This Is It!

Do you know why I like Donald Trump? I don't, but I think he is useful. My thinking is maybe, just maybe he can nail down some of these guys on immigration. The ONLY candidate apart from Trump to tell it like it is (and what we all know) was Ted Cruz when he said BOTH sides don't want to enforce our immigration laws, and unfortunately he hasn't a snowballs chance.

Everybody is running around screaming Washington is broken, it doesn't work. Well it's working for some-Goddamn-body, just not conservatives. If you happen to be a abortionist or a Wall Streeter or a welfare bum or a one-world government type then Washington is hitting on all cylinders. If you're a middle-class small business owner (especially one who runs a bakery or pizza joint) or a working woman or a disabled vet then Washington is an overgrown front yard full of vines and weeds with a lazy, beer-sodden husband wallowing on the couch watching pay-per-view porn in front of the kids.

What is it you guys don't get about this election? What is it you don't understand? There are no "issues" in this election except IMMIGRATION. That's it! Everything conservatives believe in, everything we hold dear, our values, our way of life, our Constitution, our future EVERYTHING will be gone if we don't immediately STOP ALL IMMIGRATION legal and otherwise.

For thirty years our country has been like a bad science fiction movie. Under our very noses we are being replaced, replaced by people who NEED GOVERNMENT. Most of these people do not share our respect for the rule of law coupled with an healthy suspicion of power. They don't share our respect for personal liberty or our belief in natural rights. They take advantage of our innate generosity and are ignorant/uncaring to the fact we are going broke. They are here to feed at the trough and will leave as soon as it's empty.  

I pledge to you this, I will not vote for any candidate that is not absolutely clear and unequivocal on building a wall, instituting eVerify, doing away with birth-right citizenship and all its perversions like anchor babies and maternity tourism along with stiff penalties for hiring illegals and an aggressive deportation policy. Trump is right, Mexico has been sending the worst criminals and their needy for the stupid gringos to take care of, and we need to bill Mexico.

If we fall for Rubio's "Well El-What'shisfuqingname will just build a tunnel" or Jeb's tired old bullshit about "We'll have them pay fines and learn english and stuff" then we are too stupid to vote. This is it! This is the ballgame, and whether the coming 100 years of Democrat rule starts this election or next doesn't really make a difference. We either get this done or it's over, WE LOSE.

   

Give to Marco Rubio for President

Hey folks, how bout that Marco Rubio?  I just got off a conference call with him and other fund raisers (a bunch of them,I'm not special) , and I can tell you that he isn't cocky, that he told us all "we had a good day, we'll have some bad days"--which really was good to hear because that's the way it will play out.

He was definitely excited about the debate last night, and stressed the importance of continuing to stay positive and continuing to stay dedicated to laying out a positive vision of the future.

The Conservative Wahoo fund has raised $1000 thus far, on our way to $100,000.

Won't you consider a donation, even a small one?  It's going to take a lot of money to beat Hillary Clinton, and every little bit counts.

Just right click the form on this page, open in a new tab, print it out with the amount you want to give and send it on in.

Thanks for your consideration!

Bryan

July 2016 GOP Thought Experiment

Let's pretend it is July 2016, and the GOP convention is in two weeks.  Marco Rubio has locked up the nomination, and speculation abounds as to who he should pick as his running mate.

There are lots of options out there, but two are particularly intriguing.

The first is Carly Fiorina, who caught fire after the first debate (in which she was on the undercard), and turned it into a serious run that left her with the

second highest delegate total.

Another is Governor John Kasich of Ohio, who finished just behind Fiorina, but who recognized his path to victory was bleak early enough to exit the race and endorse Rubio.

Of these two--JUST THESE TWO--who would be the better choice to run as VP?

Is it Fiorina--for her business background, her policy preferences, and her gender?

Or Kasich, for his policy preferences and the big important state he represents?

Talk amongst yourselves....

Incoherent slams watch: Do Democrats know how to win a negotiation?

I missed the "Happy Hour" hour debate, which, according to a deeply scientific poll of Fox News viewers who tweet, Fiorina won running away (at 83%, according to Greta, at this writing). The more reliable indication of Fiorina's success, per Glenn, is that the Democratic National Committee decided to pick out Carly for a particularly revealing slam:

"Here's Carly Fiorina's record on negotiations – she negotiated a merger with Compaq where 30,000 HP employees lost their jobs. Then she negotiated a $40 million golden parachute after she was fired," DNC Spokesperson Christina Freundlich wrote.

