Meanwhile In Austria

Before we get to our own elections, there will be a presidential election in Austria in October.  Right now, Hofer, the candidate of the right is leading the Green Party leader by about 5% in the polls.  The two candidates faced each other almost a year ago in an election that the country's supreme court annulled due to irregularities in counting the votes.  It had been a very tight race.

If Hofer wins, he will be the first rightist leader in the European Union.  That's amusing in a way because Hofer wants the country to leave the EU or at least to renegotiate the terms of that bloc.

It's unclear whether the swing in the electorate towards Hofer is the result of the refugee crisis facing Europe, the reverberations of the Brexit vote, anger following the vote counting irregularities of the earlier election or all three.

It's always worrisome to see the three words "right wing Austrian" strung together, but despite that, Hofer is not a modern version of Hitler. 

More on the Khan Story

The media has truly lost it.  Donald Trump is being bashed for "going after" the parents of captain Khan, a Moslem American who lost his life in the US armed forces.  Mr. Khan spoke at the Democrat convention and attacked Trump.  He waved a copy of the Constitution and asked Trump if he had even read it.

That's besides the point, however.  Trump is being attack for his response to Khan.  So let's look at exactly what Trump said.  Trump said that Mr. Khan was very emotional.  That's true.  Anyone who saw the speech knows that.  Trump then got really nasty according to the media.  Here's what Trump said:  "he looked like a nice guy to me.  I wish him the best."  Trump then said that Mrs. Khan did not say anything.  He continued that perhaps she was not allowed to speak.

That's it.  That's what Trump said that was such a terrible "insult" according to the media.  The media says that Trump said Mrs. Khan was not allowed to speak because she is a Moslem, but Trump never said anything like that.  The media says that Trump attacked Mr. Khan and dishonored the loss of his son, except Trump never said anything like that.

It's bad enough that Hillary Clinton lies non-stop.  Can't we at least have a media that tries to state the truth?

So Which Is Worse?

During the Democrat convention, the father of a captain in the army who was killed in action and who also was a Muslim spoke.  He attacked Donald Trump for advocating restrictions on entry into America of Muslims.  Trump, of course, changed that proposal a while ago to placing restrictions on entry in the USA of people coming from countries where terrorists are rampant.  Under Trump's proposal, people coming from Syria, for example, would not be allowed entry in the USA until America could come up with a method for a detailed vetting of their background.  Once there is a method in place to determine whether or not someone seeking entry is a terrorist, the restriction would be lifted. 

After the convention, Trump was asked about the speech by the father of the slain officer.  Trump said that he would have liked to have heard also from the officer's mother (who was standing next to her husband as he spoke.)  Trump also wondered if she had been barred from speaking.

Since then, the media and the Democrats have gone crazy.  The charge is that Trump insulted the officer's family.  Personally, I don't see it.  Even in a world where every statement is a "microagression", this is certainly not an insult.

But now, let's look at the opposite.  At the Republican convention, Pat Smith, the mother of one of the four Americans killed in Benghazi addressed the convention.  She told the crowd that when her son's body was returned to the USA two days after the attack, Hillary Clinton came over to speak to her.  According to Mrs. Smith, Hillary told her that her son had been killed in an attack caused by a youtube video and that the government would punish the maker of that video.  Hillary also promised to keep Mrs. Smith informed as more information became available.  Smith also told the crowd that Hillary's emails (which were only disclosed this year) included one from Hillary to Chelsea on the night of the attack in which Hillary told her daughter that the American consulate in Benghazi had been the object of a terrorist attack and that people had been killed.  Smith concluded by saying that Hillary had lied.

Once again, the media went crazy.  For example, Chris Matthews told his audience on MSNBC that it was wrong for Mrs. Smith to lie about Hillary.  Some time earlier, Hillary herself had called Mrs. Smith a liar.  Now, for those of you who cannot recognize it, that was clearly an insult.

For what it is worth, the family members of the other victims of Benghazi agree with Pat Smith's version of what happened.  Each of them relate that Hillary told them the attack was the result of the video and not a terrorist attack.  In other words, Pat Smith is not telling lies.

The media storm over the supposed Trump insult is ongoing.  The media response to the actual insult (and lie) by Hillary Clinton is non-existent.  But there's no bias, right?

I've Had It With Yahoo

For most of the last ten years, my internet home page has been Yahoo.  I rarely stay there for more than a few seconds, but I start there.  Yahoo News has always been extremely biased, but today it was way, way over the top.  There were three stories at the top of the news feed.  The first was headlined "Trump is a Sociopath", the second was headlined "What White Trash is Streaming to Trump" and the third had this headline "Trump Insults Mom of Slain Muslim Soldier".  Then below that was another story under the headline:  "Dirty, Scandalous Photos of Melania Trump".

I just changed my internet home page.  Yahoo lost me.  It's one thing to be biased.  I'm used to that.  I read the New York Times for years.  This, however, is way beyond bias from something that claims to be a news source rather than an opinion page. 

Yahoo used to be a major internet company.  Then it fell on hard times.  If it weren't for an investment that Yahoo had made in the Chinese company Alibaba, it would have gone out of business.  Recently, it signed a deal to sell all of the internet assets to Verizon.  Since the deal was signed, the bias has become much more pronounced.  It seems that the executives at Yahoo News must figure that they are going to be dumped anyway, so they might as well get all their bile out there before they go.

I'll check back on Yahoo once Verizon takes over, but for now I'm gone.

Morons (excuse me Pundits) Around The World

I was reading coverage and opinion regarding the hacking of the Democrat National Committee in various non-American papers just now.  The articles reinforce just how moronic much of the world press really is.  Here are a few examples:

1.  One columnist from the Middle East (who will remain nameless) told his readers that the Russian hacking of the DNC was not the first time that foreign powers interfered in an American election.  He blamed the Russians even though it has not been established that they are even involved with the hack.  Nevertheless, this pundit gave his readers an example of earlier foreign interference in US elections.  What was his selection?  In the 1980 election, Iran released the American hostages it was holding just as Ronald Reagan was being sworn in on Inauguration Day.  Think about that.  The release was on January 20, 1981.  The election has been two and a half months earlier.  It's hard to imagine how the release of the hostages could have affected the election which was already receding into history at the time.

2.  A columnist in a British paper told his readers that the hack of Hillary Clinton's campaign was the result of Donald Trump calling on Russia to turn over Hillary's missing 30,000 emails if Russia were to find them.  To be fair, there are people right here in the USA who are saying the same thing.  The problem, once again, is the time line.  The hack of Hillary's computer systems began a few months ago and was discovered about a week ago.  That was before Trump made his remark about Russia and the emails.  Once again, it is impossible for the Trump remark to have caused any of the hacking, but it does not stop the media.

I often think that America's media is made up of some real losers.  Then I look at the media around the world and realize that world-wide, the media is a bunch of losers.  It's sad.

The FBI Warned Hillary of a Possible Hack of her Campaign, but She Refused to Cooperate

Wow!  Today comes the news that last March, the FBI warned the Clinton campaign of attempts being made to hack into the campaign's computer systems.  The FBI asked for information from Clinton that would help the bureau thwart the attacks and catch the hackers.  The campaign refused to provide the information because Hillary was still under investigation by the FBI regarding her private unsecured email systems and their use for transmitting classified information.  Since then, of course, the Clinton campaign was hacked and so was the DNC and the DCCC.

Now that the hack has happened, we have the Clinton and her surrogates hyperventilating about how the Russians hacked her systems.  There's no proof that it's the Russians, but it certainly could be they.  Clinton and her people are acting as if this is all something new, but they know it is not.  In 2008, both the Obama and McCain campaigns were hacked by the Chinese.  In 2012, it is suspected that again both campaigns were hacked by the Chinese again.  Foreign hacking of American campaigns seems the new norm.  Nevertheless, the point to remember is that when the FBI came to Hillary to try to prevent the hacking of her campaign, she refused to cooperate because she was worried about her other scandals.  She couldn't cooperate with the FBI without possibly giving the bureau an insight into her other computer usage.  It was a failure of leadership.

The media is trying to spin the hacking story into one about Trump because of his sarcastic remark calling on Russia to turn over Hillary's missing 30,000 emails.  The story, however, is not about a joke.  It is about Hillary's poor decision making and her refusal to cooperate with the FBI.  If anyone is to blame for the hack, it seems that it is clearly Hillary herself.

The Latest Democrat Cover Up

The latest move by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton to cover up misconduct is moving to a second phase.  Lets start with the misconduct:  Hillary, her campaign and the Democrat National Committee worked together to rig the primary system so that Bernie Sanders had no chance to win the nomination.  That story broke just one week ago when Wikileaks released hacked emails from the DNC.  The anger of the Sanders' crowd was enormous.  As a result of that anger, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was bounced from her job as party chair.  It was a moment of panic for the Clinton campaign.

