Wednesday, December 21, 2016

TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago

Trump Land as envisioned by percent voting for Trump in the 2016 popular vote

Clinton Archipelago as envisioned by percent voting for Clinton in the 2016 popular vote

TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago - Vivid Maps

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Mob-rule democracy versus a republic

i continue to see (supposedly) educated people seriously discuss revising the US republic into a one-person-one-vote semi-direct "democracy"... and they don't see the problem with this... it makes me want to choke some sense into people... but i'm afraid their brains aren't getting enough oxygen to begin with!

we have 50 states... that's why we're called the "United States" of America... our founders recognized that individual states will have differing needs and desires, so they are independent of each other, except where common needs overlap (such as interstate commerce).

so, let's examine the idea of what i call mob-rule democracy and compare it to what happens in our republic... first, we must understand population/demographics and the electoral college.

the population of each state determines the amount of "electors" in the electoral college... there are 538 electors... each state gets one for each Representative and one for each Senator, per Article II of the US Constitution... there are 435 Representatives, divided among the states based on population, but no less than one per state... there are 100 Senators, divided among the states equally (2 each)... there are an additional 3 electors representing the District of Columbia, as required by the 23rd Amendment.

as of 2013, the estimated population of the US is 316,128,839 people.

now, to get elected, you need 50%+1 of the electors, 270, to vote your way... due to current population trends, it takes only 11 states to get 270 electors... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, & NJ.

that doesn't sound very "democratic", does it?... where 11 of 50 states, 22%, dictate to the other 39 states who will be the President of the United States... shouldn't it take 26 states (50%+1)?... wouldn't that be more "democratic"?

but there are people who want "one-person-one-vote" democracy, where it takes 50%+1 of the popular vote for presidential elections... that's their version of "fair"... but is it?... it would only take NINE states to elect the President... CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, & MI... 9 of 50 states, 18%, would then dictate to the other 41 states.

how is that "democratic"?

furthermore, some states have population centers which can easily override the rest of the state... in California, the Los Angeles - Long Beach - Anaheim area has around 12 million residents, fully one-third of the population of the state... New York City metro area has around 8 million, where the entire state has 19 million; nearly one half of the state in one area... Clark County in Nevada (home of Las Vegas) has a population of nearly 2 million, while the entire state has only 2.8 million!

by now, it should be obvious that "one-person-one-vote" is as un-democratic as possible... mob-rule is possibly the worst form of governance.

Population of US States (plus Washington D.C.)
Distribution of Electoral Votes
Article II of the US Constitution
Map: California Home to Most Densely Populated Areas

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

try strengthening the electoral college

with all of the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the electoral college following the 2016 Presidential Election, it is highlighting the disparity of power between populous states and more rural states... it highlights the disparity of power between the House (the people's house) and the Senate (the state's house)... there are 435 representatives (divided according to the latest census) in the House, and there are 435 electoral college votes associated with their states... there are 100 senators (two per state) in the Senate, and there are 100 electoral college votes associated with their states... add three for the District of Columbia, and you have 538 electoral votes at stake during any Presidential Election.

so, the population of a state has a 2-to-1 advantage... having a state with a higher population density (or one large city like Las Vegas which overwhelms the rest of the state) causes this 2-to-1 advantage skew to a 25-to-1 advantage, such as in California... New York City controls the electoral votes of the entire state, and it's not even the state's capital city!

but, what if we were to make a small change, such as adding Senators to each state, thereby adding electoral votes, also?... how would that affect an election?

below, I have taken the electoral college votes of each state as they were cast in the 2016 Presidential Election and tallied them... then I added one vote per state and tallied them... then added two.

D. C.03286,275
New Hampshire04731,931
New Jersey0143,774,743
New Mexico05792,328
New York0297,113,118
North Carolina1504,688,82116
North Dakota30344,1564
Rhode Island04460,165
South Carolina902,103,02510
South Dakota30370,0474
West Virginia50712,4196
*Michigan has not been finally called, but only marginally affects the outcome.

the outcome of this thought experiment is to widen the gap between the parties... with the electoral college votes as they currently are, the gap between the parties is 74 votes, or 13.8% of the votes.

with only one additional electoral vote per state, the gap widens from 74 votes difference to 83 votes, but only changes it to 14.0% difference in the votes.

by adding two electoral votes per state, the gap goes from 74 votes difference 91 votes, which is only a 14.2% difference.

what this appears to show is that smaller states begin to have greater impact on the overall race... while each iteration only changes the electoral college results by 0.2%, it becomes evident that the candidates will need to appeal to a much more diverse group, and not solely rely on population dense areas of the country... instead of knowing the result of every election after the east coast polls close, we would need to see how many more states vote.

and, in a republic, isn't that what we want?

"Take a seat" on democracy

Goodness gracious sakes alive, does this country need a history lesson! Never in the past four years have I wanted so badly to have a class of people to teach. Teenagers or adults or senior citizens — it wouldn’t have mattered. I have seen so much appalling ignorance about our country, its history and its constitution that I have just wanted to grab the populace and shake them until they understood.

For starters, I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.

For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.

“Oh, yes he did!” screamed one of my Facebook friends this week. “I know Lincoln got the most votes and so did Clinton.”

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic. We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people.

And by the way, the U.S. Constitution does not give any of us the right to have a say so in who becomes president of the United States. Oh, no, it doesn’t. That power is vested entirely in the Electoral College, and under the Constitution states still have the authority to decided how those electors are chosen. It wasn’t until 1842 that the last state started allowing the people to vote for those electors.

If we eliminated the Electoral College people in two-thirds of the states would be virtually disenfranchised when it came to presidential elections. All the time, money and effort would be spent wooing voters in California, New York and Florida.

Now about the transition of power. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and were thought to be a dangerous thing by our founders. But parties arose almost immediately because people have always had differences of opinions about political issues. The first 12 years under the Constitution found the government in the hands of the Federalist Party. But in the election of 1800 — also called the Revolution of 1800 — Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republican Party, was chosen to be president. When John Adams, his Federalist opponent, stepped down on inauguration day in 1801, it marked the first time in the history of the world that a group in power had relinquished power without violence or threat of violence, simply because the people said that’s what they wanted. It has worked that way ever since.