Uh, that seems like pretty good negotiating to me. The Compaq deal was a bad move, but not because of the, er, synergies, and the mark of a good negotiator is whether you can get a decent deal when you're getting fired. Both these transactions no doubt offend Democrats (who, after all, rarely understand either the causes or the effects of business combinations or the basis for or principles behind executive compensation), but the one thing they do not refute is Fiorina's claim to be a good negotiator.

GOP Voters First Forum

Don't know if you had a chance to watch last night on CSPAN (when the hell are they going to broadcast in HD--looks like I'm watching the 1969 moon landing), but the GOP candidates for President mostly got together in New Hampshire for the Voters First Forum.  Senators Paul, Cruz, and Rubio joined from DC by satellite, where they stayed in order to cast their votes for defunding Planned Parenthood.  Lindsay Graham decided it was more important to be in New Hampshire.

With thirteen or fourteen of them, only a very disciplined and fast paced format would work, and to their credit, the organizers pulled it off, due mostly to the dexterity of the moderator.  Here is my very general view of how things went:


Helped themselves:  Perry, Fiorina, Graham, Cruz, Carson, Walker, Santorum
Hurt themselves:  Pataki
No help, no damage:  Bush, Christie, Jindall, Kashich, Paul, Rubio

Pataki just seems out of the game to me.  I continue to really like to listen to Santorum's message of economic revival, but also continue to believe that he is a poor vessel for the message.  Are you listening Marco?

As for my man Marco, he had a good night, but the time delay associated with the satellite feed seemed to put the three Senators at a little disadvantage.

Samuelson on The Minimum Wage

Faithful readers know that I am not as hard over on criticisms of the minimum wage as some.  In fact, I've advocated that as a political matter (not an economic matter), it would be best if the GOP gives a bit on the minimum wage in order to get something we want--like a border fence, or a drop in corporate tax rates, etc.  Others (see Tigerhawk) are less enthusiastic about raising the minimum
wage (or even the existence thereof), and they base their objections largely along pretty straightforward economic analyses.

Into the picture rides Robert Samuelson, one of my favorite economic commentators, with this piece on the minimum wage.  There's a little bit in it for everyone to like (or hate)--for the practical political animals in the audience, Samuelson throws this bone:  "Let’s be clear. Some increase in the federal minimum is justified. It’s been at $7.25 since 2009. Inflation has eroded its value 10 percent since then and 24 percent since its peak year of 1968, says the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute."  For those who (rightly) question its impact on the economy and the workforce, Samuelson lays out several scenarios of minimum wage increases, from a minimum of $10.10 an hour (500,000 lost) to what appears to be the Holy Grail for advocates, a $15.00/hr rate (3.3 million).  

The issue doesn't work that well for us (GOP), but I'm not clear it works against us all that much.  It is a HUGE issue for D's--which is why I find it to be so tempting as compromise bait--we give away something that matters less to get something that matters more.  We shall see.  

Cuba Libre

Remember this guy? Well I do, and fondly. But I can understand if you have...eh, different memories. The national media tried for nearly 30 years to "palenized" Jesse, and guess what? Jesse could have given a shit and the people of North Carolina loved him till the end. How could that be you ask? Because one might not agree with everything he did, but he had guts and said what he meant AND backed up what he said. Those qualities are in short supply these days, especially on our side of the aisle.

One of the things Jesse LOVED to do was rattle Castro's cage. You might recall the Helms-Burton Act. No? Well let me refresh your memory. The law (I repeat LAW!!!) provides a number of sanctions designed to bring about a peaceful transition to representative government in Cuba. It specifically prohibits the recognition of any "transitional" government that includes Fidel and Raul Castro and any members of the former regime including any foreign entities (you know, like displaced commies from the old Soviet Bloc). Now here's the kicker, it provides a legislative veto over unilateral Executive action to lift the embargo. In other words the President can't wave a magic wand and normalize relations with Cuba unless Congress agrees.

What's that? Haven't seen anything about this in our ever-so diligent media? Wow that's shocking...NOT! The fact is Obama's actions are illegal! The broader point is the damage being done to the balance of powers by McConnell and Boehner's refusal to stand up to this rouge President and protect their turf. It's not about them and it's not about politics, it's about the God-damned Constitution and their DUTY to preserve and protect and uphold their oath.

