Friday, December 30, 2016

The Election Was Not Hacked


As Jon Gabriel so succentily put it:

Despite the histrionic claims of the press, the election was not hacked. The Democratic National Committee’s lousy IT security allowed someone to access their emails which were then leaked. Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta fell for an age-old phishing scam that was as believable as getting millions of dollars from a Nigerian prince. Using the spotty media understanding of cybersecurity, they can claim that the DNC and Hillary’s campaign were “hacked,” but the election decisively was not. And the press knows it.

It is a distinction with a diffrence.  I'm sure if you question the press on it they will say they meant "the election" inclusive of the voting and all the campaigning that lead up to the vote.

But that's not how most people view it. They separate the election as the actual voting and tallying of the votes from the campaigns leading up to the election as separate entities altogether.

I highly doubt the press is ignorant of this separation.  It is a deliberate disinformation campaign on the part of some outlets (the New York Times, Washington Post)  and just plain laziness on the part of others (Fox News).

And it is the primary reason why most people think the purveyors of fake news are the mainstream media itself. 

Thursday, December 8, 2016

The Infantile Temper Tantrums of Sore Losers

Typical of liberal infantile behavior. 

Our campaign lost the election. But Trump’s team must own up to how he won.

I know how to be a gracious loser.
I could have let it go last week when Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, challenged me to look her in the eye and say she ran a campaign that gave white supremacists a platform. I considered for a split second. I knew you were supposed to be gracious when you come for the post-election forum at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. But I decided this was a year where normal rules don’t apply. Speaking the truth was more important.
“It did. Kellyanne, it did,” I told her. It’s just a fact. Trump winning the election doesn’t change that. To my mind, his win makes it all the more important that the truth be acknowledged.
No Jennifer, you do not know how to be gracious. Nor is your infantile behavior anything close to the truth. The only saving grace is that after losing a campaign you should have won in your sleep, you will never hold a significant position in a political campaign again. 
And neither will your fellow colleagues that made up Clinton's senior staff. 
This behavior is also apparent in the prolong and useless recount demands, petitions for the electoral college betrayal of the voters, the incessant whining about the popular vote, and the sudden campaign by liberal activist to eliminate the electoral college altogether. 
This behavior does not reflect well on the people who would have ruled us.
It in fact confirms the wisdom of electing Donald Trump as the next president of the United States. 

Saturday, November 12, 2016

No Roger, Cuba Still Matters to Cuban Americans

Consider this analysis from the New York Post:

Obama’s ‘legacy’ drive lost Florida for Clinton


The evidence is mounting that President Obama’s overzealous defense of his “opening Cuba” gambit cost Hillary Clinton the state of Florida. That misstep could end up wiping out most of the president’s carefully curated “legacy” achievements.
For the president and his young Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, the establishment of diplomatic relations with one of the world’s last communist dictatorships became something they weirdly defended from any criticism. Even the smallest amendment that watered down coddling the Castros drew fulminating threats of vetoes from the White House.
Then in late October, President Obama went for broke and decided to stick a bigger needle in his opponents’ eye.
He lifted limits on the import of cigars and rum, and then ordered our ambassador to the United Nations to abstain from a vote condemning the US economic embargo on Cuba.
That UN directive was especially galling. President Obama was, in fact, venting his frustration with Congress for not lifting the embargo upon his command — which Congress has the right to refuse to do — by letting the world body mock US law unopposed.
The Cuban-American community in Miami was irritated enough to give a second look to Donald Trump, who quickly reacted by shifting from his earlier tepid support for Obama’s Cuba policy to a promise that he would end relations unless Raul Castro began democratic reforms.
Obama and Clinton gamble on the mis-conception that a new generation of Cuban-Americans who were born in the United States would not feel deep ties to Cuba or care all that much about the Castro regime.

They were wrong, it matter very much to them and Obama's gambit with the Castro government was the Bay of Pigs betrayal all over again.

By opening relations with Cuba, Obama handed Florida to Trump. 

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The Coming Trump Administration

Now that we have had time to adjust to the fact of a Trump victory, it’s time to look forward to the coming Trump presidency and try to analyze what a Trump administration will mean.  We will look at the following areas in no particular order. 

1. Court Nominees

Job one is the nomination to fill Antonin Scalia seat on the supreme court. Look for a conservative that is more Kennedy than Scalia. That is sure for disappoint some rabid conservatives but Trump’s instincts are far more moderate than conservative.

Looking down the road, Ginsburg’s and Beyer’s seat will probably also open up during a Trump presidency.  Trump will have an opportunity to shape the court for the next generation.

Of equal importance are nominees to the various inferior courts in the federal system.  There are hundreds of vacancies to fill so Trump should keep the Senate fairly busy for the next few years filling these posts. 

2. The Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare 

It goes without saying that President Obama’s signature achievement will not last the first year of the Trump administration. It is one of the worst, most unpopular pieces of legislation ever devised by the Democrats.  

What form the replacement will take is harder to say. The one thing in Obamacare that would be kept is coverage for pre-existing conditions. However, that coverage must involve shared risk polls and/or other fiscally sound techniques to implement. 

Other features are the ability to sell health insurance across state lines, major medical coverage only for younger, healthier, single adults and other free-market reforms that will reduce the cost of insurance while maintaining quality healthcare. 

3. No big, magnificent wall on the southern border but stricter enforcement of immigration laws, more strict vetting of immigrants and a larger budget to support both. 

