The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Worst Possible Outcome

In my last post, I noted that through his own lack of discipline, poor focus and shallow policy knowledge, Donald Trump will lose an election that could have been easily won. With the exception of her Stepford wives supporters, most objective observers and a majority of voters understand that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent where it matters—accomplishing substantive things. They'll vote for Clinton as a vote against Trump. On the other hand, many voters will vote for Trump, not because they're enamored of the man, but because his core ideas are not all bad and his claims that the election process is "rigged" hold true.

Although the Dems and the media would have you think he's suggesting widespread and rampant voter fraud. But in his typically muddied language and incoherent style, what Trump really means is that the elites have rigged the election against him. Whether it's the main stream media, the entertainment industry, or the glitterati who populate the arts—Donald Trump is characterized as the devil. Even worse, there is clear, irrefutable evidence (think: Wikileaks emails and the Project Veritas videos) that the Clinton campaign plotted with the media to be sure Trump was demonized.

In my last post, I noted that many who will vote for Trump are actually voting against media bias:
[A Trump vote is] also a middle finger directed at the mainstream media, who more than any single entity, have worked hard to destroy Trump. It's only fair to note that Trump has helped them enormously with the task, but nonetheless, their bias is palpable.
I'm not the only person who feels this way. Derek Hunter, a #NeverTrump adherent, has now decided that he'll vote for Trump as a vote against media bias. He writes:
Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.

More than anything, I can’t sit idly by and allow these perpetrators of fraud to celebrate and leak tears of joy like they did when they helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. I have to know I weighed in not only in writing but in the voting booth.

The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton ...

After the last debate, when no outlet “fact checked” Hillary’s lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn’t lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn’t hold out any longer.

A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don’t know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won’t even be a media to hold her accountable.

The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who’ve made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it’s all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

I won’t stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won’t pretend someone is handing out flowers when they’re shoveling BS. But I’d rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president’s friends and political allies.
And there's the real difference. In a Trump presidency, as crazy as it might be, the GOP (unlike a Democratic party that has fawned over Clinton's lies and corruption) will oppose him vigorously if he suggests crazy stuff. The media will be apoplectic and will aggressively investigate even a whiff of dishonesty or corruption. The military will push back should he recommend bad stuff, and the Dems (at least those who haven't emigrated), will oppose all of his agenda.

Sadly, with Hillary's election, Obama 3.0 will begin. BS will be piled high. The media and the Dems will tell us to enjoy its sweet smell. No independent entity will provide a check for Clinton's dishonest and corrupt practices; bad decisions and policies will abound, and our country will sink further into malaise. There are no good outcomes here, but the worst possible outcome is a presidency for Hillary Clinton.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Fight Back

If you think back to the frightened reaction among elites to the Brexit vote, you'll better understand the elite's reaction to Donald Trump. You can also fully comprehend why they've worked so hard to ensure that this election skews in Hillary Clinton's favor. The elites, it seems, can adapt easily to dishonesty and corruption, but they cannot abide a candidate who can't be anticipated in advance.

First, a comment on Brexit. Despite armegeddon-like warnings of economic collapse; despite suggestions that Brexit leaders were unhinged, despite condemnation by the elites in the U.K., and despite polling that indicated a clear E.U win, the "little people" rejected E.U. rule and decided that they wanted their sovereignty back. Their vote indicated that they were fed up with the elites defining the best course of action, particularly because the elites are often wrong, and the little guy is the one who often suffers as a consequence of their mistakes.

Now, Trump. With polls indicating a clear Clinton victory, the elites seem smug and celebratory, but at the same time, uneasy. They're thinking about Brexit.

Sally Zelikovsky takes a hard look at Trump support when she writes:
Support for Trump is more of a jury nullification -- a complete rejection of all of the evidence. Not the evidence of how bad things are -- we all know our economic, cultural, and national security health is hanging by a thread. It is the wholesale renunciation of all that political gamesmanship has wrought. Things may be grim, but if we don’t address the underlying cause of “WHY” our outlook is bleak and it doesn’t matter who is elected. The cycle of misery will just continue. Too few who earn their living inside the Beltway seem to get this; and the few who do, rarely have national exposure.

