Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’

technology-hacker-locksContinuing with a series on the various aspects of the lefts, lashing out, grasping and blaming… we now visit The Russian Hacking…

It was just a few short years ago that Obama zinged Romney with “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
This was in response to Romney identifying the Russians as the biggest threat to global security.

Fast forward to today and… those insidious Russkies have hacked, false newsed, and thrown the election for the left’s beloved Hillary; stealing our election for Trump and thus putting the world on the brink of destruction. The motivation for all this is supposedly Putin’s hatred of Hillary. Yeah… right…

The left even implies (as they justified recounts) that the Russians MAY have hacked into voting machines. There’s just one thing missing in all of this. Proof of exactly who, when, where, and what actually happened in this regard.

Before getting into the details the concerning the claims and likely reality of the Russian hacking, I’ll say that I think it’s much ado about nothing; but then, that’s the whole point. While many on the left will allow themselves to be bamboozled by the conspiracy theories (much as the right was by the birther crap), some know it’s pretty well BS but will use it anyway as one of many means to try and delegitimize Trumps election as well as raise wheel-barrows full of cash. All’s fair in and politics.

OK… Let’s look at the various claims in no particular order…

The Democrats were hacked:

There is no doubt that the Democrats were hacked. The proof is in the WikiLeaks. The only question is by who? The CIA says it was the Russians, the FBI says maybe, WikiLeaks says nope (somebody else), and the Russians say prove it… Meanwhile I (TexasLynn)… don’t care. I just grateful to whoever did it. 🙂 Not because it hurt Hillary Clinton’s election prospects (it didn’t), but that it (to be honest) exposed truth that needed exposing. That’s always a good thing.

As a tech guy, I see this as two separate hacking incidents. First John Podesta’s Gmail (where much of the information came from) and then the DNC (Democratic National Committee) server. Why the separation? One (the DNC) was (technologically) fairly sophisticated leaving supposedly Russian digital fingerprints while the other (Podesta) was completely (technologically) unsophisticated, meaning just about anybody could have done it.

Targeting Idiots:
So first, Podesta…

people-podesta-johnMuch of the (WikiLeaks) material released was from John Podesta’s email. The hackers gained access by “phishing” for account login information (in this case a Google Gmail account). This is equivalent to sending an official looking email and convincing the recipient (John Podesta) to log in using the link provided in the email. Instead of logging in, the link sends the information to the hacker. Two things generally prevent these attacks from working; 1) a modicum of common sense on the part of the mark (which John Podesta obviously lacked) 2) delayed common sense in realizing something is amiss and thus changing your password (yeah… that didn’t happen either).

The Russians may indeed have been the ones to send this phishing email and gain access from the reply. OR it just as easily could have been any one of millions of semi-technical losers out there. The point being… this wasn’t rocket science; which is exactly what the left would have you believe was involved so they can infer the talent needed to accomplish this is only available to some big sinister foreign government with hundreds or thousands of hackers at their disposal. But no, the means of obtaining this information could have been generated by any ONE semi-technical miscreant on the face of the planet. Its success was completely dependent on the ignorance and idiocy of John Podesta. And it worked…

Targeting Easy Marks:
party-logo-democraticSupposedly the Democratic National Security (DNC) hack was more sophisticated, which goes without saying; it’s harder to hack a server than an email account. Supposedly, here is where we find the little Russkie fingerprints all over the place… And granted, this is the most plausible in the Russian hacking accusations.

But… from what I understand (and this is from CNN and the NYT) the Democrats were warned of the intrusion (by the FBI) and did little or nothing for a YEAR; before finally addressing the issue. This is what is known in the hacking world as an “easy marks” and “the mother lode”. One excuse by the DNC was complaining that the FBI didn’t properly inform them of just how serious they were concerning the warning. This is like complaining that the guy who tells you that you were on fire, does so in too calm a tone.

So the Russians (or whoever) had access to a lot of DNC data and emails for over a year. The DNC is largely to blame… to which I say good… (see below). The Russian (or whoever’s) success in this regard really speaks to the incompetence of the Party leadership (if not the whole org-chart top to bottom); and why should we be surprised at this. Have you seen these idiots govern?