And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment. You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed.

And if you are interested, I have about 38 years worth of lessons stored up. Class can start as soon as everyone gets here.

DARRELL HUCKABY: Take a seat — history class is in session | Opinion |

Thursday, November 10, 2016

everyone I don't like is fascist

Is Donald Trump a fascist? Everyone says so. Except no one knows what a "fascist" really is. So, let's compare and contrast Trump and his policies to fascism.

  1. "Trump uses ethnic stereotypes."
    1. Trump calls for an end to illegal immigration on our southern border with Mexico. Many illegal immigrants are criminals. That doesn't mean all Mexicans in the US are illegal immigrants or criminals.
      1. Association Fallacy: Illegal immigrants can be Mexicans. Illegal immigrants can also be criminals. All Mexicans must therefore be criminals.
    2. Trump calls for a cessation in accepting refugees from the Middle East without strict vetting for terrorists. That doesn't mean all middle-easterners are terrorists.
      1. Fallacy of Composition: Terrorists are muslim. Therefore all muslims are terrorists.
    3. Likewise, Trump calls for better policing of Muslims in the US. That doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists. However, currently, almost all terrorists in the US have been Muslim.
  2. "Make America Great Again" is the same nationalist rallying cry fascists use.
    1. Nationalism does not equal racism. If some nationalist are racist, all nationalist are not therefore racist.
      1. Fallacy of Composition: Fascists are nationalists. Therefore all nationalists are fascists.
    2. Nationalism does not exclude other cultures and peoples. It is a statement of pride and unity, not division.
    3. Nationalism can be used to divide "us versus them", but just because something can be done doesn't mean it will be done.
      1. Appeal to Probability: Nationalists can possibly be Racists. All Nationalists must be Racists.
  3. "He plays on the fears of economic decline."
    1. The economy has declined. Employment is down. Real wages are down. The value of the dollar is down. Federal debt has skyrocketed. These are rational fears.
    2. The economy may not be as bad as Trump makes it sound. But should that be reason to ignore it?
  4. "He has an aggressive foreign policy."
    1. What is the alternative? Not to provide a false-dichotomy, but is the alternative a passive foreign policy?
    2. Has the less aggressive foreign policy of Trump's predecessor been successful? Policies can be judged fairly by their results.
  1. Fascists are anti-individualism.
    1. A fascist's brand of nationalism was to subject the individual to the needs of the state.
    2. Trump is fiercely individualistic. You are only to be nationalist to a government which does not restrict your freedoms.
  2. Fascists restrict businesses for the good of the country.
    1. Trump wants to lift restrictions on businesses for the good of the businesses.
  3. Ownership of land remained with the people, but fascists want to control the use of the land.
    1. Trump wants private ownership of anything.

#specificallyTHIS: Is Donald Trump a fascist?

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

President-Elect Donald Trump acceptance speech

"Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people."

"Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and renewing the American dream. I've spent my entire life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world."

"Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."

"No dream is too big, no challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach. America will no longer settle for anything less than the best. We must reclaim our country's destiny and dream big and bold and daring."

"So it's been what they call a historic event, but to be really historic, we have to do a great job, and I promise you that I will not let you down. We will do a great job."

"And I can only say that while the campaign is over, our work on this movement is now really just beginning. We're going to get to work immediately for the American people, and we're going to be doing a job that hopefully you will be so proud of your President."

- President Donald Trump

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

49 abominable facts about Hillary the media won't tell you - Re-Blog

If you listen to the news, the only real reporting being done about Hillary Clinton has to do with her email scandal. Even though she violated the Espionage Act, the FBI refused to prosecute. Her family’s foundation is under heavy scrutiny. But did you know these other important points about Hillary’s life-long run to the White House?