As soon as the story broke, Hillary and her campaign began trying to change the story.  The focus went from the unethical and perhaps illegal activity of the DNC in rigging the primary to the illegal hacking of the DNC computers by Russia.  Of course, we have been told by the FBI and other services that there is no proof that the hack was by Russia, but the Democrats and the media have pushed that story consistently.  Right now, the impression across America is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians.  It doesn't even make sense that the Russians would hack the DNC and then make what they found public.  More likely, the Russians would save their info to use to blackmail the Hillary Cliton were she to win the election.

Tonight, the Democrats are making a big move towards the next step in their cover up.  Now the story is that somehow Donald Trump is involved with the Russians and may be involved with the hacking.  It's a joke of a story; no one would believe it because there is no basis for it.  Nevertheless, tonight CNN and MSNBC ran big stories about Trump's ties to Russia and the prior work by Trump's campaign manager for a man who was president of Ukraine at the time.  CNN makes clear that Trump has no real ties to Russia but they first spend many minutes talking about Trump's ties before admitting that they don't exist.  MSNBC, of course, goes even further trying to ties Trump to Russia.  Rachel Maddow talked about how Trump seems to want to forgive Russia for invading Ukraine and to lift the sanctions on the Russians.  Here too, there is no proof supporting her claim, but she makes it anyway.

The MSNBC position is astounding.  Remember in 2008, the Russians invaded their neighbor, the country of Georgia.  America imposed sanctions and refused to recognize the Russian seizure of two provinces of Georgia.  Then Obama took office and Clinton was secretary of state.  Obama and Clinton decided to have the Russian "reset".  They lifted all sanctions on Russia and recognized the Russian conquest of the two Georgian provinces.  In other words, Obama and Hillary did exactly what MSNBC now says Trump may want to do.  The network thought that the Obama/Clinton move with Russia was a great thing in 2009.  Now, however, when they dream up a phony story that Trump may do the same thing, the same network and people denounce it.

The key here is to focus on what actually happened.  The truth is that Hillary and her people rigged the primary system against Bernie Sanders.  No one should pay any attention to the cover up.

Hillary's Campaign was Hacked Too

Reuters is reporting that the computer systems of the Hillary Clinton campaign we hacked in recent months just like those at the DNC and the DCCC.  Reuters is pointing the finger at the Russians for this hack, but no one knows for sure if there is any truth to this allegation.

This hacking brings up two points:

1.  There might be some embarrassing information on Hillary's computer system, things like plans for future ads, strategies in dealing with particular constituencies and the like.  There ought not be any national security info on that system however.  This ought to be a minor problem.

2.  The ease with which the systems of the Democrat National committee, Democrat Congressional campaign committee and Hillary's campaign headquarters were hacked ought to make clear that Hillary's homebrew email server was also hacked.  The national security info that Hillary kept on that unsecured computer system had the ability to lead to the deaths of many of America's agents and friends.  It's time Hillary stops claiming that it wasn't hacked.

It's certainly possible that the hackers in these cases heard the non-stop denials from the Clinton campaign and Hillary herself about whether or not her email computer was hacked.  This latest attack may have just been done by some hackers to show just how easy it is to get into a lightly protected system.

 

Optimism, Darkness and Realism

Much has been made of the "optimistic" view expressed by Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats last night at their convention.  I can't even count how many pundits and reporters in mainstream media compared the optimism of Hillary's convention to the "dark world view" expressed by Donald Trump the week before.  Without a doubt, this narrative is the talking point issued by the Clinton campaign to try to drive home her message.  But is it accurate?  Let's consider it for a moment.

1.  Trump's first point was that crime is rising in the last two years, especially murder.  Attacks on police are soaring this year as well.  Is that a pessimistic or an optimistic point?  The only correct answer is NEITHER.  It's a fact, and facts are not vehicles for optimism or pessimism.  Trump pointed out the need to take action to stop murder by gangs and drug cartels and others.  He promised to be the one to take such action.  Trump made a point of calling himself the law and order candidate.  Hillary did not mention crime as a problem in her speech.  That's not optimistic; it's just Hillary denying reality.  Instead, Hillary called for reform of the criminal justice system.  Translating that into English, Hillary is calling for releasing from prison those who were convicted of drug crimes.  No sane person would think that releasing convicted felons onto the streets will reduce the crime rate.  At least some of these people will go back to criminal behavior and things will get worse, not better.

2.  Trump spoke of the need to protect America's jobs from unfair foreign competition.  He wants to improve our trade agreements and he completely rejects the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement as a disaster for our economy.  Is that pessimistic?  Not really; it's again a discussion of the facts; America has lost a great many jobs to foreign competition.  Hillary spoke of the need for good trade agreements too.  Of course, her confidant, Virginia governor Terry MacAuliffe let the cat out of the bag two days ago when he said that after the election Hillary would flip her position and get the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement approved by Congress.  Hillary also took Trump to task because he makes some of the products that he sells at factories outside the USA.  Is that optimistic?  Actually, if Macauliffe is telling the truth it's just Hillary being dishonest.

3.  Trump spoke of the need not to admit immigrants or refugees from countries where terrorism is rampant.  He won't agree to let in possible terrorists unless and until the USA can fully vet these people to make sure they are not terrorists.  Trump pointed to the Moslem refugees in Europe who have been involved in many of the terror attacks there.  It's a very sad and upsetting subject, but was Trump pessimistic?  No, he was realistic.  Hillary spoke of the need to let these refugees in the USA.  She never explained why we would admit people who may be coming here to kill and maim, though.  We heard the usual stuff about how we are a nation of immigrants and the like.  But I have news for Hillary.  My grandparents came to the USA as immigrants, and none of them came here with the plan of murdering people or blowing things up.  I think it is safe to say that over three centuries, the immigrants who came to the USA had no plans for murder or mayhem either.  Protecting the American people from those who would kill us is not pessimistic.  Looking the other way as terrorists are admitted to the country is not optimistic either.  The former is realistic, while Hillary's position is just plain ridiculous.

There were plenty of other items which I could compare.  The facts, however, are that Trump was not "dystopian" or pessimistic or dark.  Trump addressed the actual reality that most Americans face every day.  Chelsea spoke of the great advantages that she had been given and how her mother wants to give those advantages to all children across this land.  Someone better tell Hillary Clinton that you cannot give advantages to America's children if you do not even understand the nature of the problems that they and their families face each day.

Things can get better.  In fact, things will get better, but that will only happen if we have a leader who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy.  Realism is the key, not optimism or pessimism.  Trump gets that; Hillary does not.

Another Democrat Group Hacked

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has been hacked according to news reports today.  For those of you who don't know the DCCC (as the group is called), it raises funds for Democrat congressional campaigns.  The news reports speculate that the hackers were trying to steal credit card information rather than to get information. 

The funny thing about the media reports is that they all mention that it is "possible" that the hackers were Russians.  Then they go into the hack of the DNC that showed that the Democrats rigged the primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders.  Why is that possibility news?  There's no proof that the Russians were behind the DNC hack and no proof they were involved at the DCCC.

The truth is that the media is still trying to hide what was discovered at the DNC.  The proof that the DNC rigged the primaries resulted in the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz who ran the DNC.  Now that someone tried to steal credit card info from the DCCC, the media is back pushing the imaginary Russia angle.  For a year when people said that the Russians probably hacked her private email system, the refrain from the media and the Democrats was that there's no proof of any Russian illegal entry into Hillary's system.  Suddenly, now that the DNC has been hacked, the media runs to blame the Russians even though there is no proof.

 

Now Back To Reality -- GDP is Barely Growing

The government released the first numbers for economic growth in the second quarter of 2016.  The "experts" told us that they estimated growth of just under 3%.  The actual growth number was 1.2%.  It is a terrible number, particularly since it come after two previous quarters of next to no growth.  The average growth rate for the last three quarters is less than 1%.  It is the worst nine month period since the big recession in 2009.  Many economists expected a bounce in the economy in the second quarter as things recovered from what they thought was a momentary slowdown during the previous six months.  Obviously, these economists were wrong.  The economy is slow and not recovering. 

Even worse news is the reason why the GDP grew so slowly.  There was a major decline in investment by business in all possible phases.  Construction of new plants and buildings declined.  Investment in new equipment for business declined.  Business investment in inventories declined.  Still worse, these declines in investment happened even though personal consumption grew.  That means that even though consumers were buying, business was not investing.  The business community does not see a continuation of future growth.  Remember business investment is the single biggest producer of future economic growth.  That means that today's report is actually an indicator that a future recession is just around the corner.

These GDP numbers are really bad news for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.  They show that the American economy cannot withstand Hillary's "plan" announced last night.  We Hillary to enact even half of the huge tax increases that she calls for, a recession would be inevitable.  It's as if she is campaigning with the slogan "Help Me Destroy Jobs!"  I do not know if this truth will get through the media maze and all the distractions.  It had better, however.  Otherwise, the economic future looks bleak.