The Republicans Were Hacked:

party-logo-gopTo get around the inconvenient truth of being hacked because they were idiots, the Democratic Party asserts “Well, the Republicans were hacked too”. This has a two-fold advantage: 1) It excuses their incompetence in regards to technical security and 2) It allows them then to assert a new conspiracy that since nothing (or little) was released concerning the Republicans it proves they (and Trump) are in leages with those pesky evil Russians.

Following this train of logic, proof that the Russians and Trump and the Republicans were all in on this giant conspiracy is 1) The Russians didn’t release any/much Republican emails/information and 2) The Russians seemed to concentrate on Democrats as time went on. The ever obedient main stream media follows along reporting this as “news”. Involvement of Nessie, Big Foot, and Elvis can’t be far behind…

Another explanation of these two events might be 1) The Russians were unsuccessful in infiltrating Republican systems (as is asserted by the GOP after looking into it) and 2) When a thief (the Russians) is targeting two marks, one of which is thwarting their efforts and the other of which is easy (showing themselves to be idiots)… you naturally concentrate your efforts on the easy and profitable idiots.

There is little doubt the Russians tried to hack the GOP. $%#@! The Russians pretty well try to hack any and every business, government agency, public organization, and private Secretary of State email server they can shake a stick at. So do the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, U.S (to them)… It’s their nature. You don’t blame a shark for doing what sharks do… but you also don’t slather yourself in chum, take a dip, and wonder why you just got bit on the @ss.

If the Russians really, wanted to hurt Hillary, why didn’t they release emails from… her private server, which they also supposedly hacked? THAT would have done more damage than anything on the DNC; proving that Hillary had indeed broken the law AND compromised national security. I don’t know if they have those emails or not. But if they did, and they really intended to affect the election, THAT would have been their trump card (no pun intended) but they never played it.

Looking At the Data (Despite the Source):

OK let’s assume the worst case scenario. It was the Russians. It was completely the Russians (Podesta, the DNC, all of it). What exactly did hey accomplish for all their effort? Name THE false-news story they put out there that did Hillary in. Name THE one thing (the main thing) that put the nail in Hillary’s coffin. Not generalities… specifics. There is NOTHING there; it’s a leftist shell game to distract from the truth. The Democratic Party, and Hillary herself are to blame for the loss.

    So What did we learn from the Russians?

  1. We learned that the DNC was COMPLETELY in bed with the Clinton campaign seeking to torpedo Bernie Sanders (and yet the socialist shill supported her all the way). This caused the resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who went to work for Clinton) and should have caused the resignation of Donna Brazil (who replaced Debbie) when it was revealed that she passed on debate questions to Clinton. Instead Brazil got a pass because of ideology and race.
  2. We learned that the Main Stream Media (MSM) was COMPLETELY in bed with the Clinton campaign to the point of having them review articles before they were published.
  3. We learned John Podesta’s secret creamy Risotto recipe.


The leftist leadership isn’t pissed that Russia was spreading lies… but rather that Russia was spreading inconvenient truth. As far as the Democrats were concerned the problem, the travesty, was that the voters had too much (true) information at hand when they voted.

To be blunt; the release of this information was a service to the American people. THIS is information that needed to be out there and information that the MSM was never going to look into… 1) because they were co-conspirators and 2) because they have no interest in exposing the corruption of the left.

SO… if this was the Russians? On behalf of Americans with some interest in the truth… Thank you. Please continue. And if you come up with crap like this on the GOP… or any other politician or company or organization; please, please release it also. It’s not as if we have a free-press that’s going to do their #$@%ing job anytime soon…


The left is mainly mad that they were exposed for fraud, dishonesty, and possibly criminal activity. Removing as big a moron as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from the DNC was no service to the GOP. The fact that Donna Brazil can even show her face in public is a testament to how ingrained leftist hypocrisy is. The fact that many in the main stream media still have jobs (as journalists even) exposes the bias and corruption of that estate.

I’m glad these facts were exposed, though many of us have known or at least suspected all along.

No… I’m not rooting for the Russians to have success in hacking anybody, especially when they can do some real damage. This was not one of those times. It is the job of entities to make hacks as hard as possible and I expect my government (at all levels), businesses I patronize, and organizations I support to do the Job. When incompetent, corrupt idiots fail and are exposed… I can’t help it… that’s a good thing for everyone, no matter who was responsible for taking them down.