Saul Alinsky
  1. During her college years at Wellesley, Hillary Clinton formed her political ideology as a close friend and confidant of Saul Alinsky, the Marxist firebrand who resurrected the “Communist Manifesto” and urged young liberals to agitate and create unrest to establish communist ends.
  2. Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College was locked at her husband’s request during his time as president. The 92-page thesis was about Alinsky, with whom Clinton shared a mentor/apprentice relationship.
  3. According to NBCNews, David Brock called Hillary “Alinsky’s daughter” in his 1996 biography, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.”
  4. Hillary Clinton wrote in her thesis, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’” This, coming from the man who dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer, “the first radical.”
  5. To read a more in depth article about Hillary and Saul Alinsky, read, “Alinsky’s Daughter: Here’s the truth about Hillary the media won’t tell you.”
Leftist Law Firm
  1. After college, Hillary searched for a leftist “movement” law firm and secured a spot at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.
  2. Treuhaft was a former Communist Party member who defended the Black Panthers and other radical leftist groups.
  3. Walker was an avowed Communist until the day she died, and was notorious for successfully defending Angie Davis, a California Communist, on conspiracy murder charges. Davis purchased two firearms two days prior to an armed takeover of a county courthouse. While governor, Ronald Reagan barred Davis from teaching at any California University because of her militant communist beliefs. Walker made a living defending Communists against the Smith Act.
  4. Burnstein was a defender of leftist radical protesters, taking the side of the Communists in Vietnam.
  5. Hillary claimed to work on a child custody case only at the radical firm, but others recall differently. “We did a lot of conscientious-objector work,” during the Vietnam War.
  6. Why did Hillary go to Treuhaft, Walker, and Burnstein? Carl Bernstein quoted Treuhaft as saying, "The reason she came to us, the only reason I could think of because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called Movement law firm at the time.
  1. As a college student, Hillary embraced the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and admired its leader Yassar Arafat, once defending him as a “‘freedom fighter’ trying to free his people from their Israeli ‘oppressors.’”
  2. In her run for senator from New York, Hillary claimed she had Jewish roots by bringing up her grandmother’s remarriage to a Jewish man.
  3. In reaction to seeing a menorah in a friend’s home, Hillary wouldn’t get out of her car, and friends heard Bill explain, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah."
Whitewater Scandal
  1. As partners in the Rose Law Firm, Hillary, Bill, and Jim and Susan McDougal participated in a pyramid scheme that used fraudulent real estate loans involving inflated appraisals to circumvent federal law. By the time the FBI investigated, every single person involved was indicted or destroyed except Bill and Hillary. Power Line reported in March 2015:
  1. Clinton, working with Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster, stole hard copies of the billing records of the Rose law firm where they were partners. They erased the electronic version of these records. One set of these documents was later found in the White House, just outside Hillary’s private office, by an employee. Another set was found in Foster’s attic by his widow, some years after he committed suicide. Clinton’s time sheets (handwritten, as was the practice back in the day) were never found.
Fighting for Women
  1. While an attorney in Arkansas, Hillary defended a child rapist, knew he was guilty, but impugned the character of the 12 year old victim anyway, which would send the now-52 year old woman on a path to a life of drugs and crime. Hillary claimed the girl actively sought out “older men,” and had a reputation as a liar. In an interview, Hillary talked about having the rapist take a lie detector test, which he passed, and laughing, Hillary said, “Which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
  2. Hillary successfully defended a 300 lb man who obviously beat his girlfriend, and got the case thrown out on a technicality.
  3. Juanita Broaddrick claimed she was raped by Bill Clinton, Paula Jones won a $850,000 settlement when she accused Bill of sexual harassment, and Kathleen Willey accused Bill of sexual assault. In each of these cases, and many more, Hillary hired private detectives to dig up dirt on Bill’s accusers in order to destroy their stories, and keep Bill on his path to the White House, as told by biographer Carl Bernstein, former aide George Stephanopoulous, and former Clinton aide Dick Morris.
Black Lives Matter
  1. Hillary has said that white people have to, “recognize our privilege and practice humility.”
  2. To BLM rioters she said, “We need you. We need the promise of a rising generation of activists and organizers who are fearless in your advocacy and determination.”
  3. The Black Lives Matter founder from Worchester, Massachusetts, once complained to Hillary, “Until someone speaks the truth to white people in this country so that we can actually take on anti-blackness as a founding problem in this country, I don’t believe that there is going to be a solution. What in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction of this country?” Hillary responded, “I don’t believe you change hearts, I believe you change laws. You change allocation of resources. You change the way systems operate,” indicating that she would change government to implement BLM’s demands.
Muslim Brotherhood
  1. Hillary backed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi. Incidentally, on the way to meet with Mursi, Hillary, was pelted with tomatoes while the Egyptians chanted, “Monica, Monica!”
  2. Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, has well-established ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  3. Hillary sided with the second official-of-record of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and discussed what could be done to hamper Qaddafi. “Hillary’s war,” as identified by U.S Navy Rear Admiral Charles Kubic, ended in destabilizing Libya and enhancing the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.
Gun Control
  1. Hillary believes that Second Amendment proponents are a “minority” of people, and that their viewpoint is “terrorizing” the American people.
  2. Hillary not only wants to make gun ownership illegal for many, but would allow gun manufacturers to be sued by those who have been shot by a legally owned gun. This would include those committing crimes on private property.
  3. Hillary said that the Supreme Court is wrong about the Second Amendment, referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the D.C. gun ban and ruled that individuals have a fundamental right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment.
The First Amendment
  1. Hillary has condemned the Citizens United court ruling and wants a constitutional amendment to overturn it. The Citizens United case hinged on the right to free speech and censorship of opposing views. Justices looked at the FEC ban as akin to book burning, and the court ruled that the FEC could not limit political speech.
  2. After four American lives were lost in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton blamed Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for a film he made about Islam. Hillary further falsely claimed the attack was in response to said film. To Charles Woods, the father of one of the deceased at Benghazi, Hillary said, “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Nakoula was immediately jailed for over a year.
  3. She has every intention of using the full power of the federal government to snuff out religious liberty.
  4. Hillary has a long history of faulting or trying to ban movies, music, and video games for the actions of criminals.
  1. Hillary’s view is that people’s religious beliefs have to be changed when it comes to abortion. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
  2. Hillary believes that an unborn child — just hours before delivery — has no constitutional rights, i.e., no right to life.
  3. Hillary praised her husband Bill for vetoing a partial birth abortion ban. Partial-birth abortion is exactly what it implies, a child is pulled feet-first out of the mother's womb past the navel and the abortionist punctures the skull of the baby, inserts a powerful vacuum, and suctions the baby's brains which collapses the skull and the child is pulled the rest of the way and discarded. At the time of the veto, the Clintons claimed it was a procedure to protect the health and life of the mother, but a prominent abortion advocate said at the time that the information given to the public was intentionally misleading.
  4. Hillary wants more funding to go to the abortion giant and butcher shop, Planned Parenthood.
  5. Hillary wants to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to ban government funding for abortion.
  1. Hillary’s voter registration leader for her campaign is an illegal immigrant.
  2. Clinton wants to increase Syrian refugees coming into America from 1,500 to 65,000.
  3. At the Univision Democratic debate in March, Hillary said, “I am committed to introducing comprehensive immigration reform and a path to legitimate citizenship within the first 100 days of my presidency.”
  4. Hillary would allow illegal immigrants to obtain health insurance under Obamacare.
Much More
  1. Hillary’s first solo legal case was in defense of a canning corporation when a man found the back end of a rat in his pork and beans. Affectionately known as the “Rat’s ass case,” Hillary claimed it would be considered food in some countries.
  2. Grateful for Hillary’s help in his presidential run, President Jimmy Carter put her in charge of Legal Services Corporation, a federally funded nonprofit, whose budget under Hillary would swell from $90 million to $321 million. Investigators from the General Accounting Office found that during her leadership, those involved with the LSC were, “uniquely reprehensible.”
  3. In 1978 and 1979, Hillary turned a $1,000 investment into $98,540 in less than one year trading cattle futures under the guidance of a Tyson Foods outside attorney. Tyson Foods, under state law, was supposed to dispose of its chicken manure properly, but the state’s governor, Bill Clinton, never enforced the law. Five years later, seepage from the waste contaminated a community’s drinking water and made people sick. It took Bill Clinton 15 months to declare the town a disaster area.
  4. In two years, 2013-2015, Hillary made $2.9 million in speaking fees from large corporations including $675,000 from Goldman Sachs.
  5. In her commencement speech at Wellesley, Hillary quoted her mother as saying, “You know I’ll always love you but there are times when I certainly won’t like you.” In 1993, in an interview with the New York Times, Hillary attributed that exact quote to her father instead.
  6. Hillary was “the first presidential spouse to be subpoenaed. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first and only first couple to be fingerprinted by the FBI.”
  7. Hillary was at the center of “Travelgate” during her time as first lady. The controversy surrounded seven people who were fired in the office and replaced with her cronies.
  8. Hillary claimed she came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. That claim was easily debunked by Sharyl Attkisson who was accompanied Hillary’s trip as a member of the press. Hillary twice tried to make the silly suggestion stick before the media caught up with her.
  9. Hillary hailed the television channel Al Jazeera and said its viewership was going up in the U.S. “’because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock.’ She said it was ‘changing peoples’ minds and attitudes. And like it or hate it, it is really effective.’ U.S. news, she added, was not keeping up.”
Hillary is a radical's radical, a compulsive liar, and is intoxicated by the accumulation of wealth and power. Her Marxist ideology and belief that destroying this nation from within is what has motivated and propelled her to become president of this nation. Anyone considering voting for this destroyer should have their heads examined.