We are being led on one side by amateurs and on the other side by wimps, you decide which one is which. But do take a gander at Helms-Burton and see if you prefer it to Obama's policy. By the way, we'll be providing them with foreign aid up the ass no doubt but I wonder if the small issue of nationalized property will be considered? Of course it will, we're friends now.

Is there any doubt if Jesse were around this wouldn't have even been considered.

Some Extended Thoughts on the Iran Deal

I had a spirited exchange with a good friend yesterday about the Iran deal over Facebook.  Such exchanges tend to get my Irish up, mostly because I like having those kinds of conversations in private, without creating my own little CNN "Split Screen" effect for others to pile onto.  But it had to be done, and it inspired me to put some of those thoughts down here for you to evaluate.  So here are some of my thoughts in no apparent order, some of which attend to the deal itself, some of which attend to how the deal is discussed and argued.

1.  From the very beginning, I will grant that for me, no deal is better than a bad deal, or even a "less good" deal.  Iran not getting a nuclear weapon is for me, simply not worth what was given up either at the negotiating table or in the instructions to our negotiators.  It strikes me as interesting that the Administration's single-minded desire to create conditions designed to slow Iran's attainment of a nuclear weapon seems to dramatically outstrip the desire of the State of Israel for the same goal.  Like Israel (I think I've read this right), a deal that potentially slows their nuclear program but which leaves them in a significantly better position economically (with greater resources to continue to mastermind their worldwide terror activities), with no restrictions on their conventional missile program, with our four hostages still in Iranian prisons, and which does not recognize Israel's right to exist is worse than the status quo.  And by the status quo, I grant that means Iran gets the bomb at some point (two months was the figure put forward yesterday--though I have no reason to believe or trust that figure), but it does so as an international pariah with a hobbled economy.  The Administration wanted this halfdeal so badly that it dealt away much of what could have made it meaningful.

2.  A point often made by supporters of this deal is that it wasn't a deal about Israel, and it wasn't a deal about conventional weapons, it wasn't about prisoners, and it wasn't a deal about their terror activities.  Such a deal would have been--in their words--"impossible".  Like my old CO Jake Ross used to say, "you want it bad, you get it bad".  They wanted the limited objective of slowing Iran's quest for the bomb so badly that they walked away from anything bigger, and then allowed themselves to be whittled down even there as to the objectives that they sought connected even with this limited goal.  Supporters tell us that all of these other "side" issues would have muddied the water--and then don't have an answer for all of the places within the ACTUAL negotiation where we backed down from public statements.

3.  The "what is your alternative?" play.  This -- like the "Strawman Comparison" is a favorite rhetorical tactic of the Obama Administration and its supporters.  For the longest time, the President has been telling us that the alternative to his plan was "war".  Until the negotiations got tough, at which point he told us that he was "willing to walk away".  To war?  I mean, because that was the only alternative, right?  A derivative of this approach is the 'what is your alternative" question, which for supporters of the deal, means that irrespective of how relevant or insightful one's criticism of the ACTUAL deal is, unless you can come forward with something to replace it, your views are somehow without weight or value.  I made the comparison on Facebook yesterday thusly:  you are an infantry platoon leader, and your company commander is laying out his plan for taking "that" hill.  It is a very, very tough objective.  You don't have a plan of your own--but the plan he lays out has gaping holes in it that you believe could lead to mission failure.  Should you sit there and say nothing because you don't have a better idea?  My interlocutor did not agree that this was an apt analogy.  I did not agree with him.

4.  The "the deal has much of what the Bush Administration was negotiating" in it.  So what.  It wasn't a "deal" then.  It was a negotiation.  Conducted largely in private.  Most bothersome of all though, I am unfamiliar with the Bush Administration's plan to force a multi-nationally agreed upon framework upon the American people as an Executive Agreement, rather than as a Treaty.  You are free to question my honor if you wish, but I am here to tell you that if GWB had reached this deal and was trying to bring it into force the way THIS Administration is doing, I would have rejected it just as strongly.

5.  The "critics haven't read the deal" play.  Well, I have.  All of it. And while I believe it has the potential to slow or delay Iran's nuclear weapons program, I continue to believe "the juice wasn't worth the squeeze".  One highly placed friend used this as his opening gambit yesterday, and when I responded that I had read it, he cited classified experiences/dialogues that he couldn't discuss as further evidence.  Nice try.