Suffice to say the encouragement to illegally immigrate to the United States ends with the Trump administration.  While it is doubtful Trump will engage in mass deportations, it is a certainty that illegal immigrants will never become citizens or be allowed to vote.  Nor will sanctuary cities be tolerated under a Trump administration. 

And yes, the term illegal immigrant will be use because illegal immigrants enter the country in violation of the law. 

4. Free Trade and Globalism is on Hold  

It goes without saying that TPP is dead and other free trade pacts will be under review. The primary priority with this is to return high paying jobs back the US.

5. Tax policies.

Will go hand in a hand with trade policies to encourage companies to bring capital and jobs back to the United States. 

6. Climate Change

Say sayonara to the odious climate change policies and treaties pushed by the liberals. Look for federal lands to be opened to energy exploration and pipeline projects to go forward.  

7. Domestic Social Policy

You will see a rollback of the most odious Title IX interpretations by the Obama administration. 

8. Infrastructure Spending

Trump likes to build things. See a large increase in infrastructure spending. 

9. Military Spending

Look for an increase in the military budget. 

10. VA Administration Reform

Finally, someone who will really reform the VA Administration.  Look for a privatize insurance plan to cover most veterans’ health needs while the current VA hospital system concentrates are war and trauma related specifies. 

11. Entitlement spending will not be touched, deficits explode.

Trump has repeatedly said that he will not touch social security Medicare and other entitlements. Without addressing these spending issues the deficit will explode.  

12.  End to the Regulation Regime

Trump will take his pen and his phone to roll back every regulation Obama put into effect.  

13. What will happen to Hillary Clinton?


You can’t keep calling her crooked Hillary for 18 months and then not doing anything about it. Since the whole process would stink of politics, look for Trump to appoint an independent counsel. 

Monday, October 3, 2016

Thousands of Haitians are About to Die Because of Hillary Clinton

In 2010 Haiti was devastated by a 5.0 earthquake. Among the charities providing relief was the Clinton Global Initiative.

The promise of the Initiative was to provide housing for the Haitian people that was both earthquake and extreme weather resistant.    

However, after six years most of those Haitian victims are still living in tents and cardboard shacks because 90% of the money donated for Haitian relief never went to relief. 

Now a category four Hurricane is barreling down on Haiti. Hurricane force winds should arrive be this evening. 

In the US a Cat 4 storm usually leads to grievous property damage but due to warnings adequate shelters and housing built to code, the death toll remains relatively low. 

However, due to Clinton’s mismanagement (and that’s being kind), Haitians are still living in substandard housing and there are not enough adequate shelters to hold them all. The death toll will in all probability be in the thousands. 

It’s a scandal far more serious than whether a businessman loses money on a business deal but I doubt you will see much coverage the New York Times.  

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Early Voting for President is Unconstitutional

Article II Section 1:


The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

It’s pretty straightforward. The “chusing the Electors” is what you are doing when you vote for president and vice-president of the United States.

The constitution grants Congress the explicit power to determine the time of the election for president and vice-president and requires it must be the same throughout the United States. So early voting fails on two counts:

1. States are usurping the authority of Congress to determine the day of the election by holding early voting.

2. Early voting days are not uniformed throughout the United States.


In off-year elections states have pretty much to power to hold elections as they see fit. The constitution is silent on elections for every other office. However, as long as president and vice-president is on ballot, there can only be one election day throughout the United States as designated by Congress. 

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost

Sister Wives' appeal polygamy ruling to US Supreme Court
SALT LAKE CITY — A polygamous family from TV's "Sister Wives" filed a request Monday for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case for legalizing polygamy.

Kody Brown and his four wives want the high court to review an appeal court's decision that upheld a unique provision of Utah's polygamy law that bans cohabitation with other partners even if the man is legally married to just one woman.

The ruling overturned a previous legal victory for the Browns in which a lower court ruled the law violated polygamists' right to privacy and religious freedom.

The appeals court decided in April that the Browns can't sue because they weren't charged under the Utah law. It didn't consider the constitutional issues.

Like most polygamous families, Brown is legally married to one wife and "spiritually married" to the others.

This was the inevitable result of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling making gay marriage a constitutional/

It will be interesting of the court has the courage to take up the case.

Logic and common sense dictates that since the state has no interest in defining marriage in the case of gay couples it also has no interest in banning polygamous marriage and the right to privacy trumps right of the state to regulate marriage. 

That would be consistent with the Obergefell ruling. 

If they rule against the Sister Wives family it will be interesting to see what tortious logic they use to justify the ban on polygamous marriage.  

As a famous preacher once said; "The chickens have come to roost". 

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Clinton Contemptuously Calls Voters "Deplorable"

Clinton: Half of Trump supporters are in 'basket of deplorables'

New York (CNN)Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors Friday night that half of Donald Trump's supporters fall into "the basket of deplorables," meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.

This has to be a major mistake. She wasn't winning the tradition blue collar voter that used the make up the backbone of the Democrat party and now she has gone on and alienated the rest of these voters.

Pundits are comparing to Romney's 47 percent remark. The only diffrence was that Romney's remarks were secretly recorded at a private gathering while Clinton was at a public fundraiser and knew full well her remarks were being recorded.

You may see whites voting for Trump at levels no Republican has ever seen before.

And it's not because they necessarily like Trump. 

They despise Hillary Clinton and it's a vote against her. 