Hillary's Acceptance Speech

The balloons have dropped, the confetti fallen, the band played and Hillary Clinton gave her acceptance speech.  The Democrat convention in Philadelphia is over.  So what should one make of Hillary's speech?  Here are a few of the most important points:

1.  Hillary spoke well.  She's certainly not a great orator.  In fact, she often sounds like she is screaming and other times sounds more like she's lecturing to us.  Tonight was a mix of styles.  For Hillary Clinton, however, this was about as good as it gets on that score.

2.  The speech was surprisingly devoid of substance on the key issues of the day.  Oh, Hillary hit on all sorts of minor points and on some of the favorites of the left.  But think for a moment about what she said of the economy/jobs and of stopping terrorism/national security.  Let's examine the economy first.  On the economy we heard that there is a need for bold action; the current economy is just not good enough.  There were whole paragraphs about what she wants to accomplish, but precious little about how she would do it.  In fact, the only specifics we heard on the economy were that Hillary wants (1) a massive tax increase; (2) some sort of federal pressure on banks to lend money to small businesses who can not get loans today; and (3) some program to rebuild America's infrastructure. 

If one considers the effect of Hillary's proposals, however, they are not good for the economy.  A massive tax increase is something that all economists would agree will SLOW economic growth.  It will never speed the economy.  It's much like trying to boil water by putting it in the refrigerator.  Pressuring banks to lend money to small businesses that have bad prospects for repaying the loan sounds very much like the government pressure for banks to make home mortgage loans to people who were unlikely to repay those mortgages.  That's what caused the massive recession in 2008, and Hillary now wants to reproduce that plan with loans to small business.  It's a crazy idea.  Then there's building infrastructure to create jobs.  That certainly would be beneficial.  Indeed, it's a big point in Trump's economic plans too.  The problem with it, however, is that it's like those "shovel ready" jobs that president Obama pushed back in 2009 with his stimulus.  There just aren't that many of them around to make a big impact.  It takes years to get them to the point of construction.  In truth, it's exactly the kind of thing that Trump would be best to carry out.  Trump could get the reconstruction of the infrastructure going much more quickly and efficiently than Hillary ever could.  So in total, there's really not much of a positive economic plan coming from Hillary.

Hillary also pointed to other things that she said would help the economy, but these were phony items.  For example, she actually said that comprehensive immigration reform would help grow the economy.  Really, she said that.  Having more workers compete for jobs will bring wages down, not speed up economic growth.  Surely, one of Hillary's economic advisors must have told her that.  She also pointed to green jobs as helping the economy.  Obama has been saying that for eight years, but after all that time and tens of billions of dollars from the government, we have very few "green" jobs as a result.  We can't just continue to throw good money after bad.

3.  So let's move on to national security.  Hillary told us her plan to deal with ISIS.  It's Obama's current plan which has failed so miserably with one addition:  Hillary wants to "surge" intelligence.  Now no one has ever explained what it means to "surge" intelligence, but let's assume that there really is some way to do that.  Once we get the intelligence, what do we do with it?  Does it mean more airstrikes?  Do we put troops on the ground to deal with problems exposed by the extra intelligence?  Hillary clearly opposed that tonight.  So what do we do with the intelligence?

Hillary also spoke a briefly about supporting NATO.  That seemed more a response to Trump's call for the other NATO countries to live up to their treaty obligations.  Beyond that, however, it was just a few platitudes.

4.  I was surprised that Hillary could not list any accomplishments.  She talked about what she did with the Children's Defense Fund in Massachusetts 40 years ago.  It was interesting, but her going door to door to promote education rights in a New England locality hardly is something that qualifies someone to be president.  She also talked about supporting the S chip law in Congress.  She voted for it, but she wasn't the one who got it passed or even a prime sponsor of that law in Congress.  She also talked that she visited over 100 countries as secretary of state.  Carly Fiorina long ago pointed out, however, that air travel is an activity not an accomplishment.  Hillary really has not accomplishments for all her decades of work for the government.

5.  Hillary was very strong in her condemnation of Donald Trump.  It clearly was the essence of her message.  Indeed, it seemed she was changing the slogan of her campaign from "I'm with her" to "I'm not Donald Trump."  Many of her attacks on Trump were dishonest.  She went on at length because Trump said that he was the only one of the candidates who could fix the corrupt political system in Washington because he is an outsider who really knew the full system.  Clinton dishonestly twisted this into some claim by Trump that he is the only one who could fix everything wrong with the country.  I heard his speech; he did not say that.  Most of Clinton's attacks, however, were things that have been said before.  She may have scored some points here, nevertheless, particularly with those who have not really been paying attention.  I wonder, though, how many people accept her attack on Trump as unfit to handle the nuclear codes.

6.  Hillary made much of her being the first woman candidate of a major political party.  It's true, but I think it was unnecessary.  In 2008, when Obama got the nomination, he did not expound on being the first black candidate.  It was obvious, and it was extremely forceful.  It should have served as the example for Hillary, but she had to state the obvious.

It will be interesting to see the bounce that Hillary will inevitably get from this speech and the convention. 

Meanwhile, In Germany

Earlier today in Germany, there was an attack in a surgeon's office on the doctor and his receptionist.  The attacker was a patient, his father and his brother.  The father held a large knife and shouted "Allahu Akhbar" while threatening to behead the doctor.  Fortunately, the police arrived in time to stop the execution.  According to reports, the patient, a 19 year old man, had broken his leg many weeks ago.  The surgeon had set the leg, but the patient was unhappy with the pace of the healing process.  He came into the office to complain.  The surgeon tried to show the patient some exercises he could do to accelerate the process, but the patient was angry and stormed out.  A short time later, the patient returned with his father and brother.  They attacked the receptionist and threatened to kill her.  She had a heart attack.  When the surgeon came to investigate, they jumped him and forced him to his knees.  The father demanded an apology to his son and told the doctor that he would be beheaded.  That's when he started shouting "Allahu Akhbar".

Okay, before you tell me this is not Islamic terrorism, let me say that I agree.  It is not the common place type of Islamic terrorism.  Nevertheless, why is it that these crazies decided to scream Allahu Akhbar before murdering a doctor who had treated the son?  What possesses these people to do such things?

The truth is that under a proper definition of terrorism, this attack comes within that boundary.  It may not be ISIS inspired, but it is still terrorism.

I'm sure if anyone at the Democrat convention mentions terrorism today, they would tell you that today's attack in Germany is no big deal.  It's just "doctor's office violence".  But there's a major problem all through Europe (and America too) of these crazy attacks.  They have to be stopped, and that will not happen if our response is to put a smile on our faces and pretend they never happened.

The FBI Investigates Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy

Word is out that the FBI is investigating Connecticut's governor Dan Malloy and particularly his fund raising activities during the 2014 campaign.  Malloy narrowly won re-election that year.

It's sad to say that this investigation is not even surprising.  We've gotten used to corrupt state officials around here.  A few years back, we had a governor who went to prison.  More recently, we've watched our neighbors in New York deal with the corruption conviction of the leaders of both the State Assembly and the State Senate.  The word in the law enforcement community is that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is on the short list for the next indictment (although this is just rumor.)  Now we get a major investigation into the governor of Connecticut.

I wonder if Hillary Clinton knew about this investigation when she had Malloy speak the other evening at the convention in Philadelphia.  Hillary has so many corruption problems of her own, that one would think that she would stay away fro politicians with that sort of problem.

For the sake of the state, I hope that Malloy is guilty of no wrongdoing.  It would be nice to think that there is at least one honest politician in the region.

Democrats -- Day Three

The highlight of last night's Democrat National Convention should have been the acceptance speech by Tim Kaine, the nominee for vice president.  It wasn't.  Kaine gave an uninspired speech that sounded more like someone running for the town council than for vice president.  I don't mean the content; that was the usual stuff for this convention.  I just mean that Kaine sometimes sounded like even he was bored by the speech.

Then there was president Obama.  Maybe it's just that I've heard Obama speak so many times, but this seemed like a tired speech as well.  I remember Obama's acceptance speech 8 years ago in Denver.  It was one of the best delivered speeches I ever heard at a Democrat convention.  (No one on either side ever beat Ronald Reagan's speeches--any of them.)  Last night, Obama did not seem honestly to really like Hillary Clinton.  He said many of the right things, but he looked like he didn't mean them.

Joe Biden gave a real stem-winder of a speech.  He was energetic, strong and seemed to mean what he said.  The problem with Joe's speech was, however, the usual one.  He got a lot of stuff wrong.  Here's an example:  Joe denounced Donald Trump for abandoning America's allies and cozying up to Russia.  Someone should have told him that it was Obama and Clinton who did that.  They started with the so called Russian reset that forgave Putin for invading the country of Georgia a few months earlier.  They sat by an did nothing as Putin and Russia invaded and took over Crimea from Ukraine.  They have done nothing to help Ukraine as Russian forces have taken the eastern portions of that country.  When Trump says America may have to recognize Russian control of Crimea, Biden goes berserk, but it was Obama, not Trump, who let it happen.  Trump is just trying to deal with the mess that Obama made.