49 abominable facts about Hillary the media won't tell you - By Jen Kuznicki - September 03, 2016

Monday, November 7, 2016

liberal media collusion

"Perhaps most startling of all, Mr. Brock dismisses or rationalizes the sometimes powerful evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton has lied -- about everything from her successful commodities trading to her role in the travel office firings -- by invoking a relativism rooted in Republican precedents." - NYT review of David Brock's "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham" 1996

"Mr. Brock has also said that he knowingly lied in an article he wrote for The American Spectator in 1992 that raised doubts about the credibility of Ms. Hill. The article formed the basis for a later book about Ms. Hill, whose charges of harassment almost derailed Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court." - New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right

"Brock countered them with a permanent organization, which eventually turned into Media Matters. Hillary, meanwhile, 'sprang into action,' inviting Brock to pitch her Senate fund-raising council and speak at a dinner for donors in her Chappaqua home." - NYT review of David Brock’s ‘Killing the Messenger’

David Brock founds "Media Matters for America" to act as a "counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center. It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its 'War on Fox News.'"

"He’s even constructed for Hillary her own personal media watchdog, Correct the Record, which tracks and instantly zaps any negative stories about her." - NYT review of David Brock’s ‘Killing the Messenger’

"I spoke w Arianna [Huffington] abt PMUSA [Progressive Media USA] Board and will send her more info. She is enthusiastic abt the project but asks if she's more useful to us not being on the Board and, instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts. She has a point." - Susan of to David Brock and John Podesta of the 2008 Democrat presidential election

"Progressive Media USA, the group organized to be the main soft-money advertising vehicle for Democrats in the fall, will dramatically scale back its efforts in deference to the wishes of the party’s presumptive nominee [Barack Obama]." - Huffington Post 5/23/2008

"Progressive Media will serve as a communications and messaging nerve center for the progressive movement. We will create a robust echo chamber with messaging that spans from independent groups, to progressive partisans, to grassroots organizers, to the netroots. We will align messaging across broadcast and cable TV, radio, print, Internet, single-issue and advocacy organizations, progressive media, surrogates and new media." - Wikileak Draft launch statement 'PROGRESSIVE MEDIA'

"He [Brock] launched another nonprofit that exists to churn out a steady stream of lawsuits accusing Republicans of ethics and campaign finance violations. Then Brock announced that he was starting yet another liberal super PAC that pushes the boundaries of election law by coordinating directly with the Clinton campaign to respond to attacks against the candidate." - LA Times article 'David Brock, a Clinton enemy from the '90s, is now integral to Hillary's run'

"In his current role, Brock now works on what he calls the 'coordinated' side of the Clinton campaign. His group, Correct the Record, raises unlimited funds outside the regulated campaign finance system. But since it does not pay for advertising advocating her election, he says he can continue under current rules to talk to her, and her campaign staff about strategy, while deploying the unregulated money he raises to advocating her election online, through the press, or through other means of non-paid communications." - TIME article 'Hillary Clinton’s Bulldog Blazes New Campaign Finance Trails'

a tree is to be judged by its fruits

I was once naive enough to believe the Clintons were able to do the right thing. I have grown up and put away childish things. The scales have been removed.

I know, point by point, why the Clintons and the current incarnation of the Democrat party is corrupt to the core. I know how, with each election, they have learned how to manipulate people to their will. Platitudes such as "Free [anything]" drive the young, the poor, and the disenfranchised to vote for "Hope and Change".

They say the road to Hell is paved with gold. Well, the road to economic ruin is paved with free college, free healthcare, subprime home loans, and government subsidized loans.

Democrats create class warfare saying the "rich need to pay their 'fair share'", meanwhile knowing the top 20% pay 80% of all income taxes. That's not 'fair' enough? They push for 'middle class' tax cuts, meanwhile the lowest 45% pay no income taxes.

Democrats create racial division. But their economic policies are preventing the advancement of the people they claim need the most help. They provide incentive to get welfare, convincing people it is 'deserved'. Then they create a disincentive to advance oneself in education and employment by threatening to take away the 'free' benefits. This creates a cycle that is hard to break. Now, more african-americans go onto welfare than are born each year. And latinos are quickly catching up to them.

Democrats push these divisions because they know the demographics will win elections. Look at election maps, county-by-county. Over the years, the Democrats have taken over all of the inner-city area, areas of the poor and the uneducated, areas caught in the cycle of welfare. And the greater the need and desperation, the more they vote Democrat.

Yet, in all of these heavily voting Democrat areas, controlled by Democrats for thirty or forty years, you find no advancement. They say we need better schools, but they don't provide them. They say we need better jobs, but they push businesses to close. They say we need higher wages, but higher wages are being forced to leave these cities. They say people need a livable wage, but the cost of living is highest in Democrat strongholds.