Had the election turned out as the left expected, Russia would still be the pas see villains of the 80s. This nothing, this trifle that they are screaming their little head off about would have remained what it is… little or nothing to it.


Read Full Post »

Thanks to Dave H for bringing my attention to Scott Adams’ posting concerning his endorsement of Trump. (see Why I Switched My Endorsement from Clinton to Trump) It was interesting reading. I’m a big fan of his work, “Dilbert”, being a technology professional and someone who has worked in large, soulless, bureaucratic corporations (Enron, Electronic Data Systems, Merrill Lynch). Judging from the evidence of his work, Mr. Adams has a knack for insight, cynicism, and humor. (Kind of like me, huh… :))

The introduction is telling concerning the mindset of California and the left. Though, admittedly, I view California as do many Texans… “the land of fruits and nuts” and thus by association leftist. If you’re conservative (or even hold one or two conservative ideas) you keep them to yourself in that environment. The ramifications to your person and business and life are scary. I would go so far as to say there is a fitting word for this type of vitriolic reaction to opposition… “fascist”. And to give credit where it’s due, Mr. Adams is brave to risk those consequences. Yes, an opposite reaction can be expressed by conservatives towards liberals; but I honestly think it’s not as pronounced or hateful.

Peoples Republic of California

But I digress…

Let’s look at Adams’ arguments for switching his endorsement to Trump…

1. What We Don’t Know
Mr. Adams’ first point seems to be that we collectively don’t know enough about big world issues to make decisions or form justifiable opinions… and that we should concentrate on the things we do know something about.

“I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you probably think you do” — Scott Adams

I’m a little skeptical concerning this line of thought. I don’t know a lot about nuclear tipped missiles; but I DO know I want policies that keep Islamic nut-jobs away of them. This may sound like something that goes without saying, but in this day-and-age it’s obviously not.

You don’t have to have an in depth knowledge of an issues to form an informed, common sense opinion. It’s not rocket science to see where socialism, globalism, and progressivism lead. It just takes a little common sense and historical perspective. So we can use the adequate God-given tools we have without having to learn and digest ALL the intricate details an expert on a subject does.

With all this in mind… Mr. Adams basis his decision (to jump from Hillary to Trump) on things he knows which he lists as the estate taxes, Hillary’s health, Trumps being a leader, and Trump being a persuader.

2a. Confiscation of Property
This (the Estate Tax) seems to have been the turning point issue for Mr. Adams. He’s rich (and deservedly so) and the government (overall) takes half what he makes. The feds under Hillary will take another 50% of what remains when he dies for a total of 75% It confiscatory and it is as Adams puts it “robbery by government”. To quote a previous President, I feel his pain (figuratively and intellectually… not literally… I’m just a poor boy).

But… OK… His coming around and concern remind me of the movie Die Hard. (Hang in here with me.) John McClane calls 911 and explains terrorists have taken over the Nakatomi building. They think it’s a prank call, then send a donut eating cop to check it out. It’s obvious he’s being fooled and is about to drive off. So… McClane drops a dead terrorist body on the hood of the car from several stories up and all hell breaks loose. To which McClain exclaims… “Welcome to the party pal!”

Movie - Die Hard - Welcome to the Party Pal

My point? Hillary Clinton, nay… the entire Democratic party has had at it’s core this type of robbery and income distribution for decades… DECADES!!! The rates may go up and down (thanks to Republicans) but the core idea of robbery has ALWAYS been there. So why now? Why figure this out now and allow it to sway you and not ten, twenty, or thirty years ago? And why apply it to Hillary and not the entire left, the entire Democratic Party?

Political - Welcome to the Party2b. Misleading Information on Her Web Site
In the same section Adams complains that Hillary’s web site seeks to mislead people on exactly what she intends to do; and that the confiscatory policy applies to a much broader range of incomes. Missing details, misleading inferences; you get the picture.

“So don’t fall for the claim that Clinton has plenty of policy details on her website. She does, but it is organized to mislead, not to inform. That’s far worse than having no details.” — Scott Adams

OK… I’m back to the movie Die Hard. (Hang in here with me.) John McClane calls 911… No wait… Morpheus is offering Neo two pills, one blue (in his left hand) and one red (in his right hand)… 🙂

Same thing. This crap has been a core practice of Hillary Clinton, nay… the entire Democratic party (and the entire left, including the minions in the main stream media) for decades… DECADES!!! So… Why now?