It is also too simplistic to cast the Trump phenomenon as the natural outgrowth of the fading glory of the angry and frustrated white man juxtaposed against the ascendant power of minorities -- the throwaway line that permeates political commentary. It is far more nuanced than that.

The Trump phenomenon is better understood as a colossal F U to all of the lies and broken promises politicians have hoisted upon the masses over the years. It is the savage blowback to the money-sucking rules and regulations and taxes that heavily burden a broad range of the middle and upper middle classes. It is a YUGE “suck it” to the self-aggrandizement and pocket lining that goes on within the Beltway. It is a swift backlash against the swarm of Beltway wannabees who want in on DC action in order to enrich themselves on the backs of the people, to the detriment of the country.
And it's also a middle finger directed at the mainstream media, who more than any single entity, have worked hard to destroy Trump. It's only fair to note that Trump has helped them enormously with the task, but nonetheless, their bias is palpable.

Throughout any presidential campaign, name calling, accusations of bigotry and racism, and outlandish suggestions that the GOP candidate will do great harm (e.g., start a nuclear war) are commonplace, regardless of the Democrat on the ballot. It seems that the Democrats get a free pass to demonize every GOP presidential contender. For example, along with their media allies, they demonized Mitt Romney—an ethical, honest, and competent politician and executive. Romney did what all GOP contenders of the past did. He took it. He never fought back, but that didn't stop the Dems from suggesting he was responsible for the death of a woman who died of Cancer; that he rejected 47 percent" of the electorate, not by calling them "deplorable" or "irredeemable" as this year's Democrat contender has done (by the way, many media outlets defended Clinton for that remark), but by simply noting that they were probably beyond his message. He allowed debate moderator Candy Crowley to defend Barack Obama (incorrectly, it turned out) during the second debate and did so without a word of protest. Gentlemanly—all the way to a election loss.

To say the least, Donald Trump is not gentlemanly. He fights back — hard. Maybe his style is coarse and his language is muddy, but he fights back. That makes the elites very uncomfortable—after all, the GOP candidate is supposed to take the slurs hurled at him by the Dems and their media hamsters. They always have, haven't they? So, when Trump punches back, the elites tell us that he's "unhinged," that he doesn't have the "temperament" for the job, that he's "whining"—all because he defends himself against scurrilous attacks.

Noah Rothman
summarizes all of this when he writes:
Democrats flatter themselves when they grieve over the fact that the 2016 campaign has not been one of ideas but of competing personalities and tawdry scandals. Presidential campaigns are never contests of ideas; not if the left and their allies in media can see to it. Presidential campaigns are always characterized by a test of whether the Republican candidate harbors ignoble racial, sexual, or gender stereotypes in their hearts. Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush; all these Republicans were subject to the charge of racism. No reed was too thin for the liberal establishment to collectively perch themselves.

The result, as New York Times opinion writer Frank Bruni indicated, that it is possible “Democrats have cried wolf so many times that no one hears them now.” That kind of introspection on the part of the left has, however, been exceedingly rare. Too few are internalizing the lesson of 2016.
But why should the Dems change their strategy? The last 8 years have demonstrated that their domestic and foreign policy positions are demonstrably ineffective. So ad hominem attacks—accusations of racism or bigotry or misogyny—no matter how "reed thin" are a viable and effective option. The sad thing is that the larger voting public buys it—either out of general laziness, ignorance, or apathy. After all, it's easy to vote against someone who is a racist or a bigot or a misogynist and its easy to believe those accusations if you don't think critically, don't investigate the attacks, and/or don't really care. In the past, GOP candidates tried to fight the accusations but did so ineffectively because they didn't play dirty.

Trump has fought back and tried to play dirty, but his efforts have not worked. He has neither the intellectual skill nor the focus to fight back hard but do so without looking like a bully or a moron. In fact, even if he did have the skill, Clinton's hamsters in the media would shout him down. The Clinton propaganda machine has gravely wounded Trump, and Hillary Clinton will likely win. She might even win big. She'll claim that she has attained a "mandate" and that the country is behind her. If that's the case, then the country is behind dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence. I can't believe that's true.