Tomorrow, vote. Vote for whomever you believe can meet the promises they've made. But a tree is to be judged by its fruits. And a rotten tree produces rotten fruit.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Put up a fight dammit

I get flustered and come off brash. In crude terms, I can be an asshole. But it comes from a good place, out of compassion, I believe.

I so often talk to people who have set their minds to an idea, and they spend all their energies trying to reinforce those ideas, even when logic and all sense defies it. I try, even if I fail, to present them with reasons why they may be wrong. And I eagerly await their counterpoint because I don't believe that I'm right just because I believe something. I humor myself with a paraphrase Socrates (a la Plato) that I know more than most because I know that I know nothing. That's why I spend so much of my personal time looking into facts and figures; so when I see misinformation or plain ignorance, I have the opportunity to bring these people toward their own knowledge.

And I possibly get more flustered with someone of higher intelligence and education, as I hold them to a higher standard than I do most. I know they have the ability and capability to reach their own conclusions based on logic, reasoning, research, and facts. I recognize that may be unfair, but as someone once said, it may be "unfair, but not unjust." (Sidney Morgenbesser said this about the police hitting him while protesting the Vietnam war. It was unfair that he was hit, but not unjust as they hit everyone.)

More to the point, when I see someone of their obvious ability make such statements (as "Trump is clearly racist") but this conclusion appears based on bad data (in my opinion, of course), I feel obligated to challenge that belief. And too often, the response is self-reinforcing or attempts to twist logic to reinforce the original idea. You see, if I believed they lacked the ability to provide point-counterpoint, I wouldn't confront their ideas with as much vehemence.

For instance, when I pointed out the logical fallacy of "Trump's a racist", they do not immediately provide any evidence of their own. They often attack the logical fallacy. While I give them points for style, they get no credit for addressing the issue. When they do provide evidence, they come from a place of "My assumption is Trump's a racist. From that we can prove..." That is bad form and horrible logic.

So, if they say, "supporting Trump is to support racism," they have already implied that Trump himself is racist and will promulgate racist ideology. I then am forced to go through the assumed litany of charges against Trump which I assume are their arguments (since they did not provide their own). The charge of Trump's racism often stems from his position on illegal immigration. So, I address that his position is little different than those of Bill Clinton 20 years ago. Also, Trump's position on Middle Eastern refugees is often a source of accusation; so I addressed that. And so on. If I can show that Trumps political positions are not racist nor motivated by racism, then the support of those who are racist will have no sway over his policies.

If they do not present their own argument, I have to assume their arguments for them. That's not the way I like to have discussions. But if they only argue semantics and not facts, I have little other choice.

And I will not apologize for my brash tone or my offensive manner. I want them to get upset. I want them to convince me. I want them to bring their best reason and logic. But most of all, I want facts. And if they cannot provide those, I will continue to challenge their assertions.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Brutal takedown of CEO wage myth - Re-Blog

THE MISLEADING CLAIM: These 8 CEOs get paid so much that they clearly can afford to raise their worker's wages to $15 per hour.
THE REALITY: As we'll demonstrate below, the math proves this claim is questionable, at best.
• 114,000 employees [1]
• CEO pay: $4,629 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.04 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
• 53,090 employees [2]
• CEO pay: $13,489 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.25 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
Note, part of why Chipotle's CEO (Steve Ells) is so highly compensated is because he holds TWO positions, rather than just one, also serving as Chipotle’s chairman. [3]
Another interesting point? Chipotle ALREADY pays its workers more than comparable fast food outlets, such as Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King. [4]
• 260,000 employees [5]
• CEO pay: $4,889 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.01 (technically 0.018) per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
• 11,000 employees [6]
• CEO pay: $3,571 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.32 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
• 31,200 employees [7]
• CEO pay: $3,465 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.11 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
• 2,200,000 employees [8]
• CEO pay: $2,704 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.00 (technically 0.001) per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
• 191,000 employees [9]
• CEO pay: $10,285 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.05 per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
• 166,900 employees [10]
• CEO pay: $7,904 per hour per the meme.
Each employee could get a $0.04 (technically 0.047) per hour raise if the CEO's pay were entirely eliminated.
Considering that this meme took annual CEO pay and simply divided it up into 40 hour work weeks despite the fact that CEOs of top firms routinely work over 40 hours a week [11], it already was guilty of significantly over-inflating CEO's hourly wages. But even if one takes the meme's inaccurate estimates at face value, it's conclusion proves to be entirely false, never the less. You could literally eradicate 100% of CEO pay from each of these companies and never even come close to a 50 cent per hour raise for workers, never mind nearly doubling minimum wages to $15 per hour. This claim is demonstrably false.
Before one protests that our counter-argument is off because we counted ALL employees rather than focusing only on those paid under $15, understand that this point - while valid - raises only a very small discrepancy.
It wouldn't matter if one adjusted the math to apply it to half or even one-third the workforce, because one would still struggle to add a dollar to worker's pay.  For instance, take Wal-Mart for example. Their pay increase would each be a (rounded down) 0 cents per hour raise if applied to all workers, but if we adjusted the figures to distribute the CEO's pay amongst workers presently earning less than $15, as to bring it up to the hypothetical $15 minimum, it still wouldn't be more than a few cent raise.  Therefore, even though our rebuttal is a rounded off estimate, it's one that is so significantly far away from the original misleading claim that it becomes obvious Occupy Democrats was very wrong.


Wednesday, October 19, 2016

why #NeverHillary?

(January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001—two terms)

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care.

Her proposed plan was so bad that many Democrats came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, on September 26, 1994, the “Hillarycare” bill was declared dead.

This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."

(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.)

Husband Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission—Lani Guanier was her selection.

After considerable backlash from prominent Democratic senators concerning Ms. Guanier's radical views, Bill Clinton withdrew her name from nomination, stating that she did not represents the civil rights views that he had championed during his campaign.

However, apparently a slow learner, husband Bill continued to allow Hillary to make more recommendations.