6.  So--what IS my alternative.  Well, even though I don't believe my criticisms to be any less weighty without one, I did in fact have one--which I laid out briefly on FB and will do so in more detail here.

MY ALTERNATIVE

1.  Continue to exert world leadership to isolate the Iranian regime.
2.  Continue to exert world leadership to deprive them of the components of a nuclear weapon -- counter proliferation and other (clandestine) methods.
3.  And finally.....and this is taken directly from an unpublished paper I wrote in 2006....

     "The United States must come to grips with the fact that while counter-proliferation strategies have certainly slowed the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, they have not stopped it, nor does it appear to be a winning strategy for the long haul.  Continuing to create the conditions to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation must remain a part of the overall strategy, but a new emphasis must be placed on managing the consequences of existent proliferation.  To that end, and in harmony with other like-minded first generation nuclear powers, the United States must seek to encourage (to the extent possible) debate within the governments and the people of emerging nuclear powers about the responsibilities that flow from their possession.  The most effective way of doing so would be to clearly state what the consequences of both the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons would be.
What does this mean?  At a minimum, it means that we must once again engage in an open discussion as to what would be acceptable retaliatory measures to be taken in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States or one of its allies.  Furthermore, we must continue to field and deploy appropriate defenses against ballistic missiles.  In this new form of deterrence, a robust missile defense system (including forward deployed sea-based defenses) would necessarily cause a more in-depth calculation as to the effectiveness of a nuclear attack enabled by this greatly proliferated delivery platform.   Additionally, consideration must be given to the ramifications of nuclear attacks on nations not necessarily friendly to the U.S.
More specifically, the Administration should issue the following statement, reminiscent of President Kennedy’s statement at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis:  “It will be the policy of the United States Government to regard any nuclear attack by the nations of Iran (or other third generation nuclear powers) as an attack on world civilization, requiring an overwhelming and disproportionate response, to include the use of nuclear weapons already targeting all major cities of those nations.”
What would be the desired effect of such a statement?  First and foremost, it would provide the impetus for a healthy debate within those countries, at least within their leadership structures, as to the true responsibilities of a nuclear power.   In Iran, a well-educated populace who has thus far been steadily fed a diet of the privileges associated with nuclear status  would suddenly have to confront the wisdom of possessing such weapons given the near-certainty of the destruction of their ancient civilization in the event of those weapons use.  Secondly, even if these third generation powers were to persist in their desire to possess such weapons, they would now be forced to consider the kinds of issues that dominated the early days of first generation nuclear development, specifically, weapons command and control, and the development of use doctrine.
Ultimately, nuclear weapons will continue to spread.  The technology associated with nuclear weapons development is well into its eighth decade of existence, and to continue to rely primarily on counter-proliferation strategies leaves us dangerously unprepared for the inevitable rise of additional nuclear powers.  We must move toward a strategy that offers third generation powers the respect they seek by expecting of them the responsible approach to nuclear weapons that has characterized the first generation.  In other words, “Welcome to the club, now here are the rules.”

There you go.

The Clintons, the Ex-Im Bank, and the aristocracy of pull

The news today had its uplifting moments. Vox choked out a spectacular story about the arresting wealth gathered in by Bill and Hillary Clinton since 2007, and graced it with a headline so snarky that Donald Trump might have written it: "Hillary Clinton has paid more in taxes than Jeb Bush has ever earned." The short version is that the Clintons have "earned" -- more about the use of that word in a moment -- $141 million since 2007. I don't care who you are, that's some decent coin.

The second best part about the Vox story is the searchable list of all the organizations, mostly large business corporations, that have paid the Clintons enormous sums to hear their talking points in person. Scroll down and make your list of boycott targets (I was sad to see my old law firm Latham & Watkins in that corrupt crowd, by the way).

Also this morning, the frequently confused NYT columnist Joe Nocera inveighed against anybody who might oppose the Ex-Im Bank as either "[m]ind-bogglingly idiotic" (channeling Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic Senator from dark-red North Dakota) or "ideological" and "extreme right."