Clinton and her supporters will expect the "deplorables" and "irredeemables" to lick their wounds and fade away. Her army of progressives will march onward, compounding the domestic and foreign policy mistakes that created the deplorables and irredeemables in the first place. She'll win while the country loses.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Next Four Years

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have created enormous problems for Hillary Clinton, her political cabal, the DNC, and indirectly, a main stream media that refuses to investigate the many indications of Clinton's corruption and outright criminality. The Clinton's have a long and sordid history of political and personal revenge focused on political enemies (think: House of Cards). At the moment, Assange is #1 on their enemy's list.

This week, it appears that a Clinton affiliated entity (more in a moment) tried to tie Assange directly to the Russians and also to a pedophilia charge. Facts continue to emerge, but Tim Johnson provides background:
The anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks is claiming that an elaborate and somewhat wacky smear campaign has targeted the group’s founder, Julian Assange, to paint him as a pedophile and Russian client.

WikiLeaks said the smear efforts, which it’s outlined in tweets and a series of documents over the past two days, include a sham offer from the Russian government to pay Assange $1 million to promote a women’s dating site and a separate scheme to link Assange to a criminal case in the Bahamas.

The assertions are the latest twist in events that have kept Assange and WikiLeaks at center stage of the presidential campaign. The smears come as WikiLeaks releases tens thousands of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and from the personal email account of campaign chairman John Podesta.
To avoid addressing the incriminating content of the hacked emails, Clinton and her campaign do what they always do, they obfuscate. They talk about the Russians, about hacking, about espionage, about anything but the content of the emails. When they can't avoid the content, they imply it is forged.

And when that doesn't work, they attack the messenger—viciously. Johnson provides an outline of the case:
The alleged smear campaign centers on a Houston company,, that describes itself as an online dating site for single women.

A representative for the company, Hannah Hammond, wrote to Assange’s legal team in London and Sweden with an offer to pay him to appear in a tongue-in-cheek five-minute television advertisement for the company that it said would air on the Lifetime channel.

“The source of the $1 million is the Russian government. It will be wired to Mr. Assange’s nominated account, upon his cooperation, and before filming of the ad by the SoHo camera crew,” Hammond wrote in a Sept. 16 email, according to a copy WikiLeaks published.
But the plot thickens. is a very suspicious entity that has connections to Clinton and her campaign. The main stream media, of course, would never investigate those connections, but in our digital world, crowd-sourced investigation at Reddit has begun and it's uncovering very interesting facts. The entire thread, here, is long and very complex (the Clintons always hide their criminality in complexity), but definitely worth a read.  Private tech-savvy citizens are doing what the media refuses to do: investigate. As you'll see, the perpetrators, now that they have been discovered, are already deleting entire websites and twitter feeds to hide their tracks. In addition, the web of Clinton connections that comes out of this is absolutely fascinating.

When you read the Reddit thread, recognize that information presented has not been vetted and may be incorrect at the margins, but the overall thrust is that Clinton is doing what she always does—trying to impugn legitimate facts and criticism by destroying the people who present the legitimate facts and criticism. The criminality and corruption of the next four years has already begun.


The Reddit thread continues to grow with "coincidences" and suspicious Clinton connections growing apace. One of the contributors in the thread writes:
"Did we just tie Hillary Clinton to an attempt to destroy the reputation of Julian Assange with pedophilia accusations? Isn't this a criminal conspiracy involving many individuals and a number of front companies, and thus falling under RICO?"
Heh. That is what it appears to be!


Deep in the thread another commenter writes: "These people can't even control their sick sense of humor. Todd and Clare. Tod und klar. Dead and clear." Just another coincidence, right?


Deep into the Reddit thread (you'll have to hit 'show more comments' a few times) there's a cogent counter argument that has merit and suggests that this might be "conspiracy Jiu Jitsu" in the sense that the perpetrators of the Assange attack were awfully sloppy in hiding their tracks (after crowd sourced investigation uncovered them). There is some merit to this argument, but consider the arrogance of the Clinton machine. The Clintons and their cronies have been enormously sloppy in the past (think: private email server) and have paid no price for it—none at all. That leads to a feeling that they are bullet-proof.

Is this just crazy conspiracy stuff? That's always the Clinton's meme. But past history indicates that the "conspiracies" always cited by the Clintons turn out to be something very different indeed—a path to the truth.


In response to accusations of blatant media bias, someone named Jim Roberts, an ex-NYT reporter, tweeted: "Yes. The media is biased. Biased against hatred, sexism, racism, incompetence, belligerence, inequality, To name a few." I think Roberts' insipid moral preening represents the position of the vast majority of "journalists" who have worked tirelessly to destroy every GOP candidate since the turn of the century and supported every Democrat candidate including Hillary Clinton.

David Harsanyi considers the current campaign and summarizes nicely:
Donald Trump has been such a political and moral calamity for conservatives that liberals have been free to ignore the failings of their own mendacious, corrupt candidate and the significant role they played in destroying trust in American institutions.

So forgive me if I don’t take liberal concern-trolling about the GOP’s wicked presidential choice too seriously. After all, even if Republicans had nominated the most qualified, competent, and chaste moderate in the existence of the republic, there still would be no #NeverHillary movement within the Democratic Party. No matter how many scandals were uncovered. No matter how many lies she told. What they’ve done is normalize Hillary’s behavior. Because Trump.

Actually, many of these same people treated a competent and ethically upright moderate like Mitt Romney just like they treat Trump. And even the most sexist-sensitive liberal would likely support a lecherous Bill Clinton over a virtuous Republican nominee. Because state power is the virtue. So spare us.

It’s been something to watch the media engage in this smug, self-satisfying, feigned outrage — much of it aimed at real Trump scandals, and plenty of it hyper-parsing and overreactions — after giving him nearly unlimited and uncritical airtime during the primaries to ensure his nomination for the ratings and to help Hillary.
In addition to the bias itself, it's the complete lack of a "NeverHillary movement that bothers me. It seems as if Democrats are perfectly willing to forget and forgive blatant dishonesty, unambiguous corruption, and proven incompetence because ... well ... Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and Donald trump is just a "horrible" person.

Liberal opinion writer Chris Cillizza has the unmitigated gall to suggest that media is a victim in all of this and that Trump's bashing of it will hurt our democratic processes. Really?

So it's okay to blatantly advocate for one candidate in the news pages of The Washington Post (Cillizza's paper) and the vast majority of other MSM sources, to select only stories that hurt that candidate's opponent, to bury news that might injure that candidate (think: Wikileaksor Project Veritas) and to do this every single day? In the fevered imagination of Cillizza, that's all okay because Trump represents a true threat to his elitist world view. He whines (ahh, it's nice to use Barack Obama's favorite word):
Many Trump supporters think that the mainstream media are so crooked — to borrow a favorite word from the Trump vocabulary — that they not only can't be trusted but need to be eliminated.

That is deeply dangerous. I have no illusion that people are going to suddenly like the media any time soon. But, there's a big difference between liking the media (or agreeing with the media) and believing they are a necessary part of a healthy and functioning democracy. I take no issue with anyone who doesn't like me or even “capital-J” Journalism. That's fine. But the increasing willingness to declare journalism dead and celebrate that fact is a very bad thing.
The kind of biased and dishonest journalism practiced by Cillizza and his many colleagues throughout the MSM is very much alive and well. A blatantly biased media, and not Trump's reaction to it, is deeply dangerous to a functioning democracy.

It's the ethical, honest, unbiased, and objective journalism that we all should expect that has died. R.I.P.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Dangerous Place

Thankfully, the last presidential debate is now over. The pro-Clinton main stream media has gotten the vapors because Donald Trump would not commit unequivocally to accepting the results of the upcoming election. Mind you, he didn't say he wouldn't accept the result, but almost every media outlet lead with that headline, just to ensure that every reader, viewer or listener realize how "un-American" Trump is. They conveniently forget Al Gore in 2000 who, with some justification at the time, refused to accept the result and asked for a recount. But Gore was a Democrat and therefore on the side of angels. Trump? He is evil incarnate, if you were to believe Clinton-trained media hamsters.

