Trump vs. Kahn et al - method or madness

For the past several days, Donald Trump has been excoriated from all sides for his willingness to engage in verbal fisticuffs with Kazir Kahn, Paul Ryan, and John McCain. The the case of the latter two, Trump has only withheld his endorsement of them.

Despite almost universal disagreement. I don't think Trump is wrong in any of these cases. 

The Ryan / McCain case is easy. These are people running in a GOP PRIMARY! It's hardly uncommon to not endorse during a party primary. Both Ryan and McCain emphatically campaigned AGAINST Trump in the GOP primary - and then both even waffled on endorsing him against HILLARY. To say it's controversial for Trump to not endorse these two in a GOP primary is absurd.

In the case of Kahn it's a bit trickier. The point here is that Democrats, have for years, used people with various human shields to attack Republicans. In turn, Republicans have always caved and cowered as the likes of Cindy Shehan, Kazir Kahn, have railed mercilessly against Republicans. These people have NEVER paid a price for their disgusting political profiteering.

Trump has decided to hit back. It's a street mentality. He's not fighting this fight - he's fighting the next one. Kahn may get the best of Trump on the score card of the media judges, but he will pay a price. Kahn's business as an immigration peddler has suffered. He's had to take down his web site. His wife's non-burka picture with Barack Obama is all over the internet. His political gaming of his sons death has been exposed, and it's likely that his life as changed for the worse since trying to take out Trump.

Trump is letting it be known, he's willing to suffer some short term loss to make some one pay for attacking him.  In truth, the low information voters - who will decide this election, still haven't heard of Kazir Kahn; and this spat will not effect the election outcome.

Trump doesn't need an intervention from the GOP advisers - but perhaps the GOP could learn something from Trump.

Add a comment

Will Scalia Death Save the Hillary Campaign?

As much as I hate conspiracy theories, here goes....

-In New Hampshire, The Hillary Clinton Campaign appeared almost as dead as Justice Scalia,

-Hillary Clinton, desperate to energize the "Obama Coalition" - declares that Obama would make a great nomination to the Supreme Court.

-Scalia dies, and body embalmed faster than an email server can be "wiped."

-Mitch McConnell, discovers testicles, immediately  declares that Obama should not appoint successor. 

-Obama immediately declares he WILL appoint a successor.

So, if the GOP holds up the confirmation - Obama becomes party to the Clinton Campaign - running as her appointment to the Supreme Court.

Is it just a coincidence that this could be the only thing that saves the Hillary Campaign and at the same time immunize her from email and corruption scandals?

Conversely, if the GOP wimps out and confirms an Obama appointee; it won't matter who wins the election - the Supreme Court will become a rubber stamp for every over-reach by the EPA, IRS, HHS, and the rest of the non-elected bureaucrats that really run the country.

In addition, if the GOP wimps out again - it will dramatically depress conservative turn out in November.

In effect, in what could be the last chance to salvage and revive a Government of the people, by the people and for the people; the GOP needs to not only block the nomination, but hold the Senate, and win the Presidency. Anything short of running the table - will make it almost impossible to reverse the current advance of tyranny.

Add a comment

Is Julia Price "Little James" Story an Internet Hoax?

In the past few days Julia Price posted a facebook story about being cat-called during her run and deciding to confront the cat-caller, when a young child named "James" intervened on her behalf.

The post has over 150k shares, 858K likes, has been published in hundreds of media outlets from Fox, Huffington Post, and even a feature article in the Daily Mail.

I think the story is bullshit. 

Yeah, I know it's a harmless little feel good story; but bullshit is bullshit - and should be identified as such.

The facts of the story, as she tells it, just don't wash. She say's she was "running" on a trail; when a well dressed man shouted, "Sexy lady, hey hey hey sexy lady!"

She says she decided to ignore him and keep running. She says he "kept screaming it" and that her ignoring him "seemed to piss him off." I'm assuming that when she says "kept screaming it," she means at least two more times - or she would've said, "he said it again," if it was only once more.

So, here's the situation: Running woman (with headphones on), screaming man yelling at least three times, "sexy lady, hey, hey, hey, sexy lady," Then, when she doesn't respond he yells, "Fuck you bitch."