3. Party or Wake
Adams says Trump supporters are happy, and Clinton supporters are not. While Adams says this is not his biggest reason… I don’t know why it’s a reason at all.

Dang… I’m being more critical than I thought I would be… Sorry Mr. Adams.

4. Clinton’s Health
Adams is concerned with Hillary’s health. It’s a valid concern and I agree that Hillary is in bad shape (mentally and physically). But the key problem isn’t the megalomaniac in power but the party in power with which she shares an overall leftist philosophy. If she croaks, Cain will pull a Lyndon B. Johnson and continue to screw things up for generations to come.

Adams is also concerned with Bill Clinton’s health too and worries that a dying husband would distract President Hillary. LMAO… Adams need not worry; she wouldn’t give sick Bill a second thought. 🙂 The only focus would be on creating the appearance of a concerned wife to milk sympathy from the public. (Never let a crisis go to wasted after all.) Behind the scenes, I really believe she would dance on his grave.

5. Pacing and Leading
Adams says Trump is really just using a persuasion technique when he takes extreme positions. He’ll govern differently. Adams uses Trumps softening on issues, such as deportation, as evidence of this. Even Trump has announced everything to be a starting position in negotiations (deals if you will) that he is ready and prepared to engage in.

I’ve heard this argument before, and admit it’s possible. But if it is, Trump is just too good at pretending in order to inflate the initial negotiating position… I can’t tell; so maybe it’s me as Adams believes to be the case.

My gut feel still says he’s an immature, shallow, person… and that those characteristics would be key to his leadership.

6. Persuasion
Adams says the real job of the President is in selling and persuading. I can see that. It’s definitely an important part of the job and a key part of leadership.

“They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public.” — Scott Adams

I agree surrounding yourself with good people and listening to their advice is key to being a good President. I think that is a lot of what Reagan (the Great Communicator) did. But this is by definition a humility play. Does Trump really have that in him? He says he’ll do it…

On a side note… this is one of the main reasons Obama has been such a horrible President. Obama is arrogant and thinks he knows better than all the experts around him (a common leftist fault).

“I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it. It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” — Barack Obama

It’s a terrible thing to be an incompetent idiot. It’s even worse to be one, not know it, and be arrogant about the knowledge and ability you don’t have but think you do. I definitely think Hillary falls into the same mold; maybe not to the extent of Obama, but it’s there.

I’m not sold. I just can’t get over the gut feel I have concerning the core values that make up Trump. No these values are not as bad as the black-hearted, evil core values of Hillary Clinton… but neither deserve my vote. And I’m through voting for the lesser of two evils. In defense of Trump, I’d feel the same way if Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or John Kasich were the nominee.

I appreciate Mr. Adams sharing his thoughts; especially in an environment where that will elicit dung throwing (maybe literally) by his “friends” and “neighbors” in California. Hopefully he has reached a point where he can insulate himself and not give-a-#$@%.

I wish him luck. Life’s not as easy when you swallow the red pill… or when you’re welcomed to the party just as you’re starting to enjoy your donuts. I’ve been there… I’ve been there for years…

Read Full Post »

Main Stream Media - Bias - Bet Your Sweet AssI listened to the whole debate last night… while I cleaned my kitchen and worked on my computer and wrote a response for my blog and…

I have a few opinions/observations that I’ll share.

  1. I didn’t watch the debate; I just listened. And I understand a lot of deciding who wins or loses is in the visual cues of the candidates. By listening (or reading) you can only judge by substance. 🙂 There wasn’t much of that from either side.
  2. I think it was a tie. Didn’t hear any real decisive moments or quips from either side.
  3. The moderator was terrible. But what do you expect from the likes of Lester Holt (a member of the Main Stream Media). The bias was obvious… again.