She chose former law partners, Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

(Is anyone wondering yet what her Supreme Court Justice appointments would be like?)

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate," the first major ethics controversy during Bill’s presidency.

Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend, Harry Thompson—but the White House Travel Office refused to comply.

She trumped up allegations of financial mismanagement and reported seven long-time White House employees to the FBI. This ruined their reputations, got them fired, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.

Eventually, most of the employees were reinstated and Clinton associates were forced out of the travel office. Only one White House employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime—the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds; a jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security.

When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense.

Let’s look at some of her more notable decisions in this regard . . .

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury, followed by his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath. (Sound familiar?)

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "mistakenly thought was hers."

So you see, the email scandal and all of her malfeasance regarding the handling of Top Secret information, not to mention the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation, are nothing new.

Hillary’s entire political career has been nothing but a web of lies, corruption and destruction in her quest for power.

Is anyone else ready to say, “Enough is enough!”?

But unfortunately, I’m sure her loyal fans will say, "What difference does it make?"
(links added to original)
source: various versions online

Monday, October 17, 2016

Hannibal ad portas

Listening to Dr. Patrick Wyman's "The Fall of Rome" podcast (Ep2). In describing the 'barbarians', he reminds us that the homogenization of this diverse group is foolish and often leads to horribly wrong conclusions.

This reminds me of conversations recently about illegal immigration in this country. Is it wrong to group all illegal immigrants into one category? Of course it is. Each individual cannot represent the whole, nor the whole the individual.

Similarly, the same could be said for the European colonization of the Americas. No individual's act caused the death of thousands of native indians. Just as you cannot place blame at the feet of a single band of barbarians for the destruction of the Roman Empire, you cannot blame any one group for the decimation of the american indians.

So it is equally wrong to blame all illegal immigrants for the despicable actions of some.

But in saying that, it was still the barbarians who sacked Rome.

The Fall of Rome Podcast By Patrick Wyman

Friday, October 14, 2016

Bill Clinton and Donald Trump - a tale of two reactions

Bill Clinton (x22)
Person - Allegation
Date of event - Date of allegation - Waited (years)
Proof / Hearsay

Eileen Wellston - Sexual assault in Oxford
1969 - 1969 - 0
Hearsay of accuser, of Clinton claiming consensual, and of State Department employee who investigated

Unnamed woman at Yale - Sexual assault
1972 - Never - n/a
Hearsay of campus policeman and of the accuser

Unamed student at Univeristy of Arkansas - Sexual assault
1974 - 1974 - 0
Hearsay of accuser and of Clinton claiming consensual

Juanita Broaddrick - Raped her in her hotel room
1970 - 1999 - 29
Hearsay of accuser

Dolly Kyle Browning - 17 year affair
1975 - 1998 - 23
Written declaration to Paula Jones's lawyers

"Troopergate" - Multiple sexual affairs or assaults*
1978 - 1994 - 16
Hearsay of an article written by two Arkansas state troopers

*Regina Blakely Hopper
~1978 - 1997 - 19
Hearsay of former Arkansas state trooper L.D. Brown

*Robyn Dickey
~1978 - 1997 -  19
Hearsay of former Arkansas state trooper L.D. Brown

*Lencola Sullivan
~1978 - 1997 -  19
Hearsay of former Arkansas state trooper L.D. Brown

Carolyn Moffet - Sexual assault at his hotel
1979 - ? - ?

Leslie Milwee - Three sexual assaults
1980 - 2011 - 31

Elizabeth Ward Gracen - One-night stand
1982 - 1992 - 10

Sally Miller-Perdue - Affair
1983 - 1994 - 9

Connie Hamzy - Attempted one night stand
1984 - 1991 - 7
Hearsay; alternate story told by George Stephanopoulos

*Becky Brown - Sexual harassment
1985 - 1997 - 12
Hearsay of former Arkansas state trooper and husband L.D. Brown

Helen Dowdy - Groped at a wedding
1986 - 2000 - 14

Paula Jones - Propositioned and exposed himself to her in his hotel room
1991 - 1994 - 3
Lawsuit settled; Bill Clinton stripped of law license

Sandra Allen James - Sexual assault in his hotel room
1991 - 1999 - 8

Gennifer Flowers - 12 year affair
1992 - 1977 - 15
Bill's admission under oath

Christy Zercher - Sexual assault on plan
1992 - 1998 - 6

Kathleen Willey - Groped her in the Oval Office
1993 - 1998 - 5
Hearsay of accuser and of Linda Tripp

Monica Lewinsky - 2 year affair
1995 - 1998 - 3
Blue dress

Bonus - "Lolita Express and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein"

Reaction to Bill Clinton's accusations:
“Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation” -

Donald Trump (x13)

Jessica Leeds - Sexually assaulted on a plane
1980's - 2016 - 36

Kristin Anderson - Groped at The China Club
1990's - 2016 - 26

Jill Harth - Attempted rape at Mar-a-lago
1993 - 1997 - 4
Lawsuit dropped by Harth

"Jane Doe" - Statutory rape at party of Jeffrey Epstein (see Bill Clinton and "Lolita Express", above)
1994 - 2016 - 22
Hearsay of accuser and two unnamed persons

Temple Taggart McDowell - Sexual assault
1997 - 2016 - 19

Karena Virginia - Sexual assault ("grabbed my right arm, then his hand touched the right inside of my breast")
1998 - 2016 - 18

Mindy McGillivray - Groped at Mar-a-lago
2003 - 2016 - 13

Rachel Crooks - Elevator at Trump Tower
2005 - 2016 - 11

Natasha Stoynoff - Sexual assault at Mar-a-lago
2005 - 2016 - 11

Summer Zervos - Sexual assault
2005 - 2016 - 11

Jessica Drake - Sexual assault
2006 - 2016 - 10

Unnamed friend of Erin Burnett - Sexual assault
2010 - 2016 - 6
Hearsay by Erin Burnett

Cassandra Searles - Sexual assault
2013 - 2016 - 3

Reaction to Donald Trump's accusations:
"He is the worst person ever!"

Monday, October 10, 2016

everyone they don't like is Hitler

Positions actually held by Adolf Hitler
  1. Was a socialist, as in the National Socialist German Workers' Party, a.k.a. Nazis.
  2. Expressly targeted those with wealth, such as bankers.
  3. Increased government funded programs, such as infrastructure, to spur economic growth.
  4. Created job programs.
  5. Made a national healthcare and unemployment insurance program. This ran huge deficits.
  6. Enacted sweeping gun control. Used gun registry to identify and remove dissidents.
  7. Pro-abortion, primarily for eugenics.
  8. Believed that the raising of children was a social responsibility of the state, and not the individual.
  9. Turned the populace against the 1%.
  10. Stoked the flames of racial animosity.
  11. Wanted universal participation in "service".
  12. Controlled media.

Positions held by Donald Trump
  1. Pure capitalist.
  2. Is wealthy, himself. He wants to lower taxes on the wealthy to spur growth.
  3. Believes companies spur economic growth, independent from government.
  4. Independent companies are job programs, themselves. Allowing them to grow unfettered provides jobs.
  5. Wants to reduce the size of national healthcare while expanding the markets of private insurers, such as allowing them to compete across state boundaries.
  6. Ambivalent on gun control.
  7. Pro-abortion.
  8. Raising children is the responsibility of the parents.
  9. Is part of the 1%.
  10. Also stoked the flames of racial animosity.
  11. No interest in service programs.
  12. Media has been doing everything it can to defeat him. Zero major news outlets have endorsed him.

Positions held by Hillary Clinton
  1. Is a socialist by her party platform, her political positions, and her social values. She even has owned the mantle of a "Progressive", which is another name for socialist.
  2. Expressly targets those with wealth, such as corporations.
  3. Wants to increase government funded programs, such as infrastructure, to spur economic growth.
  4. Wants to create job programs.
  5. Will increase the coverage of the current national healthcare program, which is already running deficits.
  6. Praises gun confiscation policies of other nations, and wants more gun restrictions in the US. Wants a complete gun registry.
  7. Pro-abortion. Admires Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who was a firm proponent of eugenics.
  8. "It takes a village."
  9. Turns the populace against the 1%.
  10. Also stokes the flames of racial animosity.
  11. Pushes for national service.
  12. Majority of media are Democrats. All major news outlets have endorsed her.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton, who tells dreadful lies - Blog-Repost

Hillary Clinton tells us she is recovering from a mild case of pneumonia, but less than half of American voters believe her belated explanation of why she appeared to faint leaving a 9/11 commemoration. If she wants to understand why, she can find the answer in a children’s poem.

In his 1907 classic, “Matilda Who told Lies, and was Burned to Death,” Hilaire Belloc tells the story of a young girl who “told such Dreadful Lies, It made one Gasp and Stretch one’s Eyes.” One day Matilda calls in a false alarm to London’s fire brigade, and as punishment is left home alone while her aunt goes to the theater:

That Night a Fire did break out--
You should have heard Matilda Shout!
You should have heard her Scream and Bawl,
And throw the window up and call
To People passing in the Street . . . but all in vain!
For every time She shouted “Fire!”
They only answered “Little Liar!”
And therefore when her Aunt returned,
Matilda, and the House, were Burned.

why NOT Hillary?... because, FACTS

Political Integrity:
  1. More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
    1. The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed
    2. While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors.
    3. The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
    4. [I]n its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.” That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.
  2. "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in a July 5 statement.
    1. "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time." - HRC
    2. "I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified" - HRC
    3. "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials" - HRC
    4. "There was classified material emailed." - FBI Director Comey
  3. "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related" to the State Department. Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were "several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000" that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.
  4. “She and her lawyers had those emails deleted. And they didn’t just push the delete button; they had them deleted where even God can’t read them,” Gowdy said Thursday morning during an interview on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “They were using something called BleachBit. You don’t use BleachBit for yoga emails or bridemaids emails. When you’re using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”
  5. Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee claimed Tuesday that the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton lied repeatedly to the American people about the nature of and reasons for the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, even as they privately acknowledged what caused them.
    1. “None of the Diplomatic Security agents on the ground reported anything about a protest in Benghazi. None of the Diplomatic Security agents on the ground reported anything about a video,” the report said. By contrast, just five days after the attack, then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice told “Fox News Sunday,” “What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.”
    2. Republicans released a new email at the Benghazi hearing written by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her daughter Chelsea Clinton late on the night of the attacks in Benghazi. In the email, Mrs. Clinton tells her daughter that the attacks were undertaken by an “Al Queda-like group.” (E-mail was from the day of the attack, 9/11/2012)
    3. "What difference at this point does it make?"

Personal Integrity:
  1. Whitewater
  2. Travelgate
  3. ~$48,000 worth of "gifts" that had to be returned to the White House after Bill Clinton left office. Included furniture intended for White House remodel. Also, $86,000 worth of "gifts" for which the Clintons reimbursed the White House.
  4. Former President Bill Clinton and his staff used money from a federal pension program to subsidize staffers for the Clinton Foundation, according to newly available government documents.

Professional Integrity:
  1. The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
  2. Witnesses from the Rose Law Firm say Hillary Clinton requested the destruction of Madison land contract files.
  3. “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
    1. “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Foreign Policy Failures:
  1. "We recognize that these transitions are not America's to manage, and certainly not ours to win or lose," Clinton said in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
  2. The Syrian civil war has gotten almost unimaginably worse since early 2012 (from 7,000 dead to 250,000), but we’re debating much the same thing we were debating back then: to enact safe zones and no-fly zones in the country, or not to.
  3. So, sure, Libya, Egypt and Syria didn’t work out. But maybe little Tunisia is Clinton’s State Department success story, the example of a foreign policy accomplishment that has proven so elusive, even to her supporters.
  4. She told the reporter: 'We came, we saw, he died' as she learned of the dictator's grisly end. When the TV reporter asked if her recent visit to Libya had anything to do with Gaddafi's downfall, the Secretary of State quipped: 'No,' then rolled her eyes before adding 'I'm sure it did.'
    1. Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
  5. Just as in Libya, where Mrs. Clinton championed the strategy of arming Islamist “rebels,” the Syrian “rebels” who ultimately received weapons included the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

who is getting hurt by welfare?

Government Assistance Statistics:
Year Recipients % of Eligible Pop. Est. Eligible Pop. White persons % White persons # White as % of Eligible Pop. Black persons % Black persons # Black as % of Eligible Pop.
2009 ~44 mil 18.6% ~240 mil 11.8% ~5 mil 2.2% 38.9% ~17 mil 7.2%
2010 ~48 mil 20.2% ~239 mil 12.7% ~6 mil 2.5% 40.9% ~20 mil 8.2%
2011 ~50 mil 20.9% ~239 mil 13.2% ~7 mil 2.7% 41.3% ~21 mil 8.6%
2012 ~52 mil 21.3% ~245 mil 13.2% ~7 mil 2.8% 41.6% ~22 mil 8.9%

2.67 million additional recipients per year
0.67 million additional White Recipients per year
1.67 million additional Black Recipients per year

Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government Programs, 2009–2012: Who Gets Assistance? (US

Population estimates 2010:
309 million persons
72.4% White persons
~224 million White persons
12.6% Black persons
~39 million Black persons

~239 million eligible persons
78% of population eligible for assistance
~48 million Recipients
15% of entire population are Recipients
2.7% of White persons are Recipients
50.8% of Black persons are Recipients

QuickFacts - US

Population growth is ~4% per year.

4% of 224 million White persons is 8.96 million new White persons per year.
0.67 million White persons are added to the Government Assistance rolls per year.

4% of 39 million Black persons is 1.56 million new Black persons per year.
1.67 million Black persons are added to the Government Assistance rolls per year.

More Black persons go on Government Assistance per year than are born.

Blog-Repost: Republicans and Democrats Did Not Switch Sides On Racism

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: "the parties switched sides", a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

why i say we're not doing very well

Labor Force Participation Rate
August 2016 - 62.8%
Obama took office 1/2009 - 65.7%
Peak in January 2000 - 67.3%
Last time it was the current rate - March 1978

Labor Force; the number of people, 16 and older who are able to work, with jobs
August 2016 - 159 million
January 2009 - 154 million
January 2000 - 142 million
March 1978 - 104 million

People not in Labor force: the number of people, 16 and older who are able to work, without jobs
August 2016 - 94 million
January 2009 - 80 million
January 2000 - 68 million
March 1978 - 71 million

In last 38 years,
65 million new jobs were filled.
33 million new jobless people.

In last 16 years,
17 million new jobs were filled.
26 million new jobless people.

In last seven years,
5 million new jobs were filled.
14 million new jobless people.

Labor Force Participation Rate

Civilian Labor Force Level

Monday, June 27, 2016

Flip the "switch"

A history of legislation, the Republican party, and racism:

Republican party was founded in 1854 as the anti-slavery party.
Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 as a pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and white power organization. (Coincidence?)
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. - History Channel

The Dred Scott decision was in 1857. President-elect Buchanan (a Democrat) wrote to Supreme Court Justice John Catron (a Democrat) about settling the case before his inauguration. Chief Justice Taney (also a Democrat) delivered the Court's opinion that a slave could not be a citizen of the United States.

The Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1861.

Friday, June 17, 2016

More Than One Shooter In Orlando?

Target practice is only a small part of what it takes to be a proficient tactical shooter. Low light compensation, learning to avoid the noise distraction, intercepting moving targets under stress, and intimately knowing and handling your weapon, all while experiencing a massive adrenaline dump are things that only hundreds if not thousands of hours of training can perfect.

Of course this all assumes that you have the physical attributes to be tactically proficient. Attributes you would need to be a great athlete in any other sport.

Yet there is no indication that the terrorist possessed that level of athleticism or ever even visited a shooting range. And he only purchased the guns used a short time before the shooting. He was not very familiar with them. In terms of accepted and recognized training doctrine, he was a step one beginner.

We need to also look at the weapons and ammunition he carried into the nightclub on that deadly Sunday morning.
I’m Former NYPD: Here’s Why I Suspect There Was More Than One Shooter In Orlando

John Cardillo is a former NYPD officer, and the host of The John Cardillo Show on Salem's WZAB 880 "The Biz" in Miami, FL. You can find him on Twitter @johncardillo or

the above opinion piece made me do the math to possibly refute it... i was surprised what i saw as a result... something does seem fishy about the Orlando shooting, but i'm not going to posit what it might be.

there were 49 victims killed... there were 53 separate victims hospitalized...
49+53=102 casualties

several were hit by multiple rounds... some might have been one... some are known to be hit three... 2.0 average

102*2.0=204 rounds hit targets

of the two guns used, their magazine capacities would inform us on how many reloads were required...
Sig Sauer MCX magazine = 30
Glock 17 magazine = 17

the terrorist had only recently purchased both weapons... he was not an expert... he had no specialized training...
assume 50% accuracy

we have to assume his weapon of choice was the Sig Sauer, as it was probably the more accurate of the two, plus it had a larger magazine capacity...
assume 1 reload of the Glock per 2 Sig reloads

assume "x" equals the number of reloads on the Glock 17...
204/0.5 = 2x(30) + x(17)
408 = 60x + 17x
408 = 77x
x = 408/77
x = 5.3

first magazine was already loaded, and last magazine was not emptied...

5 Glock reloads
10 Sig reloads

so... that's a lot of ammunition.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Deliver up your arms said Xerxes

Once again, I see so many posts about gun control following a tragedy. The emotional reaction is understandable, but the failure to think logically is not. We want to protect the defenseless from those who would do them harm. But the emotional reaction is to remove the tool from the would-be attacker's hand, never getting to the logical conclusion that you also remove the same tool from the hands of the defender.

In an emotional state, we want to remove "assault weapons" from violent criminals. "Assault weapons" sound very dangerous, so on an emotional level, it seems to make sense to remove them from reach of criminals. But if we do, the criminal either obtains the weapon illegally, or they simply choose another weapon. The defender has become defenseless against such a person unless they too become criminals.

But who needs an assault weapon to defend themselves?