Nocera does note that conservatives oppose the Ex-Im Bank because they see it as an example of "crony capitalism." Nocera's evidence that it is not is a knee-slapper from Fred Hochburg, president of the Ex-Im Bank:

The argument by opponents that “most drives me crazy is that we’re a form of crony capitalism. We’re the opposite of that,” he said. “Companies come to us when they can’t get a deal done any other way...."

Uh, Joe, if you cannot get export financing in the private sector, when your lenders are motivated by balancing risk and the opportunity for profit, and you can only get it done with an explicit or implicit subsidy from taxpayers, that is the farookin' essence of crony capitalism. One rarely sees evidence offered against a proposition so useful in sustaining it.

Regardless, Nocera's passion for state corporatism blinds him to the point that would animate progressive opposition if a Republican sat in the White House. The Ex-Im Bank is a transfer of wealth from taxpayers, who consist of the average guy, to people wealthy enough to own businesses that export stuff. In short, it makes inequality worse. What, suddenly inequality isn't the defining problem of our age? Nocera's failure even to mention that point reveals him as either intellectually dishonest -- that would be my bet -- or "mindbogglingly idiotic."

The ugly truth is that the Ex-Im Bank is nothing but a taxpayer subsidy for America's largest corporations. Doubt me? Check out this handy series of graphs. I liked this one in particular, but look at them all:

We note that "various small businesses" accounted for approximately 1/60th of the loan guarantees made by the Ex-Im Bank in 2013. The rest went to huge corporations. Oh. And go to Open Secrets and search for Boeing, Caterpillar, and General Electric. You will see that all of them rank highly as political contributors and procurers of lobbying. No doubt to keep those Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees flowing. This is, again, the essence of crony capitalism. It puts the government in the business of picking winners and losers among competitors, sucks money from ordinary taxpayers to benefit the owners of a small number of big corporations and their vendors, and no doubt makes inequality worse, like so many other government interventions. If opposing the Ex-Im Bank is idiotic, sign me up.

Back to the Clintons. Is there a single person alive who believes that corporations, trade associations, NGOs, unions, and the like pay the Clintons enormous sums for speeches because they believe their members actually want to hear the Clintons say the same tedious talking points they have been spewing for years? If that were the only value received no profit-minded enterprise would pay the Clintons these vast fees because they would earn, well, a shitty rate of return.

No, the Clintons are not paid to speak. Businesses and other interest groups pay them for the favor of access at a crucial moment or a thumb on the scale in the future, perhaps when it is time to renew the Ex-Im Bank or at a thousand other occasions when a nod might divert millions of dollars from average people in to the pockets of the crony capitalists. The speaking is just a ragged fig leaf, mostly to allow their allies in the media to say they "earned" the money for "speaking," which is, after all, hard work.

We have such people as the Clintons (and the tens of thousands of smaller bore looters who have turned the counties around Washington, D.C. in to the richest in the country) because they and their ilk in both parties have transformed the federal government of the United States in to a vast favors factory, an invidious place that not only picks winners and losers and decides the economic fates of millions of people, but which has persuaded itself that this is all quite noble. Instead, the opposite is true: This entire class of people, of which the Clintons are a most ugly apotheosis, are destroying the country while claiming it is all in the "public service." It is disgusting. We need to say that, at least, out loud.

Of course, all of this was prefigured years ago in a novel some of you will know.

Tear down the aristocracy of pull. This may be our last chance.

Addendum: Just when you thought it could not get worse.

The co-founder of Greenpeace on climate alarmism

Your morning's entertainment, or outrage, as the case may be:

Love the Canadian accent, by the way.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's eating you, Betty?  Your candidate not on the stage next week?  Most of the country thinks your boy is a buffoon?  Don't know if your own party will support the big deal you just made?

Kvetch a bit!  Share--right here!

157 on the nose today, sorta stuck, but still doing well.  They opened the bridge near my house yesterday, so the Kitten and I drove (expeditiously) into town and had a celebratory dinner last night.  Had a little too much to eat.

Chicago in summer

I love Chicago. I lived there -- which is actually "here" as I write this, having been here for the last three days -- more than 20 years ago, and cherish any opportunity to come back. And Chicago is especially nice in the summer. A friend of mine said years ago that no city in America gets more out of summer than Chicago, and that is surely true.

Until today, however, I had never ridden in a boat on the river, gazing up at the great buildings of the Chicago Loop. I recommend it. Herewith, some pictures from the afternoon's doggle of boon.

Big Stan...

