Monday, August 21, 2017

"Looking for an honest answer" - Part II

The NY Time has offered in their editorial that Trump should be censored. I would ask exactly what this censor would look like?
  • You cannot say he didn't admonish the White Supremacists. He made a very specific statement doing exactly that.
  • You cannot argue that his statement blaming both sides is outrageous, as a plurality of Americans agreed  (49%) agree that the Antifacists were at least partially responsible for the violence.  
I think by nature, a statement that only a minority logically takes issue with, cannot be a statement so outrageous that it would require censor. Even if it was reversed, and a small majority disagreed with what he said (or even found it outrageous)...  that would not demand some sort of rebuke.

Has any President (ever) been censored for making a statement that approximately half of Americans agreed with and half disagree?

So if you want a blatant example of the media being "out to get Trump" - look no further than the NY Times demanding that the President be censored. It's not just slightly over the top, but wildly over the top.

To clarify: Donald Trump wasn't at the protest. He had nothing to do with the protests. He wasn't responsible for preparing for the protests. He wasn't responsible for protecting the people at the protest. He wasn't responsible for either side.

Yet, with one person dead, dozens injured... nobody actually responsible in Charlottesville or Virginia is being called to task. Only the President is being called to task, because some in the media didn't like what he said about the events three days later.

It defies common sense. 

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Response to Mr "looking for an honest answer". Part I

So let's respond to the question of the day here...
When I want to honest answer . Others keep saying that the media is out to get Trump . But you never seem to accept the fact that he says somethings outrageous? 
Grammar aside, the question appears to be less of a question, and more an attempt to repute the obvious observation that many in the media are out to get Trump. Apparently, our friend here believes that the media being out to get Trump, and Trump making statements he finds outrageous, somehow, cannot logically co-exist.

Let me be clear. There are many in the media who are "out to get Trump" and the fact that he might make statements that people find outrageous with doesn't change that one bit.
When the bugs me the most is when he said find people on both sides. I do not understand how are you can think that anyone that were in a KKK robes or chanting anti-semantic logos and calling for blood and all this other stuff, why any of them, any single one of them a fine person ? I just don't get that I just simply don't get that. 
I don't like the violent behavior that happened on the other side but they were down there because against Nazis and the KKK and the white superiority movement. Those can be fine people because they are against absolute evil. 
Again, deciphering the gobbledygook that poses as a statement, our friend apparently is making the argument that only people who stand for something disagreeable can be responsible for violence. That those who actually (as a matter of their own admission) use political violence to shut down "fascist speech" cannot be held responsible for the violence that they openly advocate and openly admit to doing.

Apparently the logic is shutting down free speech with violence is not actually violence if the free speech being shut down is disagreeable speech. Apparently then it becomes something different than actual violence. Perhaps some sort of justifiable violence?  An interesting observation, that can only come from twisting yourself into knots trying to justify the unjustifiable.

So in terms of what is and isn't outrageous:
  • Is it more outrageous to blame two groups of people for violence, when both sides actually were ready for violence, willing to commit violence, and actually "did" commit violence?
  • Is it more outrageous to only blame the people you personally have a political disagreement with for the violence, even though you cannot logically argue that both sides didn't commit violence? 
I'll let you decide which is logically outrageous.

(part two will address the NY Times call for the censor of the President)

President's approvals holding steady... maybe even rising.

Now let's be clear, there hasn't been any large swing in the President's favor, and he is still looking at historically dismal ratings. But overall the tracking polls have snuck up a point or two, and the RCP average has gone up 1.6% in the past five days.

Now the "only" reason this is news, is that places like the NY Times and Washington Post have demanding that the issues of last weekend had brought the President's approvals in to a tail spin. The NY Times editorial today suggested that the President's approvals have already dropped south of 35% (a dubious claim that simply isn't supported by fact) and will no doubt drop further (an opinion that is apparently quite obvious to current Trump haters, but not many others).

The Party of BLM and Antifa gets their just rewards...

Alternate title: At least they have the support of reporters from NTY and WaPo 
The Republican National Committee (RNC) expanded its massive fundraising lead over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in July as the Democrats posted their worst July haul in a decade.
The DNC raised just $3.8 million in July, compared to the $10.2 million raised by the RNC in the same month. While the GOP has no debt, the DNC added slightly to its debt in July, which now sits at $3.4 million.
The Democrats haven't raised that little money in a July since 2007; the party raised $3.4 million in that month.

Quite obviously the message of hate and hate and more hate from the leadership of the Democratic Party (and their cronies in the media) has inspired a influx of indifference towards the Party of hate.

I am sure if they dig deep enough, they can find some way to blame this news on President Trump.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

The liberal media now getting defensive...

It’s Not Hysterical to Recognize the Threat Trump Poses 
    Democracy, such as it is, really is in danger.

By Katha Pollitt

There seems to be a pattern.
  • Trump does something that the left doesn't like.
  • The media jumps all over it, as if it the only thing in the world that matters.
  • There are calls for resignation, impeachment, removal by any means. Much analysis that this was the final straw. 
  • The dust settles, and people start to realize that maybe the personal attacks of Trump were blown out of proportion.
  • The media comes under fire for overreacting.
  • The media defensively comes back swinging by repeating their general issues with Trump.

This article by Katha Pollitt here is the end result of this perpetual loop. A broad lists of complaints about Donald Trump that goes back to things that happened prior to him being a candidate for President. She mentions Russian election meddling. She talks about Trump being a "birther". She talks about Jeff Sessions and the DOJ investigating voter fraud. She talks about Steve Bannon. She even talks about the travel ban.

As if all of this justifies whatever the media wants to say and do about pretty much everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. The argument seems to be that there simpy is no line that can possibly be crossed that could even conceivably be called a "hysterical reaction" to Trump.

What does it tell you when journalists openly admit that their hatred of Donald Trump is do deeply embedded into their souls, that they see it as justification for pretty much any sort of reporting?

Now nobody would suggest that the matter of the violent protests in Charlottesville is not a matter of national concern. Someone died, dozens were injured, several people were arrested, and most of the nation was upset by the events.

But the reality is that the media spent almost "no time" talking about what happened in Charlottesville. Rather, they spent nearly all their time (in fact one CBS evening news broadcast spent their entire time) talking about Donald Trump's "reaction" to the event. Since when have we ever concerned ourselves less with the effects of an event of national significance than we did with someone's reaction to said events?

Since when is that "really" what people are going to care about?

The reality seems unmistakably simple: The media doesn't really want to cover actually what happened in Charlottesville, because doing so would require that they do more than report everything in general terms that are easy to politicize in the manner that they desire. It is much more politically convenient to define the event in simple to understand terms, provide no actual details that might upset that narrative, and focus solely on something that can be specifically used to attack a President that they (quite obviously) don't like.

