Why Obama Can't Contact Kathryn Steinle Family

In the past days much has been made of Obama's lack of acknowledgment of the murder of Kathryn Steinle. After all, he did reach out to the families of Travon Martin, Micheal Brown, and Freddie Gray.

He even made it a point to reach out to Sandra Fluke and Jason Collins.

So why the reluctance to attempt to comfort the Steinle family?

The answer is simple.

The circumstances surrounding the deaths of Martin, Brown, and Gray were extraordinarily rare. How often is a black teen shot while beating the crap out of a "white hispanic" neighborhood watch captain? - almost never ! 

How often is a woman called a slut by Rush Limbaugh? I think that was a first !

What's the frequency of a heroic athlete publicly proclaiming his willingness to have other men sexually gratify themselves via his anus ? Probably never happen again !


How often does an illegal immigrant murder someone in the U.S.? 

- About 10 times - every day.


So - Obviously the President can't be expected to go around comforting all of the murder victims of illegal aliens. If he did, he'd never have time to do anything else; then again... maybe that's not a bad idea. 

Add a comment

More ClintonEmail.com Nonesense From the Media

When it comes to dealing with Democrat politics, I find the lack of intelligent reasoning in the major media to be insulting. Of course, the way much of the so called conservative media deals with Democrats is just as insulting.

For a couple of days now, many media outlets have been pouring over the printed hard copy of edited and redacted email text from the private email server of Hillary Clinton, and reporting on inane subject matter that has no bearing on anything.

For the umpteenth time....

Hillary Clinton released NO EMAILS.

She released printed hard copy of what she alleges was generated by printing the text of the subject, and body of portion of an electronic mail transmission. Of course it lacks any evidence of linked text, any attachments, and could have been easily edited prior to printing. Obviously the printed copy conceals evidence of editing.

And we're to believe that the person who...

-purchased the domain "ClintonEmail.com",

-pointed the primary dns to the dedicated IP address assigned to her residence, 

-connected that IP address to a stand alone mail server in her residence,

-kept all of her correspondence outside of required government backup servers,

-and then physically destroyed the hard drive on which all of the actual emails were stored,

...has turned over ALL the printed records that might contain ALL potentially incriminating evidence.

If Clinton were a suspect in a murder I guess the police would show up at her house with a search warrant looking for a murder weapon - and Clinton deny them access to the house, but bring out three boxes in which she claimed have "anything to do with the murder," claim she was COMPLETELY cooperating with the investigation, and DEMAND the investigation proceed as quickly as possible. The police would thank her profusely and the media would marvel at her "transparency."  Of course she'd throw a couple of interesting things into the box just to make it worth looking into.

Then the Major media would breathlessly await the results of the forensic tests and widely proclaim her innocence when the results made available. Then the so called conservative media would try to highlight all the mildly unflattering details revealed in the "investigation," and everyone will ignore that they allowed her to direct the investigation to only what she wanted to be seen.   

Sometimes I wonder what would've happened if Tom Brady had sent a couple of boxes of printed pages to the NFL and proclaimed, "I've released ALL of the text and email from my phone." My guess is that the media would condemn such a thing as laughable.

Which is exactly what this "Cllinton Email Investigation" is.


Add a comment

David Blatt's 1st Real Coaching Challeng

  The job of coaching the Cleveland Cavaliers  was one of the most difficult jobs in the NBA when David Blatt took the position. Then it got easier. A lot easier. Lebron James decided to return to Cleveland - and suddenly coaching the Cavs was less of a challenge than managing the unrealistic expectation that the Cavs could immediately win an NBA title.

Yet, here they are. In the finals tied 2-2.

More accurately, the Cavs are losing 2-2.