The debate itself was a push. Clinton wiggled and squirmed, but the format has never been designed to force a candidate to answer tough questions. She didn't. Trump is simply not a debater. His arguments were muddled, he is not quick on his feet, he doesn't think 2 or 3 points ahead. It's mildly satisfying to hear Trump describe Hillary accurately, but it serves no useful purpose unless he can present his argument cogently. He cannot.

No matter who wins the presidential election, we'll be left in either a bad or crazy place. If Hillary Clinton prevails (a high probability) we'll be left with a dishonest politician who is demonstrably corrupt and at the same time, incompetent. We'll be in a bad place. If Donald Trump prevails (a much lower probability) well have a crude, egomaniac with little policy depth and highly questionable interpersonal/diplomatic skills. We'll be in a crazy place.

Luckily, the U.S. Constitution provides a remedy for either the bad or the crazy place—impeachment. Andrew McCarthy comments:
... besides the ballot box, the most vital limitations on presidential power are Congress’s powers to control spending and impeach. These were thought sufficiently strong checks that, for over 160 years, the president was not even term-limited (i.e., until the 22nd Amendment in 1951). This confidence owed to the principle that members of Congress had a solemn duty to defend their institutional authority and the constitutional framework. In essence, the president can act as a rogue only if Congress allows that to happen.
During the tenure of Barack Obama, the Congress has ceded most of its power and virtually all of its checks and balances to the executive branch. Obama now creates "laws" via executive action, regulation and subterfuge. He creates "treaties" without Congress's approval. The presidency is becoming dangerously imperial, and there's little likelihood that either Clinton or Trump would voluntarily return to it to its constitutionally defined role.

McCarthy continues:
As I argued in Faithless Execution, while Congress’s powers to thwart abuse of presidential power are dispositive, there are, really, only two of them. If Congress refuses to use its authority to limit or cut off funding, the only remaining limitation is impeachment. If, in addition, Congress takes impeachment off the table, there is nothing left but a rogue president’s subjective sense of what he (or she) can get away with politically. The same, obviously, is true of the president’s subordinates: If, despite their lawlessness or incompetence, Congress maintains (or increases) their budgets and shrinks from impeaching them, then they are limited only by the whims of the rogue president they serve.

This is why our system no longer works. The Congress is AWOL: an increasingly irrelevant institution that: (a) does not see itself (either individually or collectively) as obliged to defend the Constitution; (b) delegates its legislative tasks to the sprawling bureaucracy, over which the president has far more influence; (c) punts tough calls to the judiciary, simultaneously refusing to exploit its constitutional authority over the courts’ jurisdiction in order to prevent or reverse judicial imperialism; and (d) is incompetent to perform basic tasks, such as imposing “regular order” on the appropriations process and compelling presidents to submit international agreements to the Constitution’s treaty process.

The power of the purse is now a toothless check. In the last century, the federal government’s most basic role has been transitioned from national security to social welfare, wealth redistribution, and economic regulation (including transfer payments to industries and research institutions based on political favoritism, not market forces). Congress is paralyzed by fear that any cutting off of funds will be portrayed as a denial of someone’s entitlement or other transfer payments.
Because Congress refuses to perform its constitutionally defined role, we'll be unable to escape from the bad or crazy place that we find ourselves in. We have no remedy for a rogue President Clinton or President Trump, and that in itself puts every citizen in a really dangerous place.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016


How many times have you seen this on mainstream TV news: An intrepid "reporter" approaches a Republican luminary (e.g., a sitting governor, a congressman or a senator) and asks, "How do you respond to the accusations about Donald Trump groping women?" The luminary, depending on whether he or she is #nevertrump will try his/her best to defend the Donald, suggesting that the allegations are alleged and not proven, or will lambast him. The reporter will press, asking how any decent man/woman could support Trump? Then press again—each question intended to demonstrate to the public just how bad Donald Trump really is. Not one question addressing any substantive policy or issue. The GOP luminary will respond accordingly, but the responses aren't nearly as important as the questions. The questions indict, and that's their intent. You've seen this play out dozens (check that—hundreds) of times over the past few months.

