U.S. Presidential election discussion thread. Part IX

by Judith Curry

The continuing drama of the U.S. Presidential election.

JC’s pick for best article of the week has two winners:

  • Rat Pack versus the hippie: Trump and Clinton come from opposite ends of the same decade [link]
  • Camille Paglia: PC feminists misfire again, as fearful elite can’t touch Donald Trump [link]

Donald Trump Plans to Renegotiate Paris Climate Deal, Saying Agreement Bad for the United States [link]

RealClearPolitics: Would Trump undo Obama’s environmental legacy? [link]

Trump’s college reform ideas are surprisingly good [link]

Charles Murray in the National Review:  Why ‘Hilary is worse’ doesn’t cut it [link]

A Trump presidency means a safer Israel [link]

Iran’s Mullahs Love Bernie Sanders [link]

Politico: Donald Trump’s links to organized crime [link]

Breaking news: State Department audit faults Clinton in emails [link]

Politico: The end of a partisan alignment, and the beginning of a policy one [link]

Walter Russell Mead:  The meaning of Trump [link]

Politico:  Why Bernie’s bros might go for Trump [link]

538: Pay Attention To Libertarian Gary Johnson; He’s Pulling 10 Percent vs. Trump And Clinton [link]

National Review: ‘Never Gary Johnson’: He’s not conservative, and not even all that Libertarian [link]

513 responses to “U.S. Presidential election discussion thread. Part IX

  1. Pingback: U.S. Presidential election discussion thread. Part IX – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. It’s gonna be president Trump. People are sick and tired of Hillary and all she stands for.

    • I’ may express preferences, but no predictions from me. From various blog posts these predictions appear to be an appeal to superstition- sympathetic magic. People seem to believe that making a prediction with a deep emotional input will somehow influence the future.

      • That is very true Alan, but it makes me feel a bit better because basically that’s all there is in this political world. My vote is worthless as has been shown most recently in Austria, as will be shown on June 23rd and again in November. So I shout out what I hope for and have a brief smile then plod onwards the ever loyal wage slave.

        We are all just bit players in Les Miserables of life so there isn’t much left but to to shout “yay” for our side now and again, get in a few beers with the boys on a Friday night and watch the game. It’s no big deal.

  3. The DoS IG report is pretty damning. The private server clearly violated written policy, two staffers who voiced concerns were told to shut up and one was also told it had been vetted by legal when it had not been, the Colin Powell did it too excuse fails because in Colin Powells time the explicit DoS policies did not yet exist, the belated email production was significantly incomplete…

    • Curious George

      She has serious problems, so the field is pretty even. How are bookmakers betting?

    • I don’t agree with Bernie on much, but I come pretty close on the email issue. Big yawn.

    • Problem is, I’m betting, there are other pols who have private email servers with classified info on them.

    • David Springer

      These people don’t want their emails subject to open records requests.

      That’s behind the entire thing. I speak as a former elected official in the state of Texas which has among the strictest open records laws in the country. All email dealing with gov’t business is supposed to go through a gov’t server, is archived forever, and is subject to open records requests from the press or individuals.

      The result is that any dialog you have with anyone on any subject even remotely to do with your office, if you don’t want it to be public information, you have the conversation over the telephone. Some say this makes it very difficult to get their job done because the phone is inefficient compared to email in that both parties have to schedule times when they can talk and talk freely without being overheard. They have to be too careful about every turn of phrase lest it be spun, taken out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted.

      Unfortunately for the office holder the law is law and you deal with open record laws as best you can without committing fel0nies like setting up your own server so you can withhold or delete what you don’t want made public. This is a very serious crime that Clinton committed. The security concerns are a sideshow compared to the real motivation behind it – avoiding federal open record requests.

      • Those emails can be deadly when one makes a practice of saying one thing and doing the opposite in smoke-filled rooms:

        Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal

        But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world….

        Despite Goldwyn’s recent assertion that the fracking campaign was a modest effort, the emails show what Goldwyn referred to as a “whole of government” approach that included deploying assistance from a range of agencies. At least 13 different government agencies were part of the effort….

      • It sounds like you have no problem with lying politicians skirting the FOIA laws.
        Do just enough to provide plausible deniability.
        Are you “former” because you got caught?

      • David Springer

        No. I actually tried to dissolve the local gov’t altogether since it wasn’t providing any services. I was able to fire enough people at city hall to get property taxes lowered by 25% in the budget meeting. Raising the tax rate enough to hire them back requires a rollback election. The city is running just fine with the reduced staff. A concerted campaign by big-government-loving wealthy people who didn’t care about property tax rate and wanted the micro-management resulted in me losing the next election by 20 votes. A rollback election to raise the property tax rate will never succeed. The m0r0ns left behind haven’t even realized yet they would need a rollback election. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. The small gov’t majority became a small gov’t minority with me leaving office

    • To be honest, I don’t think the email server issue is particularly damaging. Possibly the story would have better sails if the Republicans hadn’t already ground this story into dust,then ground that dust into finer dust. A classic example of over-stating the problems at the start…. they’ve essentially completely innoculated Hillary on this issue already.

      The policy issues are completely irrelevant—HIlary was SOS so all policy comes from her and she would have had complete authority to override any departmental policies as they applied to her conduct in her job, as long as her conduct is legal of course. We would not want to turn our government into one where ultimate authority is derived from unelected government officials, so this is how the system should operate.

      The real issue has to do with FOIA compliance. That is, there are legal issues that reside outside of the scope of DOS policies. The purpose of the policies is to ensure compliance, but you need not follow DOS policies in order to remain in compliance.

      In fact, it’s possible to be non-compliant with the FOIA while following DOS policies, if those policies are improperly framed. In that case, you are obligated to follow the law, not policies written and approved by unelected bureaucrats. Anyway the point here is to not focus on compliance with DOS policies that Hillary already had the authority to overrule, but to focus on federal statutes that she was obligated to comply with:

      If you read the report,/a> it seems to me the big issue is preservation of emails, and it’s one not limited to Hillary Clinton, but has been a pervasive issue within the DOS over the last decade.

      Hillary claims that emails that were sent to or from another State Department account were automatically backed up. She’s technically right on this, but the report faults her as not being in compliance regardless of this. And I think they are right.

      As best I understand this from a non-expert position, I believe the issue is that you need to preserve the records in that they can be retrieved without a heroic effort (as was required here). Had Hillary turned over all of her emails (including the ones she thought were private) for review by her department when she left, it would have been routine to archive these documents so they could be easily accessed at need.

      Why I think this issue is a yawner is partly because the Republicans have long ago sucked any adrenaline out of this issue, and because Hillary’s behavior was consistent with that of other SOSs.

      So to me the interesting point is there is a cultural issue within the DOS that needs to be addressed, and not particularly the already overplayed card of “Hillary’s emails.”

      • stevenreincarnated

        It would be a problem for most people. If it isn’t a problem for her that indicates there is a bigger problem.


      • Steven—as any of us who deal with sensitive material know, the handling of classified material a completely different issue.

        If Hillary took secure information from the secure servers and inappropriately retransmitted it on a non-secure server, that would in principle be a crime. If it were a crime, it would be a crime regardless of whether the email was sent via Hillary’s private email server, or from a DOS non-secure secure.

        So this issue has little to do with private servers, it has to do with the handling of classified and sensitive information. If the FBI determines she broke the law in mishandling classified information, she should go to jail. And the severity of the crime is virtually unaffected by whether a private server was used or whether a non-secure DOS server was use

        The issues are more complicated for the SOS, because the SOS and other senior DOS officials routinely receives information from foreign governments that we concurrently view as classified in this country. In general people in foreign governments cannot send email over secure lines (access is generally restricted to approved US government employees and private contractors).

        There’s another complication, because the SOS is the originating authority for the classification of all sensitive material within the DOS. There are federal laws that mandate what the SOS can or can’t do (way above my pay grad), but there is certainly discretion given to the SOS in judging whether a document is properly classified or not, before deciding to transmit it over non-secure channels.

        So you’d have to look at a case by case basis to see whether there were examples where the SOS did not have discretion to downgrade the secrecy level of a document before transmitting it.

        It should be obvious discretion that is afforded to the SOS is not typically afforded to Marine officers. The law is applied differently in the two cases, because different laws apply.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, I agree that potential crimes have to do with insecure vs secure and she could send all the unclassified information she wanted over insecure lines regardless of the server. I doubt that she spent years as secretary of state and managed to never send information that were classified via her only email method which was insecure, but perhaps she just didn’t have anything to do with anything important? As far as the laws being applied differently, that would be a problem. As far as declassification of classified materials, I suspect there is a formal methodology towards that end but perhaps a SoS can just wave her hands and say anything I sent I declassified first. I just doubt it.

      • Oh, gee…

        The fact that she doesn’t comply with the law, isn’t transparent, and isn’t honest isn’t a problem in a presidential candidate.

        Nothing to see here, move along.

      • Carrick,

        You obviously have a dog in this fight, but CBS Evening News undoubtedly believes it is an important issue, and its reporting rebuts some of the empirical claims you make:

        Scathing report on email practices puts Clinton on defense


      • Steve:

        I doubt that she spent years as secretary of state and managed to never send information that were classified via her only email method which was insecure, but perhaps she just didn’t have anything to do with anything important?

        It’s harder to do than you may think. You can’t have the classified material on the computer that is attached to the public internet. You’d have to do some thing like put a thumb drive in your computer in the secure area, copy the classified data, walk out of the secure area with the classified data, copy the data to your computer attached to the public internet.. then you can send it.

        Each of those steps are illegal, so you’d be guilty on at least four counts.

        If Hillary did that (there is no indication she did that I’ve seen), she deserves jail time. I think it’s very unlikely anything like this happened.

        The sort of things that did happen: 1) she received emails that contained information that was classified in the US from foreign sources. 2) She received emails contains press reports that contain classified information. 3) She forwarded emails that contained classified information that arrived via unsecure channels.

      • PA:

        The fact that she doesn’t comply with the law, isn’t transparent, and isn’t honest isn’t a problem in a presidential candidate.

        It’s not clear to me she violated any laws. If she did, she should pay for her crimes.

        As to honestly and transparency…if you think politicians are honest and transparent, then you haven’t been paying attention.

      • Glenn Stehle:

        You obviously have a dog in this fight, but CBS Evening News undoubtedly believes it is an important issue, and its reporting rebuts some of the empirical claims you make:

        I really don’t. I don’t plan on voting for Hillary or Donald. [It’s a toss up which one of those two has worse judgement.]

        The only one I really don’t want to see in there is Bernie, who would be the biggest catastrophe since Jimmie Carter.

        My interests are in preserving our freedom, so I don’t want to see any more power being ceded to bureaucrats than necessary. They want more, which is what this fight really is about. (Hillary’s email server is just a context for a power grab, IMO.)

        As to your link, CBS News favors Sanders and is doing its best to hurt Clinton. So there no news there (literally).

        In the end, whether it hurts Hillary is an empirical question. If it doesn’t damage her in the polls in the long run, then it didn’t hurt her, otherwise it did. No reason for us to debate what the future holds, since we can just sit and watch.

        Anyway, my opinion is the one doing the real damage is Sanders with his fire bombing of the Democrats. That’ll teach them to let a closet communist [/tongueincheek] into their building. They are getting what they deserve.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Carrick, the officer in my link didn’t send any documents at all that I am aware of so you don’t have to act like a spy to break the law. I agree that picturing her as performing the same sort of activities as Snowden seems incredibly unlikely.

      • Steven:

        Carrick, the officer in my link didn’t send any documents at all that I am aware of so you don’t have to act like a spy to break the law.

        In your example, the Marine officer was facing military discipline. He’s not being charged with a crime. Obviously that’s not apropos to civilians.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Mishandling classified information is a crime both in the military and in the civilian world.That is what the marine was charged with:


      • stevenreincarnated

        I was wrong about the document, though. It appears he had attached one.

    • To me the very most damning part of the report was: Clinton has said over and over that she’s very open about discussion the email issue, that she will “talk to anyone” about it. The report says that she, and her aides, all refused to cooperate with the investigation. How in the world can she possibly explain that? Who would she talk to if not the Inspector General for the State Department?

  4. The right is starting to rise for the obvious reasons (mass immigration, globalization, kulturbolschewismus ).

    The left is starting to show its totalitarian roots with the NeverTrump crowd and the Bill Kristol (meth) vow to field a third party candidate to destroy Trump. (NeoCons are leftist Trotskyites).

    Europe is seeing the same thing. Leftist EU head Junker said he would enact special clauses to freeze out the right wing candidate in Austria, had he won (he narrowly lost, possibly by fraud).

    I have to wonder if the current leftist establishment will actually let Trump in, even if he wins (which he probably will).

    The anti-right holocaust narrative has been a 70 year machine to convince people that anyone right of center is Hitler. The Frankfurt school has programmed minds in America and abroad that everyone right of center is an ‘authoritarian personality’. The only people not authoritarian are those who reject their parents, Christianity and western society.

    Here’s how it would play out:
    George Soros ups funding for black lives matter to increase civil discord. Obama moves inner city folk into the suburbs (he has vowed to do so) on section 8 housing. The suburbs revolt (because they don’t want to become like Dallas, where this already happened and created horrific crime). The country totters on Civil War and unrest. Obama declares martial law and states Trump cannot be allowed to be president because we can Never Again have a facist.
    Then we have the facist Obama running the country.

    I give this scenario a %20 percent chance.

    • I forgot to mention, Kristol (meth) actually wants a third party candidate so neither Hillary nor Trump gets 270 delegates.
      Then the house of representatives (NeoCons) get to choose their third party candidate.

      This is the level of anti-Democratic sentiment in the left today (don’t forget, the NeoCons are the old anti-Stalin pro-Trotsky center left).

    • David Springer

      “I give this scenario a %20 percent chance.”

      Based upon that there’s a 100% chance that you’re an imbecile.

    • “Sigh”, the post started out mostly accurate, then veered off into the bushes.

      I’m not sure where this “Obama is going to stage a coup” stuff comes from, paranoia on the right or wishfully thinking on the left.

      While Obama has been trying to replace decent and honest military commanders with left-thinking people, he hasn’t replaced enough.

      His “strongly disapprove” number hangs around 40% while his “strong approve number averages 25%.and has a hard core of 20%.

      If he tried a coup the majority of the country would be against him.

      Further – Bill in his stump speeches points out Obama’s failings which proves that anybody, even a Clinton, can be of service to the nation.

      Obama has proven that we could have done a lot worse than Bill.

      Yeah, the right is arising from years of abuse. Yeah, there are a lot of left wing closet totalitarians. But we aren’t a third world country yet so no coup.

      • ‘I’m not sure where this “Obama is going to stage a coup” stuff comes from, paranoia on the right or wishfully thinking on the left’

        I agree (my 4/5), I think this is further down the road. A Hillary presidency might get us there. I do sense trouble, anywhere from 6 months to 20 years from now.

      • In order to get anywhere near conditions which would allow for the possibility of a coup or martial law, this nation would have to see a dramatic rise in domestic terrorism. Even then, the odds are low. Too many citizens who are armed and know how to shoot.

      • Well, we have seen a rising in domestic terrorism. Obama has done more damage to the infrastructure than 9/11. But he only has about 7 more months in office.

  5. The Clintons are now learning that turnabout is fair play, and what it’s like to take a knife to a gunfight.

    Why Trump is dredging up 1990s attacks against the Clintons

    “She attacked Mr. Trump as being a sexist, misogynist, and he is not any of those things,” Cohen said….

    He is showing he is ready to fight fire with a flamethrower. It is significant for instance that his first veiled reference to 1990s sexual allegations against Bill Clinton came after he concluded that the Clinton campaign was playing the “women card” was against him.

    “They said things about me that were very nasty,” Trump told The Washington Post. “And, you know, as long as they do that, you know, I will play at whatever level I have to play at. I think I’ve proven that.”

    • Is there anybody who actually believes this tripe?

      Trump is dredging up dirt because he thinks he can use it against her. Simple and probably effective and consistent with his personality.

      Trump is a verbal bully. One thing that bully’s do is justify why they are a bully by pointing to the behavior of the other person. Always the victim, the Donald is.

      • David Springer

        “One thing that bully’s do is justify why they are a bully by pointing to the behavior of the other person.”

        Do you have some pop psychology reference for that claim or did you simply make it up out of thin air?

      • Is there anybody who actually believes this tripe?

        Only liberals and progressives disbelieve true “tripe” when it conflicts with their viewpoints. And even lie about it.

        Trump was conducting a issues oriented campaign when he was viciously attacked by Hillary and her goons.

        Trump did what any sensible person does, when someone who is your moral inferior by any objective standard, viciously attacks you personally,. He counter attacked.

  6. Politico seems to be giving libertarians too much credit:
    “This difference in worldviews maps neatly into differences in policy. Nationalists support immigration and trade deals only if they improve the living standards of citizens of the nation. For the new, globally minded progressives, the mere well-being of American workers is not a good enough reason to oppose immigration or trade liberalization. It’s an argument that today’s progressive globalists have borrowed from libertarians: immigration or trade that depresses the wages of Americans is still justified if it makes immigrants or foreign workers better off.”
    Or stated otherwise. Am I to harm a person by saying he cannot pack turkeys in Worthington?
    “Among younger Americans, who tend to prefer Democrats to Republicans, support for free trade is high: 67 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds say trade agreements are good for the country.”
    Perhaps education has not failed us. While the establishment is good at keeping libertarians out of office, they are not so good at keeping their ideas out.
    “As populist labor liberalism declines within the Democratic party, employer-friendly and finance-friendly libertarianism will grow. The Democrats of 2030 may be more pro-market than the Republicans.”
    Whenever it’s convenient or advantageous, we are libertarians. That might be the best I can get. We’ve been a minor party for decades. Nice we are able to attend this party.

      • Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s
        Governors: 2002

        “The four governors proposing or enacting the largest income tax rate cuts during their tenures are Gary Johnson (New Mexico), Frank Keating
        (Oklahoma), Ben Cayetano (Hawaii), and Judy Martz (Montana).”

        “Gary Johnson held off a big-spending legislature with three budget vetoes in 2002.”

        “Gary Johnson has gained a national reputation as a maverick governor. He is probably best known for endorsing drug legalization, because
        he says the war on drugs has done more harm than good. Johnson sports a libertarian attitude toward government. He favors school vouchers, term limits, privately run prisons, lean budgets, and deep tax cuts. He is a genuine citizen-lawmaker, having never held public office before winning the statehouse in 1994. Governingmagazine said that “no governor has been more open in his contempt for the opposition party or the legislative leaders than Johnson.”

        In his first term, he vetoed 200 bills—many of them spending bills, which he labeled as profligate. The state Democrats made defeating Johnson their top priority in 1998, but he won anyway. The feuding continued and his veto total is now up to 750. Only a handful have been overridden—unfortunately one of those overrides was of the 2003 budget.”

        Why did Johnson oversee a rise in spending?

        “The Speaker of the House in New Mexico, Ben Lujan, recently noted after an override of a Johnson veto: “There is no executive fiat in this state. The governor must have the consent of the legislature for fiscal action.”


      • David Springer

        The bottom line remains that while Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico state spending nearly doubled from 1995 – 2003, a spending increase of 7.9% per year. His successor Democrat Bill Richardson did little better. Richardson’s successor Sussana Martinez who took office in 2011 did a great job. The state is spending less now than it did 5 years ago so she’s managed spending growth at less than 0%.

        Maybe Johnson had good intentions with all those vetoes but his ability to get things done is completely lacking. He can whine but he cannot lead.

      • David Springer

        Privately run prisons is one of the worst ideas ever. The US corrections system from soup to nuts needs to be hugely downsized. Privatizing means you add a profit incentive and lobbyists wanting to grow it even larger. Only the government can gut the huge prison industry and keep it that way. But the gov’t hasn’t any incentive to do it either because it’s a huge bureaucracy with many, many entrenched gov’t employees from bailiffs and judges and court reporters to attorneys and probation officers to prison guards, janitors, laundry services and everything else you imagine that gets a piece of the taxpayer money funding it all.

      • “The bottom line remains that while Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico state spending nearly doubled from 1995 – 2003, a spending increase of 7.9% per year.”

        You’re just parroting what Spiller claims in the National Review and you have very clearly not bothered to check those facts. Hell, the National Review also published this article:

        “Spiller starts by attacking Johnson’s fiscal record, claiming that he is a “big spender” compared with successors Richardson (a Democrat) and Martinez (a Republican). One problem is that Spiller “credits” Johnson with spending money he had little control over. His spending numbers include federal dollars that flow into the state for everything from Medicaid to education. Including just the General Fund that the legislature and governor must agree to each year, Johnson’s first budget was $2.7 billion and his final budget, eight years later, was $3.9 billion (an increase of about 41 percent).

        Thus, under Johnson, New Mexico’s General Fund spending grew by 4.67 percent annually, not the outrageous 7.29 percent rate cited by Spiller.”

        Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435804/gary-johnson-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016

        Who is right and who is wrong? Couldn’t be bothered to read the Cato analysis? To busy being all bottom line?

        Look, increasing a budget by even 4.67 percent annually is not what I would expect of a Libertarian candidate, but if you have to lie about a person’s budget record what makes you so sure your cause is so just?

      • “Only the government can gut the huge prison industry and keep it that way. ”

        The surest way to do that would be to being by repealing the legislative bills prohibiting drugs and by the people embracing their inherent political power, understanding that they are expected to know the law, and when they finally come to know the law, recognize that we have moved to far away from jurisprudence that facilitates remedy entrenching ourselves in a punishment mode.

        There will always be murderers and thieves and other criminals, but our prison system is a bloated as it is because every single state and the federal government has made it their mission to find activities that they can prohibit and penalize.

      • How is term limits supposed to be libertarian? Government imposing limits on who people can vote for.

      • David Springer

        You can believe whatever you want but this pretty much tells the story of Gary Johnson and limited government. A simple graph of size of gov’t workforce in New Mexico from 1990 onward. Note that the number of employees grew every single year while Johnson was governor and then the hiring slowed but still increased when Richardson came along. When Martinez took over it started dropping like a stone.


      • David Springer

        I agree with Libertarian plank on recreational drug prohibition and other victimless crimes in general committed by consenting adults.

        Rather than punishing users of illegal drugs, which clearly hasn’t worked very well and costs untold billions in corrections, we should instead legalize and tax the crap out of them like we do with alcohol and tobacco. Only instead of using that tax money for other purposes give it back out as a reward for non-users. That’s a sane, common-sense stick and carrot approach. The way it is set up now all taxpayers get punished by footing the bill for the corrections industry.

      • “Only instead of using that tax money for other purposes give it back out as a reward for non-users. That’s a sane, common-sense stick and carrot approach. ”

        There is nothing sane, nor libertarian about taxing addicts to create a trust fund for non-addicts. Using government force to take from some to give away to others is libertarian principle as I understand them. There are just reasons for having a government, extortion isn’t one of them.

      • “Using government force to take from some to give away to others is libertarian principle as I understand them.’

        Should be “isn’t” or “is not” not “is”.

      • David Springer

        Huh? We tax all kinds of undesirable behaviors and subsidize the desirable. Short and long term capital gains tax is a good example to encourage investment instead of speculation. Mortgage interest deduction is another to encourage home ownership. Tobacco is taxed high to stop the health carnage it creates over time.. Electricity in many locations is sold at progressively higher rates as individual consumption rises to encourage conservation.

        The problem with people like you is you don’t think for yourself. You instead pick a tribe and let the tell you what to think.

      • “Huh? We tax all kinds of undesirable behaviors and subsidize the desirable.”

        That doesn’t make it libertarian and just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it sane either. A capital gains tax is an income tax. Income tax in perpetuity is not sane, and certainly no libertarian. In 1913 the national debt was just under $3 billion. The newly enacted income tax was sold in part as a way to pay off the national debt. More than a hundred years later here we are in Sanity Land with a nearly $20 trillion debt, because that’s how sanity rolls bro’.

        Tobacco is not taxed stop any kind of carnage, it is a revenue raising bill and only willful naivete can turn that into a bill to stop carnage. The power to tax, as Chief Justice Marshall once said, is the power to destroy, and if the government wanted to stop the carnage caused by tobacco they could tax it into oblivion. That ain’t happening.

        “The problem with people like you is you don’t think for yourself. You instead pick a tribe and let the tell you what to think.”

        You might want to take that wooden log out of your eye before you go around deciding what other people’s problems are. Besides, when you offer unsolicited diagnosis you always run the risk of discovering the exact value the diagnosed place on your diagnosis. Heal thyself bro’.



  7. I just heard Trump admit last night — as he held his hands up to his ears in a most un-presidential manner — that he can barely stomach hearing crim-Hill’s scratchy, screaming voice. Clinton seems to have that effect on many folks and I assume all, non-progressives so it seems political affiliation has a lot to do with being sensitive.

  8. It is often said that Trump is “tapping into an anger” that has always been there. I don’t think it is mainly that. He is fueling anger that wasn’t there with words that are incendiary and even completely wrong, but he says them in such a way that some people just believe what he says must be true for him to be so angry about it. His idea is to make America afraid of the world in as many ways as he can think of, so that the people cling to him as the only one that recognizes their newfound fears, and it is working with some. His motto should be Make America Afraid Again. So it is not tapping into anger, but actually creating it around his own somewhat paranoid worldview.

    • David Springer

      Make America Afraid

      You mean the way the libtards do it with catastrophic global warming?

      • Does AGW give you paranoia about the world?

      • David Springer

        Answer the question.

      • Do the math, 1 C for a half doubling (observed) is 2 C per doubling is 4 C at 700 ppm.

      • David Springer

        Answer the question, Jim D.