After 3 games of super-human effort - Lebron James proved to be a mere mortal. Steve Kerr's coaching decision to "go small" is being heralded as genius. In truth, it wouldn't have mattered. In fact, if Lebron were operating a full strength, and Mozgov and Thompson were able to score 28 and 13 - the Cavs would've been the blow-out winner. Kerr's coaching didn't win game four - Lebron's fatigue lost it for the Cavs.

-side note about fatigue:

This isn't the "winded," "out of breath" kind of fatigue with which most people are familiar. Most people NEVER exert themselves to the point that muscle tissue begins to deteriorate. Think of weight lifting. First set - 10 reps  - no prob. Second set - 10 reps - straining. Third set - 10 reps - torture. Fourth set - forget it - time for some cardio. This is because of the way human muscle tissue consumes energy stored in the tissue. As the energy is depleted, the task becomes harder. While one can train, and help develop deep reservoirs of muscle energy - none is infinite - and when an athlete pushes beyond the store of energy - the muscle begins to consume itself. This is why power lifters rarely attempt a MAX LIFT more than a couple of times a month. The muscle simply will not effectively recover when MAXED OUT. Lebron has now MAX LIFTED 4 straight games. This is the fatigue of which we speak. It can only be cured by significant rest and limited exertion.

So, David Blatt now faces a real coaching decision.

OPTIONG 1: The safe bet is to stick with his starting 5. The problem is, there is NO chance of beating the Warriors with a fatigued Lebron James. Yes, he may be able to go all out for a couple quarters in Game 5, but even if he does, and they pull out a victory (highly unlikely); he'll never recoup well enough to be anything but a shadow of himself for the next two games. 

Option 2: The bold move. Rest Lebron. Restrict his minutes in game 5. Make the goal of the game to for the Warriors to work hard. Use the bench. Constant pressure defense. If the Warriors stay small, Mozgov can score, hell even Kendrick Perkins can score from 3 feet. In essence, play game 5 as a set up for game 6.

Truth is, no matter what - a game 5 victory for Cleveland is highly unlikely. The only real question is whether or not they return to Cleveland with any chance of winning game 6 on Tuesday. If Lebron spends himself - all out - on Sunday night, flies red eye to Cleveland for a single day of recovery; the Cavs will be crushed in game 6.

Granted - even with a rested 100% Lebron, the Cavs are at best a 50-50 shot to win in game 6.

But that's way better than the 0% shot they have otherwise.

Update: 6/15: Seems Blatt took half my advice. Lebron James played did play 44 minutes and put up a triple double. Unbelievably, 44 minutes is 5 minutes less than in each of the first two games. More importantly, James didn't really MAX OUT last night, and Blatt did use more bench minutes than any other game. It seems Mosgov was being saved for Tuesday - rather than Lebron. In his post game interview, James was not nearly as exhausted as in previous games, and flashed glimpses of "that look" that he gets when he's about to go into beast mode.

Even so, Cavs still need SOME production from someone else. I find it hard to understand Blatts reluctance to go deeper into the bench. Other than Mozgov, the balance of the 7 man rotation have mostly taken up space in the last 2 games. So its hard to understand why the balance of the roster doesn't get a chance to occupy floor space during the Lebron show. 

Summary: Cavs did hold back some last night, and can expect a good energy level Tuesday. Cavs have a good chance to force game 7.

Update: 6/16 - am: I'm thinking Blatt was coaching to "win the series" rather than "win the game" on Sunday. If the Cavs have successfully flipped the "fatigue table" to favor the Cavs tonight - there's a great chance the Cavs will use their "bigs" to pound the Warriors into a 7th game. We'll know a lot more in about 12 hours.


Add a comment

Trump CANNOT Fund His Own Campaign

So Trump is running for President. I'm no Trump fan, but would vote for him if he were the nominee. Before we get too carried away with his flamboyant rhetoric, we need to assess the sincerity of this campaign. The most concise "acid test" of a candidates viability is their plan to finance the campaign.