Friday, September 9, 2016

What happens if Trump and Clinton Tie in the Electoral Collage


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

The above scenario is a distinct possibility. So what would happen if Clinton and Trump tied.  

Well according to the constitution.

 if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

A couple of things to note.

The house can't go rogue it must choose between Clinton, Trump, or the third party candidate with the highest number of votes on the ballot.  It's not very likely that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will win even one electoral vote so the list is basically paired down to Clinton and Trump. 

Even though the House votes for president, each state only gets one vote. In all electoral vote scenarios the Republicans will control a majority of the states.

It is unlikely the Republicans would go rogue and vote for Clinton. 

So a tie would be a Trump win. 

Friday, August 19, 2016

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Should Kevin Cash Be Fired?

Yeah, I know that outside the long suffering Rays fans in the I4 corridor and Southwest Florida nobody would give a damn. But I like to post an occasional article that is outside the field of politics and besides politics nothing starts an argument like baseball. 

Considers these facts:

The Rays rank fifth in the major leagues in home runs yet close to the bottom in runs scored. 

Evan Longoria is having a career year, yet was not an all-star because the Rays are ranked dead last in the AL East with a record (as of this writing) of 46-69.

The vaunted star pitching rotation disappeared this year with a team ERA of 4.19.

What has led to this awful performance? In a word, cash. Kevin Cash to be exact. 

The first factoid indicates that Cash can’t put together a lineup. He has the requisite number of power hitters to average 5 runs a game.

The second factoid indicates a tremendous waste of Longoria’s talents and is related to the first factoid.  Cash can’t seem to put a batter in front of Longoria who can a) get on base and/or b) stop hitting into double plays.  Too often Longoria is the lead-off batter or is up with the bases empty so any extra-base hit he gets is of limited value. 

Cash also eschews the bunt, hit and run, and/or any small-ball plays the get runners on base. Electing instead to play conservative station to station baseball.  It’s almost like he’s the anti-Madden. This is not a particularly good idea when you play half your game in cavernous (and I mean literally cavernous) Tropicana Field.

Finally, that brings us to the third factoid, Cash cannot handle a pitching staff.  His decisions have been arbitrary and illogical. His philosophy seems to be to get the strike-out every time instead of pitching to contact. (Again at the Trop Fly Balls go to die.) This elevates a starter’s pitch count, which in turn shortens his outing, which in turn stresses the bullpen, which in turn – well you know the rest. 

This one can’t be blamed on the front office folks. Cash got the tools he needed to field a comparative team, and like last year he failed miserably. Cash could be forgiven for his rookie year as a manager but he hasn’t learned a damn thing.
With September call ups just around the corner, the rest of the Rays season is about the future. Do we really want Kevin Cash handling that future? I vote no. 

Friday, August 5, 2016

How Crying Wolf made Trump Possible

How Paul Krugman Made Donald Trump Possible

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad.
He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president.
I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.
This article chronicles the numerous times the liberal media has demonized Republican candidates and makes the point that outside of the liberal echo chamber (represent aptly here by Roger Amick), nobody really is paying attention to them about Trump

In fact they are more concern about Clinton's record of incompetence and deception at the state department simply because, coming from the FBI director, it rings true. 

The media of course will double their effort to demonize Trump. However, I have a feeling that the more they do, the more they are going to be tuned out by the public. 

On the other hand, negative stories about Hillary Clinton will tend to be magnified simply because the will be at best underreported and at worst covered up by the media.   

 

Is the Bradley Effect Skewing the Polls?

Consider these numbers:

53% of people Gallup polled disapprove of Obama’s handling on the economy.

57% disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy.

70% of the people polled say we are on the wrong track.

Yet Obama’s job approval is 51%.

So what is going on here? One possible answer is the “Bradley effect”.  The Bradley effect was named after Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, and African-American or lost the election for governor of California after being ahead in the polls going into the election. [1]  

It is a social phenomenon where respondents to a poll give the answer they think the caller wants to hear rather than their actual feelings.  In this case, if the caller had a female African-American accent the respondent would more likely give a positive approval rating to Obama then would usually be the case. 

This is not necessarily a racial problem. Its root is the human’s innate desire to please other people. This is a natural trait that is important to the formation of social groups.  

It occurs when a perceive social stigma is attached to one of the answers.  In Barack Obama’s case that stigma is racism (or race betrayal if you are black).  In Hillary Clinton's case, that stigma is misogamy (or gender betrayal if you’re a women).

In addition, the media has so demonized Donald Trump as a racist, xenophobic, misogamist, insane man that there is a stigma to telling a poster that you will vote for him.   


So the question is how much is it shewing the polls?  We can interpolate from Obama job approval ratings. The effect looks like about 5 to 10%.

1. Wikipedia

Monday, August 1, 2016

Benghazi Mother: I was treated like dirt.



Indeed she was. By the very same people who were outraged by Trump's treatment of the Khans. 

Hypocrisy ------- Bedrock ---------- Liberalism  

Kudos to CNN for presenting the other side of the story. 

Which bring is to Hillary's public remarks when the remains of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and the other heros of Benghazi came home:


Exit Question: If Hillary Clinton publicly said the attacks were due to an internet video, why would she tell the families anything differently? 

Donald, Quit Digging

Khizr and Ghazala Khan are gold star parents who were cynically paraded out by the Democrats to criticize Donald Trump during the convention. 