Then there's those American allies that Biden says Trump is abandoning.  It's a funny thing.  One of our allies is Israel.  Obama did all he could to embarrass and insult Israel's leader during Obama's first term.  In the second term, Obama actually spent millions of dollars trying to influence the Israeli elections.  That's not some idle charge; it is the bipartisan conclusion of a senate committee that looked into the matter.  Obama has so maligned and mistreated the Israelis that a recent opinion poll in that country found that only 7% of the people there consider Obama a friend.  Britain is another ally about whom Biden was speaking.  Obama began his first term by clearing the Oval Office of anything British.  When the UK was threatened by another invasion by Argentina of the Falkland Islands (something that would have been covered by the NATO treaty Biden now pretends to supports), Obama announced that the USA would be NEUTRAL.  Where was Biden when that happened?  And those allies in Eastern Europe who are threatened by the Russians, what did Obama do for them?  When Obama took office, Poland and the Czech Republic were about to get American anti-missile systems to protect them and Europe from missiles fired from the Middle East.  Since Russia did not like this, Obama abandoned the plan.  The best way to describe what happened is that Obama abandoned America's allies to cozy up to Putin and the Russians.

All in all, it was not a very good night for the DNC.

Trump Really Is A Master of The News Cycle

It's amazing to watch the reaction today to a comment made by Donald Trump at a news conference this morning.  First of all, Trump held a press conference, like he does on most days.  He was asked about the hacking of the DNC and the emails released by Wikileaks a few days ago.  He was also asked about the Democrats' crazy charge that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC in order to help Trump.  Trump pointed out that he has no business ties to Russia.  He has no investments there and no dealings with the Russians.  When he got another question, Trump quipped that if it really was the Russians who hacked the DNC, then maybe they could also find Hillary's missing 30,000 emails and give them to the FBI.

That was it.  The media went crazy.  The Clinton campaign released a statement condemning Trump for calling on a foreign power to interfere with our elections.  The sanctimonious anti-Trump pundits started their barrage against Trump for his "improper" statement.  The whole Washington establishment started ginning up outrage over a joke made by Trump.

But let's step back from all this for a moment.  The truth is that it was a brilliant move by Trump.  Yesterday, the Democrats nominated Hillary as the first woman candidate ever for president from a major party.  And what is the media focused on?  TRUMP.  What is the subject of discussion?  TRUMP?  With that one joke and the Clinton/media predictable response of phony outrage, Trump is dominating the news during the Democrat convention and just when Hillary has been nominated.

The funniest thing is that very few Americans other than die hard Hillary supporters are going to believe the charge that Trump actually wanted the Russians to get involved in hacking to find Hillary's missing emails.  It was a rather obvious sarcastic joke.  So with one line Trump has sent the entire press corps and the Clinton campaign running after a meaningless subject.  It's Hillary and her media supporters who look silly, not Trump.

And there's one final note here:  the ferocity of the response to Trump suggesting, even in jest, a way to retrieve Hillary's deleted emails shows that there really must be a lot of damaging stuff there.

All Charges in Freddie Gray Cases Dropped

In Baltimore today, the state dropped all remaining charges filed in connection with the death of Freddie Gray.  Gray died after being injured in the back of a police van.  It seems like Gray hit his back against the hard side of the van when the vehicle hit a pothole or a bump, but we will never know for certain what happened.  After the death and after a few days of rioting in the black community, the State Attorney, Marilyn Mosby, brought charges against six officers.  Three of the officers have already been found not-guilty and a fourth was awaiting retrial after an earlier mistrial.  Given the dismal record of her office in this matter, Mosby announced that all charges would be dropped against all three remaining defendants.

It's clearly the correct decision, although it seems to have come very late.  The cases presented against the three officers acquitted were the stronger ones for conviction, and yet they were dismissed for lack of evidence.  There is no way that the state was going to get a conviction of any of the remaining defendants.

The most interesting thing in today's announcement, however, was that Mosby was clearly angry at the police for not finding more evidence to use against other police in court.  Mosby could not blame the judge for racism; he is black.  She couldn't blame the mayor for not supporting the cases; the mayor too is black.  Mosby had only the police who she could use as a scapegoat for the failure or her office to get any convictions. 

The reality is that the States Attorney in Maryland, like all prosecutors, is supposed to weigh the evidence before proceeding with a case.  Mosby admitted this morning that there was not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Without such evidence, the cases should not have been brought.  But Mosby also said that there was enough evidence to bring charges.  She can't have it both ways.  If as prosecutor she knows there isn't evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then she is just using the power of the state to harass the defendants.  It's unethical for her as a lawyer to do this.  It also opens the City of Baltimore and Mosby herself to being sued for wrongful prosecution.

The truth is that the time has come for Mosby to resign.  She has disgraced herself and her office.

Who Are These People

Last night, after Hillary Clinton was nominated in Philadelphia by the Democrats, there was a walk out of hundreds of delegates who had supported Bernie Sanders.  Some went to the media center for the convention and staged a sit in.  Others joined with demonstrators outside the convention for a rally.  I sympathize with these Bernie supporters because their candidate had just been beaten in a rigged process.  No one knows if Sanders could have won if the Democrat National Committee had run the process fairly, but we all know that it wasn't fair.  Indeed, the hacked emails from the DNC confirm the bias against Bernie shown in the process.  We don't yet have the emails that confirm that Hillary Clinton's campaign participated in rigging the election, but Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, says that those are coming soon.

So why did these protesters decide to be outrageous and hateful in their efforts.  Many gathered outside the hall, burned an Israeli flag and chanted "long live the intifada."  Nothing that happened at the convention had anything to do with Israel, so it was odd to involve that country in their protest.  But it was more than odd.  For those who don't remember, the "intifada" was the wave of Palestinian terror attacks against ordinary civilians in Israel about ten years ago.  It consisted of suicide bombings, car bombings, random shootings, home invasions ending in murder and the like.  The protesters were chanting in support of terrorism.  On a day when ISIS terrorists beheaded a priest in his church in France, these morons in Philadelphia were proclaiming support for terrorism.  During a week that has seen more than 100 killed in terrorist attacks around the globe, these fools chanted that they supported the murder of innocent civilians.  What possessed these people to do that?

Most people won't ever hear about this protest and the chant of the protesters.  The media is too busy trying to make the Philadelphia convention look like a happy place of unity (which it clearly is not).  Even among the small group that hears what happened, the majority won't know what the intifada is.  But it's important that everyone knows what happened.  It's important to understand that a large number of DELEGATES to the Democrat convention chanted their support for terrorism.

America Remembers

I remember.

That's a rather simple sentence, but it says an enormous amount.  Even more impressive is a different sentence:

America remembers.

And that's the truth; America does remember.  Oh not everyone of us remembers all the things that have happened here.  But there are some things that we cannot forget.

As I write this, Bill Clinton is speaking to a cheering crowd of delegates at the Democrat national convention.  According to the pundits, Bill is trying to "humanize" Hillary who is now the nominee.

Think about that.  The Democrats have nominated a candidate who needs to have her husband come out to make her seem more human.  And why is that?  It's because America remembers.  We remember the woman who was fired from her job on the Senate Watergate committee for improper conduct at the very start of her career.  We remember the woman who went to Arkansas with Bill and then spent her days cashing in on his position as governor.  Hillary did not have much of a legal career, but suddenly she was a partner at the Rose law firm, the largest in Little Rock the state capital.  She had a large steady income because she was the wife of the governor.  We remember too that Hillary was suddenly named to be a member of the board of directors of Walmart, the largest company today in Arkansas.  Was it her great business acumen that got her that lucrative post?  Not likely, since Hillary did not have a business background and never ran any business.  No, it was her position as the wife of the governor that got her that position.  We remember too Hillary's foray into commodities trading.  Was it a coincidence that inexperienced Hillary started making trades of the sort that only seasoned traders make and that every one of nearly 100 trades that she made was profitable until she had reached a $100,000 profit?  The chances of an experienced trader having a run like that are essentially zero and the chances of someone inexperienced like Hillary doing it are zero.  So was that run of "luck" in trading actually a cover for a payoff from some local company to the governor?  No one has the records to prove that one way or the other because like so often has happened in Hillary's life, the key records were all "inadvertently" destroyed.

We also remember Hillary's involvement in yet another scheme to get rich.  This one was called Whitewater.  All sorts of people went to jail in connection with that development scheme, but somehow Bill and Hillary who were partners in the venture skated by without indictment.  And, of course, there were the usual missing records in this matter too.  Somehow the key billing records of the Rose law firm (a private firm that Hillary had left) ended up missing only to turn up by surprise in a closet in the living quarters of the Clinton White House.  What a strange coincidence.