        Is global warming presented to the public as something to fear?

        How is that different than presenting globalization to the US public as something to fear?

        This is about motivation Jim, not an argument over facts. If it was over fact you’d lose because it’s easy to measure median household income in the US. This is what has people rejecting business as usual from both sides of the aisle because when it comes to globalization they’re both equally guilty they just favor different industries.


      • DS, OK, if science says global warming comes with costs, whether you fear what science says or just distrust the scientists is up to you. It is a plain choice between science and not.

      • It is a plain choice between science and not.

        You sound like a Biblical literalist “it’s a plain choice between believing the Bible or not”. The Bible is just a string of Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic letters (not even word separators in the oldest versions). All the rest is interpretation.

        Same goes for your “science”, even if it was real science. It’s your interpretation of your so-called “science” you want people to believe. Another interpretation, another estimate of risk.

      • David Springer

        It would appear that I’m the one providing all the refereed science and you’re just making things up, Jim. I’m still waiting for you to provide me with a reference where the Met Office said global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 passed the 1C mark. You made it up.

        But you STILL haven’t answered the question about whether we’re supposed to fear anthropogenic global warming. Whether it’s a valid alarm or not is beside the point. It’s a warning of adverse consequences regardless of whether it’s true or not. It doesn’t seem to me to be unlike Trump warning that globalization is killing US manufacturing and harming the economy. That’s an alarm regardless of whether it’s true or false. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too by condemning some alarmism while giving other alarmism a nod of approval.

      • Evan Jones

        Do the math, 1 C for a half doubling (observed) is 2 C per doubling is 4 C at 700 ppm.

        The effect of CO2 is not linear. It is a geometric diminishing return. The more CO2 that is added, the less effect of each individual molecule.

        Therefore, doing the math, 1C for a half doubling (observed) is not 2C per doubling. It is less than 2C per doubling, even stipulating that all warming is 100% due to CO2 and associated feedbacks.

        And how does that leave us at +4C at 700 ppm? It appears that you think that X amount of CO2 emitted in 1950 (or 1900) has the same warming effect as X amount emitted tin 2015. But surely that is incorrect.

      • Evan Jones | May 27, 2016 at 6:56 pm |
        Do the math, 1 C for a half doubling (observed) is 2 C per doubling is 4 C at 700 ppm.

        The effect of CO2 is not linear. It is a geometric diminishing return. The more CO2 that is added, the less effect of each individual molecule.

        Aaaahhhh….. I can’t let you two keep doing this.

        Let’s assume the original concentration was 280. 400 is not half a doubling. It is 1.43 or a 43% increase.

        But for the sake of argument lets say 1 = x * ln (1.43) and the coefficient x is = 1/ln(1.43).

        The change to 560 PPM is 1.94°C, and 1120 PPM is 3.89°C.

        700 PPM is 2.57°C.

      • Evan Jones

        @ PA | May 27, 2016 at 7:20 pm |

        Perhaps a little to the right, I think, but definitely a field goal.

    • Jim D:
      I too think we could take what you say about Trump and apply it to the alarmists. So if he sees it work in one case, it’s not surprising for him to copy what works. Immigration, the control knob of my economic well being. We are going to build a wall. We are going to decarbonize, and we are going to make big oil pay for it.

      • The difference is that what Trump does is not fact-based. It is just fearmongering. What Trump does is more like when the “skeptics” fearmonger about mitigation policies collapsing the economy or leading to world government.

      • The difference is that what Trump does is not fact-based.

        Neither is climate alarmism.

      • Jim D:
        Instead of facts how about theories? The theory is everything else cancels itself out. The fact is CO2 causes warming. But it is put together with a theory that hasn’t been proved, that everything else is noise with nothing more than a stable average. The pause caused efforts to give structure to the noise with theories that perhaps a few times resulted in new facts. But the facts about the structure and operation of the climate I think remains full of theories. Do you think rolling out windmills and ethanol was fact based? There were economic theories that said it wouldn’t work. Trump has this strange theory about immigration, but don’t we all? Some will say the facts don’t support him. Some will say they do.

      • Ragnaar, business as usual gets us to 700 ppm CO2 and about 4 C by 2100 with still rising levels, using TCR estimates based on observations. If you want to defend BAU, that situation is where you need to start.

      • Do you think rolling out windmills and ethanol was fact based?

        Ethanol might have worked if it had been required to be 100% fossil free. No fossil-fuel-powered farm equipment.

        The percentages would have had to have been much smaller, but it would have stimulated a market for something besides diverting food to fuel.

        Or it might work today: we could imagine farms where all the farm equipment uses hydrogen fuel cells from solar power. The ethanol would be much more expensive, but the requirement could be, say, 1% rather than 10%.

      • Jim D:
        What does unusual business look like? We could plant some trees. Try to in low tech ways to have agriculture restore some carbon to the soil. Look at new nuclear. Build some pumped hydro storage once in awhile.

      • David Springer

        Jim D | May 25, 2016 at 7:52 pm |
        Ragnaar, business as usual gets us to 700 ppm CO2 and about 4 C by 2100 with still rising levels, using TCR estimates based on observations. If you want to defend BAU, that situation is where you need to start.
        Wrong. TCR based on observation is 1.5C per doubling. 700ppm is barely one doubling from pre-industrial. Try again dopey.

      • David Springer

        Immigration Globalization, the control knob of my economic well being.”

        Fixed it for ya. +many

      • So in other words Trump is an alarmist?

      • James –

        =>> ” So in other words Trump is an alarmist?”

        Check out his response to Ebola. He panicked. Thought the sky was falling.

        Whats funny is to watch his toadies fall for the con job that he’s some working class hero tough guy.

      • David Springer

        Yes James. Trump is an alarmist. But the alarm is about things easily measured with immediate negative impacts. The median wage in the US has fallen 8% since Obama took office. Manufacturing really has been displaced overseas creating a dearth of entry-level jobs. Illegal immigrants really are crossing our southern border in vast numbers creating criminal and social burdens. It’s not a theoretical problem 50 or 100 years in the future it’s causing harm right now.

      • Ragnaar, BAU is population growing to 9 or 10 billion and per capita emissions growing as they have. That makes 700 ppm.

      • ==> “But the alarm is about things easily measured with immediate negative impacts. ”


        Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump
        I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future.
        9:30 AM – 3 Sep 2014


        Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump
        I’m not against vaccinations for your children, I’m against them in 1 massive dose.Spread them out over a period of time & autism will drop!


        Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump
        The U.S. must immediately stop all flights from EBOLA infected countries or the plague will start and spread inside our “borders.” Act fast!


        Donald J. Trump ✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump
        Ebola is much easier to transmit than the CDC and government representatives are admitting. Spreading all over Africa-and fast. Stop flights

      • David Springer

        I think you’re wrong, Jim. What Trump is saying is fact based and civilization collapsing from global warming is the fear mongering.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “Ragnaar, business as usual gets us to 700 ppm CO2 and about 4 C by 2100”

        No it does nothing of the kind.

        See the post above by PA at 7:20 pm where he explains thus:

        Let’s assume the original concentration was 280. 400 is not half a doubling. It is 1.43 or a 43% increase.

        But for the sake of argument lets say 1 = x * ln (1.43) and the coefficient x is = 1/ln(1.43).

        The change to 560 PPM is 1.94°C, and 1120 PPM is 3.89°C.

        700 PPM is 2.57°C.

        Why do you persist in telling the same porkies time and time again, even when you have been proven to be purely making stuff up?

        It’s a mystery!

      • Yes, TCR is 2 C per doubling as PA finally showed, given 1 C at 400 ppm, in a roundabout way. ECS is larger than TCR, and the experts say 3 C per doubling. Now that you have figured out the mathematics, work out what 700 ppm gives you for equilibrium at 3 C per doubling. (Clue: I gave you the answer before).

    • I thought that paranoia was the whole point of your CAGW marketing?

    • Jim D
      take a trip to Baltimore
      where the police are hesitant
      hang out by Inner Harbor at night and wait for SLR
      nothing whatever to be afraid of
      perhaps you’ll meet some nice justice involved youth

    • Oh it’s ‘a double ethical bind’ alright, the balance
      betwixt following the scientific method and making
      the world a better place, that is, ‘reducing the risk
      of potential disastrous climate change.’

      After all, didn’t Gordon Brown say, back in 2009, that
      we have less than fifty days to save the planet?

      • Well, it took longer than fifty days, but the planet is at last safe from Gordon Brown.

        Now we have to save it from that slithery yuppie Cameron.

      • moso, if I was a paranoid anrtho-warmoid, it
        ‘d be enuff ter make me hypo-apostroph-ate.
        That Cameron fear campaign regardin’ Mother
        Europa, only the hive will protect us – save us!

    • Jim D reporting from his world, which has little resemblance to the real one.

      Seriously Jim, if what you say is true, Trump would have flamed out as a candidate months ago.

      • That’s what you would think. He has a lot of believers, however. Remember his birtherism, for example.

      • David Springer

        Don’t tell my you believed that poorly photo-shopped birth certificate? Hawaii never did produce an original. It would seem such a simple thing to do. All the president had to do was give permission. But noooooooooooo…

      • So his American mother went to Kenya to give birth just so that they could post his birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper, and the idea behind this was…? Why didn’t she just stay in Hawaii to give birth? Seems it would have been much easier. What’s the thinking of the birthers on this question, because it defies any logic.

      • Jim D, as usual you side step the topic and shift to a different one. You made the claim that Trump’s rhetoric is creating the anger, rather than tapping into it. So stick to your claim. Unless you are willing to admit you were talking out of your butt. Not that we don’t already know that.

      • Yes, Trump gives credence to conspiracy theories by shouting them at his crowds on TV. This doesn’t make them any less wrong, but some become more convinced just because he says them out loud. He is simply expanding wrongheaded ideas to more people that are gullible to his words.

      • Jim it is your type of mind set which is part if the problem. That people who don’t think as you do must be gullible or not as smart as you.

    • You are wrong. Many people are angry. And neither party has represented them.

      Trump has taken the popular stand on a number of issues. This bears no resemblance to what the mainstream elite think or what the political class thinks.

      The elite have been running roughshod over America. Trump is tapping in to that.

      • Trump is one of those elite who runs roughshod, bulldozing homes for his parking lots, faking a university to profit from the unsuspecting, paying almost no income tax and proud of it. If less of his type of elites dodged their taxes, the country would be better off.

      • ==> ” Trump has taken the popular stand on a number of issues. ”

        Indeed. Like the stand against autism caused by vaccines. Thank god for the anti-elite working class billionaire born with the silver spoon in his mouth.

      • The autism thing is like climate change.

        Bad science misinforms people.

        There is about as much evidence for the autism-vaccine link as there is for CAGW.

        Much like CAGW in the 1990s, with the older vaccines there appeared to be a causal relationship.

        Current understanding casts doubt on both theories. But Trump is smart and his opinions can be informed, unlike global warmers.

      • David Springer

        Jim D, honest people play by the rules of the game. Smart honest people use the rules to best advantage without breaking them. It doesn’t mean they approve of the rules. Non sequitur. Trump has no need of more money. He needs to win. He’s a narcissist and he wants to win for the millions and millions of people who are cheering for him. That is what drives him. It took me a while to understand what motivates him. Winning is what motivates him. As long as what he wants to win is aligned with my interests and I think he can do it then it’s an easy choice. I couldn’t possibly care less about his personality so long as the job gets done and by God it sure looks like he’s getting the job done so far. Few people in the political prediction business thought he could possibly win the Republican nomination yet he vanquished 16 others and emerged the winner. The same talking heads thought he could never beat Hillary in a general election yet in a few short weeks he’s pulled even with her in head-to-head polling and he’s still rising while Hillary is sinking.

        At some point one should admit they were mistaken and learn from it. When will you learn?

      • Winning at other peoples’ expense is not a quality we would look for in a President. He shows no morality when his victims include those who were duped into Trump University. He didn’t care about them, just their money. As a President he multiplies his ways of getting money from the less fortunate for his own purposes. Why would he not take advantage of them to support his pet projects, like mass deportation and the wall. He complains about big business moving jobs and headquarters overseas to avoid taxes and reduce their costs, and these are just business decisions like his own that are no more just. It is hypocrisy for him to show visible anger about such business elites when his own behavior is indistinguishable from them, reducing taxes paid and hiring cheap foreign labor at every opportunity. Business elites would look to Trump to maintain the status quo that still serves him so well, and not to change it in some way that restricts his way of doing things and increases his taxes when he leaves office.

      • David Springer

        Jim D, Trump made $10 million from Trump University over the course of 6 years. He was paid $230 million for his time on Apprentice. How much time and attention do you imagine he spent managing the day-to-day operations of a piddling concern like Trump University? He had two partners in the business. Is any of it their fault? And fault for what? There are three pending lawsuits none of which have found Trump guilty of one damn thing. You support constitutional due process and presumed innocence, right?

        Find something where he was found guilty if you can. Billionaires get sued all the time for the mere fact that they have deep pockets.

      • He shows no morality

        Compared to Hillary, Trump is a frickin’ saint.

    • “It is often said that Trump is “tapping into an anger” that has always been there. I don’t think it is mainly that.”

      I think you’re wrong. I think the biggest thing is that Trump says things like “Let’s talk about Muslim immigration” and he gets shouted down and told he’s being un-PC, racists, whatever, and the man-in-the-street thinks “Why can’t we even TALK about this? What is being hidden? Is Trump right to be angry that we can’t even talk about it?” I think the answer is that people do want to talk about it and should talk about it – after all, if it’s no big deal, that will come out and people who were afraid of it will see there’s nothing to fear. Refusing to consider even talking about it seems … almost like the people saying you can’t are getting some advantage from doing so, and since I don’t know what that is, I want to find out. I want to hear both sides and make up my own mind. That’s democracy, isn’t it?

      • I think you’re wrong. I think the biggest thing is that Trump says things like “Let’s talk about Muslim immigration” and he gets shouted down and told he’s being un-PC, racists, whatever, and the man-in-the-street thinks “Why can’t we even TALK about this? What is being hidden?

        The left-right dynamic is sort of interesting.

        The right views the left opinions as simply wrong and goes “what of bunch of idiots”.

        The left views their position as the only position and someone who disagrees with them is a bad person, they’re “e-e-e-e-e-e-e-v-i-l” and they should be punished for their transgression. Those on the right are homophobes, racists, polluters, and a threat to civilization and the planet.
        And if that isn’t illegal it ought to be.,To someone on the left, the viewpoint of the right isn’t a viewpoint a decent normal person should have and they should be stopped from expressing it.

        Being a liberal or progressive is more like being in a cult than having a political position.

      • His ideas should be brought out into the open. Yes, let’s talk about it. It is only good for everyone to know what he means about stopping all Muslims entering the country, and his proposal for a registration for those already here. Do they have to go to their police stations to register or can they do it by mail? How does he track them all down? How will he test whether someone who claims to be non-Muslim, but has a Muslim name really is Muslim, or can they just fool the system this way? Maybe he can also talk about whether he has any special surveillance planned for them, or would prefer to just deport them along with the Mexicans to make things easier. I am sure he has thought these things through and has answers to all these questions, so we need to hear them.

      • “His ideas should be brought out into the open. Yes, let’s talk about it. It is only good for everyone to know what he means…”

        Indeed. And his opponents do not have the right to tell him that what he wants to talk about is a forbidden topic and wont be discussed. Neither does the media. Both are free to ridicule whatever and whomever they like, just as Trump is.

        I am not a US citizen or resident, but one thing I know about Americans is that they don’t like being told what to think just a bit more than they don’t like being told what to say. The “mainstream” response to Trump only makes more want to support him – not because they agree with him, but because the want to keep their ability to discuss ANYTHING in the political environment. As they rightly should, IMO.

      • Just because people say it is wrongheaded, that shouldn’t stop Trump talking about it. It never did with any other issues. If he wants this as a plank of the Republican Party platform at the convention, he needs to get the Republicans on board with it first.

      • David Springer



  9. “New ideas are always criticized – not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it. Some people may even lose their jobs.” ~ Anon

    • I still think that with a nutty guy like Mr. Donald Trump, there is a good chance that school children will one day hear the story of a tycoon who planted an apple orchard with lots of parking.

  10. Dr. Lindzen spells out why the people are voting for Trump and who isn’t (because they’re riding the gravy train):

    The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong motivations for believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are the
    • Leftist economists for whom global warming represents a supreme example of market failure (as well as a wonderful opportunity to suggest correctives),
    • UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance,
    • Third world dictators who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid (ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries),
    • Environmental activists who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their numerous NGOs,
    • Crony capitalists who see the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy,
    • Government regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true,
    • Newly minted billionaires who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions,
    • Politicians who can fasten on to CAGW as a signature issue where they can act as demagogues without fear of contradiction from reality or complaint from the purported beneficiaries of their actions. (The wildly successful London run of “Yes, Prime Minister” dealt with this.)

    etc., etc.

    All of the above special interests, quite naturally, join the chorus of advocates.

    Strange as it may seem, even the fossil fuel industry is generally willing to go along. After all, they realize better than most, that there is no current replacement for fossil fuels. The closest possibilities, nuclear and hydro, are despised by the environmentalists. As long as fossil fuel companies have a level playing field, and can pass expenses to the consumers, they are satisfied. Given the nature of corporate overhead, the latter can even form a profit center.

    • Absolutely. Oil and gas companies will prevail because, as even the IEA admits, 75% of energy use in 2030 will be fossil fuel based.

      This situation is not new. Even back in 1991 with the Gulf Wars supposedly fought for Cheney’s oil interests, I thought the O & G companies didn’t care as a whole. The midEast would sell the West their oil anyway, as they wanted American money. If they charged a lot, the price for domestic oil would rise. If the oil came to America, it would be transported and processed by American companies – with a premium handling fee. Business-wise, it wouldn’t really matter to Exxon et al.

      So why the fuss? Power. Mideast oil, climate change policies, both are driven by the desire for political power. Domestic or international, I’m not clear on the.split, but it IS about the power to create a world in the image of a select group of men and women at the top of our global social hierarchy.

  11. Hard to cheer for anyone these days, but nationalists get my grudging vote for the moment.

    The movement back toward empire is getting pretty clear. Flags and borders are for giggling at, now even Australia enters Eurovision (but we’re keeping it non-Caucasian!). Merkel likes German flags the way Bergoglio likes Catholicism.

    And the new empires are already shoddy, multi-culti messes, just like those piles of junk that fell apart a century ago, which at least had the excuse that they were old.

    Haphazard balkanising and too-polite centralising are already giving way to frank compulsion. Germany sort-of wants an EU force-of-sorts (and we were wondering how they were going to re-arm!) and the stacking of the EU top echelons with Germans is a sign of impatience with all the past dithering. Yes, those Germans are twitching again!

    Russia’s nibbling away at tracts of Eastern Europe which are hard to like or defend. Nice bear…down, boy!

    If Syria can’t be dismantled it would only take a move down the Caspian for Russia to hold the energy tap. Then the neo-Ottomans will only have the migrant tap.

    Someone shrewder than I will have a better idea who will align with whom. Someone closer to the centre will know if all the bombing and destabilisation was deliberate for oil and the petrodollar or just good for the hardware industry or just dumb violence by dumb brutes like Hillary.

    I’m for borders and flags because, like democracy, they are the worst alternatives except for all the rest.

  12. Not related to the election, yet, but still an important story. And not because of the idiotic blaming of CAGW, but for the human cost.


    • Don’t see how a record temp in India can imply much about the state of the climate. The world’s and northern hemisphere’s highest official temp was in 1913 (Death Valley), and the southern hemisphere’s highest official temp was in 1960 (South Australia). Even the daffy Guardian, in reporting on the present emergency, recognises that Africa’s highest reading was in 1931, South America’s in 1905, and Europe’s in 1977.

      This years reading in India of 51 C is just .4 of a degree higher than the previous record from 1956. So should we have concluded before this month that AGW was not real because India had its hottest day sixty years ago?

      The shortage of adults is getting acute.

      • David Springer

        The usual suspects tried blaming the recent drought in Texas on global warming. Now in what they are saying is the warmist year ever we’re getting so much rain I’m forgetting what hot dry weather is like. We got more rain in the past three months than we had in the past three years.

        Obvious to anyone is that global warming is a theory that explains everything. Whatever happens it is somehow explained by it.

        “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” ~Karl Popper

      • David, I’d say the climate mullahs have forgotten-on-purpose the whopper:
        A lot to forget! That Great Global Memory Hole must be getting pretty crammed. The rule seems to be that any history they can’t retrofit gets the flush, regardless of size.

        The New Man at Year Zero only needs to know things are worse. He is not to ask “worse than what?”. He is being trained not to ask. Just like New Man is being trained to use the same bathrooms as New Woman.

      • Hey David, thought yer didn’t like Karl Popper? )
        … ‘Open Society and its Enemies.’ Hits the nail on
        the head regardin’ philosopher kings and top heavy

      • ‘One of the most important books of the twentieth century,
        Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies is an
        uncompromising defense of liberal democracy and a
        powerful attack on the intellectual origins of totalitarianism.
        Popper was born in 1902 to a Viennese family of Jewish
        origin. He taught in Austria until 1937, when he emigrated
        to New Zealand in anticipation of the Nazi annexation of
        Austria the following year, and he settled in England in
        1949. Before the annexation, Popper had written mainly
        about the philosophy of science, but from 1938 until the
        end of the Second World War he focused his energies on
        political philosophy, seeking to diagnose the intellectual
        origins of German and Soviet totalitarianism. The Open
        Society and Its Enemies was the result.

        An immediate sensation when it was first published in two
        volumes in 1945, Popper’s monumental achievement has
        attained legendary status on both the Left and Right and
        is credited with inspiring anticommunist dissidents during
        the Cold War. Arguing that the spirit of free, critical inquiry
        that governs scientific investigation should also apply to
        politics, Popper traces the roots of an opposite,
        authoritarian tendency to a tradition represented by Plato,
        Marx, and Hegel.’

        H/t Amazon.

      • David Springer

        I don’t know what made you think I don’t like Popper. I’ve quoted him dozens of times and rehashed his black swan narrative about falsification many times as well.

      • Apology, David, serfs miss things.

  13. This former, left-wing democrat believes at least 97% of “consensus scientists” wil vote for Hillary in the general election. Since 97% of “consensus scientists” is a small number, Hillary may still lose the election.

    • Curious George

      I am an old-timer too. Growing up in a communist country saved me from a left-wing orientation. I survived socialism.

    • As small as we are, we only get to choose the horses. We can take rest in knowing that the winner of the race however, is already determined. Enjoy!

  14. In the 2020 election, where will America be? It depends on what Trump does if he.loses. His ego might require fighting back with a very right wing “I was robbed by the corrupt establishment”. If so, watch out.

    Or he could disappear, a lameass waanabe. Hard to predict. Trumpsters can go either way because the decision is not philosophical or political but narcissistic. Personality, not power, drives him forward.

    • David Springer

      “Personality, not power, drives him forward.”

      If by that you mean a patriotic personality holding a genuine concern that the United States is being destroyed from within by global village one-world government libtards funded by multi-national corporations then yes I would agree that’s a fair description of Donald Trump.

  15. The notion of “fascism” seems to get thrown around quite a bit in this election. I finally ran across an article that seems to do a good job with it.


    Now, if we can only get clarification on the other hundred labels people throw at Trump. lol

    • It becomes much harder when old comrades feel that and today ‘reactionaries’ no longer work.

      • What a skeptic!


        I had not even thought of this as a possibility but the pieces of the puzzle is beginning to look like a Phoenix raising from the ashes. Maybe he actually followed the money and ended up there.

        Skeptics now 50:50
        Deniers sill running at 97%

      • From the article:

        Sidestepping a recalcitrant Congress under Republican control, U.S. President Barack Obama has used executive power to aggressively confront global warming at home and abroad….

        It is at least reassuring, Nafo added, that — according to the rules — it would take four years for the United States to withdraw from a ratified treaty.

        Phew! As if democracy and U.S. national sovereignty can so easily be dispensed with.

        One thing’s for sure, Trump is not in favor of one world government, nor of the United States playing the role of world policeman or world savior from CAGW. And if the United States is going to play those roles, it is going to be well compensated for it.

  16. Peter Drucker (1995) ‘Really Reinventing Government.’

    ‘Any organization, whether biological or social, needs to
    change its basic structure if it significantly changes its size.
    Any organization that doubles or triples in size needs to
    be restructured. Similarly, any organization, whether a
    business, a nonprofit, or a government agency, needs to
    rethink itself once it is more than forty or fifty years old.
    It has outgrown its policies and its rules of behavior. If it
    continues in its old ways, it becomes ungovernable,
    unmanageable, uncontrollable.’

  17. Exxon, Chevron Battle Environmental Drive to Cut Big Oil’s Reach
    – See more at: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=144728#sthash.4NNxQhOh.dpuf

    • Climate activists seeking to pull investors into their camp are pushing Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. to limit money spent on exploration in favor of higher dividends and more share buybacks.

    • Shareholders will vote Wednesday on proposals that would urge the two biggest U.S. oil producers to cut what they spend opening up new oil fields and instead hand the money to investors.

    • Environmental critics say future climate rules will soon make it unprofitable to pump. The companies say demand will grow for decades, even if carbon limits are imposed.

    • This will be the first time Exxon stockholders weigh in on such a resolution, one of four climate-change related issues on the ballot.

    • Chevron investors overwhelmingly rejected the proposal at last year’s meeting with a 96.8 percent “no’’ vote.