Think about it:

Why does the media not want to report on who was arrested and why? Why does the media not want to report on others who were injured and how they were injured? Why does the media not want to question the Governor, the Mayor, or the Police for basically refusing to step in? Why do there a appear to be almost "no in depth" reporting on a matter of such significance?

No... in a manner that has almost nothing to do with the President himself, the media "still" wants to make it 99% about trashing the President. Oddly, they see nothing wrong with this. Lazily, many Americans don't seem to notice the obvious.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Steve Bannon Out !!!

False equivalency argument trivializes violence..

So I am openly stealing the premise of this argument from Scott Adams, who by the way spends way too much time on a video explaining his concept in way too much detail. But his long winded approach aside, he generally makes sense, and this time is no different. 

The argument is fairly simple. The politically approved manner in which our leaders are supposed to respond to a problem is by doing so in descending order of importance. In the case of Charlottesville, the appropriate response would have been the following:
  • Reflect on the tragedy that someone died
  • Offer best wishes for the family and friends of the victim
  • Chastise the individual who committed the act responsible for the death
  • Officially condemn the white supremacists for being white supremacists 
Then, and only then, the argument goes... would a leader be free to then call out (to a lesser degree) any other players who had a hand in what went wrong. In theory (and in all honesty) those who could be called out would be and antifascists, the actions of the police standing down, and perhaps even the local politicians who seemed very disinterested in heading off violence. 

The problem, however, seems two fold. 

First, the President apparently didn't offer harsh enough words for the individual (in the minds of some), and he pretty much skipped step four and went directly to calling pretty much everyone and their brother for what happened. In other word, he didn't follow the normal political script. 

Second, there was an obvious concerted effort on the left to push back on any sort of blame being pointed in "any" direction other than the white supremacists. The liberal talking points argument (as they generally are) appeared to be well coordinated, and was quickly launched by nearly everyone on the left. The argument being that any such attempt to blame anyone "other" then the White Supremacists was a "false equivalence". 

Now logically, the false equivalence accusation might make sense, if you were talking about whether or not you are comparing "ideology" and only "ideology".  For nearly all Americans, there is nothing lower than being a white supremacist in 2017. As much as the antifascists might have an appalling viewpoint, for most it would not rise to the level of being a White Supremacist. When you consider that about half of Americans don't know who the antifascists really are, then it's a no win proposition to compare ideologies. 

However, the President was not comparing ideologies and never brought up ideology. He was simply comparing the actual "actions" of the people involved. This seems to be what fuels the disconnect between those who believe the President's response was totally inappropriate, and those who believed it was entirely appropriate. If you believe he was comparing ideologies, you probably thought he not only missed the boat, but was miles away on dry land. But if you believe he was comparing the actions, then the facts suggests that his response was at the very least accurate. 

So where is the trivializing of violence?  Well, it's obvious. 

By demanding that there was no moral equivalence to the "actions" of those involved... you are making an obvious argument that violence is appropriate, as long as it is directed at the right (or wrong) people. To make the argument that the action of swinging a baseball bat is somehow a morally "different" action to take depending on whether you are wearing Nazi army fatigues or a antifa black mask... absolutely trivialize the action in question. 

If you were being careful "not" to trivialize violence, you would simply argue that swinging a baseball bat at someone you disagree with politically or socially is wrong one hundred percent of the time. You wouldn't demand that there is a "degree" to how wrong it is to commit this sort of violence, depending on whether or not you agree or disagree with the underlying ideology of the person committing the action. 

So the real question becomes... is there a such thing as justifiable political violence?  Are we really ready to throw out the first amendment, and allow someone (politicians, judges) to make choices as to who actually does and does not deserve a bat to the side of the head because their political views are offensive? 

Because that appears to be the argument the left is pushing here.  

The problem exists everywhere, huh?


As I have mentioned a time or two before, we seek to maintain a tone appropriate to civil discourse on this site. It is a tone that comes naturally to most of our readers and commenters. I set forth our guidelines for comments, most recently, here.
Posting comments on Power Line is a privilege, not a right. I review comments for abuse and vulgarity. Most of our commenters have no problem speaking in polite company. However, every day I now moderate comments by commenters who are routinely vulgar. Some commenters appear to be incapable of expressing themselves without recourse to words such as “ass” or “asshole” or “dumbass” or “bastard” or “shit” or “bullshit” or “fuck” or “balls” (of the anatomical variety) or the like and their many colorful variants. “Libtard” is not acceptable here. Inserting asterisks or dashes to mask obvious vulgarities doesn’t cut it.
Our departures from the gospel according to President Trump are not to be deemed an occasion on which to abuse the contributors to this site or the site itself, for that matter. Disagreement is welcome. Abuse is not. Commenters who disparage us in personal terms — for example, “Paul, you are an idiot” — will be banned. Commenters who assert that we are “shilling” for some line or other will be banned. If you seek to disparage John or Paul or Steve or me personally, you are free to do so on a site of your own.
Those of you who employ vulgarity or abuse us personally are cordially invited to take your business elsewhere. If you don’t, we will resort to the expedient of banning you from the comments without notice.

So even on a large blog like the Powerline they tend to run into problems with idiots commenting nonsensical crap.

Scott Johnson is a well known Minnesota Blogger who has had many articles published in the mainstream media, and is often linked on RCP and other sites like that.  The Powerline is a conservative site that currently consists of four different authors, two of them fairly loyal to Trump, with the two others being less so. Scott Johnson is probably the biggest critic of the President on the site, and I am sure takes some heat from their conservative readership.

Scott is also somewhat defensive of critiques regarding the liberal media (which runs rampant on that site). It wasn't until recently that I found out (in a separate correspondence off line) that he has a daughter who works as a reporter for Politico. Well, that would probably do it.

Bottom line is that one has to understand that my expectations of decorum here are no where near as stringent as they are in most places. Quite obviously, most of th0se who criticize me here, would not last a day at a place like the Powerline.... who by the way use the third party comment software I am thinking about using... which would allow a whole slew of comment moderation, up to and including total banning.

Thursday, August 17, 2017


Robert Mueller May Not Be The Savior The Anti-Trump Internet Is Hoping For
A lot of people are counting on special counsel Robert Mueller.
But the online community that's fervently depending on the 73-year-old former FBI director to shake up the Trump presidency may be in for its share of disappointment.
Three months into the job, however, it's not clear what, if anything, investigators may uncover about the president, who has repeatedly denied any improper contacts with people in Russia and has called the special counsel probe "a witch hunt."
Moreover, even if authorities uncover damaging information about Trump or anyone else in the White House, there are serious questions about whether that material will ever be made public, short of an indictment or impeachment.
Regulations governing the special counsel say that at the conclusion of his work, he "shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions." Then, it's up to the attorney general to determine whether releasing some information would be in the public interest.
Another complicating factor: Mueller is using grand juries in Alexandria, Va., and Washington, D.C., and grand jury information is rarely made public.
"It is going to be hard and frustrating to get this information out," said Peter Zeidenberg, a lawyer at the Arent Fox firm who worked on the special counsel team investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity in the George W. Bush administration.