If I had a chance to speak to Mr. Khan, I would point out that if his son was still alive, he wouldn't get in invitation to speak.

And if he did, he would be booed off the stage like Medal of Honor recipient Florent Groberg.

Donald Trump had a golden opportunity to thank Mr. Khan's son for his service, gently point out that his immigration policy is constitutional and renew his criticism of US foreign that was a factor in Captain Khan's death.

Instead, he directly engages Mr. Kahn in the most cringe-worthy narcissistic manner possible. Tump gave his numerous enemies in the media fodder for days of stories about his insensitivity.  

One of the axions of politics is that you never win an argument with gold-star mothers and fathers. You just thank them for their son's sacrifice and don't engage them. 

Being an experienced politician, Hillary Clinton knew that. She refused to engage Patricia Smith. She smoothy sidestep the question and moved on. 

That being said however, she had a disastrous interview with Chris Wallace sunday. And if it wasn't for Trump's inartful, ill advised attack on Mr. Khan, that would have been the story this weekend. 

So my advice to Donald Trump is quit digging and move on. This is a lose-lose situation and you can't afford many more mistakes.        

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Remember when Democrats Lionized Real Trators


Ted Kennedy's KGB Correspondence
By Kevin Mooney on Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010


Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's self-serving, secret correspondence with Soviet agents during the height of the Cold War included proposals for collaborative efforts designed to undermine official U.S. policy set by Democratic and Republican administrations, KGB documents show.

With the media now reporting on the late senator's just released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file, now is an opportune time for a more expansive investigation into Kennedy's KGB contacts. The agency took a keen interest in a 1961 "fact-finding" trip the Massachusetts Democrat took to Mexico and other parts of Latin America where he may have had contact with communist agents, according to the file.

However, the 2,352 pages of FBI files that cover a period ranging from 1961 to 1985 only tell a small part of the story and do not mention Kennedy's overtures to Soviet officials. These did not become known outside of Moscow until several years after Cold War tensions receded.

Kennedy's long history with the KGB is well documented, but underreported. It remains available through the writings of the now deceased Vasiliy Mitrokhin, who defected to Britain from the Soviet Union in 1992, and a separate 1983 memo addressed to then General Secretary Yuri Andropov. Kennedy's actions occurred at the expense of presidential authority and in violation of federal law, according to academics and scholars who are familiar with the documents.

The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980. The information exchanged during this encounter is included as part of a report Mitrokhin filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. The former KGB man continued to work with British intelligence until the time of his death.

Noted Cold War author and researcher Herbert Romerstein has described Mitrokhin as a "highly credible source" with vast knowledge of the now-closed KGB archives. Romerstein, who headed up the U.S. government's Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures during the 1980s, has explained in previous interviews that Mitrokhin made meticulous copies of KGB files by hand prior to his defection.

The KGB files Mitrokhin retrieved indicate that Kennedy fixed the blame for heightened international tensions on the Carter White House, not on the Kremlin. It is important to note that Kennedy was challenging incumbent Carter for the Democratic nomination for president at that time.

Tunney told his KGB counterparts that Kennedy was impressed by the foreign policy statements made by General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. Kennedy saw in Brezhnev a leader who was firmly committed to the policy of "détente," the report said.

Moreover, Kennedy also blamed the Carter Administration for assuming an overly belligerent posture toward the Soviet Union after the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, according to the papers.

"The atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter," Kennedy argued, as well as by some key advisors, the Pentagon and the U.S. military industrial complex, Mitrokhin wrote.

KENNEDY ALSO OFFERED TO WORK in close concert with high level Soviet officials to sabotage President Ronald Reagan's re-election efforts and to orchestrate favorable American press coverage for Andropov and Soviet military officials, according to the 1983 KGB document.

Kennedy offered to have "representatives of the largest television companies in the U.S. contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview," KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained in a letter to the general secretary dated May 14, 1983, the file shows. The idea here would be for the Soviet leader to make an end run around Reagan and make a direct appeal to the American people.

The KGB letter to Andropov first came to light in a Feb. 2, 1992 report published in the London Times entitled "Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File." Paul Kengor, a Grove City College political science professor, included the document in his 2006 book: The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and The Fall of Communism.

Kennedy suggested that Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters and Elton Raul, the president of the board of directors for ABC, be considered for the interviews with Andropov in Moscow. He also asked the KGB to consider having "lower level Soviet officials, particularly the military" take part in television interviews inside the U.S. where they could convey peaceful intentions.

Tunney, the former senator, once again served as an intermediary traveling to Moscow in 1983 to relay Kennedy's intentions. In the interest of world peace and improved American-Soviet relations, the Massachusetts Democrat offered specific proposals built around a public relations effort designed to "counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people," Chebrikov wrote.

Although it is not made clear who Tunney actually met with in Moscow, the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed the California Democrat to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.

"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor the Grove City professor said in an interview. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

The pattern of behavior should concern members of both political parties, Kengor said, because it shows Kennedy was willing to work against American foreign policy, regardless of who occupied the White House.

In his book, Kengor points out that Tunney acknowledged making 15 separate trips to the Soviet Union where he acted as a conduit not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators.

Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, describes Kennedy's actions as being in "clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority."

The secret overtures to the KGB during the Reagan years were particularly insidious, Dunn said, because Tunney and Kennedy were working to undermine what ultimately proved to be a very successful policy that brought an end to the Cold War.

