is a counterproductive emotion.  It saps your energy, hurts you more than the target of your hate, and rarely results in anything positive.  Of course, if you disagree with policies and methods, you have every right and obligation to criticize and make counter proposals.  But raw hatred should not be part of the equation.  It makes you look unhinged, especially when the object of your hate hasn't even taken office yet!  

Look, you had eight years to demonstrate the superiority of liberal totalitarianism. It didn't work. Now it's time to give constitutional freedom a chance. Is that what Trump will bring? Who knows. That's certainly what his cabinet choices look like.  

So, let's give the new President a chance to enact his vision. If it turns out to be just another version of totalitarianism, then it's time to ramp up the protests. And I'll be right there blogging against it! In the mean time, try to be civil. That's what we, who opposed liberal totalitarianism, did when Obama was the new guy. You are looking very bad in comparison.  

And consider this:                 

P.S.  Your candidate didn't lose because of Russians, Fake News, James Comey, Julian Assange, Misogyny, Racism, Fox News, or any one of the lame excuses you have come up with.  Deal with it. You lost. Grow up.  

Motor Voter and the Popular Vote

States that Issue Drivers Licenses to Unauthorized Immigrants 

2106 Election Results Map

Hillary Clinton supporters are claiming she should be President because she won the "popular vote".   Donald Trump created a firestorm in response when he tweeted that he would have won the popular vote if illegal votes were deducted.  All of this raises some interesting questions.

Did illegals vote?  If so how many?  Could it be enough to change the popular vote results?  But before we get to that, should we even look at the popular vote?    

How many Trump voters stayed home in states like California, New York, and Illinois because they knew their votes were meaningless in states that hadn't chosen a Republican since cars had cranks?You can't hold an election based on one set of rules and then scream foul when your losing candidate would have won based on some other hypothetical set of rules.

Think how this would work in sports.  The baseball World Series winner is determined by a best-of-seven series of games, and  this year the Chicago Cubs won four games and therefore won the series. But in the popular vote of runs scored, it was a tie!  Sometimes the losing team outscores the winner over the whole series, but they still lose, and no one claims otherwise.  

Same in football, where the only thing that matters is outscoring the opposing team at the end of an hour. But sometimes the team that loses has more offensive yards, dominates the clock, completes more passes, forces more turnovers, etc. But they still lose.

Only in politics do we play this game of retroactive rule making, and the reason we do so is based on pervasive ignorance about Federalism and the founding of the country.  But there are other more nefarious reasons.

Democrats have been on a decades long mission to encourage illegals to come into the country and vote. Statistically immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. In 1993 Democrat President Bill Clinton signed a law known as the Motor Voter bill which automatically registered anyone who applied for a drivers license or other government benefit.  The problem is that illegals and non-citizens can obtain drivers licenses in many states including California, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Vermont, Washington, Hawaii...

Say, that looks an awful lot like that blue election map at the top of the page! Interestingly, Utah is the only state that went red of the states that allow illegals to get drivers licenses. But Utah requests a picture I.D. to vote, and illegals are issued a distinctively different license.  In short, the correlation in the two maps is undeniably and statistically significant.

Here's a picture of Bill Clinton signing the Motor Voter bill.  Notice the two people standing directly behind him?  They are Francis Fox Piven and  Richard Cloward in the green and grey respectively, two radical Columbia University professors who advocated collapsing the U.S. by overloading it with dependents.

And here is Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, who studied at Columbia University while Cloward and Piven held court there, answering  a question with only one correct answer.   The question is essentially, "should illegals be afraid to vote?" His answer should have been, "they shouldn't vote because it's illegal".  That's not what he says though.  Watch:



So how many illegals and non-citizens voted in those Motor Voter states? How many voted in all the other states? There is no way to ever know because by Democrat design, when it comes to citizenship, voting in most states is done strictly on the honor system.  But the map speaks volumes.
     

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Warren Buffet is fond of saying, "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." The same concept applies to politics. Last Tuesday exposed not just some nudity, but the absolute derangement of the American Left. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed the losing side in an election behave more like deranged five-year-olds. There have been calls for violence, assassination, civil disobedience, riots, demonstrations, sit-ins, boycotts, etc. And in many cases they have already acted on those threats.  

Here's the upshot: The Left has been strictly relying on leftist news sources for more than a decade. Any news that did not fit within their narrative was not just ignored, but demeaned, vilified,  mocked, and marginalized.  Thus, the American Left has been radicalized.  