Moderator not Fact-Checker
My first complaint about Holt was his challenging of answers given by Donald Trump. He didn’t do that to Clinton… at all… not even once. If you want to challenge the candidate you do that at the beginning of the question and leave it at that. For example you say “Mr. Trump… in 2003 you said to Bob Reporter that you thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea, yet you claim you were against it from the beginning; how do you reconcile that?” And that’s it. You let the candidate answer and you say nothing else. YOU are the MODERATOR… NOT the on premise, off-the-cuff (Republican candidate only) FACT CHECKER. That is the responsibility of the other candidate and actual fact checkers parsing through the debate you are supposed to be moderating.

One problem with leftist moderator’s real-time fact checking is that they often get it wrong (just like in their “reporting”). Candy Crowley got it wrong when she corrected Romney (siding with Obama) regarding Benghazi; and the Obama administration’s failure to identify it as terror (instead of a demonstration gone bad). The error is then out there… and a correction is never offered.


Stop and Frisk
Lester Holt did the same thing last night by stating that “stop and frisk” had been found unconstitutional. What does that mean to you the listener? If I heard that, I would think that it is settled law across the land and it’s unconstitutional. It all gets back to the leftist definition of what “is” is.

Here are the facts…

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in 2013 that New York’s stop and frisk practices, were unconstitutional. Wow that settles it right? Well actually there are two key phrases that are important here (that are totally ignored by the left in order to give a false impression). First is “New York” and the second is “practices”. “Practices” legally means that the judge didn’t strike down stop and frisk in totality, but only stop and frisk as specifically practiced by this city (New York) at that time. This only applied to New York and supposedly the city could have tweaked the way they practiced the procedure and tried again… but we’re talking New York here now under a new leftist regime; so it just settled the case.

Now understand this, leftist Judge Scheindlin would have loved to have struck down stop and frisk overall, but she didn’t… she couldn’t. Why? Because her bosses’ a few rungs up the ladder had already ruled on that question long ago and that ruling still stands. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 in “Terry v. Ohio” that stop and frisk was constitutional. The Supreme Court has even confirmed and expanded on that ruling in other cases since. Stop and frisk IS constitutional. Yes, it’s being attacked by leftist judges across the land in individual cases, but it remains legal overall. Hillary (and Lester Holt) would have you believe a lie based on a half-truth and that Trump is an idiot for not know that. And they are largely successful thanks to the professional and intellectual dishonesty of the press (from which moderators are chosen).

Guess what the news stories will say today (right after the debate)? They will say that Trump was wrong and that stop and frisk was found unconstitutional. They will concentrate on this minor leftist nut-job of a judge and go no further? Why would they? Doing so doesn’t fit their narrative. It all gets back to partial truth used to sell a lie. It all gets back to weasel words. It all gets back to what your definition of “is” is. It all gets back to the left; which includes the main stream media and presidential debate moderators being so good at deception. It’s their job after all.


Call Out Trump Check – Call Out Hillary
My second observation is that Lester Hold asked Trump specific questions about his support of the birther conspiracy, his tax returns, his bankruptcies, and his early support of the Iraq invasion. Good for Lester… totally valid and tough questions and topics.

For the record… Trump is totally guilty on the birther thing… but Trump is also right that Hillary’s minions (Blumenthal and others) started the whole thing. They use the fact that these minions were not officially tied to the campaign at the time to claim plausible deniability. Again we see lies based simply on what your definition of “is” is. That’s good enough for the MSM, who will push the Hillary hook, line, and sinker.

Back to the main point. Lester hammered Trump with some tough questions. Again, totally valid… So did Lester ask Hillary about Benghazi? Did Lester ask Hillary about her email servers? Did Lester ask Hillary about the Clinton Foundation and “pay for play”? Nope… not one word. Crickets. The only way Hillary faced any touch issues all night, was for Trump to bring it up. (And he did a terrible job of it.) The left is practically never held to the same level of scrutiny as the right. This debate (hell all debates) is no exception.

What I Got from the Debate
So what is the main thing I took away from the debate last night? Lester Holt is a leftist, biased, hack (as if there were any questions going in). If Trump was going to have to debate both Hillary and Lester, why not put him behind a podium on stage and officially remove the illusion of objectivity.

Read Full Post »

people-trump-donald-clown-noseOn the election… I take exception with people to complain that Donald Trump is unqualified to be President.