  18. Trump talks about national security, the economy, and how they both relate to coal production:


    Here’s the money quote:

    DONALD TRUMP: I’m all for national security, I just think we have to spend it on the right national security. When we throw it away by the hundreds of billions of dollars, just throw it away, people say “What’s going on?” And it does make it much more difficult for people to want to pay more tax.

    Look, a good economy solves all of the problems we’re talking about. Good economy solves everything, but we don’t seem to have that economy.

    A friend of mine in the enrgy business, just to get off the subject a little bit, we send so much coal to China….

    We send coal to China but we’re not allowed to use coal anymore because you can’t open up a new coal-fired plant, I mean it’s almost impossible. It probalby is impossible to get an approval. And yet China is going wild with our coal.

    You know, at what point do we get smart and say, “Hey look, we have to compete and we have to win, and we have to take it back from China and other countries”?

    It’s very, very difficult. It’s a very, very difficult place. We’ve become totally moral bound and bureaucratic. It’s very difficult.

    • David Springer

      Whoever transcribed that got “moral bound” wrong. Context clearly shows it should be “moribund”. Trump’s pronunciation at 10:54 in the video sounds like mora-bound. I used the word moribund the other day with an old retired English teacher and then had to define it for her. Not a common word but a good word. A terrific word. How winners describe bad policies. A word winners use. And we’re going to start winning in this country. Winning big. Believe me. Big big wins.

  19. Charles Murry, PJ O’Rourke and George Will are overreacting. Trump is going to be limeted in what he can do. He will have to hire, as he says, great people to carry out his agenda. Judging from this video, he’ll be spending most of his time preening over Air force One and firing people:

    • David Springer

      “Trump is going to be limeted in what he can do.”

      The same would then apply to Hillary, right? And Obama. And George Bush.

      I think that’s more or less true in a highly polarized political atmosphere but someone with true grassroots support that wins in a landslide? Or a truly effective chief executive that knows how to build consensus and cut deals? Kennedy and Johnson just 50 years ago got huge sweeping changes called “The Great Society” established. Maybe rare but occasionally the usual limits don’t apply. The next four years could potentially see five supreme court justices replaced. That’s a majority of them put in place by a single chief executive and a single senate. With younger occupants it effects change that will persist for a generation at least. With grassroots support anything is possible.

  20. Tomgram: Michael Klare, The Oil World in Chaos

    All too often, bad weather may now be traced back, at least in part, to our endless burning of fossil fuels.

    On the whole, however, onscreen news coverage continues to ignore that reality even as it features the weather ever more prominently. In a sense, the news has been coopting climate change.

    A small sign of this is the way the tag “extreme weather” has become commonplace as reports of floods ravaging the Southwest, fires the West, and tornadoes the South and the Great Plains proliferate. Extreme weather, in other words, has gained its place in our consciousness largely shorn of the crucial factor in that extremity: the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases humanity has been dumping into the atmosphere….

    Fortunately, at TomDispatch, Michael Klare continues to follow the world of oil exploitation and the extremity that accompanies it with a keen eye. For the petro-states of our planet, the “weather,” it seems, has been undergoing a distinct change for the worse.

    Petro-states are different from other countries because the fates of their governing institutions are so deeply woven into the boom-and-bust cycles of the international petroleum economy….

    In 2016, one thing is finally clear, however: the business model for these corporatized states is busted. The most basic assumption behind their operation — that global oil demand will continue to outpace world petroleum supplies and ensure high prices into the foreseeable future — no longer holds. Instead, in what for any petro-state is a nightmarish, upside-down version of that model, supply, not demand, is forging ahead, leaving the market flooded with fossil fuels.

    Most analysts, including those at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), now believe that increases in energy efficiency, the spread of affordable alternative energy sources (especially wind and solar), slowing worldwide economic growth, and concern over climate change will continue to put a damper on fossil fuel demand in the years ahead….

    In fact, a growing number of analysts are convinced that world oil demand will in the not-so-distant future reach a peak and begin a long-term decline, ensuring that large reserves of petroleum will be left in the ground….

    As they try to repair their busted business model or collapse under the weight of its failures, we can only hope that the path they follow will entail significantly less dependence on oil exports as well as a determination to speed up the conclusion of the fossil fuel era and so diminish its legacy of climate disaster.

    Klare’s “logic” entails two errors:

    1) His crystal ball envisions a future in which “world oil demand will in the not-so-distant future reach a peak and begin a long-term decline, ensuring that large reserves of petroleum will be left in the ground.” This future is far from certain.

    2) The ailment that “petro-states” are now suffering from is not at all unique to petro-states. It is an ailment that all countries whose economies are not sufficiently diversified and that depend on the production and export of primary materials are vulnerable to. Commodity prices are highly volatile: They always have been and probably always will be. Things like Dutch Disease and Staples Theory work exactly the same for copper or soybeans as they do for oil.

    The Progressive Economics Forum from Canada did an entire series of posts on the phenomenon:

    The Staple Theory @ 50: Index of Contributions

    In Latin America, with many economies heavily reliant on the production and export of primary materials, it is a topic of frequent discussion, such as this article in one of the Mexico City dailies:

    América Latina: el costo de vivir de las materias primas
    Latin America: The cost of living from primary materials


    Latin America has not ceased to live from primary materials….

    In the 2st century, the vaunted Chilean miracle of neoliberalism is reduced to the export grapes, apples, pears, peaches, salmon, paper pulp, and the everlasting copper, along with new minerals for nanotechnology.

    Brazil, which enjoys a good industrial development, is a net exporter of oil, minerals, meat, food, chemicals, metals, beverages, timber, etc., ie, with little added value.

    Lagging behind are Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina.

    In case Klare hasn’t noticed, the governments of Brazil and Argenina are in crisis too because of the bottom falling out of the commodities complex.

  21. If Earth’s climate is less sensitive than predicted to rising levels atmospheric CO2 levels – as the latest research indicates – Mamma’s gonna need a brand new bag!

  22. It does not matter who is elected president if that person is unable to take control of US policy away from the US National Academy of Sciences.

  23. Here is Eisenhower’s JAN 1961 warning about the scientific-technological-elite that might try to take control of US policy:


    That is exactly what the US National Academy of Sciences did.

  24. New Study Predicts an Intolerably Hot World.

    Researchers say that unless fossil fuels are kept in the ground, global temperatures could rise more than 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2300.

    To have a chance of keeping warming at or below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, said Rooney-Varga, use of coal, oil, and natural gas must end between 2050 and 2070.

    • David L. Hagen

      Intolerable: Predictions > 95% wrong?
      Examining John Christy’s Feb. 2nd testimony, Steve McIntyre calculates:

      a model run:
      1) will be warmer than an observed trend more than 99.5% of the time;
      2) will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.1 deg C/decade approximately 88% of the time;
      3) and will be warmer than an observed trend by more than 0.2 deg C/decade more than 41% of the time.

      Are these warming predictions > 95% too hot? i.e., wrong?
      When will we have serious quantitative model validation per the scientific method?

      • David Hagen,

        When the Warmists first began making predictions several decades ago, the apocalypse was going to happen in a couple of decades.

        That didn’t happen.

        So in their newest round of predictions, the Warists predict the apocalypse is going to happen in two or three centuries. That’s far enough into the future so that they don’t have to worry about the embarrassment of being proved wrong again, at least not during their own liftetimes.

    • New Study Predicts an Intolerably Hot World.

      The reason for temperatures the last several million years is the interaction of solar interaction of solar insolation (mostly as a result of Milankovitch cycles) and ice cover.

      The 10.3 million km2 change in ice cover has more than twice the effect from albedo alone than any global change in CO2.

      Further, an up to 3 mile thick ice sheet changes the whole energy exchange dynamics – look at the energy balance for the Himalayas vs low land India.

      So, the weak CO2 forcing simply can’t cause the warming claimed. To warm the planet the amount claimed would require changing earth’s current tectonic layout. And CO2 doesn’t move continents.

  25. ExxonMobil CEO: ending oil production ‘not acceptable for humanity’

    Tillerson said Exxon had invested $7bn in green technology, but the science and technology had not yet achieved the breakthroughs needed to compete with fossil fuels. “Until we have those, just saying ‘turn the taps off’ is not acceptable to humanity,” he said. “The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not.”

    A “proposal that would have required the company to publish an annual study of how its profits may be affected by public climate change policies” was easily defeated by shareholders by a 62% to 38% margin.

    A similar proposal was defeated by Chevron shareholders, also on Wednesday, in 59% to 41% vote.

    The Guardian was banned from reporting from inside the meeting, and instead listened to proceedings via webcast. “We are denying your request because of the Guardian’s lack of objectivity on climate change reporting, demonstrated by its partnership with anti-oil and gas activists and its campaign against companies that provide energy necessary for modern life, including newspapers,” a spokesman said.

  26. Trump Heads to Shale Country to Make Energy Policy Pitch

    • Donald Trump is poised to give his first substantive energy policy speech in North Dakota, a state eager to hear how he can help the industry recover from the worst downturn in a generation.

    • The presumptive Republican presidential nominee is scheduled to speak Thursday afternoon to more than 7,000 people as part of the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck.

    • North Dakota rose to become the second-largest oil-producing U.S. state because of soaring output from reserves previously locked in shale-rock formations.

    • While Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s front-runner, has called for renewable energy to eventually power all U.S. homes and once said she would “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Trump has said he doesn’t believe in climate change and criticized President Barack Obama’s coal regulations.

    • “Mr. Trump will draw a contrast between Hillary Clinton’s plan to eliminate millions of good-paying energy jobs — including countless union jobs — and Mr. Trump’s plan to add millions of new jobs for America’s workers,” Stephen Miller, a Trump senior policy adviser, said in a statement to Bloomberg Politics….

    • “The Trump agenda is only going to make America great again for corporate polluters, which is why Americans need to come together to defeat him — and his Republican allies — in November,” Tom Steyer, the billionaire president of NextGen Climate, a San Francisco-based environmental advocacy group, said in a statement.

  27. Exxon investors clear path for climate expert on board, defeat other resolutions

    Seventy-nine percent of the shareholders voted against putting a climate expert on Exxon Mobil’s board, 81 percent voted down the proposal to support the Paris climate accord, and 61 percent opposed the resolution for the company to report on how climate change affect its operations.

    The shareholder votes against the climate change resolutions came amid fierce criticism at the meeting from environmentalists and activist investors who argued the Irving-based oil giant isn’t run by executives with expertise on climate issues.

    • It is an energy company. Board members should have expertise on on extracting energy. Energy is something you dig or pipe out of the ground.

      If it was a Climate company that built climate it would make sense to have a Climate expert on board.

      • Perhaps they meant political climate issues.

        IMO they’d do well to have an expert on solar PV and power→fuel on the board, but I’m not holding any of their stock, nor plan to, so I’m not concerned.

        If they aren’t ready to compete when solar-powered fuel becomes competitive with fuel out of the ground, that’s their lookout.

        OTOH, it wouldn’t surprise me if they have several quiet projects that will allow them to compete. Could this be a ploy to keep potential competitors in the dark?

        Nah… Management of corporations that size just isn’t that smart. If they had it, they’d trumpet it.

  28. China Moves Into U.S. Wind Sector

    Chinese wind turbine maker Goldwind announced that it bought the Rattlesnake wind power project in Texas from Renewable Energy Systems for an undisclosed amount, making this the Chinese giant’s largest project in the United States and the a key to its future growth strategy.

    Goldwind is currently the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, accounting for 12.8 percent of the global market, having replaced Danish Vestas at the top spot last year. Navigant Research, which compiled the data, noted in its report that the changes in market shares were a result of demand growth, mainly in Germany and the U.S.

    The wind industry in the latter, according to Fitch Ratings, is set for stable growth. The ratings agency listed efficiency improvements and policies for reducing the public’s reliance on fossil fuels as two of the drivers of this growth….

    When competition from Chinese solar panel makers hit U.S. manufacturers a few years back, urgent government measures became necessary to protect the local businesses, as the Chinese companies were ready to sell their product below production costs.

  29. McDonald’s Ex-CEO Is Right When He Says A $15 Minimum Wage Would Lead To Automation

    The important thing to understand is that how much labor is employed to do a task will depend upon the price of labor. Say that robotic french fry-making arm does cost $35,000. You have to pay a human worker $7.25 to do that job. You may or may not buy the robot, thinking that with the costs of maintenance of the machine and the greater adaptability of the human, a series of people is a better idea.

    Now change that price of labor to $15 an hour. Not everyone will immediately go for the machine, but some people will because economics happens at the margin.

  30. Beta Blocker

    I have a question for Jim D which is prompted by this exchange:

    Jim D: [Trump’s] motto should be Make America Afraid Again. So it is not tapping into anger, but actually creating it around his own somewhat paranoid worldview.

    David Springer: Make America Afraid. You mean the way the libtards do it with catastrophic global warming?

    Jim D: Does AGW give you paranoia about the world?

    David Springer: Answer the question.

    Jim D: Do the math, 1 C for a half doubling (observed) is 2 C per doubling is 4 C at 700 ppm.

    Jim D, it is unthinkable that Hillary Clinton could lose to Donald Trump in the November election.

    But what if it happened? How would the environmental activist groups react? What would be their strategy for coping with an uncooperative president?

    Let’s remember that the Environmental Protection Agency is a quasi-independent government organization and can make its own decisions regardless of who is president.

    If Trump became president and began dismantling the Obama Administration’s climate change program, would the environmental activist groups begin filing lawsuits against the EPA in an attempt to force that agency to follow their climate change agenda?

    Might one of those lawsuits demand that the EPA follow through on its 2009 Endangerment Finding and begin to regulate all of America’s greenhouse gas emissions — a demand those same activist groups have refused to embrace while Barack Obama has been president?

    Suppose the environmental activist groups won their lawsuits and the EPA was forced to begin regulating all of America’s GHG emissions under sections 108, 111, and 202 of the Clean Air Act.

    Jim D, if Donald Trump becomes president and the environmental activist groups begin suing the EPA, what kinds of arguments would you yourself be making in support of those lawsuits?

  31. May 23: Hillary Clinton Refuses to Debate Bernie Sanders in California

    May 26: Donald Trump agrees to debate Bernie Sanders

    6 hours ago: ‘Game On’: With Clinton Refusing, Sanders Agrees to Debate Trump in California

    Yves Smith:

    OMG, if this comes off, Clinton would look ridiculous for not debating Bernie and I am sure Trump would taunt her for that.

    The calculus for Trump presumably is whether this hurts Clinton without derailing her as presumptive nominee. I’d think the odds favor him concluding yes, but he may also decide it’s not worth the effort and there’s no point in taking any risk. So netting that all out, my bet is a no but I’d love to be proven wrong.


  32. ABC poll: Trump surge due to massive 36% millennial swing
    Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/23/abc-poll-trump-surge-due-massive-36-millennial-swing/#WZaHd1vT5PcC4e92.99

    • Clinton’s support among young voters ages 18 to 29 has dropped 19 percent since March — and Trump has gained 17 percent support from the same demographic.

    • That’s a 36 percent swing.

    • While Clinton leads Trump in the demographic 45 to 42 percent, this margin in the general election would ensure a Republican landslide. Mitt Romney lost the youth vote to Barack Obama by more than 20 percent….

  33. This is being billed as Trump’s “first substantive energy policy speech.”

    RSBN Live Stream: The Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck, ND – May 26, 1:00 PM CDT.

      • The NY Tiimes is in love with the idea of endless resource wars in the Middle East, and can’t stand the idea of America becoming energy independent:

        Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules

        BISMARCK, N.D. — Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to “cancel” the Paris Agreement, the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change.

        Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama’s signature climate change rules and revive construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries….

        A central question confronting the next president will be how to address climate change. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the established science that climate change is caused by humans, vowed in his speech to undo many of Mr. Obama’s initiatives.

        He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.”

        Mr. Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind” Environmental Protection Agency regulations established under Mr. Obama to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants….

        In an even more potent threat, Mr. Trump declared that the United States would “stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to global warming programs….

        Mr. Trump also repeatedly emphasized “energy independence” — the idea that the United States could isolate itself from global oil markets and cease importing fuels.

        “Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence,” he said. “We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest.”

        But experts say that such remarks display a basic ignorance of the workings of the global oil markets.

        “Even if energy independence was achievable, it would not be desirable,” Mr. Newell, the Duke University energy economist, wrote in an email. “Our interests tend to be best served by getting each type of fuel we need from the least expensive source, be it domestic or imported. When domestic U.S. energy is globally competitive, like the recent oil and gas boom, our imports go down. But energy independence itself is one of the least useful energy policy goals — and is at times damaging.”

    • This is probably the most important speech Trump has given thus far in his entire campaign.

      He ties all the loose ends — energy, environment, over-regulation, jobs, economy, trade, crime, immigration, national security and the senseless, endless wars — all together into one cohesive package.

      Trump Uses Energy Speech to Outline General Election Pitch

      Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an “America first” energy plan he said would unleash unfettered production of oil, coal, natural gas and other energy sources to push the United States toward energy independence.

      But the speech, delivered at the annual Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismarck, North Dakota, went far beyond energy, as Trump laid out, in his most detail to date, a populist general election pitch against likely rival Hillary Clinton.

      “She’s declared war on the American worker,” Trump said of Clinton, reading from prepared remarks in a stadium packed with thousands….

      Trump also promised Thursday to cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax money to a United Nations fund to mitigate effects of climate change worldwide.

    • David L. Hagen

      Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules NYT

      In an even more potent threat, Mr. Trump declared that the United States would “stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to global warming programs.”

      “We’ve got big problems, folks, and we can’t be sending money all over the world,” he said. “We’re going to keep our money here and our jobs here and bring our jobs back.”

      But developing nations, including India, have made clear that their ability to cut emissions depends largely on financial help from other countries. . . .
      A clear signal that the United States would back down from its commitments to reduce emissions and provide financial assistance could undermine the political will in other countries, such as India and China, to take action. . .
      “Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence,” he said. “We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest.”

      Donald Trump Pledges to Rip Up Paris Climate Agreement in Energy Speech

    • Coal is done for. The only way Trump can keep it’s zombie corpse moving is by placing punitive restrictions on natural gas.

      • Here. Let me fix that for you:

        Renewables are done for. The only way Clinton can keep their zombie corpse moving is by placing punitive restrictions on natural gas.

      • Renewables” have only just begun.

        We will get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation, so we can pursue all forms of energy. This includes renewable energies and the technologies of the future. It includes nuclear, wind and solar energy – but not to the exclusion of other energy. The government should not pick winners and losers. Instead, it should remove obstacles to exploration. Any market has ups and downs, but lifting these draconian barriers will ensure that we are no longer at the mercy of global markets.

        Donald Trump.

        Watch how “get[ing] the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation” helps bring down the cost of rooftop solar. And even utility-grade solar for that matter. I bet the permitting process is just as bad for solar as for CCGT.

        But coal’s day is done. Enabling competition will let gas CCGT trumple it into the ground. And with gas in place, solar and wind will be economical at penetration levels up to 10-15% by KWHrs/year. Each.

      • Coal is less competitive in the US because of insane environmentalism.

        The rest of the world will be burning coal for a long time. And doing a much dirtier job of it.

      • PA,

        Yep. If we look at the global scene, and not the United States where Obama, Clinton and their ilk have hammered coal production with their inane war on cheap and abundant energy, we get an entirely different picture.


        Clinton has one goal in mind:


  34. Political correctness, pandering or cowering… you be judge. Look at the cover of, The Economist


    … and, compare it to the cartoon depicting the God of Arab-Muslims with bombs in his bonnet and the subsequent experiences of the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who has received death threats, been the target of attempted assassinations and was placed in 2010 on the Al-Qaeda hit list for insulting Islam.

    • Obummer preaches against nuclear weapons then tell Iran, in effect, it’s OK for them to get nukes.

      • Evan Jones

        Iran will have nukes whether we like it or not.

        The way I see it is that we have, by agreement, tied our hands to delay them, perhaps until a more favorable regime emerges (somehow).

        Without an agreement, we could take all sorts of measures (mostly clandestine) against Iran’s nuke program. But if we do it now, they’ll take us to World Court. And probably win.

        We would have been better off to retain operational flexibility.

      • We in the US should ignore the World Court. It’s a step toward a world government. A cure worse than the disease.

  35. Pat Buchanan: Left Wing Riots Will Help Trump, Like They Helped Nixon In 1968

    But according to Emily Tisch Sussman, a Democratic Party stratagest, the riots are all Trump’s fault:

    Look, it is the tone set by Trump.

    I think we are at a real turning point in American History. Are we seriously going to consider a candidate for president when this is the tone he has set?

    He encourages violence at his rallies, and people are responding to it.

    Look, we’ve seen acts of violence all over the country where people are acting out against Hispanics, where people are acting out against people of color, and saying it’s because they are inspired by Trump’s message.


  36. David Springer

    Check this out. Trump gaining rapidly in nearly every single demographic while Hillary is sinking in almost every single one:


    • 86% of Romney voters support Trump. What did we learn that doesn’t work Mr. Romney? Adapt. Get behind him. The Republicans should change in this short time frame. They can either try to survive with the old inflexible plan or evolve and remain suprisingly rellevant.

    • I wonder what it must be like to be a Democrat party leader right now. Or any of those who have pinned their hopes on Democrats, or on Hillary.

      It can’t be pretty.

      Hillary fighting a two front war, with the odd joke candidate actually making a showing (hey, the guy was there only to make it seem like there was a democrat primary), and with the Republican contender, who has wrapped up his nomination in a stunning victory and is now free to attack as he would in the general. Also, he is doing presidential things, like coming up with supreme court picks, revealing policy, and starting to hint at people who would play key roles in his administration.

      With polls dropping, the solution seems to be to do nothing.

      • I think Clinton Inc. is doing something.

        It’s trundled out that same old trusty artillery piece that’s worked so well in the past: accuse the opponent of being a racist, and having branded the enemy with the face of evil, remove substantive issues from the debate altogether.

        The Racist Side of Bernie Sanders Supporters

        For decades, one narrative has dominated American politics: That while white liberal Democrats may not be perfect, they are far more trustworthy and far less scary when it comes to race than conservative Republicans.

        The backers of Bernie Sanders’s never-ending Kamikaze campaign remind us of an older truth: that there are good people and terrible people in both parties and that Republicans do not have a monopoly on intolerance….

        Black writers and activists who have had the temerity to challenge Sanders’s record have been targeted by his supporters in ways that go against not just civility but even decency….

        Just as Donald Trump’s supporters would not demonstrate thuggish behavior, such as assaulting protesters, without getting signals from their leader that it’s acceptable, the same is true of Sanders’ supporters.

  37. Clinton Chasing Votes With Fracking U-Turn

    Leaked emails obtained by The Intercept reveal Hillary Clinton’s multiple stances on fracking….

    At a debate with Bernie Sanders in New York in early April, Hillary Clinton said she doesn’t support fracking, unless certain conditions are met, such as acceptance from the community and full disclosure of the chemicals that will be used in the process of releasing oil and gas from shale rock.

    Just four years ago, however, she was quick to point fingers at communities abroad who were fighting proposed fracking projects in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, as leaked emails obtained by The Intercept reveal. At that time, she promoted fracking – more specifically gas fracking – as a way for any country, especially those in Europe, to achieve energy independence (from Russia)….

    Clinton is apparently ready to do anything to win…liberal votes, including making yet one more U-turn regarding her position on fracking….

    This approach risks alienating more than just the energy industry, as Jude Clemente rightly noted in an article for Forbes that offers a comprehensive summary of all the benefits the U.S. has reaped from fracking (although it fails to mention the risks). He warned that she might lose Ohio and Pennsylvania with her new anti-fracking position, but Clinton won both states, which are heavily dependent on gas fracking. In Ohio, she got the upper hand before declaring her new anti-fracking stance, but her Pennsylvania victory came after the New York debate. Apparently, the strategy of changing positions to suit the moment and the target audience is working, distasteful as it may seem to observers.

    Indeed, Clinton’s flip-flop to an anti-fracking stance may have worked against Sanders. But does Clinton Inc. really believe it will work against Trump?

    To lay this delusion to rest, one only has to listen to Trump’s speech he gave in North Dakata yesterday.

  38. Hillary Clinton’s Mistake On Fracking For Natural Gas

    “By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” Hillary Clinton, March 6, 2016

    Hillary’s strong anti-fracking statement is, at the very least, politically unsavvy: battleground states Ohio and Pennsylvania are our key incremental natural gas producers, and fracking is their primary means to extract more gas.

    Ohio has the Utica shale gas play and Pennsylvania has the Marcellus gas shale play, and fracking is instrumental to energy and economic development in both states – crucial investments worth many tens of billions of dollars (here, here).

    Hillary should know that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (the last being increasingly a gas-based state that wants more fracked gas from the first two, here) remain the battleground states to focus on most because “since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.”

    And Hillary’s anti-fracking position appears highly hypocritical and illogical: she has been promoting fracking in other countries (see the facts on that from left leaning sites here, here)….

    In fact, anti-fracking positions are a threat to the energy security of our entire nation, and will just make other states unfairly over reliant on Ohio and Pennsylvania gas (just ask New York how anti-fracking positions simply mean greater reliance on Pennsylvania’s fracked natural gas) – gas is just that much more reliable….

    Fracking is why Pennsylvania is now producing more gas than Canada, and fracking is why North Dakota has been producing as much oil as Argentina and Ecuador combined.

    Fracking is why the U.S. is now the world’s largest natural gas producer, with output up 30% since 2010 alone…

    Fracking is why U.S. crude oil production has reached levels not seen since the early-1970s, when output was thought to have peaked (here).

    Fracking is why U.S. natural gas production is expected to increase by over 30% by 2040.