You would think after being blindsided by the results of an election in which they were fed a narrative they wanted to hear, that they would shun the leftist news sources that misled them so badly. Instead they are continuing down that same dead end by latching on to every meme they are fed by the propaganda machine:  Trump is a racist,  Bannon is a racist,  Giuliani is a racist, they are all fascists, Hitler, Goebbels, mean to puppies, etc. 

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Leftists might want to try opening their minds to news sources that are less agenda driven if they ever hope to emerge from their current derangement. 

(UPDATE:  Sessions is a racist, Pompeo is a racist, Flynn is a racist, and that's just Friday morning, 11/18.)       

The Caddyshack Election

If you are among the dazed and confused trying to understand how a boorish, showy, real-estate tycoon outsider just got elected President, I suggest you re-watch the classic 1980 snobs vs slobs comedy, "Caddyshack".

In "Caddyshack", Rodney Dangerfield plays Al Czervik, a boorish, showy, real-estate tycoon outsider who upsets the snobby establishment at a country club with the prophetic name, "Bushwood". The parallels between the movie and what just happened in the 2016 election are nothing short of astounding.  It's almost like the writers had a crystal ball and Donald Trump in mind when they created the Al Czervik character.

The central snob vs slob conflict is between the snobby Bushwood club president, Judge Smails played by Ted Knight, and the slobby outsider, Czervik, who is a guest at the club.

Dangerfield/Czervik trolls Knight/Smails relentlessly throughout the movie.  He gets under his skin by hurling insulting nicknames at him, breaking every club rule, mocking his fashion choices, and then finally by dropping anchor on his new yacht, "The Flying WASP".  As Smails is sobbing and watching his precious yacht sink, Czervik admonishes, "Hey, you scratched my anchor!"

In what may be the most relevant line of the movie, Czervik,  observing the "low-energy" music and dancing at Bushwood, blurts out, "Whaddaya say we bust up this joint?"  At which point he throws a handful of money at the bandstand, tells them to get some music lessons, and the place instantly transforms into a raucous disco.    

Smails assumes Czervik is visiting Bushwood to join the club, but Czervik has other ideas...

Smails - "You! You! You have worn out your welcome at Bushwood, Sir!
Czervik - "Is that so?  Who made you Pope of this dump?"
Smails - "Dump?  Bushwood a dump? Well, I'll guarantee you you'll never be a member here!"
Czervik - "Member? You think I'd join this crummy snobatorium?  This whole place sucks!
Smails - (stammering...)
Czervik - "That's right, it sucks!  Only reason I'm here is maybe I'll buy it!"
Smails -  "Buy bushwood!  Why you..."  (proceeds to try to strangle him)

Insulting comments about women abound.  "Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it!" "You're a lovely lady; you must have been something before electricity!" "Hey, you're a lot of woman; wanna make $14 dollars the hard way?" and  "He called me a baboon; thinks I'm his wife!"

In the only scene where Czervik is with a woman, she's a hot young blond in a tight red dress.

In another scene, after unabashedly farting loudly at the dinner table, Czervik has the whole table in hysterics saying, "That sounded like someone stepped on a duck!"

In just about every scene, Czervik is flaunting his wealth and generously tipping everyone he comes in contact with.  At one point he bribes the referee in the illicit golf tournament denouement.

He even brags about doing business with the Chinese. "We just bought property right behind the Great Wall; on the good side!"

This is not the first time a movie has been relevant to a political election.  Think about Barack Obama and "Blazing Saddles".  And then there was Ronald Reagan with "Knute Rockne, All American" and "Bedtime for Bonzo".

Of course there are limits to what we can learn about this election from a movie made in 1980.  But it is interesting that the most popular and enduring character from "Caddyshack" is Rodney Dangerfield's Al Czervik, the boorish, showy, real-estate tycoon outsider who upsets the snobby establishment.

My point is, if you are one of those disheartened souls in a funk over the outcome of this election, go watch "Caddyshack" and have a good laugh.  You might even learn why so many Americans took a chance on the outsider instead of opting for Mrs. Smails.

(Update: More parallels:   Mrs. Smails faints in the movie.  And Czervik only wins the denouement golf tournament after getting help from Danny Noonan (James Comey?), who turns on Smails. There's also an unlikely assist from Bill Murray's character whose pyrotechnics help sink the final putt (Julian Assange? Anthony Weiner?).)  

WTF Just Happened?

That was no election.  That was a counter revolution.  A complete repudiation of Obamunism, and a final verdict on the Clinton crime family.  Wow.

Though I am ebullient at the counter revolution, I feel no joy this morning in having a President Trump.  As I've said before, the country is a stage four cancer patient, and the best case scenario for President Trump is that he plays the role of strong chemotherapy.  We may get nauseous, we may lose our hair, and we may feel fatigued, but we may also go into remission.

Here's hoping for remission.
 

Can a Diet Book Explain 2016?

There's a great book about diet by Dr. Steven R. Gundry called, "Diet Evolution: Turn Off the Genes That Are Killing You and Your Waistline".  One of the premises of Dr. Gundry's book is that we are genetically programmed to pass our genes to the next generation, and that's about it.  After our child bearing years, our genes are looking for any excuse to kill us off and free-up resources for the next generation.  According to Gundry, our genes are constantly asking themselves, "Is this a successful animal?"  If yes, our genes let us live.  If no, they kill us off.

Here's how it works in practice.  Let's say your kids are grown, you are increasingly sedentary, carrying some extra pounds, and bored with your career.  Your genes are intently listening to these signals and can see that you are no longer a successful animal.  They can see that your mission to pass on your genes has been accomplished, that you're no longer a great hunter, that you are clearly eating more food than you need to survive, and that you are no longer happy with your contribution to society.  Bam!  Your genes quietly begin a self destruct sequence.   Before you know it you've got type two diabetes, high cholesterol, a weakened heart, mild depression.  Then it get's worse. 

In a way, it's a stark portrayal of our genetic makeup.  I'd always thought our genes were like Cubs fans who would cheer us on no matter what our faults.  Gundry says otherwise.  He says our genes are agnostic drones when it comes to our survival.  They just do what they do based on what they see. Our job then is to be successful animals so our genes will see value in keeping us around!

The same can be said about a nation.  (or city, state, planet, etc)  

Nations have genes just like animals.  A nation's genetic code is contained in its way of government and its borders.   The decision making parts of the gene are the individual minds of the citizens of a nation.  If the nation is successful, the decision will be to keep it around and pass the code onto the next generation.  If the nation is unsuccessful, the decision will be to kill it off.     

But nations don't die the same way as individual animals.  Whereas animals disappear from the earth forever,  nations disappear too, but their populations and land continue on.  How many times has Israel been conquered?  And yet there is currently an Israel once again with a new genetic code. Rome died, but there is still a Rome. The numerous Native American nations died, but there are still Native Americans.  Nazi Germany died, but there is still a Germany.  The U.S. died once in 1861, but it came back.  In all cases, though the nations died, the diminished populations and land soldiered on.  

2016 makes a little more sense when Gundry's theory is applied to the U.S..  Our genetic code is contained in our founding documents (The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights,  The Amendments, The Federalist) and our borders.  

Our founding documents can be boiled down to five big ideas: 

• individual liberty 
• limited government 
• rule of law 
• separation of powers 
• free markets

You don't need to be an expert to know that none of those ideas are robust in the U.S. in 2016.  Every one of them is under major assault.  The overarching shift is that individuals are no longer the building blocks of our helix.  Now it's government.  Our genetic code has been completely scrambled. Add to that our lack of enforced borders, and it becomes obvious that we are no longer a successful animal based on our founding genetic code.

How we got here is due to a combination of things.  Some of it can be attributed to complacency. Like the Romans, we got fat and happy.  Some of it came from outside forces.  Like Native Americans, our founding ideas got displaced by other ideas.  Some of it came from greed.  Like The Soviet Union, Americans wanted free stuff more than freedom.  Some of it is due to flaws in the original code.  Like slavery, there are built-in flaws from our founding which have allowed the Constitution to be subverted.  And some of it is just failure to pass along the genetic code to the next generation. 

But no matter how we got here, here we are.  So, just to drive the point home, if my Gundry analogy is correct, then everyone enthusiastically voting today, regardless of how they vote, is just a drone gene making a decision on how to best kill-off the U.S. of A.    

As they said in The Godfather, "It's just business."

Why Democrats Cannot Lose Peacetime National Elections (Updated)

(Updated to reflect that this only applies to the popular vote!  ;-) )  
Forget the polls.  Forget the pundits (present company excepted, of course).  Democrats cannot lose peacetime national popular elections ever again.  There are several reasons for this, but there is one overriding reality that drives all the others: Democrats are the party of Government, and government is now a clear majority of the U.S..

Average government spending amounted to about 65% of the private sector GDP during Obama's term.  Nothing close has ever occurred during peacetime in the U.S..

65% is an insurmountable majority for Democrats in popular votes.  Sorry.  That's just how it works in a democratic republic.

A picture is worth a thousand words:  

(All numbers are from usgovernmentspending.com.  Note: most of Obamacare is not included in any measure of government spending.  Although it is a massive new government program, the majority of the spending flows from citizen, to Insurance Co., and then back to other citizens, never touching government books.  Obamacare is an "off the books" entitlement.)    

    

Guess Who's Openly Encouraging Voter Fraud?

Behold the President of United States, under oath of office to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend The Constitution of The United States", as he openly encourages voter fraud.  The interviewer asks about voting while "undocumented", and Barack Obama unequivocally condones it.  He says, "If you want to vote... they can't stop you."  Then he repeats it so no one will misunderstand his message.  How is this not treason?  



Other than the fact that Obama is now stating this publicly, this strategy is nothing new.  In fact it goes back a half a century.

In 1966, Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven laid out a strategy to destroy the United States by overloading the system with dependents.  Barack Obama studied under Cloward and Piven as a student at Columbia University in the early 1980s.

But Obama was not their only pupil.  In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law something called "The Motor Voter Law", which attached voter registration to drivers licenses and other unrelated government interactions.  The plan was to encourage illegals to register, after which it would be impossible to prevent them from voting.

Here is Bill Clinton signing the Motor Voter law with Cloward and Piven standing behind him. (Richard Cloward is in the light grey suit, and Francis Fox Piven is in the green coat.)    

Now do you understand why Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, want open borders and no voter ID?  

Coexist?

Dear Democrats...

Dear Democrats,

Regardless of who we elect on Tuesday, this country is Humpty Dumpty...after the fall.   If you've been paying attention to the leaks gushing out of Washington just these last few days, you've become aware of gross corruption and malfeasance on the part of your party and candidate the likes of which have never been seen before. Meanwhile, the only alternative is in your eyes so deeply flawed that should he win, you will consider him illegitimate from day one.  As a country, we will be in pieces regardless.  Neither King Donald nor Queen Hillary, with all their horses and all their men, can ever put Humpty together again.

What we are witnessing is nothing short of the de-legitimization of the United States government, a condition that is unsustainable in a republic.   Since the founding of our country the losing side in Presidential elections always had a reasonable expectation that they would continue to be treated equally under the law.  That ship has sailed for huge segments of the population.

The danger of this is incalculable.  So, as we lie bleeding (figuratively) in the street, a nation torn apart, descending into perhaps permanent dissolution, I'd like to review some recent and illuminating history:

Richard Nixon, a Republican, resigned the presidency in the summer of 1974 under a cloud of scandal in what became known as Watergate.  The reason Nixon eventually resigned was that, despite his instinct to lie, deny, and run-out-the-clock, the "grey-beards" in his own party recognized his mendacity and showed him the door.

Shortly thereafter, today's Democrat party elders including the Clintons and Obamas were studiously absorbing a short book by Saul Alinsky called "Rules for Radicals".  It's a title which explains all you need to know about its contents.  "Rules for Radicals" accomplished two important things for the Democrats.  On a strategic level, it explained how "community organizers" could organize the unwitting masses into a radicalized army.  On a tactical level, it explained how to use that army to achieve radical redistributive ends.

Thus, when Bill Clinton's ship similarly ran aground on the shoals of numerous scandals - Whitewater, cattle futures, Rose Law Firm, FBI Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy, Juanita Broaddrick, impeachment, disbarment, etc. -  there was an organized radicalized army to keep him afloat.  There were no "grey-beards" in the Democrat Party to show him the door.  They'd all been radicalized. The entire Democrat party, which includes just about everyone in pop-media, pop-culture, and academia, circled the wagons and went into full lie and deny mode.  Bill Clinton not only survived, he left office with a 65% approval rating.

But for Bill Clinton to succeed, the entire body of the Democrat party had to sell its soul. They all had to become radical accomplices.   It was an amazing thing to watch.

After Bill Clinton's success, the radicalization of the Democrat party only accelerated.  Thus, the hapless George W. Bush, inheriting two remnants of the Bill Clinton years - Osama bin Laden and subprime mortgages - ended up getting tarred by both.  Radicalized Democrats succeeded in turning Bush into a lying killer (Bush lied, people died!) who crashed the U.S. financial system.  (Before you get too excited, yes, Bush was the President during the financial collapse, but it was Bill Clinton who created the subprime mortgage industry as a radical redistribution scheme to benefit Democrat constituents.  See Clinton's changes to The Community Reinvestment Act and his "affordable housing" initiative.)  Bush left office with a dismal 35% approval rating.

Enter "Rules for Radicals" finest student, most committed acolyte, and our first "community organizer" President,  Barack Hussein Obama.  In Obama the radicalization of the Democrat party reached its apex.  Not only would he have the radicalized army Bill Clinton had, but he also had the imprimatur of being the historical first black president.  Barack Obama was untouchable and governed as a radical accordingly.  

Thus, Obamacare, which re-wrote one-sixth of the U.S. economy, was passed without a single Republican vote.  The IRS selectively targets conservatives with impunity.  Non-union and conservative-owned companies are openly persecuted by an alphabet soup of federal agencies. Conservative filmmakers are jailed, audited and harassed. $14.5 trillion dollars (new debt plus Fed) has been borrowed and given to Democrat constituents. Our borders are open to anyone willing to vote Democrat. Islamic terrorism is now routine.  Cops are being assassinated in the street at a historical rate.  Inner-city riots are routine.  The DOJ is openly politicized.  Our Defense Dept. is stretched thin and neglected.  And our U.S. Constitution lies in tatters.

And the Democrat Party cheered all this on.  But now, thanks to the leaks coming out of Washington, you are seeing firsthand the corruption and malfeasance you now own.  Unfortunately you created a situation with no good options this time around.

You see, Donald Trump is a natural response to the radicalization of the Democrat Party. For decades, Republicans stood by and watched gentleman Republicans like the two Bushs, John McCain, and Mitt Romney get chewed-up and spit-out by your radicalized army.  They've had enough.  So, this time the GOP broke tradition and nominated a radical of their own.

Now we are stuck with two horrible choices next Tuesday, and for at least the next four years the "consent of the governed", an essential ingredient for the legitimacy of any government, will be largely absent.  We will be in uncharted waters for the first time since 1860.

Vladimir Lenin referred to the radicalized unwitting dupes as "useful idiots".  With all due respect Democrats, this is you.  And this election with all its tawdry stink, is entirely of your own doing.

Now, get off my lawn.    





    

  




 


  

The Skeptics Case for Trump - Now More than Ever

(First posted 9/23, but still holds up) 

Six Unconventional Pro-Trump Perspectives

Full disclosure:  I was a #NeverTrump-er before it got a hashtag.   Right after Trump announced, I called him a shock-jock and compared him to Howard Stern.  Later, I made a video parody of Caddyshack featuring Rodney Dangerfield’s character with Donald Trump’s voice.  I considered the whole thing to be good comedy.  Throughout the primaries,  I wrote often about how he was being an obnoxious jerk and was certainly not a conservative.  In short, I never thought Trump would go as far as he has. 

But he has, and as the primary wore on, he grew on me.  For one thing, he kept winning.  For another, he was fearless, tenacious, energetic, politically incorrect, and able to think on his feet.   That’s not to say I ever warmed to his demeanor.   Part of me still hasn’t.  I continue to cringe at the personal attacks, the name-calling, the hyperbole.  The difference is, at least now I understand why he does it. 

Trump is doing these things deliberately.  There is a method to his madness.   He’s following a game plan he wrote about thirty years ago that he developed for success in business.  Now he’s trying it out on the big stage of national politics.  He’s being far more strategic and consistent than he’s ever given credit for.  Apparently, Donald Trump believes in his strategy enough that he’s devoted himself to it, and is willing to win or lose based on it.         

I hope he wins.  I’m ready for a change.  

You see, I view this country as being a stage-four cancer patient; we are terminal.   Karl Marx is the most assigned economist at U.S. colleges, and has been for some time.  The government is fully unionized and is the biggest growth industry in the country.  In a blind test, most Americans would prefer the constitution of the old Soviet Union over our own.  Illegal and anchor immigration have permanently skewed our demographics toward third world voting patterns.  Progressive policies have destroyed the family structure in large segments of the population, relegating generations to the pathologies of failure.  And we have appeased aggression around the globe.  Stick a fork in it.  The U.S. as originally founded, on individual rights, free markets, limited government, checks and balances, national security, and rooted in a common moral code, is over. 

But like a cancer patient, we must seek all possibilities for remission.   Once in remission, we can hope for a cure.  No single presidency can cure us.  It could take generations.  The best we can hope for is some effective chemotherapy that buys us time.   In this election, Donald Trump, while not a cure, is our best hope for that.  We may get nauseous, we may lose our hair, we may feel drained, but President Trump could mean remission. 

Hillary Clinton is metastatic.   

Trump on Trump

A good place to start is this whole issue of demeanor.  Why all the personal attacks, the name-calling, the daily controversies, the hyperbole (aka bullshit)?  Many GOP stalwarts are particularly turned-off by Trumps demeanor.  Many women too.  He’s not playing the gentleman’s game of politics they are used to.  While it doesn't make it right, it is by design.  

"In most cases I'm very easy to get along with. I'm very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard."                                                                                                                                                     Donald Trump, “Art of the Deal”, 1987

This “attitude” of his to “fight back very hard” is why he has attacked John McCain, Megyn Kelly, The Khans, and numerous others.  It is an attitude that served him well in the competitive world of Manhattan real estate, but it has gotten him in lots of trouble lately.  It is obviously a risky strategy in national politics. 

One reason the attacks have hurt him so badly is that he’s doing it personally.  Trump has had to be his own one-man war-room.  He has a skeleton staff, spends almost no money on negative ads, and lacks even a party to fight for him.  He is waging asymmetrical warfare against a Democrat army.   

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has a Pentagon-sized war-room with an army of journalists, p.r. people, surrogates, bloggers, advertising professionals, and a weaponized DNC, who have all been attacking Clinton critics since 1992.  Like Trump, she is “fighting back very hard”, except she’s doing it without a trace of personal involvement.  It’s like her fingerprints have been wiped clean with BleachBit.

One side-note on Trump’s tendency to attack:  He was born at the same time and place as the saying, “nice guys finish last”.  Leo Durocher was the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers and coined that phrase around the summer of 1946.  Donald Trump was born that same summer, a stone’s throw away in Queens.   

As I’ll explain later, Trump’s "nice guys finish last" attitude has thrown the other side off their game.  It has done him some good.  But it has hurt him too.   

"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better...The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you." 

                                                                                     Donald Trump, “Art of the Deal”, 1987

Donald Trump is a veteran media maestro.  His very business model – branding his name – was achieved in large measure by being controversial and getting free media.  For years, his tabloid antics helped keep his name in the spotlight, and the Trump name was emblazoned on every one of his properties and projects.  Any publicity was good publicity as far as Trump Inc. was concerned.   

His presidential bid is using the same game plan.  By being “sensational”, “different”, “outrageous”, “bold”, and “controversial” he has managed to run a presidential race on the cheap with almost no staff or ground-game.  He’s been playing the media like a Stradivarius to get his name, face, and candidacy in the conversation every day.  That’s why he started this bid with the Obama birth certificate quest.  It made news. Trump is being sensational and outrageous by design.  Does he really think Mexico will pay for the wall?  Does he really think we should have seized Iraq’s oil?  All we know is what he reveals in his own book.

Last week was a vintage example of Trump playing the media.  He announced he was going to make a big statement about Barack Obama’s birthplace and invited all the media to a presser.  The networks all covered it live expecting a big announcement, but instead they got a lengthy parade of military endorsements for Trump.  At the very end he made a brief statement that Obama was born in the U.S.  The press went apoplectic.  They knew they’d been trolled.     

By trolling the media, he has been able to provoke them into over-reactions that backfire.  The public knows that calling a bomb, “a bomb”, is not an unreasonable assertion.  The public knows that a temporary halt to unscreened Muslim immigration is not outrageous in the context of a global jihad that has declared war on us.

    

Granted, Trump has tweaked the media so often that nearly all his coverage is negative at this point.   But that doesn’t seem to concern him… yet.  He seems to be banking on his ability to go directly to the voters, a la Ronald Reagan. 

     

"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."                                                                                                                          Donald Trump, “Art of the Deal”, 1987

Donald Trump really likes to throw in some “hyperbole”.  Again, does he really believe Mexico will pay for that wall?  Can President Trump really Make America Great Again?  Will he really be the best jobs President God ever created?  Does he really think America’s going to win so much we are going to be tired of winning?  All we know is that he knows he has to “deliver the goods”.    

And he has delivered.  He won the nomination, is rising in the polls, met with leaders from Mexico and Egypt and shockingly didn’t start any wars, has finally surrounded himself with competent campaign advisors, and has over-achieved by every single measure of a rank amateur in politics, let alone on the biggest stage - presidential politics.

He has also delivered the goods throughout his career.  No, not every project succeeded, as critics will point out.  But Steve Jobs had plenty of flops too along with his successes.  At least Trump never got booted from his own company.

“You always, when the service was over, you said, ‘I’d have sat there for another hour,’” Mr. Trump recalled. “There aren’t too many people like that. It wasn’t the speaking ability, it was the thought process.”    

                                      Donald Trump on Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, Minister at Marble Collegiate Church

Dr. Norman Vincent Peale is an often overlooked piece of the Donald Trump puzzle.  Beginning as a teenager, and continuing for decades,  he attended The Marble Collegiate Church, which was led by Dr. Peale, author of the bestselling book, "The Power of Positive Thinking".

The power of positive thinking, according to Peale, was that if you you could train your thought process to focus on positive visions of yourself, your abilities, your prospects, your achievements, etc., you could go as far as you wanted to go in life.  Nothing could stop you as long as you held firm to this positive picture.

Typical Peale quotes are:   "Change your thoughts and you change your world."   "There is a real magic in enthusiasm. It spells the difference between mediocrity and accomplishment."   "If you have zest and enthusiasm you attract zest and enthusiasm. Life does give back in kind."

You can hear echoes of Peale in every aspect of Trump's oversized positive image of himself, his abilities, and his accomplishments.  It's hard to deny Peale's power, though, when so many of those accomplishments are real.    

“While he may be the billionaire from New York … he’s much more of a blue-collar guy.”                                                        

                                                                                                                          Donald Trump Jr., 2016

Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, when Donald Trump was a household name and a fixture of the NY tabloids, I ran an industrial plant in the NY metropolitan area.  Trump was a surprisingly popular figure with the hourly plant workers, truck drivers, tradesmen, and office workers I worked with.  It struck me as odd that a brash billionaire with his name in big gold letters, flying around in a helicopter, with bejeweled arm-candy always at his side, could be a hero to these hard-working blue-collar workers.  Didn’t they know he was a “greedy one-percenter”?  (Though we didn’t talk like that back then.)  Didn’t they know he ran an “evil corporation”?  Didn’t they know he made “a profit”?  Didn’t they know he had a “yacht”?

Sure, they knew all that, but they also knew he was genuine, he shared their affection for pro wrestling, he was unabashed about his wealth, and he was having a good time.  Yes, he was having a really good time!  In short… they wanted to be like him. This was the American Dream they grew up hearing about.  It made him a working-class hero.   

They also saw that Trump spoke more like a blue-collar guy than an elitist rich guy.  The lingua franca on New York construction sites was not what you hear coming out of the mouths of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Trump’s fluent blue-collar, sentence-fragment lingo is refreshing after eight years of Obama’s hyper-careful, faculty-lounge act.  Voters loved Obama’s erudition after George W. Bush’s seeming inability to speak fluent English, but after eight years, that act has worn thin for many. 

Milton Friedman 

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion, which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. 

                                                                                                                          Milton Friedman 

Many Americans believe Hillary and Donald are precisely the wrong people.  But according to Dr. Friedman, they can still do the right thing under certain circumstances.

In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected president with far less than a majority of the electorate. Most Americans thought he too was the wrong person for the job.  In his first two years, he raised taxes and grew government.  The economy stagnated, and the stock market was soft.  As a result, Democrats lost big in the mid-term elections of 1994.   In came Newt Gingrich and The Contract With America. Weakened by scandal and the rout in ’94, Bill Clinton was forced to do the right thing.   He lowered taxes, supported free trade, declared an end to big government, and supported welfare reform.  The economy and the stock market went on a tear, all without the aid of zero percent interest rates like today.  The budget got nearly balanced.   And to this day Bill Clinton is known for the strong economy that came after he "triangulated" and reluctantly agreed to many of the planks of Newt's contract.  Bill Clinton was forced to do the right thing despite being the wrong person.

Can the electorate make it "politically profitable" for Hillary or Donald to do the right thing despite being the wrong people?  Based on the example of Barack Obama, I think we have a much better shot if our next "wrong person" is not a "historical first" from a politically favored class of citizens. 

Donald Trump will not be coddled by the media, or Hollywood, or academia, or anyone.  He will not be given the benefit of any doubt.  It will be politically unprofitable for him to do the wrong thing.     

Hillary Clinton?   As the historic "First Woman President"?  Darling of the media, academia, Hollywood, etc.?  On what basis can anyone think she will be held to account when she never has been before? 

Think Tanks

We think we are choosing a single person to be President, but it’s not that simple. 

Aaron Klein, a journalist based in Israel, has written extensively about what Barack Obama is going to do before he even does it.  Does Mr. Klein have some prophetic powers acquired in the Holy Land?  No, he simply reads the policy papers from The Center for American Progress (CAP).  Apparently, so does Obama.  In fact, he delegates their policies to the letter, and then goes golfing.

Just the other day, Donald Trump came out with a detailed proposal for school funding.   Did he just think up this plan in-between campaign stops?  No, he got it from a think tank. 

And that’s the point.  Presidents lean heavily on their think tanks.  For Democrats it’s CAP, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Human Rights Watch, and George Soros’ Open Societies Institute.  For Republicans it’s The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, and Freedom House.

There’s an army of very qualified eggheads on both sides who will conceive and implement any presidential priorities. Trump’s lack of government experience is irrelevant in that context.

Saul Alinsky

To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may not be interested in Saul Alinsky, but Saul Alinsky  is very interested in you.  The late Saul Alinsky is the most influential political strategist of our time.  Barack Obama went into community organizing because of Saul Alinsky, settled in Chicago because of Alinsky, and taught Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” as an instructor.  Hillary Clinton knew Alinsky, corresponded with him in college, and wrote her college thesis on Alinsky. 

Prior to Alinsky, politics was always a dirty business, but what he did was radicalize the Left.  His 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals” has become the tactical political bible of the Left.  The Right paid little attention to Alinsky’s influence and never had an effective counterstrategy. 

Until Trump, that is.  Trump’s own book, “The Art of the Deal”, is kind of a “Rules for Radical Businessmen”.  Donald Trump is a natural-born Alinsky antidote.  His ability to “fight back very hard”,  and take a “nice guys finish last” approach, has thrown the Left off it’s game. 

The radical Alinsky tactics are not working as effectively on Donald Trump as they did on gentleman GOPers like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.  They were all turned into Hitler caricatures via the Alinsky tactics.  It is sad to say this, but running a race for president as a GOP gentleman is an enormous liability in this radicalized Democrat/Alinsky age. 

The Trump Family

Donald Trump has been quoted as saying he was a lousy husband, but a good father.  I believe he is right.  His kids are all amazing.  They are not typical billionaire ne’er-do-wells.  They all work in the family business, are doing great things, are stable citizens, and aren’t taking salaries from the family charitable foundation, as Chelsea Clinton appears to be doing. 

If his kids are a reflection of him, and to a person they claim to be, Donald Trump looks pretty good as a human being. 

What was, What is, and What may be 

Perhaps Trump’s biggest advantage in this race is his lack of government experience.  No matter what you think of Donald Trump, you cannot be certain what he will do as President because he has never even held a public office.  Everything negative ever said about a prospective Trump presidency, is exactly that - prospective. 

Not so with Hillary Clinton.  The Clintons have a detailed track record stretching back some forty years in public life.  If you are among those who have followed the Clintons closely, you know exactly what you would get: impeachment, scandal, sexual assault, intimidation, credible rape allegations, perjury, corruption, selling U.S. policy to the highest bidder, disgracing the office of the Presidency, etc.  A whole vocabulary has been added to the lexicon to describe the Clinton's malfeasance, with the key word being: "Clintonian".     

Think of the worst thing Donald Trump has ever done.  Now think of the worst thing Hillary Clinton has ever done.  Only one of them did that as a government employee, on the tax-payer’s dime, and under an oath-of-office. 

Conclusion

Think about this:  a complete neophyte, who’s never run for dog-catcher, let alone national office, with a bad haircut, a penchant for controversy, and a shocking lack of decorum, has obtained the GOP nomination against a seasoned field, and is now nearly tied for President with a person described by President Obama as, “the most qualified person to ever run for President.” 

What are the odds considering we are a country of the Left,  the demographics are Left, the culture is Left, and the electoral map is Left.  Moreover, Hillary Clinton, a candidate of the Left, was supposed to be untouchable, the political equivalent of a Death Star in a pantsuit. 

And yet, here we are weeks away from the election, and Donald Trump is within striking distance.  Remission is within reach, but for that to happen, every skeptic must do their due diligence.