Compared to what? The bozo we’ve had in office the last eight years? Barack Hussein Obama was THE most unqualified person to ever seek the office, and we ELECTED HIM TWICE!

people-obama-barack-clownNow the narrative is that we must choose Hillary Clinton, because she may be a cold, lying, b!tch… but she’s competent? Huh?

Take away the three previous (very accurate) adjectives and look at Hillary’s record of accomplishment. Name one. One? Where is the competence? Libya? Benghazi? Syria? Abandonment of Iraq? Russian Reset? Selling State Department access? Her insecure hidden e-mail server? White House travel Office? Whitewater? Cattle futures trading? Hillary care? (list lifted from WSJ comment)

people-clinton-hillary-nixon-poseHer only displayed competencies are in lying, covering up, and organized crime… and granted, she is good at it. But these “competencies” also disqualify her from ever holding public office… ANY public office… more so than pretty well anybody, including Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is unqualified to be President of the United States? That may be true, but there is no way to utter those words without being a hypocrite without IMMEDIATELY adding the following…

But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are more so…

Read Full Post »

politics-election-2016The election is heating up with the first debate fast approaching (4 days away, Monday the 26th 2016). I have to admit that I’ll probably watch it… or at least have it on in the background while I work on my computer. Granted, I don’t know how long I’ll last. I expect to release an exasperated primordial scream at some point in time, and only hope I have the emotional control to turn off the TV… instead of shoot it (Didn’t Elvis do that?)

This brings me to the quote of the week… by Peggy Noonan (in the Wall Street Journal). She’s talking about her conversations with complete strangers about the Presidential election…

“Under the smiles and beyond the reticence it is clear how seriously Americans are taking their decision, how gravely. As if it’s not Tweedledum and Tweedledee but an actual choice between two vastly different dramas, two different worlds of outcome and meaning. The cynic or the screwball? Shall we go to the bad place or the crazy place?”

I’m still not sure where we’re going. Right now, you guys will have to let me know in November. I refuse to be a part of this.

Oh, I’ll vote. I’ve never missed a major election (and very few minor ones) and I never will as I draw breath. But I can’t see myself voting for either of the two party candidates. $#@^, I can’t even see myself voting for any of the top four or five party candidates. Gary Johnson (Libertarians), is a fiscal embarrassment by his party’s standards (and that would have been the only chance the Libertarians had to get my vote, me being a social/fiscal conservative in that order) WaserName (Green Party) is from the Green Party… enough said…

Right now (and this could change), I’m stuck between two write-in candidates; “None of the Above” or “Giant Meteor”. It’s going to be a game-day decision.

Lynn's Pickup - Bumper Stickers

Lynn’s Pickup – Bumper Stickers

Read Full Post »

This is one of the better articulated explanations of why I do not support Trump…

That brings us to the real reason to oppose Trump’s candidacy: the attempt to turn the conservative movement into a nationalist populist one, complete with shilling for Trump’s incomprehensible decisions and statements. If you believe that the only solution to America’s problems is true conservatism, your greatest fear is not a Hillary presidency: It’s the perversion of the conservative movement itself, the corruption of conservatism in favor of power. Hillary Clinton’s presidency does not snuff out conservatism, even though it provides a serious danger to the republic. Trump’s presidency does. — by BEN SHAPIRO August 3, 2016

Conservatism - American

To reiterate…
The only hope for the republic is conservatism.
Hillary is a real danger to the republic (as all progressivism is).
Donald Trump is likely a lesser danger to the republic but is an greater (existential) danger to the only hope of the republic (conservatism).

To expand on…
I can understand the fear of what Hillary will do to this nation to the point of voting for the lesser of two evils. I’ve been in that place (mindset) before… I’m just not there anymore. I’m especially not at a place where I can ignore the glaring deficiencies of the Republican nominee; the narcissism, the petty tweeting, the politics of personal destruction…

Don’t get me wrong, this is not the same as agreeing with Barack Obama or Hillary or the left concerning these deficiencies. Barack Obama is the biggest boob to ever hold the office. No man was ever as ill prepared than him. Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt, dishonest, and immoral person to ever hold or seek the office in our lifetime (and considering LBJ, that says a lot). Trump’s deficiencies are of character and ideology (not conservative) and pale in comparison to Obama and Clinton.