"If another country gets the idea that it can deal outside of official channels then that undermines presidential leadership," Dunn added.

A strong case could also be made that Kennedy's Soviet overtures are in violation of the Logan Act, a federal law that has been in effect going back to 1799. The law prohibits American citizens from engaging in private diplomacy with a foreign government with the intention of influencing public policy, but it is rarely enforced.

There is no escaping the "blame America first" mentality that infects and animates Kennedy's communiqués.

"Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," Chebrikov observes in the letter. "Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan's belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the president's refusal to engage in any modification of his policies."

Tunney also discussed Kennedy's presidential ambitions with the Soviet contacts, the letter shows. Kennedy was looking to run in 1988 when he would be remarried and his "personal problems" resolved. However, the letter also said he did not rule out 1984.

"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's policies, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."

It is also evident from the letter that Kennedy believed the nuclear freeze movement was gaining momentum in 1983 and could help to short-circuit Reagan's military buildup. With the economic climate improving in the U.S., Reagan would only be vulnerable politically on matters of foreign policy, Kennedy informed the Soviets.

"The only real potential threats to Reagan (according to Kennedy) are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the KGB official explained to Andropov. "These issues will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength."

Media outlets that editorialized against Reagan's military buildup and in favor of disarmament have a special obligation to report on historical documents that provide fresh insight into policy disputes that shaped the final, pivotal years of Cold War.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Will Bernie Sanders Bolt the Democrat Party?

Three days ago most people were looking at another boring, slickly produced Democrat convention.

Bernie Sanders was brought on board and publically endorsed Hillary Clinton to the surprise and disappointment of his supporters. The price Clinton paid was small. A few meaningless face saving planks in the platform and the promise to seriously consider a progressive VP pick.

However, developments in the past three days are posed to make the planned Democrat unity and serenity convention a mere fantasy.

The first of course is Clinton’s pick of Tim Kaine as her VP running mate. The pick had the progressive caucus, Sanders supporters, and other far left groups in the Democrat party howling their disapproval. (Even with a 100% Planned Parenthood rating his support for gun control, he’s not liberal enough.)

Even with this very public slapping it was unlikely that Sanders would not bolt. However, the second development may be the tipping point.

WikiLeaks is releasing to the public emails obtained from the DNC server that were hacked by a person known as Guccifer 2.0. These emails conclusively show that far from the “neutral” arbiter the DNC was supposed to be in the primaries, it was actively working for the nomination of Hillary Clinton. For all practical purposes, the DNC was a branch of the Clinton campaign organization.

Their emails outline strategies for discrediting, and defeating the Sanders insurgency. Including questioning Sanders religion in key primary states of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee.

These emails reveal and absolute contempt for Sanders as well as the Democrat voters in these states. A contempt so prevalent that for Sanders it is an untenable humiliation.

It’s quite possible Sanders may bolt and rescind his endorsement.  His supporters may hold embarrassing demonstrations on the convention floor as well as outside the convention hall.

Update:
In an apparent peace bone to Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been uninvited from speaking at her own convention. 

Drudge now has the story in big bold headlines.

Second Update:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz will resign as DNC chairman and will take no part in her own convention. 

Team Clinton is in a panic.  

What will Bernie Do?  

Last Update: 

The answer is Bernie sold out his supporters to their great anger and disappointment.  However, far from the unity convention team Clinton hoped for, the anger and divisiveness continues. 

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

About Those Racist Cops

Judges and juries keep acquitting the cops whom Black Lives Matter calls racist

The repeated exoneration of allegedly racist cops by minority jurors and judges — from Ferguson and Staten Island to Cleveland and now Baltimore — seriously undermines the anti-cop movement started by Black Lives Matter and fueled by President Obama.
With half the Baltimore cops now acquitted in the death of Freddie Gray, a pattern has emerged where highly publicized cases against cops for racially motivated murder of black suspects have crumbled under the weight of court evidence.
It’s not to say these police officers made no procedural errors in their use of force, but they certainly did not commit the heinous civil-rights crimes the BLM movement accused them of committing. Even so, the movement continues to inspire fury against cops.

Do read the entire article. 

And if the case by case debunking of the myths was not enough, a new study by Harvard economics professor Robert G. Fryer Jr.  found "no racial bias in the use of the most lethal forms of force".  

In other words, the whole premise of the Black Lives Matter Movement is a lie. A lie perpetuated by black nationalist activist enabled by their liberal media allies.

A lie that was all too readily accepted and repeated by the current command in chief and his chief law enforcement officer. 

A pernicious lie that lead directly to the deaths of nine law enforcement officers in the last fourteen days; five in Dallas, three in Baton Rouge, and one in Kansas City. 

And yet with the overwhelming evidence of the lie, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats still persist in the lie, giving honored speaking slots to mothers of failed cop-killers at their convention. 

Their failed policies, divisiveness, and delusional thinking are only three of the many reasons why these people shouldn't be in power.

And has convince me that for all of his faults, Donald J. Trump is the better choice for president. 

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Why there are no great US Open Golf Championships

We just completed another great Open Golf Championship. (Hint: If you call it the “British Open” instead of just “The Open” you will be labeled an ignorant knave and you cannot set foot in Great Britain ever again.)

For two days over 36 holes Phil Mickelson and Henrik Stenson battle each other and the golf links at Royal Troon producing the greatest match in Open history since the dual in sun at Turnberry between Tom Watson and Jack Nicklaus.