How many times have you seen this on mainstream TV news: An intrepid "reporter" approaches a Democrat luminary (e.g., the sitting president, or a governor, a congressman or a senator) and asks, "How do you respond to hard facts disclosed in hacked emails that Hillary Clinton tried to subvert an FBI investigation, provided favors to foreign investors in a pay-for-play scheme, threatened national security with her private email server? Do you think its okay to tell the voters one thing but have a 'private position' that they don't know about? That's what she said she does, after all. Do you think that should cause voters some concern?"

Wait! You rarely, if ever, have seen the second encounter. In fact, I'll bet you've never seen it, but if you have, you'll note that there's never a follow-up question—never. The Dem luminary is allowed to defend his candidate, not matter how dishonest the defense is.

The media is shaping the election to favor their candidate—Hillary Clinton. They accomplish this through the tone of their "reporting," through the frequency with which they address specific issues, through the questions they ask and the innuendo those questions carry, through simple omission of important stories that hurt their candidate and unwarranted emphasis on stories that hurt her opponent. Editors allow opinion to creep into "news" stories, cherry pick subjects that will be friendly to Clinton and damaging to Trump. They cut off interviews that begin to damage Clinton. They ask follow-up questions and then follow-up the follow-up when Trump is under fire, but almost never ask a follow up when Clinton or one of her surrogates tells an obvious lie.

Because the voting public has become exhausted by the media and Clinton campaign's never-ending allegations that Trump is a serial sexual abuser, unhinged and/or otherwise unfit for the presidency (can you say, racist or bigot or misogynist or xenophobe?), they have created a new meme (voiced by Barack Obama in a news conference today): any suggestion that the election is "rigged" is unprecedented and un-American, irresponsible and otherwise just plain evil. It's also whining. Looks like for the next week or so, "rigged" and "whining" will be the Democrat watchwords.

Donald Trump's claims that the election is "rigged," In his ham-handed style, Trump doesn't enunciate his complaint well, but when Trump calls the election "rigged," what he actually means (whether he realizes it or not) is that he is up against a competent, well organized and highly effective propaganda machine. The Clinton campaign aided and abetted by a complicit media have become masters of limiting the discussion to those topics that they want the voters to hear, of repeating the same meme over and over and over again until their claims become the public's reality. The Clinton campaign has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on TV commercials hammering at the same memes while the media supports those memes with its one-sided reporting. Everything else simply vanishes.

One of history's truly evil men once said: “But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

Say what you will—Hillary Clinton and her trained hamsters in the media are nothing if not persistent.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Sunk Cost Fallacy

On the one hand, Hillary Clinton would have us believe that she will carry on the "legacy" of Barack Obama's presidency—would, in fact, become Obama 3.0. On the other hand, when confronted with the many serious failures of his presidency, she states that "you can't just throw it [Obama's work] away, you have to fix it." She was referring to an imploding Obamacare system but in reality, it's what she has advocated for all of Obama's domestic and foreign policy disasters. After all, her supporters tell us repeatedly that she has both the "experience" and the "temperament" to do just that.

Richard Fernandez comments:
From Aleppo to Mosul, Yemen to Libya; from the Ukraine to Iran; from Japan to the Philippines the number of places that need fixing keeps growing. Domestically the situation is similar: the next four years must be devoted to repairing what last 8 years destroyed. At every step Hillary will cite her familiarity with the problems as reason for putting her in charge and inveigh against throwing away the gigantic investments of the past. The dictum "we can't just rip it up and throw it away" is psychologically convincing. It applies to a wide variety of situations, from the trillion dollar Obamacare debacle to the hundreds of billions spent trying to ingratiate the US with Iran.