    Fracking is why shale gas now accounts for over 50% of U.S. gas production, up from basically nothing a decade ago.

    Fracking is why the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that U.S. shale gas could yield 35 Tcf of gas in 2040, or 66% more than what the country produced from all gas sources in 2010.

    Fracking is why U.S. proven crude oil reserves jumped a staggering 80% from 2010-2014, and fracking is why U.S. proven gas reserves now stand at 400 Tcf, nearly double what they were in 2005.

    Fracking has created hundreds of thousands of jobs across a variety of sectors, made landowners rich, lowered electricity rates, and allowed tens of billions of dollars to be collected in taxes, fees to build more schools, hospitals, and other vital infrastructure.

    Fracking is why U.S. oil and gas imports have plummeted 36% and 40%, respectively, since 2005 – slashing our energy import bill, which topped $400 billion for oil alone in 2008, and reducing the U.S. trade deficit.

    Fracking is why U.S. oil imports from OPEC (a politically risky “cartel” filled with “not free” nations that control 60% of the crude oil export market) are down 50% since 2008.

    Fracking is why U.S. self-sufficiency for energy is now around 90% of usage, way up from just 70% in 2008, a particularly important upgrade in a world where all-important India and China require lots more oil and gas imports – and are willing to pay more.

    Fracking is why the U.S. has “vastly improved” its energy security risk relative to its peers, thanks to the fracking-enabled “huge increase in unconventional oil and natural gas production from shale formations” (here).

    Fracking is why U.S. oil exports have more than doubled to 4.2 million b/d since 2009, and fracking is why nearly 20 high job-creating, multi-billion dollar natural gas export projects via LNG have been proposed on the U.S. Gulf Coast (here) – exporting fracked oil and gas is one of the few bipartisan agreements that we have.

    Fracking, and the growing ability/potential of the U.S. to export oil and gas, is why European and Asian nations have been able to re-negotiate with OPEC and Russia’s Vladimir Putin to get better import terms for such indispensable energy.

    • To summarize, Hillary is not only a hypocrite, she is “fracking” wrong about fracking..

    What’s roiling the liberal-arts campus?


    All across Oberlin—a school whose norms may run a little to the left of Bernie Sanders—there was instead talk about “allyship”: a more contemporary answer to the challenges of pluralism.

    If you are a white male student, the thought goes, you cannot know what it means to be, say, a Latina… You can make yourself her ally, though….

    The need for allyship became acute. And so, with spring approaching, students and faculty at one of America’s most progressive colleges felt pressured to make an awkward judgment: whether to ally themselves with the black community or whether to ally themselves with the offended Jews…

    Sensitivities seemed to reach a peak at Emory when students complained of being traumatized after finding “trump 2016” chalked on sidewalks around campus. The Trump-averse protesters chanted, “Come speak to us, we are in pain!,” until Emory’s president wrote a letter promising to “honor the concerns of these students.”

    Such reports flummoxed many people who had always thought of themselves as devout liberals. Wasn’t free self-expression the whole point of social progressivism? Wasn’t liberal academe a way for ideas, good and bad, to be subjected to enlightened reason?

    Generations of professors and students imagined the university to be a temple for productive challenge and perpetually questioned certainties. Now, some feared, schools were being reimagined as safe spaces for coddled youths and the self-defined, untested truths that they held dear.

    Disorientingly, too, none of the disputes followed normal ideological divides: both the activists and their opponents were multicultural, educated, and true of heart. At some point, it seemed, the American left on campus stopped being able to hear itself think.

  40. Trump puts fossil fuels at US energy core

    Attacking his Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for wanting to impose stricter regulations on fracking, the real estate mogul said: “You do that and you’ll be back into the Middle East and we’re going to be begging for oil again. It’s not going to happen. Not with me.”

    Mr Trump also said he wanted to “cancel” last year’s Paris climate change accord, roll back federal regulations, revive the moribund coal industry, and see the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline built.

    He sought to tie energy into his campaign narrative of US revival and attacked President Barack Obama and Mrs Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, for putting foreign interests ahead of the US….

    Mr Trump said Mr Obama had “done everything he can to get in the way of American energy”, but added: “If crooked Hillary Clinton is in charge things will get much worse. Believe me . . . She’ll shut down energy production across the country.”

  41. This is awesome! From the article:

    Pittsburgh police are said to be on high alert after post about “roving support units” to deter anti-Trump protestors appears on Reddit

    Fervent Donald Trump supporters are planning to make their presence known at the Republican presidential candidate’s town hall in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday.

    According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, a posting appeared on Reddit stating that “roving support units” are planned to patrol the perimeter of the building where Trump is scheduled to speak tonight, for the purpose of deterring protestors.


    • Why aren’t the police “on high alert” because of the Trump protesters? Idi0ts.

  42. From the article:

    “I’m drunk on Trump,” proclaimed John Olson, a North Dakota unbound delegate and attorney representing oil, natural gas and coal companies.
    “He gave us policy specifics. He talked about building Keystone and eliminating the over-regulation in the energy sector. By freeing up the industry from the massive regulation burden, it would allow businesses in America to grow which would then create jobs and put Americans back to work,” Olson said. “Trump also said he thinks wind [power] should make it on its own. And let’s get government out of the way so capital waiting on the sidelines can be invested. We can take care of our environment and produce energy at the same time.”

    Gary Emineth, an unbound delegate and a former Republican National Committee chair for the state, praised Trump for promising to open up federal lands for energy exploration and development.

    “Trump said this can be for oil or coal. He said we can then use that money to pay down our national debt,” Emineth said. “Trump said he knows the country’s reserves of oil and natural gas can make the U.S. independent from the volatile Middle East.”


  43. Evan Jones

    Just to catch the spirit of the mood . . .

  44. Evan Jones

    Unfortunate commentary inserted in the link (sigh). But we’re seeing this from both sides. Trump and Sanders. Mad as hell.

    I’ll throw my RNO lot in with Trump. But I’m not unaware of the die rolls involved. Interesting times.

    • Unfortunately it still looks like the race will be between Trump and Hillary.

      If Hillary is the Democrat nominee the choice is made for us, after all Trump doesn’t even have a broomstick.

  45. From the article:

    A Navy sailor entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.

    Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.


  46. Survey: Troops want a Mattis presidential campaign

    More than half of service members who took part in the latest Military Times election survey said Mattis entering the presidential campaign would be a positive development in today’s divisive political environment.


    Republican operatives earlier this year began laying the groundwork for a Mattis presidential bid as a third-party alternative to Trump and Clinton. But late last month, in a message to supporters, Mattis ruled out any such effort.

    In the Military Times survey, Mattis support was highest among Marines, 71 percent of whom said his candidacy would positively affect the race. Lower-level enlisted respondents also offered strong support, with 65 percent of E-1s through E-3s backing the idea.

    Why? Donald Trump is really starting to infuriate the Pentagon

    This week, after Trump called NATO “obsolete” and too expensive for America, a chorus of Pentagon officials pushed back. Without naming Trump, Cook called the alliance “as relevant as ever.” Dunford also offered his own strong defense.

    “In my mind, the relevance of NATO is not at all in question,” he said during a March 30 press conference. “In fact, I think it’s a question of making sure we have the right focus because there’s a lot of work to be done.”

    How Gen. James Mattis could become the unlikeliest U.S. president in history

    The path for former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis to become president is simple:

    1. Declare himself a candidate.

    2. Ensure no other candidate gets 270 electoral college votes in November.

    3. Have Congress install him as commander-in-chief.

    Technically, supporters of the idea are labeling it “quite simple, but it’s difficult.”


    As first reported by The Daily Beast on Friday, they say the effort has both staff and strategy in place to push Mattis’ name into the middle of the 2016 contest, and deep-pocketed donors waiting in the wings should the movement take hold. They’ve already floated the idea in a series of stories and opinion pieces.

    All without any signal from Mattis that he’s even remotely interested in the job.

    “I think if he is asked, his initial response will be somewhere between ‘no’ and ‘hell no,’” said John Noonan, a former adviser to former Florida Gov. failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s failed presidential campaign. Noonan is among the Mattis’ movement’s leaders.

    “But I do think this race is serious enough, and Donald Trump’s foreign policy is worrisome enough, to make him consider it.”

    • I believe Trump’s point is that we in the US pay most for NATO, just like the idi0tic UN and everything else “global.” Trump wants the cost shared more equitably and it’s about damn time!


    Graduates of the Class of 2016 are leaving behind campuses that have become petri dishes of extreme political correctness and heading out into a world without trigger warnings, safe spaces and free speech zones, with no rules forbidding offensive verbal conduct or microaggressions, and where the names of cruel, rapacious capitalists are embossed in brass and granite on buildings across the land. Baby seals during the Canadian hunting season may have a better chance of survival….

    More than half of America’s colleges and universities now have restrictive speech codes. And, according to a censorship watchdog group, 217 American colleges and universities—including some of the most prestigious—have speech codes that “unambiguously impinge upon free speech.”….

    American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceania with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi. College newspapers have been muzzled and trashed, and students are disciplined or suspended for “hate speech,” while exponentially more are being shamed and silenced on social media by their peers. Professors quake at the possibility of accidentally offending any student and are rethinking syllabi and restricting class discussions to only the most anodyne topics. A Brandeis professor endured a secret administrative investigation for racial harassment after using the word wetback in class while explaining its use as a pejorative.

    As college campuses have become bastions of rigorously enforced political correctness, the limits on speech have come crashing down in the real world, with the presumptive Republican nominee for president dishing out macroaggressions on a daily basis. Donald Trump’s comments about the alleged criminality of Hispanics and Muslims, and about how fat or ugly his female enemies are, need no restating here, but many of his words would almost certainly be prohibited speech on most college campuses….

    As students are labeling more and more words as hate speech, demanding more trigger warnings and shouting down both commencement speakers and comedians, the censorship flashpoints can be sorted into three topics: sex, race and Donald Trump.

    The people backing Trump’s run for the White House frequently gush that he “speaks for me” or “says what I can’t.” At a rally in April in Bethpage on New York’s Long Island, his supporters parked a giant mobile highway sign near the venue that advertised, in blinking lights, “Free speech zone,” and Trump has made supposedly unfettered speech a major part of his campaign’s shtick. “I wrote something today that I think is very, very salient, very important and probably not politically correct, but I don’t care,” he said at a rally in South Carolina after announcing he would temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S….

    Today’s free speech flashpoints on campus—Trump, race and sex—are part of a bigger debate about the purpose of the university. Is it an island for experiments in how to make society kinder and more just? Or is it a boot camp for the brain, where young minds are challenged by other viewpoints and learn how to defend their own?….

    In March, Yale hosted an “Intelligence Squared U.S.” debate on the proposition “Free speech is threatened on campus” featuring four prominent professors and writers who argued for an hour and 45 minutes. Afterward, the audience voted on the proposition, and 66 percent agreed with it.


    • –snip–

      “American college campuses are starting to resemble George Orwell’s Oceania with its Thought Police, or East Germany under the Stasi.”


      Wow. What drama queens. How can people write such dreck? So manipulative and exploitative. College campuses resemble East Germany under the Stasi?

      Too funny.

      • David Springer

        Which part of “starting to resemble” did you not understand?

        Or did you understand it perfectly and just wanted to construct another straw man?

        I’d say you’re starting to resemble a troll but that would be gilding the lily. You ARE a troll.

      • Josh doesn’t rise to the level of troll. He’s stuck between clown and putz.

    • Enjoyed the debate. Thx Glenn.

  48. Is Clinton the Real Housing Crash Villain?

    Hillary’s new TV ads say that Trump predicted the real estate crash in 2006 (good call) and then bought real estate at low prices when the housing crash came in 2008 that few others foresaw. Many builders went out of business during the crash, but Trump read the market perfectly.

    What is so hypocritical about the Clinton attacks is that it wasn’t Trump, but Hillary, her husband, and many of her biggest supporters who were the real culprits here.

    Before Hillary is able to rewrite this history, let’s look at the many ways the Clintons and cronies contributed to the Great Recession.

    The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

  49. Donald Trump’s Virtual Political Reality

    Postmodernists such as France’s Jean Baudrillard and Slovenian media commentator, philosopher and filmmaker Slavoj Zizek have looked beyond consumers’ interactions with media to examine the complex interactions by which reality becomes perception and perception becomes reality. What their work suggests is that our constant immersion in mediated worlds creates a virtual reality that we increasingly cannot tell apart from the “real” one. From this perspective, TV showman Donald Trump is both the creator and product of a new political world of virtual reality made real by our Internet-obsessed culture and society.

    As the post-modernists have pointed out, one useful way to orient ourselves in this new virtual landscape of Planet Trump is to consider our explorations similar to when visiting a theme park. When we go to Disneyland, it makes sense to us that the roller coaster in Tomorrowland is a spaceship, while in Frontierland it is a sawed tree log. In the 21st century, online video games earn far more money than films; the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises to date have together earned billions more in revenues than has been spent by all the world’s nations on “real” interplanetary space missions. With the post-modernist perspective in mind, the 2016 U.S. political landscape can perhaps best be navigated as a Trump-designed political theme park.


    Most important to note in this new political world, we are voting not on which candidate’s program is best able to meet the demands of geopolitical “reality,” but rather on which theme park purveyor provides the most satisfying experience. For Trump is not alone in this new political realm. From the post-modernist perspective, each voter can choose to buy a ticket (i.e., vote) to the theme park of his or her choice. Will it be Trump’s Billionaireland, Ted Cruz’s Fundamentalist Christianland, Hillary’s Powerfulwomenland or Bernie’s Socialistidealland? From now on, voters’ choices will be based on how the theme park makes them feel. Because like all theme parks, none of them depict the true real-world experience — the very thing political virtual realities allow us to avoid.

    From now on, […]” Funny, I thought that’s how it’s been since 1964.

    • Really! So they only realize this when Trump is up for President. And it totally escaped their attention when Obama ran … twice!! Amazing.

  50. Hi, As a UK person, I find US politics fascinating. However, I have one query – how come Hilary Clinton is playing the feminist card when she’s hanging on her husband’s shirt-tails? Without him to propel her into the limelight she wouldn’t be where she is today. The old-old story of “the woman behind the man” very, very slightly updated.

    She reminds me of those nasty women libbers (e.g. Glenda Jackson) who’d screw up their face in hatred while declaring “Maggie Thatcher isn’t a proper woman”. They didn’t want to let women be whatever the individual wanted. Oh no – Glenda and her ilk “knew” what women were like.

    Personally, I’d never feel achievement if I’d relied on my husband getting me to the party in the 1st place – that’s nepotism, nothing to be proud of. And I’d always feel ashamed if I hadn’t done the difficult things. I despise both Hilary Clinton and actress Glenda (famous for taking her clothes off on screen).

    • I, a US citizen, agree with you. Without Bill, Hillary would be a nobody. Her own record in politics is less than stellar.

      But you really answered your own question, she plays the feminist card because she needs every vote she can get.

  51. Facebook related … from the article:

    If Americans started focusing on the impact of guest worker programs like H-1B, the results would be bad for both Democrats and Republicans, costing them both the trust of voters and millions in lobbying money.

    Then along came Donald Trump, backed by immigration experts like Sen. Jeff Sessions. Suddenly, the H1-B issue became a focus. The public interest began lighting up the phones at SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily morning radio show, and the more the public learned, the angrier they became.

    There’s a lot to be angry about. The H-1B program has caused massive layoffs of American workers and over a decade of wage stagnation. More infuriating is that the victims of H-1B are Americans who played by the rules, got an education in a growing field, and thought they’d have a career future.

    There have been bipartisan reasons to keep the public in the dark about H-1B and keep them focused on low wage workers.

    If you want to see what’s really going on with immigration policy, look at the cash.


  52. Leo DiCaprio isn’t the only climate change hypocrite

    Leo, 41, burned off his Oscar acceptance speech this year (for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in 2015’s “The Revenant’’), obnoxiously lecturing gas-guzzling film-industry types and bewildered TV viewers worldwide: “Climate change is real. It is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our species.’’

    The actor and film producer is known to float aboard palatial yachts, expending more fossil fuel in days than I, a subway rider, do in a year — and I harbor doubts that human-caused climate change even exists.

    In Leo’s defense, a source close to the megapolluter told The Post’s Page Six that he didn’t charter any flights, but hitched rides with “someone’’ already flying back and forth between France and New York.

    Will Leo ever stay home (how about in an energy-efficient apartment, such as mine?), switch off the air conditioning and subsist on average-looking women and raw kale?


    Here, in no particular order, is an incomplete list of warming hypocrites and do-gooders, which might be redundant:

    • Interesting, but I don’t believe the KKK resonates now as it did then, when the US was in the throes of racial unrest. Sure, the Dimowits try to leverage race at every turn, but it doesn’t have the same impact of seeing cities burn continually in race riots. Additionally, the KKK isn’t a force anymore. It still had political support back then, but not now.


    • David Springer

      Sid Myers and Lloyd Wright, LBJ’s ad men, are relics of a bygone age. I’m surprised they are still alive. Their thinking is flawed right from the start illustrating how they took down Goldwater mostly on a single issue – the nuclear arms race – and how Goldwater shrugged it off as “just another weapon”.

      What these decrepit men didn’t have the mental acuity to grasp is that Trump has already staked out the position they took. Nuclear weapons were some scary sh*t in the 1960’s. People across the country were building bomb shelters in their basements. Kids were doing bomb drills in public schools.

      The equivalent of the nuclear weapon scare today is illegal immigration and multi-national industries closing down US factories. That’s exactly what Trump is running on and how Cr00ked Hillary, and the political establishment in general on both sides, are shrugging it off.

      Myers and Wright, if those antique brains of theirs were firing on all eight cylinders, would have picked up on that. Duh.

    • David Springer

      Are you picking these up from realclearpolitics.com ? That’s been my go-to website for presidential politics since it was founded in 2000. I ignore it 3 out of every 4 years as a general rule. Maybe not quite so much in mid-term election years. I often wonder how it manages to stay afloat through non-election years. The format (look and feel) hasn’t changed since its founding.

  53. Donald Trump’s energy policies would harm the nation and worsen global warming

    Here’s Donald Trump’s vision of America’s energy future: warmer climate, higher seas and worsened smog with increased risks of serious illness among Americans forced to inhale emissions from ramped-up coal-fired power plants.

    Yeah, that’ll make America great again.

    Trump, unlike Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, says he disbelieves that human activities are causing global warming and the resultant change in the climate, which already have pushed up sea levels, melted glaciers and polar ice caps, exacerbated severe weather patterns and begun to severely stress animal and plant species. Which means Trump, citing thin evidence of his own (he once described global warming as a Chinese-hatched hoax), rejects the settled science on global warming, though you’d have trouble finding someone who’d take a bet that Trump has bothered to read any of it.

    His is a dangerously ignorant view of the environment at a time when the nation, and the world, needs intellectually agile leaders to try to navigate us out of the looming crisis….

    But the environment — and human survival, it seems — don’t matter to Trump….

    “My message today to all the people trapped in poverty is this: Politicians like Hillary Clinton have failed you. They have used you. You need something new. I am the only who will deliver it.”

    And the people cheered. P.T. Barnum couldn’t have asked for more.

  54. The neocons are mounting their defense of perpetual war against Trump’s war on perpetual war.

    It’s the same MO we get from the Alarmists: the sky is falling!


    The United States has entered an era of perpetual war.

    The U.S. military has been at war for 15 straight years with no end in sight, and President Obama will soon have the dubious distinction of being the only American president to have been at war for all eight years of a two-term presidency.

    The traditional logic of American wars — that the United States would mobilize, fight, win, and end its wars through overwhelming force of arms — no longer seems to apply….

    The United States did not choose this era of perpetual war. It is the price of living in a world where, for the first time, terrorist groups and malevolent individuals can reach the United States and wreak havoc from virtually any corner of the world. That threat was literally brought home by al Qaeda on 9/11 and reinforced all too recently by the terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernardino….

    The price of perpetual war is high….

    The United States did not choose this era of perpetual warfare. The threats are real and must be countered.

    • David Springer

      “It is the price of living in a world where, for the first time, terrorist groups and malevolent individuals can reach the United States and wreak havoc from virtually any corner of the world.”

      Utter dreck. Dynamite was invented 150 years ago. Up until about 50 years ago anyone could buy it. Entry into the United States was ridiculously easy 50 years ago before electronic surveillance became cheap and easy.

      No sir, the problem is that the United States since WWII has been increasingly interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations exercising brute military and financial force to make other nations bend to its will. Some of them are fed up with it and have resorted to the only means of fighting back that they have – asymmetrical guerrilla warfare.

      It’s time we stopped being the world police. It’s a thankless job and invites violence against American civilians both at home and abroad.

  55. Charlie Rose is doing this long Biden love fest right now. I think the Dimowits are staging him to swoop in and save their bacon. Even if Billary’s email problem goes away, she still might have too much baggage to win.

    • David Springer

      Democrats are in a vast state of disarray. They don’t know whether to sh*t or wind their watch. Trump has their establishment running around like chickens with their heads cut off even as he’s got the republican establishment to close ranks around him. The guy is brilliant, he’s cleaning their clocks, and they refuse to portray him as the brilliant tactician that he is and instead try to paint him in a clown costume.

      Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

  56. David Springer


    • David Springer

      Too bad it was cut off early. It went on quite a bit longer on show. Must be a copyright consideration to cut it off early. I had posted about Scott Adams take on Trump on one of the older presidential threads. Adams has a fascinating worldview.

    • Scott Adams sees Trump as a master brander. He can brand things like a snake-oil salesman. He doesn’t have to have any substance, just persuasive uses of words. People can’t see that his snake oil is just that, because the success of this type of person is to get you to buy the product. Once the money has changed hands, he’s outta there. He doesn’t have to prove his product is any good. People are being duped and buying his snake oil for America.

      • David Springer

        “Branding” of people by Trump was suggested by Bill Maher. Scott Adams explicitly rejected the term saying “That’s wrong”. Adams said Trump is a master at the art of persuasion.

        What product is it that you think Trump is selling? It’s not snake-oil. It isn’t Trump real estate. He’s selling himself and his potential skill at solving problems that middle class people of all creeds and colors care about. He’s selling himself as a political outsider who won’t be bought by campaign financiers or other moneyed interests.

        People are sick of the performance of the Bush and Clinton political machines. The establishment wonks who care about the establishment and its benefactors who brung them to the dance. Nobody brought Trump to the dance. He’s beholden to no one. He doesn’t care who’s toes he steps on. He says, with pride and bluster, what many people think but don’t say.

        I no longer believe it’s an act. What you see is what you get. It’s time to change-up the status quo in Washington. Trump is willing, eager, and capable of doing just that and loving every minute of it. It’s the ultimate challenge for him. He was destined for this moment in history. Reconcile yourself to it.

      • He has had to back off or soften so many of his wrong statements, and there are some that are clearly wrong that he won’t back off. There should no longer be any confidence that he is either true or earnest in anything he has said, let alone has any capability of carrying anything out. He’s not a conservative at heart. He’s faking it, and very badly. The Republicans backed themselves into an extremely conservative corner diminishing their base so much in the last 8 years that they could not even defeat a simple-minded populist. It really is two parties, and the sooner they realize it, the better for them.

  57. Climate change is the most pressing issue of our time. So why isn’t it getting more play in the election?

    With the exception of a handful of quacks and deniers, the vast majority of scientists believe that human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels – is driving up temperatures around the world, and that the pace of global warming is accelerating faster than earlier believed.

    Warmer temperatures unleash more extreme weather systems, exacerbate drought cycles, and melt the poles and glaciers, leading to rising sea levels that in the not-distant future will have disastrous effects, such as swamping swaths of Bangladesh, submerging the Marshall Islands and flooding low-lying coasts around the U.S., including Marina del Rey and other Southern California seaside communities.

    The scientific evidence is clear: Change is already happening….

    Climate change is, as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently put it, “one of the most crucial problems on Earth.”

    Yet the issue has been largely absent from the current presidential campaign. We’d like to say that is surprising, but unfortunately it is to be expected.

    Like many Republicans, Donald Trump denies climate change even exists, which should serve as further proof, if more is needed, that he is unqualified to run the country.

    Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both believe the science and have issued detailed proposals for increasing solar and other renewable energy sources while throttling back our reliance on fossil fuels. And they both recognize the absolute necessity for the U.S. to lead the world in efforts to limit the looming damage as much as is possible….

    Climate change barely resonates. An assessment in March by Media Matters found that across 20 debates among candidates in both major parties, global warming accounted for only 1.5% of the questions asked – 22 out of 1,477 questions….

    A February Gallup poll found climate change low on the list of issues that voters say matter to them – especially for Republicans, for whom it was the least-significant issue included in the survey….

    The globe is teetering on the edge of catastrophic change….

    Confronting the challenges of climate change will require significant political leadership, particularly since a cluster of deniers hold influential congressional positions. Given the severity of the threat, the issue should play a far greater role in the national discussion….

    [C]limate change, with its mass variations in weather patterns, disappearing coastlines, longer and drier droughts and ensuing conflicts over access to water and habitable terrain, is a looming problem that threatens to upend world politics. Unless we stop looking at it as a back-burner issue, we’re going to pay the consequences much sooner than we think.

    • David Springer

      Climate change:boy who cried wolf


      These people just don’t realize how goofy they look when they overplay their hands so much. They make evangelicals predicting a biblical apocalypse any day now look like reasonable people in comparison.

  58. Feinstein on Clinton Secret Server: “Enough Is Enough,” All She Wanted Was A “Private Life”

    Yes, but the Clinton emails that have been either leaked or released so far show, for instance, how deeply she was involved in political intrigue and manipulaiton in the internal politics of Mexico.