If someone says that three times, giving at least a second in between to see if there is a response, it takes at least 18 seconds. Remember she's running. Even at a modest pace of a 10 minute mile, in 18 seconds she's covered about 160 feet. For some perspective, that's standing in the back of the end zone and hearing someone yelling from the 50 yard line - while you've got music playing in your head phones.

That's just tough to believe. But what happens next is even harder to explain.

Julia says when she heard the word "bitch," she "ripped off her headphones" and prepared to "stand up for herself" when little James intervened.

Here's the situation: A stationary man, James and mother walking toward man, Julia running away from man.

Julia is 160 feet away (back of the end zone to the 50 yd. line) from James who has been walking toward the man and is now immediately next to him. James immediately dresses down the typical evil male predator - and Julia hears every word.

Julia never speaks to the evil man, the man never responds or reacts. No selfie of James and Julia. No statement by the hero Mom of hero James. No appearance of James on Good Morning America.

What gives?

What gives is this is bullshit. It didn't happen. It couldn't. At least not the way it's been told.

What did happen is that a fledgling young entertainer found a clever way to get a great deal of media exposure, and the media found a way to perpetuate an ongoing theme that, "men suck, and women are victims."

I'd more likely believe this story if we were told "James" was his last name. First name, of course, Lebron.


Add a comment

Vetting ? Really?

Has it occurred to anyone else that "vetting" Syrian refugees for possible links to anti-American activity is somewhat absurd on it's face. The United States is a declared enemy of the current regime in Syria. Why would we expect the Syrian records - even if they did exist - to contain records that identify people with hostility toward the U.S?

Imagine a reciprocal situation...

Ted Cruz or Donald Trump are elected President causing Barack Obama to lead throngs of disaffected Democrats to flee the United States and seek refuge in some welcoming country like, perhaps, Iran.

Iranian fundamentalists would protest their acceptance saying that the U.S. refugees are likely to contain significant percentages of people who are hostile to Iran, Islam, and their values.

The Iranian government could respond that they have thoroughly reviewed all of the available records in the enormous U.S. data base of records and found not a single instance of Blasphemy, Homosexual activity, of opposing the Iranian regime.

That would be true. Because none of those things are a crime in the U.S.

What our moron President and his brain dead followers fail to comprehend, is that those opposing mass importation of Syrian Muslims find objectionable is not what crimes they've committed - but the atrocious things that they believe ARE NOT CRIMES.

Those NONE CRIMES include:

-Killing those that insult "The Prophet."

-Killing those practicing homosexual behavior.

-Honor Killing female children who have been raped.

-Wife beating. (for being disobedient)

Just as those living in an Islamic State would find it laughable that Western refugees would have "No Record of Blasphemy" - it is equally laughable that we are being told that these refugees are thoroughly vetted for anti-western hostilities.

Add a comment

Recalling the 2013 "ShutDown that Wasn't"

Now the John Boehner has announced his final surrender, which will undoubtedly arrive only after he's managed to capitulate on a number of pending budget issues before finally riding into the Congressional sunset; it's worth taking some time to re-examine the "Shut Down" of 2013. We call it "The Shut Down that Wasn't."

Somehow, what we believe to be a major fact, is always omitted from the discussion of the "Shut Down." That is, it was curiously scheduled exactly between two Federal Government pay days. In short the chronology was something like this.

-Oct 1, 2013: Pay Federal Employees, then enter "Shut Down"

-Oct. 15, 2013: Next Federal Pay Day. Agree to a "clean budget bill"

-Oct. 16, 2013: Re-open Government. Pay Federal Employees.

graphically, like this:

In other words, the first day that the Democrats would begin to feel some pressure from their Federal Employee Constituency and their Unions to "make a deal", the GOP produced some obscured poll showing the GOP taking a huge political hit from the "shut down" - and folded - instantly.

There is no doubt that this entire "shut down" was designed not to persuade Obama to make changes to ObamaCare - but to make sure Ted Cruz was humiliated in a futile attempt to defy the "ruling class." 

To this day, Boehner publicly admits that he "always knew this would fail." I can't recall ever being successful in an endeavor that I began by saying, "I know this will fail." Of course, it didn't really fail. It made tea party Republicans and Ted Cruz look bad - and that was the real goal.

Good Riddance John Boehner.

Add a comment