Trump (is this a violation of election laws?):

Cop yacht.

Drawbridge...

Reflections.

Sears forever.

More later.

WOW, Didn't See This One Coming!

Can you believe this? Obama's White House coordinated with the media, and specifically with Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz's (aka Jon Stewart) The Daily Show. Truly unbelievable! Unbelievable if you're like nine and have the IQ of a cicada.

Tell me, what is the chief asset of the left? What characterizes them best and what do they themselves value the most? It's organization. The left has always known their views are not widely shared by the middle-class, the masses, the bourgeoisie, the proletariat (whatever term one may apply). Therefore their focus has always been on organizing, to multiply their power by controlling KEY positions in business, arts and entertainment, news outlets, academia etc.

Now you may call this a conspiracy theory, but the idea that the liberal media WOULD NOT coordinate with the White House and other political entities that share their world view is to me ludicrous. It would go against their very nature. I am POSITIVE there is highly organized coordination between all the aforementioned groups and probably your damn dog-groomer (if she or he is a tapped in leftist). Technology over the past couple of decades has made their message even more monolithic (and a helluva lot easier to disseminate).

Adam Smith said that competitors rarely talk, but if they do it'll take them less than 10 minutes before they hatch a conspiracy against the markets. Likewise leftists have been conspiring against our Constitution and our freedom since the days of Emma Goldman and John Reed (and probably since Moses, but I can't prove that). So Politico's grand revelation is not so grand, in fact I'm quite sure they've known about all this for years because they're part of the conspiracy. Jon Stewart manipulates young idiots and Politico manipulates older idiots...and so it goes.

Who Will Leave the GOP Race First?

A good summary of the GOP field here from the New York Times.  Who do you think will be the first candidate to drop out/suspend their candidacy?

My guess?  Bobby Jindal. Gone by January 31.

Jurassic Park, Toast and It Don't Mean Nothing You Big Baby!

Ever see Jurassic Park? Sure you did. Who doesn't love a good dinosaur movie? I've been watching them since I was a kid when they'd glue fins on the backs of Iguanas and have them roll around in the sand. The best example of course being Journey to the Centre of the Earth. By the way who doesn't like a good Pat Boone movie? (I hear CW has April Love on DVD and watches it regularly!) But to each his own and I'm rambling, back to the point (although Shirley Jones was HOT! in an innocent I'd like to defile your body kinda way).
In the first Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum asks the Zoo Dude what precautions they've taken to prevent these 47 ton critters from escaping resulting in some Triceratops marching down Rodeo Drive scaring hell out of Paris Hilton (although I'd say she's well familiar with the three horns at once concept). Zoo Dude says that hey man, it's all good, we made them all females, they ain't going nowhere. Goldblum's response is that you guys are all idiots, you have no idea what you're fuqing with and that NATURE WILLS OUT! No matter what you do nature will find a way to win and all this biological manipulation BS will end up costing you big time and biting you in the ass..literally. That piece of logic is not only true with dinosaur movies but true with people as well.
There are rumblings in Europe. Those leftist dweebs currently led by the halfwitted, half-baked, half-assed little Marxist prick Martin Schultz are about to suffer the wrath of the people. Unless I miss my guess Greece will explode very soon, and this could well touch off a simmering powder keg of violence that will wreck the leftist pipe dream of a united Europe. Hell it's a joke anyway. The Germans run the show. You didn't see the Italians or Spanish negotiating debt relief with Athens did you? This could get ugly fast, stay tuned.

Well nobody can say we didn't try. It's well known that Obama and most especially his main political squeeze Valerie Jarrett (is something else going on there?) can't stand the Clintons, and now they're putting the squeeze on. I think they're just having a little fun. They got her ass anytime they want it. She's so stupid. Why would she expose herself time after time? Private server, Benghazi, YouTube videos, Clinton Foundation; lies, lies and more lies. Lies that Obama had to know about and could use at anytime. Did she think she had friends in the White House? Is she nuts?
This stuff wouldn't have happened 10 years ago. Bill is as sharp as they come but he's old now. I think he's more concerned with the good life and is really not able for the brutal knockdown, drag-out of a political campaign. I think Hillary's cadre of leftist lesbians and man-haters have filled her head full of pipe dreams. I think Bill loves those $750k speaking fees because he'd probably do it for expenses, he loves the attention. I think Hillary has used his old network and they've all gotten together in the Clinton echo chamber and convinced themselves that she's a good candidate and that she can win. But the fact is she's teeing off on the Seniors Tour with a dodgy knee and a tore rotator cuff. She ain't winning The Masters because in the best of circumstance she never could, and certainly not with her present baggage. The only question now is who's gonna step up because Hillary is toast.