Hillary has been clear. She'll ramp up the Clinton Money Machine and tap well healed donors and a vast array of previous useful idiots to raise close to $2 Billion. To compete with her, it will take at least as much as Romney raised in 2012 - about $600 Million.

Trump has total cash and marketable securities of about $300 Million. The balance of his highly ill-liquid wealth totals a bit less than $4 Billion. If Trump were serious about funding a Presidential campaign; he would have already re-structured his debt to try to free up AT LEAST and additional $500 Million.

In reality, trying to liquidate half a billion from his property holdings would require complex and time consuming multi-party negotiations that would take months to complete. Of course, now that he's an announced candidate, any such dealings will involve the scrutiny of the FEC - which would make such transactions additionally tedious.  

So, lets be honest. If Trump is serious - he'll need to raise money - just like everyone else. Since he's already declared he WON'T be raising money - it's hard to believe he's serious.

For what it's worth, Trump values his "Brand" at about $3 Billion. (more than 10 times the Forbes valuation) It's likely his "team of accountants" has already projected the "Brand Value" increase of participating in GOP debates, and winning delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Trump's not really running for President. He's starring in a public reality show.

UPDATE- 7/12/15:

Trump has dominated the GOP political landscape since he announced his campaign. The financial facts stated above are as valid as ever, but the balance of the GOP would do well to understand the value that TRUMP brings to the GOP. Presidential elections are no longer determined by "independents" but rather by "stupid voters."  In mid-term elections, about 80 million reasonably well informed people vote - and the GOP dominates those elections. In Presidential elections an additional 40 million people vote. Those 40 million, mostly "stupid voters" are the people that chose our President. 

Trump has a direct connection with those 40 million people. Trump can introduce them to a GOP that they scarcely knew existed. Trump's status as a reality TV star, Miss USA promoter, and world class blowhard, make him a natural favorite of the "stupid voters." Face it, the GOP needs to get a bigger share of the "stupid vote." None of the 40 million stupid voters are going to listen to 5 minutes of Bobby Jindal - but will wait in line to hear Trump make idiotic proclamations. 

Sure, it would be great if we could just educate people to not be so stupid - but that's a different, and longer term issue. For this election, Trump provides a great opportunity for the balance of the GOP to play off of his celebrity and use the connection to "the stupid" to gain at least half of their votes. The GOP should not be attacking TRUMP, but rather clarifying and explaining the portions of his positions that have merit - and discounting his crazy rantings as rhetoric. 

Trump is showing the way to battle an entrenched opposition media, and reach 40 million "swing voters" - and the GOP seems to be determined to ignore his appeal, and virtually demand those 40 million stupid voter vote for the champion of the stupid - Hillary Clinton.

Add a comment

Would you Have Gone Into Iraq ? - The Right Answer

The current "go to" question of the media to ask GOP Presidential Candidates is:

"Given what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq ?"

From Jeb Bush, to Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz; each has offered the wrong answer. That is, they've answered in terms of what we "know" about Iraq's stockpiles of WMD. That was NOT specifically the question. The question asks "what we know NOW; which includes the undeniable incompetence of the Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department.

Accordingly the CORRECT answer is something like this:

"No, had I known that my successor and his Secretary of State would mis-handle the hard fought gains of our brave military; and abandon a struggling but promising Democratic State in the Middle East and encourage the rise of the barbaric group called ISIS - No, of course I wouldn't have authorized the invasion of Iraq."

When the interviewer tries to "re-frame" the question to focus on WMD; the reply should be similar. We could only go on the intelligence known at the time, similarly - the intelligence known when the incompetent President and  Secretary of State Hilllary Clinton failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement; was that the power vacuum left by a US withdrawal would lead to the rise of a militant force like ISIS. It is hard to foresee that a US administration could act so irresponsibly - but knowing that now - of course I wouldn't have authorized the invasion of Iraq.

After about three rounds of this - the question will never be asked again.

Isn't one of our guys smart enough to figure this out?

Add a comment