However economists call this the sunk cost fallacy. It is "used by economists and behavioral scientists to describe the phenomenon where people justify increased investment of money, time, lives, etc. in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment ("sunk costs"), despite new evidence suggesting that the cost, beginning immediately, of continuing the decision outweighs the expected benefit." The sunk cost fallacy explains why people continue to eat rancid food in a restaurant because they've already paid for it. It also explains why a Third Obama term is necessary. Somebody's got to fix the effects of the last two.
Stated more succinctly, it's a lot like the old saying, "You're throwing good money after bad."

A Democrat president made monumentally bad decisions (e.g., Libya and Syria), established monumentally bad policies (e.g., Obamacare), sucked up to monumentally bad people (e.g., the Mullahs of Iran) and now (to quote his long time mentor) the chickens have come home to roost. His bad decisions haunt both domestic and foreign policy. But no worries, another Democrat—Hillary Clinton—will fix all of this, not by rooting out the bad but simply by tweaking it just a little bit—the sunken cost fallacy.

Some of the damage done by the Obama presidency cannot be undone. Hillary can't do it and neither can the Donald. But much of Obama "legacy" (e.g., Obamacare and the Iran "deal") needs to be uprooted, not tweaked—uprooted. New ideas and new policies—simpler, less intrusive, more focused, more efficienct and effective, and less hyper-partisan—must be implemented to replace the failed policies and practices that currently exist. There's no chance of getting that done under Obama 3.0. None. At. All.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Common Ground

During the Obama years, the Left came out of the closet, using the UN as a shield to foist their own deeply anti-Israel (and subtly anti-Semitic) sentiment. They championed the palestinians and Hamas—an oppressive, murderous  Islamic terror cult that is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-diversity, anti-democratic, and anti-free speech. At its core, the palestinians and Hamas are totalitarian. Maybe that's why the Left makes common cause with them.

Barack Obama joined the Left's anti-Israel chorus as often as he could, trying hard to moderate his personal anti-Israel bias with the need to mollify clueless Jewish donors. After all, the money had to keep rolling in.

In an article aptly entitled, "The United Nations Is Run By A Bunch Of Depraved Totalitarians, Villainous Barbarians, And Anti-Semitic Scum: Just a Friendly Reminder," (read the whole thing) David Harsanyi writes:
The United Nations (UNESCO, to be specific) recently adopted an anti-Israel resolution that disregarded the Jewish connection to the faith’s two holiest sites, the Temple Mount and Western Wall. The motion was supported by 24 nations, including Russia and China. Only six countries opposed it.

Now, the UN is too impotent to make history, much less redraft it. Still, it’s never a waste of time to remind people of its long record of empowering cheerleaders and perpetrators of violence against Jews.

It’s not merely that UN organizations like the “human rights commission” or UNESCO are often led by Islamic supremacists, but that the majority of first-world nations have — with few exceptions, like the United States and the United Kingdom — been enablers of anti-Semitism for over 50 years.

This new motion, which claims freedom of worship has been curtailed by “escalating aggressions and illegal measures,” was submitted by the Palestinians and backed by various other twelfth-century strongholds like Morocco (where it’s illegal to possess a Bible written in Arabic), Algeria (where Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men and insulting Muhammad is punishable by death), Iran (with restrictions too long to list), Pakistan (where the death penalty or life in prison is mandated for apostasy), and Sudan (where converting to Christianity is punishable by death.)

Did I mention UNESCO is an organization that claims it encourages “international peace and universal respect for human rights”? Why would the United States lend its credibility to such a sham?
When the United States under Barack Obama refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem, irrefutably a Jewish city for most of recorded history, is not part of Israel, the main stream media yawned. After all, they wouldn't want to upset Jewish Democrats at this crucial time in the election cycle. Hillary Clinton is not asked to clarify her position on this issue, after all, her trained hamsters in the media wouldn't want to make her uncomfortable, would they? Clinton has to keep the Left happy, but she's also all about donor's money and votes. If asked, she'd lie (what else is new), but in reality I suspect her presidency will follow the Obama mold with schizophrenic positions on Israel month by month.

Come to think of it, Hillary and Hamas should be able to reach common ground. After all, the palestinians (who elected Hamas to represent them) are as dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent as the likely future President of the United States. At least Hillary isn't as murderous, and that's a plus in her favor.