    This is information that the American people have the right to know.

    • David Springer

      Yup. As I’ve been saying all along the whole point of avoiding the use of gov’t archived email is to avoid open record requests. You can’t delete email unless you own the email server. It’s not a hassle at all using two email addresses one for personal business and one for public business. When I was in public office and had a .gov email address I simply set up the .gov email account to forward everything to Outlook and I set up Outlook to put the fowarded mail in a separate inbox and send replies to .gov email through the government server. Easy peasy. The only difficulty is when originating email instead of replying you have to pick which email address to use the private or public.

      In this manner my private email remained private with me controlling the archive and all public email got archived on the .gov server in whatever manner they saw fit. Any open record requests the government got I simply let them figure out which emails were responsive to it so I didn’t waste my time responding to fishing expeditions. I will say that some members of the public abuse the open records laws thinking they can intimidate people and cause lots of work for staff. I got even with those people by publishing their names and the information they sought to the taxpayers in my district and pointing out how they were wasting tax money by taking up excessive staff time. The requests themselves are public information too. It’s a double edged sword.

  59. David Springer

    Clinton Cash – the official trailer

    • I looked at the Clinton Foundation 2014 form 990. Anyone can get a free account at GuideStar and have a look at it. The first thing that’s of interest is this:
      (All numbers rounded)
      Contributions: $170 million
      Grants: $5 million
      Not a wrong ratio, an interesting one.
      So they are doing something, and it looks like they will send people to help you.
      Compensation: $32 million
      They have offices, occupancy costs are: $5 million
      Travel: $8 million
      Conferences: $12 million
      So it seems to help without giving much in the way of grants.
      Balance sheet shows $148 million in real estate and equipment. Have to figure most of it’s real estate. I am thinking the Clintons are far too smart to smart to directly benefit from the Foundation. Causes they support will, but they’ll avoid getting entangled is something as foolish as getting money from the Foundation.

  60. From the article:

    California billionaire Tom Steyer stars in a new Spanish-language television commerical attacking presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

    The advertisement, which Steyer’s group NextGen Climate Action is airing statewide ahead of California’s June 7 primary on Univision, Telemundo, and Spanish-language websites, features video clips of Trump calling immigrants from Mexico “rapists” and calling for a deportation force to send home those in the country illegally.


    • David Springer

      Seems ill conceived. All Trump has to do is show a few examples of illegals convicted of rape, murder, drug dealing, etc. and he demonstrably becomes the guy in the white hat exposing what’s going on,. the guy addressing tough issues that the other side wants to sweep under the rug.

      There’s no shortage of examples of illegals engaging in all kinds of criminal behaviors. Doesn’t matter if most of them don’t or not. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel and there’s no getting around the fact they’re ALL criminals by definition i.e. illegal alien. That’s not a winning strategy for democrats. Just the opposite. They shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

      • Crimes are committed by all kinds of people. Trump needs to tone down the diatribe against illegals. There are plenty of good reasons to control the border, sovereignty being the first and foremost.

      • David Springer

        That doesn’t play well in Peoria, Jim. We don’t need a fence we need to either enforce the immigration laws or change them. Right now they’re being ignored. It’s no wonder the southern border is porous there’s no penalty for crossing it illegally. We need to start doing a lot more police work at home and a lot less of it abroad.

      • David Springer

        Jim, I learned my lesson about second guessing Trump. When will you?

  61. A Dialogue With a 22-Year-Old Donald Trump Supporter

    He lives near San Francisco.

    “I recently became engaged to my Asian fiancée who is making roughly 3 times what I make, and I am completely supportive of her and proud she is doing so well,” he wrote. “We’ve both benefitted a lot from globalization. We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters,” he observed, “but we’re not. In 2016, we’re both going for Trump.”…

    [H]e fleshed out something I’ve been thinking about since last summer, when I published notes from 30 Trump supporters explaining their support. A backlash against “political correctness” loomed large in those accounts. And today’s correspondent expounds on that subject in illuminating way….

    “For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc.”….

    “This is a war over how dialogue in America will be shaped. If Hillary wins, we’re going to see a further tightening of PC culture. But if Trump wins? If Trump wins, we will have a president that overwhelmingly rejects PC rhetoric. Even better, we will show that more than half the country rejects this insane PC regime. If Trump wins, I will personally feel a major burden relieved, and I will feel much more comfortable stating my more right-wing views without fearing total ostracism and shame. Because of this, no matter what Trump says or does, I will keep supporting him.”….

    “Having Trump in the White House would both give me more confidence to speak my own opinion and more of a shield from instantly being dismissed as a racist/xenophobe/Nazi (all three things I have been called personally).”

    “As for mechanisms, I think Trump would likely do what he can to protect free speech. That could include vetoing bills, instituting laws preventing social media posts from costing people jobs (I never post on Facebook for fear of even a neutral post being interpreted negatively), overruling university speech policies.”….

    The 22-year-old Trump supporter’s words track concerns I’ve aired before.

    In The Federalist, David Marcus argues that anti-white rhetoric is fueling white nationalism. I’ve previously warned that “encouraging a focus on white identity is a dangerous approach for a country in which white supremacy has been a toxic force,” an admonition that applies to the right and left in different ways. And on the subject of “political correctness,” I’ve posited that citizens who oppose Trumpism should “take a careful look at everything that falls under the rubric of political correctness; study the real harm done by its excesses; identify the many parts that are worth defending; and persuade more Americans to adopt those norms voluntarily, for substantive reasons, not under duress of social shaming or other coercion.”

    Today’s correspondent is just one voter. Future opinion polls will say much more about how typical Trump supporters relate to political correctness and white identity.

  62. Police Declared Protests Outside Donald Trump’s San Diego Rally An Unlawful Assembly, But What Does That Mean?

    What should be questioned isn’t whether police were right to declare Friday’s protest in San Diego an unlawful assembly, but why Trump rallies consistently become the source of violent clashes. There’s a common denominator here that needs heavy scrutiny.

  63. How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism

    Progressive rhetoric on race has turned an ugly corner and the existence of “anti-white” attitudes can no longer be ignored….

    What is new is the direct indictment of white people as a race….

    What started as irony turned into an actual belief that white people, specifically white men, are more dangerous and immoral than any other people….

    White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.

    A big part of the reason white Americans have been willing to go along with policies that are prejudicial on their face, such as affirmative action, is that they do not view themselves as a tribe. Given the inequality of resources favoring whites in our society, it is a good thing that white people view themselves as the ones without an accent. Should that change, white privilege (whatever one views that to be) will not be eviscerated—it will be entrenched….

    White people do not face the same kinds of systemic discrimination that people of color do. But progressives are doing a very good job of convincing white people that they do….

    [I]n the 1990s, society roundly condemned the outward expression of racist attitudes. This is why the focus shifted to the ways in which white people were racist without even knowing it. Importantly, all white people were guilty of this form of racism….

    Young white men, reacting to social and educational constructs that paint them as the embodiment of historical evil, are fertile ground for white supremacists. They are very aware of the dichotomy between non-white culture, which must be valued at all times (even in the midst of terror attacks), and white culture, which must be criticized and devalued. They don’t like it.

    The result of these societal double standards is for many a desire to lash out against it. For every white college student who dutifully accepts his privilege, many more resent the idea and wish to fight it. The sharpest arrow in their quiver is to be offensive….

    [T]he central theme is identity. That theme quickly calcifies into attitudes too brittle to hold up serious discourse. In reducing all phenomena to a question of race, both the alt right and the progressive left ensure the dominance of racial resentment as the lynchpin of our society….

    Both of these perspectives must be rejected. In their place, we must return to the goal of treating people as individuals, not as representatives of their race.

  64. David Springer

    Don Surber – “I see where Chuck Todd has finally figured out why Hillary Clinton sent official emails from a private serve: to dodge FOIA requests.”

    Yup. More at link:


  65. David Springer

  66. Historias polémicas persiguen a Hillary Clinton durante su campaña política

    In the case of Honduras, Clinton, as secretary of state, “worked to legitimize the overthrow of a government … and in doing so helped install a regime that has killed women and men at an impressive rate,” wrote the historian Greg Grandin.

    Remember: Before her assassination on March 3, Bertha Caceres blamed Clinton for legitimizing the coup of 2009. Caceres forewarned that this would be very dangerous, and predicted that the result would be a lot of blood.

    Although there has been almost universal condemnation of the coup and its aftermath, Clinton, to this date, justifies her actions for the good of the people of that country (She never mentions that her own lawyer represented the businessmen who led the coup.)….

    At the same time, Clinton has benefited more than any of her opponents in both parties by donations from military contractors, according to the Center for Public Intergrity.

    • Clinton is getting blasted in Latin America………

      Emails stored on Clinton’s “private” email servers show Secretary of State Clinton Disobeyed President Obama

      At a crucial juncture after the 28 June 2009 coup by Honduras’s oligarchs overthrowing Manuel Zelaya, the popular progressive democratically elected President of Honduras, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disobeyed U.S. President Barack Obama’s instruction to block continued U.S. funding of the Honduran government, and she secretly continued that funding, while her friend Lanny Davis was serving as the oligarchs’ chief lobbyist representing their interests to Democrats in Congress and to the Obama Administration….

      The information that Secretary of State Clinton had outright disobeyed the President on this matter was first made public on 5 July 2015 by Bill Conroy of The Narcosphere site, where he headlined, “Emails Show Secretary Clinton Disobeyed Obama Policy And Continued Funding For Honduras Coup Regime.” Examining “more than 3,000 pages worth” of “the official emails recently made public by the State Department” from Hillary Clinton’s private server, Conroy found that she had stovepiped her information about the Honduran situation

  67. Hillary Clinton’s New Anti-Trump Ad Misses the Mark

    [The Great Financial Crisis] was not caused by people swooping in after the bubble burst, buying at the bottom of the market.

    It was caused by the existence of a speculative bubble in the first place. And that bubble was inflated not by Donald Trump, but by the people who have at least in part bankrolled Hillary Clinton’s career: namely, Wall Street banks….

    So when Donald Trump in 2006 says, “If there is a bubble burst, you could make a lot of money,” he might sound crass, but he wasn’t wrong. That bubble was always going to burst. Those investors who got creamed were always going to get creamed.

    And the fault was with the people who drove this speculative craze by knowingly peddling bad merchandise and continually driving the markets upward….

    We know the names of many of these companies because many of them have agreed to pay huge settlements for their involvement in selling mismarked mortgage securities.

    Four of them — the aforementioned Citigroup, along with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase — are among Hillary Clinton’s top six contributors from her career.

    Many of the same banks also agreed to massive settlements for, among other things, using fraudulent documents to kick people out of their houses….

    Goldman Sachs, the company famous for paying Hillary Clinton $675,000 for three speeches…, profited from the crash by shorting the market even as it was advising clients in the opposite direction….

    “I found a white elephant, flying pig and unicorn all at once,” clucked one of the bank’s sales reps…..

    These firms have mostly avoided blame for the crisis, partly because this subject is complicated, but also because mainstream politicians from both parties have refused to point a finger at them…..

    By blaming Trump for a problem caused by their own political patrons, Hillary and the Democrats are walking face-first into Trump’s rhetorical buzz-saw. Couldn’t they find something else to hit him with?

  68. After latest email revelations and endless dishonesty, time for Hillary Clinton to head for the hills


  69. Emails Show Secretary Clinton Disobeyed Obama Policy And Continued Funding For Honduras Coup Regime

    Buried in the latest trove of Hillary Clinton emails made public last week are some missives that shed new light on the former Secretary of State’s role in seemingly undermining President Barack Obama’s policy in dealing with the 2009 coup d’état in Honduras.

    The official emails recently made public by the State Department —more than 3,000 pages worth — were sent or received primarily in 2009 through Clinton’s private email account — via an email server set up outside the government’s system and used to conduct official business.

    One email exchange discovered in the recently released batch of State Department communications reveals that Clinton personally signed off on continuing the flow of US funds to the putsch regime in Honduras in the fall of 2009 — even as the White House was telling the world that such aid had been suspended.

    Another email exchange involving Clinton shows that she turned to a lobbyist employed by Honduran business interests suspected of orchestrating the coup to get access to the Roberto Micheletti, the “de facto” president of the putsch regime. Micheletti assumed power after the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was removed from office at gunpoint on June 28, 2009.

    The lobbyist Clinton favored in her dealings with Micheletti was Lanny Davis — a long-time friend whom she had met while at Yale Law School and a former White House Counsel to Bill Clinton [as well as a consummate shill for the Clinton agenda].

    Davis also is a lawyer and lobbyist and in the latter capacity was retained in July 2009 by the Business Council of Latin America (CEAL) to hawk for the Honduran coup regime, including Micheletti’s illegal administration….

    Dana Frank, professor of history at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and an expert on human rights and U.S. policy in Honduras, told Narco News previously that the “2009 military coup that deposed democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya … opened the door to a free-for-all of criminality in Honduras.”

    “Since then,” she added, “organized crime, drug traffickers and gangs have flourished, worming their way ever-higher within the Honduran government, courts, attorney general’s office and congress.”

    Likewise Joy Olson, executive director of the Washington Office on Latin America, a nongovernmental organization focused on human rights, democracy and social justice, said the coup did have a major destabilizing influence on the institutions in Honduras that were already very weak, “and criminal elements took advantage of that space.”

    Honduras as of 2014 had the highest murder rate in the world, United Nations data shows. And both the police and military have been implicated in extrajudicial murders in Honduras, according to a 2013 State Department human rights report.

    • David Springer

      Tiny Hands Trump looks better every day while Cr00ked Hillary looks worse every day.

      Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!

      • David,

        I certainly don’t understand it.

        Hillary took a wrecking ball to Honduras, literally destroying the place so her rich friends could make a few extra bucks.

        Then, when children and young people fled the hell hole she had made — literally fleeing for their lives — she got on TV and said they must immediately be sent back. This report is from a Guatemalan newspaper:

        Clinton: “niños migrantes deberían ser enviados de vuelta”

        Consideró que a pesar de que sea más seguro para los menores permanecer en Estados Unidos, no es la respuesta adecuada para solventar esta problemática.

        “Tenemos que enviar un mensaje claro: solo porque sus hijos atraviesen la frontera, no significa que se quedarán… No queremos enviar un mensaje contrario a nuestras leyes o estaríamos alentando más niños a hacer el peligroso viaje”, explicó.

        También reiteró que es necesario que ese país incremente el apoyo a México, para fortalecer la seguridad en su frontera sur.

        Here’s a similar report in English:

        Hillary Clinton: Unaccompanied Minors ‘Should Be Sent Back’

        “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

        The Obama administration did just what Clinton advised, with Joe Biden chiming in saying the same thing. All but a handful of the children were quickly sent back, almost to certain death. This was tantamount to a death sentence.

        And furthermore, when the United States says jump, Mexico says “How high?” So when Clinton said Mexico had to stop the flow of immigrants crossing its southern border from Central America, Mexico immediately promulgated its Plan Frontera Sur, which went into effect in July 2014.

        Although Plan Frontera Sur had the desired effect and substantally stemmed the flow of Central American immigrants reaching the United States, it has had a devastating effect on the lives of people fleeing the mayhem that Clinton herself created:

        El Plan Frontera Sur: un año de represión, persecución y muerte
        [El Plan Frontera Sur: A year of repression, persecutin and death]



        The outcry in Mexico was so fierce that the Mexican government softened its position and now allows minors from Central America to remain in Mexico:

        Un hogar para niños que huyen de la guerra de pandillas
        [A home for the children fleeing the war of the gangs]


        Ice runs in Clinton’s veins. And then she has the audacity to blast Trump’s stance on immigration?

      • David Springer

        Trump has this ready to expose when needed. He A-B tested “Cr00ked Hillary” and “Heartless Hillary” at the NRA endorsement acceptance speech to gauge which is the more effective. He decided on the fly, but tentatively, from audience reaction that Cr00ked Hillary still played better in Peoria. Nevertheless that night and all across America people, including me asking my wife, which do you think fits better “Cr00ked Hillary” or “Heartless Hillary”. People have a tough time deciding this but it sets up a dichotomy between two evils. My wife decided on “Cr00ked” like most people but it was a tough call because she hates Hillary for leaving the Benghazi ambassadorial staff to be murdered. When and if Cr00ked Hillary starts wearing thin Trump has a known winner waiting in the wings to replace it. Clinton is so unelectable. Like Scott Adams said Trump brings a flame thrower to a stick fight and no one else has anything that can defend against it.

      • El Plan Frontera Sur has also had a grievous effect on women fleeing the violence. Women make up about 30% of the refugees:



  70. The Email hairball begins unwinding in Latin America:

    Hear Hillary Clinton Defend Her Role in Honduras Coup When Questioned by Juan González

    Earlier this week, the former secretary of state publicly defended her role in the 2009 coup in Honduras, when the military seized democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in the middle of the night, deposed him and sent him into exile.

    Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most violent places in the world.

    Clinton was asked about Honduras during a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board on Saturday. The question was posed by Democracy Now!’s Juan González

    • Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton’s Defense of Her Role in Honduras

      I think we’re all kind of reeling that she would both defend the coup and defend her own role in supporting its stabilization in the aftermath.

      The fact that she then is going to say that it was not an unconstitutional coup is incredible, when she actually had a cable, that we have in the WikiLeaks, in which U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens says it was very clearly an illegal and unconstitutional coup. So she knows this from day one….

      I want to make sure that the listeners understand how chilling it is that the leading presidential—a leading presidential candidate in the United States would say this was not a coup. The second thing is that she’s baldly lying when she says we never called it a coup; we didn’t, because that would mean we have to suspend the aid. Well, first of all, they repeatedly called it a coup. We can see State Department statements for months calling it a coup and confirming, yes, we call it a coup….

      So, she, Hillary Clinton—and Obama, for that matter, I want to make clear—in violation of U.S. law, that very clearly said if there’s a coup, they have to cut the military aid and that—all other aid to the country, she violated the law, decided, well, it wasn’t a military coup, when of course it was. It was the military that put him on the plane, which she says in her statement….

      Well, I mean, it’s incredible this woman is a presidential candidate, that she’s doing like things like this, the fact that she would say we wanted to “render the question of Zelaya moot,” we wanted to bury the democratically elected president’s existence and act like the coup didn’t happen. I mean, that’s why it’s so terrifying that today—or rather, on Saturday, she would say—she would defend this coup, say it wasn’t a coup, and defend her actions in installing this terrifically horrific, scary post-coup regime….

      [The] coup and the illegitimate election that followed it, that Hillary Clinton is celebrating so clearly in her statements, opened the door to this complete—almost complete destruction of the rule of law in Honduras.

      People hear about, oh, the gangs and violence and drug traffickers are taking over. Well, that’s because the post-coup governments, both of Micheletti, Lobo and now Juan Orlando Hernández, have completely destroyed the rule of law, because they’re in cahoots with these various forms of organized crime and drug traffickers and violence against the Honduran people….

      [I]t’s not just like there are randomly violent people down there. This is a U.S.-supported regime. The aftermath of the coup, if you look at all these statistics, [was a] tremendous destruction of the basic rule of law in Honduras.

  71. Identity Politics Are Ripping Us Apart

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435567/identity-politics-race-ripping-us-apart

    Here’s the problem: Progressives don’t like to admit this, but identity politics work as the mirror image of white supremacy — compressing the extraordinarily rich and complex histories of nations, continents, and cultures into one characteristic: skin color. For the white supremacist, white people are natural-born victors. For the identity-politics leftist, white people are natural-born predators….

    When identity politics rule, racism and polarization thrive. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a resurgence in outright white nationalism — embodied in the so-called alt-right — at the same time that America’s leftist cultural elite are decisively rejecting Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that Americans be judged by the “content of their character” and not the color of their skin. When one side decides that skin color is a virtue, then — as sure as the sun rises in the east — the other side will eagerly agree.

  72. David Springer


    Obama’s Reckless Overseas Attack on Trump

    When looking for support for his foreign policy, President Barack Obama wants Republicans to line up behind him because politics should stop at the water’s edge. But when trying to elect a Democratic successor, Mr. Obama takes politics with him wherever he goes, including to this week’s G-7 Summit in Japan. Speaking at a press conference, he pontificated on the ongoing primary elections, including sharp jabs at Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. While he might think that his attacks on Trump’s “ignorance” and “cavalier attitude” will somehow help former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they in fact diminish not only Mr. Obama and his office, but the country he has traveled overseas to represent.

    –more at link

    • Quote from the article:

      This is damaging not only in importing foreign political preferences into U.S. elections (something that many Americans won’t welcome, especially when Donald Trump has suggested that some of the same allies are not paying their fair share for their own defense) but also in complicating U.S. efforts to work with those very leaders if Mr. Trump is actually elected.

      I think it’s a mistake to believe that Obama/Clinton, or their fellow establishment Republicans on the other side of the aisle, represent the American people.

      Here, for example, is a recent photo taken in El Salvador of who the Republicrat establishment really works for.


      On the right is Carlos Slim, the Mexican oligarch. He also has his own propaganda arm in the United States: he is the financial savior and principal stockholder of the NY Times.

      In the center is the Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra, a transnaitonal mining magnate who has mining interests throughout the world.

      And on the left is you know who.

      The billionaires ponied up $100 million each for the Fundación Clinton Giustra Slim Enterprise Partnership.

      Bill Clinton Leads Sinister Business Alliance in El Salvador

      Whatever the motives, the Clinton-Slim-Giustra-Callejas alliance in El Salvador offers a sobering glimpse into the multi-million-dollar ties between extractive industries, corporate philanthropy and global politics, in which community interests are sacrificed for the financial and political gain of an elite few.

    • David Springer

      Let’s hope not. Cr00ked Hillary has just the right amount of damaged goods to lose in a landslide and give Tiny Hands Trump a mandate to clean up the establishment’s globalization mess. This is a unique opportunity to transform American politics into something that’s works for the people instead of around them.

  73. The left’s obsession with identity politics causes a new injustice

    Class struggle, at one time the raison d’être of the socialist movement, has been usurped on the left by the personal grievances of women, gays and ethnic minorities….

    Inequalities based around identity are narrowing but economic inequality is growing and with it so is class inequality. Paradoxically, it is the latter which is increasingly ignored.

    Ultimately, though, the left should seek to move beyond identity politics for the simple reason that it is compatible with neo-liberal economics. Identity politics can co-exist with the corporate boss who makes more money in a week than his cleaner takes home in a year – as long as the chances of being the boss are assigned proportionally among different ethnic groups, sexualities and genders. Individual winners and losers remain as remote from each other as ever; they are simply sorted in direct proportion to their numbers in society. The ultimate aim of identity politics is to ‘tune up’ the elite rather than to abolish it.

    By emphasising difference over commonality, identity politics also makes it harder for the left to establish a mass politics based around shared economic interests. By seeking constantly to divide people up into smaller and smaller groups, identity politics forestalls the creation of a sense of unity around issues of economic justice. And because it is obsessed with difference, the divisions are potentially endless….

    As well as ignoring the disadvantages accrued from being working class, liberal identity politics throws up other dilemmas. One of these is the common assumption that ethnic and gender groups form a homogeneous bloc. This is reflected in commonly espoused commentary about a supposed ‘black community’ or ‘gay community’, or in the implied notion that female voters should automatically pick female politicians at the ballot box. Essentialism of this sort erroneously ascribes homogeneity to what in reality are divergent groups with different interests. As should be fairly obvious, beyond the extremes, entire populations are not reducible to a single viewpoint. Beyond an opposition to racism, an unemployed black twenty-something living in Peckham does not share the same interests as a British-Indian property magnate from Manchester.

  74. The mystery of weak US productivity.

    Economic output is the ultimate test of our ability to create wealth

    It is no coincidence that since 2004 a majority of Americans began to tell pollsters they expected their children to be worse off — the same year in which the internet-fuelled productivity leaps of the 1990s started to vanish. Most Americans have suffered from indifferent or declining wages in the past 15 years or so. A college graduate’s starting salary today is in real terms well below where it was in 2000. For the first time the next generation of US workers will be less educated than the previous, according to the OECD, which means worse is probably yet to come. Last week’s US productivity report bears that out…..

    [T]he US and most of the west are stuck with a deepening productivity crisis. The slowdown has one manifest effect and a seductive remedy. The first, an embittered backlash against business as usual, is already upon us. Witness Donald Trump’s ascent.

  75. David Springer

    No mystery. US manufacturing, the backbone of middle class employment, was systematically destroyed under the globalization mantra. Environmental, energy, labor regulations, and free trade deals made by politicians bought and paid for by multi-national industrial billionaires destroyed the US middle class and made it dependent on gov’t largesse the amount and type also controlled by same wealthy elites. Trump is an ego maniac who wants to be revered by a hundred million middle class voters. What drives Trump is different. It’s ego not greed and he makes no bones about it. A blue collar billionaire. No poise, no charm. A bull in a China shop. He was born for this moment in time. It’s his destiny.

    • If the US is to remain competitive globally, they have to go where the cheap labor is. This was a rational business decision about how to survive under globalization. Better ideas would be welcome. Bring the jobs home or penalize overseas manufacturing: prices rise, the US loses its overseas market (imagine what happens to Apple if it manufactures in the US instead of China). Would they still compete with Samsung? How about automobiles, or other assembly-line systems. The US would be toast, and those jobs they brought home would be short-lived.

      • Jim D,

        One little piece of factual information that the fans of globalization invariably omit from their narrative: The price of labor “where the cheap labor is” has also gotten a lot cheaper due to globalization.

        In Mexico, for instance, the average manufacturing worker’s pay has lost 60% of its purchasing power since NAFTA was enacted:



        With globalization, the only winners are the transnational plutocrats and a handful of people in their inner circles.

        I don’t know why you believe people should continue falling on their own swords for these gazillionaires.

      • Pulling your factories out of Mexico won’t solve that problem either. Globalization is the realization that some countries are better suited for manufacturing in just the same way as we realize the same in agricultural produce and the acquisition of raw materials. It is a globalized world. There is no withdrawing from it.

      • David Springer

        “It is a globalized world. There is no withdrawing from it.”

        Sure there is. Just watch.

      • We agree on something. You’re sounding more capitalist than Trump. People with low skills don’t want to work for less. Except for maybe the Mexicans. Perhaps people stopped trying to be great themselves and now look for the government to be great instead. But that’s not Republican in my opinion.

      • Glenn Stehle:
        Under globalization, people with less to offer have less to offer. Let’s make that everyone’s problem, but not so much the people with less to offer.

      • Ragnaar, sure free markets and capitalism. Let the chips fall where they may. Obviously industry should not be completely unrestrained, and there are regulations on how to treat workers, product safety and pollution control that I would also hope would be enforced as part of the deal.

      • David Springer

        “If the US is to remain competitive globally, they have to go where the cheap labor is.”

        Competitive in what and what benefit does the US middle class get from this so-called competitiveness?

        Watch Jimmy dodge the hard question now. LOL

      • Competitive on the world markets. How can the US middle class succeed? Take advantage of a better education system to lead in new industries (as they have). New industries are tech based or in local construction, service, trade and sales. If you think America needs to make all its own clothes and assemble electronics just to provide middle class jobs, you are living in a fantasy land. Americans won’t even take the agriculture and meatpacking jobs because they are too hard, so what would be their attitude to a mass-production sewing or electronics factory?

      • David Springer

        Jimmy D mentions Apple and what might happen if making phones in China becomes more expensive.

        Why should I care what happens to Apple when Apple doesn’t care about me?

        He asks would Apple be able to compete with Samsung? Inside the US I’m sure they could.

        Jimmy mentions the auto industry.

        Why should I care what happens to Toyota, Hyundai, or BMW, Jimmy? How many Ford trucks are exported to South Korea purchase from us?

        The idea is we make what we consume, Jimmy. It’s not complicated. A closed loop. Globalization benefits multi-national corporations. How does it benefit the underemployed US middle class who aren’t stockholders or employees of those corporations?

      • So you don’t care about the price consequences of Apple moving factories here. They would tank on the world market and scale down, but you don’t care. The rest of the world gets cheap Samsungs and the US have to get them highly tariffed or on the black market. Same with TVs, computers, etc. Think it through. Do I have to defend the free market now? Countries do what they can do best, and the US has a place without making all its own electronics.

      • JIm D and Ragnar,

        Both of you are proselytes of what Reinhold Niebuhr called the “middle-class creed.” Here’s how he explained it:

        Timothy Dwight was not the only protagonist of middle-class respectablity who spoke of “property and character” in the same breath.

        The middle classes were proud that their property, unlike that of the inheritances of the leisured classes, sprang from character, industry, continence and thrift, and they were therefore quite certain that any one endowed with similar virtues could equal the competnence which they enjoyed. Failure to achieve such a competence was in itself proof of a lack of virtue.

        This middle-class creed sprang so naturally from the circumstances of middle-class life that it ought perhaps, to be regarded as an illusion rather than a pretension.

        But when it is maintained in defiance of all the facts of an industrial civilisation, which reveal how insignificant are the factors of virtuous thrift and industry beside the factor of the disproportion in economic power in the creaiton of economic inequality, the element of honest illusion is transmuted into dishonest pretension….

        [I]t is impossible to justify the degree of inequality which complex societies inevitably create by the increased concentration of power which develops with more elaborate civilization.

        The literature of all ages is filled with rational and moral justifications of these inequalitites, but most of them are specious….

        No impartial society determines the rewards. The men of power who control society grant these perquisites to themselves. Whatever special ability is not associated with power, as in the case of the modern professonal man, his excess of income over the average is ridiculosuly low in comparison with that of the economic overlords, who are the real centers of power in an industrial society.

        Most rational and social justifications of unequal privilege are clearly afterthoughts. The facts are created by the disproportion of power which exists in a given social system. The justifications are ususally dictated by the desire of the men of power to hide the nakedness of their greed, and by the inclination of society itself to veil the brutal facts of human life from itself….

        Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are seved by, the special privileges which they hold.

        The most common form of hypocrisy among the privileged classes is to assume that their privileges are the just payments with which society rewards specially useful or meritorious functions.

        — REINHOLD NIEBUHR, Moral Man and Immoral Society

      • Glenn Stehle:
        “…which reveal how insignificant are the factors of virtuous thrift and industry beside the factor of the disproportion in economic power in the creation of economic inequality…”
        Successful capitalism pales when compared to people who have a lot of money. How these people have a lot of money is not known. Surely it can’t be capitalism. Those that have been modestly successful are tools of those that have a lot of money. The idea of granting others rights, such as property rights and the right to exchange one’s labor is a failed illusion benefiting those who are successful. People supporting the successful demonstrates that they should not. Inequality of situations is proof itself that rights should not be granted to others and force is justified in achieving equality. Sameness is our guiding principle. But not sameness with for instance, Mexicans. We in the U.S. are virtuous, unlike those who we not born here and don’t get the same sameness we are entitled to. This sameness must be worldwide, to the poorest of the poor. It is an illusion to be better off than poor Africans and fight amongst ourselves for another dollar an hour while they suffer an order of magnitude worse than our poor. Because our values our universal. Crossing borders and not confined to an arbitrary line on a map. Things that are not illusions can do that. As they apply here in this country, they apply everywhere. We in the U.S. sit upon a pile of stuff we did not virtuously earn. We were unequally rewarded and therefore will not play the, we were born here card, to gut our philosophical arguments. We will now sell off our earthly belongings and travel to the poorest place we can find, distribute our money to the unsame people and live as they do until the situation is corrected. Voting for people like Trump and fixating on others.

      • David Springer


        Are you smoking crack?

      • No. Glenn Stehle is quoting inequality of money or income. Just trying to see where that gets us. But this election is about something. Inequality and the Democrats were right along. Time to fight inequality with equality for under employed white men. Economic inequality. I was promised a rose garden. Where it it? China took it. Mexicans took it. Globalists took it. I was born here gosh darn it. Donald Trump will fix this.

      • David Springer

        Your verbiage still appears like that of someone smoking crack. Rapid fire gibberish.

      • David Springer


        You seem to have a problem with nationalism. It’s understandable the Kenyan in the white house doesn’t feel there’s anything special about the United States. What’s your excuse?

      • UK voters shift towards ‘Out’ as EU referendum nears

        British voters have moved towards voting to leave the European Union in next month’s referendum according to two surveys by polling firm ICM, surprising investors and sending sterling sharply lower.

        The “Out” campaign stood three points ahead of “In” in each of the two surveys for the Guardian newspaper…


      • Nationalism Is Rising, Not Fascism

        • Recently, there have been a number of articles and statements asserting that fascism is rising in Europe, and that Donald Trump is an American example of fascism.

        • The charge of a rise in fascism derives from a profound misunderstanding of what fascism is. It is also an attempt to discredit the resurgence of nationalism and to defend the multinational systems that have dominated the West since World War II.

        • The nation-state is reasserting itself as the primary vehicle of political life.

        • Multinational institutions like the European Union and multilateral trade treaties are being challenged because they are seen by some as not being in the national interest.

        • Nationalism asserts the right to national self-determination and the right of citizens to decide what was in the national interest.

        • Fascism in its historical form was an assault on the right of nations to pursue their self-interest.

        • Liberal nationalism accepted that the right to hold power was subject to explicit and periodic selection of the leaders by the people.

        • Fascism asserts that a Hitler or Mussolini represent the people but are not answerable to them.

        • Arguing that being part of the European Union is not in the British interest, that NATO has outlived its usefulness, that protectionist policies or anti-immigration policies are desirable is not fascist. These ideas have no connection to fascism whatsoever. They are far more closely linked to traditional liberal democracy. They represent the reassertion of the foundation of liberal democracy, which is the self-governing nation-state.

        • The power to make these choices rests, in a liberal democracy, in the hands of the citizens.

        • What we are seeing is the rise of the nation-state against the will of multinational organizations and agreements.

        • We are seeing a return to nationalism in Europe and the United States because it is not clear to many that internationalism, as followed since World War II, benefits them any longer. They may be right or wrong, but to claim that fascism is sweeping Europe and the United States raises the question of whether those who say this understand the principles of fascism or the intimate connection between nationalism and liberal democracy.

      • It is hard to find an example of Nationalism without Fascism. Fascism is often expressed as nationalism, but as defined by an authoritarian leadership. Nationalism usually is inclusive of a certain part of their own society, but at the expense of minorities who are discriminated against. It doesn’t depend on birthrights, but traits (race and religion or party). It is fundamentally divisive by considering their traits superior and anything else inferior. Has Nationalism ever arisen in a bottom-up sense with no specific leader just the idea itself? Most often it is driven by a few elites who think they know what is right and what is wrong about classes of people either within their society or in other countries, and it only takes hold in authoritarian conditions, i.e. as Fascism.

      • Jim D,

        Fabrique National Herstal
        Just about every Japanese car company

        What do they have in common?

        They all manufacture in the US.

        US workers are still the most productive in the world. One of them is my nephew, who after commanding an airborne infantry company is now working for a German manufacturer in South Carolina.

        (He was telling his dad and I recently that they have trouble finding qualified young people to hire. Most likely evidence of the fine job our colleges are doing developing the important skill sets. As in how to create safe spaces.)

      • However, they won’t sell well in China unless they keep some manufacturing there. Depends if you want an international market or not. Perhaps Trump doesn’t. We don’t know. Does he want to bring Buick and Ford back from China or just penalize them for being there? These are the questions for him. He probably hasn’t thought about it.

  76. David Springer

    Scott Adams, Trump, and Climate Change


    I realize a number of my blog readers don’t think climate change is a problem. Hold that objection until the end.

    Let’s say you think climate change is the biggest threat to humanity, and you also think Trump believes climate change to be a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, because he actually said that in the past. That’s a big problem, right?

    Let’s put it in context and see if doing so changes your mind.

    For starters, Trump has over fifty years of business experience, and according to all reports, he is a rational person in his private dealings. In public, however, he says all sorts of crazy, provocative, and untrue things. That is worrisome.

    But at the same time, he tells us in public that he acts this way for effect, and we observe that his approach works. Trump secured the Republican nomination doing exactly what everyone in the world – except for a handful of trained persuaders – said he should NOT do.

    You might understand why Trump’s approach worked in the Republican Primary, where things can get crazy, but you’re probably thinking the same approach will fail in the general election. And you’d be right. That’s why you already see Trump evolving. He’s moderated from super-provocative to simply provocative. And we have observed him acting presidential during victory speeches, and other times when it suits him to do so. Evidently he has control over turning on and off the provocative stuff.

    We know Trump deals in hyperbole, and he bends the truth when that is the approach that is most persuasive. But he does it right in front of us, while explaining that he does it because it works. In an odd way, he is the most transparent candidate we have ever seen. He tells us that hyperbole (bullsh*t) and provocation get good results, and we observe that to be true. At least so far.

    Given that Trump is light on policy details, and prefers provocation over facts, we can expect Trump’s real opinion on climate change is more along the lines of haven’t really looked into it yet. At least not in any detail.

    Should you worry that the probable next President of the United States is not well-informed about one of the most important issues of our time?


    If you hired a CEO for a major corporation, and she wasn’t scheduled to start the job for six months, would you expect her to have a detailed plan for the company today?

    No, you would not expect that.

    You would expect that the CEO would learn about each issue in detail, using the latest information and the best advisors, once on the job. For climate change, it might take advisors about three hours to bring a leader up to speed on the latest science. It isn’t a big deal. Trump is treating the presidency like any other job that you learn once you get there. That’s what Obama did. That’s what all presidents do.

    Now for the fun part.

    Imagine a Democratic President trying to persuade Republicans that they need to do something expensive to deal with climate change. That’s nearly impossible.

    Now imagine a President Trump trying to deal with climate change. The Democrats are pre-sold. He doesn’t need to convince them of anything. But to change the minds of Republicans, you need to so something hypnotists call pacing and leading.

    Trump is already pacing. That means acting like the people you plan to later persuade. In one-on-one situations, pacing might include matching the subject’s breathing, posture, and choice of words. In the public context it means saying what people are already thinking. Many Republicans believe climate change is not real. Trump said it. He paced them. Now they trust him, because he thinks the same way they do.

    And that means Donald Trump is – literally – the only human being on Earth who can persuade Republicans that climate change is real. Some of you might recognize this technique as “Nixon goes to China.” Richard Nixon paced Republicans by being a commie-hater, just like them. When Nixon decided to get friendly with China, his supporters trusted him because they knew he thought the same way they did. When Nixon changed his mind on China, his supporters figured they could be flexible too. That’s pacing and leading.

    Trump doesn’t need to change the minds of any Democrats to believe in climate change. They already believe it. But if Trump someday needs to change Republican minds, he’s in a position to do it. And easily.

    Here’s how.

    I’m going to put this in the form of a citizen request. I’d like to see Trump offer to bring the climate change debate to the public. Make it part of the show, like Celebrity Apprentice, with advocates of both sides presenting to Trump on camera. Maybe bring in some experts on communication to help each side do the best job of making their cases. (Scientists are terrible at communicating.)

    Trump isn’t claiming to know as much as a climate change scientist. He is staking out his brand as some sort of “common sense conservative.” Common sense says we should let the smart people on climate change present their arguments and see who has the best case. And it needs to be public.

    If you think climate change is real, you probably love that idea of proving it in public. You want the world to know what you know. And if you think climate change is a hoax, you want a chance to show the world that you are right. And news organizations would eat it up. It would be a spectacle, and in the end, the public would be better-informed.

    Does Trump really believe climate change is a hoax? Let me tell you the answer to that question in the clearest possible terms, based on everything I know about the field of persuasion.

    Answer: No

    But he might have doubts about the predictive ability of models. That’s a separate question.

    –more at link


  77. Canada’s energy superpower status threatened as world shifts off fossil fuel, federal think-tank warns.
    ‘Significant disruptions’ forecast in 10 to 15 years as cost of renewables, energy storage plummet


    “It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world’s primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status,” reads the conclusion of the 32-page document, produced by Policy Horizons Canada….

    Its overall conclusion…urges caution when it comes to long-term investments in pipelines and other oil and gas infrastructure.

    Such investments “could be at high risk of becoming economically unviable as prices in renewable electricity further decline,” it warns….

    Wind and solar systems have the advantage of being “highly scalable and distributable,” the report states, making them appealing for communities of virtually any size, with or without an existing electrical grid….

    “We just saw Saudi Arabia award a major solar contract at three cents a kilowatt hour. We just saw Mexico do the same thing … at five cents a kilowatt hour,” he said.

    “You can’t bring on a new coal plant or natural gas plant at that price. You sure can’t build a new Site C hydro dam at that price.”…

    Batteries and other forms of energy storage technology are also becoming cheaper and more capable, according to the report, making electricity a more versatile option for residential and commercial use — as well as for transportation.

    The report states Tesla Motors has been producing lithium-ion batteries for both cars and homes at a cost of roughly $300 US per kWh, a price point the International Energy Agency previously predicted wouldn’t be possible until the year 2020.

    “Battery manufacturers in Asia are building battery factories at similar scales to Tesla’s Gigafactory that will triple battery production by 2020,” the report continues.

    “These economies of scale are expected to further reduce the cost of batteries to $150 US per kWh by 2020. At this price point, electric vehicles will become fully competitive with those powered by internal combustion engines.”….

    “The Chevy Bolt came out this year and it’s got a 200-mile [320 km] range at a price point below $40,000. Tesla is the No. 1 selling luxury vehicle in the world now. This is happening.”

  78. Talk about what Franklin D. Roosevelt called “economic royalists”…..

    WSJ Editor Bret Stephens: Trump Needs A Decisive Loss So “Republican Voters Learn Their Lesson”

  79. Media Fires Back At Trump: “You Keep Calling Us Dishonest… I Disagree With That”

    The media has the same problem that climate science does: no credibility and no legitimacy.

    • OK so our media has no credibility (and they haven’t since they gave Ford a pass for pardoning Nixon). Maybe our press has been lying about N. Korea all these years too. I’m so confused…

      “Trump is ‘wise politician’ and ‘far-sighted presidential candidate’: DPRK Today”

      • The neocons and the Warmists have more in common than a mutal hatred of Donald Trump: they are both practitioners of the politics of fear.

        These concern trolls hide their greed and quest for power behind a patina of altruism — “we only want to save you from [insert apocalyptic threat] before it’s too late,” they tell us. The reality is something quite different: it is the politics of fear writ large. The only difference between the neocons and the Warmists is their respective object of fear. With the neocons it is North Korea’s nukes; for the Warmists it is CAGW.

        Doomsday, both the neocons and the Warmists warn us, can only be avoided by spending vast amounts of money, on armaments for the neocons and on renewables for the Warmists.

        These expenditures, however, yield little economic benefit, and Donald Trump realizes that the United States can no longer afford them.

        Trump has proposed dialogue with both North Korea and Russia, something which is of course anathema to the neocons and the military-financial-industrial complex.

        This is a passage from the article you linked:

        The unprecedented North Korean editorial came amid repeated calls for dialogue with Seoul and its ally Washington. Since May 17, Pyongyang published a government statement with the aim of improving relations with Seoul, and notified the South Korean government of a willingness to resume inter-Korean military talks.

        South Korea dismissed Pyongyang’s call for talks but Pyongyang reiterated their intention to resolve the current inter-Korean deadlock through the dialogue.

        Trump and Pyongyang have expressed a willingness to dialogue. That obviously would not be a good move for the war profiteers, whose only interest is in promoting more expenditures for war and military buildup.


  80. Retired Marine Al Baldasaro Tells “Liberal Media” To “Get Your Heads Out Of Your Butts And Focus On Real Issues”

  81. David Springer


    Here’s what this election is about. Questions?


  82. Judge orders GOP get more Clinton-related emails before conventions
    Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

    A federal judge ruled Wednesday that another batch of Hillary Clinton-related emails must be turned over….

    Last December, the Republican National Committee sent two Freedom of Information Act requests to USAID….

    After USAID didn’t fork over any documents, the RNC filed a lawsuit in March.

    This could get interesting, since it is the USAID that stands accused of being the United States’ vehicle to bring about soft coups in Latin America:

    USAID: Soft Coup in Latin America (Part One)

    The Pentagon is responsible for traditional military actions, the State Department exercises diplomacy, and the USAID penetrates, permeates and controls the civilian populations.

    The USAID works to promote economic and strategic interests of the United States in almost the entire planet.

  83. Labor Fears Partisan Defections Toward Donald Trump.

    Union leaders mobilize to try to counteract the Republican’s appeal to the white working class

    Labor leaders are nervous about Donald Trump’s appeal to unions’ many white, working-class members, and they are working to head off partisan defections.

  84. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191960/economy-remains-top-priority-next-president.aspx?g_source=Election%202016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

    Regardless of who wins the election, what single issue or challenge are you most interested in having the next president address when he or she takes office next January?

    Now I am going to read a list of some of the issues that will probably be discussed in this year’s presidential election campaign. As I read each one, please tell me how important the candidates’ positions on that issue will be in influencing your vote for president — extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not important.

  85. Middle-Class Pain: Stagnant Pay Says It All

    Plenty of American workers, fearful about their financial well-being and their perch in the middle class, believe that economists, politicians and President Obama have it wrong.

    Many voters say they greet public discussions about a robust U.S. economy with skepticism because they and their communities continue to feel the effects of losses during the Great Recession. They know that workers haven’t seen wages climb, as promised, even as companies resumed hiring, experienced productivity gains, and pocketed new profits….

    On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton says the economic rescue Obama piloted should continue apace, while Donald Trump insists the president’s agenda has been “a disaster” for middle-class families.

    Obama and Clinton remind me of the country and western song:

    Put another log on the fire.
    Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
    And go out to the car and change the tyre.
    Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
    Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
    And then go fetch my slippers.
    And boil me up another pot of tea.
    Then put another log on the fire, babe,
    And come and tell me why you’re leaving me.

    Now don’t I let you wash the car on Sunday?
    Don’t I warn you when you’re gettin fat?
    Ain’t I a-gonna take you fishin’ with me someday?
    Well, a man can’t love a woman more than that.
    Ain’t I always nice to your kid sister?
    Don’t I take her driving every night?
    So, sit here at my feet ‘cos I like you when you’re sweet,
    And you know it ain’t feminine to fight.

    So, put another log on the fire.
    Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
    Go out to the car and lift it up and change the tyre.
    Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
    Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
    And then go fetch my slippers.
    And boil me up another pot of tea.
    Then put another log on the fire, babe,
    And come and tell me why you’re leaving me.

    • The Other World Trio, still like to sing their old standard. Kerry is todays lead singer.

      Kerry: ‘It would be an act of extraordinary danger to our country because of the path it would put us on both in terms of our global leadership on the issue as well as the actual policies we need to implement and it would in the end be an act of ignorance, of utter unbelievable contemptuous ignorance to get rid of something that the world has worked for since 1992 in Rio.’

      Hurtin fer Certin

  86. Oil and gas boom feeds greatest real wage growth in U.S., but will it last?

    Workers in America’s oil and gas patches have enjoyed some of the country’s biggest gains in the buying power of their paychecks over the past decade and a half, while workers in several small and mid-sized manufacturing-oriented cities have watched their buying power shrink over the same time period.

    A Pew Research Center analysis of federal wage data found that since 2000, most of the biggest inflation-adjusted gains in average weekly wages have occurred in metropolitan areas that have directly benefited from the boom in U.S. energy production – places like Midland and Odessa, Texas; Bismarck, North Dakota; Casper, Wyoming; and Houma and Lake Charles, Louisiana….

    Real wages fell in 22 metro areas….

    On average, real wages across the United States are stagnant:



  87. Economist ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ on Oil Prices, But Recovery Still Ahead http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/144841/Economist_Cautiously_Optimistic_on_Oil_Prices_But_Recovery_Still_Ahead?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-06-01&utm_content=&utm_campaign=industry_headlines_1#sthash.DpaVC4d1.dpuf

    The 173-rig count in the last two weeks of May was 81 percent less than the weekly count in November 2014 just prior to the start of the rig count decline, according to a May 31 Texas Alliance of Energy Producers press statement. Ingham commented that the 32 percent loss of oil and gas-related jobs in Texas – which occurred after upstream petroleum industry employment peaked at over 306,000 jobs in December 2014 – was a ‘minor miracle’ compared with the 80 percent decline in drilling rigs in the state. According to the TPI, another 6,300 jobs were eliminated in April, leaving upstream petroleum employment at an estimated 207,100, suggesting a loss of almost 99,000 jobs thus far.

  88. America’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas.
    The middle class lost ground in nearly nine-in-ten U.S. metropolitan areas examined


    From 2000 to 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas….

    The shrinking of the middle class at the national level, to the point where it may no longer be the economic majority in the U.S., was documented in an earlier analysis by the Pew Research Center.

  89. Milo Yiannopoulos: For Too Long Has The “Bogus Cult Of Social Justice” Policed Our Lives

    I love how they describe Yiannopoulos on the video:


    There is no question whatsoever that American college campuses and the American media are infected with a disease — Social Justice….

    Anyway — I think that there is something very wonderful happening. In politics, I think Trump is doing it. In media and on campuses I’m doing it — in media you are doing it too.

    Pushing back against the people who want to control what you do, how you think, what you wear, who you read, what video games you play, what language you can use, who you can hang out with. That’s over now. It is not working anymore. It is all gone.

    And you can tell from the hysteria outside, you can tell from the furiousness of journalists at BuzzFeed and Gawker and Vice, and Vox.com, and all those horrible places — You can tell from the ever-greater hysteria about ever-smaller subjects, you can tell they know the jig is up. You can tell from the atmosphere on campus. You just know, it is starting to dawn on these people, they’re starting to get the message that shouting, ‘racist!’ is not going to shut people up anymore.

    It doesn’t shut me up, it doesn’t shut anyone in this audience up. Now you’ve got to come with facts. Because for too long the bogus cult of social justice policed peoples’ lives….

    If you don’t like something I said about Black Lives Matter or anything else, if you don’t like something that I say about feminism, come at me with facts, with reason, with logic….

    This lovely inversion that I am seeing happen, I love it so much. This lovely inversion of what the left has done to us for so long, just shows how empty and platitudinous the crap they shut us down with is.

  90. David Springer

    I don’t think Cr00ked Hillary should drop out even she has to debate Tiny Hands Trump from behind bars. In fact I’d prefer it that way.

  91. David Springer

    Speaking of Tiny Hands… Cr00ked Hillary’s speech in San Diego today threw everything *except* Trump’s tiny hands at him. A half-hour boring, ,uninspiring rant by Hilly-Billy that was so hypocritical and disjointed it was almost painful to watch. I guess she’s saving the size of his hands for later in the campaign after everyone gets burnt out on the things she mentioned today. They just don’t learn. Negative campaigning doesn’t work on Tiny Hands Trump they simply make it apparent how willing they are to get down to Trump’s level like they’re right at home there. The problem is that Trump is GOOD at mud wrestling and his detractors suck at it. As far as military experience and leadership I hate to break it to Cr00ked Hillary and draft dodging Slick Willy but Trump went to military school, was the leader of his class, excelled at a number of team sports including basketball and soccer, and got straight A’s. Just because somebody talks like a construction worker doesn’t mean they are a construction worker. There’s a lot more to Trump than meets the eye.