Finally, Stenson took a two stroke lead with three holes to go to become the first Swede to win the gold medal.  (Yes, there’s a claret jug involved but the golfer gets to keep the gold medal.)

With all that excitement it occurred to me, can anyone name a great US Open golf match? For the life of me I can’t remember one.

I believe there are distinct reasons for this starting with the types of golf courses used in The Open Rota.

Without exception all of these golf courses are links style courses.  Links courses are almost always placed on the sea in the area above the mean high tide and the “useful” land. It is typically scrub land that is only good for grazing sheep. In other words, perfect for a pre-20th century golf course.

These courses typically have three defenses; rough, pot bunkers and wind. Typically, the fairways are narrow with deep rough and pot bunkers down the sides. Pot bunkers ring most of the greens and they usually play hard and fast.

Links courses put a premium on accuracy and experience rather than distance. Like the greens, the fairways play hard and fast and you can get quite a bit of roll out with your drive. Sometime more than you want, as more often than not a drive finds a pot bunker in the fairway.  That’s why you see pros use a 2-iron or 3-wood rather than a driver.

It’s no coincidence that this year’s champion is in his forties and he just barely defeated another past champion in his late forties.


The real wildcard however is the wind and the weather. There’s always a stiff breeze by the sea and the British weather is well, British weather.  Sometimes the sole determiner of whether you compete for the championship is the weather and the luck of the draw.

All of these factor however an experienced golfer can take into account. And while the rough and the pot bunkers may be a challenge they are not unduly punitive.  If the experience golfer finds a fairway bunker or the rough on his tee shot, he can still scramble for par.

The R&A (Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, governing body for British Golf) puts a premium on competition when they set up a golf course. There is the right mix of difficult holes and risk/reward holes.

The USGA on the other hand, puts a premium on a punitive golf course setup. Their goal is to protect par rather than promote great competition. They favor parkland courses with sand bunkers and deep punitive rough. The last two venues; Oakmont and Chambers Bay was ridiculously punitive.  Chamber's Bay was nothing more than a test to find the best hiker in golf while Oakmont punished even good shots from the fairway.


Punitive golf course setup does not encourage great competition it encourages cautious, defensive, and boring golf.  Until the USGA changes their tournament philosophy, we will not see great golf in the US Open. 

Friday, July 15, 2016

So Who is The Real Racist in This Election



You just know that if Hillary was a Republican it would have disqualified her from being president. 

The media would have been hounding her out of the race. 

As a great man once said, "Hypocrisy is the bedrock of Liberalism". 

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Bernie Sanders Betrays Supporters



What form did the 30 pieces if silver take?

A speaking gig at the convention and some meaningless planks in the platform.

Updated Swing State Polls:
Pennsylvania Quinnipiac: Trump 43, Clinton 41
Ohio Quinnipiac: Trump 41, Clinton 41
Florida Quinnipiac: Trump 42, Clinton 39

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

So Liberals Think People Don't Care About Hillary's Email Scandal

Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks After Controversial Week: Poll

Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump narrowed to 3 points this week after several days of controversy following FBI Director James Comey's recommendation that no criminal charges be brought against the former secretary of state over her use of a private email server.

While the developments are certainly good news for the Clinton campaign, Comey's critical statement on Clinton's handling of the matter was not positive. Clinton's lead over Trump has deteriorated in the past couple weeks since her lead peaked two weeks ago.

A strong majority of voters (82 percent) agreed that it was inappropriate for Clinton to use a personal email server during her tenure as secretary of state. A smaller majority — 56 percent — also said they disagreed with Comey's recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted for use of the server.

These results are according to the latest from the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll conducted online from July 4 through July 10, 2016. Survey questions pertaining to Clinton's email controversy were added following Comey's announcement.
Apparently people are paying attention to the email scandal and they don't like what they see in Hillary Clinton.

Three points are within the margin of error so for all practical purposes the race is now a dead heat.

On top of it, Donald Trump has had a remarkably good week keeping to a discipline law and order message in his speeches and remarks.  As opposed to Clinton who honored criminals as victims this week, Trump positioned himself as the law and order candidate and explain why it's necessary for us to support the police as they "protect the poorest and most vulnerable among us."

He was the one public figure who was a uniter instead of a divider this week.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Liberals Think the Email Scandal Will Go Away

I'm not so sure.



From The Trump Campaign



From Reason Magazine.

Update: The RNC chimes in.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

FBI Decision Leave American People Cold

The FBI decision to not recommend any charges against Hillary Clinton has convince people that “equal justice under the law” is now a sick joke in America.

In FBI director James Comey’s announcement today there are several things that were self-evident.

1. There was overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton violated Title 18 Section 793(f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

2. There is substantial evidence through removal of watermarks etc. that she violated sections of the Espionage act.

3. President Obama and attorney general Lynch for political reasons did not want her prosecuted.

This gross political interference in the FBI has shaken the people's confidence in the integrity of the bureau in particular and of the justice system in general.

It can never be said again with any degree of seriousness that there is “equal justice under the law”. Obama has corrupted the justice system to the point where only people receiving “justice” are wealthy and politically connected.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Hillary Clinton Interviewed By The FBI Today

The over/under on the number of times she took the 5th?