Conservatism - What We Believe

Read Full Post »

An article I recently read on a leftist website (I think it was Slate) referenced Trump as neo-fascist and Hillary as neo-liberal (they added globalist). I would have to disagree with both labels.

People - Hillary and Trump

It’s not as if I’m against labels. I throw them around all the time (just watch); but I generally like my adjectives to mean something… to be accurate with some modicum of logic to back them up.

Fascism - No Free ThinkingTo begin with; Trump is not a fascist. It’s actually absurd that the left would have the insolence to make such a charge given the literally fascist tactics of their minions (see below). I guess their “logic” is that national racism is fascist (actually a valid historical argument); but their assertion that Trump is a racist for wanting to secure the border is (to be blunt) idiotic. Even Trumps assertion that we should curtail Muslim immigration and entry into the country is valid given the demographic of terrorist shooting up offices and trying to blow $#@$% up. And to deny that demographic is again… (to be blunt) idiotic.

Now, Trump IS a nationalist. (See “Make America Great Again” at the expense of other nations who have taken advantage of our stupid leaders.) And granted, the two great examples of fascism in the 20th century were heavily nationalist; but the two mindsets are separate and distinct. And the fascist used nationalism as a means to an end (dictatorships). This may explain the confusion, though I think those who label Trump (or the right, or conservatives, or the GOP) as fascist haven’t really given it much thought. Fascist (to them) is anything they are not.

StatismA more apt comparison to great (as in worldly impact) fascist regimes would be that they were statist (advocating a doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy). Socialist dictator Benito Mussolini extolled “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Sound familiar? Sound like the direction of a certain political movement within the United States?

Obama - Extreme Founders

Trump isn’t even that close to being a fascist when you consider many leftist organizations.

You want to see fascism in the United States…

Look at the likes of Black Lives Matter and the racial “social justice” movement with college professors calling for “muscle” (brown shirts) to come and take care of a pesky student reporter.

Look at the LGBT movement, that seeks not solutions or compromise but to force-feed an agenda that if not embraced invokes intimidation and ostracism, and financial ruin.

People - Lerner, Lois - IRS Brown Shirt - Fascist MustacheLook at the IRS that systematically targets their ideological foes (conservatives) and then manages to obfuscate any inquiry into the matter (with help from their ideological partners in crime). The ringleader (Lois Lerner) retires with a full pension while her bosses continue the charade that there is nothing to see here… move along…

Look at the environmental movement which fabricates “scientific” results, forms peer tribunals and seeks to destroy (the careers) of anyone who does not bend a knee. Look at those who invoke “settled science” in attempts to quash debate or news organization with official policies to censor contending views or evidence. Look at government officials (mostly district and state attorneys) who seek to use their official positions to punish and prosecute dissenters.

Look at the thugs and anarchist “protesting” Trump and conservative venues not so much interested in making a statement but to shut down free speech and intimidate. They figuratively wear the black turtlenecks (Italian) and brown shirts (German) of the liberal gestapo.

And finally… look at our President (a Constitutional scholar) with such disdain for the rule of law that he passes on decrees like a despot from a banana republic using federal funding as the cudgel of enforcement.

Capitalism - Unbridled - Monopoly Man with GunsThe fact that all of these fascist leaning movements are to the left should come as no surprise (to anyone who studies history). Fascism is historically a leftist inclination. The fact that Mussolini and the German National Socialist were extreme leftist and socialist is no coincidence. History (and decades of propaganda) have taught the world that fascism and communism are two opposite extremes (one left and one right). They’re not. They’re both kissing cousins of the left. Unbridled capitalism (also bad) would be the opposite extreme of communism (and fascism) on the right.

And finally… in “defense” of Hillary; she is not a neo-liberal in that “neo” infers “new”. Barack Obama could better be labeled neo-liberal, but even his policies produce roughly the same $#@%. Hillary’s brand of progressivism is anything but new; in fact it is very old-school. Hillary’s liberalism is the perfect example of where the leftist mindset leads; statism, cronyism, incompetence, and corruption.

Concept - Liberal - Progressive - Still a Turd

As a nation we’re screwed either way. American fascist have been setting the agenda (and producing absurd results) for so long they have created a backlash in the form of irrational nationalism. Of course the “loyal opposition” in the form of the GOP being *&%^-less during all that time didn’t help matters.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »