Hillary to Detroit?

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to campaign in Detroit Friday, four days before the election.  This is interesting.  Donald Trump has been hitting hard at Democrat failures in black cities.  He has been using lines like: "What do you have to lose?", and "It used to be we built cars in Flint, and couldn't drink the water in Mexico.  Now we build cars in Mexico, and you can't drink the water in Flint!"  He has used Detroit specifically, a city that has been Democrat run for recorded history, as a showcase for Democrat failures.  Maybe he's getting through?

 

VIDEO - Hillary is Awesome!

Friends discuss Scientology and Hillary Clinton:

Hillary's Greatest Crimes

The video below exposes Hillary Clinton's greatest crimes:  First, lying to the families of those killed by her incompetence in Benghazi, and second, jailing a filmmaker in violation of the Constitution to cover-up the lies.  I challenge anyone who watches this video to explain how Donald Trump's transgressions amount to anything close.

But, we've been told that the election is over, voters have made-up their minds, and Hillary Clinton will be the next President.  One reason this may be true is that the media is protecting their candidate at all costs.  Take some of the most damaging clips in this video;  many of them are no-longer available on the original network sites.  It's like they've been wiped clean with BleachBit.  In some cases, I had to rely on clips recorded by third-parties to complete this video.

So you can forget about the media reporting any negative news about Hillary Clinton for the next three weeks.  It's just not going to happen.  That means it's up to you.  The only way a video like this will enter the national conscience is if you make it viral.  Spread it. Share it.  Embed it.  Email it.

Here is the YouTube link:  https://youtu.be/Prw0GZYpdKU    
 

One Winner in 2016

One thing is for certain in this election:  a sexual predator will inhabit the White House come January. Congratulations America, you have made sexual predation the one winner in 2016!  

That said, there is a big difference between Clinton malfeasance and Donald Trump's.  No matter what you think of the relative evil represented by each of these flawed candidates, there is a yuuge difference.

Imagine that the worst is true for each candidate:  Donald Trump is an abuser of women, an uncouth and abrasive personality, and has a shallow grasp of the issues.  Hillary Clinton destroyed subpoenaed evidence, attacked the women her husband raped and abused, and went so far as to jail a filmmaker for a year to cover for her lies about Benghazi.

But there's a big difference:  Only one of them was a government employee under oath-of-office. Hillary Clinton was Senator, Secretary of State, and arguably co-President for eight years. The standard oath for any federal office states, "I do solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office of...". In that context, faithfully means truthfully.  Hillary Clinton has clearly violated her oath on numerous significant occasions by being untruthful while in office.  The same cannot be said of her opponent.

You may think Donald Trump is unfit for office based on speculation about how he may possibly perform as President. Hillary Clinton leaves no room for speculation, and that is the defining difference between them.    



     

Memory Hole - 9/11 Edition

Today, being the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11, I'd like to remind folks that the 9/11 attack was conceived, planned, funded, staffed, trained, and scheduled, during the last Clinton administration. Osama bin Laden was well known to the Clintons, al Qaeda had declared war on the U.S., they had attacked the U.S., and there were multiple foregone opportunities to take them out.  The jihad had already tried once to bring down the World Trade Center towers during the Clinton administration in 1993.

That's the kind of excellent vision and competence we would be getting with a new Clinton administration.

So could Donald Trump be any better?  Here's what he said almost two years before 9/11:

“I really am convinced we’re in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers,” wrote Trump in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. “No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen.” 

Trump even mentions Osama bin Laden by name, in a criticism of an American foreign policy that too quickly jumps from one crisis to the next. 

“One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan,” The Donald wrote. “He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”  

           Source: Buzzfeed

Also remember, the Obama/Clinton team, despite their claims, had nothing to do with getting bin Laden. This is like the rooster claiming responsibility for the sunrise.  Obama and Hillary opposed every single policy set in motion by the George W. Bush administration that actually led to the successful raid on bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan.

As I've stated many times before, my Labradoodle had more to do with getting bin Laden than Barack Hussein Obama, peace be upon him, or Hillary Rodham Clinton:





     

Julian Assange Hints At Source (UPDATED 8/22)

(UPDATE:  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.)  

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.

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.

Some conspiracy theorists have suggested the Clinton body-count numbers about fifty.  Here is a short list of some of them with links to the full lists.  

Mar-a-Lago vs. Detroit

Donald Trump said today, “The city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent’s failed economic agenda..." 

Four Recent Mysterious Deaths Have Clinton Ties

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, lawyer for WikiLeak's Julian Assange, was mysteriously struck and killed by a train on April 21st in London.

John Ashe, 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,  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.  

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

UPDATE:  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, but I purposely did not.  

To this date, there are no credible murder allegations against the Clintons in almost four decades of public life.  There are however several credible rape allegations.  Again, these are facts, not theories.    

All Lies Matter, But Not All Are Equal

As I have stipulated many times, Donald Trump is full of shit.  In his own book, "The Art Of The Deal", he talks about the use of hyperbole (bullshit) and its limits.

"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."

Many times during this race Trump has thrown in "a little hyperbole".

But let's compare that to Hillary Clinton.  Her lies are infinitely more significant.  She has lied in her capacity as a First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, about really important things like people being killed, national security, classified information, corruption, selling state access, and on and on and on.

Hillary Clinton demonstrated her jaw dropping capacity for absolutely inexcusable lies just this past Sunday while talking to Chris Wallace.  Watch the side by side comparison of Hillary talking to Wallace vs. her taped comments the day the Benghazi coffins arrived in the U.S.:



Remember, Hillary also promised to lock-up the filmmaker, which she actually did!  Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was imprisoned for a year.


    

Are The Khans a Con?

Wow.  If just ten percent of this is true, The Khans, the new darlings of the Democrat Party, are radical muslim extremists with deep ties to terror organizations.  It's all here in a piece by Theodore and Walid Shoebat that dropped 7/31 on their website,  Shoebat.com

Here are some pull-quotes:  

The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States.

Khan’s fascination with Islamic Sharia stems from his life in Saudi Arabia.

Khan wrote the paper in the eighties while he was in Saudi Arabia, the motherland of Wahhabism, which means that Khan clearly had a Wahabist connection.

It is likely that Khan is a Muslim plant working with the Hillary Clinton campaign, probably for the interest of Muslim oil companies as well as Muslim immigration into the U.S.

Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject. And it has ties to Hillary Clinton’s aid Huma Abedin as well.

It is obvious that Khan is upset, that a Trump victory will eliminate and destroy decades of hard work to bring in Islamic immigration into the United States which was spearheaded by agents in Saudi Arabia like Khan and Huma Abedin’a father (Sayed Z. Abedin).

Is it likely that Khan’s son was killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished? Only another type of investigation will determine that.

Update1 - 8/1/16: Having been exposed, the Khans are now saying, "We want out of this controversy."

Update2 - 8/2/16:  Now that it is clear that Khizr Khan's role is to bring muslims into the U.S., and that Donald Trump is a threat to that project, more people need to be aware of the word "hijrah".  Hijrah is jihad through demographic invasion.  Jihad is more than just killing people, terrorizing them, or getting them to submit to Islam.  It also involves overcoming the infidels through demographics, ie hijrah.  Hijrah is what we are witnessing in Europe.  Therefore, the real scandal regarding Khizr Khan at the DNC convention is that the Democrat Party openly supports the hijrah jihad.

Update3 - 8/2/16:  Khizr Khan has deleted the website for his law practice, which exposed that his practice was in fact devoted to facilitating muslim immigration into the U.S. using visa programs akin to selling citizenship.  Luckily there is the Wayback Machine at Archive.org.  Here is the archived site.

(Back to the original post...)  Again, we don't know if any of this will hold up under scrutiny, but if it does, here are some questions:

Will this hurt Hillary Clinton?  (No.  Remember, a domestic terrorist named Bill Ayres had deep ties to Barack Obama and he paid no price for it thanks to the pop media flushing it down the memory hole.)

Will this report be swept down the memory hole? (Yes)

Will the media acknowledge Donald Trump's good instincts about the Khans?  (Never)

Will any media outlet other than a Murdoch operation and a few web based ones ever report this? (No)

Could Khizr Khan be the next Mayor of NYC or Washington D.C.?  (Sure)        

Who Killed Seth Rich?

(UPDATED 8/6 to include two three other deaths of people who could have had potentially damaging information on Hillary Clinton and the DNC.)

On July 10th, a 27 year old DNC staffer named Seth Rich was mysteriously shot and killed in Washington, DC.  RIP.  I say mysteriously because nothing was taken, the neighborhood was not known for random shootings, he wasn't a gang member, wasn't a cop, and had no criminal or drug history. There were no witnesses, and so far no videos.

What makes this interesting is what this man's job was; he was a data guy at the DNC.  His specific area was in expanding voter rolls, you know, the kind of thing Democrats have been known for, like getting cemeteries, felons, illegals, Disney characters, etc. to vote Democrat.

That might be interesting by itself, but what makes it even more interesting is that 10 days later, WikiLeaks began releasing hacked content from DNC servers.

Could Seth Rich have been the leak?  Could he have been murdered by the target, or the recipient?Could he have been selling data?  Will we ever know?  Could blaming the Russians be a diversion like the filmmaker in Benghazi?

I generally avoid trafficking in conspiracy theories, but murder is, to quote Joe Biden, "a big fucking deal."  Questions need to be answered.  What was this man doing at the DNC?  What was his access? What do his family and friends know about his activities? Who investigated and went to his home? Was anything taken?  Does WikiLeaks even know the source of their material?

I'm sure the investigative "journalists" in the pop media will be all over this mystery.  Not.  And that alone speaks volumes.

UPDATE!!!:

There have now been a total of three four mysterious deaths surrounding Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

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

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

Shawn Lucas was found dead on August 2nd.  Mr. Lucas made a video that went viral showing him serving a lawsuit against the DNC's Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton.  There are no reports yet about how he died.

The Clinton War on Women

Tonight's keynote speaker at the #DNCconvention will be a multiple accused rapist, and coincidentally, the most popular non-serving politician in the Democrat Party.  That makes his wife, who enabled his behavior throughout his career, an accessory to rape.  She of course is Hillary Clinton, the Democrat Party's nominee.

Support NoMoreClintons.org and help make this video trend on Bill's big night.   Help end the Clinton War on Women!  

     

Alinsky vs. Alinsky

What would you think if your favorite football team had access to their opponent’s playbook but refused to study it?  I’m not talking about Bill Belichick stealing a playbook from the other side.  No, I’m talking about being handed it on a silver platter and still failing to read it, study it, or devise a strategy to defeat it.  That is exactly what has been happening in the last batch of presidential races lost by Republicans.

The playbook is called “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals”, a pair of books by the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky.  Together they form a playbook laid out over forty-five years ago to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and mobilize a redistributive revolution.  It was the playbook followed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in their presidential runs.  It is now the playbook of Hillary Clinton in her run.

Obama taught Alinsky’s playbook as a community organizer and according to Michelle Obama herself, he quoted Alinsky on their first date.  More than anyone else in public life, Obama has employed the playbook diligently, and to great effect.  Hillary wrote her thesis on Alinsky, knew him, and carried on a correspondence with him.  She will likely do the same.  

For the last forty-five years this has been a one sided fight.  Republicans failed to understand the power of Alinsky’s model.  They failed to take the playbook seriously, failed to study it, and never developed a strategy to counter it.  Mitt Romney still doesn't understand what hit him in 2012.

Donald Trump brings that tradition to a grinding halt.  That’s not to say he has even read a single word Alinsky wrote.  He may not even know his name.  But Donald Trump is a natural born Alinskyite.  His own book, “The Art of the Deal”, is a kind of a businessman’s “Rules for Radicals”.  Trump's take-no-prisoners style and nice-guys-finish-last approach are right out of the Alinsky playbook.  Out of necessity and natural inclination, Trump has had to cut out the middleman and apply these tactics himself, which is a 180 degree departure from the normal politically correct Alinskyite approach.  Trump had neither time nor a willing community in the GOP to organize.   

The Democrats have never been in this position before.  They have never had to face a committed Alinskyite opponent.   Though Trump is self-taught in the art of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent”, using “ridicule as his most potent weapon” (That’s what all those stupid nicknames are about.), and all the other aspects of Alinskyism, he is rather effective.  The Left no longer has exclusive use of these divisive, dangerous, but highly effective tactics.  Payback is a bitch, and Trump is that bitch.         

That’s not to say Trump will waltz to victory based on the leveling of the Alinsky playing field.  The Left is still the dominant force in America today.  Demographics and nearly every lever of pop culture skew that way.  Media, academia, entertainers, actors, musicians, etc. all skew Left.  The most assigned economist at U.S. colleges is still Karl Marx, and it’s not even close.  Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, with all their power to control information and opinion are all skewed Left.  The massive bureaucracies of government at the local, state, and federal level are all unionized, Leftist, and highly motivated.  

On the flip side, the counter-culture as personified by Donald Trump is diffuse, disorganized, and with nary a voice in pop culture.  It's going to be a lonely uphill battle for Donald Trump.   

But Donald Trump may actually know more Alinsky than he lets on.  Consider one of his final thoughts from his GOP convention speech:

“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” 

This reminded me of a quote from “Rules for Radicals”:

 

“The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.”

This election is shaping up to be a two-way Alinsky battle royale.   Buckle your seatbelts... 

Trump vs. Clinton - Milton Friedman's Ultimate Test

So Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two best people we have come up with to be the next president.  What do we do now? 
  

I would suggest, as I do on many sticky occasions, that we turn to the wisdom of 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 things under certain circumstances.

Recall in 1992 when Hillary's husband Bill was elected president with less than a majority of the electorate. Most Americans thought he too was the wrong person for the job.  For his first two years he raised taxes,  pursued big government, the economy stagnated, and the stock market lagged.  The Democrats lost big in the mid-term congressional elections of 1994.  In came Newt Gingrich and The Contract With America.  Low taxes, free trade, limited government, and welfare reform were the order of the day. The economy went on a tear.  Stock market gains were unprecedented.  The budget got nearly balanced.   And to this day Bill Clinton is known for the strong economy that came after he "triangulated" and signed into law 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 will not be coddled by the media, Hollywood, academia, or anyone for that matter.  He will not be given the benefit of any doubt.  He will be held to the highest of standards each and every day.

Hillary?  The historic "First Woman President"?  Not so much.    

  

And also there's this to ponder: Donald Trump has never:

• Been an accessory to rape
• Smeared women abused by his spouse
• Jailed a filmmaker to cover-up his own incompetence
• Attacked a country for no good reason and caused chaos on two continents
• Made billions selling U.S. Govt. favors
• Lied under oath
• Violated several U.S. laws regarding classified information
• Jeopardized U.S. national security by using an unsecured email server
• Stonewalled Freedom of Information requests
• Lied to the American people about official U.S. business
• Turned the IRS into a "gestapo"
• Looted the White House
• Sold secrets to the Chinese
• Lied about fake sniper fire in Bosnia
• Been pals with Saul Alinsky, Sidney Blumenthal, and Karl Marx (OK, I made the last one up...sort of.)
• Been fired for lying on a Watergate committee 

And this: 

And this:

And this:  

But, of course, also this:  ;-)

Donald Trump - Some Perspective

Granted, Donald Trump has his flaws.  He's certainly not my choice.  At this point, a rehashing of Trump's strengths and weaknesses is useless.  It is becoming increasingly clear that he can win the GOP nomination.  So, it's time to put Donald Trump in perspective.  

By that I mean, who will he likely be up against?  It looks like Hillary Clinton will not be indicted by Barack Obama's DOJ (big surprise!), and will likely be the Democrat nominee.  So how does Trump stack up?  

Donald Trump has never:

• Been an accessory to rape
• Smeared women abused by his spouse
• Jailed a filmmaker to cover-up his own incompetence
• Attacked a country for no good reason and caused chaos on two continents
• Made billions selling U.S. Govt. favors
• Lied under oath
• Violated several U.S. laws regarding classified information
• Jeopardized U.S. national security by using an unsecured email server
• Stonewalled Freedom of Information requests
• Lied to the American people about official U.S. business
• Turned the IRS into a "gestapo"
• Looted the White House
• Sold secrets to the Chinese
• Lied about fake sniper fire in Bosnia
• Been pals with Saul Alinsky, Sidney Blumenthal, and Karl Marx (OK, I made the last one up...sort of.)
• Been fired for lying on a Watergate committee 

Sure, The Donald has his flaws, which I have touched-on here and here, but he's no Hillary on the evil scale.  Not even close.

The thing about our government that is truly sad in 2016 is that we have abandoned the founders design.  The thing that made us exceptional among nations, the thing we call "American Exceptionalism" was the founders design of a strictly limited government designed to do a few basic things and then focus on securing the natural individual rights of the people.  We long ago abandoned that model.  Like it or not we have a totalitarian democracy at this point.  Combine a totalitarian government with a jackass charismatic leader, like Barack Obama or Donald Trump, who you don't like, and it's a recipe for large scale discontent.  Presidents were never supposed to be this important or this powerful in the U.S.  

   

Socialists, Progressives, Communists, and Democrats; What are the differences?

Bernie Sanders is a socialist.  Hillary swears she's no socialist, she's a progressive democrat. Barack Obama swears he's no socialist either.  No one openly admits to being a communist.  What are the differences between these philosophies?

I maintain the above question is the wrong question.  The correct question is, "what unites these philosophies?"  The differences all relate to tactics and emphasis, not philosophy.  The underlying philosophy is the same in all cases.

Socialists, progressives, communists, and modern democrats in the U.S. are all Marxists.  They all believe as their foundational tenet in government coerced egalitarianism (equality of stuff).  The Marxist slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.", applies in all cases.  This is not organic egalitarianism.  It is imposed by the government through force.

Democrats and progressives want to impose this Marxist utopia gradually and nominally through the political process, but they cannot reveal their intentions.  Socialists want exactly the same thing, only they are willing to reveal their intentions.  Communists are different only in that not only are they willing to reveal their intentions, they hope to achieve their utopia through revolution.

But in all cases utopia is the goal and it is the same vision despite some differences in detail.  Never is there a limiting principle.  In other words, how would a progressive know when the work is done? How would they know when the utopian dream has been achieved?  They cannot tell us.  

Progressivism and progressive democrats in the U.S. are unique.  That's because those terms relate specifically to our constitution.  The constitution is a formidable roadblock to Marxism.  Therefore, it must be relegated to the dustbin of history.  Progressivism means progressively dismantling the constitution.  Where will this progress end? Only when the constitution is completely dead.  It must be destroyed because it alone stands in the way of the Marxist utopia.

What makes America exceptional are the ideas on which it was founded.   Primary among them are the ideas that we are all equal in our rights, our relationship to the law, and the governments job is to protect the rights of the individual.  Marxism turns those ideas upside-down and puts the government over the individual in order to impose equality of outcomes.

So this is what it means when you hear a politician claim, "I'm no socialist/communist/Marxist, etc. I'm a progressive democrat!"  There is no difference.    

      

Anatomy of a Myth - Democrats are Better for the Economy!

The Wall Street Journal published a letter Nov, 3rd from two Princeton Professors, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, defending Hillary Clinton for saying, "The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House!"  They have written a well publicized research paper proving her assertion.  Alan Blinder is a Clinton advisor.

Robert Reich, (no relation), is another one who has written extensively about the miraculous economies of Democrats, particularly in the years after WWII.   Robert Reich served in the Bill Clinton administration.

The New York Times ran a related piece in 2008,  right before the election,  about how the stock market does much better under Democrats than under Republicans.  The New York Times is a long time supporter of both Clintons. (I refuted the NYT piece thoroughly at the time here.  I highly recommend reading it.)

We can expect much more of this as the 2016 election approaches.  Having studied these claims for years, I find this is all carefully calculated political sophistry, but very weak economics, and void of logic.      

The GDP assertions are of two types:

• Democrat presidents have a better record of growing GDP since 1947.
• During some of our best GDP growth periods we had much higher tax rates and a highly unionized workforce.  

Both assertions are factually correct - and meaningless at the same time.

It is true that Democrat presidents have a better record of growing GDP.  After all, Democrats are the party of growing government, and GDP includes government spending.  Ergo, when government grows, GDP grows.  Barack Obama borrowed and printed fourteen trillion dollars, all of which added to GDP, but must be paid back at some future time.   GDP doesn't account for that. It is a one sided account entry.  If you take away the fourteen trillion in debt and QE under Obama, growth is about ten trillion...negative, since he took office.  But that's not how GDP growth is reported. It should be if we want the whole story.   

Another factor is that Republican presidents have had two hands tied behind their backs when it comes to economic policy: power and interest rates.  No Republican president since 1947 has ever had full robust control of both houses of the legislature.  Democrats, on the other hand, had either filibuster power (40 votes) or complete control (60 votes) of the Senate every second since 1947. Democrats had complete control of the executive and legislative branches for 20 years since 1947. Republicans had all of 4 years.  Moreover, Republican presidents have had an interest rate headwind averaging about 38% higher rates since the Fed began setting rates.  Albeit, most of that discrepancy comes from the historically low rates from the Obama years. 

Additionally, presidential party affiliation has almost no correlation with economic policies over time.  JFK, a Democrat, was a tax cutting supply-sider like Reagan, and nothing like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  Richard Nixon, a Republican, instituted wage and price controls, something Ronald Reagan would never have done.  Bill Clinton ended up as a free trader and a capital gains tax cutter.  The list goes on.

Finally, economic policies do not reveal themselves instantly.  Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were passed by Democrats long ago, but only now threaten to explode in our faces.  George W. Bush was saddled with the 2008 sub-prime disaster, yet Bill Clinton and the Democrats set that disaster in motion in the 1990’s when they thought it was a good idea to offer mortgages to unqualified people.  Sub-prime boosted the economy smartly until it blew-up over a decade later. Barack Obama likes to claim victimhood for inheriting the sub-prime mess, yet he was a key supporter all the way back to his community organizer days.  He continued that support while in the Illinois state senate,  into the U.S. Senate in 2008, and continuing even to this very day as president.   

Alan Blinder asserted in his letter that the economy is healthier today than it was in 2009.  I calculated that if we had just given every family in the US the money added to the debt since 2009, plus the Fed’s Quantitative Easing under Obama, each household could have been gifted $120,000.  My Labradoodle could have improved the economy if you gave him $14 trillion to re-distribute!

Robert Reich waxes nostalgic for the halcyon days after WWII when tax rates and unionization were high and the economy grew like topsy.  He is making a classic "post hoc" fallacy mistake.  ("post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is latin for the logical fallacy, "after this, therefore because if this.") Correlation is not causation.  Yes, the post war economy was very strong for decades, but that strength had nothing to do with high taxes and unionization.   In fact it was in spite of that.  WWII left us the only intact industrialized country in the world.  Japan, Europe, and the USSR were smoldering ruins.  China was still in loincloths.  South Korea was on the verge of its own war.   Of course we grew!  We could do no wrong with that tailwind.

Despite being convinced that Democrats are not superior stewards of the economy, I cannot make the claim that Republicans are.  There's just too much noise in an economy.  Too many moving parts. And party affiliation is too weak an indicator of historical economic philosophy.  

It all comes down to where the parties are at a given point in time.  Today's Democrat party is a Demand Side Economics party, and there's one thing I know in this life; nothing good ever comes from a Demand Side Economy.  

(For my definition of Demand Side Economics see this.  And this.)    

Happy Birthday, Hillary!

On the occasion of Hillary Clinton's 68th trip around the sun, I offer two videos I made just for her, because everyone knows store bought gifts are never as cool as hand crafted ones.  Please enjoy and share!

Dude, Benghazi Still Matters!

(Originally posted May 7, 2014)

According to the “Obama-Is-Awesome” crowd, Benghazi doesn’t matter.  It’s old news, the election’s over, Fox is the only network that cares, nothing can bring back those who died, it’s all about politics, what difference does it make, move on dot org, let’s focus on jobs, look, the Koch brothers, and go Hillary 2016! 

Dude, Benghazi still matters.  Some are calling the Ben Rhodes email a smoking gun.  Yes it is, but not just for what it says.  The Ben Rhodes email proves illegal activity on the part of the Obama Administration.  Remember, this email was part of a previous subpoena but was withheld by the administration.  A judge forced its release as part of another subpoena from a private lawsuit.  At this rate there could be hundreds of such documents. This renders all previous hearings and investigations null and void.  It is abundantly clear that there has been a twenty-month campaign by the Obama administration to stonewall and cover-up the truth.  Innocent parties don’t behave this way.  And it is illegal to ignore a subpoena.

The content of the withheld email along with recent testimony contradicts everything the administration has been telling us.  They were involved in pushing the YouTube video story.  They did edit the talking points.  They did know an al Qaeda affiliate called Ansar al-Sharia was responsible.  They knew there was no demonstration about a video in Benghazi.

Moreover, they have never revealed why requested security was denied and who was responsible.  They have never told us why Chris Stevens and the CIA were in Benghazi.  They have never explained Barack Obama’s whereabouts during the attack and involvement in the decision not to attempt a rescue.  They still have not brought justice to the murderers - no one has been captured or punished - despite several journalists being able to locate and interview the perpetrators.  A filmmaker was jailed for a full year as a result of this alleged deception.  $70,000 in taxpayer funds was spent on ads in Muslim countries to apologize for a YouTube video. 

The Presidential oath of office begins with the line “I do solemnly swear to faithfully execute the Office of The President…”  The definition of faithfully is “in a manner that is true to the facts…”  Just in recent history Richard Nixon lost his job because he did not act in a manner true to the facts.  Bill Clinton was impeached for the same offense.  No one died in either case.  Did Barack Obama know the truth about Benghazi and then lie to the American people to cover-up his incompetence in the face of a re-election campaign?  This matters, and Presidents have lost their jobs over it. 

The second line of the Presidential oath regards the obligation to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…”  If the YouTube video was a deception to cover-up incompetence, then jailing a filmmaker to support the deception clearly violates the Constitution.  If the video was a deception, then the $70,000 spent on running ads in Muslim countries was a theft of taxpayer funds for purposes of winning an election. 

Hillary Clinton aspires to swearing the same oath as Barack Obama.  She swore a similar oath as Secretary of State. 

Dude, Benghazi still matters, and learning the truth is the right thing to do.

(UPDATE:  Since 5/7/14 thousands of illegally hidden emails have been discovered pertaining to this matter.  There are still thousands more illegally withheld as part of the stonewall put up by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  What they are hiding is the subject of these hearings, and it should be.)    

Hillary Clinton - Rape Expert

My jaw hit the floor when I saw that Hillary Clinton had tweeted the following two gems:

Hillary Clinton ‏ -4 hours ago4 hours ago To every survivor of sexual assault: You have the right to be heard and believed. We're with you.
Hillary Clinton ‏ - 23 hours ago23 hours ago“Rape is a crime—wherever it happens.” —Hillary

She then followed up with several comments furthering her assertion that she is a champion of victims of sexual assault. Even in the vast galaxy of Clinton lies, this one stands out like a supernova. 

Here is a short list of Clinton victims (Bill had the sex while Hillary was in-charge of the cover-up and intimidation campaigns):  

Here is a video I made about this very subject using the NFL "NO MORE" ads as a backdrop:  

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton  4h4 hours ago

Hillary to every survivor of sexual assault: You have the right to be heard and believed. We're with you.