These are some snippets from an article written by an NPR Justice Correspondent who has made a career in following the FBI, Justice Department, political investigations, and prominent criminal trials. The author does not lend any opinions as to what Mueller may or may not ultimately find, but she leaves open the possibility that it may be nothing. However, the author is clear to the degree that while Mueller might have been given broad investigative leeway, that he will have almost no authority as to what ultimately is done with his investigation.

When Robert Mueller accepted the position of Special Counsel, he agreed to a great number of things, including that whatever is found would be handed off to the Justice Department as confidential. It would then be up to the Justice Department as to what to do next. This would include not only any legal decisions regarding indictment, but also the political decisions on what to release (if anything) to the public. It's very unlikely that anything that is not directly linked to Russian interference, or actually criminal will make it to the press.

In other words, unless specifically authorized by the Trump Justice Department to do so, there will be no James Comey style press conference where Robert Mueller stands before America and pours over everything he found. There may be leaks, there may be implications, but there will very likely be no formal statements made. In fact, unless the investigation finds true cause that convinces the Justice Department that indictment(s) are necessary, we may ultimately hear nothing publicly from Mueller.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate disappointment to so many?

After the full court press...


President's Trump's response (RV):
 - 51%  not strong enough
 - 31%  strong enough
 - 18%  have no opinion

Statues honoring Confederacy leaders (RV):
- 62%  remain as historical symbol
- 28%  be removed because they are offensive
- 10%  have no opinion

The Antifa and their beliefs (RV):
- 5%  mostly agree
- 24% mostly disagree
- 18%  have no opinion
- 50%  wonder who are the Antifa?

So after the media spent more time pummeling the President's response to the violence in Virginia than they spent actually discussing what happened... it would appear that there is a much smaller percentage of people aghast by the President than they likely suspected. While the media would have you believe that this has been he worst week in the history of any President who ever lived (CBS devoting their entire evening news on Tuesday to the cause), it turns out that only about half the country even took issue with what he stated. For, Trump... having only half the country disagree with him must feel like a win.

"So only half the country thinks I screwed this up? I can live with that."

Moreover, it would appear that the country agrees with the underlying cause of the protest, at least in terms of tearing down the statues. Less than a third of the country wants these statues removed (including only 6% of Republicans and 27% of Independents).  A majority believe that they should stay as a historical symbol. This seems to reinforce the eyewitness and video accounts (pretty much ignored by the media) that there were protesters there who were "not" white supremacists, and had reasons (other than racism) for wanting to protect the "historical symbols".

Oddly, NPR/PBS either didn't ask (or didn't report) whether or not the public felt the President was correct when he stated that multiple groups were responsible for the violence. But at the very least, we have pollsters and the media talking about the Antifascist movement, and it appears that they have significantly less of a following than our liberal media apparently thought.

However, not too surprisingly, the public doesn't know much about the Antifascist movement. I am guessing after the events of this past week, along with the "controversial statements" by the President calling attention to them... that this will not be the case moving forward. I suspect that more and more people will start to wonder and start to look into exactly who these people are. Which is at least one positive thing that came out of all of this.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Why do you support the Antifa?

We live in a country now where the freedom to speak is no longer considered a constitutionally protected practice anymore. At least not if your names is Milo, Coulter, Shapiro, etc... 

We live in a country where the freedom to assemble is no longer considered a constitutionally protected practice anymore. At least not if your group hold conservative, religious, or libertarian views.

The reality is that we have a new group of people who wear masks, hoods, and preach hatred and violence... and it would appear that the left absolutely adores them. These are people who roam around the country attempting to use violence and the threat of violence to shut down the view points of people they disagree with. 

These actions are supported 100% by Democrats, liberals, and the media. I have no idea why.

I state this for the record: 

I can never, in good conscience, support (even tacitly) the actions of a group of people who use violence and the threat of violence to shut down the free speech of people they do not agree with. I will not ignore them or their actions, because someone else may offend me more. I will not be "shamed" into supporting their actions for any reasons. 

I will stand by these convictions...  and if you don't like it.. then you can go fuck yourself. 

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Yes, liberals have become science deniers...

So ever since the James Damore memo circulated there has been a sort of "circling of the wagons" regarding the liberal ideology of a fluid gender spectrum where as a society we should demand that there are no actual differences between the sexes. The ideology suggests that when the only real equality is sameness, that anyone who suggests otherwise has to be shut down and discredited. Especially if such an argument has the audacity to include anything "scientific".

typical angry white alt right attitude
Today I read another piece today from The Guardian where James Damore is declared to be part of the "radicalization of angry white men" as well as an "alt-right hero". All because he pointed out that there are studies within biology, neuroscience, and behavior psychology that suggest there is an actual difference between the sexes. I am not exactly sure how citing scientific studies makes you an "angry white man" or why neuroscience, biology, and behavioral psychology is suddenly part of the "alt right"... but perhaps that is why I am not a liberal.

This author uses the classic argument that because there is an alternate opinion or study that suggests differently than what the original argument or study suggests... that the first study is now "debunked". Ironically, by the same logic, wouldn't the existence of the original study debunk the alternate opinion as well?

Of course the link to the other article that "debunks" the claims, actually admits that the science cited by Damore does exist, but uses a typical straw man logical fallacy as the attempt to debunk it. The author of the debunking piece (who wrote a book called "how science got women wrong") suggests that all of the neuroscience arguments are tied to autism and testosterone. Of course, neither Damore or any of the neuroscientists cite any studies dealing with autism, but rather more specific studies that study brain activity of males and females. I guess the argument is that if you can question "something" that some neuroscientists might suggest, that anything anyone from that field concludes can now be deemed "debunked".  Of course, let's also not forget (as the debunker would like us to do) that the neuroscience study was only one of the many studies Damore included in his paper.

Moreover, the debunker even admits that "are" differences between the sexes, exactly in the manner that Damore and his cited studies suggest, but that they are what she calls the "tiniest of gaps".  But, as pointed out by many others, even small biological and neurological gaps between the sexes can promote tangible differences in behavior. In fact, its fair to argue that in the grand scheme of things, the biological and neurological difference between a person of genius level IQ and someone with well below average intelligence to the degree of mental retardation would be (as a matter of scale) extremely tiny (or almost non-existent).