15

To follow up on CH's post let me quote the following:

Title 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 Subsection 798.  (Espionage Act) 

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or 
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; 
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications; 
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States; 
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients; 
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States. 
It's obvious that Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly exposed classified information on her private server and e-mail account.

Her legal argument is that she authorized herself to have a private server outside a secured government location.

Will it fly. We'll see.

Update:

On MSNBC Hillary Clinton stated the she first learned of her husband's meeting with Lynch "in the news" and that their meeting was a "chance encounter". 

Think about it. They will have you believe that two of the most highly protected persons in the world with secret service details having to coordinate security was a "chance encounter".

It's beyond belief that people would still vote for Hillary Clinton. 

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Democrats Prove They Are Not Serious About Keeping Terrorist From Buying Guns.

From Today's the Hill


A Democratic source said the more controversial gun-purchase provision may be similar to a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that’s backed by the National Rifle Association.
Democrats say the Cornyn bill doesn’t go far enough since it includes a “probable cause” standard that would require law enforcement officials to prove that a gun buyer is an actual terrorist rather than a suspected terrorist.
Instead, Democrats want a vote on legislation that would bar firearm sales to anyone on a terrorism watch list or no-fly list.

Get that? The Democrats don't think you need to actually prove a suspect is a terrorist before you deny him the right to keep and bare arms.

This just shows how un-serious they are about passing constitutional gun laws. It may thrill their base but not the majority of Americans who actually believe in the second amendment.

This is a political loser for the Democrats. Fortunately for the Republicans, Nancy Pelosi is too stupid to figure that out.  

Abortion and the Slippery Slope of Public Morality

From National Review Online:

Abortion and Killing a Newborn: What's the Diffrence

This morning, I read this news article:
ZANESVILLE, Ohio (AP) — A former college student who gave birth in her sorority house was sentenced Monday to life in prison without parole for killing the newborn by throwing her in the trash.
Emile Weaver, 21, was found guilty by a jury last month of aggravated murder, abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence.
Prosecutors said Weaver gave birth in a bathroom at the Delta Gamma Theta sorority at Muskingum University on April 22, 2015, then purposefully caused the death of her baby.
They said the baby girl died from asphyxiation after Weaver put her in a plastic trash bag and left it outside the sorority house.
 Two questions: What in our culture would have let Miss Weaver know that what she ended up doing was wrong?
Also: What is the difference between her act and abortion? I mean, really? What is the difference? Why is one a celebrated “choice” and the other a crime worthy of life in prison?

Indeed it is two good questions. Especially in light of the following:

The Supreme Court has ruled in Roe v Wade that the state has no interest in protecting the life of an unborn child. The fate of the child is solely in the hands of the mother.

There are intellectuals on the left that have seriously argued that a baby doesn't become a person until he or she obtains the age of 3 years (or even longer). One of these intellectuals was the chief medical adviser on Obamacare.

It is assumed that since these babies are "not persons" the mother has the absolute right to kill them.

Justice Kennedy has ruled that a law must have a "rational basis" and that the state has no interest in enforcing a common morality.

Which leads to another questions. What are these people celebrating:



They are celebrating a barbaric practice that no civilized country should be proud of.

They are celebrating the existence of substandard butcher shops that act as "women's health centers", that profit from killing unborn babies while putting the life and health of the mother in danger.

A society is judged by the people it protects and failure to protect the most innocent of life whether unborn or born is an indictment that will haunt us forever.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

A Word About the House Benghazi Report.

Democrats in Congress and the White House are screaming to high heaven about the house Benghazi report.

They accused Republicans of posturing.
They accused Republicans of playing politics.
They even accused Donald Trump of being behind it.

What they are not doing however, is accusing the Republicans of writing a false and slanderous report.

And that speaks volumes.

Because no matter how much the Democrats scream, two truths are now painfully obvious.

1. Hillary Clinton knew from the very beginning that the attack was an organized terrorist attack, not a spontaneous riot due to an internet video.

2. Barack Hussain Obama was missing in action for the entire night. We see a military frozen and frustrated because of a lack of orders from the commander in chief.

Christian Persecution in America


The dark pessimism of American Christians


A review of Mary Eberstadt's book It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies 

By Michael Brendan Dougherty

The following is an excerpt:

Eberstadt documents in exhaustive detail this widespread social urge to rob Christians of their livelihoods and their good names, merely for believing what their churches have always taught, and acting on those beliefs. This is not just a handful of bakers who refused to make gay wedding cakes. There was the U.S. Marine Monica Sterling, who was given a dishonorable discharge for posting the Biblical verse "No weapon shall prosper against me" on her own computer, which a military judge said "could be interpreted as combative." Or the mayor of Houston, who demanded that pastors turn over their sermons to her for inspection. Religious colleges are faced with challenges to their accreditation. Charity groups and adoption agencies are subjected to continual and costly campaigns of legal assault for acting in accordance with the tenets of their religion. Even in the last few weeks since Eberstadt's book has been published, Catholic hospitals, which service some of the poorest areas in the country, are being portrayed as an alien and malignant force as the ACLU sues them for not performing abortions.
Eberstadt, in a neat series of chapters, contrasts the self-descriptions of progressives and secularists with their actions. They believe themselves champions of civil rights, while circumscribing the freedoms of fellow citizens. They imagine themselves tolerant, while prosecuting their cultural enemies with the zeal of inquisitors. They make blacklists and call themselves open-minded.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Matthew 10:22

Monday, June 27, 2016

Is the Washington Post and ABC Polling for a Story?

This analysis by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air makes a prescient point. 

While the WaPo/ABC sample and poll results aren’t “dirty” or dishonest, the presentation seemed a bit misleading. Here’s the second paragraph:
Following a month of self­inflicted [sic] controversies, the survey shows that support for Trump is plunging, including among fellow Republicans, propelling Democrat Hillary Clinton to a double-digit lead nationally. The poll reveals fresh doubts about Trump within his own party just three weeks before Republicans convene in Cleveland for their national convention.
 Trump’s performance might have had some impact on those changes, but the Post neglected to note that the difference might also have come from a change in its sample composition. The previous poll, in which Hillary led 48/42, had a D+8 sample, while this one had a D+12 — and that might account for most of the change, with Hillary gaining three points and Trump losing the same amount. It claimed significant motion where perhaps little really existed.

In other words, the  Clinton surge and Trump's decline can be all be traced back to a change in the sampling.

So if you adjust for the sample, there is no change in the race between Trump and Clinton since last month.

But that wouldn't make for a good story would it?

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Brexit Vote a Celebration of Freedom

Britain’s vote for freedom proves power is with the people

By Michael Goodwin
The parallels to America’s tumult are obvious — right down to the hairy similarities of Trump and mop-top Brexit leader Boris Johnson.
While the original Redcoats tortured rebels, killed their families and confiscated their lands, the new Redcoats in Washington and Brussels kill the spirit of innovation, enforce conformity with regulations and punish dissidents with charges of bigotry.
Elitists of both parties try to silence Trump by accusing him of “hate speech” for demanding that America control its borders and enforce its immigration laws. Similarly, Johnson was greeted with calls of “racist scum” first thing in the morning.
Johnson, potentially the next prime minister, committed the crime of suggesting that Great Britain would be greater outside the suffocating embrace of European Union bureaucrats. He favors a liberated country that can make its own laws and decisions, and put its own people first.
While not carbon copies of Trump’s rallying cries of “Make America Great Again” and “America First,” the sentiments come damn close. As does the growing fear in both countries that distant, self-serving governments are slaves to political correctness and are not doing enough to stop Islamist terrorists.
To be clear, Trump and Johnson are not sainted men of unquestioned virtue. Rather, they are leaders speaking on behalf of millions upon millions of middle- and working-class people who feel left out of the globalized economy.

It is indeed a celebration of freedom as the people of Great Britain took their nation back from unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.  

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Is Seeing Boobs Making America Less Great?

For some saturday light reading. This column by Amy Otto at the Federalist argues that men did greater things when they couldn't see a woman's boobs.


Men Did Greater Things When It Was Harder To See Boobs


This may sound a bit Trumpesque, but to Make America Great Again we may need to Make Seeing Boobs Rare Again. Men did great things often in pursuit of women. Eric Clapton, in desperate love with George Harrison’s wife Patti, wrote the famous rock anthem “Layla” in pursuit of her. Men used to be rewarded with attention from women based on their accomplishments. When homeless millennial men can find shelter by hooking up with a different woman every night, you need to question feminists’ tactical battle plans.

I would point out that in the 17th century women's boobs were quite prominent in the fashion of the day.

And we got achievements like the American and French revolutions.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Brexit Vote is Today

Today voters in Great Britain go to the polls to decide whether to stay or leave the European Union.

A vote the leave will be the beginning of the end of the EU. While the globalist and security hawks are aghast at the possibility I say good riddance to the EU.

It was an ill concive quasi national government  of bureaucrats , by bureaucrats, and for bureaucrats.  It's parliament was a toothless figurehead body created to give the veneer of democracy when in fact it was nothing more and a rubber stamp to the autocratic decrees of the bureaucrats.

It's time to end this aberration and return to the common market arrangement that pre-dated the EU or create a union more responsive to the people it's suppose to serve.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

What Trump has to do to Win

There’s no doubt about it, this has been a bad two weeks for Donald Trump. But it’s certainly not hopeless for the Trump train and there is movement to turn the ship around.

Chief among them was firing campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. I don’t believe for second his firing had anything to do with Michele Fields or Ivanka Trump.

Lewandowski was fired because he was a bad political manager. Whatever position he held before the campaign did not translate well into politics.

Chief among his mistakes was the failure to create a campaign organization in all 50 states to secure the gains of Trump’s primary victories.  This mistake almost (and may still) cost him the nomination as the Trump delegates to the Republican convention are not really loyal to Trump.

However, Trump is still the odds on favorite to win the nomination and this is what he need to do to win the general election:

·         Discipline, Discipline, Discipline. Pick a message of the day and stick to it. Do not go off on personal tangents about lawsuits and judges at best you seem petty and narcissistic and at worst you allow your opponents to define you as a racist and bigot.

·         Make peace with the Republican establishment. They don’t have to like you, but they need to be on-board with shared political interest.  Remember, you will need their organization since you failed to create one yourself.

·         Find the money. Hillary Clinton is outspending you three to one in Florida and the polls are showing it.

·         Define Hillary before she’s finished defining you. From foreign policy, to a liberal social agenda, to cozy relationships with wall street bankers, to a character issues, Hillary Clinton is a target rich environment. Time to start shooting.


·         Make this campaign about the voters. The means concentrating on trade, energy, and economic policy.  You have the convince them that their situation will improve under you and that you will “Make America Great Again”.