Through all the 1980's and the 1990's, we remember that Hillary's main devotion was to making money and gaining power.  Clearly, she didn't care how she accomplished it.  When Bill had a series of extramarital affairs, Hillary did not leave him; her only concern was to try to discredit the women so that they couldn't hurt the Clintons.  When women accused Bill of rape and other forms of sexual molestation, we remember that Hillary tried her best to destroy each of those women.  When the nation learned that Bill, as president, had used his position to have sex with a young White House intern in the Oval Office, Hillary's response was not anger or upset.  No, we remember that Hillary led the defense for Bill.  She knew what he had done, but she just denied it until physical evidence made that denial impossible.  She, like Bill, just lied and lied about it all.  It was still all about money and power for Hillary.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, we remember that it was Hillary who stole about a quarter of a million dollars of furniture owned by the people.  She got caught and was forced to return it.  At the time she did this, Bill already had a contract for a $16 million advance for his memoirs.  Hillary had all the money she would ever need, but it wasn't enough.

We remember Hillary as a senator from New York whose accomplishments could fit on the head of a pin.  She did nothing except prepare to run for president.  We remember that when general Petreus came to testify before a senate committee about how successfully the surge in Iraq was going, Hillary greeted this war hero whose troops were winning the war with the claim that Petreus was a liar and that there was no such success.  We also remember that Hillary later admitted in her latest book that she knew that Petreus was not telling lies but that she felt that she needed to call this war hero a liar for political reasons.  Once again, Hillary put her quest for power before the truth and before the good of the country.

We remember Hillary's term as secretary of state.  We remember the Russian reset, the Iran nuclear sell out, the destruction of Libya, the failure to deal with Syria, and the creation of ISIS.  Those are most recent, so I won't go into the details.

But let's go back a bit.  We also remember that wherever the Clintons go, scandal is sure to follow.  After all, Bill Clinton is the only president in modern times to be impeached.  Since he left office, had has spent much time on Jeffrey Epstein's plane (known as the Lolita Express for its conveyance of underage girls).  The plane took Bill on multiple trips to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean which is known as "orgy island" for obvious reasons. 

There's so much more.  There's not enough time to list it all. 

The truth is that America remembers.  And that, by itself, is why Hillary will never be president.

Hillary got the Nomination

I watched the end of the roll call that put Hillary Clinton over the top in Philadelphia.  When she got the votes she needed, there was no celebration.  The roll call just continued.  When they got to the end of all the states, Bernie Sanders moved to make the nomination unanimous and the convention had a voice vote.  There were definitely more in favor than against, but there was a sizeable number of delegates who voted NO.  At that point, the band started playing and the delegates were clapping, but it was a rather subdued celebration.  The news stations all cut away to anchors and pundits who pronounced it "historic".  Hillary was the first woman to be nominated by a major party.  The funny thing is that it did not seem historic in the least.  There was some enthusiasm shown by politicians who were being interviewed, but there were also about 1000 rank and file delegates who just got up and walked out of the hall.  There was little coverage of the walk out, but a bunch of delegates went to the media center and launched a sit in to protest the Hillary nomination.  None of the main networks are covering that, however.

Think about that for a moment.  During the primary campaign, if there was a rally by Trump or Cruz and 20 people showed up to protest outside, the media always showed us those protesters.  The protest was an integral part of almost every rally.  Now we are at the Democrats convention; these are not stray protesters but Democrat insiders.  Hundreds of them walk out of the hall and at least 50 sit down on the floor of the convention media center and there's no coverage.  If it were not for social media, no one would even know this had happened.

Then there's the protest outside the hall.  As I write this, between 3000 and 5000 protesters have marched outside in support of Black Lives Matters and against Hillary Clinton.  Only Fox News has even mentioned these protesters, and that mention was only to say that they were peaceful.

So Hillary is the official nominee.  It deserves two comments:

1.  This is truly an historic nomination.  Hillary Clinton is a first.  She clearly is the single most corrupt individual ever to get the nomination of a major party.  She's also the most dishonest person ever to get such nomination.  Oh, and she's a woman too.

2.  I take it back.  This is just not that historic.  In truth, it's really just boring.
 

Can This Be True?

The DNC is in the middle of a major mess because it rigged the system to favor Clinton over Sanders.  Now we hear today that the DNC is still doing it.  A group of Sanders delegates who want to nominate another candidate to oppose Tim Kaine for VP went to the party office on Monday to get the paperwork needed to put a name in nomination.  They were refused to needed forms and told to ask for them by email.  They immediately made the request.  After a day and a half, they have not gotten any response, and the deadline for filing the papers just passed.

It's hard to believe that the Dems just keep on doing this.  Without a doubt, Kaine would have won even with an opponent.  There was no need to rig the system by denying the opposition the needed forms.  What is it about the Clinton Democrats that they can't just be honest?

From Russia With Love?

It's an incredible thing to watch the mainstream media and the left going berserk about the DNC emails released by Wikileaks.  No one denies that the emails put online by Wikileaks are real.  No one says that those emails have been modified in any way.  No one disputes that the DNC did its best to try to squelch the campaign of Bernie Sanders and to make sure that Hillary Clinton won the nomination.  Nope, the big story is that the emails were hacked by Russia.  Now there's no proof that this is the case.  There's some indication that the hacker did not speak English as a first language, but there are billions of people other than the Russians who fit that description.  The original story of the emails was that they were obtained by an Eastern European hacker who named himself Guccifer 2.0 (after the Guccifer who says he hacked Hillary's home email server.)  There's also some indication that at least one hacker used a keyboard with the Cyrillic alphabet rather than our Western alphabet.  That fits with many Eastern Europeans as well as Russians.  So the only available proof fits just as well with the explanation of Guccifer 2.0 as with the Russians.  But here's the question: if these Russians were so sophisticated that they were able to hack the DNC with ease, is it possible that the hacker also intentionally used a Cyrillic keyboard to implicate Russia?  After all, if you were a Chinese hacker, wouldn't you prefer to have Putin and the Russians targeted than to have China get the blame?  The truth is that there is no evidence that proves the hackers were Russians, none at all!

There's an even more important point that has to be made about this computer hacking intrusion.  The emails that are so explosive were written by the Democrat National Committee.  It was the DNC who spread negative stories about Bernie and his supporters.  It was the DNC that scheduled the debates so as to prevent much chance for Bernie to have any impact.  It was the DNC that wanted to use Bernie's religion against him.  Etc.  The DNC in conjunction with the Clinton Campaign are the ones who are guilty of clear wrongdoing.  Their own emails prove it.  Now, in essence, the Democrats and their media allies are saying "We broke the rules; we violated the law; we abandoned our principles, but hey the Russians shouldn't have told you about that."

To make things worse, the Democrats are also pushing some sort of Trump tie in to the hacking.  They always mention that Trump says he could get along with Putin when they talk about the hack.  Very few of the mainstream media go that far.  Even the mainstream media won't level charges of misconduct at Trump when there is nothing that backs up such a bogus claim.  But let's consider this for a moment.  Remember that this is the second release of information from Wikileaks of information gotten by hacking the DNC.  The first release a few weeks ago was of negative research that the DNC had done on Donald Trump.  It contained things that were supposed to embarrass Trump and help the Democrat candidate.  Did the Russians choose to release that first because they are in cahoots with Trump?  Obviously, the answer is NO.

At some point, the Democrats are going to have to answer for what they did to Bernie and his supporters.  Deflecting this to the Russians is much like the tactic the Clintons used in the 1990s when they tried to defend Bill Clinton by arguing that Ken Starr, the special prosecutor, was a bad man.  They are trying to change the subject from one about which they cannot talk.

The Democrats' Ostrich Strategy on ISIS Won't Work

We have a new ISIS horror today.  In France, two ISIS terrorists invaded a church and killed the elderly priest and injured others.  The two Islamic terrorists were killed by police before they could kill more people.  It's a sad thing that the world has to see these sorts of deranged attacks, but it's the sixth in Europe in the last week. 

More horrifying than the attack in France, however, is watching the Democrats deal with it.  Actually, I mean watching the Democrats NOT deal with it.  During the first day of their convention, the Democrats heard over 60 speeches including big ones from Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  Not once during the entire first day was ISIS mentioned.  I was astonished when I saw that fact reported this morning.  There is an avalanche of terror attacks around the world by ISIS and its loony thugs, but the Democrats won't even mention the subject.

I realize that ISIS is a sore spot for many Democrats.  Many experts say that the creation of ISIS is the result of poor policy decisions by president Obama and his then secretary of state Hillary Clinton.  After America had won the war in Iraq, Obama rushed to take out our forces and left a vacuum in that country which the terrorists rushed to fill.  When an uprising started among Syrians against their brutal dictator Assad, Obama and Clinton failed to use American influence and the rebels came to be coopted by terrorists, mainly ISIS.  Because of the Obama/Clinton responsibility for much of the problem, I understand that the Democrats would not want to emphasize the issue. 