At the end of the day, science is never perfect. Sometimes it even gets things entirely wrong. But science is supposed to be objective and removed entirely of any ideological beliefs. Any science that is predisposed to prove or disprove something for any reason "other" than the pursuit of the truth is not real science. There is no indication that any of the scientific studies that Damore cited were politically motivated by the alt right or anyone else. They appear to be simply scientific studies that draw a conclusion that runs counter to what certain political ideologies would like to believe.

New report shows Trump team was not interested in meeting with Russians...

The adviser, George Papadopoulos, offered to set up “a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss US-Russia ties under President Trump,” telling them his Russian contacts welcomed the opportunity, according to internal campaign emails read to The Washington Post.

While the emails illustrate his eagerness to strengthen the campaign’s connections to the Russian government, Papadopoulos does not spell out in them why it would be in Trump’s interest to do so. His entreaties appear to have generated more concern than excitement within the campaign, which at the time was looking to seal the Republican nomination and take on a heavily favored Hillary Clinton in the general election.

The proposal sent a ripple of concern through campaign headquarters in Trump Tower. Campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis wrote that he thought NATO allies should be consulted before any plans were made. Another Trump adviser, retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, cited legal concerns, including a possible violation of U.S. sanctions against Russia and of the Logan Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens from unauthorized negotiation with foreign governments.

But Papadopoulos, a campaign volunteer with scant foreign policy experience, persisted. Between March and September, the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump, as he turned from primary candidate to party nominee, or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials. Among those to express concern about the effort was then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who rejected in May 2016 a proposal from Papadopoulos for Trump to do so.

The exchanges are among more than 20,000 pages of documents the Trump campaign turned over to congressional committees this month after review by White House and defense lawyers. The selection of Papadopoulos’s emails were read to The Post by a person with access to them. Two other people with access to the emails confirmed the general tone of the exchanges and some specific passages within them.

This was obviously a disappointing story for the Washington Post to have to write, as it generally suggests that the Trump team was not (in fact) interested in meeting with the Russians. It also may explain some of what John Brennan meant, when he suggested that he saw interaction between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. The problem (from pressing a legal case) is that someone reaching out to "you" is not a crime. Especially when those overtures are rejected.

The entire premise of the Russian collusion conspiracy theory is that the more we find out, the more it will start to uncover evidence of collusion. That the Trump Jr meeting was just the tip of the iceberg, and when we looked below the surface we would uncover the bulk of the criminal evidence.

But it would appear, that the more we find out, the more the entire concept of collusion remains little more than the conspiracy theory it is accused of being.

Monday, August 14, 2017

My final thoughts on Virginia...

Anyone who knows me personally would understand that I am an open minded person who is anything but a bigot. My wife is Korean. My brother's wife is Guatemalan. I have gay family members and gay friends. I have friends who are Jewish. I have friends who are Muslim,. I have more than a few friends who are Atheists. I know plenty of Trump supporters. I know many who are anything but Trump supporters. I personally know several local GOP politicians. I have a brother-in-law who is a Democratic politician. With that as my backdrop I offer the following.
  • In the strongest terms, I condemned pretty much anything that the Neo-Nazi, the KKK, and other white supremacist groups stand for.  
  • I do however, believe that they have the right to assemble and protest. 
  • I have no real opinion on what the black lives matter movement stands for, because quite frankly I don't really understand what it is that they exactly stand for. Most of the time, I am not sure they do either.
  • I do however generally condemn their protest tactics. Shutting down airports, or blocking freeways, looting business, and attacking police are not legitimate forms of protests.
  • I condemn pretty much everything that the anti-fascists stand for. This appears to be little more than traveling to wherever someone they disagree with wants to speak, hold a rally, or otherwise assemble... and then trying to use violence to shut it down. They are thugs. Nothing more, nothing less.
  • For those "counter-protesters" in Virginia who were not part of any of those other groups, I would offer that they had the right to be there and have their say. If I feel bad for anyone, it would be those who may have had peaceful intentions, but got overshadowed by everyone else who seemed bound and determined to make sure the day was anything but peaceful. I question their wisdom, but not their intentions. 
  • As for the local politicians, the local police and other law enforcement. Rather than attempting (last minute) to revoke a permit, or by declaring "that day" that the protests were illegal, you simply missed the boat. You gave out permits to two groups to protest in two different areas of the town. It was your responsibility to make sure that everyone stayed within the guidelines. The fact that law enforcement stood on the sidelines and watched as things spiraled out of control, puts them right up there at the top in terms of "fault" for what happened.
  • Yes, the guy who drove his car into a group of people (and into the back end of another vehicle) should be tried for murder or manslaughter. While he obviously is allowed a jury trial, it seems difficult to see what his defense will be.
  • Lastly, for what it's worth, I don't understand the need to tear down every statue or monuments that deal with historically significant figures or historically significant events that are now deemed politically incorrect or otherwise offensive. Not all of our significant history is good or just. But that doesn't mean that we should simply purge it from existence. Sometimes remembering what we did wrong is just as important (if not more important) than remembering what we did right. Who are we "today" to decide what future generations may or may not want to remember?

Mirror mirror on the wall... white supremacists are the most dangerous of them all.

So since the Virginia violence broke out, many people on the left have been parroting a so-called report from the FBI and DHS showing a rising problem with Extremist violence from White Supremacy Groups. Here is the link:

According to the document:
WSE were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000-2016 (see figure I), more than any other domestic extremist movement. 

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the White Supremacist extremists have committed twenty six total acts of domestic terror over the past seventeen years, and are responsible for killing forty nine people, including four police officers. 

Overall this represents an overall national average of 0.13 attacks and 0.24 casualties per month committed by the dreaded White Supremacists Extremists. Once has to be curious as to which domestic terror group slid into that second place spot?

To be clear, the seventeen year total of forty nine murders doesn't even qualify as a lethal "month" in the city of Chicago, and comes up just short of the average amount of murders committed in one day (forty four) across the United States.  Between 2000-2016, there have been two thousand seven hundred and seven police officers killed in the line of duty (the number of them killed by White Supremacist Extremist represents 00.14% of the total).

Sunday, August 13, 2017

What changed: Part 1

For the past 200 plus years the United States has operated under the concept of many freedoms, but perhaps the most genuinely endeared freedom of all has been freedom of speech. Not just freedom of speech we agree with, but specifically freedom of speech that we disagree with.

Over the past several decades there may be no greater example of "disagreeable free speech" than what has come from the various White Supremacist Groups, such as the Nazi Party and the KKK. They have routinely held rallies, marches, protests, and generally attempt to do so under circumstances that draw the most attention to their cause. These events have traditionally been met with either some chorus of boos and cat-calls or to an obvious sense of indifference and disinterest.