Politicians are just like the rest of us, they have their way of thinking and sometimes it's hard to process something that doesn't fit. Trump doesn't fit. I keep saying he's not a politician and the voters are not holding him to the same rules and standards as politicians. He can say damn near anything he likes, and does, and what would ruin a Jeb Bush only endears him to the folks. They don't have to agree with him, that's not it. It's that he's genuine, or at least is perceived as such. Voters are tired of politicians, tired of their manipulations and lying. Trump is the guy telling the truth and he can say insulting stuff to a war hero and the professionals can play their games and try to say he insulted ALL veterans and guess what? The folks blame the politicians because they're just manipulating the issue AS THEY ALWAYS DO. It ends up hurting them for being the assholes that they are! Trump comes out smelling like a rose. No matter how many times Trump "misspeaks", no matter how many times he screws up, it don't mean nothing. He's saying what the people want to hear, and they believe him when he says it.
Now the establishment (CW types) want to boycott the first debate if Trump is allowed to participate. Can you imagine a more infantile response to a candidate? Can you imagine a bigger insult to a large part of the Republican base that this?  I though we had serious people running the show. I guess not. Jesus H. Christ, talk about crybabies!

That's all I got, now hit the road, your presence here is no longer appropriate.

On Planned Parenthood

Ross Douthat has a characteristically good column in the New York Times this morning on the Planned Parenthood video, and the mental gymnastics required of PP/abortion supporters to minimize the impact of the horror those videos show (there are apparently ten more).  A key graph here;

"But the reluctance to look closely doesn’t change the truth of what there is to see. Those were dead human beings on Richard Selzer’s street 40 years ago, and these are dead human beings being discussed on video today: Human beings that the nice, idealistic medical personnel at Planned Parenthood have spent their careers crushing, evacuating, and carving up for parts."

Read the whole thing.

Marco Rubio for President--The CW Fundraising Effort

Click and enlarge, then print, fill out, and send along this handy fundraising sheet!

So far, the CW fund has $1000 donated.

We're on our way to $100,000!

DRIVE BY MEDIA

REALITY

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's got you down, Chum?  Are you worried your little treaty deal won't go down?  Not enough support to get on the debate stage?

Share your angst with the sympathetic minds of the Conservative Wahoo.

My recent travels issued a slight setback to my dieting...weighed in at 157 today, which means nine pounds to go.

Are You Getting This?

Let's see, Trump is stomping all over his wedding tackle with some really stupid comments. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY is ragging his ass down to the ground. He lost his tv show, companies are dropping him like a bad habit, he's losing money no doubt and probably his mama don't love him no more. So what does he do? He doubles down.

But somebody likes it, including me. Check out these numbers, the Carlos Slim owned NY Times must be beside themselves. Do you have any clue why Trump is doing well? Well Here's the Hammeratic theory on the subject. He's got balls. He doesn't back down at the first sign of trouble. He ain't no media bitch. Plus he's putting front and center the most important issue for MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA of our lifetime...IMMIGRATION!

People are just sick of the bullshit. They're sick to death of weakness. They're sick of politicians that run as this and govern as that. No way Trump will win, but if any politician on either side tries to discredit him I predict they will pay a heavy price. Rick Perry is about to find that out.

They're so stupid. Treat Trump as Clinton treated Perot...adopt his policies. Come out right now and declare that the days of open borders are over. No more 1100 peons a day walking across our border. No more drug cartels setting up pot fields in our national forests. No more anchor babies and maternity tourism. NO MORE! We're tired of it. WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!

We will militarize the border if that's what it takes. We will will build a fence and the Mexicans will help pay for it, or wish they had. Furthermore LEGAL immigration is now on hold, no more until we can sort out those already here. No more hiring of illegals punishable by jail time. Tourists, students etc. will be required to check in often with immigration otherwise jail time and deportation.

We have one last chance, get a handle on this shit or look for another country because this one won't be worth living in. Trump is speaking to this frustration, he's being strong and proactive, and we "CRAZIES" love it!

TRUMP +11!