Nevertheless, it is inexcusable to treat the issue of ISIS and Islamic terrorism as if it does not exist.  We've already lived through Obama's attempts to call domestic terrorism things like "workplace violence" and Hillary's attempts to blame a terror attack in Libya as the result of some youtube video that no one had seen.  We cannot move forward as a country by adopting the Democrats' ostrich strategy.  Sticking our head in the sand so that we can't see the ISIS attacks is a sure fire prescription for more death and more misery.  Not talking about ISIS does not make that group go away.

The Democrats have three more nights.  Hopefully, they will tell us how they plan to deal with ISIS.  To date, Hillary has not announced any strategy other than to say she wants to continue the Obama strategy.  That's would be funny if it weren't so scary.  We have a president who has essentially no strategy for dealing with ISIS.  Hillary Clinton wants to continue that non-strategy.  It's just not good enough.

Observations about the Democrat Convention -- Day 1

It's been an interesting first day in Philadelphia for the Democrats.  Here are just a few of the most important points:

1.  The speakers kept hammering Donald Trump for things he has said.  For example, Corey Booker took great offense that Trump said a federal judge of Mexican heritage could be biased against him because of his views on illegal immigration.  The didn't actual mention things that Trump actually did, and there was very little mention of policy.  It's a striking contrast to the GOP convention where they blasted Hillary Clinton for things that she had done or failed to do.

2.  The booing at the mention of Clinton's name was extraordinary.  I can't remember the last time a nominee was booed at his or her own convention.  I guess it was 1968 in Chicago when the Democrats essentially melted down in anger.

3.  There was a great deal of anger on the convention floor which was also surprising.  There was a moment on the NBC coverage when one delegate denounced another delegate who was wearing tape over her mouth that said "Silenced" on it.  The woman with the tape was a Sanders supporter.  The woman who denounced her was for Hillary.  She said that it was outrageous, disrespectful and disgusting for the Sanders delegate to wear the tape.  The most amazing thing, however, was that the Hillary delegate said that the Sanders delegate could not have been silenced because she is white.  It was a small scale demonstration of everything that is wrong with the Democrats.  They don't want free speech if it disagrees with them and they think that the race of the speaker actually makes a difference.

4.  The level of anger was even greater on the street outside the hall than on the floor.  I watched thousands of people march outside chanting "Hell no, DNC, we won't vote for Hillary."   It's an ominous sign for the Clinton campaign.

5.  The DNC email leak has left the Clintons with nothing to say.  Hillary claimed to know nothing about it yesterday.  Today, there were multiple people who pointed to the Russians as the source of the leak, but whenever any of them were pressed for proof of this claim, they each backed away from it.  It surprises me that the Clintons would use such a clearly lame excuse in response to such a big problem.

6.  Lastly, I remain astonished that Hillary has installed Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the honorary chair of the Clinton campaign.  Debbie had to resign in disgrace after being booed by the delegates from her own state.  The only conceivable explanation for Hillary's move is that Debbie has some information that would be devastating to the Clinton campaign were it to leak out.  I think Clinton's honoring of Debbie must be a way to keep her quiet.  Nothing else seems plausible.

It Must Be Some Sort of Suicide Pact

So Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she won't be opening the Democrat convention in Philadelphia.  She's so unpopular at the moment that the party cannot afford for her to take her rightful place on the podium as chair of the convention.  That's pretty bad.  So who did the DNC choose to replace her in opening the convention?  They could have picked the governor of Pennsylvania or the mayor of Philadelphia which are hosting the event.  They could have picked Donna Brazile who is the temporary replacement for Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  But no, the Clinton campaign (which is undoubtedly calling the shots) picked Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  You remember Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, don't you?  She's the mayor of the city of Baltimore.  She's the one who told the Baltimore police to pull back while rioters looted and burned part of the city after Freddie Gray died in police custody.  If Donald Trump is the "law and order" candidate, Rawlings-Blake is the "no law and disorder" representative.  The police around the country were already incensed that the anti-police groups were going to have major speaking spots at the convention.  This will just make things worse.

Is this some sort of suicide pact?  Is the Clinton campaign throwing the election on purpose?  I wonder how much that cost.

Debbie Throws in the Towel

Debbie Wasserman Schultz just announced that she would not call the Democrat convention to order today.  What a surprise!  The surprise, of course, is that it took her this long to make the announcement.

This morning Debbie was booed off the stage at a meeting of the Florida delegation.  Debbie is from Florida, so you would think that she had at least a few friends in that group, but she could even get to speak due to the booing.

Debbie really had no choice after that.  After reading the emails that show just how unethical, dishonest and underhanded this woman has been, all I can say is that it's about time that she has been tossed out by the Democrats.

Don't Miss This One

As more and more people read the emails of the DNC that were released by Wikileaks after the DNC was hacked, some really startling ones are coming to the fore.  The latest surprise is an email between two DNC leaders directing that an article that painted Sanders' supporters as violent should be spread around in a way that would not be linked back to the DNC.  It's a classic smear by political insiders in DC.  People are told that Bernie and his people are violent, but that is supposedly coming from someone other than the Clinton campaign (okay the DNC).

Here's the text of the tweet from Wikileaks reporting this:


WikiLeaksVerified account ‏@wikileaks 2h2 hours ago

#DNCLeak: DNC instructs staff to covertly spread article depicting @SenSander's supporters as violent https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9423 … #feelthebern

It's not just Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  There needs to be a thorough housecleaning at the DNC.

Lock Her Up -- What A Difference A Week Makes

Last Week in Cleveland during the GOP convention, there were people chanting "lock her up" with regard to Hillary Clinton.  The mainstream media went crazy.  It was just so "negative", or so the pundits said.  There was a big push in the media to try to get the chant stopped.  Yesterday in Philadelphia at the Democrat convention, a large crowd of Bernie Sanders supporters marched to the convention hall chanting (you guessed it) "lock her up".  I checked this morning to see how the mainstream media covered that chanting.  After all, it is just so "negative".  Here's a summary of that coverage:




That's right.  The mainstream media did not even mention the chant.  I guess reporting on it at the GOP convention can be used to try to make Republicans look mean.  If the same thing gets chanted by the Democrats, however, it might be embarrassing to Hillary Clinton.  They just can't have that, now could they?

This Is Getting Ridiculous -- German Style

Things are getting crazy in Germany.  Yesterday, a Syrian refugee attacked people on the street in Reutlingen; he used a machete to hack a pregnant woman to death and injure two others.  He was captured after a passing motorist used his car to run the terrorist down.  Then later in the evening, another Syrian refugee blew up a bomb outside a music festival in southwestern Germany.  Fortunately, the bomber was the only one killed although many were injured.  That's a terrible day for Germany.  To make things worse, however, the German authorities say that they don't know if there is any tie to terrorism here.

ARE THEY KIDDING????????

It was one thing when the German authorities were unclear about a tie to terrorism a few days ago when the terrorist was a Moslem from an Iranian family who was born and raised in Germany.  Just because this Moslem guy lured shot kids in a McDonalds doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist with ties to ISIS, or so they said.  After all, the Munich killer was Shiite and ISIS is Sunni.  Maybe he was some other kind of Islamic terrorist or maybe he was just insane.  But the two Syrian refugees who decided to commit acts of terror on the same day are clearly Islamic terrorists.  How often do non-terrorists attack others at random with a machete?  How often do non-terrorists commit suicide by blowing themselves up at a music festival?  Think about that.  The German police actually say that they don't know of a tie to terrorism for this bomber; maybe he was just suicidal.  It's ridiculous.  People don't spend weeks planning their suicides.  They don't go out and get the ingredients for a bomb, build the bomb, strap it on, go to a crowded music festival and then blow themselves up.

Look, I get that not every murder is terrorism.  Most people understand that.  I also get, however, that we are under attack in the West and that it is idiotic immediately to define terror attacks as something else.  We will never stop these attacks unless we accept the fact that they are real.

UPDATE:  It took a day, but the German government now admits that the bomber at the music festival had "pledged allegiance to ISIS".
I could have told them that.

Germany's Second Terror Attack of the Day

A bomb went off in the German town of Ansbach not long ago.  While there was initial speculation that it was a gas explosion, the latest from the German authorities is that it was an intentional bombing.  There was one fatality which appears to be the man who set the blast.  Others are wounded.

The identity of the bomber has not yet been released.

I'm sure that at any moment the stories will start how this is not terrorism or it's not Islamice terrorism or we'll be told that this is the work of neo-Nazis.  My guess is that by tomorrow we will find out that this is yet another bit of Islamic terrorism, just like all the other recent atrocities in Germany.  Time will tell.

How Tone Deaf Is Hillary Clinton

It's amazing.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigns as chair of the DNC after emails get leaked that show she led an effort at the DNC to undermine Bernie Sanders' campaign for president.  Simply put, Debbie was forced out; she was dumped.

So what is Hillary Clinton's response?  Does she distance herself from the disgraced Wasserman Schultz?  Nope.  She brings Debbie into the Clinton campaign.  Here is the key line from Hillary's short statement on the resignation:

I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program

As I said, it's AMAZING.

How to Fix the Democrats' Problems in Philadelphia

The Democrat convention starts tomorrow in my hometown, Philadelphia.  To put it mildly, they have lots of problems.  They just dumped their national chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her speaking role at the convention.  They named congresswoman Marcia Fudge as the "permanent chair" of the convention in her place.  It's not even clear if Wasserman Schultz is going to be in Philadelphia this week.  All of this is the result of the devastating internal emails of the DNC that Wikileaks just released.  Those emails confirm that the DNC conspired both with the Clinton campaign and with the media to undermine Bernie Sanders and to help Hillary Clinton.  They also show that the DNC was arranging dirty tricks to use against the Trump campaign and the Republicans.  That's really bad.

Then there's today's terrorist attack in Reutlingen, Germany.  The terrorist was a machete-wielding supposed Syrian refugee who killed one and wounded two before a passing motorist used his car to stop the killing.  It's about the clearest possible confirmation that Donald Trump's position on Syrian refugees is correct and Hillary's is wrong.  That's terrible for the Dems.

Then there's the almost magical thinking being employed to respond to these problems.  Hillary's campaign manager actually blamed the Russians this morning for the emails on Wikileaks.  He did not deny that the emails were real or that they were accurately quoted.  Basically, he admitted that real internal emails filled with extremely damaging information were released, but he blamed the Russians for it.  Huh?  Even most of the media that is already in the tank for Hillary thought that was a bizarre claim and a major mistake.

Then there's Tim Kaine.  The Sanders' delegates are complaining loudly about him.  If there were no other problems, those complaints would die away, but now, who knows?

Wait until you hear the plans being discussed at the DNC to deal with these problems.  (I know about these plans because I got an email from Vladimir Putin telling me about them.)

First, the DNC is considering giving Ted Cruz a prime time speaking slot on the second day of the convention so that he can once again not endorse Trump.  They are worried, however, that senator Cruz might not endorse Hillary either, so this one is not yet fixed.

Second, since blaming the Russians for the DNC's conduct has not worked, the Clinton team is considering whether or not to announce the aliens are responsible.  Here too, although the campaign likes the idea of blaming beings from another planet, there has been concern about tying problems to aliens of any sort.  They think it makes them sound to Trumpian.

Third, Hillary is considering moving her acceptance speech to the first night of the convention and then leaving.  At least that way there won't be much chance of too much more going wrong.

Fourth, Hillary's foreign policy advisors have suggested getting Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to fly in to address the convention on what a good president Hillary would make.  Al-Baghdadi has been contacted and has accepted the invitation, but on condition that he can appear with his back-up chorus of 50 men in costumes with distinctive vests.

If you have any ideas yourself for what the Democrats should do to get over this hurdle, send you suggestions to Wearelost@DNC.com 

Today's German Terrorist Attack Was By A Syrian Refugee

There's now more information about the terrorist attack a few hours ago on the streets of Reutlingen, Germany.  The terrorist was a Moslem and he is a refugee from Syria who was recently admitted into Germany.  It's more proof that ISIS and the other Islamic terror groups meant it when they told us that they were infiltrating terrorists into the West among the self-proclaimed refugees from Syria. 

This news underlines the different positions taken by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the issue of Syria refugees.  Trump says he will not admit refugees so long as America is unable to check them out fully and determine if they have terrorist ties.  Hillary says that she wants to increase the already large number of Syrian refugees that the USA is currently admitting.  Hillary's plan is to increase the number by 550%.  At that rate, if even only 1% of the refugees turn out to be terrorists, we will soon have thousands of ISIS terrorists in the USA.

Obviously, today's attack is bad news for Hillary Clinton as it comes the day before the DNC Convention opens in Philadelphia.  The likely response from Clinton will be some sort of lie.  Maybe she'll have her campaign announce that the attack in Germany was an attempt by ISIS to help Trump.  I know that's idiotic, but it's about as believable as most of her other lies.

Here's Today's Terrorist Attack

A man in Reutlingen Germany attack three people with a machete.  One woman was killed.  The police subdued to terrorist and he is under arrest.

Okay, that's the news.  We don't know yet who the victims are or who the terrorist is.  Since he used a machete, gun control issues are not involved.  Since we have yet to hear that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" while killing the woman, there is nothing much yet that the media can ignore.  This guy may be just a lunatic or perhaps he's the white whale that the media is pursuing, an actual right wing terrorist.

There will be more news coming out soon.  For now, maybe we should do what John Kerry suggests and spend our time thinking about global warming.

Sorry, I can't let it go right now.  There's a woman dead on the street in Germany and two other people on their way to the hospital.  Let's all remember what president Obama said just a few days ago:  "the world has never been so peaceful."  Since he said it, we've seen one terrible terrorist attack after another.

Bringing Back Donald Segretti

Do you remember Donald Segretti?  Most likely, the answer to that question is no.  He's been out of the public eye for over 40 years and he never was that well known in any event.  I've been thinking of Mr. Segretti today, however.  Let me explain why.

Donald Segretti was an operative for the Committee to Re-Elect the President.  That was the official name for the Nixon campaign in 1972.  Segretti had a rather unique job; he was in charge of dirty tricks.  One of his favorites was the organization of phony protests.  According to testimony at the Watergate hearings, Segretti hired local college kids and others to attend rallies by another candidate and to protest to try to disrupt those rallies.  For example, Segretti sent students with signs supporting one Democrat candidate to a rally for another Democrat candidate; these students then led chants and tried to disrupt the rally to the greatest extent possible.  Segretti reasoned that not only would he disrupt the opposition, but he would also spread anger and dissent among the opposite party.  Segretti eventually went to jail for doing stuff like this.

Since 1972, America has not seen anything like the Segretti stuff.  But, now it's back.  The hacked DNC emails show that the staff of the DNC itself was secretly organizing protests at Trump rallies (and maybe Sanders rallies too.)  Those who were sent out to protest actually had positions with the DNC, but they were sent without identification in order to hide the fact that the Democrats were trying to disrupt Republican rallies.  To say the least, it sure sounds like a vintage Segretti move.

Hillary Clinton worked for the Democrats on the Watergate committee in the 1970s.  It sure seems like she liked what she heard from Segretti.  Otherwise, there is no way to explain the truly despicable acts that the DNC emails have disclosed.

We're Reaching The Silly Hour

In a vintage Clinton move, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager said this morning on CNN that the Russians were behind the leak of the DNC emails and that they did it to help Trump get elected.

Okay, let's just stop here for a minute.  The DNC emails that were released show that the staff of the Democrat National Committee was conspiring with the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders.  They show planning to attack Sanders for his religious beliefs.  They also show plans by the DNC to send its interns to Trump rallies to mount protests.  Finally, they show that the DNC was secretly working together directly with the mainstream media to coordinate stories to hurt both Trump and Sanders and to benefit Clinton.  These are facts; we now have seen the emails.

So what is the Clinton response?  They don't question the authenticity or the accuracy of the emails.  That's right, the Clinton's don't even talk about the DNC trying to help Hillary and defeat Sanders.  They don't explain why the DNC would use Nixonian tactics to try to send protesters to opposition rallies.  And they don't deny secretly working with the media to try to hurt Trump and Sanders.  Nope, the Clinton response is that the Russians released those emails so they imply that there must be a connection between Trump and Putin.

Think about that.  Hillary and the DNC get caught in another scandal.  To be fair, this one is more for the DNC than Hillary, but it shows just how corrupt and dishonest the Democrats are.  And they don't even deny it.  Instead, they make up some ridiculous allegation without any evidence of a tie between Trump and Putin.  I mean we already know that it was Hillary who, as secretary of state, approved the sale of a large part of America's uranium mines to RUSSIA; that wasn't Trump.  We also know that it was Hillary who just happened to get roughly twenty million dollars from the Russians at roughly the same time.  (Part was payment for speeches by Bill and part was a "contribution" to the Clinton foundation.)  If anyone has an improper connection to the Russians, it is Hillary, not Trump.  But Hillary's response to problems always starts with a lie.  This time is no different.  There is no basis to suspect Russian involvement in the hacking that led to the disclosure of the wrongful behavior of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  Hillary doesn't care about facts, however.  There is no reason to talk about a tie between Trump and Putin.  Hillary doesn't care about facts, however.

I just don't know how dumb Hillary Clinton thinks the American people are.  We already know she's a liar.  This sad ploy won't work.

We Can't Overlook This Stuff

There's been a lot going on in the world in the last few weeks.  Terrorism, the GOP convention, the leaked emails from the DNC, and more have held the headlines.  Nevertheless, we need to take a moment to remember perhaps the single most idiotic statement from an American official in a long, long time.  Secretary of state John Kerry was in Europe at a meeting to modify limitations on certain types of chemicals.  Decades ago, it was agreed to phase out these chemicals based upon the fear that they were the cause of lessening the ozone in the upper atmosphere.  The modification to that agreement makes a minor change; it is the equivalent of changing the speed limit on a local road from 35 to 40 miles per hour.  So here's what Kerry had to say:

“As we were working together on the challenge of Daesh and terrorism, it’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

There you have it.  A very minor tweak to a treaty phasing out one chemical is equally important as the war on terrorism.

What will Kerry say next?  I know.  Here's my prediction.  Kerry will announce that serving nutricious school lunches on November 13, 2016 is equally important to ending the Syrian Civil War that kills thousand of people each week.  Or maybe he will state that reducing littering on the mall in Washington, DC is of equal importance to ending the fighting in eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian soldiers and Russian invaders.

John Kerry is truly a moron. 

The DNC Emails From Guccifer 2.0

I've spent a number of hours going through DNC emails released by Wikileaks.  The more time I have spent, the more outraged I have become.  Let's start at the beginning.  I never liked Bernie Sanders, and I truly despise Hillary Clinton.  I thought their battle for the Democrat nomination was a fight between someone who does not understand economics and someone who thinks that the point of politics is to amass personal wealth no matter the legality of doing that.  But none of that matters.  No matter what my view is, the Democrat National Committee had a duty to stay neutral.  The voters are the ones who are supposed to pick the candidate.  Despite that, it's now very clear that the DNC under its chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a front organization working for Hillary Clinton.  There are many emails in which the DNC people are colluding to hurt the Sanders' campaign or to help the Clinton campaign.  It's truly amazing.

What Is It About Email and Hillary Clinton

If Hillary Clinton does not win the election, she can feel confident that one of the principal reasons was email.  We had the private email server that she set up to evade the federal record keeping laws.  We had the email she sent Chelsea that confirmed that Hillary knew that Benghazi was a terror attack even as she continued to tell America and the families of the dead that it was all caused by some stupid youtube video.  We have the email that was used by our Ambassador to Libya and others to plead for more security for Benghazi (which Hillary ignored.)  Now we also have the email that confirms that Hillary's campaign worked closely with the Democrat National Committee to undermine Bernie Sanders attempt to get the nomination.  That last batch of emails also confirms that much of the mainstream media was part of the anti-Sanders conspiracy. 

It's hard to imagine what sort of email could surface next.  It's nearly impossible to top the ones that we've already seen. 

It's a Treasure Trove of Tawdry Behavior

The DNC emails that were released by Guccifer 2.0 who hacked the DNC computers are a gift that keeps on giving.  The latest one to surface records the effort by the Democrat National Committee to modify a CBS story about a poll so that it would be more to the liking of Hillary Clinton.  It's hard to imagine that our national media is taking orders from the DNC as to what to address and how to say things, but that has become clear as the emails get released.

The corruption of the Democrats is monumental.

Once Again A Court Comes Through

A few months ago, the governor of Virginia announced that he was lifting the restriction on convicted felons which prevented them from voting.  Some states have such limitations while other do not.  Virginia, however, has long barred convicted felons from voting.  There was a push to lift this restriction, but the legislature voted against it.  In years past, prior governors, both Republican and Democrat, had announced that the change could only be made by legislative action.  Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton's pal, governor Terry Macauliffe, just announced "executive action" to lift the voting ban on felons.  He did it to try to make sure that Virginia would vote for Hillary in November.

That has all changed now.  The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled that the governor did not have the power to change the law regarding the voting ban for felons.  In other words, the court came to same conclusion that all previous governors have reached; and then the court enforced that law.

This kind of thing makes the governor of Virginia look like a fool.  He knew he did not have the power, but he took the action anyway.  It reminds me of Obama's actions on immigration.  For years and years, Obama told us that he did not have the authority to change the immigration laws.  Only Congress could do that.  Then, after five years of that, Obama announced that he was basically legalizing half of the illegals in the country.  Twenty six states sued in federal court.  Every court that considered the issue ruled that Obama did not have the power to do what he tried to do.  The last court to take a look was the Supreme Court.  Obama's action has been blocked and will never go into effect.

Another Day, Another 80 Dead From Terrorism ..... So Far

ISIS (or as president Obama calls them, the JayVee team that has been contained) just blew up three bombs in Kabul Afghanistan in the middle of a crowd of people protesting construction of an electrical power line.  Eighty are confirmed dead and about 240 have been wounded.  We've reached the point where we don't even get one day without one of these attacks.  It's disgusting.

The most amazing thing about all these attacks is the response from Obama and also from Hillary Clinton.  Obama says that his strategy for dealing with ISIS is working.  Indeed, according to the White House, the main reason that there are so many terrible terrorist attacks around the world is because ISIS is losing.  For her part, Hillary Clinton tells America that she wants to continue with Obama's current strategy.

Assuming that Obama and Clinton are not mentally ill, there is no way to understand their current position.  We are not seeing a wounded ISIS strike out on one final attack.  We are witnessing a tidal wave of death and destruction around the world.  In the last month, we had 50 dead in Orlando, 80 dead in Nice, ten dead in Munich, over 100 dead in Afghanistan, hundreds killed in Iraq, huge numbers killed in Syria, along with major attacks in Turkey, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.  The pace and scale of the attacks has been increasing.  What use to be one attack every three or four months is now three or four attacks every week. 

Now I know that if this post gets read by a liberal reporter, it will be said that I am painting a dystopian view of the world.  But here's the real scoop:  if the picture I am painting of the current state of the fight against terrorism seems scary, dark and worrisome, it's because that's the truth.  The issue has moved beyond whether or not Obama and Clinton will actually name our enemy; today, the question is whether or not Obama and Clinton will ever take a strong stand to stop the bloodshed.  Can America count on Hillary Clinton to protect us.  It certainly does not seem that way.

I could end with a message of condolence for the Afghans who have been victimized by the latest attack.  It's not enough.  My message of condolence is for all America and indeed all the people of the world.  We all hoped that there would be a president of the United States who takes the threat of these murderers seriously.  Clearly Obama is not such a man.  Even worse, it's also clear that we cannot expect Hillary Clinton to take action to protect the USA and to destroy the terrorists. What a terrible situation this is.

Tim Kaine

Hillary Clinton has chosen Tim Kaine as her running mate.  It's not much of a surprise; Kaine has been the front runner for VP for at least two months.  It is surprising to see Kaine described as a "moderate".  There's no way that's accurate.  Here's an illustration.  The American Conservative Union rates senators (and others) based upon their votes on a large number of key issues before the Senate.  Kaine's rating is ZERO.  That means that on every one of the bills considered, Kaine voted for the liberal position.  Someone who is truly a moderate would have a mixed record; Kaine does not.

So what does Kaine bring to the ticket?  Some say he will bring Virginia to Hillary and the Democrats.  That misses the point.  In the last decade, Virginia has moved much more towards the Democrats and away from the rest of the South.  If the election in Virginia is close enough for Kaine to flip it, Hillary will have already lost nationally.  States like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada will be voting Trump by that point.  So Kaine isn't really needed to help with Virginia.

Some say that Kaine brings foreign policy experience.  That's perhaps the silliest reason of all.  After all, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  She has more "experience" than Trump or almost anyone else in the country.  The problem is that all of Hillary's experience has shown her to be unable to manage our foreign policy.  Kaine on the ticket as VP is not going to remedy Hillary's terrible record regarding foreign policy.

Basically, that leaves Kaine as someone who will not upstage Hillary.  Kaine will stick to the talking points.  His selection is just another manifestation of Hillary's need to control everything and everyone.

Basically, the selection of Kaine seems like good news for Trump and the GOP.

Munich: The Usual Storyline

Yesterday's terror attack in Munich once again shows how the news media and big chunks of our society respond in these all too common situations.  First, we get news of the shooting.  Immediately the media starts pushing their narratives.  Every time, the liberal mainstream media tries to steer the story away from Islamic terrorism.  Yesterday was no exception.  There were reports that the shooter shouted "Allahu Akhbar" inside the McDonalds where this all began, but the mainstream media pushed the story that he was a right wing terrorist.  When the German authorities said that they had no evidence yet to indicate that this was an attack by ISIS, this same part of the media immediately announced not that there was no evidence, but rather that it was now confirmed that this was likely an attack by a neo-Nazi.  The woman who heard the terrorist shouting in Arabic was just ignored.

Now the identity of the shooter has come out.  He was an 18 year Moslem whose family came from Iran to Germany.  So much for the right win terror story.

Now we are moving on to the next segment:  was he involved with ISIS?  Police say that there is no link to ISIS that has yet been found, but ISIS immediately celebrated his attack yesterday.  There even was some chatter ahead of the attack that something was coming from ISIS in Germany.  None of this is conclusive, but you would never know that from the mainstream media.  The media is all screaming "no ISIS involvement".  We will find out the truth soon enough.

I wonder if the mainstream media realizes the damage it does when it tries to deny reality like this.