Ironically, while there is no question that many of these groups have been responsible for more than their own fair share of criminal violence, these assemblies and marches were generally peaceful (or at least they have been up until fairly recently). There was no prevalence of burning of local businesses, looting, or spontaneous assaults on the police.

The reality here is that White Supremacy is a concept that likely upwards of 99% (if not 99.9%) of Americans disagree with. But this disagreement has not led us in the past to believe that White Supremacists should be forced to forfeit their right to free assembly and free speech. We historically continued to allow such assembly, and one might even argue that much like the concept of "burning the flag" has become a symbol of free speech, the visual of KKK members walking down the street carrying signs is an equally powerful symbol of the absolute nature of our First Amendment.

But in 2017 many people seem to be turning their back on this tradition. The new political attitude being displayed today seems to be that these white supremacists should not have the right to even assemble. The argument seems to be (according to those like Governor Terry McAuliffe) that because the content of the speech in question is offensive, that these assemblies promoting this speech are un-American.

My question is simple. What changed?

President's statement...

Have the Democrats become the anti-science party?

Up until the past couple decades or so there was very little wiggle room between what biologists, neurologists, medical doctors, and sociologists had to say about the two sexes. The consensus was that there was pretty clear differences between the males and females, biologically, physically, psychologically, as well as socially.

Ironically, just as biology, neuroscience have discovered modern scientific methods to measure and study many of these differences, many sociologists are now arguing that there are no real differences between genders. These sociologists have determined that any perceived differences are better explained by societal traditions, and societal expectations.

Quite obviously these communities are no longer in sync.

Now given that these disciplines come from entirely different perspectives, it shouldn't necessarily come as a surprise that they may at times clash. As we look at this issue from a modern day political viewpoint, we are entering the perfect storm of scientific/social disagreement.

Biologists are discovering that our genetic makeup is not as random as once thought. They are now finding the existence that the existence of the duplicate X chromosome and the existence of the Y chromosome actually creates two different patterns of genes. Neuroscience is now able to study brain patterns, and are also finding that these brain patterns differ between males and females.

Meanwhile, sociologists are viewing the issue from the observational aspect of a changing society that is attempting to eliminate what they believe to be gender stereotypes (rather than real differences). In 2017, it's not only politically correct to argue that there is no differences between men and women, but it is currently being argued (by some) that we really do not even have two sexes, but rather a gender spectrum.  Quite obviously this is in line with the belief that in some cases biology actually gets the physical characteristics of a person "wrong" (aka - transgenderism).

With the recent Google Damore gender memo causing such a ruckus, we are now witnessing the two political ideologies drawing lines and taking sides. Conservatives seem to be falling in behind the biologists and neuroscientists, while your liberals are falling in behind the ideological sociologists. Given the fact that biology and neuroscience are what would be considered more traditional science, while sociology would be considered more observational and even somewhat philosophical... it may be fair to suggest that conservatives are now becoming the champions of hard science.

Meanwhile, by putting ideology and social desires ahead of the more traditional hard sciences... your liberals seem to be suddenly taking on the role of "science deniers".  This would suggest that its' only a matter of time before the concept of a "science denier" is no longer associated with the uneducated anti-intellectual concept of yesterday... but rather a "science denier" will be seen as the epitome of a forward thinking intellectual not afraid to crash through the barriers of outdated and rigid thinking.

You can count on it.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Violence in Virginia...

Let's be clear here. There are no good guys here, only bad guys. While many would like to see the President take sides in all of this (as Terry McAuliffe  did today)... he did the right thing by condemning the entire event and everyone involved.

Certainly very few people would like to associate themselves with cause of the white supremacists, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the same first amendment right to free speech as anyone else. They have held rallies as long as most can remember, and they will continue to hold rallies into the future. We may not like it, but it is what it is.

Likewise, many are criticizing the self declared "anti-fascist" protesters who assembled with at least the appearance of causing conflict. But shouldn't it be possible to have these sorts of counter protests without the eruption of violence?

Lastly, no matter what anyone thinks of the idiocy of the entire situation, it doesn't justify driving your car into a group of people with what appears to be an obvious intent to do bodily harm. This would certainly qualify as a blatant act of violence and terror, and repercussions should be harsh if the evidence proves as such.

Bottom line: This is one of those situations where everyone is responsible for their own actions. You simply cannot choose to blame other people for your hatred and blame others for actions that come of this hate. Moreover, anyone using this event to attack Donald Trump is simply too involved in their own hatred of the President to see this larger point.

Happy Saturday!

Friday, August 11, 2017

Democrats upset over Trump Judicial picks...

Franken not consulted over Minnesota Judge nominated for Circuit Court  
President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees are ignoring key Senate Democrats as they vie for lifetime appointments to the bench — a break from longstanding practice that diminishes the minority’s power to provide a check against ideologically extreme judges. 
The brewing tension between the White House and the Senate over filling an unusually high number of judicial vacancies is impeding the pace at which Trump installs lifetime appointees to the federal bench — so far one of the president’s few major victories, with his legislative agenda largely stymied in Congress. (politico)

In the case of the Minnesota Judge, I have heard quite a bit about this locally. This is a conservative Judge who is so well respected that he has gotten pretty much universal praise from Minnesota's judicial community.  Even the very liberal former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice (and former Viking defensive tackle) Alan Page approves of the pick. Rumor has it, that he finally did a "sack dance" after hearing about it.... (Bud Grant never allowed such tomfoolery when he was coach).

But neither Al Franken or Amy Klobuchar were consulted prior, and neither has returned their "blue slip" (designed to give approval of the local nominee).  While the blue slip tradition is longstanding, it has (on occasion) been ignored. The buzz in Minnesota is that both are more than willing to give their approval (they really have no justification not to)... but are looking to cut a deal where Trump takes their advice on who he appoints as United States Attorney for Minnesota. Unlikely Trump will appoint a liberal U.S. Attorney to carry out his interests in Minnesota.

The bottom line seems to be that for whatever else is going on right now... the Trump Presidency is making an important impact on the Judicial branch, with an unprecedented amount of nominees for an unprecedented amount of high level openings. The Democrats, of course, are looking to slow roll these confirmations as much as possible. The problem remains that if they decide to push things like "blue slips" too hard, McConnell and gang can simply choose (as they did with the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees) to ignore tradition.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Case in point?

James Damore argued that there were many differences between men and women, including the idea that women prefer to work cooperatively, that they are not as competitive as men, they don't seek the same work related status as men, and on average are more prone to anxiety.

In response to this memo, apparently some of the women decided not go to work. The reason, of course, was that reading the memo made them uncomfortable and stressed them out too much to apparently reasonably function at work.


Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Here's a thought about the Google Manifest dude..

James Damore has a masters degree from Harvard in  biology.