  92. David Springer

    Oblahma’s speech yesterday was ridiculous. He talked about how much better off the nation is now than 8 years ago but somehow missed the fact that median household income went down 10% on his long watch. And he didn’t bow to audience first. How come the weak-kneed SOB bows to everyone but his own people? Oh wait, I forgot. He did indeed bow to Muslim leaders in Kenya. So I guess it’s just Americans that he doesn’t respect because, after all, they’re not realy Barry Soetoro’s people.

  93. David Springer

    Classic line that James Carvel gave to Bill Clinton in 1992 to use against George Bush 41. It applies today only the charge is against Cr00ked Billary: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

  94. Trump risks US nuclear war, claims Clinton Financial Times.

    Huh? She is the one who wants to escalate in the Middle East and is considering Victoria Nuland for Secretary of State, which virtually guarantees a hot war with Russia. This is sheer projection. She accuses of him of risking a nuclear war…by alienating England, Mexico, and the Pope?

    • David Springer

      I doubt that speech helped Clinton any. It was a confused smorgasbord of hyperbolic accusations. A desperate attempt to throw as much stuff as possible against the wall to see if anything will stick. The Democrats are in a vast state of disarray. Someone remind Cr00ked Hillary – it’s the economy, stupid.

    • Yep.

      The neocon warmonger and war profiteering fan extraordiaire charges that Trump “risks” getting us into a war?

      The rub is that with Trump it’s a “risk,” but with Clinton it’s a sure thing.

      Clinton’s Foreign Policy Speech Marred by Inherent Contradictions.
      “Hillary Clinton’s history of supporting interventionism puts her in a weird place to be portraying her opponent as trigger happy.”


      • Hillary is indeed a neocon, but a flawed one. If I were to name the ultimate neocon I would choose Dick Cheney. Here was a man who not only co-authored the original manifesto of the American neocon he was also the one of the primary architects of US foreign policy.
        Who do you think he’s supporting?

      • jacksmith4tx,

        You employ the same sort of reasoning as Clinton does, which is to elevate speculation about what Trump might do, based on the actions of someone who isn’t even the candidate, to the same level of certainty as what Clinton did do.

        Trump said it best:

        I watched Hillary’s thing today was which was hard…

        Crooked Hillary said, ‘Oh, Donald Trump, his finger on the button.’

        I’m the one that didn’t want to go into Iraq, folks, and she’s the one that stupidly raised her hand to go into Iraq and destabilize the entire Middle East,


        Clinton is without a master of spin, but Trump cuts through her rhetorical flourishes like a hot knife cutting through margarine.

      • I did not speculate on what Trump would do. I just pointed out the the ultimate neocon, Dick Cheney, was a Trump supporter. He didn’t have to publicly announce his endorsement of Trump but he did, Words matter.

        I think Trump mis-remembers the past a lot. Audio and video recordings paint a different picture.

      • jacksmith4tx said:

        Words matter.

        Well that’s certainly what the left keeps telling us in its drive to promulgate speech crimes.

        They want to trash the precepts upon which our constitutions is based, expressed here by Thomas Jefferson:

        …that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy….

        that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order….

        And if we look at Clinton’s “overt acts,” as opposed to what she says, what we see in her actions is a consistent record of war mongering and extreme hawkishness.

        And, whether you choose to believe it or not, there are still people out here who believe deeds speak louder than words.

        Susan Sarandon very articulately summed it up, in less than two minutes, in this video:

        Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton Is “More Dangerous” Than Donald Trump; “We’ll Be In Iran In Two Seconds”


  95. Protesters take to streets after Trump rally in San Jose

    Funny how the MSM, in its sweeping campaign of disinformation, has this uncanny way of not calling violence against Trump supporters by its name: “violence.”




    And way to go, burning the American flag and everything it’s a symbol of:


  96. Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton Is “More Dangerous” Than Donald Trump; “We’ll Be In Iran In Two Seconds”

  97. Victoria DeFrancesco Soto: Latinos Will Vote For Trump Because His “Message At Its Core Is Aspirational”

  98. WH’s Earnest: “We Don’t Get Too Disappointed When Job Numbers Are Lower Than Expected”

    Of course they don’t get too disappointed. They’re too busy telling us how good we’ve got it due to their outstanding performance.

    This is the track record that Clinton is running on. We’ll see how well that resonates with the voters.

  99. Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Drops in May


    A record 94,708,000 Americans were not in the labor force in May — 664,000 more than in April — and the labor force participation rate dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.6 percent, near its 38-year low, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

    When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce — some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can’t find work.

    “By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency,” President Obama told the people of Elkhart, Indiana three days ago. “We cut unemployment in half, years before a lot of economists thought we would.”

  100. “Make California Mexico again” chanted in San Jose at #Trump rally

    Plus: Several other videos showing the violence as it was being committed against Trump supporters


    That’s a really strange desire, considering that the majority of Mexicans, by almost a 2-to-1 margin, want to make Mexico a part of the United States.

    Mexicans aren’t stupid. They know a good thing when they see it.

    60% prefer Mexico and the United States to be one country

    The majority of Mexicans (60%) support the idea that Mexico and the United States form one country, if this brings a better quality of life. Only 37% reject the idea.

    It is clear that economic wellbeing stands out as one of the most important aspirations of Mexicans, even above the aspiration of national sovereignty.

    • The 65% of Americans that want Mexicans deported just went up!

    • Trump is divisive. There are some areas of the country where Trump attire is seen as something like KKK attire. It’s based on the type of language they are seen cheering.

      • David Springer

        A housecleaning of some areas of the country are in order. I’m not interested in starting any race wars but I’ll interested in finishing one from the winning side. I won’t be coerced by the threat of violent reprisals on the streets of America. I’ll lock and load in preparation for it instead.

      • Trump is blaming America’s problems on minorities. This blame is unfounded. The banks did much worse regarding what happened in 2008. He just uses a convenient scapegoat that gets him a certain type of voter, and his followers believe him because he says it loudly and often, but not backed up by facts. As we see with the recent Swiss vote (against a guaranteed income), advanced countries are seeing middle-class jobs declining because of automation, not immigrants. Middle-class unemployment is a general problem of the modern world. Trump is fighting the wrong war if he wants to improve middle-class jobs, and that war just ends up alienating people.

      • David Springer

        P.S. Even the KKK has a right to express themselves without being subjected to physical violence against them in response. Violence begets violence. Those starting it should be wary of who has numerical superiority and firepower. Which side is widely spread through difficult to attack suburbs and which side is a sitting duck in dense urban areas. How easy it would be to cut off utilities such as water and power with a few well placed attacks on water lines and electrical substations. How long could they last without those? Surrender would take place within days.

      • The KKK, if they espouse violence, also deserve violence from those they want to fight. It’s not a good thing for any side to put hate on minorities, because there are subsets of both sides who will do something about it. It’s a given.

      • Jim

        Trump is divisive for those that want the status queue maintained. When you look at the details of Trump’s actual comments/ positions- they are good points to discuss.

        Does it make sense to have better screening of Muslims wishing to enter the US? Imo- yes based on the religious training that is being given to believers of that religion in many countries around the world.

        Does it make sense to protect the US boarders and prevent illegal immigration? – Yes

        Does the US taxpayer pay to much for the world’s security? Yes

      • Better screening is different from banning all of the and calling for resident Muslims to register, which follows from his position of not trusting any of them. Also does mass deportation make more sense than having a work program that allows the use of migrant workers? In every case where he makes a stand it is at the extreme end. On world security, yes, Obama has drawn back and avoided sending troops to Libya and Syria, which would have been new commitments and terrorist magnets. From losing 1000 troops per year from the dual quagmires of the Bush administration, we are down to a few a month in a less invasive policy that Americans probably prefer.

      • Jim D.

        You acknowledge that better screening makes sense, and that is what Trump advocated not what you wrote it might lead to.

        Trump has stated he is open to having some illegal immigrants register and stay. Can a country exist long term if they do not control their boarders?

        On international affairs- Obama and Hillary caused the creation of ISIS by they policies in Iraq. They also created the problems in Libya by overthrowing the government without a transition plan to a new stable government.

        Sorry, you positions make little sense

      • Obama has said they need to screen. This is the policy already. If you have a specific improvement, go for it. It’s just words to make people think Trump has an idea of something that is not being done already. Yes, they have borders. Most people come in with visas, then what? A wall as a solution is just a false sense of security.
        Bush was wrong as even Republicans are saying now. We needed to not continue the mistake. Iraq is not the US’s problem. Their elections, touted by Bush, allowed an Iran-leaning government and that was that for that. No point in staying and the Iraqi government didn’t want it anyway. Blame the Iraqi government for what happened subsequently. They failed to unite their country and left it open to radicals. It is an internal Muslim issue, and the US role is not obvious when there are a bunch of countries fighting proxy wars in the region now. It is very hard to justify putting US lives at risk in that situation. On Libya, Trump was for a Libyan intervention before he was against it, as with all his foreign policies.

      • stevenreincarnated

      • Did a search on “illegal immigrant attacked by white man” and got butkus.

        The entire first page was links to attacks by illegal immigrants on white men including machete attacks in Chicago. I didn’t even know they let you carry machetes on the El Train (the Chicago equivalent of a subway).

        Before Chicago had so many illegal immigrant they probably called it “the train” instead of “El train”.

        Anyway, apparently illegal immigrants like attacking white men.

      • Illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than American citizens. They don’t want to be deported.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I’ve seen that claim before but they had adjusted for educational level. The average educational level in Mexico is 7.2 years. How many Americans do you know of that dropped out of school before finishing the 8th grade? Were they well behaved kids?

      • You can look at other sources (I just have), and it is factually incorrect to say that they have a higher crime rate. That kind of talk will continue to lose Trump the immigrant vote, so it is fine from that perspective. He did not get the Republican memo about being better to Hispanics after the last election. His base couldn’t care less about Hispanics and he knows it.

      • Jim D | June 5, 2016 at 7:32 pm |
        You can look at other sources (I just have), and it is factually incorrect to say that they have a higher crime rate.


        It isn’t factually incorrect to say they have a higher crime rate.

        Older studies produced a low crime rate.

        New studies have a higher crime rate.

        The low studies use inaccurate census data or self-identification.

        What is pointed out in these study wars is the trend toward advocacy by science. You start with a viewpoint and do enough incorrect things to get data to support your viewpoint. Perhaps we should not fund studies that guess and start identifying incarcerated illegal immigrants correctly.

        Statistics like: “Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007” show that something funny is going on. Perhaps Mexico ran out of good illegal immigrants and is exporting bad ones.

        From 1998 to 2007, 816,000 criminal aliens were removed from the United States because of a criminal charge or conviction.
        That would eliminate a lot of recidivism. Given the high rate of recidivism this export program is more sensible than the “catch and release” system for US citizens. Perhaps we should export US felons.

        It is sort of like climate change – the data is all over the map and it shouldn’t be.

      • OK, so we can put you in the “don’t like Mexicans” column. Is that what you were aiming at conveying?

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “Trump is divisive.”

        And Hitlery isn’t?

        GO TRUMP 2016!

      • Jim D is past the point of wearing blinders. He’s at eyes closed, ears plugged, going nah, nah, nah …

      • David Springer

        @Jim D

        I11egal immigrants are crimina1s by definition, dipsh1t. 100% of them.

  101. From the article:

    The secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton’s campaign, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

    Specific details of the agent’s confessional are being held under tight embargo.

    “What I saw in the 1990s sickend me,” Byrne explains. “I want you to hear my story.”


    ‘CHARACTER’ is set for release June 28. [It ranked #60,436 on AMAZON’s bestsellers list late Saturday.]



    • Well, this is interesting.

      I’m surprised he wrote this book. He must think Trump is going to win.

      You really have to hate Hillary to cross her. If Hillary became president he would lose his pension and would avoid prison only with a lot of luck and help.

      Hillary is the gold standard for vindictive.

    • A crisis in character for the Clintons would be that they decided to try good character!

  102. jim2 | June 5, 2016 at 11:12 am

    dropped into moderation

  103. David Springer

    • jejeje

      Like they say here in Mexico, it looks like Clinton is a cartucho quemado.

      • I favor a negative income tax. It is a form of welfare, but it preserves the incentive to make more money. There are some variations, but the one I like is anyone without a job will get, for example, $25,000 per year. Two people on this salary can live together and make ends meet.

        If a recipient gets a job, the government amount is cut back, but the sum of job and welfare will be more than welfare alone, enough more to be an incentive.

        The traditional business-provides-jobs model will cease to work as automation and robots encroach more and more on jobs for humans. The negative income tax is easy to administer, meaning the size of government can be cut.

    • Maybe you can list things you fear under a Clinton administration. I’ll give you a start
      1. Raised minimum wage
      2. More people on affordable healthcare insurance
      3. Mandated maternity leave (joining the rest of the civilized world)

      • Teenagers and immigrants should fear Billary’s and Sanders’ socialistic regulations. All the things you list will lead to more like these …
        From the article:

        Wendy’s Plans To Automate 6,000 Restaurants With Self-Service Ordering Kiosks


        From the article:

        A new report from PwC finds that drones could replace $127 billion worth of human labor and services across several industries.


      • From the article:

        For many California business groups, the state’s decision to gradually raise its minimum wage to $15 by 2022 is a terrible thing. But for its technology industry, it may be a plus. Higher wages, says the California Restaurant Association, will force businesses to face “undesirable” options, including cutting staff, raising prices and adopting automation.


      • A full time job needs to get a person above the poverty level, otherwise everyone pays them welfare to make up the difference. Walmart employees are government subsidized by billions because of how low their wages are, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This shows up as a deficit.

      • A new report from PwC finds that drones could replace $127 billion worth of human labor and services across several industries.

        Bad idea. I’ve seen government bureaucrats in action, using them “replace $127 billion worth of human labor and services across several industries” wouldn’t work unless the people they replaced weren’t doing anything either..

      • It’s business. If robots can do it at lower cost, they get rid of the people. They do it for profits, not charity. The traditional middle class loses out in the modern world. You need education to prepare people for the new jobs and not try to recreate these throwback factories. Trump’s view of manufacturing is outdated.

      • JIMD

        Here in the UK a new living wage is being introduced next year. I endorse it as many companies, especially in retail and hospitality, pay low wages currently which then means the employee has to claim govt benefits to top their wages up.

        in other words the co is being subsidised by taxpayers. this means some big firms often make large profits at tax payers expense. However it can have a detrimental impact on small not very profitable firms, so the wages need to be set at a realistic level.

        Do you not have maternity pay over there? Its a good idea if not taken too far


      • Paid maternity leave is not federally mandated, so it is up to the employers, and most probably do have something, but some don’t because it is not in the law. Unpaid leave is the only thing mandated. The US and Oman are apparently the only two countries left without paid maternity leave.

      • Reposting in the right thread:

        I favor a negative income tax. It is a form of welfare, but it preserves the incentive to make more money. There are some variations, but the one I like is anyone without a job will get, for example, $25,000 per year. Two people on this salary can live together and make ends meet.

        If a recipient gets a job, the government amount is cut back, but the sum of job and welfare will be more than welfare alone, enough more to be an incentive.

        The traditional business-provides-jobs model will cease to work as automation and robots encroach more and more on jobs for humans. The negative income tax is easy to administer, meaning the size of government can be cut.

      • This is what the Swiss just voted down two to one against this weekend. Probably too costly to implement. Their proposed living wage worked out to be about $15/hr. I am more in favor of it being up to the employers to pay a living wage than the government, but in the case of unemployment it is the government.

      • I predict automation will take so many jobs that a negative income tax or something like it will become necessary. That or revolt.

      • It’s a tough one. Retirement is moving later, if anything, because of social security budgets, and that doesn’t help employment either. What would help is a fair enough wage that only one worker is needed per family, like the old days.

      • The “old days” were brought to us by WWII, wherein we smashed Germany’s and Japan’s industrial capacity (and some other countries were smashed). The US was one of the few intact industrial powers. Don’t see how we can pull that off again.

      • Also, the US balance of trade is negative which is not sustainable long-term because they rely on borrowing. Luckily the world needs the US as a consumer nation, so they invest for their own good. It is tough figuring out how the US money can just go around among service industries and not come from producing anything net.

      • Jim D | June 5, 2016 at 7:03 pm |
        It’s business. If robots can do it at lower cost, they get rid of the people. They do it for profits, not charity.

        In related news, there is a rumor that Hillary replaced some of her flying monkeys with drones.

  104. Who is to blame for the violence at Trump rallies?

    • Hillary Clinton says:

    [Trump] set a very bad example. He created an environment in which it seemed to be acceptable for someone running for president to be inciting violence, to be encouraging his supporters. Now we’re seeing people who were against him responding in kind….

    The police have a hard enough time to make sure that we’re able to gather and talk about the issues facing our country. And Trump has lowered the bar. And now is it a surprise that people who don’t like him are stepping over that low bar? I don’t think it is.


    • San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat, says:

    It is regrettable that this has become a pattern for cities hosting Mr. Trump across the nation.


    • Barak Obama says:

    It is very important for us to remind ourselves of who we are and what is best about American democracy and not slip into some of the bad habits that currently manifest themselves in the other party,


    The neocon warmonger and NY Times columnist, David Brooks, says:

    It’s a little like soccer hooliganism to me. It’s a group of people who like violence. They tend to be young men.

    And Trump happens to generate this sort of excitement that gives them a pretense.


  105. Who is to blame for the violence at Trump rallies?

    • Newt Gingrich:

    What happened last night is an illustration of how frightened the left is.

    Anytime Donald Trump goes into an área the Democrats think they own they become terrified… And so we are going to see more and more pressure…

    So I think that as you see that Trump stands for real change, the people who are against real change are going to get hysterical.

    Hillary’s speech yesterday was an example of that kind of histeria. They’re going to use vicious language. They’re going to make charges that are totally false. They’re going to attempt to arrouse hysteria.

    They know that if Donald Trump is aceptable in October of 2016 he’s going to be president. So their only hope is to try to paint him in such harsh language that he becomes unacceptable. And the problem with language that harsh, then you are encouraging your supporters to do some really harsh things.

    And that’s where both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share real responsiblity for the kind of demonstration we saw yesterday…

    I think in the very near future you’re going to see some law suits filed for dereliction of duty and you’re going to see some real challenges about whether or not in fact the local Democratic politicians were putting pressure on the pólice to not do anything. You’re not going to end this cycle of demonstations and violence until people know with a very high level of certainty that they will be arrested… I think you will see more and more pressure on the police to do their job.




  106. Another VIDEO showing violence being committed against Trump supporters:



    VIDEO: Trump blames San Jose violence on ‘thugs’

    In an interview with Jake Tapper, Donald Trump blamed the recent violence at his rallies on ‘thugs0


    • How is it that the people outside were outnumbering the Trump supporters? Something went wrong with those people ending up among the demonstrators.

      • stevenreincarnated

        They should have known better than to expect to peacefully gone home. You can’t expect the cops to do their job. You can’t expect the protesters to act civilized. It’s sort of like that girl with the short skirt, isn’t that right, Jim? Just getting what they asked for?

      • In at least a couple of cases, it looked like they were provoking the protesters, so you may be right.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, you are blaming the victim.

      • Not if they were provoking it beyond just T-shirts being worn. Do you know for sure they weren’t?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, why don’t you try being a little more specific. What exactly do you think they were doing that justified mobs of people attacking them?

      • Trump supporters aren’t the brightest

      • …bulbs. They could easily look at brown people in a funny way, and that will be all it takes for some, together with the apparel, or build-he-wall phrases. Not saying it is right to respond, but you have a tense situation there.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, despite all the derogatory comments I have heard about old white men, and a lot of those amusingly enough from old white men, I have never felt the urge to sucker punch or toss bottles at those people or their supporters. Maybe you should try again. Or better yet just stop trying since anyone with any normal understanding of social norms would understand you are on the wrong side of this argument.

      • I am not defending either side. It was a tense situation. Those Trump people can be obnoxious too. Provocation is a real possibility with them, especially after coming out from listening to Trump’s stump speech for however long that was. They would be fired up. Who would blame them or even be surprised if they acted up. You seem to have discounted that possibility.

      • stevenreincarnated

        No doubt the press has been hiding the evil doings of the Trump supporters from us. The press are all Trump supporters as is well known.

      • I wouldn’t be saying this if I didn’t see some provoking going on. Fox edited that out, but CNN showed it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’m not from Missouri but I drove through there once. Show me.

      • It was in the more raw video on the day it happened and the CNN commentator made mention of it at the time. I don’t have that. Go ahead and don’t believe it. It doesn’t fit your view of brown people just starting things for no reason, and I understand that.

      • stevereincarnated,

        That’s a pretty low blow, you know!

        Asking a Warmist to substantiate a weasel worded evasive assertion is like asking a hairy nosed wombat to play a trombone concerto – with feeling! Fat chance!

        I’ve briefly passed through the Show Me State as well.

        Good luck!


      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, so I take it no video is forthcoming. I’m just going to assume you hate America and free speech and freedom of assembly and numerous other rights which so many Americans fought and died to preserve for us but which you think only pertains to those people who agree with you. Well, that and you hate white people. Making underhanded smears is so much fun. No wonder you like to do it!

      • You have seen disproportionate retaliation before. All it takes is a finger or a well-worded sign to draw the ire. Don’t act surprised that it happens on the other side too.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Unsupported speculation along with a few accusations. Nice, Jim. Now tell me why anyone that is sane would listen to anything you have to say at this point?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yeah, I saw that one, Jim. Some woman didn’t immediately cower to those whose ideals you support so she got what was coming to her. Thank goodness her skirt wasn’t short, isn’t that right victim blamer?

      • So when you denied anyone was provoking, that was despite seeing this, or is this news to you?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’ve seen the video before. I don’t see the taunting unless not cowering is taunting. I see a lone woman surrounded by an angry crowd and I see you taking the side of the angry crowd attacking the lone woman. I can’t imagine myself taking the same point of view if the roles were reversed and it was an angry crowd of Trump supporters attacking a lone woman but hey, you are what you are.

      • You can read around it. There was flipping off and racist stuff going on prior to that. I am not saying she deserved getting clocked with all those eggs, but it wasn’t random, and she made some bad decisions.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, maybe she should have run and maybe she should have cowered, but this is America and she shouldn’t have to. And the scum holding the doors shut on her so she couldn’t get away from that crowd should be charged with reckless endangerment.

      • Yes, the hotel staff. They must be Hispanic or something.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, maybe. Does it matter? I thought actions mattered not national origin. You are the ultimate racist. Nothing matters as long as you are the right color. If that was a Hispanic woman surrounded by an angry mob I would still be on her side but I bet you wouldn’t still be on the side of the crowd.

      • That is a very odd way to interpret what I have been saying. I just said some provocation probably took place, and you are having none of it as even a possibility. Remember these are Trump supporters we are talking about. They cheer and jeer the darnedest things. Don’t just give them a pass.

      • catweazle666

        stevenreincarnated: “Jim, maybe. Does it matter? I thought actions mattered not national origin. You are the ultimate racist.”

        Ah, but only where white men are concerned, naturally. And not only racist, but ageist too.

        And as for this…“Trump supporters aren’t the brightest…bulbs.”

        A typical arrogant little “Liberal”, Fascist to the core, basically.

        Joke is, he probably has the highest opinion of himself of any poster on these blogs!

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, you have been insinuating, actually rather blatantly, that anyone that disagrees with you is racist. I don’t like it and if you don’t like it may I suggest you stop? You seem to be much more color coded than anyone else here. As far as provocation, I don’t give the Trump supporters a pass for the attacks they have made. Have you been making the argument that they were provoked? There are ways of behavior that are acceptable and ways that aren’t. It doesn’t matter what side of the argument the person is on.

      • No, certain assumptions make people look racist, but maybe that is just their blind spot. All I said at the beginning, based on what I saw of the initial videos, was that there was some provocation, and you took that as blaming the victim.

      • “You can read around it. There was flipping off and racist stuff going on prior to that. I am not saying she deserved getting clocked with all those eggs, but it wasn’t random, and she made some bad decisions.”

        That is absolutely friggin’ classic.

      • You don’t go around taunting people when you are outnumbered. She may have had the police by her side and felt safe doing it, but that seems to have been a misjudgment on her part because eggs don’t respect police lines.

      • JimD, “You don’t go around taunting people when you are outnumbered.”

        Never been to a college football game huh? Once the paid protesters ran out of eggs they started using bottles. I believe a number of these protesters were la raza which Soros funds to some degree. There are even rumors that the local police were la raza sympathizers.

        The original South West La Raza are an interesting bunch. The Ford Foundation financed them until Chevez told Ford about them and some where along the line they picked up some extreme left finances.

      • They should be arrested for using bottles. But, like I said, a major misjudgment. She shouldn’t have trusted the police while racially taunting Hispanics, especially if they also look Hispanic. What was she thinking?

      • Jim D,

        I’m not sure, but you seem to be saying that lawlessness in the form of a mob is superior to the right of free speech, and the maintenance of law and order.

        Implying that practicality or commonsense dictates that one should kow-tow to a mob, leads to the practical approach that a threatened individual has a perfect right to retaliate by using lethal force to reduce the mob to impotence.

        I support unabridged free speech, and also the rule of law. Individuals may be unhappy with both from time to time, of course. Tough, even if it’s me!

        Mindless mobs seem to be opposed to both freedom of speech, and compliance with the law (even when it appears to be an ass).

        I assume, possibly incorrectly, that you would support free speech, and oppose lawlessness. Or would you support the mob?


      • Yes, free speech is fine. Taunting is a version of free speech. Some people might not respect it personally and get back at you on it, but you take that risk. There’s free speech and there’s being wise to the situation.

      • “She shouldn’t have trusted the police while racially taunting Hispanics.”

        The police or just the non-white Hispanic police? I assume that she should probably not imbibe as well because she would just be asking for it :)

      • I suspect some imbibing had taken place. Her behavior is hard to explain otherwise.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “Some people might not respect it personally and get back at you on it, but you take that risk.”

        Do you agree that I might not respect the rights of the mob, and get back at them? Or do you only support the mindless mob?

        Does the taunter, exercising a perfectly legal right, then have the right to self protection if attacked by a mob behaving in an unlawful fashion? I believe so. Bullies tend to learn a very practical lesson if they suddenly realise their prey aren’t as powerless as they assumed.

        You appear to support the bullies, hiding behind the cloak of practicality. Most bullies are also cowards. I don’t find it surprising that a Warmist might support bullying, and blame the victim. Cowards as well?

        Warmist Weasel Words in action!


      • Sure you go ahead and taunt a mob, and you feel at least after you get battered you were exercising your rights, and it was worth it. Taunting worth battering? That’s your calculation to make. The mob don’t think about lofty things like free speech. They listen to what you are saying and react accordingly. That’s the real world, and your calculation has to take that into account.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, you come across as a racist. Are you a racist, Jim? Did you miss my earlier video? Go look at it. You are behaving just like that news reporter.

      • Read my replies. I might have asked you to check if you were being racist, but that is as close as it got. All I mentioned was about possibly some white people provoking anger. It’s not good to provoke anger, especially of the racist kind and directly to a mob who are not under control. Not a good idea at all.

      • Jim D,

        Sorry, but you seem to be in deny, divert, confuse mode.

        If a mob attacks me, do you support me in removing the mob’s power to do me harm? If I use lethal force against the mob, aren’t they at fault? Surely it would be more practical for the mob to let me taunt them, rather than run the risk of dying.

        Once you support lawlessness for any reason, you find there is always someone with a bigger stone, spear or gun. An even more fanatical supporter of lawlessness, if you are unlucky.

        I respectfully suggest that if you are part of a mob being taunted by myself you might care to think very carefully before picking on me. The choice is yours.


      • I am not supporting lawlessness. I am saying realistically some people are lawless, it is just good sense to know who they are and not to provoke them deliberately, or if you do, be prepared for the consequences. You may never want to do that calculation before provoking someone, and that’s fine too. It’s your life.

      • I suppose you think Zeenat Rafique deserved to be burned to death by her mother too. She should have known better than to visit, after eloping with somebody from a different tribe.

  107. Ex-AG Gonzales: Trump has a right to question judge’s fairness

    The VIDEO at the top of the article is of Ana Navarro, who gives the Democratic response.

    • Ana Navarro is a rather upset Republican, not a Democrat.

      • Republican, Democrat, Neocon, Neoliberal, Republicrat.

        All those establishment mouthpieces are the same, regardless of what they may call themselves.

  108. The law firm that Judge Gonzalo Curiel appointed to represent plaintiffs in lawsuit against Trump University paid the Clintons $675,000 for three speeches

    • David Springer

      Imagine the public outrage if there were a white lawyer’s association promoting the appointment/election of white judges.

      The double standard is breathtaking. These groups promulgate racism. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

      Curiel should recuse himself most riki tik.

      • Yea,

        It would immediately be branded the Master Race Lawyers Association.

        Or the KKK Lawyers Association.

        The double morality gets to be a little bit too much sometimes.

  109. Sanders and his supporters are also being painted with the tar brush of racism by Clinton Inc.:

    The White Entitlement of Some Sanders Supporters

  110. Criminal immigrants reoffend at higher rates than ICE has suggested

    The review does not indicate that immigrants are any more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans — and in fact studies have shown that not to be the case. But the review reveals the damage inflicted on victims by criminals who were ordered to be deported when their sentences were complete, and were not, and it raises questions about how the government handled their cases.

    The public rarely learns about ICE’s decisions to release criminals until something goes wrong — because immigration is the only law enforcement system in the United States that keeps such records secret….

    Critics say it’s likely that ICE will continue to release serious criminals in the future, but unless the agency changes its privacy policies, there is no guarantee that the public will ever know.

  111. VIDEO • Trump on “Mexican” Judge: “We Have To Stop Being So Politically Correct In This Country”

    Donald Trump says it is “absolutely possible” that a judge of Muslim or Mexican heritage would treat him unfairly because of his political stances with regard to building a wall and temporarily banning Muslim refugees….

    Trump notes that U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel has treated him in a “hostile manner” because he is a member of “a club or society which is very strongly pro-Mexican.”….

    The Daily Caller reported last week that Judge Curiel was a member of “La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego,” a group associated with La Raza, a Latino advocacy group whose name roughly translates to: The Race….

    César Chávez was a critic of La Raza, saying that: “I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride. Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘La Raza,’ you are saying it as an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”

    • Trump is right about the possibility, but I don’t know if it is a fact.

      • jim2,

        Judge Curiel blongs to this group, California La Raza Lawyers Association:


        The Chicano doctrine, even though it started out being purely separatist in nature, has since evolved to be janus faced.

        Originally formulated in the 1960s, the Chicano ideology conceived of a separate nation called Aztlán. Aztlán would be populated by its own race of people called La Raza.

        La Raza was neither USian nor Mexican, but a separate and distinct people formed by a combination of mestizos and native Americans. Gringos, gabachos and gachupines were, of course, definitely out, and gueros and bolillos were rarely to be seen.

        Aztlán would occupy the geographical area curently occupied by the U.S. states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California. Here’s a mural from the 1970s that illustrates the idea:

        Emilio Aguayo, Somos Aztlán, 1971
        Ethnic Cultural Center, University of Washington, Seatttle


        At that time, the Chicanos flew not only the Mexican flag at their events, but the flag of Aztlán as well, as can be seen in this foto:

        Demonstration by the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, 1969

        César Chávez, being an assimilationist with a far more pragmatic labor agenda based on nonviolent organizational politics, had an entirely different ideological outlook than the separatist Chicanos with their protest politcs that condoned violence. He hardly embraced the Chicanos, and his relationship with the Chicanos was strained, not ulike the tumultuous relationship that existed between the Rev. Martin Luther King and Malcom X. [I would like to do some more research on this and had a number of books on César Chávez, Dolores Huerta, and the Asociación Nacional de Trabajadores del Campo (NFWA), which later became the Unión de Trabajadores Campesinos (UFW). However, I seem to have mislplaced them and now can’t find them.]

        Since the 1960s and 70s, the Chicano movement has evolved to be all things for all people. For instance, it claims Chávez as one of its own, even though his ideology was diametrically opposed to the seminal ideology of the Chicano movement.

        The Chicano movement, therefore, has now become like a chameleon that changes colors to suit whatever the current situation is — sort of like a good cop bad cop routine.

        When needed, the Chicano movement can trot out Chávez’s transcendent, nonviolent, assimilationist doctrine: “We just want to be good Americans.”

        But when neeeded, the Chicano movement can also trot out the original separatist, racist shock troop doctrine of the 1960s and 70s:

        [The U.S. Southwest] belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not foreign Europeans…

        We are a Bronze People with a Bronze culture…

        Our cultural values of life, family, and home will serve as a powerful weapon to defeat the gringo dollar value system.

        — Declaration adopted by the Chicano Conference in Denver, El plan espiritual de Aztlán, 1969)

      • jim2,

        One thing, however, the Chicano movement has been unwaveringly consistent on is its stand on immigration. Then and now, it has staunchly advocated a policy of open borders with Mexico. It’s not difficult to see how this would collide head-on with Trump’s plan to build the wall.

        To illustrate the Chicano’s stance on immigration, here are some artworks that were included in the “Chicano Art: Resistance and Affirmation” exhibition organized by UCLA’s Wight Gallery in 1990. The exhibition traveled to various museums throughout the country.

        Rupert Garcia, ¡Cesen Deportacion!, 1973

        Malaquias Montoya, Abajo con la Migra, 1979

        Malaquias Montoya, Undocumented, 1981

        Pedro A. Rodriguez, La Migra II, 1979

        Yolanda M. López, Who’s the Illegal Alien, Pilgrim?, 1978

        Elizabeth Sisco, Louis Hock, David Avalos, Welcome to America’s Finest Tourist Plantation, 1988

      • Glenn – thanks for this info. I didn’t know about much of it. Wish I had time to dig deeper. I hear that the judge belongs to a la raza lawyer group that isn’t related to the la raza “movement.”

    • “People are saying” he also doesn’t want a white judge because most of his victims are white.

      • David Springer

        People are saying if Obama was on trial he wouldn’t object if the judge were a member of a white supremacist group.

        You’re a m0r0n, Jim D.

  112. NBC “reporter” Andrea Mitchell also blames Trump for the violence against his supporters.

    Is there any wonder that the MSM is deeply mired in a credibility and legitimacy crisis?

    Andrea Mitchell Blames “Egging On” At Donald Trump Rallies For San Jose “Egging”

    That awful awful egging of the Trump supporter in San Jose is, I think, you can’t separate it from the egging on, no pun intended, in North Carolina and elsewhere, that he did at his rallies. And what we have come to is a really bad place.

  113. Newt Gingrich: Trump’s Comments About “Mexican” Judge “One Of The Worst Mistakes He Has Made”

  114. VIDEO: Stefan Molyneux: San Jose Anti-Trump Rioters Technically Fit FBI Definition Of “Domestic Terrorists”

    Let’s imagine crossing into Mexico illegally to disrupt their elections by throwing eggs and bottles and hitting people. What would happen? You’d be rounded up and thrown in jail for years.

    Here’s the key thing to remember: And this is why it has come to this. The leftist mainstream media, if they see violent actions that they like, they call it protests. They basically label it speech.

    However, speech that the mainstream media dislikes is labelled violence.

    Which is why when Trump supporters get attacked, hit on the heads with bags of rocks, they are called protesters. A ‘protester’ is someone who speaks in objection to something. So that violence is called speech.

    When Donald Trump says he wishes to enforce the law by deporting illegal immigrants, that is called violence and it is responsible for the aggressive speech of the protesters — who legally could be described as domestic terrorists.

  115. Dimowit use of Federal government power to squash free speech.
    From the article:

    A series of investigations found the IRS did ask intrusive questions and did delay applications for years, in violation of policy. But so far no investigation has found any order from the White House to conduct the targeting.

    ‘Tea’ and ‘patriot’ groups

    Sixty of the groups on the list released last month have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot,” eight refer to the Constitution, and 13 have “912” in their name — which is the monicker of a movement started by conservatives. Another 26 group names refer to “liberty,” though that list does include some groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.

    Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the word “occupy” in their name.

    And then there are some surprising names, including three state or local chapters of the League of Women Voters — a group with a long history of nonprofit work.


  116. Clinton Supporters are Scaremongering about Donald Trump to Silence the Concerns of the Young and the Poor

    As Donald Trump continues to win, win, and win some more…they asked Bernie Sanders supporters to unite behind Clinton.

    [When he refused] now they’re accusing Sanders supporters of being privileged if they resist. And from there, it’s just a small step to calling Sanders’ people enablers of racism, sexism, or even fascism. If you haven’t seen these arguments yet, you will soon.

    Their argument rests on three fundamental premises:

    • The differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are not that large.

    • Donald Trump is a really mean scary racist sexist fascist bigot–he’s basically Hitler.

    • The best way to stop Trump is to unite as quickly as possible around the candidate with the most general election appeal, and this person is Hillary Clinton.

  117. Hillary University: Bill Clinton Bagged $16.46 Million from For-Profit College as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back

    Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.

    In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company.

    The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: ‘Clinton Cash’ revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative.

    Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.

  118. Hillary’s Goon Squad

    If there’s one thing at which progressives always have excelled it is intimidation….

    Think what you will of Donald Trump and the things he’s said … he’s only said things. Yet whenever he gathers with supporters to say things, an organized and well-funded progressive mob gathers outside to intimidate and attack people who simply want to hear the man speak….

    Confused and afraid, progressives have gone back to the well to which they always return – the angry mob.

    These rioting goons are organized by people who know what they’re doing; they’ve been conditioned to hate anyone “not on their team.” And just like the Sturmabteilung, blind loyalty to their righteous cause crowds out their dignity and basic humanity.

  119. Anti-Trump rallies funded by the left

    From Chicago to Albuquerque to San Diego, and now last week’s obscene riot in San Jose, California, Americans and the world saw supporters of the liberal agenda violently target Trump supporters, peacefully trying to attend a rally, as though they were prey….

    From Chicago to Albuquerque to San Diego, and now last week’s obscene riot in San Jose, California, Americans and the world saw supporters of the liberal agenda violently target Trump supporters, peacefully trying to attend a rally, as though they were prey….

    The left always resorts to violence because they cannot win on the issues… They hope you’ll be intimidated into surrendering, or at least will be distracted to not notice that they’ve already set the nation on fire.

    But it’s already too late. The Democrats and their allies simply don’t understand trying to beat us into submission reaffirms our determination to end this charade.

  120. The goons attacking Trump rallies — and the liberals who enable them

    Violence struck another Donald Trump rally Thursday — and once again it was lefty thugs assaulting peaceful Trump fans….

    And in some cases, San Jose cops just stood by and watched.

    Mayor Sam Liccardo apparently had no problem with that, saying, “Our police officers have done an extremely courageous and professional job so far. We’re all still holding our breath to see the outcome of this dangerous and explosive situation.”…

    Worse, Liccardo, a Clinton supporter, had the gall to blame Trump: “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign.”….

    Let’s be clear here: Nothing in Trump’s rhetoric remotely justifies this violence. It’s an assault not simply on fans of the candidate, but on the right of free assembly, the right of free speech — that is, on democracy itself.

  121. Clinton Loyalist Authoritarianism: Brad DeLong Threatens a Journalist and Economists. Who is Next?

    Clinton loyalists are now showing their true colors. And they are not pretty….

    Sanders supporters have serious, reasoned objections to the Clintons’ track record, Obama’s policies, which Hillary Clinton embraces, and her neoliberal economic stance….

    But the Clinton loyalists are stooping even lower and are purging dissenters on the left….

    Controlling the message in the Beltway hothouse did not seem to have much sway with voters at large. They’ve somehow managed, all on their own, to have a good enough grasp of basic things like their purchasing power and their job security to notice that things were not going well for them.

    But the purges are now becoming personal….

    So we have a former Clinton Administration official calling a journalist a liar (with no supporting evidence) and threatening him with unnamed consequences in November. That is presumably on the assumption that Clinton wins, which is not at all a given.

    So what can we expect will happen then? That the transition team will issue a hit list of disfavored journalists…? That seems to be the drift of DeLong’s thuggish promise….

    DeLong’s posts, and his confidence that he will be able to serve up his revenge, thus isn’t simply a communication by an isolated blogger. It should be seen as official messaging….

    Good liberals are supposed to respect the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and academic independence. But good liberals circa 2016 are looking a lot like good Germans circa 1936.

  122. Donald Trump in San Jose

    [San Jose’s mayor and Clinton supporter] Sam Liccardo (D) was drawing fire from across the nation for his praise of the department and early comments criticizing the Trump campaign and calling for him to take responsibility for violence at his rallies.

    “San Jose police officers performed admirably and professionally to contain acts of violence and protect individuals’ rights to assemble, protest and express their political views,” Liccardo said in a written statement. “While it’s a sad statement about our political discourse that Mr. Trump has focused on stirring antagonism instead of offering real solutions to our nation’s challenges, there is absolutely no place for violence against people who are simply exercising their rights to participate in the political process.”….

    Friday morning, radio hosts and social media exploded over Liccardo’s comment Thursday to the Associated Press that “at some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for his irresponsible behavior.”

    KGO’s Ronn Owens called Liccardo “irresponsible” and most of his call-in viewers agreed….

    “I’m absolutely clear about the fact that people who commit acts of violence are responsible for their own actions,” Liccardo said, “but Mr. Trump is also responsible, as we all are, for our own speech.”

    Some have also criticized the police response, believing that officers stood still while Trump supporters were attacked.

    But Liccardo said “you don’t send roving bands of officers into a crowd of protesters. They have to maintain a line.”

    One thing is certain, the mayor said: “I can say if there’s a single excessive baton blow on anyone in that crowd, that would have made national news. Our police officers are in a very difficult position, but I think they performed admirably to make sure this violence didn’t become more widespread.”

  123. VIDEO • Hillary Clinton: “Excited About Having The President’s Support”

    Obivously I am excited about having the president’s support, because I have said throughout this campaign that I was honored to serve in the president’s cabinet as his secretary of state.

    I don’t think he has gotten the credit he deserves for saving our economy from the Great Recession that it was experiencing when he became president. I want to continue and further the progress that we have made.

  124. Now we see the Democratic establishment unite in making common cause with the most extreme, right-wing, reactionary faction in America: the Red State Blog.

    Reid does everything in his power to lead people off on bunny trails: identity politics and that reliable old artillery piece, partisanship, which like professional wrestling is great entertainment, but should never be mistaken for a true contest.:

    VIDEO • Reid Rips “Spineless” McConnell, Republicans For Refusing To Condemn Trump’s “Racism”

    [I]n the last 10 days it has become clear that Senator McConnell will go to any length to support Donald Trump. Consider the Republican leader’s refusal to denounce Donald Trump’s racist attack on United States District Court Judge Curiel, a man born in Indiana….

    This is precisely the type of failure that gave rise to Donald Trump in the first place.

    Senator McConnell and congressional Republican leaders have never taken a stand against Trump’s vile rhetoric. That’s because the hate emanating from Trump’s mouth reflects the Republican Party’s agenda here in the United States Senate for the past seven and a half years. The agenda that Senator McConnell himself promoted.

    For years, Senator McConnell and other Republican leaders embraced the darkest elements within their party. The Republican Party made anti-woman, anti-Latino, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-Obama policies the norm. Trump is the logical conclusion of what Republican leaders have been saying and doing for seven and a half years….

    I have made this argument for months, and I am not the only one making it anymore. Now, some Republicans are joining me. The conservative blog, RedState, railed against Senator McConnell’s refusal to condemn Trump’s racist attacks. This is what they said….

  125. Judge Curiel appointed a law firm to represent the plaintiffs in the federal law suit against Trump University. That law firm paid the Clinton’s $675,000 for three speeches.

    VIDEO • O’Reilly: Law Firm Behind “Trump University” Lawsuit Paid Clintons $675,000 For Speeches; Judge “Should Recuse Himself”


    • Oddly, Megyn Kelly said that the firm was hired before Curiel took over the case. Who to believe? She seemed fairly sure.

      • Jim D,

        You can believe Megyn Kelly if you want, but I choose to believe what ex-attorney general Alberto Gonzalez says. When it comes to legal issues, I believe he speaks with a little bit more authority than Kelly:

        Gonzales on Saturday said Trump has reason beyond just race to doubt Curiel, who is American, will treat him fairly.

        “As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interests. But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable.”

        Gonzales said Curiel is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, which Trump aides say is affiliated with a national group vociferously opposing Trump, National Council of La Raza (NCLR)….

        Curiel has also appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to plaintiffs, he added, noting Geller is a donor to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.

        “These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered,” said Gonzales, who was attorney general for former President George W. Bush.


      • Obviously Megyn isn’t now agreeing with Gonzalez. She said this just this evening countering this same point by a Trump spokeswoman.

  126. Cenk Uygur: “Curious Coincidence” That CNN And NYT Both Use The Same Pro-Clinton Lines Of Attack

    UYGUR: Is running against Hillary Clinton sexist [as CNN and the NY Times simultaneously ask]?

    That is a preposterous quesiton, because based on that ideology, well, should you never run against Hillary Clinton? To oppose the person who could be the first female nominee of a major party?

    How dare you run against her and block this important moment!

  127. VIDEO • Trump: “I Don’t Care If The Judge Is Mexican,” “I Want Him To Be A Fair Guy”

    “I want him to be a fair guy,” Trump told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly of Indiana-born federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over the case against Trump University.

    “I don’t care if the judge is Mexican or not, I’m going to do great with the Mexican people because we are going to provide jobs… All I want him to do is to give me a fair shake.”

    “I want to focus on the economy. I want to focus on the military. I want to focus on things that we need to focus on,” Trump said, “not a civil lawsuit that I’m going to end up winning anyway.”

  128. VIDEO • Trump targets law firm in Trump University fraud case
    Anderson Cooper 360.

    The Donald Trump campaign is claiming the law firm appointed by Judge Curiel has paid money to the Clintons for speeches, fueling Trump’s opinion that he can’t be given a fair trial.


    • Now that the wicked web the Clintons and Judge Curiel are part of is being exposed, the attacks on Trump are becoming more rhetorical. The Republicrat establishment’s rejoinder: someone who claims that they are up against a biased judge that won’t give them a fair shake is “a whiner.”

      So here’s the jest of it: anyone who advocates their own self-interest and complains of unfair treatment, and doesn’t immediately bow down to the PC sensitivity gestapo, is “a whiner.”

      Go figure.

      Donald Trump: The whiner in chief?

      Trump needs to stop whining about his need to be catered to and coddled. Being president of the United States is one of the most challenging jobs in the world. Perhaps the reality is that Trump simply doesn’t have what it takes to deal with all the “unfairness” that comes with such a position. Only time will tell, but whether or not Trump ever becomes commander in chief, he has already secured the title of whiner in chief.

  129. As the little piece of ground the PC gestapo stands on gets slowly eroded away, the dictatorship of virtue is becoming ever more shrill and histrionic.

    Texas Democrat to Trump: ‘Take your border wall and shove it up your ass’

    If it wasn’t clear how Rep. Filemon Vela felt about Donald Trump before, it is now. The Texas Democrat sent an open letter to the presumptive Republican nominee telling him just where to put the border wall he’s been calling for since the start of his campaign.

    “Mr. Trump, you’re a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it up your ass,” wrote the second-term congressman.

  130. This guy, despite being the target of a barrage of criticism from the PC Sensitivity Gestapo, refused to bow down to its mandatory sanctimony.

    Man Trump called ‘my African-American’ speaks out

  131. Can’t people see that Trump doesn’t want to get Curiel off the case? If he wanted Curiel off the case, his lawyers would have filed the motion a long time ago.

    The legal standard for judges, at least according to Texas state law, is the appearance of bias or impartiality. That’s a pretty low bar to clear.

    It’s becoming increasingly apparent that what Trump wants is to try this case in the courtroom of public opinion.

    Trump is the Grand Master chess player, anticipating his moves, as well as the moves of others. These Republicrats are like beginning novices, always reacting. Give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves.

    What is really on trial here is 1) the PC Sensitivity Gestapo that the Clintons and Curiel (what with his “chicano” and “la raza” affiliations) are part of, and the vision of rectitude these multicultural militants want to impose on the rest of us, and 2) the type of politics the Clintons practice, which is driven by patronage and favors.

    Could Trump get judge off the case?

  132. Trump orders surrogates to keep criticizing judge, sources say

    Donald Trump on Monday ordered surrogates on a campaign call to keep criticizing a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against him, according to two sources on the call.

    The presumptive Republican nominee told top surrogates on the conference call to ignore a campaign memo issued the night before urging them to dodge questions about the lawsuit and Trump’s controversial questioning of the judge’s impartiality, the sources told CNN. The call was first reported by Bloomberg Politics.

  133. Trump has one impressive pair of cojones to take on the PC Sensitivity Gestapo, something no other Republicrat has dared to do since the venerable U.S. Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez (D, Texas) did so many moons ago:

    In this period [1968 -1972] the Ford Foundation…funded various Chicano activists in and around San Antonio, including a group that attained national notoriety with the political takeover of Crystal City, a rural town about an hour’s drive southwest of San Antonio.

    Such activities soon aroused the ire of local congressman Henry B. Gonzalez, who delivered repeated tirades against Chicano activists and their foundation sponsor on the floor of Congress.

    — PETER SKERRY, Mexican Americans, The Ambivalent Minority

    Skerry argues, and presents polling data, that the policies favored by Chicano and elite-network politicians like Clinton and Curiel have almost no base of support in the broader Mexican American community:

    The most controversial finding of the Tarrance-Hart poll concerned Hispanic attitudes toward sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants….

    Tarrance-Hart reported 60 percent of Hispanics favored “penalities and fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants.”…

    Moreover, that support increased as one got closer to Mexico: in border counties, almost 70 percent of Hispanics agreed that “a law should be passed to stop people from hiring undocumented aliens.”…

    Whatever its precise dimensions, there was throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s a discernible and substantial uneasiness among Mexican Americans with prevailing levels of immigration. Yet such views have infrequently been articulated by Mexican-American leaders. Indeed, these leaders have, with few exceptions, advocated amnesty and opposed employer sanctions with a zeal that belies the complicated crosscurrents within the communities….

    That such large numbers [of rank and file Mexicans] would be opposed to…a position that their leaders had made the number one priority…highlights once again the persistent gap between the Mexican-American political elite and the rank and file.

    Trump, GOP sources: Trump is saying what many people are thinking

    Donald Trump’s racially-charged comments about federal judge Gonzalo Curiel might have proven to be an embarrassment to top Republican Party officials, but some advisers to the presumptive GOP nominee argue the billionaire businessman is also voicing what many inside the party often keep to themselves.

    “He’s saying what a good amount of people are thinking and don’t want to say,” said one Trump adviser.

  134. Now the surrender monkeys and backstabbers in the Republican establishment join the fray:

    Paul Ryan rips Donald Trump remarks as ‘textbook definition of a racist comment’

    Graham to Trump backers: ‘If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it’