Apparently he was working towards a PhD (Doctorate) degree, but hasn't finished the program. One of the requirements to garnering a PhD would be some sort of thesis on a relative subject.  The raging debate (even more raging today) on whether or not seemingly inherent differences between the sexes are due to a different set of chromosomes and hormones (the biological argument), or due to culture and socialization (the social argument) would make for a very interesting subject.

So Damore has stated he will sue Google. Look for him to use whatever settlement he gets to finish his Doctorate, turn the manifest into a thesis, and then the thesis into a book that could be published. No doubt he would use his systems biology background to further explain his reasoning.

As the saying goes... there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Glen "rhinestone cowboy" Campbell - RIP

Always loved Glen Campbell... even when I was an 80's rocker.

Science deniers?

So as a scientific experiment, two groups of people were created from a slightly different set of chromosomes. The one group was given a hormone called testosterone, while the other was given a hormone called estrogen. We referred to these two groups as having different "genders".

The difference in chromosomes and hormones caused some differences between the two group. There was obvious physical characteristics with one group being bigger and stronger. There was biological differences as it pertained to child bearing and child rearing, as one group carried the offspring and had a physical ability to feed them from their own body. There was also the appearance of many behavioral differences between the groups, such as a difference in physical aggressiveness, as well as differences in emotional bonding with the offspring.

Over the course of a few thousand yeas, and a few thousand different cultures, the observational data showed that these two groups of people took on different roles within their society, based on the fairly consistent characteristics that each group developed. Moreover, these roles were almost universally found to be the same, regardless of the society and regardless of the time period. Manual labor, hunting and gathering, as well as the actions associated with armed conflict were consistently delegated to the larger physical group, while the child rearing, preparation of food, and the upkeep of the homes largely fell to the group that carried and fed the offspring.

Of course, in 2017 we are supposed to fall in line with the theory that all of this observational data is actually inaccurate. We should accept that these chromosomes and hormones have no real effect on how these two groups of people behave. We should inherently understand that the thousands of societies and thousands of years of observational data is all just a matter of bias, discrimination, and some shared ability of all of these societies to poison the collective attitudes of their people with unfair preconceived notions of gender identity.

In 2017, we should all inherently understand, that this observational data collected over this broad period of time is as irrelevant as the concepts that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth.  The only difference here, is that the latter comparisons actually have scientific evidence that proves the previous assumptions wrong.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Why the left has the Mueller investigation wrong...

So you keep hearing from so many sources that Robert Mueller has almost unlimited powers to investigate pretty much anything and everything associated with Trump, members of the Trump campaign, members of the Trump transition team, members of Trump's family, as well as pretty much anyone who ever has known Donald Trump.

If you were to listen only to these voices, you might start to believe that this is not really an investigation into Russian meddling at all. It's an open ended investigation into Donald Trump himself.

This argument was recently raised by Bob Dreyfuss from the Rolling Stone magazine.
From the start, Mueller had a broad mandate – and it isn't limited to the question of Russia. The statement appointing Mueller authorized him to investigate "any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump," along with "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," plus "any other matters within the scope" of the law. That statement also gave Mueller the job of looking into efforts by Trump or others to impede or block the inquiry.
Any other matters within the scope of the law? Really? Mr Dreyfuss provides the link to Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller which includes the following:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: 
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
  • Part (i) is fairly clear. It allows Mueller to look for collusion between Trump and whichever Russians were meddling in the election. 
  • Part (ii) would provide Mueller with the means to charge people with perjury, obstruction, or matter that arise "directly from the investigation". 
  • Part (iii) is not actually "any matters within the scope of the law" as suggested. Rather it includes any matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)  - which is the law that defines the parameters of a special counsel.  

Mr Dreyfuss obviously doesn't take the time to see exactly what 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) even entails. I find this lack of curiosity from most of your liberals absolutely astounding. It took me about thirty seconds to copy the legal jargon, and look it up on the internet. I will highlight the relevant portions of this law that apparently the left either isn't smart enough to find, isn't honest enough to acknowledge, or is purposely ignoring for reasons completely unknown.
28 C.F.R. § 600.4 Jurisdiction. 
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. 
(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
As you can see... it does indeed authorize Mueller to investigate other issues outside of his original jurisdiction, but only if those are concluded to be necessary to fully resolve the issue at hand, or if he could justifiably claim that they came to light specifically from relevant investigations. Moreover, if Mueller does come up with something that would be considered necessary to complete his investigation or otherwise outside the scope,  then Mueller is required to go back to Rosenstein (as Rosenstein suggested) to make a determination if those additional matter should be included, or assigned elsewhere.

This means, legally speaking, that if Mueller has not gone back to Mueller and asked to expand his investigation into areas that have nothing to do with the 2016 investigation (even if Mueller feels those issues are necessary to resolve the issue) - and he is (as rumored) investigating Trump business dealings that have nothing to do with the 2016 election meddling, then he would be legally working outside of his scope.

It's technically true that Mueller could simply go rogue and do exactly that. Perhaps under the concept that if he were to find something, that Rosenstein would have no choice but to authorize the expansion (after the fact).  But that would be an obvious flaunting of the law. It's hard to say what Rosenstein would do at that point. Unless Mueller could justify his actions within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) - it's possible that Mueller himself could be held liable for breaking 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) and working outside of his jurisdiction. Firing may not be the only consequence to that action.

But for those on the left who assume that Mueller's power to investigate is basically unlimited, that assumption cannot be logically tied to his appointment letter or tied to the law overseeing special counsels. The only plausible explanation for this belief (other than bona-fide ignorance) would be the assumption that Robert Mueller has no intentions of following the laws that govern his special counsel appointment. That would be a truly scary assumption to make, and even scarier that some apparently would wish for it.

Google fires the employee who criticized diversity policy...

As is the case with the twenty first century politically correct definition of diversity... we have to understand that there is "good" types of diversity and "bad" types of diversity. There are all sorts of good diversity, and we much adhere and more often than not bend to those who may be different than us in any one of a hundred different regards.

Be prepared to use gender neutral pronouns, as to not offend that person who demands that the biological science of chromosomes and physical gender is a hoax. Be prepared to accept numerous behaviors that have traditionally been frowned upon, because those behaviors are now deemed to be part of a "culture".

However, there can only be one political orthodoxy, and anyone who dissents from the rigid nature of the cause represents the "evil" diversity of thought. Fuck the first amendment. Anyone who truly understands diversity understands that thought is the one area where diversity simply cannot be allowed.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Rosenstein interview - read between the lines...

Rod Rosenstein made a few major points about the Mueller investigation on Sunday during his interview with Chris Wallace.
  • Rosenstein suggested that assembling a grand jury is simply a tool that is used during investigations to gather information and subpoena witnesses to testify under oath. As most legal analysts suggest, while all indictments require a grand jury, many grand juries come and go without ever handing out an indictment. 
  • Rosenstein suggested that contrary to popular believe, that Mueller's investigation is limited to the scope of Russian interference, and that any investigation into things like Trump's finances (unrelated to Russia or the 2016 election) would require Mueller to come back to him to expand the scope. The implication was that no such request has been made and no such request has been granted. This would obviously hold true with Flynn's involvement with Turkey, as well as Manafort's old money laundering allegations. 
  • Rosenstein openly stated that many of the things that are supposedly "leaked" from the investigation are simply not true. This, obviously, runs 180 degrees with the fact that the media reports any and all leaks as bona-fide confirmed news. 
The interesting thing about the interview was that there was absolutely no push back from Rosenstein on the issue of a grand jury being convened. But there was push back as it pertained to the question of whether or not Mueller has moved the investigation "beyond' the scope of Russian interference. 

Rosenstein downplayed the very concept of a grand jury as if it was no real big deal. Even as he spoke of the grand jury as a hypothetical, it was clear that he was implying that the grand jury story was true. But he did not provide the same nonchalant responses to whether or not Mueller has gotten off track. His responses were non-denial denials, with a little bit of defensiveness in his tone.There was no wishy washy answers about how investigations are open ended, and how a special counsel would have broad authority. It was fairly clear that Rosenstein believes that the Mueller investigation is still 100% about Russia. 

What this tells me is one of three things. 
  • That whoever is doing the leaking has their facts wrong.
  • That the leaks are part of an intentional effort to put pressure on people.
  • That Mueller is going rogue, basically expanding the scope "without" going back to Mueller. 
If it's the first or the second, then I guess there is nothing there to see. If it's the latter, then I think we have bigger problems coming down the pipe. But one has to believe that Mueller does meet with Rosenstein on a regular basis, or at the very least corresponds to keep him in the loop. It would seem unfathomable that Rosenstein would not know the nature of what Mueller is investigating at this point. But it there is a communication issue, then the sorts of statements that Rosenstein made on a Sunday morning talk show, certainly could be seen as a shot across the bow.

So which branch is really incompetent and which is really out of control?

Another day, another story about how Senators and House Reps are unhappy with the behavior of the President. This reminds me of the old saying... those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

There is no doubt that there is some degree of "chaos" at the White House right now. How much of that is "controlled chaos" that seems to follow Trump around like that cloud of dust following pig pen is really unclear. But the reality is that there is little doubt that this is a major distraction, although probably over-hyped and overused as an excuse.

The truth is that if you are grading objectively here (without worrying too much about style points) the White House is the least of our concerns. Congress hasn't been able to pass go and collect $200 - much less pass any major legislation. Meanwhile, the court system has gone completely off it's collective rocker, as District Judges cite Washington Post articles to oppose our Intelligence community consensus and others openly admit that they are willing to change longstanding legal precedent because of who is President.

Optics aside, the President has issued several executive orders, he has submitted dozens of Judges and Appointees to the Senate, and has reengaged many of our traditional allies in his first six months. In terms of the promises that still unfulfilled, the President still must rely on congress to pass laws. The executive is limited by the constitution.

Meanwhile, after sending numerous ACA repeal plans to the former President for veto, many of these same Congress members suddenly cannot find it in themselves to vote for the same repeal when it counts. They are slow moving Judges and Appointees, and have accomplished almost nothing, other than undermining their own authority and reinforcing why their approvals are plunging into the single digit territory.

Perhaps instead of worrying about what the President is up to, Congress should simply get their own act together. Those who live in glass houses and throw stones... may find themselves with bigger problems that broken glass... they may find themselves out of office.

Daenerys Targaryen goes full out Trump...

What if... Trump had a dragon of his own?

Bend a knee and I will help you defeat the Democrats

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Question of the day?

Why are liberals so opposed to following the principals and laws drawn up in documents (like the constitution and bill of rights) written by influential founding fathers and early leaders of our country...

But apparently feel that our government policy has an obligation to remain consistent with sonnets written by 19th century poets?

Happy Saturday!

Friday, August 4, 2017

Stat of the day

State legislation:
  • 164 million Americans live in the 26 states controlled by Republicans. 
  • 109 million live in the 18 states where power is shared between the parties.
  • 50 million live in the 6 states controlled by the Democrats.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs...

  • 209,000 new non-farm jobs after 231,000 last month
  • A record number of people working
  • Unemployment at 4.3% 

West Virginia Governor switches Parties...

Ironically, I just read a piece just last week talking about how the Democratic Party was looking at the Trump Presidency as a chance to possibly "turn" some existing Republicans into Democrats. There was talk that they would "once again" attempt to turn John McCain, possibly Susan Collins, and there was even talk of going after Lisa Murkowski. The article also mentioned some possible House members who resided in Hillary districts as well that they may be targeting for a party switch.

I guess if you can't beat em, get the winners to join your team, huh? 

I personally never liked the concept of major politicians switching political parties, and I especially do no like it when it happens only eight months after you were elected (as Governor Jim Justice just was).  It seems unfair to the voters who voted you in. If the voters of West Virginia wanted a Republican Governor, they just had a chance to vote one in. They didn't. 

That being said, I think it's ironic that right after the Democrats start playing with the idea of party switching as a means to regain control, that they lose a major Governor in a purple state to the GOP. It must sting even more, knowing Justice made his announcement under the fanfare of a Trump campaign style visit and in many ways credited the Trump movement for his decision.

This probably effects the Joe Manchin situation as well, although I am not 100% sure whether this helps or hurts his reelection chances. Obviously from a standpoint of logistics, losing the Governor in your state to the other side has tangible campaigning effects. The main figure head is now campaigning against you, rather than for you.  But such a move might fire up the Democratic base in that state, who might be angry over the defection. 

Oh, and there has been an ongoing rumor that Manchin has toyed with the idea of also switching sides and running for reelection as a Republican. While I don't care for Party switches in the middle of a term, if you are going to do so, the right time to do so is when you are up for reelection so you can be elected with your new Party. 

Mueller impanels a second Grand Jury...

Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean that there is any indictments coming. Mueller impaneled a grand jury in West Virginia quite a while ago, with little tangible news coming of it so far. What it means in the case of a special counsel is that they intend to subpoena records and potential witnesses for testimony.

Certainly this should not come as much of a surprise, and once again it's being played in the media as probably a much bigger deal than it really is.

One of the underreported aspects of this news is that it is now likely that Mueller will show his hand as to what exactly he is looking to investigate. The buzz from the pro-Trump conservatives is that the potential for the firing of Mueller becomes more of a reality if the subpoenas appear outside of the scope of the Russian investigation.

This is especially true if the subpoena's appear to be in relation (as some in the media is speculating) to any questions of "obstruction". Most legal experts believe that Mueller has an obvious conflict of interest in that area, and that if obstruction "is" to be investigated, that it need to be investigated by someone without personal interest.

Contrary to the predictions of some... If  Mueller was ultimately fired for going outside the scope of his investigation, it would not signal the end of civilization as we know it. Like it or not, there are plenty of people on the right who think this is a witch hunt that is out of control and that the Mueller probe needs to be ended or at the very least put on a much tighter leash.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Jim Acosta simply wrong...

Hey Jim
  • The The New Colossus poem was not emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty. It was added in 1903 on a bronze plaque, which was mounted on a pedestal inside the lower level.
  • It actually is currently a requirement of naturalization to speak English. In other words, your assertion that it's not been a requirement is dead wrong. 
  • It is estimated that over two billion people speak English as either their first or second language. English is not limited (as you suggest) to Great Britain and Australia.

DOW closes over 22,000

The Irony of the NY Times

One of the tools in the media propaganda arsenal is the ability to spin new definitions of words in order to help manipulate their flocking masses. The NYT has a wonderful example of such an attempt in the opinion piece today entitled The Past Week Proves That Trump Is Destroying Our Democracy.

The official definition of Democracy is something along these lines:
a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 
So by the very definition of Democracy...  the "destruction" would lie in a situation where the supreme power is "no longer" vested in the people and "no longer" exercised directly by elected agents.  In other words, the very concept that our duly elected President can actually undermine democracy runs counter to the actual definition of democracy. By definition the "supreme power" is vested in the President and other elected leaders. Period.

But the NYT argument is that Trump is "undermining Democracy" because he is apparently exercising too much authority over those who he has chosen (and appointed) to work for him, as well as fighting back against the unelected swarms of the deep state. Again, Democracy demands that those who are "elected" should be provided more power than those who are simply appointed or otherwise are life long government employees. Donald Trump can be voted out of office in 2020. The deep state cannot be.

Moreover, the real threat to Democracy in 2017 is not Donald Trump, but rather the "resistance". Those who have decided to undermine our duly elected at every turn are not representing Democracy, but rather fighting against it. There is no question that the media (led by the NYT) are spearheading that effort. If anyone is threatening Democracy (on purpose) its the NYT.

The reality here seems to be that the political class, deep state, and media simply do not like the fact that our Democracy elected an outsider, who doesn't follow the normal protocols of political expectations. Of course, that is "exactly" the reason he was elected, and therefor the general concept of Democracy should allow for the outsider to behave as such. Otherwise, you are simply not respecting that the supreme power is vested in the people, and exercised directly by their elected agents.

Sorry NYT, but in Democracy the supreme power is not vested in the political class, the deep state, and the media. Democracy should not start with an elected leader under attack (and under investigation) by deep state bureaucrats who have a political grudge against him.

If you truly stood behind Democracy, and want to see it thrive... then you should be rooting for Trump to succeed, and rooting against any attempts from "the resistance" to bring a duly elected President down.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Will anyone from the left condemn Wasserman Schultz?

So Debbie Wasserman Schultz was using taxpayer dollars to employ Imran Awan after he had lost security clearance, and while he was under criminal investigation. One has to wonder "exactly" what an IT aide could be doing for you, when he technically should not even have access to your personal/business network.

Wasserman Schultz also demanded that the police release the computer equipment that they seized as part of the investigation. There is some suggestion that the demand was actually more of a "threat". Sounds sort of typical of Wasserman Schultz behavior.

Wasserman Schultz only fired Awan after he was arrested for trying to leave the country with hundreds of thousands of dollars that was apparently embezzled.

One of the suggestions here is that Imran Awan (and his associates) have dirt on Wasserman Schultz and other members of the DNC, and that there may have been some blackmail going on.  It would be very interesting to know what Awan has to say (now that he is in custody).

It's also going to be interesting to see if you can get anyone left of Fox New to actually cover this story.

Will the liberal media attack a respected military leader?

There has always been sort of a longstanding expectation that former Military folks (especially those who had risen to the ranks of Generals or Admirals) are above the partisan sniping and personal attacks from political opponents and members of the media. Even those who eventually become involved in Politics.

After all, those who served our country, served both Republicans and Democrats. Those who have died or been injured in the line of duty, have sacrificed for the greater good of all Americans, conservative or liberal.

On the flip side, the liberal media pretty much despises Donald Trump so much that it just sort of expands like a diseased skin rash to everyone even remotely associated with Donald Trump. If Honest Abe Lincoln came back from the dead and said something nice about Donald Trump; Politico, WaPo, and the NYT would all send a full force of investigative reporters to dig up dirt on Lincoln in order to undercut his legitimacy.

So how will this same media react to the concept of respected General Kelly taking over as Chief of Staff for the Trump administration? Will he be given the same respect due to him, that he would be getting if he served in a different Administration, or will the claws come out for the General because he has the audacity to work for Trump?

Some are arguing that Kelly will be given some benefit of the doubt. Some even suggest that this was part of the criteria that Trump based his decision on.

But as General Flynn learned, not only is your military history not helpful, but even the normal safeguards of government privacy does not apply when you work for Trump. Confidential phone conversations with foreign diplomats were illegally unmasked to the media. These calls were reported as scandalously as possible, basically to force Trump to fire him. The President suggesting that the law enforcement who answers to him should cut Flynn a break was met with cries of "obstruction".  General Flynn should rot in jail according to liberals, for some unknown (but implied) criminal act that none of them could even describe.

It's clear to me that the left and the liberal media want the blood of anyone who associates themselves with Trump, even those who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. While General Kelly no doubt deserves our respect and deference. It's unlikely he will see much of either.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Kelly takes charge - Scaramucci fired.

But sometimes I wonder... is any of this "really" that important?

Flashback to a couple of days ago!
(Media nails another one!)


UPDATE: In many ways, the hiring of Kelly is probably not as important as the decision to put pretty much everyone in the White House staff directly under Kelly. To a large degree, this is Trump accepting the concept that his attempts (to date) to put things in order have pretty much failed. One has to suspect that leaning on multiple people like Preibus, Bannon, and others basically directly competed with each other for the President's ear, simply didn't work very well. This not the apprentice, where George and Carolyn give their opinion and then shut up and let him make the final decision. These Washington players have real egos and are not willing to just move on to next week's episode when their opinions don't carry the day.

To the degree that Trump allows Kelly to actually remain in charge is the sixty four thousand dollar question. No doubt if things go well over the upcoming weeks and months, Kelly will probably be allowed to continue his rule. If not, then one would look for Trump to start undercutting Kelly and eventually push him out as well.